Miss California's Sin of Vanity

Well, I haven't been too interested in this story or following it closely, but this latest bit of information on the Miss California/Carrie Prejean story is very ironic. For those who haven't heard (which may be a lot of people, I don't know the prevalence of this in the media), Carrie Prejean aka Miss California was asked about same-sex marriage during the Miss USA pageant. Her response caused some controversy:

More info ...
Miss California Carrie Prejean goes to Washington to fight against gay marriage
Miss California appears in anti-gay marriage ad

I'm all for freedom of speech. It's possibly the most important right people can possess. What is stupid is the the ironic nature of this latest development.
She apparently received some booby augmentation just before the pageant.
Miss Californias titties

She feels obligated to defend her Christian morals by affirming that marriage is between one man and one woman (sorry King David, you may have been godly, but you had too many wives, didn't Jesus tell you ONE man and ONE woman!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)
but she has no problem participating in a potentially lust-inducing vanity contest where women wear extravagant dresses, jewelry, make-up, etc. You know, all the things that make women "naturally" beautiful? Oh, and she has no problem increasing her bust size.
God got marriage right the first time when he made it between ONE man and ONE woman, but he mistakenly made her frickin boobies smaller than they should have been.
:bravo:
How f*ck*n brilliant!!!
I hope she has no ambitions for the future beyond getting married, raising children, being a homemaker, and obeying her husband.

I could care less what some ditzee beauty contestant says about marriage, but the hypocrisy is nauseating.

Anyone support her?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Carry Prejean you have my 100% full support.

I see now that there are indeed American women who do the right thing and preserve the traditional family

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

that allowed us to exist as people on Earth and allowed a family of love to exist as well

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose fake boobs or opposite of fake boobs. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that boobs should be the opposite of fake boobs. No offense to any beauty pageant contestants who may be immoral enough to have fakies, but that's how I was raised, and that's how I think it should be, with natural, opposite of fake boobs only.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm sure she's grateful, as well as flattered, to receive the full support of the illustrious draqon.
The only thing I support is her right to her own opinion and to express it.

Up until this point you thought American women were only capable of doing the "wrong" thing? And let me guess, Russian women are far superior in that regard?
One man + one woman has not always been the only family arrangement, so your use of the term traditional to describe it cannot be applied universally.

The traditional family allowed us to exist? I am aware of how babies are made, and traditional family has little to do with procreation, other than, well, traditional ideals.

Family of love? That's restricted to ONE man, ONE woman?
Rosie O'Donnell and her partner Kelli have at least 3 adopted children, as well as a biological child from Kelli. Rosie and Kelli are both women. What do they have then? A non-family of love? Of HATE???
I can't say that the implications of what you seem to be saying merits a smiley face at the end of your statement. :grumble:

Care to tell me what they constitute, if not a family? Draqon???

 

Ummm, yes. At first I was confused, but now it appears you might be poking fun at her, after I picked up on the fact that you put "boobs" into her speech, in place of marriage.

Nonetheless, this thread really isn't about the mere fact of her fake boobs.
What is it about? Well, maybe I made the mistake of presuming where she's coming from, but...
She's a Christian. She attends a Christian college. She takes issue with same-sex marriage, and most in this country who defend "traditional" marriage are informed by Judeo-Christian morality.

However, she has no problem getting implants and participating in a beauty contest which would indeed fall under the category of not only vanity and pride, but of wanton display of one's body in a sensual, conceivably lustful manner.

The Bible has NOTHING at all good to say about vanity and pride, and certainly speaks ill of women who flaunt their beauty (or in this case, a very cosmetically enhanced facsimile) and most of all, their BODIES, in an enticing manner, let alone that it's part of a contest of trying to outdo each other.
Can anyone tell me honestly that Paul of Tarsus, or any of Jesus' disciples, or any of the founding church fathers, would have in any way condoned a pageant like this? Or surgically enhancing one's breast size? They may not have necessarily thrown stones, but I doubt they would have given approval.

For those persons who think she's not being hypocritical in any way are apparently as clueless as Draqon.
Her behavior is typical of many Christians today, who think it's okay for women to step outside of TRADITIONAL Christian roles, or think it's okay for those holy, God-ordained marriages to be ended in a court of law (which is anti-Biblical, at least in the New Testament, but practiced by roughly 50% of all Christian couples), but seem to think that the only people who don't have the right to change, reinterpret, or disregard Biblical morals and statutes are homosexuals, long one of the most favorite whipping boys of the Christian right.

For those who can't grasp how that could possibly be considered hypocritical, there may be little help for you.

Of course, maybe her views are completely secular and not at all influenced by her religion

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, in which case I would be "wrong", but she's still a Christian, at least nominally, and since a Christian can't logically say well it's against my religion but not against my personal beliefs, it doesn't really matter, does it?????????????????

 

me-->

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

oke:<--traditional thinking

me-->:spank:<--draqon for attaching to some of the most OVERSAID F*ING STATEMENTS BY CONSERVATIVES SINCE ROE V. WADE.

 

In our land we have the right to believe in the way we want to believe. If she wants to support a one man one woman marriage then she has that right guaranteed to her by the constitution. Just as those who think that same sex marriage is the ONLY way to think are being non tolerant and hetrophobic in their views. To try and make others conform to what YOU believe is, just as wrong or right as the case maybe, what we all have and should be saying instead of trying to hurt others for their point of views.

