Miss California Responds to Question on Same-Sex Marriage
I think her answer was so stupid it actually gave me cancer.
The IT Humidor
Smoke Should Come From Your Cigar, Not Your Computer
Personal Links
Miss California Responds to Question on Same-Sex Marriage
I think her answer was so stupid it actually gave me cancer.
So what was wrong with her answer again ?? AFAIK this is STILL a country of choice.
There’s nothing wrong with her opinion, but her actual spoken answer is idiotic. She rambles, she flip-flops, basically trying to please both sides of the debate so she’ll look better to the judges. Of course, the fact that she sounds like an airhead, in general, doesn’t help the muddled response.
All in all, I’d take an honest, but muddled response from a beauty pagent contestant over any winded, lie-through-the-teeth response of any politician.
Ask any politician this question, and you’ll hardly get an answer. So hats off to her.
By the way, I guess you don’t like Obama for opposing gay marriage, and yet at the same time, opposing Prop 8 in California. I’m glad he doesn’t flip-flop, try to please both sides, and keep his popularity up!
Whether or not I support or oppose Obama doesn’t make this fool any smarter. Her “honest” muddled answer is that she loves living in a country where people have the right to choose who they marry, but she opposes gay marriage. In essence, she loves that people have a choice, as long as they make the same choice she makes. She’s simply stupid, her answer flip-flops back and forth in order to impress the judge, (Perez Hilton). I have no problem debating ideals and offering differing points of view. When someone opens their mouth, it’s expected that they actually think first.
Sorry, but there’s no contradiction here.
She says that it’s great that we live in a country where a person can choose one or the other. But in her opinion, marriage should be between a man and a woman. She never said that it’s great ONLY when a man and a woman marry. There is no flip-flopping and that wasn’t a contradiction — it was obviously just a little above some people’s heads. How people can misinterpret this is beyond me….
Here’s an example: I can say that it’s great that we have the freedom to buy assault rifles in California, and yet, still believe that the magazine should be welded to the gun (as is the law here). That is not a contradiction and I am not flip-flopping.
By the way, it would have been much easier to say what Perez Hilton wanted to hear (and everyone knows what he wants to hear). Judging the way he was calling her a “dumb b*tch” and a “c*nt” afterward, he wasn’t too impressed. If she was trying to impress him, that was the absolute WORST possible thing to say!
Do I agree with her? No.
But that doesn’t invalidate her argument.
Obviously, you’re reading into what you want to hear, (made obvious by the point that you continue to bait a fight over it, instead of practicing what you preach and allowing one opinion of what she said be what it is). Again, everyone is free to think whatever they want to think, but this airhead can’t seem to spit it out, which is the only problem I have. She sounds outright stupid, and she does cross from one side to the other, trying to get out what she wants to say. Her canned answer gets wrecked by her honest opinion, leaving her sounding as if though she probably should have practiced the first part in the mirror for a while, or just stuck with being honest in the first place.
I’ll allow an opinion.
But I’ll also challenge it.
I like to know the reasons behind someone’s opinion.
I offered a supporting argument.
How is this baiting a fight?
I thought you were open to debate?
I have allowed your opinions haven’t I? Did I call you “stupid” or an “airhead”? Those were your words, my friend. You have no defense but name-calling — so there’s little room for an intelligent discussion.
The intelligent discussion ended when you tried to bait the partisan argument, citing Obama and the state laws, which I had made no mention of in the post or my comments. Trying to hide behind the fallacy of claiming to be in the right because I called her names isn’t going to impress me, I never made any ad hominem attacks on you or your opinions. However, I will say that it is tiring to “debate” with someone who falls into a pattern not unlike Monty Python’s argument clinic in simply saying “no she didn’t” and citing the video as “proof”. The woman is clearly not too bright, made even more evident by the fact that she lied about about having posed topless and was recently caught in that lie. My original opinion of her stands, she could have picked an opinion and stuck with it.
As for my argument which “has no defense but name-calling”, I’ll spell it out for you: The first part of her speech detailed how she loved living in a country where people had a choice between gay marriage and “opposite” marriage, the second part of her speech stated that in “her country” there should be no such choice because that’s what she was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. No matter what people believe about external factors like politicians, Perez Hilton, or anyone else, speaking your opinion still requires that you have one.