Reader comments · Anti-gay Miss California sacked for failing to turn up to appearances · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Anti-gay Miss California sacked for failing to turn up to appearances

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Yea, right. If you ask me, Donald Trump had a good reason to fire her when she displayed her homophobia in public. Now, I wish her the best as a Hustler centerfold because that’s ‘the way I was raised’.

  2. On the upside, good riddance to her, “don’t forget to close the door on your way out honey”. On the downside, America might have their next Anita Bryant in-waiting.

  3. Do not worry Carrie. You did a great job! You have much better title in the hearts of millions. Be honest and keep up the good work despite all the hatred of confused and miserable people.

  4. Simon Murphy 11 Jun 2009, 12:30pm

    Hey Alesha – is being a beauty queen your lifelong ambition. You certainly seem stupid enough. Reach for that dream Alesha and within a couple of years you too can be a 2 dollar truckstop hooker. Jesus would want you to do that – he’s kinky that way apparently.

  5. Such a great job it seems that she couldn’t be bothered to turn up apparently. This must have been such a hard time in the poor girls life, openly displaying her homophobia in public and then having to deal with how much she had upset people. poor her. But thankfully as Alesha pointed out she has millions of homophobic biggots to fall back on to as she now fades in to oblivion.
    PS The use of the words ‘work’ and ‘job’ to describe what this woman did during her waking day is a joke right? Being beautiful is not a job, the most taxing part of what she was supposed to do was to show a minisule understanding of social issues and in that she failed. Good riddance

  6. Yeah…she did such a great job she got the sack. Missed appointments, so, she couldn’t be arsed getting out of bed in the morning to be paid a ton of money. Such a hard life for her eh?

  7. Monkeychops 11 Jun 2009, 2:10pm

    Bad employee = the sack. She deserves to go. On the other hand, she wasn’t vicious and bitchy when giving her opinions, she said what she believed and that was fine as far as I was concerned. Isn’t that we are all doing on here? That’s democracy and we’re better off with it. Don’t remotely agree with her, but I’ll defend her right to say it in a civilised way. The real let-down was Perez Hilton spitefully calling her names. It was petty, childish and it did nothing for the image of gay people. He could easily have opposed her opinion in a more dignified way, but maybe he thinks that the American public would prefer a good bitchy slanging match for entertainment. Sad really.

  8. “You have much better title in the hearts of millions”

    Millions of what? Idiots? is the title of “dim witted homophobe” something that you see as desirable, Alesha?

  9. Thank goodness this horrible woman has lost her title. What a hideous impression she has given the rest of the world about Americans!

  10. Robert, ex-pat Brit 11 Jun 2009, 3:17pm

    My, my…how the might religious wackos have fallen! This is the same airhead who claims she’s a student of the bible. Well now….what was she doing posing topless at 17 and appearing in a beauty contest flaunting her flesh? Not what “the good book” of fables espouses and she’s now even claiming that women are being exploited and objectified. Her hypocrisy and bigotry are mind-boggling. I think the bleach has gone to her brain, vanity knows no scruples.

  11. Robert, ex-pat Brit 11 Jun 2009, 3:18pm

    Oops I meant to have said…”mighty” in the first sentence of my post, sorry about that.

  12. darkmoonman 11 Jun 2009, 3:28pm

    Aww, spent too much time abusing your title to promote bigotry, Ms. Prejean?

  13. What a shame – it was all so much fun!! Let’s hope the so-called religious right (right in what respect?) find another idiot soon to piss on themselves with.

  14. Bye bye little miss nobody. You could have been such a star, and you threw it all away. Maybe you need to wise up to the number of fashion editors who are very gay friendly.

    No offence, but I think anti gay California beauty queens are dumb thick as s–t pigs who will likely end up walking the lonely dark streets of LA at night to earn a crust.

    I don’t mean to offend anybody with my opinion – it’s just the way I was raised

  15. I guess Trump was just waiting to get definitive reasons to sack her, so she couldn’t sue.

  16. Don’t you just love a Hollywood story with a fairytale ending :-)

  17. Wow…with all the world’s serious problems, people are still
    worked up about her comment about believing that marriage
    is between a man and a woman. She’s a young woman in a
    beauty pageant, not a diplomat or a spokesperson for a major
    cultural clash of ideas — why don’t you people get invovled in
    a serious discussion instead of picking on a person who
    is described as a beauty queen, not as an academic spokesperson

  18. The lady offered her opinion, we offered ours, Hank ;-)

  19. Pink Paper, what evidence do you have to suggest she is anti-gay as well as being anti-marriage? This is sloppy journalism of the highest degree, and says more about your zeal to demonise her for her right to express herself than it does about her lack of tact in expressing her opinions at the wrong moment.

  20. Hello Hank:

    And what academy are you speaking for, sugar?

    So good to see you again. Don’t run away now, it’s been awhile since we’ve had fu-u-u-n-n-n.

    Plee-e-ese come in, have a seat, someone will be with you momentarily. Something to drink? Crudité? Anti-homophobic brochure?

    Or would you prefer some colored photos of some pretty girls?

  21. Why Codex, where on earth have you been?

    C’mon in, I want you to meet someone very dear to our hearts. Codex, this here is Hank; Hank this is Codex. Now you two behave yourselves, it won’t be long.