 

I think Miss California is entitled to an opinion. I am more concerned about the way some paint her as some modern day saint; like Abe Lincoln but in a bikini (and no beard). It's just someone with an opinion - so what?

 

You just don't understand draqon's superior Russian intellect!

 

:shrug:It's not really that she has an opinion and expressed it, more power to her. It's what I perceived to be a bit of contradiction between her actions and her words, being a professed Christian and all.

Normally I wouldn't have commented on it. People are entitled to their opinions, and the same-sex marriage debate is really kind of beaten to death as a topic of discussion, but a Christian woman defending the traditional conservative Christian view of marriage while getting a breast augmentation before performing in a sexiness contest just seems hypocritical to me. Am I wrong to see it as just a little conflicting???

Abe Lincoln in a bikini and no beard?!?!? AWESOME! :bawl:

 

Actually, I support her. If anything, people are going to see exactly how asinine opposing gay marriage is. Whose traditional family is being preserved by there being no gay marriage?

I'm tired of just smiling and saying, "Oh, people can believe whatever they want." NO. This woman is filled with poison religion. I guess America likes it that way.

 

Just about every female believer I know wears make-up, jewelry, nice clothes, does their hair, etc so I don't see how a boob job is that bad.
And most of the women in the contest do it for the money or to leap frog their career. Lust has very little to do with it, especially considering most of the men in the audience are either gay or a relative.

 

Agreed with Orly. I have no problem with the boob job. She can get eight of them implanted on her back. What I care about is what's coming out of her mouth, and that makes her very, very ugly in my eyes.

 

lol, you're funny.

People are not entitled to believe what they want, yet you can freely say that religion is poison.

 

I didn't say all religion was poison. I said SHE has poison religion.

She can believe what she wants. I'm tired of it not being permissible to say what I believe because it offends stupid bitches like her. I go out of my way to respect the beliefs of others who might be offended. I think waxing on and on about how, "That just isn't how I was raised!" about gay marriage in front of a gay man is incredibly vulgar. It's akin to people asking me if I believe in Jesus and going, "That just isn't how I was raised!" It's rude and belittling, and I'd never speak to a Christian who simply asked my opinion. I lived in California and I don't want that kind of person representing me.

 

A scenario:
What if suddenly their was a male beauty contest that somehow became as popularly publicized and reported on as the Miss America contest? I do not know of any equivalent.

But let's say there suddenly was. I'm sure it would have widespread appeal to the "gay" community. Do you think there would be a sudden outcry about how this "salacious skin parade" was openly appealing to the homosexuals, and that maybe it was secretly part of the infamous homosexual agenda?

Just a hypothetical what-if, but I bet such a male beauty pageant would court far more controversy merely because it involved young, attractive males, and it would undoubtedly attract the attention of gay-oriented media, which in turn would attract the disgust of conservative media.
Imagine if a runner-up was asked the same question, and gave the opposite answer. I can only imagine the conservative pundits and talk show hosts saying how inappropriate it was to inject politics to pander to the liberal agenda in such an open, public fashion, and that such opinions should be left out of such contests. I mean, what if there were children watching it? What about all those possibly confused, impressionable adolescent males who may be unduly influenced by such radically liberal, non-traditional views, being openly advocated by scantily clad young men in a pageant that is wholly enjoyed and embraced by the gay media! Doubly worse if that contestant was openly homosexual himself!!!

Maybe I'm reaching, but I really wonder what the reaction of the conservative media would be to a male beauty contest, regardless of how "gay" it was? Would free speech and the right to express one's opinion suddenly be of little import? It seems to go that way with both political opposites. Freedom of speech has less relevance to people when faced with views they don't like or agree with.

Given the way conservative Christians and politicians cry foul over the "homosexual activists trying shove their agenda down America's throat", but have no problem proposing legislation that would discriminate against same-sex attracted persons (while not seeing it also as driving an agenda), such a double-standard reaction to my proposed scenario seems very likely.

Like I said before, this isn't about Prejean's opinion, but about the double-standards of conservative Christian proponents in general. I don't know how conservative she is in other Christian philosophies, but apparently not enough to stop her from getting bigger breasts and putting them on display in skimpy clothing (she also models for various things, and I saw her wearing a typically revealing bikini).

I at least respect ultra-conservative, homechurch fundie types for being very strict about all sorts of details in the Bible, and not just choosing a few that are vogue for Pat Robertson and his minions. I respect their attempt at consistency, instead of picking and choosing what they will allow for themselves and disallow for others they don't care for.

 

And isn't gay marriage illegal in CA? So she does represent the majority opinion in CA.

 

Prop 8 states that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.

My feelings were stated well at some point by someone else on the board here. Bear with me; I'm paraphrasing: Liberals won't fight for what they believe in. Conservatives are willing to fight for things they don't even believe in.

I think the problem is that a lot of people stayed home.

 

or that San Francisco and Hollywood don't represent all of CA either.

 

Well, it seems people don't always realise that if someone is in a relationship, especially a long-term relationship, the two people are probably not only physically attracted but emotionally as well. In LOVE.
What gets to me more than anything is the arrogance of someone who says, "I'm allowed to be in a relationship with the person I'm attracted to and in love with, but you're not." To say, like the Catholic church does, that the attraction isn't bad, but acting on it is, is stupid. Of course, many try to justify that position by saying then that pedophiles deserve to f*ck around with their objects of desire, but to me that line of logic is not really logic. That's also a different subject...