Tony Perkins - “Perez Hilton Owes Miss California an Apology”
WASHINGTON --- Family Research Council President Tony Perkins today stated his admiration and support for Carrie Prejean-Miss California 2009 and first runner-up in this past weekend's Miss USA contest-for her candid defense of traditional marriage and her fortitude in the face of continued baseless personal attacks.
"It's no secret that the Miss USA pageant's ratings and prestige have plummeted significantly over the past several years. Carrie Prejean has been victimized by this flagging production in a vain attempt to generate interest through controversy rather than substance," stated Perkins. Prejean's Christian beliefs were no secret to the organization; she quotes a biblical passage in her official bio on the Miss California USA website, citing Philippians 4:13, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me," as a daily source of inspiration. This fact, combined with so-called "celebrity blogger" Perez Hilton's reputation for outlandishness and homosexual activism, make the origins of this entire firestorm suspect. "Mr. Hilton attempted to transform this event into his own personal political soapbox so he could mock the traditional values Miss California holds dear. Based on her home state's recent vote on Proposition 8, a majority of the Californians she represents feel the same as she does.
"Perez Hilton's vitriol at Miss Prejean display an appalling level of intolerance and bigotry toward not only her, but women in general and apparently anyone else who exercise their right to express support for the true definition of marriage," Perkins said. "Put simply, Miss Prejean is right: Marriage can only occur between one man and one woman. Mr. Hilton absurdly wants to translate his opposition to this truth into a standard for beauty pageants."
Hilton's diatribes have been met with relative silence, if not tacit approval, from the Miss USA organization, women's rights groups, free speech advocates and the homosexual community at large. "The stunning silence from groups like N.O.W. and the Human Rights Campaign leads me to question if these organizations regard Mr. Hilton, or at least his statements, as representative of their philosophy," said Perkins. "Most shameful, though, is that the Miss USA organization has remained mute in defending Miss California and condemning this deplorable hate speech by one of its own judges.
"At the very least, Mr. Hilton and the entire Miss USA organization owe Carrie Prejean a sincere apology," concluded Perkins.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Hilton represents all that is vile and vulgar in our present culture.
Thank you Carrie for speaking from the heart instead of being force into echoing Perez Hilton's agenda.
According to Donald Trump:
Trump added that Prejean's question was "a bit unlucky," arguing that no matter how she answered the question "she was going to get killed."
He did not mention Hilton's foul rant or why the pageant comity allowed the question????
Yes, the committee was remiss in allowing the question. Hilton, if he had any sense, would have disqualified himself from being a judge because he could not be fair and unbiased. He obviously had biases which meant he had conflicts of interest. Does this mean the vote is invalid?
QuinceyQuick is absolutely right in asking those questions. The problem with taking things to the extreme is that you lose track of what goes on with all the factors that occur on the journey to the extreme. What happens when everyone wants to be an electrical engineer or a taxi cab driver or whatever? What about eating all the cows all at once? In these examples there are controlling factors. When the cows start depleting and the market starts to saturate with electrical engineers, at some point those who watch the market will say enough, as happened with the whales or employers will say they have no more positions for engineers and the market adjusts. But, with the gay community there doesn't seem to be those controls. As the population depletes, the gays can be told: all right we need to start having heterosexual marriages. What do the gays say? We already know the response, they don't want it. We know that they participate in risky behaviors even if death is the risk factor. The drive is strong and the survival risk becomes a non-consideration. What is the difference? Death no longer matters whether it be society or the individual. We know this is true because of the epidemic levels of aids. The question in my mind becomes: Who cares for the gays? Those who approve of gay behaviors, are they suddenly gay haters because they are encouraging these risky behaviors so they will get sick, suffer and die? Is that our goal in promoting gay rights ? Do we hate them that much? Or are those who encourage them to alter their life styles to avoid all that suffering and death the ones who actually are the tolerant ones and have compassion and love towards those that are at risk and do not want to see all that suffering? Have you watched a person with aids as he/she is suffering and near death? It is painful. It is not pleasant to watch. Anyone with any compassion at all does not want anyone to suffer such a fate.
Wait, so you're saying that the reason being an electrical engineer is not unethical is because they can control themselves?
By extension, you're saying that the reason being gay is unethical is because they can't control themselves? Do I have this right?