    Now, where did I put those fireworks?

  22. @ Codex: Umm, the evidence came from her own words. I mean really, have you read the initial reports? And its certainly not just the gay press that have reported it, its all the press. The facts of what she said are irrefutable, just read them for yourself. Oh you have read them? Then why ask the question when its blatantly obvious!

  23. Hank, Codex ?

    Where did they go? Oh, here you are!

    Celeri stick, olives, mozzerella cheese dip?

    Don’t you move now, unless you want to use the W.C., and then, be sure to aim straight. Good boys, so healthy looking.

  24. Hi Hank – when you’ve time I’ve been waiting for your response to my questions/points on another thread. :)

  25. Hank? Codex?

    There they were. Gone.

  26. a word of warning: DO NOT read this article on the daily horseshit mail website. in other comment, EPIC FAIL!

  27. “why don’t you people get invovled [sic] in
    a serious discussion instead of picking on a person who
    is described as a beauty queen, not as an academic spokesperson”

    You mean like you Hank….? What with all your clevers in believing the earth being 6000 years old and your rather feeble grasp on science. You’re right, these religious morons like you and this dimwitted bitch are not really academic… but we sure do love ridiculing you!

  28. Monkeychops 12 Jun 2009, 10:21am

    Will – grow up, the man’s got a point. He’s just said let’s be a bit rational and dignified about what is being discussed and all you have done is come along with a load of personal insults (Moron, dimwit etc) and insulted his personal beliefs with downright bitchiness. You haven’t questioned them or just disagreed with them, you’ve actually gone out of your way to be as nasty as possible. Why would I therefore take your views seriously? What are you going to say next – “yeah, well you’re just bitter cos you’ve got a small dick”? That isn’t how you conduct a civilised debate.

  29. Simon Murphy 12 Jun 2009, 11:19am

    The reason that she is anti-gay is that she believes that the legal contract of marriage be denied to people based on their sexual orientation.

    She uses her religion as an excuse for her homophobia. But she is being selective about when to use her religion. Her religion would also be against bouncing her naked titties around in front of a photographer. The bible would consider her a whore that deserves to be stoned for her hooker ways. Apparently her god doesn’t mind hookers though. he hates the gays apparently though.

  30. Monkeychops 12 Jun 2009, 11:31am

    I think gay “marriage” needs to be defined a bit better by all parties, especially in terms of what part of it is actually sacred. Civil marriage in a register office is not the same as a church wedding, where you are using a religious environment to conduct the ceremony. Would she be against civil unions which brought legal status but against using her church to hold the ceremony? I guess at the time it would have been useful to ask her that. Maybe if America thought about having civil partnerships (though with a better title, it is just plain clumsy) then maybe they’d get a better reception. Christian groups think we want to take over their buildings, but if they see that the case is in fact just having legal equality and they can keep their buildings (unless they want to open them to us), they might just back down a bit.

  31. But that would mean they’d have to live and let live, Monkeychops, and I really can’t see the majority of religious opponents doing that. I don’t think very many of them actualy believe that gay people want to get married in ‘their’ churches, they just object to people being gay whether it affects them or not. Allowing gay people to get married is seen as society giving it’s approval to something the fundies hate. When interracial marriage was discussed in the US court, the Christians didn’t express their fear that black people might get married in white churches – no, they quoted the Bible to ‘prove’ that interracial marriage was wrong full stop.
    In addition, CPs in the UK haven’t stopped the fundies here objecting to LGBT people having rights. Marriage, as you say, should be a civil service open to straight and gay people. Civil law is no business of the churches.
    Miss California has acted pathetically, if this story is correct. She couldn’t even bother to turn up on time. And I despise her pick ‘n’ choose Christianity too.

  32. Monkeychops 12 Jun 2009, 2:55pm

    But can you see most of the gay world letting religious groups live? I can’t. It’s a total stalemate and as someone who wants to do the right thing, I think we should make the first move and show that we are more accepeting than they are. If they rebut, then so do we. Simple.

    Fundies canobject to us having rights all they want, that’s democracy. If we tell them they can’t, then they have the right to silence us. Do you want that to happen? It’s useless trying to prove who is right and wrong in this whole debate, because both sides think what they believe is the best for everyone. Therefore a focus on how we can live with each other and earn each other’s respect through dialogue is the only way I can see for us to get along.

    I totally agree that civil law is nothing to do with churches, mosques, or any other religious outlet.

    Whilst Miss California has picked and chosen her religious values rather erratically, are some people on here not as guilty with their mixed bags of values? Advocating full democracy and freedom of speech one minute and then trying to silence critics because they don’t share their views the next? Regardless of the content that’s being discussed, social groups have a lot of common ground in the way they conduct their business – silencing “others” to reign supreme. We are tribal, competitive beings us humans, that will never change……

  33. “Will – grow up, the man’s got a point.”

    No he doesn’t, you patronising gimp. Hank has been here may times before ranting about how we’re all paedophiles. Maybe if you paid more attention to his previous postings you’d know that about him too. The man is/b> a total halfwit and offensive to the point of nauseating, so if you want to support his and his right wing religious nonsense, be my guest.

