We really do have a screwed up culture. Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA, could publicly argue for continued denial of civil rights to gays on air, in a beauty pageant, and pageant officials were unperturbed. Now that semi-nude modeling photos of Prejean are emerging, they are considering revoking her title. So flaunting her bigotry is no big deal, but posing in lingerie makes them clutch their pearls and squeak in horror? When they themselves ask contestants to show even more skin while wearing a bikini?
I don't get it.
- Log in to post comments
PZ, if you ever don't get it, just remember gawdidit. One simple word and all those feelings of uncertainty will just flutter away!
On a serious note, it is despicable that private nudity is considered a game stopper for women who are made to be objects of attraction. It reeks of hypocrisy.
However, her remarks on gay marriage were more than enough to disqualify her from any position of influence.
I totally get it. It's about American values.
Easy; homosux is unnachurall! Don'tcha geddit? Whadaya, a lib'rul or sumfink?
--
Hey! No. 1!
It's for the same reason that a woman breastfeeding a baby under a blanket gets kicked out of a public poolside while all the women around her are strolling around in micro bikinis. Society likes breasts, but only if they are being shown specifically for the entertainment of the people watching ONLY. It's ok to display them for the pageant officials, but they got jealous when she showed them for an underwear catalog.
I'm just glad this takes the spotlight off Miss South Carolina for a while.
It's the gays... apparently they're still smearing her good image around because she doesn't like them.
Honestly, how does this crap keep coming up?
As we could have predicted, she is using both these
problems as a reason to play the Xtian persecution card.
Unfortunately, Miss South Carolina doesn't even know the difference between same and opposite marriage. I am sure she thinks California is country, though.
Damn; No. 3!
Hey, if I'm No. 8, can I be an honorary octopus?
Well, what they have said is that Miss CA has violated multiple parts of her contract, including the partially naked pictures. They were already investigating whether she had violated her contract for making unauthorized public appearances and starring in commercials that were unsanctioned by the Pageant before the photos leaked. I think the catalyst to her getting fired will be the photos, which also do violate her contract (and also make her a liar, since she signed the document stating that she had never taken pictures involving partial nudity), but they certainly have *said* that there are other reasons besides the photos.
Someone is bucking for a slapdown
The rumor I've heard is that we're all naked under our clothes.
In the same our culture doesn't understand or fully accept the zero we'll always struggle with the concept of the female. It's easier to define poetry.
If god wanted us to go around naked, we'd be born that way!
If you did get it, you'd probably be a conservative. Like the talking snake, some ways of thinking we'll never understand.
Perhaps because they're 1) idiots 2) dolts 3) nincompoops.
Caveat - none of these words are insults since they are found in the dictionary.
Don't you understand it yet people?
She wants this noteriety, because she plans to eventually become the governer of Alaska and then run for President of the United States!
Wait... didn't something like that already happen? *scratches his head* I dunno. I have this weird feeling of deja vu all of a sudden though...
It's called free speech!
The profound hypocricy of christians will never cease to amaze me.
You're right PZed, that's one really whacked set of priorities - no problem with something that hurts people and big problems with something that hurts no one. Disgusting.
It's called hypocrisy!
Just because it's free speech doesn't mean it isn't fucking stupid.
You're right about that PZed, that's one whacked set of priorities - no problem with something that hurts people, big problem with something that hurts no one.
Beauty pageants are wholesome displays of sexism and female objectification. Lingerie catalogs are unwholesome displays of sexism and female objectification. It makes perfect sense.
"Unless we bring men and women together, children will not have mothers and fathers." This is now one of my favorite sentences.
What? Was Miss California's talent act a pathetic attempt at playing the flute, too?
Indeed, but doing T&A shots is also protected freedom of expression, so that's kind of irrelevant.
If they manage to nullify her contract, will they get back the money they spent on her boob job?
Is there a possible issue of legality surrounding these pictures?
Is 17 within the legal age limit for posing semi-nude? I think the federal regulations for nude pictures require 18+ but I don't know if the same/similar applies to undie pics.
Anyone?
Simply said, morality doens't deal with "right or wrong" but with "socially acceptable or unacceptable".
Maybe it has more to do with the rules of the pageant, i.e. they are supposed to be amateurs, not professional models. If she was paid for modeling the lingerie, she would not be eligible for Miss America.
I see "liberal tolerance" (an oxymoron if ever I saw one) has reared its ugly head yet again. Liberals will tolerate -- in fact, celebrate -- a vast range of positions and opinions, as long as they agree completely with their own. Anything else is to be attacked and insulted.
Ms. Prejean was asked to give her opinion on a sensitive political issue. She stated her opinion honestly, and was judged for it.
She could have behaved in a manner consistent with "liberal values" (another oxymoron), and given the politically correct answer. Instead, she demonstrated courage and responded as her moral convictions dictate.
If Ms. Prejean's position on gay "marriage" is reason to disqualify her from a beauty pageant, then why is it OK for President Obama to share the position?
I don't hear any liberals crying for his hide, even though he stated repeatedly in his Presidential campaign that he is not in favor of gay "marriage", and is a devoted Christian.
Who's the bigot here?
My biggest problem: She was 17 at the time the pictures were taken.
That really, really creeps me out.
It's just plain illegal. How can anyone argue otherwise?
The bigotry part is inarguable, but the photos are kid porn. My own daughter's going to be 15 soon, and this wakes me up.
Prejean's comments that she was a Christian and a model do nothing but show her hypocrisy. This was about money and ambition, and very poor parental guidance.
She's going to get fired, and for many excellent reasons.
I really, really, really don't want to see the breasts of a 17 year old. Count me out on that one. If Prejean was looking for respect, well, she looked the wrong way.
Here's my pet theory for what's really going on: The Miss Whatever officials were already taking a lot of flack from the right about Prejean's loss, due to her well-informed and insightful views about opposite marriage. Being the damn, dirty, hippy libruls they are, the pageant's organizers recognize that her opinions are distasteful to, and outside of the views of most Americans. The nudie pictures were just a convenient excuse to do what they wanted to do, (and rightfully so) in a way that doesn't further aggravate the right wing of the Miss America audience.
I said it before and I'll say it again: This "christian nation" has no problem with representations of human suffering, but is offended at any representation of human affection. It's a rule that permeates television, movies, news, policy, and, as you can see here, even the lowly beauty pageant. It's a sick thing, if you ask me.
Just because someone holds an opinion, does not mean it is not deserving of nor sheltered from a good stern mocking.
Paliban Mom:
It's not ok. Obama should be disqualified from the Miss America pageant, too.
PZ, the problem isn't the pictures.
The contestants are asked if there are any. She said no. Pictures were released. She lied to her employer when she signed the employment contract. Why isn't that grounds for termination?
"Who's the bigot here?"
Paliban Mom... I think you need to recheck the definition of the word bigot.
Prejean's views may have been traumatized by her parent's divorce
Who could expect her to grow up normal in such an environment?