How about being male? Is being male unethical? Certainly there are no controls on being male (you can't control whether or not you're male short of a sex change), and if everyone in the world were a male, then the human race would become extinct.
I think you missed the point. Being male or female is not an issue of self-control nor is it unethical. But exploiting or promoting weaknesses that compromises a person's quality of life is. We are not talking about the gay person, we are talking about risks to a person or persons who are gay and encouraging those risky behaviors. It is unethical to promote or encourage or exploit anyone with any kind of weakness to participate in an activity that puts them at risk. How can anyone in good conscience put another person at risk by encouraging the risky activity to which they are prone to engage? Do you take a person who squanders his paychecks on gambling to a casino? Do you take an alcoholic to a bar? Do you encourage gay behavior when it puts them at risk for contracting a deadly disease? I would hope you are not that callous! I would hope our society would not be that callous!
"It is unethical to promote or encourage or exploit anyone with any kind of weakness to participate in an activity that puts them at risk."
In other words, you're arguing against unsafe sex and not homosexual sex.
You -do- realize that STDs are only contracted by people who have said disease in the first place, right? In other words, no matter how many times two men have sex with each other, if neither has a STD, and if neither pursues another partner, then they will never contract HIV or any other STD.
As for your other argument, to argue that homosexual behavior is wrong because it (1) is controllable and (2) would wipe out an entire species if everyone did it (because they don't reproduce) is bizarre. Your rebuttal to my electrical engineer example does not work, because you assume that people (1) become electrical engineers in order to sustain a market and (2) that these people won't employ themselves. If everyone became an electrical engineer, saw that the market didn't need any more, but continued to become electrical engineers and employ themselves, then the world would still die.
Or maybe instead of "electrical engineer" you could use "artist". Thousands of people produce art without expecting monetary compensation or a share in the market.
To sum:
1) Homosexual sex is only risky if one of the partners has a STD and no protection is used. (This is actually the exact same as heterosexual sex, though.)
2) Electrical engineers and artists do not respond to the market, so your rebuttal about market controls is invalid, thus making electrical engineering and art-creating unethical.
"You -do- realize that STDs are only contracted by people who have said disease in the first place, right? In other words, no matter how many times two men have sex with each other, if neither has a STD, and if neither pursues another partner, then they will never contract HIV or any other STD."
I think what "Why-not" was trying (or maybe wasn't) to get across was the length of time of a homosexual relationship and the NUMBER of sexual partners increases the risk.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
Read that. It's the source.
http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_7.gif
The above graph pools all lesbians and gay men together, and compares those people to cohabiting/married men and women. Where is the comparison to non-cohabiting heterosexual men and women?
Similarly, this graph http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_9.gif has lesbians and gay men compared to married men and women, but doesn't show how the statistics compare to unmarried heterosexual men and women.
I'd be very wary of the statistics, not the last reason of which that the data is from the Family Research Council.
Validity of data is always an issue from any source. If you speak Spanish you can see a European study here
www.fides.org/spa/approfondire/2005/spagna_noesigual.html
Or you can check some more studies at
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_home.html
Admittedly any study will be biased, inconvenient results get swept under the rug but the length of relationships and number of sexual partners among gay men is pretty accurate according to a source of mine. Also the CATO institute has some debates online between the warring parties. Marriage for gays in sweden for example showed divorces between lesbian couples at 200% the rate of other marriages. So.. take it how you will.
Also I don't think the couple would be more monogamous if they were married unless there was a pre-nup or other kind of penalty for not being so. A "committed" relationship is, in most cases, as close as a couple may get to marriage. If they can't be faithful in that who would want the extra paperwork of marriage?
I would contest that a lot of the factors listed in that source are a result of homosexuals not being conferred the right to marry. Admittedly, I have no evidence for my claim, but I think it makes sense.
Relationships, from what I would guess, would tend to last longer if the couple were married. A couple would be more monogamous if they were married. A couple would be more committed to each other if they were married. A couple would be more apt to raise kids if they were married (see: benefits of marriage). Health risks are related to monogamy, so see above. Admittedly, the only thing this idea doesn't account for is intimate partner violence.
Also, I'd be wary of that evidence. Some of the statistics are biased in favor of their conclusions. Where are homosexual females in this graph? http://www.frc.org/img/item/IS04C02_4.gif
In any case, thanks for the source.