More unintentional liberal logic: gay marriage morally equal to posing nude

[BannedFromDU]

Newsjock  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Tue May-05-09 04:50 AM
Original message
Miss California ... Carrie Prejean Naked Photo Scandal
   
The blogosphere is ablaze with buzz about topless and semi-nude photos of controversial anti-gay marriage activist Miss California Carrie Prejean. We hear there’s a whole series of these suckers about to leak. The first photo, which appeared just a few minutes ago on TheDirty.com, shows a woman — who bares a stricking resemblance to the beauty queen — staring seductively into a camera while wearing only a pair of pink panties and using a strategically placed arm to cover her naughty bits.

Shame…

Alicia Jacobs, Entertainment Reporter at KVBC in Las Vegas, has seen all six of the photos and says some are much more revealing. Alicia believes the flicks may have been taken after Carrie’s pageant-financed breast augmentation about six weeks ago.

Puritans...mount up


So, assuming this is true, we have a beauty contestant who doesn't think homos should be able to marry who has now bared her milktrucks for the world to see. SOMEHOW in the mind of a liberal, posing nude a fortiori depreciates completely her opinion of gay marriage:

tridim       Tue May-05-09 04:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. Such a typical "family values" hypocrite.
   
I bet we find out she's on Oxy too.

     Yeah, we Rethuglikkkans should learn once and for all that Oxy is for liberals only.

David__77  (1000+ posts)     Tue May-05-09 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. I'm glad someone is willing to "stoop."
   
She needs to be discredited, that's why. We don't need any credible spokespeople of hatred. Look at Anita Bryant. The man who pied her in the face is a hero, whether he "stooped" or not, because he made a mockery of her. This new fascist "beauty queen" should also be discredited.

     So, in other words, she's utterly credible in her views of gay marriage, so posing topless or whatever destroys her credibility. In other words, if she poses nude, why, she isn't REALLY against gay marriage.

okieinpain  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)      Tue May-05-09 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. I agree with you, but it is funny when someone gets caught living
   
in a glass house.

     God, does this short little post reveal a lot about DU, or what? DUers, as usual, are revealing themselves to be profoundly ashamed of gays and gay marriage. Otherwise why would they use phrases like "caught living in a glass house?" You use that phrase when someone points out SOMETHING SHAMEFUL when they have SOMETHING SHAMEFUL of their own. So if DU insists that opening the twin cinemas is SHAMEFUL, then levering that fact against what Prejean believes means that DU FINDS GAY MARRIAGE SHAMEFUL AS WELL.

     OK, DU, let's have it your way: you can have your precious gay marriage if you treat it just like porn magazines are treated: I want you OUT OF SIGHT unless I ask to look at you, and I don't want you ANYWHERE NEAR CHILDREN.   I mean, that's what you're saying. So fine, have it your way.


   

joeybee12  (1000+ posts)  Tue May-05-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #15
33. It's because if you're gonna talk about morals and how gay marriage isn't moral...
   
...try to have some yourself...she's a hypocrite...and it amsues me that so many 'progressives' here want to defend her.

     So anyone who doesn't pose nude, then, is morally equipped to have a perfectly valid argument against gay marriage. Again, got it.




     That is the funniest thing about liberals: pick a position or an issue that means something to them.  It's never that they're in favor of it. Instead, it's that they will RIP YOU TO SHREDS if you're against it.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Hey, showing her tits hardly discredits her as a heterosexual spokesman!

 

 

[BannedFromDU]

Hey, showing her tits hardly discredits her as a heterosexual spokesman!

 

 

     It actually elevates her in esteem, if you ask me.

[thundley4]

I''l never be able to figure out how the DUmmies play connect the dots, with dots that aren't even in the same book, let alone on the same page.

BTW
 

[BannedFromDU]

I''l never be able to figure out how the DUmmies play connect the dots, with dots that aren't even in the same book, let alone on the same page.

BTW
 

OK...

[thundley4]

OK...

You're not supposed to hot link to pictures of members of DU. 

[JohnnyReb]

You're not supposed to hot link to pictures of members of DU. 

...and like a lot of liberal women, they have their noses pierced. I guess they do that to keep them from rooting out the truth?

[ScubaGuy]

What a bunch of clowns.

The pictures on the site are not nude or even what I would call semi-nude.  I've seen a whole lot more at the beach than what those pictures show.

The queers at the DUmp are really grasping at straws on this one.

[USA4ME]

If a thief says stealing is immoral, because that person is a thief does it make what they said any less true?