Conservative/religious viewpoint in a nutshell:
"Bigotry good. Boobs bad."
I'm the other way around, myself.
Maybe you should see a shrink about your daughter complex or whatever makes you afraid of seeing the breasts of young women. It's normal to be sexually attracted to anyone with the relevant sexual characteristics. You don't have to hate yourself for that. Eighteen years is a "magical number" our society has made up, and out nature just doesn't care about it. You can face up to the fact that you've inherited these primitive instincts and still be a moral human being.
And what kind of employer thinks such matters to be worth asking ? The answer, I imagine, is that they think such photos may reflect badly on them. How bad do you think her bigoted views on same sex marriage make them look ?
And just where does an employer get off asking if you have ever been photographed in your underwear. Talk about about creepy! Since it is a question they had any business asking her I am not sure why her failure to answer honestly should matter.
Maybe you should see a shrink about your daughter complex or whatever makes you afraid of seeing the breasts of young women. It's normal to be sexually attracted to anyone with the relevant sexual characteristics. You don't have to hate yourself for that. Eighteen years is a "magical number" our society has made up, and out nature just doesn't care about it. You can face up to the fact that you've inherited these primitive instincts and still be a moral human being.
Sorry for posting the same comment twice. I'd just like to add the qualifier "secondary" to "sexual characteristics". Was typing that in a hurry.
Mike M writes:
the photos are kid porn.
"Porn" or "explicit" material is a whole lot different from some implied nude shots including the side of a boob. I believe that the pictures in question are about as racy as the 'scandalous' shots Annie Liebovitz shot of Miley Cyrus.
Or are you saying that you consider such material to be spank-worthy?? When someone calls something "porn" I tend to assume that they're referring to their personal reaction to it (since 'erotic' is in the eye of the beholder)
PalibanMom:
Well, I'm all for people expressing their opinions about things. But if you don't think that someone's sexual orientation is a choice (as I do, and the evidence would suggest that it ISN'T a choice) then the question may just as well have been: "Do you think minorities should have the same rights as non-minorities?"
And if she answered similarly could you imagine the outcry that would have caused? Would you have backed her up then as you do now by saying "Leave her alone - she's just expressing her opinion?"
I think not.
What irks me about her is she is now taking advantage of this situation by speaking at churches across California about "standing up for your beliefs" and preaching God's word when it comes to marriage. This is her crusade. This is an important issue to her.
Funny, I don't recall reading about her at all during (or leading up to) the whole Proposition 8 initiative. Where/what was her involvement then?
It's simple. On the conservative side (and sadly, too often on the liberal side), women's duty is to be appealing to men, for the ultimate goal of finding a husband. Conservative men like to look at an almost-naked woman on the TV, but they don't like the idea that some other man might have gotten to her first. Basically, they want a woman who looks like a slut but isn't one. Personally, I don't care about the photos, as long as she wasn't taken advantage of due to her age. That would depend on the age of the photographer. But a lot of people need to get over this "slutty but pure at the same time" thing and stop judging women's value on their boobies.
But a lot of people need to get over this "slutty but pure at the same time" thing and stop judging women's value on their boobies.
Just as soon as the women stop going off with the guy who has the better car, bigger wallet or handsome face.
First: it's a beauty pageant. Entertainment. Who really cares? And, though I should stop there because I don't care, here's my 2 cents anyhow.
It shouldn't matter whether or not her answer is politically correct. What is supposed to matter is being able to answer and be able to provide coherent support for her opinion while under stress. She seemed unable to accomplish that. We shouldn't rip on her for having that particular opinion, just for being stupid and vacuous.
If she violated the terms of her contract, she should expect to be fired.
I just don't know why people keep bringing up the freedom of speech issue. Her speech was not censored, and in fact it was aired on national television, during primetime. Not being rewarded with a tiara for your speech is not the same thing as having your speech suppressed or censored.
Based on her name and looking around what you get when you click it I'm pretty sure paliban mom is parody, but it's weird. A large percentage of the site seems dead straight wing-nuttery with no exaggeration or joke. But then there is stuff like "creationism" struck through and replaced with "Intelligent design" (spoken about approvingly) and a little parable for kids about how their parents are hell bound if they put buying food ahead of tithing. Also the "education centre" link is stuffed with atheist books.
In most countries it is legal to have sex with a 16 year old. But taking pictures of a 17 year old is "kiddyporn". (In some countries it is legal to marry a 8 year old girl, but you must not take wedding pictures.)
Matt Penfold asks:
And what kind of employer thinks such matters to be worth asking ?
Playboy, for example, wants exclusivity on the models that they use. They're also concerned that ex-models don't leverage the Playboy brand/trademark by going into explicit films afterward (like Terri Weigel did in the late 80s) Also, there are brands that are concerned with such things for image reasons. For example, Disney won't use models that have posed nude; I guess they think it says something about the models' morals.
We're really silly about this stuff; we look down at the poor benighted afghanis who'd stone a woman if she didn't wear a burqa outdoors, and we have whooping screech-fests when some nobody starlet reveals the side of her boob (ZOMG! teh horror!) in a lousy photo - but then expect her to compete in a bikini contest that shows off that very same boob-side. We're incredibly prudish but we think we're open minded.
So you consider her to be to stupid to be held accountable for her actions? In which case one has to ask where the responsible adults were. Either she lacks the intellect to be held accountable, in which case the organisers should never have let her compete, and should be prosecuted for doing so, or she does have the intellect, in which case she must be held to account for her views.
You seem to have a rather patronising attitude. She is just a silly blonde and no one should expect her to be able to form a cogent argument.
Even if the clause in question is abitrary, pointless and none of the employers business ?
Paragon of heteronormative beauty isn't quite so sure she's ok with all this gay stuff. Shocking.
@Paliban Mom
Total And Utter Comprehension Fail.
Such positions being tolerant and (duh) liberal, it's quite correct to attack and insult intolerant, illiberal points of view. So I find myself in queasy agreement with a protofascist.
Just as Richard Williams, the Holocaust-denying bishop, was, and just as rightly so.
Total And Utter Comprehension Fail... Parte Deux: Return of the Tard
She and Fred Phelps are to be commended. Oh... and by the way, rancid intolerance is not a moral conviction.
You didn't hear because Limbaugh didn't report it. Get out more.
You are, you homophobic dumbfuck.
<DirtyOldMan>
Unless I have pictures and her naked body for a comparison then it didn't happen.
</DirtyOldMan>
As an amateur model, I can understand why she'd do it. When you're starting out, you need some photos, and you don't want to spend $600 on a photo shoot when you're just learning how to pose. (Yes, there actually is some skill involved.) The best way to get started is to find amateur photographers and to trade time for photos - both parties work for free and both get to use the pictures. And believe it or not, amateur model photographers, most of whome are male, tend to prefer risque photos. I've never done topless, but I have done lingerie, and see it basically the same as bikini.
