Do you find it misogynistic to have a man who won't have sex with women judging a beauty contest to begin with? To have that fat pervert up there to judge these girls, and condemning a young woman to lose the contest if she doesn't think she should have to recognize what he does sexually being the same as what her religion and culture teaches her is a marriage.

 

 

 

no, to be technical its not a problem because its something that effects every contestant equally; now if there were a judge who only thought blonde woman were attractive it would be a different matter. Secondly, hes not a pervert, just an idiot.

Do you find it misogynistic to have a man who won't have sex with women judging a beauty contest to begin with? To have that fat pervert up there to judge these girls, and condemning a young woman to lose the contest if she doesn't think she should have to recognize what he does sexually being the same as what her religion and culture teaches her is a marriage.

 

 

 

Have you never looked at a man(assuming your a male) and thought to yourself "hey, he's pretty good looking". It's not a homosexual thought, it's just a comment on the fact that that particular male would be found attractive by the general public. I'm 100% straight, but I can recognize a good looking guy when I see one. Just like I can recognize an ugly one. Sexual orientation doesn't impair judgement. Unfortunatly in this case however, it did raise a small bias.

Good for her.

im 99.9...% percent sure perez is gay, and from what Ive seen of his temperment he shouldnt be judging anything.

 

 

 

100%? Lol

I think they should have to right to marry, they deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us.

 

 

 

The logical explanation, and my own personal viewpoint is to not call it marriage.

 

Call it "domestic partnership" or something.

 

 

 

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.

 

All they need to do is change the word, i'm sure it wouldn't solve ALL the problems, far from it, but it would help.

It's the beauty contest, it shouldn't matter how horrible your personality is. The most beautiful should win.

Dumb [bleep] shouldn't have asked what she thought of it.

 

 

 

Seriously, you shouldn't be able to judge people on what they were raised to believe. Fair enough, it is a touchy subject at the moment, but then, should the question have been asked in the first place if they were going to make her lose due to her opinion.

 

 

 

 

Heh, kinda funny view when the context is a contest to see who is more attractive

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What ticks me off about this is that she can't provide any reason for her beliefs beyond "That's how I was raised." Is that really a valid reason for anything? That's just laziness, isn't it? And no opinion (especially one as 'controversial' as this) should be the product of laziness...

 

 

 

Do you think incest is okay?

 

 

 

No, because it can produce some pretty unhealthy kids

It's the beauty contest, it shouldn't matter how horrible your personality is. The most beautiful should win.

 

Beauty isn't generally considered to be a superficial quality, which is why the contestants are made to answer questions in the interview portion of the pageant in the first place. However, I'd agree that political leanings of the contestants shouldn't play a part in determining the winner; others have already said this, but the fault is entirely the judge's, as he intentionally asked a controversial question which had no place in the contest.

 

 

 

In the future, the judges should be more carefully selected and the questions reviewed beforehand, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the pageant sponsors encourage otherwise. After all (and as evidenced by reality programs), Controversy = Notoriety = Increased Ratings, clearly. :roll:

 

 

 

I dislike using that smiley, but I think its use is appropriate here.

No, because it can produce some pretty unhealthy kids

 

 

 

Then that means you should be opposed to couples with hereditary diseases conceiving children too. The main reason why people don't agree with others having strange sexual orientations is just because that's how they were brought up. There really is no good reason why it repulses us, other than "just because". Sex is a subject that lots of people get worked up about.

No, because it can produce some pretty unhealthy kids

 

 

 

Then that means you should be opposed to couples with hereditary diseases conceiving children too. The main reason why people don't agree with others having strange sexual orientations is just because that's how they were brought up. There really is no good reason why it repulses us, other than "just because". Sex is a subject that lots of people get worked up about.

 

 

 

To an extent, many odd sexual orientations appear repulive because they are anti procreation which means genetic wiring against it is "useful". While its not an excuse for discrimination; its an important reason why its quite rationale to be bothered at some level by non heterosexuality.

To an extent, many odd sexual orientations appear repulive because they are anti procreation which means genetic wiring against it is "useful". While its not an excuse for discrimination; its an important reason why its quite rationale to be bothered at some level by non heterosexuality.

 

 

 

I don't see that as a reason, I see that as a scapegoat. That would have to mean that infertile couples getting together would also be at least somewhat repulsive, because their intercourse isn't going to produce a baby. I'll be honest, homosexuality does bother me, although I would support them having marriage because it does not have a negative impact on me. Why does it bother me? The same reason I like the taste of pizza, like the sound of a song, etc. Being bothered by other strange orientations doesn't need a justification because it's just a personal opinion and nothing more. You don't need a justification for liking pizza.

 

 

 

Of course, there is a large difference between discrimination and just having it bother you. If you are going to go to that level, then of course a justification is required (although it's impossible to think of one). I guess you could argue that she was being discriminatory, but I like to save that word for when things are actually serious. The girl said she thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman because that's how she was raised. Although I disagree with her, I think she was justified to say it.

To an extent, many odd sexual orientations appear repulive because they are anti procreation which means genetic wiring against it is "useful". While its not an excuse for discrimination; its an important reason why its quite rationale to be bothered at some level by non heterosexuality.

 

 

 

I don't see that as a reason, I see that as a scapegoat. That would have to mean that infertile couples getting together would also be at least somewhat repulsive, because their intercourse isn't going to produce a baby. I'll be honest, homosexuality does bother me, although I would support them having marriage because it does not have a negative impact on me. Why does it bother me? The same reason I like the taste of pizza, like the sound of a song, etc. Being bothered by other strange orientations doesn't need a justification because it's just a personal opinion and nothing more. You don't need a justification for liking pizza.

