I have to chime in on this one, i was nudged to do so by what i read on the NY Times website. Background: Carrie Prejean, Miss California received runner up in the Miss USA pageant due to her response in opposition of gay marriage, citing her values and religious beliefs. Initially i overlooked this because i didn't know how she would possibly prove this, however the other parties involved showed their sketchy character and judgement; this is a lay-up. Celebrity judge Perez Hilton who asked the question was later outraged and called Prejean an "unprintable" name. Also, The head of the Miss California USA organization, Keith Lewis, wrote on Perez Hilton’s blog earlier this week that Miss California’s opposition to equal marriage rights “personally saddened” and “hurt” him.
The nation is attempting to shift the norms as they relate to gay marriage and gay rights as a whole. This isn't the first time a president of an organization has detached from one of its members on the basis of beliefs going against the mainstream, but ironically the belief isn't mainstream its just "politically incorrect". Side note: why are people afraid to disagree? If you believe polls and elections then you operate under the premise that most of America is against gay marriage, so who should really be offended? It is perplexing as the gay-marriage supporters may be fewer in number they are exponentially louder. Following the fallout, there have been some rallying around Prejean calling this religious persecution. I do understand that it is a popularity contest and if her answer isn't popular with those in that realm then i can see why she wouldn't win.
The most stifling part is the persecution for religious beliefs that are supported and backed by the country. The country was founded on many biblical principles which is how we ended up with "in God we trust" on our money (although some want to fight that). I think this is one of the most important principles i've learned, "you have to stand for something or you will fall for anything". As a nation that applies to us as well, if you then supplant those laws what will be your foundation?
The venom spewed by Hilton is disdainful and unintelligent, especially since he asked the question. You cannot ask someone what they think and get mad at the answer. I do not think there is anything wrong with disagreeing, but there needs to be some civility displayed. I don't want to unearth the lopsided homosexuality debate as a whole in this post, so im going to urge those bothered by Prejean's statement to take your hand off the offensive button and everyone can be sensible.
Posts
3 comments:
Wikipedia defines Relativism as the idea that some elements or aspects of experience or culture are relative to, i.e., dependent on, other elements or aspects.
Common statements that might be considered relativistic include
"That's true for you but not for me"
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
"You can't judge other cultures by the standards of your own"
The problem to me is that this theory doesn't allow for any defined code of moral ethics or boundaries. If you abide to some sort of standard you are seen as rogue or as one that doesn't embody tolerance.
The bottom line is, that the people who believe that everything is "ok", if it is validated by societal norms or trends will always fundamentally disagree with those who have absolutes.
Personally, I feel that you have to draw the line somewhere and I don't feel that marriage (as defined) is intended for the same sex; because it concerns inherent principles of family and procreation that are biologically incapable by those of the same sex.
exceptional commentary; i should have had you write the post, lol. That's how you break something down in a succinct manner.
I must agree!No need for me to say must, i was going to say about the same things. You said it better
Post a Comment