As to the stipulations of qualifications, would I consider myself a professional, even though I've gotten paid for a few gigs? No. Would I consider my lingerie photos "partial nudes"? No, though I would have had I done topless. Should they care if a contestant has done some risque amateur photos that don't show any of the naughty parts? Hell no! And I bet most models who hadn't gone pro by the time there were 16 did it too.
These pageants are all about image, and I don't have a problem with them asking the question. Now, if a truthful answer made any *difference*, then, yeah, I have problems.
The hypocrisy is rife on all sides.
Miss California's original comment was her own opinion, stated with an apology to whoever she offended, spoken as an air-headed bimbo in a pageant. She was silly, perhaps, but not evil--stupid is probably the case. Dumb, but pointless. And, geeze, why was that a question that loaded even being asked at a beauty pageant?
Perez Hilton went into his whiny bitch mode, and a lot of people jumped on that bandwagon. That went too far, in my opinion. The Christian Right coming to her defense is somewhat justified, but as hypocritical as most things they do.
I say that both sides should suck it up and shrug it off.
As for the pictures, I did go look up the first one posted on theDirty.com. That was not a lingerie-modelling pose, in my opinion--it was meant to be a sexy photo. True, it showed no more than she showed on stage in the swimsuit contest. (But the swimsuit contest is itself a disgrace that should have the right wing up in arms at Miss Carrie.)
In that photo, the girl seems to be in no need of implants, so there's a good chance the photo was taken within the last few months, which would violate the pageant's rules. If it was taken when she was 17, it is, as has been said, wrong in another way.
Oh, well, Donald Trump will settle it all.
Matt Penfold asks:
Even if the clause in question is abitrary, pointless and none of the employers business ?
It's not none of the employer's business, as long as our society treats things like nudity as "immoral behavior." Unfortunately, it's a Catch-22 situation. :( As long as we find it giggle-worthy or titillating that Snow White might have starred in explicit videos, then companies like Disney - or talent shows - or other media - have a legitimate concern with their stars' off-stage behavior. Arguably, it's the exact same thing as a basketball team not wanting its players to engage in newsworthy behavior like drive-by shootings because it might "reflect badly"
Indeed, such concerns are legitimate as long as people make a connection between someone's activities in a professional context and "on their own time." It's really weirdly self-referential. For example, Nutella took all the Kobe Bryant endorsements off their products (which meant pulling them off the shelves in grocery stores all over the US, at heinous cost) because of the his "legal issues" - it's self-referential because they were the ones who put him on the jars in the first place, implying that the connection had value or indeed creating its value, so they had to devalue it as well.
I'm pretty sure that if a beauty pageant winner was later discovered to be a serial killer, the headlines would read "beauty pageant winner is serial killer" not "serial killer" (mumble mumble down at the bottom of the page) ...was a beauty pageant winner. So media becomes a sort of oroborous worm.
In other words, their concerns are legitimate because they (and we) are concerned.
GilbertNSullivan, Paliban Mom is an extremely well done Poe with her own Landover Baptist style site.
Matt @ 54-
Yes, I do think she is accountable; vapidity is no excuse for spouting off ridiculous crap on national TV. Certainly she should not be rewarded. However, in a Pageant, the point of the question and answer is "poise". She failed dismally. Personally, she is entitled to any opinion, including "Hitler had a lot of great ideas...", as long as she can support it coherently and with poise. I don't think she is a great role model, though.
Patronizing unintentional. I apologize for any perception of stereotyping blondes; I have no evidence of correlation, and would not wish to imply any. Her hair color hadn't crossed my mind. Just a coincidence.
Regarding firing: I don't think it's fair, just legal. She should fight it.
Menyambal #60 wrote:
I see the whole thing as a massive own goal by Hilton. From asking the question at the pageant in the first place to his reaction to her answer, he handed those opposing SSM a spokesmodel. Would any of us of have heard of Carrie Prejean otherwise?
Jackie Leigh writes:
risque amateur photos that don't show any of the naughty parts?
"Naughty parts" - there, in a nutshell, it is. What's so naughty about nipples? We've decided that girl-nipples are "naughty" and guy-nipples are OK, and so we periodically have these self-referential circle jerks about something that's entirely arbitrary. I find it terribly amusing.
BTW, I haven't seen the photos, (I dont want do sort through a bunch of nudy pics to find them,) but if they were done by a professional, he probably would have asked for proof that she was over 18 before working with her, i.e. photo ID showing her date of birth.
"Unless we bring men and women together, children will not have mothers and fathers." This is now one of my favorite sentences. - jbb
Not strictly true though - has she never heard of turkey-basters?
catboy @ 48
In my not-so-sheltered portion of the world, women only go for the guy with the flashier car in rap videos. They only weigh a guy's wallet as far as his ability to hold a steady job and handle money reasonably well. As far as looks go, I know that I'm not going to be able to go out and scoop up Halle Berry. It's pretty much a truism that on the old 10-point scale, you only have a chance with someone at most one or two points above you, but that still leaves a huge pool of possibilities.
Yes, there are exceptions, and they're made to look more common than they are because so many of these exceptions are centered around the media industry. That's not the real world, though.
xtain logic:
bigotry = good
boobies = bad
hate = good
sex = bad
I'm beginning to see a pattern here.
@Janine, OMnivore
Thanks for the heads-up
@Paliban Mom
Oops. Sorry!
This reminds me of a Mae West line: I use to be Snow White, but I drifted.
I have posted a couple of videos on www.youtube.com and can't imagine, well maybe you can, all the kooks and assholes that came out in defense of her. Some for my bashing beauty pageants, others defending her anti gay marriage spiel and the rest mad at me for calling her and other contestants on their lack of intelligence.
I really did laugh for a good minute reading an article in the San Diego Tribune ( I think) on her. The fact that the National Organization for Marriage (Anti gay group), a group that she has done commercials prior to doing the Miss USA pageant, a no no I am told. Not to mention they paid for her breast implants too. I was laughing right up the part of the article where it said she goes to a church here in San Diego, a mega church called The Rock. It is right now the street from where I live in Point Loma. I pass this place on the way home from work everyday. Ehhhhh creepy!
I guess it bugs me about the church mostly because it located on where I went to boot camp and my 1st “A” school. The base is now a strip mall/ farmers market/ mega church. So much for going back to where my career all began.
Does anyone actually follow, care about, or even consider beauty pageants to be relevant to anything any more? I can't think of anyone I know who does.
Pics plz! So we can judge the moral outrage for ourselves, of course.
The pics are pretty tame.
No shrink necessary, I assure you. Allow me to explain.
We have a set-in-stone standard in this country where we say, "Adulthood starts here." That number varies globally, but in the United States, that number is 18. It is clear, it is the law.
I've seen both of the pictures. You do not see nipples; they are "softer" than SI's Swimsuit edition, for sure.
But she was 17, and the photographer had to know, if he/she says they're for a big company, that this is a no-no. The rules are clear. 17? Blouse, please. If I was a good photographer, that'd be my rule. My 18th birthday is tomorrow? See ya then!