  34. Monkeychops 12 Jun 2009, 4:10pm

    Will – A) I’m not a gimp as I do not practice S&M in rubber masks (real gimps may find this offensive)

    B)I couldn’t care less what Hank has said in the past, I’m not interested in his other views, only what he has to say about this particular argument. I’m sure he’ll have the opportunity to hear my criticism in another thread :) Anyway, That’s very short-sighted of you, don’t you think? I would agree with Adolf Hitler if I thought his stance on an issue was right, despite finding almost everything that he ever did or said to be utterly wrong. It’s the content that counts, not who is saying it. If the world worked more on ideas than personalities, we’d all progress a bit quicker, sigh.

    C) Now, if you had read MY posts, you would have seen my continual pleas for people to stop calling each other playground names. So, could you just stop doing it? I’ve already asked you once. If you can’t put your points across in a decent way without a tirade of insults, then go and sit in the corner for a bit!

  35. Monkeychops, I’ll write what the hell I want. Who made you this sites moderator?

  36. Actually, Monkeychops, isn;t it a bit ironic that you have an issue with Will’s right to say what he wants, but are willing to let a proven right wing nutter get free reign. This is a open site, and Will is allowed to post what he wants. Its been proven before, if you had taken the time to read previous posts, that Hank IS a complete fool. This isn’t playground names, its a fact.

    And you should have a look at yourself, a little bit on the patronising side, aren’t you? Unless we’re not aware of something, this is not your site, and everyone can say what they want.

  37. Hmmm. Not sure what you’re getting at, monkeychops, but defending people like Hank usually mean you’re some right winger under the guise of another nickname to stir shit here? Not saying you are, of course. But Will is right, to discuss with someone who comes in here regularly demeaning evolution and science due to bible-bashing dogmatist string of beliefs and ignorance must always be challenged. And you’re wrong on the “it’s the content that counts, not who is saying it”… I’m sorry that’s just nonsense, quite frankly. Context is everything, not just content. Its the meaning behind a statement that is all important, and the agenda of the speaker tells volumes. Please try to look beyond the obvious before you attack another person here. Hank is not here to debate, he’s here to bait.

  38. Monkeychops (28):

    Hi. This is out first chat. I like your intensity and we need your input. Welcome to PinkNews comments.

    When I say that you are relatively new on this site, I am not trying to put you down, OK.

    The rest of us have been around for a while and we know Hank & his ilk from way back.

    Until you have been in the ring with him at least once, please take a word to the wise, and stand back and observe.

    We know what we are doing when we deal with fundies and crackpots who invade our website periodically. Please don’t alienate yourself from us. Your comments are well thought out, and usually very valuable. In this case… just listen, please. You won’t be disappointed, I promise you.

    Now, where did I put those fireworks?

  39. Hi Iris”

    You said, Hi Hank – when you’ve time I’ve been waiting for your response to my questions/points on another thread.”

    I apologize Iris — after time went away so fast, I thought you
    wouldn’t want to continue our exchange, but now that I see
    you’re not offended, I’ll get back to our older site and write
    you very soon, promise — because I did enjoy our “conversation.”

    I will write on Saturday — don’t have a valid excuse, but the
    previous week has been somewhat busier than ususal — will
    give more details and my answers to your questions.
    Thanks for having patience.

  40. Hey Monkeychops
    Welcome to the site. I see you’ve been “forewarned” about me,
    but in reality, much of that is nonsense, because I try to
    bring up legitimate arguments/questions/comments, etc. but
    it’s difficult to go into great depth, because all of you don’t
    follow the same rules that I follow because of my Christian
    background. Christian beliefs, principles, rules of behavior
    have been around for 5,000 years, and they have produced some
    valuable results for mankind, even though you don’t go along
    with much of the basic foundation of Judeo/Christian that’s
    working in our world today. will elaborate soon.


  41. HANK !!!!!

    Just the thing for a rainy weekend!!! How are you, sweetie? Where did you go, you slimy thing, you. I was sure I had locked you up in a straight jacket…or no, that was Mom’s mink, wasn’t it.

    I’d like you to meet Monkeychops. Delightful person and an experienced debater. Seems to be up for grabs, at the moment.

    Celeri sticks all aound. Olives? Mozzerrella cheese dips? Bloody Caesar?

    Sorry, we don’t have tripple X porn. Try another airline, by all means. There might even be a flying saucer waiting for some specimen just like you to take back home to the zoo. woo-hoo!

    Oh, I do carry on. Won’t be long. Is your lover…I mean your friend anywhere around this weekend, or is Codex cruising for some serious S&M on his brand new Harley? Colored condom anyone?

    Smack right to ya!

  42. Hank:
    1574 – RICHARD BARNFIELD, the English poet, was born on this date (d: 1620). There are, as everyone knows, certain inseparable teams: Gilbert & Sullivan, Cheech and Chong, bagels and lox, ham and eggs, Soddom and Gomorrah. In classical mythology, as in ballet, there are Daphnis and Chloë, the Greek shepherd and his lady love – Daphnis and Chloë, as inseparable as yin and yang, gin and tonic, Ron and Nancy. Not in Richard Banrfield, however. His Affectionate Shepherd (1594) scandalized Renaissance England by describing in florid detail the love of Daphnis and Ganymede, just a couple of guys, foolin’ around. What the fuss was all about is difficult to say since, in the absence of Chloë, Daphnis never exercised his shepherdly option of making it with his favorite sheep, choosing a boy instead. “If it be a sin to love a lovely lad,” wrote Barnfield, “oh, then sin I.” He was not quite 21 when he wrote the poem. His obscure though close relationship with Shakespeare has long made him interesting to students.

