A heated, multimedia gay-marriage discussion spanning YouTube, Twitter and "The Hills" ensued after a Miss USA contestant answered a question about the topic ... (Source - WSJ)I'm sure most of us are aware of the controversy. Miss California Carrie Prejean was not crowned Miss USA 2009 apparently because she had a point of view on the topic of whether or not marriage should be redefined to include same sex couples that didn't coincide with the Hollywood majority.
Carrie's answer to the hot button question cost her the crown - at least according to Perez. (Source - Yahoo)
Miley Cyrus and Britney Spears have taken to Twitter to support gay marriage, just days after Miss California Carrie Prejean sparked controversy during Sunday night's Miss USA competition when asked by celeb blogger Perez Hilton if more states should legalize same-sex marriage. (Source - MTV)
What was actually said:
Perez Hilton: "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?"This response spawned "a heated, multimedia gay-marriage discussion". It brought out the truth from the likes of Miley Cyrus (who claims to be a devout Christian and "always go to church"(Source - Parade)) that people who call themselves Christians don't necessarily agree with what the Bible says. But it also brought out the truth of the question at hand.
Miss California Carrie Prejean: "Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. Um, we live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman -- no offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be between a man and a woman."
The question, apparently, was entirely disingenuous. While being presented as a genuine question -- "What do you think and why?" -- it was actually intended as a test question where you can get it right or wrong. The only right answer was "Yes", and any other answer -- even "I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman" without trying to impose anything on anyone else -- is the wrong answer. Bzzzz! Sorry! Fail!
So ... this is where we're getting to, if we haven't already arrived. America is a free country where you have the liberty to have your own view on questions like whether or not to redefine marriage ... unless, of course, you disagree with the loudest group. If you do, then it will produce heated (not measured, intelligent) debate and could very well cost you in other ways. In other words, you had better back off believing anything that the loud, angry crowd (regardless of whether or not they are the majority) believes. You simply need to change what you believe, change your perceptions ... submit! You see, it's the quiet, "I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other ... but I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman -- no offense to anyone" types that are the dangerous ones, don't you know? Where it used to be that "your freedom ends at my nose", it has become "your freedom to think what you like is ended."
4 comments:
At first I thought you were referring to our discussion :)
Excellent post.
According to yesterday's Gay & Lesbian Times, now that the Iowa Supreme Court has legalized same-sex marriage in the state (see prior posting), Victoria Hutton of the Iowa Department of Public Health has notified all 99 county recorders that they must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some of the recorders have religious objections to doing so. Meanwhile yesterday's Des Moines Register reports that Iowa magistrate Francis Honrath has decided he will stop performing all marriage ceremonies. A number of other judges and court officials are expected to take similar stands.From: http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/04/iowa-recorders-are-told-they-must-issue.html
I would hope that nothing in our prior discussion approached "heated". It didn't on my end.
Free speech is apparently only free if you agree with the masses. This sounds remarkably like many other countries who have not faithfully fought to defend Voltaire's idea that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Squelching debate in academic circles or social circles because it's not the popular view is not only disingenuous, it's downright dangerous. It's a short leap from that to the state telling you what you can and cannot say or believe.
Post a Comment