The primitives have their strange notion that because someone who states a moral truth isn't sinless then what they stated is not to be adhered.  What they forget is that God in sinless, and the person saying homosexuality is wrong isn't saying it because it's their law, they're just repeating God's law.  In the same manner, those who are speaking inappropriately to the one pointing out homosexuality is immoral aren't really doing it to the person who pointed it out, they're doing it to God.

But this type of reasoning is beyond the exteremely limited mental capacity of Dems/libs.

.

[jinxmchue]

Weren't these the morons that said Miley Cyrus' topless photos weren't bad and weren't actually topless?

[Karin]

This kind of hypocrisy drives me absolutely crazy.  They're always cracking "Oxy" snarks whenever possible (and published oped writers do, too).  Yet, when the WH opens up an online town hall, what do they flood zero with questions about?  Drug legalization.   What does their own messiah admit to doing?  Giving homo blowjobs for coke money (but not crack).  WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE CREATURES?

[BannedFromDU]

If a thief says stealing is immoral, because that person is a thief does it make what they said any less true?

The primitives have their strange notion that because someone who states a moral truth isn't sinless then what they stated is not to be adhered.  What they forget is that God in sinless, and the person saying homosexuality is wrong isn't saying it because it's their law, they're just repeating God's law.  In the same manner, those who are speaking inappropriately to the one pointing out homosexuality is immoral aren't really doing it to the person who pointed it out, they're doing it to God.

But this type of reasoning is beyond the exteremely limited mental capacity of Dems/libs.

.

     Well, to be fair, no one likes a hypocrite. But posing nude for pictures and being anti-gay marriage don't cancel one another out except in the eyes of a DUmmy. Their stock-in-trade is to mock the moral shortcomings of people who aspire to a moral society, which, together with the lack of moralists on the Democratic side, imply that they don't care much for morals in society.

     Of course, they're stupid, so they can only respond to the first thing in front of their face. They don't have a problem with Prejean posing nude at all. They're just confused and intimidated by it, because their perceptions are being tested and their initial reaction is to lash out. Upon seeing her nude pics, they have a choice: they can call her a hypocrite and claim that she's discredited due to hypocrisy, OR they can point to the pictures and claim that her view of gay marriage is simply not genuine. In the former case, they reject as immoral the pictures and the act of posing nude in their fatuous desire to force consistency upon Prejean. In the latter case, they accept the pictures as consistent with their own lack of moral grounding, and discredit her by pointing to inconsistent morals.

     This is the essence of a DUmbass: they cannot accept the pictures as consistent with their moral ambiguity, even though I have to say that accepting the pictures and calling into question the consistency of her morals would be a decent argument. Instead, they reject the pictures AND her stance on gay marriage, which places them in a strange, nihilistic, yet entirely puritan world.


     Said differently, they're ****ing idiots.

[USA4ME]

I hear what you're saying, BFDU.  They're reaching for straws to call others hypocrites, when they're the very model of all it encompasses.  I don't expect them to ever see it, or if they did, to ever admit it.  I just wanted to point out that what is and isn't moral has already been set in stone and remains true even if the human(s) delivering the message is flawed (as we all are).  They can't do anything about that, and it angers them to no end.

.

[delilahmused]

I simply don't know why they get their panties in a wad over this kind of thing (although maybe they do it because it's the only way they can get any friction down there). There are plenty of reasons to oppose gay marriage that have nothing to do with their narrow view of (Christian) right morals. They're completely incapable of thinking outside their narrow world view.

Nudity has been around forever. People in the Renaissance probably wouldn't have approved of gay marriage but that didn't stop Botticelli from painting The Birth of Venus with nothing more than a light gauzy wrap and breasts exposed. Heck, Michelangelo even put nudes on the Vatican ceiling. If uptight Catholics in the 1500-1600's can take it I guess the general population in 2009 can too.

Cindie

[BlueStateSaint]

This kind of hypocrisy drives me absolutely crazy.  They're always cracking "Oxy" snarks whenever possible (and published oped writers do, too).  Yet, when the WH opens up an online town hall, what do they flood zero with questions about?  Drug legalization.   What does their own messiah admit to doing?  Giving homo blowjobs for coke money (but not crack).  WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE CREATURES?

Karin, you're asking a question when the answer is all around you.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE CREATURES?

Where do we start?  Or, alternately, . . . do you really want to know?  We'd be here until the next President is sworn in . . . a Republican, on Jan 20th, 2013.

[MrsSmith]

You've got to remember, to the DUmp, anyone who disagrees with them must immediately be smeared...and anyone who agrees with them must be praised.  It doesn't make any difference what that person has actually done...after all, right and wrong are things "we must each decide for ourselves."  What matters is trying to cause enough harm to silence that person.  (As we've seen with the on-going hatred campaigns against Palin and Joe the Plumber.)