    There’s more, stick around, me beloved.


  43. Hank:

    Things kinda slow down on the weekend. You don’t mind waiting do ya? We know a lot about waiting.

    Here’s an entertaining item for ya:

    1926 – the American author and comedian PAUL LYNDE, was born on this date (d. 1982). The Franklin Pangborn of our time, Lynde was an American comedian and character actor. He was well known for his roles as Uncle Arthur on Bewitched and Harry McAfee, the befuddled father in Bye Bye Birdie.

    Lynde was affectionately (and disingenuously) nicknamed “America’s Most Eligible Bachelor” by the public. And we all know what that means. In 1966, Lynde debuted on the fledgling game show Hollywood Squares. Eventually he assumed a permanent spot as the “center square,” a move which ensured that he would be called upon by contestants at least once in almost every round. It was here that Lynde was best able to showcase his comedic talents with short, salty one-liners. Many of these gags were thinly-veiled allusions to his sexuality. Others relied on double entendre, a fondness for deviant behaviors, or dealt with “touchy” subject matter for television. Even the more generic punchlines were often punched up by Lynde’s trademark snickering delivery.

    In 1965, Lynde was involved in an accident where a young actor and Lynde’s long-term companion fell to his death from the window of Lynde’s hotel room in San Francisco. The two had been drinking for hours before 24-year old Bing Davidson either jumped or fell eight stories. Even though the scandal did not ruin his career, this incident did offer insight into the precarious life of drinking and partying that Lynde enjoyed. Lynde was found dead in his Beverly Hills home by friend Paul Barresi in January, 1982. Lynde is interred next to his brother Johnny and his long time love Bing Davidson at Amity Cemetery in Knox County, Ohio, some eight miles northeast of Paul’s hometown.

    Well, I hope youse guys are happy…driving us to drink and to hide in closets and get generally all screwed up …all because we don’t feel accepted by bible-thumpers who don’t know know their ass from a whole in the ground. Don’t be offended by anything I say… here have a carrot. Lubricant? Use your own spit. Didn’t you see ‘Brokeback Mountain’? You ever hear of culture?

  44. Hank:

    Yawn…did what I could… nobody seems to want to entertain you…yawn…but stick…around…don’t go away mad…just go away….yawn…awa-a-a-a-a-y….z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z–z-z-z-z–z-zz-z-z-z-z-z-z-zzzz–z-z-z–zzz——zz-z—-I do not snore…z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z

  45. Hank Honey!

    Still here aren’t you? Bored? Here, read this and contemplate and think. Why? ‘Cause that’s what minds are for, dear.

    Sunday, June 14th

    c. 427 BCE – on this date PLATO was born (d: 347 BCE). This is hardly the place to summarize the teachings of one of antiquity’s greatest thinkers. Suffice it to say that Plato, through his famous Symposium, has given his name to the love that dare not speaks its name nor show its little faerie wings in public, even though Platonic love has come to mean lately a kind of sexless friendship.

    That Platonic love before Freud was clearly Gay love is evident in Patience, Gilbert and Sullivan’s devastating satire on the aesthetic movement, in which the effeminate poet Bunthorne sings about “an attachment à la Plato for a bashful young potato and not too French, French bean!”

    Plato was born with the name Aristocles. He was surnamed Plato because of his exceptionally well-developed broad shoulders.

    I don’t suppose you have exceptionally well-developed shoulders, do ya, Hank?

    I know someone who has, and you’ll never guess who. Course he’s too much of a gentleman to wring your neck, you homophobic and pathological mythologist, you. But I’m not bitter.

    Piece ‘o humble pie? FRUIT juice?

  46. Sister Mary Clarence 13 Jun 2009, 2:58pm

    “because all of you don’t follow the same rules that I follow because of my Christian background.”




    Anyway back to the story in hand, looks like the ex-Miss California will have to be going back to betting her mams out for the cameras to earn a living.

    Do you think when there’s a quite moment and she’s all alone, she ponders over that moment when she threw everything away? I’m still convinced she did it because she didn’t want to give a bimbo answer and thought that she would appear a bit deeper if she came out with a statement, a real ‘view’, like she did.

    I wonder also when she’s there all doing her soft porn pics with her charlies all puffed out, legs akimbo, and knickers up the crack of her arse, she gives a though for the Bible or what her God must be thinking. I’m guessing all she’s worring about is whether she looks ‘hot’ and all thought of the fact that in biblical terms she’s a rancid whore that should be stoned to death, couldn’t be further from her tiny mind.

  47. Monkeychops 15 Jun 2009, 12:17pm

    JP – Christians driving us to drink and falling to our deaths? Remember Heath Ledger, that actress from Grange Hill who fell of the building after snorting coke…..this is a probelm with attention-seeking, hedonistic celebrities, not a gay issue in itself. Your point is irrevelent and we could spend all day digging out wikipedia entries of various celebrities. It will achieve nothing without relevant examples to back up your claim.