 

 

 

Of course, there is a large difference between discrimination and just having it bother you. If you are going to go to that level, then of course a justification is required (although it's impossible to think of one). I guess you could argue that she was being discriminatory, but I like to save that word for when things are actually serious. The girl said she thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman because that's how she was raised. Although I disagree with her, I think she was justified to say it.

 

 

 

I think were talking about slightly different things; Im speaking to the biological roots of homophobia and such. One reason that infertility doesnt bother people in a biologic sense is that its not exactly a visible trait. If you see two guys kissing its easily recognizable, you dont see a man and woman kissing and go "ew, there infertile" because there is no empiric way of viewing it. Excuse the offensiveness of this, buts its like viewing a disease; you might be disgusted by seeing someone with lesions, but you wont be disgusted by someone having heart burn because you cant see it.

 

 

 

Laws of course are an entirely different matter, any evolutionary bias against various sexualities should be ignored when determining equal rights. Its a scapegoat to justify a ban on gay marriage as it being disgusting, but being naturally disgusted by homosexuality is a rational reason to be bothered by it if you arent out hate mongering.

Its a scapegoat to justify a ban on gay marriage as it being disgusting, but being naturally disgusted by homosexuality is a rational reason to be bothered by it if you arent out hate mongering.

 

 

 

Yes, this was what I was mainly trying to get at. I am personally bothered by it and when I ask myself why, I really can't think of a good answer. But I do think this is okay because that is how it works with the pizza. :P Of course discrimination is a different story than just having the personal opinion that it's nasty, because it actually has a negative effect on others. Sorry, I know I'm reiterating myself but I have to or else someone might jump in and think I'm supporting discrimination.

 

 

 

As for her saying it should be banned, I do disagree with her but when you take her circumstance into account then I believe she's justified. If she was going out on anti-gay marriage campaigns then things would definitely be different, but she was forced to answer a random personal question so she shouldn't be expected to have a whole scientific explanation at the ready.

 

 

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that her opinion is free to be criticized but she herself has done nothing wrong.

No, because it can produce some pretty unhealthy kids

 

 

 

Then that means you should be opposed to couples with hereditary diseases conceiving children too.

 

 

 

If it's a serious and debilitating disease, then depending on the circumstances I might very well be. Adoption can be as good as having your own kid

No, because it can produce some pretty unhealthy kids

 

 

 

Then that means you should be opposed to couples with hereditary diseases conceiving children too.

 

 

 

If it's a serious and debilitating disease, then depending on the circumstances I might very well be. Adoption can be as good as having your own kid

 

 

 

Good to see you at least partly agree with a Nazi policy.

If it's a serious and debilitating disease, then depending on the circumstances I might very well be. Adoption can be as good as having your own kid

 

 

 

Let's forget about the diseases for a second then. If incest babies came out just as healthy as normal babies, would you suddenly change your opinion about incest? I think there is more to our objections about strange sexual orientations than what the sex's outcome is. In fact, let's forget about the sex part. If you saw family members kissing (not having sex), would you still feel uncomfortable? I know I definitely would be having an uneasy feeling in my brain, but I wouldn't be able to put my finger on it and explain it. Some things don't need a reason. I don't need a reason why black is my favorite color.

No, because it can produce some pretty unhealthy kids

 

 

 

Then that means you should be opposed to couples with hereditary diseases conceiving children too.

 

 

 

If it's a serious and debilitating disease, then depending on the circumstances I might very well be. Adoption can be as good as having your own kid

 

 

 

Good to see you at least partly agree with a Nazi policy.

 

 

 

Strawman, just because the Nazis were evil doesnt imbue everything they believed in with evil. Limited sterilization is a legitimate theoritical "cure" for a lot of diseases.

 

 

 

Let's forget about the diseases for a second then. If incest babies came out just as healthy as normal babies, would you suddenly change your opinion about incest?

 

 

 

Well, there are some other concerns involved in incest such as destruction of families and some child abuse problems. Its not that its necessarily wrong but the overwhelming amount of problems make it necessary to ban it.

Well, there are some other concerns involved in incest such as destruction of families and some child abuse problems. Its not that its necessarily wrong but the overwhelming amount of problems make it necessary to ban it.

 

 

 

Destruction of families? What do you mean? And about child abuse, that would also be classified as pedophilia. I think pedophilia is wrong because of the severe psychological trauma it can have on children, but incest can exist without families being destroyed or children being raped.

 

 

 

I'm just saying that most of the "reasons" people have for thinking negatively of strange sexual orientations are usually just scapegoats because the same arguments can be applied to things which they have no problem with. There is just something that bothers people about strange sexual acts. Take away all the factors, the birth defects, the destruction of families, etc. If you see a brother and a sister doing something sexual, you're probably going to be grossed out. Why? Simply because of the fact that they are related, not because of other reasons. "You don't eat ice cream with ketchup." "You don't sleep with your sister." The only reason why these things repulse us is because they aren't natural in our point of view. Back in bible days, it was completely acceptable to have incest relationships. It's nothing more than stigma.

 

 

 

I think it's more wrong to say, "Homosexuality grosses me out because there is no reproduction involved," than it is to say," Homosexuality grosses me out but I don't have a reason."

Destruction of families? What do you mean? And about child abuse, that would also be classified as pedophilia. I think pedophilia is wrong because of the severe psychological trauma it can have on children, but incest can exist without families being destroyed or children being raped.

 

 

 

Well, I see child abuse as something that would happen a lot more if we allowed incest. At least, there would be a lot more parental abusers getting away with things by saying it was consentual. After we eliminate all medical problems incest definetely becomes murky, Id object to it on the same line we allow alcohol but not cocaine; at some level you have to cut it off.