Talk:Miss USA 2009 same-sex marriage controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Existence of this article[edit]

I really question whether a discrete article on this issue is warranted. This now makes the 5th Wikipedia article I'm aware of where it's mentioned (often at length), along with Carrie Prejean, Britney Spears, Miss USA 2009, and Alan Duncan. Is this issue likely to be remembered in a few years' time? Is it really important enough to immortalize with an encyclopedia article? Exploding Boy (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, I'm not really sure. I figured it was worth taking a stab at, I hoped it would centralize the the debate over the matter and it can always be taken down. - Schrandit (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible it will centralize the debate, which would be a good thing, but at the same time people are extremely reluctant to reduce the amount of coverage of the subject in other articles. It's becoming very POV forky. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to see just how polarizing Carrie's statements have been. Does the same-sex marriage issue have America split down the middle? Or does it just feel that way from all the air time given to presenting 2 sides equally? 65.248.252.99 (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most Americans (55-65%) oppose it. A small but vocal minority support it. But this is all a side thing from the main point, given WP:FORUM. The Squicks (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking about the issue of same-sex marriage, but about the Miss USA 2009 "controversy" with Carrie Prejean. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Perez Hilton did to the public image of gay Americans what Jim Dandy Minstrel show's used to do to the public image of African-Americans, I have seen that it's been highly pro-Prejean. Even the flipping Mayor of San Francisco supported Prejean against Hilton. There's no contest. The Squicks (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the controversy: Should Perez Hilton have asked, "Why?" or should he have asked, "Why or why not?" 65.248.252.99 (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Squicks, I realize we're off this topic, but for the sake of accuracy, your estimates of public opinion on same-sex marriage are wrong. The latest poll shows that support for equality is in the majority. Giving or taking how ever much percentage of error, the numbers are nowhere near the 35-45% that you declared.[1] GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try not to turn this talk page into a repeat of the Carrie Prejean talk page. Please stick to discussions of the article at hand. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Hilton is a living person, I redacted my statement. The Squicks (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When a loaded question such as that was asked of her, her response of course would be a 50/50 chance opinion of being for or against it. Do you mean to tell me that she only had a politically correct opinion to give even if that opinion would have been a lie coming from what she thinks or believes? She was asked do you think the other states should follow suit? If they didn't like her answer (what she thought), then why may I ask was a question like that asked if there was a 50% probability that she would not agree with, or would not think that the other states should follow suit to same-sex marriage? Whoever made up the question obviously was pro-same-sex marriage and not anti-same-sex marriage (the other side of the coin). Well Future Miss USA, there's only one correct answer to this question, regardless of what you think. If you guess it right you've got the crown, if you give your true opinion, then you're a b-word. They asked her opinion, this is a free country (freedom of speech), let her give it, let her keep her crown, she was honest for crying out loud. Mr. Hilton probably wanted the crown himself, but he doesn't qualify genes-wise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.213.244 (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1089a6HotButtonIssues.pdf

The label "Christian"[edit]