    And you’re making yourself look very weak in front of Hank (you must be scared of him or you wouldn’t be so bitchy towards him). I haven’t read any of his opinions bar two that were rather benign, so I have no idea what your personal beef with him actually is. But, like everyone else, he is entitled to his opinion where he backs it up with a bit of reasoning.

    Sister MC – you are being bigotted and intolerant in your views are you not? You’ve just slandered Hank’s christianity with a very sweeping generalisation, yet you scream blue murder when someone dares to question your values. You do know that is called hypocrisy, don’t you? You openly show your hatred and intolerance of Christians, but can’t take it in return. Sorry, have I missed something here? Is there a special rule for your views superceding others? Maybe people will be more tolerant of you when you show some in return.

  48. Monkeychops, Hank’s skirmishes with others here have a long and colourful history. See the comments under ‘Cardinal Keith O’Brien’ article of 9 March. Judging by those and others, Sister Mary has good reason to make sweeping generalisations about Hank and his Christianity. He’s welcome to make any claim, but he has yet to back any of these claims with evidence.

  49. Monkeychops 15 Jun 2009, 2:00pm

    TomPaine – Ah yes, I see, that was obviously a rather colourful debate. I can see exactly why Sister MC was wound up by that – but I’m afraid it doesn’t give her the right to be so hypocritical. Especially when she has been talking about the needlessness of generalisations and has then gone on to make her own. Hank is obviously very anti-gay and having difficulty finding quotes to support his claims (probably because they don’t exist). I doubt anyone on here agrees with him, so if he feels that he is not being listened to then he’ll just burn himself out.

    Still, I have no issue with him commenting on here. If he insults, he will get what he deserves, but if he puts his arguments across in a way that is dignified (even if we don’t agree), then that’s fine.

  50. “But, like everyone else, he is entitled to his opinion where he backs it up with a bit of reasoning.”

    If you could read, then you’d see Hank doesn’t reason. He has never put forward a reasonable argument even once on this site. Didn’t you do your research, or do you just get your kicks out of abusing people like the good sister? She’s right to slander christianity, its all superstitious nonsense responsible for more hate in humanity than anything. If you’re christian, then I’m sorry, you’re another fool who swallows dogma without question. Talk reason, or get lost.

  51. Monkeychops 15 Jun 2009, 9:29pm

    Rob – Actually, no I’d never heard of Hank until he made a point of order that I agreed with (was I supposed to look back through months of posts to find his old scrawlings? Sort yourself out mate). Following the diatribe of abuse I received for that, I did look up his comments (sorry to disappoint, but I can read actually). And no, I don’t agree with any of it. However, I haven’t changed my mind about the one I did give the nod to. I’m not a Christian (didn’t you do your research??? Or is it that you can’t read??), I’ve stated that I am agnostic before. But what right do you have to call people fools for their beliefs? Put a worthy argument together, and you may look credible. You do know that many Christians think that gays are making a choice and that they are convinced they are right? Just as much as you are of yourelf clearly. And “talk reason or get lost” – sorry, do you actually understand what democracy is? Freedom of speech? Sounds like you’d ban everyone from here that disagreed with you. There’s no room for a dictator on here chap. If you want to be free to air your views, you’re going to have to listen to others. You’ve just joined in with some of the other cronies on here who start the whole schoolyard name calling when someone doesn’t share their views. I’m getting kind of sick of repeating what is a fundamental principle and part of the reason the gay movement has come so far – freedom of speech. It’s a universal human right, so stop being so discriminating.

    I’m defending free speech and Hank is entitled to his views if he supports them with reasoning. It may not be qualified reasoning and thus we have to point it out if it’s not. But no-one here has the right to deny him that.

  52. ‘Talk reason or get lost’ is perfectly good quality control mechanism for finding out the truth. Your views cannot count if you do not give reasons for your opinions.

    An argument with a proponent of a religious viewpoint often goes like this: if you not only claim to know that there is a mind at work in the Universe, but that you are on intimate terms with it, that you can tell me God’s opinion on who I should sleep with and in which position – then it’s your job to tell me how you know this information. Until that can be answered (it can’t be answered: human beings do not have the cognitive ability to know such information) – then you are out of the debate.

    So, if people make such grandiose, arrogant, ridiculous claims, yes, it is a moral necessity call people fools, at the very least, because of what they believe.

    Freedom of speech is a universal right – having your views taken seriously is a privilege.

  53. Monkeychops 16 Jun 2009, 7:12am

    Yeah, but who defines what “reason” is? Who decides what is actually reasonable? Rob is just implying that if you don’t use the kind of reasoning that he wants to see, then you can get lost. I don’t agree. Backing up your claims with reasons is vital, but it doesn’t have to use a form of reasoning that is only accepted by a certain group. And hence if you don’t have reasons to support it, then no-one takes you seriously (good point Tom). Reasons, talking reason and reasoning are different things.

  54. I’ve pointed this out before, sorry to bore others.

    Back up your opinions with evidence – real hard, rock solid evidence. Logic. Probability. Observation. Test more than one hypothesis for your opinions, right from the very premise. Test the hypothesis: what predictions does it make? (How do we know Einstein was right? I don’t accept him on authority. THe predicitons he made are accurate enough for us to say to the nearest minute, when the next eclpise will be.)