Now I get back to Pheobe Cates, and a scene every 51 year old guy remembers. Look at her birth date and the dates "Fast Times" was produced, and it appears as though she was 18 years and several hours old when they made it.
We have drawn an arbitrary line of 18 years, zero days. We had to draw the line somewhere. Prejean could have said, "Come back in 37 days and you can photograph the whole thing!". Or, preferably, since her parents HAD to be in on this -- she was on the "childhood" side of that line -- they could have said no.
Seriously, there is no fuzzy line here. And I think it protects children. What if someone decided my daughter was "sexy enough" at 15? You're not cool with that, I'd bet. 16? Hmmm, not good enough. 17 years, 300 days? Break out the cameras, boys!
Sorry. Doesn't work that way.
If you still think that means I need to see a shrink, refer me to one. I live in Sacramento. Gopher it.
Whether I find 17 year olds attractive or not is 100% beside the point. What matters is that we still need to protect children in this society, and it galls me that her parents don't get that.
Mike @76--so basically, with parental consent, it's okay to send "kids" to war? Does our need to "protect" them not extend to combat? Or are these particular seventeen-year-olds adults?
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/enlstandards.htm
The irony buuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrnnnnnnnsssssssss so bad!
There's really no point to beauty pageants at all. Oh, sure, some losers who are too lazy and/or stupid to find borderline pornography on the internet might find them convenient, but the pageants have no redeeming qualities. At all.
For those terrified of the "fact" that Ms Prejean was photographed in the nude at 17, please keep in mind that said "fact" was released from her agent, based on Ms Prejean's statement that the photos were a teenaged mistake. This is highly dubious since the results of her breast augmentation are clearly visible in the nude photos.
There's a really bad patriarchal culture with the whole beauty pageant thing. I find myself just going, why do these things still exist? Oh well, leave it to the models to reform it from the inside while we try and eliminate the unidimensional aspects that women are judged for.
There is something wrong with how we've deemed women's breasts the greatest evil ever. Frankly I blame it for the really sick culture of fake breasts > real breasts that is endemic to modeling and Hollywood. In France and the like, women aren't pressured into this, because their entertainment regularly shows real nude or semi-nude figures as they exist so people get used to real bodies, whereas in America, we get these nude-ish depictions because we're always straddling this line between objectification and prudery. This of course causes fake breasts to be seen as natural, because there is no exposure to real bodies. This fuels body dysmorphia in young women and the unreachable beauty standard which lowers women's self-esteem when entering dating cultures.
But then, I rant.
Also for those of you who apparently have apprehensions about PC. Political Correctness isn't government goons breaking down a door and pointing a gun in your face, shutting down your operation if you commit too many racist or sexist remarks or actions.
Political Correctness is Applied Free Speech.
That is, it's a philosophy that even those who are not directly marginalized by eliminationist or dehumanizing speech, should speak up on behalf of the marginalized and let the speaker know that there are those who disagree. It's countering speech with one's own speech and like all moral ideals, it's an ideal that people can choose to participate in or not. The only difference and the reason it's hated is that it reverses the power directional. Whereas, before dismissive or hateful speech would be given a free pass, especially by allies as it didn't apply to them and wasn't their place to speak out. This created an environment where those views were seen as being held by a larger portion of the group and further alienating the powerless especially when they tried to complain.
PC shifts the burden of responsibility onto the group of allies, for all those who disagree to call out hateful speech, so that hateful voices find out that not everyone shares their beliefs, are confronted more regularly with the fact that other people exist, and marginalized voices can have more traction in complaints as they know they have allies in groups that are taken more seriously (because of "distance").
This prevents the Klan types from dominating discussions and allows small marginalized groups like transpeople from having to play catch-up all the time on larger group efforts to spread lies about their humanity.
So Ms. Prejean, when she's "attacked" by PC, is merely experiencing straight allies standing up for their gay friends and families speaking out and letting her know that the world isn't her church social. If this "alienates" her from the mainstream?
Good.
Her views are not of the mainstream and shouldn't be, because they are demonstrably wrong and work against human freedoms.
She also has some small taste of what gay people thanks to people like her have to put up with everyday where they are compared constantly to "normal" people like her and constantly have to prove their moral worth for scraps at the table of liberty that she has long taken advantage of without thinking.
And no matter what she does, it will always be on her, rather than white people or straight people, whereas any gay person that messes up is suddenly emblematic of the movement.
I think gays have an additional twitch about Ms. Prejean because we've constantly gotten flak from the latest wingnut beauty pageant contestant (see Anita Bryant, Sarah Palin, etc...).
I think that PZ is missing the point. What would you rather do: think about issues, or see a shapey young woman in hiked up underwear?
The latter draws far more attention and is more fun to "study". :)
Actually, in all seriousness, you are right, but hey, no one expects someone in a beauty pageant to be intellectual.
I have no problem either with Ms Prejean expressing anti-gay-marriage opinions or with her posing in lingerie. I think her opinions are irrational and wrong, and I have no desire to look at pictures of her in lingerie. But if she wants to express said opinions or display her body, I don't particularly give a damn.
I am totally in favour of gay marriage, and have argued in favour of it on my blog and elsewhere. But I don't see why she should be penalised, in the context of a beauty pageant - something which has nothing at all to do with politics - for expressing an honest opinion, however stupid that opinion may be.
Re "childhood"; in the UK sex is legal at 16, as it is in many other countries. US law seems to be weirdly over-cautious about these things (not allowing drinking till 21 is absolutely ridiculous, IMO).
I agree with Ranum there is something unhealthily prudish in US society which engenders a rather purile opposition neither of which is very attractive from this side of the pond. We have 17yo women pictured topless on page 3 of our highest selling tabloid newspapers. It's an institution and barely causes a raised eyebrow. If you do not wish to see it then you do not buy/read the relevant worthless excuses for newspapers. Instead in the US it becomes a cause celebré like Janet Jackson's breast. Here the only problem might have been if it was before the watershed (9pm). Free to air tv channels show French and Swedish art films after 11pm.
As someone else pointed out what is wrong with depictions of human affection? We have also passed and dealt with two men kissing on the television. The highly popular Dr Who spinoff Torchwood features a leading character who is gay and a time travelling boyfriend comes to town and the scene where they get it on in a pub is great telly. We had Queer As Folk a decade or so ago, a drama series about young gay men.
What we really find strange about US culture is that there is so many unthinking displays of ultra violence on your screens and nobody bats and eyelid, but one hint of a nipple or some lingerie and everyone gets the vapours. Think about that one, you have a society that is more comfortable with horrible violence on the television and for your children than you do for displays of human affection or perfectly ordinary parts of our bodies.
This would not be so noticeable except that we consume much of the same media seeing as we are divided by a common language.
I'm sorry if women have left you for other men in the past, but maybe it wasn't just because the other guy had a better car, wallet, or face. Maybe the problem wasn't with the women at all.
Cerebus # 81 said
"Her views are not of the mainstream and shouldn't be, because they are demonstrably wrong and work against human freedoms."
