Traditionally figure skating was half sport, half beauty pageant. Nowadays we think that beauty pageants are stupid and, to the average sports fan, figure skating is only half a sport.
That California girl reminds me of that Florida girl (and her organge juice) who drove a gay rights ballot out of contention in Miami. Both these ladies, given their need to have gay hair stylists, gay makeup artists, and gay styled fashions will suffer their own popularity.
I highly doubt that Miss California's political (or to be more accurate, moral) beliefs made her lose the competition. Beauty pageants are so arbitrary anyways (if you believe in the gossip, many of the results are determined before the night the pageant), and besides, Miss California is actually being praised for her views by many. For example, she is being featured in the National Organization for Marriage's ads against same-sex marriage, and has emerged as a young, attractive face for the movement against same sex-marriage.
In short, there is little evidence of Miss California actually being discriminated for her beliefs--unless you count Perez Hilton's complaints about her on his blog. Miss California has every right to publicly voice her beliefs, but Perez has every right to publicly disagree with her--even if he does it in an extremely immature way. This is free speech, after all, is it not?
Personally, my issue with Miss California is not with her moral beliefs per se, but rather how ignorant she seems about the issues surrounding same-sex marriage. If you watch the other interviews she gives, she appears to know nothing about same-sex marriage at all apart from saying that it's wrong.
It's very hard for anyone to argue against same-sex and seem ignorant because of how you have to phrase the argument just to get someone to listen... political correctness, I think, stunts a lot of debate because of the fear of offending.
I think it's a mandatory book for college students in at least one english course... I hated the book, but that's just me
Even if we accept that political correctness is pervasive, I doubt that the language some people would use to describe what they see as less-than-desirable behavior by gay people (if not for political correctness) would add much to any informed debate about the issue of same-sex marriage.
And really, anyone who's read Nineteen Eighty-Four and takes it to heart would probably be for same-sex marriage, given that sexual repression (or more precisely, the evils of sexual repression) is a major theme in the book.
It's a satire and well written. It just opens ones eyes the same as Gulliver's Travels which really was making idiocy out of royalty. Do read 1984 and also Animal Farm just to have your eyes opened and not put down by the reasons in the above post.
Also, there are two strands of political correctness - one about what we speak about and another about how we speak about it. The latter I consider good for reasons stated above. The former is, indeed, evil. Scientists who are afraid to publish studies that might point to gender or - even worse - race differences, for example, is just one example.
and that is what I was referring to. PC has become so extreme that you just don't know what you're allowed to say before you get labelled a bigot, or a racist, etc...The former is, indeed, evil. Scientists who are afraid to publish studies that might point to gender or - even worse - race differences, for example, is just one example.
Ant, you're a dork... and I mean that with all the love in the world
But is PC that pervasive in everyday media, though? The example of scientists afraid to publish certain types of studies about gender and race--those still do get published and discussed. For example, I remember reading a news article recently discussing a study in which two scientists concluded that Jews were the most intelligent people. However, studies like these do get criticized, not necessarily on the grounds that they are un-PC, but because they are often scientifically unsound.
I think a tempered form of PC has some use in everyday life--after all, it can shut the real bigots and racists up. Extreme PC, though (as Ray Bradbury would argue) should definitely be frowned upon--but then again, extremism in the majority of things in life is not exactly desirable.