    Exhaust all natural explanations before you reach for supernatural ones. Look for converging lines of enquiry. Never seek to disprove a negative. Beliefs based on tradition, faith and authority should not be immune to these quality checks. That includes claims by scientists as much as religious people (who has peer reviewed the data? is the methodology sound?).

    Ask yourself, what’s more likely? That’s how we found out, how we know what we know.

    See George Orwell’s excellent piece, ‘Why do I believe the earth is round’, written as part of his ‘As I please’ essays, 1946, before Gregarin went into space.

    Another golden rule: the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence.

  55. …..And I meant to add the other important question: ‘by what right do you make this claim?’

    Hope that helps.

  56. PPS Sister Mary Clarence is absolutely right.

    Tolerance is not in and of iteslf a virtue. We do not tolerate intolerance. It’s something that has to be earned, reciprocated.
    I’m not a Christian – it’s immoral to love enemies.

    ‘Slandering someone’s christianity’ is a meaningless expression. You can make slanderous remarks about a person. But you seem to be affording the same respect and rights to a belief system that we afford to a person. For the reasons I gave above, that will not do.

    In any case, the Bible says you should treat gay people with contempt. So yes, hatred and bigotry and intolerance can be and is inspired by Christianity, on a constant basis – from the C of E’s stupid teachings on homosexuality to the question of distributing condoms in AIDS-ridden africa.

  57. Monkeychops 16 Jun 2009, 5:06pm

    The bible also says thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not kill – shall we just oppose those as well? You can’t dismiss something in its entirety because of some small parts you disagree with.

  58. So, if we are to keep the book as a moral guide, on what basis do you decide which verses to follow, and which to ignore? If you use some guidance that is not of the bible, why do you need the bible to tell you, what you already know? It’s important, because by venerating the book, we are hostage to all its contents.

    Are you saying that, you only decide not to kill, and cheat, and lie and steal, because the bible tells you not to? Or that you would not know not to? I hope you think better of yourself than that.

    Above all, give me a theological reason why we should discard one of the most evil messages of all time – matt 25:41, ‘believe in me or depart into the eternal fire’, exactly the same ultimatum made by al Qaeda on 9/11.

  59. “But what right do you have to call people fools for their beliefs?”

    Every right. You seem to have a problem with free speech. Its your opinion or no-ones, isn’t it monkeychops?

    Get a life, you patronising f–k.

  60. Linda Barry 17 Jun 2009, 7:24am

    @ Monkeychops: “If you want to be free to air your views, you’re going to have to listen to others”, “You can’t dismiss something in its entirety because of some small parts you disagree with.”

    Er, sorry mate, maybe I’m missing something, are you some kind of moderator? Is this your site? If not, then who are you to lecture people on the format of their comments and what constitutes “free speech” or not??? Especially since you seem to have just dropped out of the blue in and started giving your double standards hypocrisy lecturing to everyone.

    Is it your place to specify what people can and cannot say. Perhaps a measure of your own medicine, freedom of speech extends to all, not just YOUR version of it. Can you even see the irony and hypocrisy of your statements?

    Oh, don’t quote the bible to us as a moral standard, its offensive to reason to use that book of contradictions. Please use your much highlighted “reason” but not the bible. The bible is neither proof of anything, nor a “moral standard”, as if an internet site needs you to patronise us with biblical “moral standards”.

    I’m beginning to you sound wrong. You keep saying you have no religion, but now you reference the bible and state that one must accept it entirely? Please, who do you think you’re kidding…..

  61. Monkeychops 17 Jun 2009, 11:06am

    Tom – Fair point. Though I was trying to say that not everything in the bible is actually negative. After all, a substantial amount of its content is the basis for our democracy. Of course we don’t need to use the bible as a reference just because we agree with some of its rules (or for posterity), but then if you apply that basis to democracy, why should we accept the laws of the United Kingdom when there are many rules, regulations and codes of practice that are of equal insanity to not wearing clothes of two different fibres? The difference for me, is that we can actually change our legal system. The bible cannot be re-written or amended (apparently) and that is what infringes rights and obligations in societies of today. There shouldn’t be a choice about which verses you do or do not follow if it is the “book of truth” – it would be a legal system with people to enforce it, like we have in the UK today. However, no-one chose the bible, it just, well, appeared and was forced upon us and hence it is completely irrelevant to how I live my life – which is according to UK law.

    Rob – You obviously think you’re being a bit clever by allowing the rules of free speech to get into petty name calling and, yes, you have the right to call people what you want. But it doesn’t mean that you have an automatic right to be taken seriously or accepted for saying them when used with such viciousness. Hence your views do not interest me. And I am certainly not going to stoop to such a low-level of bitchiness by calling you names back. I fail to see what that is supposed to achieve. Tom and I have disagreed on many things thusfar, but we are keeping it civil and healthy. I have my right to free speech as you do and I have the right to contest those that do not agree with my opinions by broadening the discussion to convey my point better or putting my arguments into a different context to project them with more success. But people will only engage back if it’s supported by reasons and done in a way that is not using puerile and, quite frankly, cheap insults. That’s where you’ve gone wrong on numerous occasions. Do politicians, diplomats and panelists swear at each other and call each other “patronising fucks” across the chamber/rountable? No. And that is a level to be upheld if any meaningful debate is to be had.