Pardon?
Her view on gay marriage are the same as those publicly stated by the President, the vice president and the secretary of state. Whats more they are the same as the majority of the US population as determined by countless opinion polls over the past few years.
Bigoted and irrational but, unfortunately, most definitely mainstream.
Very interesting discussion guys. There is hypocrisy on both sides, and it's very interesting following it.
Technically, it's because she violated her contract, not because of any moral issues.
@86
Well not so much anymore and actually they're not the same as the current leaders who while cowardly on the issue at least publicly oppose any measure to strip away existing rights for gay families.
And the backlash is new and causing them consternation, because we are cresting over a period where the amount of people who don't agree that gays are less than straights is non-negligible and approaching a majority opinion (and each gay rights victory gives another good strong shove in that direction).
I think the fact that something as conservative as a beauty pageant is having to blink twice about anti-gay comments due to public response says something about how far we've traveled in the last few months.
I could be being naively optimistic about this, but there is definitely something different in the interactions since the Prop 8 backlash. A lot less" evil gays" and "take that" and a lot more "they outnumber us" and "we're the real victims". I don't think hate being tolerated is the majority opinion, even if we're still discriminated and disliked.
Cerebus, the opinions polls don't really back you up. There is some good news, however, younger people seem much more tolerant compared to the older generation. It is only a matter of time before this old generation dies out and tolerance does becomes mainstream.
What's to get? They are idiots or hypocrites. Possibly both.
There's no real difference between an 18 year old and a someone's who's nearly 18. I know we had to draw the line somewhere, but you can see the limitations of it. If you were pressed on it, do you think someone should go on a sex offender's list for having pics of a naked women who's almost 18?
Not arbitary really. Breasts are one of the characteristics of sexually developed women, not men.
--------------
@catgirl (#85)
Meow!
She signed a contract saying that she had not done something in the past. It turns out that she had done that something and she lied to her employer. When asked by the employer for specifics she lied again. If an employee lied to me twice about breaking her employment contract then I'd seriously consider firing her.
Kind of like how beards or developed musculature is a sign of sexual maturity in men....still arbitrary.
Catgirl:
I'm a bit confused. You protest that men only want women with great hooters, a fine rack, or quality boobies but if women reverse that it's something else? Some inner flaw of the man that discerning women spot?
You might be surprised at the number of people burdened with a "Y" chromosome find other aspects of women attractive, such as brains. Although a fine ass is a nice bonus. *snark*
Which is the more egregious offense here?
A beauty pageant exists for no other purpose except entertainment, and it entertains with suggestion of sexuality and objectification.
A lingerie add, at least, has another possible purpose. That is, to sell lingerie to men. I mean women.
If god had wanted her to have bigger boobs, wouldn't he have made them bigger? I'm betting this is the kind of thing that makes baby jesus cry.
Freedom of speech means protection from physical and financial consequences of exercising that freedom. I believe PZ made a point of that some time ago on a prior post. This means that Ms. Prejean most certainly should not be stripped of her pageant title for her remarks on gay marriage (unless there was a contractual stipulation which she signed that she should refrain from statements of this nature or simply this kind of controversy, in which case it becomes a matter of contractual obligation and not free speech).
Freedom of speech does not include protection from consequences related to the free speech of others. Ridicule, vilification, and mockery are all fair game, and richly deserved.
No not really. Freedom of speech is a guarantee that the government will not stifle or censor your speech or impose penalties upon exercise of it.
It says nothing of private institutions.
Personally, although I'm no believer in karma, it seems fitting that she finds herself in a situation where she may have her "rights" stripped because she has come down on the wrong side of a "moral issue".
MikeM writes:
We have a set-in-stone standard in this country where we say, "Adulthood starts here." That number varies globally, but in the United States, that number is 18. It is clear, it is the law.
It's USC Title 18, 2257 and is based on definitions in 2256. As a photographer who deals with nudity, I've read the law fairly carefully and what you're talking about is completely irrelevant unless you're producing obscene or explicit images. A photo of a girl's back and the side of her boob is not obscene under even the most generous reading of 2256.
I know this is a nitpick but there's a reason I make it: the laws have been drafted by prudish lawmakers and a very prudish DOJ (motto: "torture OK, nipples obscene!") to exercise a chilling effect on our exercise of free speech. 2257a was struck down as unconstitutional once, but the DOJ wasted a load of taxpayer's $$ trying to reinstate it (motto: "no amount of your money is too great to spend to protect you from yourself!") when people say - as MikeM did - that "18 is the absolute limit" it contributes to the fearful environment that our lawmakers are trying to create. Because The Supreme Court has frowned pretty seriously on their shenanigans in the past, they've adopted a strategy of trying to scare people with vague laws and FBI searches rather than simply reading The 1st Amendment; it's crystal clear.
The bottom line is that they're not going after Sally Mann any time soon. Nor should they.
There are any number of legitimate social issues surrounding the production of child porn (which we don't need to get into) but the DOJ and our prudish lawmakers are using, instead, to go after erotica in general. Because erotica makes baby jesus cry, presumably; I doubt that it's feminist seperatist ideology that's driving them. But, as usual, they fail to think things through - it's hard to come up with a law that makes what you despise universally illegal while protecting what you love.
2256 includes as "sexually explicit conduct" a lot of things among which are: sadistic or masochistic abuse Oddly, you can still purchase crucifixes, in spite of the fact that they are clearly "sexually explicit" under USC 18, 2256. We can all agree they're unsuitable for minors, but under COPA (which was canned for being unconstitutional) you could go to jail for showing one to a minor. The same idiots that whine about "activist judges" are trying to re-interpret the 1st amendment to only give you the right to speak when you're spoken to.
As someone that has seen the photos in question and has experience in the legality of pictures, I can tell that photos are not illegal, even if she were 17 at the time.
The laws on child pornography are actually quite forgiving and have a fuzzy gray zone in between. It is necessarily that way to keep 'bathtime-with-baby' pictures from putting parents in prison.
The kinds of things that are legal would make MikeM become catatonic.
Her rights aren't being stripped.
"Miss America" is a private organization that can set guidelines and rules that the participants and winners have to follow or they can be stripped of title.
No. It's almost certainly no coincidence that breasts and genitiles are covered up. The only question is why beards and muscles aren't.
Muscles are everywhere, it's not very practical to think they should always be covered. Beards, I'm not sure. Partly thinking it's too troublesome to cover them up for men, having to talk and breathe and eat through the mouth.
If Ms Prejean is to be condemned for stating her opposition to same-sex marriage, then so should Barack Obama stand condemned for doing so. Anything else is hypocrisy.
Beauty pageants and award shows are crap anyway, at least in part because people who shouldn't use them as a soapbox too frequently do so.
But Torchwood rawks! So I have to say this:
Is wrong. Captain Jack Harkness is NOT gay! He's omnisexual. And I think it's way hotter when he kisses Ianto; you can tell that blond dude (the time traveller) is totally not into it at all.