Ms. Prejean says her beliefs are why she lost the crown, a lot of folks agree. Why not include it? - Schrandit (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd notion. It suggests that either she lost the crown because her beliefs go against today's norm, or that she lost the crown because the event organizers were so pro-same-sex-marriage that they would mark her down for disagreeing with them. This is so ironic because I would think that beauty contests were started to pay tribute to sexual attraction of opposite sexes. Now we must consider that Miss USA is there to appeal to lesbians, too, and that modern gay culture now has a strong voice in giving meaning to the ultimate displays of feminine beauty. In a similar way, modern gay culture has now given added context to Father's Day in June. 65.248.252.99 (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"…the Miss USA contest held a press conference to announce that Prejean had breast implants" writes Ann Coulter in Liberal Taliban Issues Fatwa Against Miss California. "Take a Christian position in public and Satan's handmaidens will turn all your secrets into front-page news." Regarding the release of genuine "semi-nude" photos, Ann adds (in her typical style): "Liberals believe abortion is a sacrament, but smoking, wearing short skirts and modeling lingerie are mortal sins. (And if wearing women's underwear is a basis for being disqualified from the pageant, that's the end of Perez Hilton's judging career.)"[1] In addition, many conservatives also took issue with the choice of having a gay man, controversial or otherwise, serving on a pageant judging female beauty. Asteriks (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on that last claim: why? Are pageants inherently about sex or the sexual attractiveness of young unmarried women? And if so, why are Christians involved in them at all? Parading one's sexuality around on a public state hardly seems to fit with Christian values. Or are pageants supposed to be about attractiveness based on and arising from poise, confidence, and intelligence? This statement is ridiculous in the extreme: gay men have been pageant judges for ever. Prejean would have known going in that it was likely a gay man would be on the panel, and she would have known Hilton was on the panel before the contest began. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You do know that the picked the names of judges out of a bowl, right? It's not like Carrie reached out into the audience and screamed "Hilton! Talk to me!" The Squicks (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Liberal Taliban Issues Fatwa Against Miss California by Ann Coulter

"Negative Comments"[edit]

Isn't saying that Perez Hilton made "negative comments" a bit of weasel langauge? He used profanity to describe her. 66.75.50.94 (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "negative comments" thing seems to be the direct result of one editor's insistence that nothing Hilton actually said be repeated anywhere on Wikipedia. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be distasteful (or inappropriate) to say he made "obscene comments" about her. - Schrandit (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with exploding boy, we should accurately quote the words. The Squicks (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I forget, exactly which comments/word would we be talking about? For brevity's sake, as well as taste, it can be helpful to summarize. - Schrandit (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The b-word and the c-word. I'm not on a private computer, so I'm not going to able to go further and include the other stuff. The Squicks (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Schrandit, it's potentially problematic to characterise Hilton's comments as "obscene." Is calling someone a "dumb bitch" obscene? And if so, in what sense? In a legal sense? And in whose estimation? Calling someone a "cunt" might be considered obscene, given that that's usually considered a particularly offensive word, yet Hilton never actually said it: he said "c-word." "Bitch," on the other hand, is inoffensive enough to make it to daytime and primetime tv in North America.

Certainly we can summarize, but we must be careful about undue weight, which has developed into a major problem in other articles dealing with this topic, in which Hilton's comments have been reduced to meaningless phrases like "made negative remarks," and Prejean's responses quoted in full. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The terms are not offensive?! Would you like being called them? The Squicks (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I wrote you'll discover that's not what I said. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fix was on[edit]

The way I heard it, the show's organizers didn't want Miss CA as Miss USA specifically because of her Christian beliefs so they fed her a low-blow question designed to torpedo her candidacy. Contests like Miss USA are purely commercial enterprises that have no real bearing or impact on American life and do not deserve a place in Wikipedia. Perez Hilton's remarks were crude, insulting, and self-serving and should be characterized as such (if at all). Virgil H. Soule (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this could be added to the Conspiracy Theory article? Codenamemary (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses[edit]

In my opinion, it is important to distinguish between reponses between people within the organization- who affect her crown status- such as the Miss Cali runner up and Trump.

Responses by generic political commentators are a different story. The Squicks (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Axelrod controversy[edit]

So some guy cracks a joke on a radio show. Where's the "controversy"? Am I missing something here?--Shantavira|feed me 08:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least can someone explain the joke? -DePiep (talk) 10:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The question" was not originally intended for Carrie Prejean[edit]

"Perez [Hilton] had actually written the question hoping Miss Utah would answer it, thereby bringing attention to the Mormon Church’s financing of the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign."[1]

It appears that Carrie Prejean was just unlucky, and got a question originally intended to specifically target another beauty pageant contestant. I don't know if this is relevant, or how to fit it into the current article, so I will leave it here. StarNeptune (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Miss USA 2009 same-sex marriage controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miss_USA_2009_same-sex_marriage_controversy&oldid=1212617255"