    If you see me as patronising, perhaps it’s more to do with an inferiority complex or insecurity on your side of the fence rather than me being arrogant or dismissive of opinions that do not mirror my own. Have conviction in what you say and you won’t feel the need to start effing and blinding or telling people to “get a life”. So, do you want to engage properly? You’d be more than welcome….

  62. Monkeychops 17 Jun 2009, 11:29am

    Linda –If you are saying you are a “true” Christian who believes in following the bible then you should follow every single rule. Like I follow UK law. When I’m in France, I follow French law. I am a citizen of a democratic society and I obey the laws that we have drawn up for ourselves in it. That’s my “belief” system, if you like. Would you dismiss our legal system as a whole because you disagree with a few laws? I should hope not. What about the political party you vote for? Do you agree with every last point on their manifesto? I doubt very much, but you would probably vote for them still. It’s whatever benefits you the most. With law though, you have to abide by it, that’s just the way it is. By being involved, I am also free to debate these laws, question them and try to improve them. How you go about that will yield differing results. Various drugs are illegal, but it wouldn’t be illegal for someone to suggest they be decriminalised. However, if, in their debate they start calling law-makers by insulting, childish names or using highly irrational arguments, they can’t be surprised if they are ignored. Engage properly, and you will be heard. Even if it can take time.

    No-one is a moderator on here, but there are certain rules for debating (have you been part of a debating society?). No name calling, no personal insults, well-founded arguments….it’s all about the content of the argument/opinion you are putting across, not the personality involved. Plenty of people who I find vile can win arguments with me because of their skill at forming their points. Perhaps there are just some people (maybe including yourself) who just can’t accept the opinions of others or who do not want to debate in a fair way. As I keep repeating, there are people on here I have frequently clashed with, but the debate has remained healthy and civil because of the way we have done it. I have high regard for TomPaine, Lezzabella and a mixture of responses from other people thanks to their way of doing it. They keep asking questions, wanting to educate themselves on the topic at hand. That’s something that is good for everyone on here, whether you are contributing or just reading. Do you oppose that way of doing things? Can you think of a better system? I’m sure we’re all open to hearing about it…..

    From the “dropping in out of the blue” it sounds like you are just not comfortable with some new guy on the scene who is getting stuck in and being actively involved. I don’t do things in half measures. Am I attracting too much attention for your liking (positive or negative)? Have I dethroned someone on here? I feel I have a lot to contribute, people are looking at different sides of arguments now, even if they don’t agree – at least they are getting a wider range of views than a week ago before I started contributing. Before, I’m sorry to say, it was all rather same. A lot of self-congratulatory back-patting, look at us, we’re all so morally superior than that nasty outside world, our way is the only way….I didn’t agree with that. And I said so. This forum is incredibly inward looking at times and that I do not believe is good for gay people or our place in wider society. As I keep re-iterating, I am an agnostic, not a Christian. My own view is that, like other religions, it is based on unfounded claims and scaremongering. However, like most things in life, there are good things in it to, which we have brought to our own democratic movement. Clear enough?

  63. Monkeychops 17 Jun 2009, 11:46am

    Tom-Oops forgot this bit:

    “Above all, give me a theological reason why we should discard one of the most evil messages of all time – matt 25:41, ‘believe in me or depart into the eternal fire’, exactly the same ultimatum made by al Qaeda on 9/11”

    Did you mean NOT discard actually? I’ll try both. To justifying NOT discarding:

    Theologically…..because the bible states that we should only believe in God and no other gods. And if Matt is the deliverer of God’s word, then therefore it should be obeyed without question.

    To justify discarding the passage as a Christian:

    I honestly cannot think of one, I’d have to ask a Christian simply because you would be going against God’s word if you ignored that line.

    Theologically why we (as gays) should discard it…..that will depend on if you’re a gay Christian or not. As an agnostic, it should be discarded on grounds of no evidence to justify it. Anyone else got an idea?

  64. Monkey – well if you don’t accept the law of the land, you can always break them and fce the consequences. Or try to change them. demonstrate against them. Or vote your MP out. That’s democracy. We have the power to change things.

    The Bible is the manifesto for an unalterable, unchangeable dictatorship – am glad to think this does not exist. Its basis is not reason, but worship. It implies we are made sick and commanded to be well. We are guilty before we are born, by being implicated in the torture and murder of someone 2,000 years ago. That sentence is passed on us, without our say so.

    Critical thinking cannot be done in the kneeling position.

    It insipres people to carry out evil deeds in the name of their faith. Think about what you can get away with by calling yourself a person of faith. You can run a hospice in Calcutta that treats its inmates like in Belsen, and win a Nobel Peace Prize for it. That sums up how evil religion is.

    For instance, If someone says, men should own women because men want it to be true, women would not buy into it. If you say, womeon should be slaves because god wants it to be true, well one is tempted to give them the benefit of doubt. Therein lies the temptation to totalitarianism. Gettign rid of religion is the first step to emancipation, to freedom of conscience, enquiry, fair representation, self determination – every step, has been met with religious opposition, since the time of Galileo. All worship is a terrible thing, whether it concerns adoration of an eccentric Palestinian preacher, an Albanian nun or a North Korean sociopath.

  65. “Hence your views do not interest me.”

    Then shut up about them! You just keep going on and on, you patronising freak.