No, I never said that. I never said it because I know that men don't judge women only on their boobs. But society often does. There's a huge double-bind on women to be really sexy, but not too sexy. I never said that men are to blame for that pressure. It's not even necessarily about sex or dating, and it doesn't act on a personal level. Instead, a lot of people think it's just fine to insult women for being either too sexy or not sexy enough.
And that is exactly why we do condemn him for it. No matter how much conservatives want to believe it, no one actually worships Obama.
I disagree. If I swear a lot at work, then my boss should fire me. There are plenty of other things I could say at work that would get me fired. I can say anything I want and not go to jail, but I can't force others to listen to me and not criticize me.
I'm almost as lefty as they get (yes, I've kissed a gay male friend on the lips), but I would rather leave the term Marriage alone, and I would fight for civil union laws that simply state "all laws, rules, and regulations, public and private, that apply to married couples also apply fully to civil union couples."
After all, we are legally "married" when we sign the government marriage certificate, but not religiously "married" until the religious master of ceremonies speaks the traditional slogan (e.g. I pronounce you Man and Wife). Why not call the first, government document a "civil union certificate", and let the religions do their thing with the word "marriage". If they believe Marriage is between one man and one woman, so be it. Legally, the term would no longer mean anything.
Why is this common-sense solution ignored? Idunno - Tell me!
Catgirl:
You are right about the conflicting expectations of society at large. The whole Miss America thing typifies this. On one hand, there is the Meat Market, otherwise known as the swimsuit competition. Then there is Talent (such as it is) portion of the competition. Nice, womanly talents, to be sure.
While it is not cool for guys to be smart and show it, it is far worse for women. My wife has described to me just how important is is for women to not appear too smart, at least in public schools. University is better, but not always. Too often smart = not sexy.
Not sexy enough - prude or a grind. Too sexy - bimbo or airhead.
Perez Hilton distinguished himself by apologizing and then reneging the apology to Norah O'Donnell by calling the pageant princess the "C" word. Nice.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I was always taught don't ask the question if you can't accept the answer.
I wonder if she were asked about and endorsed something less socially acceptable such as polygamy or transgender and child modeling pageants would the LGBT community have come to her rescue. If not why not.
"No. It's almost certainly no coincidence that breasts and genitiles are covered up. The only question is why beards and muscles aren't."
This is complicated, and IMO has to do with the way sexuality is constructed in patriarchal societies. In short, men experience lust for women, and women bare the blame for the male's response. We see this (in extreme form) in the middle east with burkas etc. The women have to cover their bodies because the men might get a woody, which is bad and sinful.
In the west, as we have moved towards egalitarianism in our sexual politics, this is still the case to a certain extent. Women are sexual objects, men do the objectifying.
But things have changed. Look at the history of porn. In the 70's, hot hot sexy chicks performed with trolls like Ron Jeremy and John Holmes.
But as women took control of their own sexuality, they too realized that men are sexual objects. Now the men in porn are hot, handsome, muscular and every bit as "looked at" as the women. For the first time, men are being treated in much the same way as women have always been.
A good concept, but IMO executed backwards. Men are now being held to the same beauty standard as women always have been. They are self-conscious about their looks and their bodies as they never were before. Instead of relaxing the pressure on girls to be 'hawt', we're ratcheting up the stress on men to conform to ideal standards of beauty.
And the numbers of men seeking plastic surgery and developing eating disorders is rising every day.
(I'm no expert, just some observations from a gay man looking in on the aquarium of male/female sexual politics from the outside)
There's something I don't get about this: Isn't she partially nude in all her pictures? How would we even tell it was her otherwise?
Rev BDC #99, and catgirl #108:
But the laws concerning free speech do in fact protect us from sanctions by private parties, such as our employers. Freedom of speech would mean very little if the exercise of it means risking the loss of one's livelihood. We have the right to sue for wrongful dismissal in these cases (example, creationist principal fires science teacher for saying that genesis is crap), and many times we will win.
That is to say, the government doesn't just agree not to impose sanctions and restrictions on our speech, the government is obligated to protect us from private institutions that try to impose sanctions and restrictions on our speech.
The counterexample of swearing at work (or, say, teaching evolution in one of those Christian colleges where you have sign those odious declaration of beliefs) is actually, I think, a contractual issue. You cannot be fired for swearing at work unless their is either written directly into your contract, or implied, a prohibition against profane language, disruptive behavior, etc. It is open to some interpretation but essentially when we sign a contract we are voluntarily relinquishing a portion of our rights in exchange for something else (like a salary), agreeing to abide by a certain code of behavior, thus limiting our own freedom of choice and action, within specified boundaries of time and place.
So we can be rightfully terminated for exercising speech prohibited by a contract we voluntarily sign, but that is only because, in signing the contract (or accepting the job in the cases of implied stipulations), we agreed to relinquish said right and the accompanying governmental protection, within the limited context stipulated by the contract itself.
This is an outrage - there's no link to the alledged pictures of ill-repute.
"Very interesting discussion guys."
Really? I dunno, beauty pageant contestant spouts a bunch of backwards religious garbage about gay marriage, then gets in trouble for (jeez man, not even NUDE) racy pictures. For me, it's like the perfect storm of banality. If the former president were still in the White House, I would swear that this was a manufactured story to distract America from some crime or another. Hell, maybe it still is.
Josh @ 77:
Just like everything else contractual, those 17-year-old potential military personnel can't sign without parental consent. If they want to join without parental permission or knowledge, they have to wait until their 18th birthday.
Rick R said:
I'm no expert either (where's SC,OM when you need her?) but the observations of this heterosexual woman certainly match yours. IMO it's a horrible inversion of what sexual liberation should be about, rather than liberating women from the "barbie or bust" ideal of beauty and sexuality, we've just gone and invented a corresponding ideal of male beauty and then forced men to fit into it alongside us.
It's equality of a sort I suppose, but equally miserable wasn't quite what feminism had (or has) in mind!
On a purely aesthetic level, its also becoming incredibly boring (for this woman at least). Maybe its me, but I greatly prefered it when "trolls" (as you call them) were freer to strut their stuff on our mass media (I just wish that female "trolls" were given an equal shout) rather than the endess parade of semi-anonymous himbos we seem to be edging towards at the moment.
Katrina--parental consent is a detail that I paid attention to in comment #77. My question was whether or not those parents who consent to have their children get trained for (and potentially deployed into) combat at 17 are, in Mike's eyes, failing in their duties to "protect the children," or if he doesn't consider this particular group of people to be children anymore.
And I think it's way hotter when he kisses Ianto; you can tell that blond dude (the time traveller) is totally not into it at all.
I'm sorry, but it's way hot no matter who he's getting it on with. Admittedly Ianto is a good match, though.
If Ms Prejean is to be condemned for stating her opposition to same-sex marriage, then so should Barack Obama stand condemned for doing so. Anything else is hypocrisy.
