This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
I'm sorry: when the Christian Right will exalt as a role model a beauty queen who poses for topless photos (she says she was a minor when she did it—parents?—but some question that assertion), accepts breast implants paid for by the pageant to win a beauty contest, and violates her contract, I can't pass up the headline.
I guess as long as you stand up against Satan and those darn homina-homina-sexuals, all is forgiven. All hail Miss California, Carrie Prejean, icon of a movement that is all image and fading substance.
But hey: at least Bob Ellis took a break from reprinting Star Parker and the Christian Post so we can actually hear a Dakota Voice on this pressing issue. Hmmm, which fake bikini model gets to promote unhealthy body image as well as unhealthy politics? That's the pro-woman spirit we've come to expect from our fundamentalist friends.
Everyone please note: it's the Christian fundamentalists holding this topless model up as a role model, while the atheist dad in the room vows never to encourage his daughter to grow up and be like Carrie Prejean.
Why is the city lending a religious organization $500K?
-
This money will come out of the Community Development funds. (Item #6,
Sub-Item 28): Agreement for a redevelopment project located within the All
Saints Ne...
6 hours ago
I can't fathom what type of brain filtering is necessary to conclude that marriage has always been like the idealized 1950's style of marriages the christians keep pushing. It has to be some type of intentional ignorance. There are just too many historical accounts of how marriage has changed to suite our societal need. Everything the wackos do reminds me of a kid sitting in a corner with his fingers in his ears screaming "Na Na Na Na Na I can't hear YOU!".
ReplyDeleteAnd don't we just love His Highness The Donald today. Has Donald always been this homophobic? But then anything for a bit-o-press. As long as she's up in the spotlight, he'll be there, too. I thought certain he'd go the other way on his decision, but who knew? I wonder how his service is going to be at New York restaurants over the next few weeks?
ReplyDeleteI think it was Cory I agree with: all unions should be civil in the eyes of the state. How to define marriage can be left to the couple and their church.
ReplyDeleteDonald Trump must be an example of what a good marriage should be, after three attempts of his own.
ReplyDeleteThe question about gay marriage should have never been posed to a beauty pageant contestant. She's not a politician, has no authority to change laws. It had the same volatility as a question on abortion.
Donald Trump still lives by his motto, "I don't care what they say about me, as long as they're talking about me."
I actually feel sorry for Ms. Prejean because she's being attacked about something she has nothing to do with. The question should have been screened. What happened to tough questions like, "How do you feel about World Hunger?"
The Apostle Paul wrote of keeping his life in line with his preaching, lest he "be disqualified" (found guilty of hypocrisy).
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Miss CA's better witness as a Christian might have been to give up the crown, saying something like, "My understanding of sexuality is based in my values and I realize that I've been criticizing folks while engaging in sexually provocative behavior myself."
Perez Hilton is a product of MTV, a "sell everything we can to teenagers" venture, so he's hardly an exemplar of social justice or the good society. I would think that even secularists pull their kids away from staring at the crap.
The point that JohnSD amplified is worth considering - go to civil unions and keep the govt. out of defining "marriage" - let the First Amendment work for all "sides" on this issue. Although I still think we will be arguing about the best arrangement for raising kids, so maybe not as easy as it sounds on first pass.
Perez Hilton is a nobody in my book. We don't even have cable. If we're lucky, my daughter will never know who he or Carrie Prejean are.
ReplyDeleteIn theory gays should be just as capable of keeping established relationships and commitments, but my experience has shown me differently. When I say that I get guff (from both sides) that straight people can't keep commitments either. I suspect it's because gay people have had no sanctioned way to express their commitment in an accepted way, so I think it's time for that, in a civil way, but no reason to call it marriage. One step at a time.
ReplyDelete