  66. “Would you dismiss our legal system as a whole because you disagree with a few laws?”

    Now our legal system is like the bible??? Your comparison is ridiculous. Laws are set up and administered, in this country at least, but the democratically elected legislative, the bible is a belief system. Laws are devised on the basis onus of proof, the bible is based on nothing but the ramblings of people long gone, no more than the Egyptian Book of the Dead is based in fact. Next you’ll be comparing astrology to science.

    “If you are saying you are a “true” Christian”

    What?!? Who said I was? Do you make this crap up? Sounds like YOU need to engage properly, and you will be heard.

    You seem to spend a lot of time telling people to stop going to a “low-level of bitchiness”, yet you seem quite comfortable to do it yourself. Your double standards are becoming legendary in here, many people have commented on it. I’d suggest a self help book, to help you address this bizarre belief you hold that you hold court on what’s acceptable or not in here. We can all say what we want, and all the crap you write will not stop me, or anyone else for that matter, saying it like I see it:- your an overbearing patronising idiot with very little to say other then your contradictions.

  67. “your an overbearing patronising idiot with very little to say other then your contradictions.” — Sorry, but I’m glad someone’s finally said it.

  68. Can we all give it a rest please, amusing though it all was momentarily, it’s getting tired. How old are we supposed to be?

  69. (Monkeychops – make a profile for yourself on here and we will argue this on the forum, it’s under ‘my’. This is too interesting to discuss on a newsthread that disappears in a couple of days. It’s off topic, too….).

    People most certainly will call you a fool is your beliefs appear to be ridiculous, as you can see. :-)

  70. Monkeychops 18 Jun 2009, 10:52am

    Linda – “If you are saying you are a “true” Christian”

    “if someone is saying they are a true Christian…”. Not calling you personally anything – the pronoun “you” is used by just about everyone as a third person. Like “if one is….”. I guess that you have just interpreted that wrongly. Now it’s clarified, read it again and you’ll get the point. If you feel patronised, that’s your problem, be stronger in what you believe. I don’t seem to be getting upset and spitting names at people do I? No, that’s because I’m sure of what I say at the moment I write it. You’ll just have to do the same.

    And, yes, the bible is a “law” book. But just for Christians, not the rest of us. It’s a set of social rules, very much like our legal system – designed to do the same job. Can you not see the similarities? But, if you read what I say properly, we have chosen our system and can change it if it’s outdated or not being beneficial for society. The bible cannotbe changed, hence it is out of date and eternally discriminating (which I have said). And it shouldn’t supersede our legal system – it shouldn’t supersede anything democratic at all. It seems you just want to interpret everything differently, no matter how it is written. It also appears that you will simply disagree with everything I say because you’ve taken a personal dislike to me. And that is incredibly narrow-minded. If I said something you agreed with, you’d just criticise it because it was me. How is that helpful? I;m sure there’ll come a point when you and I agree on something and I’ll be the first to commend you for a view I support. Doubt it would be the same the other way round.

    And, no, I’m definitely not bicthing at anyone – am I calling people names? Slandering? Hypothesising that they are ex-gay fundies? Saying people need psychological help? No, not at all. But you are (and others), and that’s not in the spirit of debate. I’m disagreeing with them and questioning their views and reasons, but not calling people “little bitches” like you. That’s just the rules of debating. Sorry if you don’t like that, but that’s the way it is – I didn’t make that up. Google them if you want. Tom Paine obviously understands this and that’s why I have the respect for his views I do, even if they aren’t like my own most of the time. For those not doing that, they obviously need to be reminded and as you can see I’m not shying away from making that move.

    Rob – While you comment on my views, I will comment on yours. Simple. But I won’t take them seriously if you put them across in the way you do. Call me patronising if you want, but then do you expect me to look up to someone who uses name calling so much?

    TomPaine – Given the abuse that I have been getting just for having a few ideas that don’t conform, like hell I’ll put up a profile. The paranoia some people on here seem to have and the specualtion about who I might “really” be makes me concerned that there’d be some perturbing flurry of google searches to find out my “real identity” (though it would be disappointing for them when they discover I’m not actually from Exodus International). Internet sites aren’t particularly safe places to give out details that can be used to identify you. Wouldn’t you agree?

  71. Oh really monkeychops, don’t worry about all that.

    As a famous scientist once said “I don’t give a bugger what you feel, or what I feel. I want to know that the evidence shows”. A very good rule indeed!

    On another thread that you made it clear that what people thought about you was no concern! (Rightly so.). I really don’t think people will be interested in doing google searches on you. I hope, there are more important things to do.

    You don’t have to identify yourself – creating a profile is no more dangerous than contributing on here in the first place, where, to post, you already have to give your e-mail address.

  72. Monkeychops 18 Jun 2009, 3:37pm

    Yes – but presumably that’s not available to all – or is it? There are just a few nutters out there – it’s bad enough having wankers from school look you up on FB. Not worried about just those that have given me grief on here, but the more psychopathic ones that trawl these sites. I don’t even like making credit card transactions… a bit of a technophobe I’m afraid (he says having spent half the last week on here!). The amount of data that’s floating around on all of us is more than a little concerning…..

  73. Don Harrison 11 Jul 2011, 5:44pm

    Oh, what a shame.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.