This. Progressive bloggers (the real ones, not the fauxgressives) definitely condemn him for his stance on gay marriage, but it doesn't get any traction in the same maistream media and certain "liberal" blogs that mock her for her it. My only explanation is that they know what people "ought" to think about gay marriage, but are still comforted deep down by the fact that the person who actually has the most influence on the possibility of legalizing it still doesn't want to.
A good concept, but IMO executed backwards. Men are now being held to the same beauty standard as women always have been.
Not. Even. Close. It's starting to go in that direction, but there's no way you can say that men are now held to the same beauty standard as women. However, evening it out should be to lighten up on women, not to make it worse on men. (To shamelessly shill for a book that came out this week, Kate Harding and Marianne Kirby's "Lessons from the Fat-O-Sphere: Screw Inner Beauty" is now in a bookstore near you! Read it to find out all about body issues and beauty standards and how they suck and are bad for you!)
We have this in the UK. Gay couples have a civil union, but it's not called a marriage. Frankly this is wrong. Christianity didn't invent marriage. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on the term marriage. Very few gay people want to be married in a religious ceremony, they just want to be married. So a civil ceremony by the government is fine if a religion doesn't want to marry certain people, but why not call it a marriage too? I mean, they ask each other "Will you marry me?", not "Will you civil union me?".
Of course. But exercising your free speech as a representative of your company is limited exactly by your contract. Yes on paper you are protected by the first amendment when you are outside the bounds of your job. But as soon as you are acting as a representative of your employer or reflect poorly on your employer as an employee that changes.
And that's the point of this thread. Her first amendment rights are not being violated as she is 1.) violating her contract and 2.) reflecting poorly on her employer as a representative of Miss American (Miss California).
Right and that goes to my point. An employer has no responsibility to allow free expression for employees that are acting as representatives of the employer. They can and do create contracts where you relinquish some of your rights as a stipulation for being hired.
The government can't do that (though typing that it raises the question about being a gov't employee but smarter minds than my self have been over that a billion times). Of course IANAL let alone a constitutional lawyer so if I'm wrong I'm willing to admit it.
@Mr108. Up to the 13th. Century, in England at least, marriage between commoners was usually a matter of convenience and quite a casual affair with no church or state involvement with the two simply agreeing to be 'married'. More in line with what in the UK used to be called common law marriage, i.e. the two people involved simply agreed to live as a 'married' couple with no state/church involvement. The state and/or church involvement was more commonly used by those with power and wealth, highlighting the fact that most marriages were property, as well as possible political, contracts.
However, the church not liking the 'casual' marriages of commoners decided to step in and take control of it, stating that marriage should be a more 'holy' contract. Telling the congregation that marriage without the church's involvement was a sure road to hell. Thus once again, with the church it was more about control and power over its followers. And, amazingly, strangely even, how it always turns out this way, but it became yet another nice little earner for the church. After all, only fair that the church be recompensed for ensuring that your soul didn't go to a fiery end by sanctifying the commoners marriage, don't you think :)
Freedom of speech means protection from physical and financial consequences of exercising that freedom.
FROM THE STATE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrTgLEI4rJA
Barring the annoying laughter clips in the second half, I don't think ANY US beauty contestant can top that. (I understand Spanish, and she REALLY said that).
A “genitile” is, presumably, an uncircumcised penis.
ouch
Yes, the Church didn't like the traditional definition of marriage in medieval Europe so they fought to have it legally changed... how ironic.
Some of the things that the churches were complaining about were that people tended to shack up before marriage, didn't get married until children were on the way and maybe not even then, and the marriage ceremony was mostly an excuse to have a big party and get drunk. Sounds familiar!
Marc Abian @ 104 lapsed: No. It's almost certainly no coincidence that breasts and genitiles are covered up. The only question is why beards and muscles aren't.
Muscles are everywhere, it's not very practical to think they should always be covered.
Breasts exist on most chests; the only differences are shape (somewhat) and size, and you might have noticed that sex isn't a complely reliable predictor of those either. There are plenty of places where crotches are customarily covered but breasts aren't. (Then again: penis sheaths. Funny how amazingly large those seem to be.)
Beards, I'm not sure. Partly thinking it's too troublesome to cover them up for men, having to talk and breathe and eat through the mouth.
The zillions of women who wear face veils must have some other convenient body part to talk, breathe, and eat through. I mean, it's not as if they're being continually annoyed by their clothing, right? It just wouldn't be fair if real people had to live that way.
The original kerfuffle? It's about ownership of course. IBTP, to no one's surprise.
Can we possibly have a modicum of rigor, since this is a site by a scientist read by people with reasonable scientific literacy?
Supposedly Miss California argued for "continued denial of civil rights to gays" by speaking out against gay marriage. Is it too much to ask for a rigorous demonstration that gay marriage is in fact a right? Everybody seems to be assuming a priori that it is. For that matter, can we start off with a serious definition of what constitutes a "right?"
If gay marriage isn't a right, then hetero marriage isn't either. Or, if one is and the other isn't, then it's discrimination. Unless you find out ANY reason other than a religious one to be anti-gay, then it's also discrimination based on religion.
Is that really that hard to grasp Steve Dutch?
BTW, #125 was me, this thing sometimes tells me I'm logged in and let me post without giving a name. Is that a bug or a feature?
How about you start and demonstrate that any marriage is a right?
I'm reminded of something I read a few years ago that went something like: "I am just thankful that Henry VIII and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves, and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer here to witness this assault on traditional marriage."
Do any of you folks grasp what "demonstration" means? If I'm going to pay increased taxes because medical care is a "right," or accept broad changes in the social fabric because gay marriage is a "right," surely it's legitimate to ask whether we actually know that those really are rights. What evidence can you offer that your concept of a right is any more intellectually sound than homeopathy or curing leukemia with herbs and natural remedies?
Andyo perpetrates a nice circular argument. If one kind of marriage is a right and one isn't, then that's discrimination. Okay, and your proof that discrimination is wrong is...? And besides, the argument is a non-sequitur. One position in a debate being right and one wrong isn't discrinination - it's how most debates are.
And BigDumbChimp (no argument here) argues that I have to prove something in order to demand a proof. That's classic pseudoscience. Demanding evidence before you accept a premise is how science works. I'm not staking any kind of position - I simply want some intellectual rigor. Do any of you actually have a coherent theory of what constitutes a right, or do you decide on the basis of sentiment and then rationalize it?
Ha ha, now you want "proof" that discrimination based on sexual preference is wrong? Or you mean all discrimination? Would you demand "proof" that racism is wrong too?
For you to demand such "proof" that discriminating homosexuals is wrong, you either
a) Think it's right.
b) Think that both positions are of equal value.
If you thought it was wrong, you'd know why it's wrong right from the start.
You can still demand "proofs" of these sorts of things, but at least be clear and state what you really believe up front.
Are you a relativist, by any chance?
I did not provide your "proof" that gay marriage is a right, because it's irrelevant. You seem to acknowledge that if one type of marriage isn't a right, the other one isn't either, so what does it matter? I'd like to meet any anti-gay that would concede that manly-man hetero marriage isn't their right.
Do you see the sublime irony of people, on a site supposedly dedicated to rational thinking, getting angry about being asked to define their terms and prove their assertions?
Do you think P.Z. Myers throws a juvenile hissy-fit when an article comes back from a reviewer asking him to define something or support a line of argument better? And trust me on this, there is no lack of obtuse and pedantic reviewers in science.
The way it works in science is that if you make a positive claim ("gay marriage is a right," say) you are the one obligated to substantiate that claim. The issue here happens to be gay marriage but I could just have easily challenged the assertions that food, or housing, or medical care, or self esteem, are rights. And, no, what the skeptic believes does not count. If you don't support your claim adequately, you haven't made your case. If I were to say "gay marriage is not a right," then it would be incumbent on me to support that statement. But I haven't said that. What I'm principally exploring is whether people who prattle about "rights" have a coherent philosophy to back up their claims. Andyo, you seem to believe that the mere fact you believe passionately in something is proof of its correctness.
Look. Miss California talking to Dobson.
SATAN was tempting her.
Um no.
We're talking about marriage. If gay marriage is or is not a right depends wholeheartedly if marriage itself is a right.
"We're talking about marriage. If gay marriage is or is not a right depends wholeheartedly if marriage itself is a right."
If marriage is not a right, then gay marriage is obviously not a right. It does not follow that if marriage is a right, then gay marriage is a right. That amounts to assuming at the outset that gay and hetero marriage are equally legitimate, then using that claim to assert that gay marriage is a right. That's a circular argument.
I don't particularly care about gay marriage. I could just as easily have issued my challenge in a thread arguing that medical care, or housing, or food are rights. What bothers me a whole lot more is the notion that you can label something a right by fiat and then demand that everyone give in to you.
Any valid theory of rights has to be testable. It has to stand up to logical analysis and not commit any egregious factual errors. In science, testable means falsifiable. In principle, a theory of rights should potentially be able to prove that something you oppose is actually a right and something you endorse may not be a right (not necessarily wrong, just not a right you can demand of others).
Also, a theory of rights needs to be robust. It needs to be broad enough and thoroughly thought out enough that you can't easily poke holes in it. For example, I've seen people appeal to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Well, those are the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Also the basis for those rights is "all men are endowed by their Creator." As a legal basis for rights, that was banned by the First Amendment non-Establishment clause. Oops. Anyway, laws can be changed. Utilitarianism likewise is riddled with holes: after all, the whole justification for waterboarding is brutally utilitarian. Golden Rule? Do you want to be stripped of all your money and go to prison? Do you think it should happen to Bernie Madoff? Of course there are times we legitimately do unto others what we don't want to happen to us.
And these are the better attempts I've seen at defining a basis for rights. So far, nobody on this thread has even risen to that level.
"We're talking about marriage. If gay marriage is or is not a right depends wholeheartedly if marriage itself is a right."
If marriage is not a right, then gay marriage is obviously not a right. It does not follow that if marriage is a right, then gay marriage is a right. That amounts to assuming at the outset that gay and hetero marriage are equally legitimate, then using that claim to assert that gay marriage is a right. That's a circular argument.
I don't particularly care about gay marriage. I could just as easily have issued my challenge in a thread arguing that medical care, or housing, or food are rights. What bothers me a whole lot more is the notion that you can label something a right by fiat and then demand that everyone give in to you.
Any valid theory of rights has to be testable. It has to stand up to logical analysis and not commit any egregious factual errors. In science, testable means falsifiable. In principle, a theory of rights should potentially be able to prove that something you oppose is actually a right and something you endorse may not be a right (not necessarily wrong, just not a right you can demand of others).
Also, a theory of rights needs to be robust. It needs to be broad enough and thoroughly thought out enough that you can't easily poke holes in it. For example, I've seen people appeal to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Well, those are the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Also the basis for those rights is "all men are endowed by their Creator." As a legal basis for rights, that was banned by the First Amendment non-Establishment clause. Oops. Anyway, laws can be changed. Utilitarianism likewise is riddled with holes: after all, the whole justification for waterboarding is brutally utilitarian. Golden Rule? Do you want to be stripped of all your money and go to prison? Do you think it should happen to Bernie Madoff? Of course there are times we legitimately do unto others what we don't want to happen to us.
And these are the better attempts I've seen at defining a basis for rights. So far, nobody on this thread has even risen to that level.
Sorry for the double post. That was a hiccup in the site response.
If marriage is a right then marriage is a right. If you drop the descriptors hetero and gay into the previous sentence it doesn't change the logic of the sentence. Unless you can show that hetero is legitimate and gay is not, then there's no argument that hetero marriage is a right and gay marriage isn't.
The default in the Constitution is that people have rights. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "straight people have rights but gay people don't," any more than it says "white people have rights and black people don't." For legal purposes whites and blacks have exactly the same rights. So it is not a stretch to say that for legal purposes straights and gays have the same rights.
There's nothing in the Golden Rule prohibiting the punishment of criminals.
The Declaration of Independence is a political document. The Constitution is a legal document. Don't confuse one purpose with the other.
Being an arrogant, pompous asshole is not a level most of us want to attain.
Somehow two paragraphs got mixed in my post #143. They should read:
The Declaration of Independence is a political document. The Constitution is a legal document. Don't confuse one purpose with the other.
There's nothing in the Golden Rule prohibiting the punishment of criminals.
Steve Dutch #137 wrote:
As I see it, a "right" is the flip side of a "duty" -- a mutual obligation that arises in relationships between people who agree to be reasonable and fair, and accept each other as basically equal in status. The idea is that IF you want to be treated fairly in a fair society, then you OUGHT to grant others like yourself the freedoms that you claim for yourself. With this humanist bottom-up approach, 'rights' aren't originally granted by authorities (either government or God) -- they arise from a similarity in nature, and the commitment between individuals that comes from this recognition.
A "just" government then only recognizes rights, it doesn't hand them out -- and the burden is on the government to prove that something isn't a right -- not on the individuals to prove that it is. The "right" to marriage is rooted in the social contract: if gay people are to be excepted from their ability to make this social contract, the onus is on government to show why. I don't think it can make a cogent argument against gay marriage without bringing in religion ... and only some religions, not others.
Nobody wants to have their choices restricted because they need to follow the rules of somebody else's false religion -- and that includes the conservative Christians and Muslims. Therefore, those who oppose civil gay marriage are going against their own values of freedom and tolerance, in the civil arena.
I know it's hardly complete, but is this the sort of line of argument you were looking for?
First I didn't make that claim above. But my point is you have to establish marriage as a right to even begin to argue that gay marriage is or is not a right.
Sure and that is even more to my point.
Steve #137:
What the hell are you talking about? I'm not even making the claim that anything is a right. YOU need to explain why if hetero marriage is a right, there's any reason gay marriage isn't. What's the difference between both? Why would you treat gays differently in that regard, if not for totally arbitrary, religious, reasons?