Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Forgot Your Password?
Banner
Why Do We Bother Asking?
By Josh Witten | April 22nd 2009 03:22 PM | 7 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Rugbyologist articles

All

About Josh Witten

100% of this the rugbyologist's revenue is donated to Doctors Without Borders (Medecins Sans Frontieres). A click on one of my articles is a click that helps bring high quality medical care to the... Full Bio

Why do we ask questions?  We ask questions to learn something.  That something could be a piece of knowledge, an opinion, or to determine whether someone else has a piece of knowledge.

At the Miss USA Pageant when judge and gossip columnist Perez Hilton asked Miss California, Carrie
Prejean, a question that sounded like it was trying to learn her opinion, but was apparently about determining if she had a piece of knowledge.

Did Ms. Prejean think same-sex marriages should be legal in all
states?  To which she responded:
I think that I
believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.  No offense to anybody out there, but that's how
I was raised.    - Carrie Prejean

That was not the correct answer.  Hilton was apoplectic and embarked on an orgy of boorish behavior that has been well documented elsewhere and roundly criticized.  The Rugbyologist could not disagree with Ms. Prejean more strongly and also has no problem with Prejean losing the Miss USA crown over her answer.  Miss USA is a privately-owned contest of superficiality.  The Pageant has every right to demand as much mental conformity from their contestants as physical conformity. 

What struck me was the similarity between the anti-vaccinationist mob's response to vaccine safety research, intelligent design advocates response to evolution research, and Hilton's response to Prejean.  All these groups ask the questions and then react violently when they don't get the answer they were looking for.  Why bother asking the question then?  Hilton, at least, he was not reacting violently in opposition to high quality scientific evidence.

Now for some conspiracy mongering.  One wonders why Hilton asked that question.  Prejean is a student at San Diego Christian College, a Southern Baptist college founded to promote Biblical Creationism.  It does not take a Sherlock Holmes to figure out that a person who believes that Genesis is historical probably buys into that abomination line too.



 So, the question is, did Hilton know this information beforehand?  Was this a spontaneous kerfuffle or was it planned?   

Comments

Hank's picture
I think it was planned.   North Carolina got the ultimate softball question.     Why is a gay guy determining who the most attractive woman in America is anyway?  He knows nothing about what men like in women.

If she should have lost if she answered she supported gay marriage, then I guess it's okay she lost if she doesn't but  I generally take a stand against cultural militancy and personalized litmus tests.    Tolerance being used as a weapon seems sort of ironic.

Hank Campbell | 04/22/09 | 16:12 PM
HedgehogFive's picture
A most interesting and balanced account, O prolate spherist.  But when you come to
probably buys into that abomination line too

this is a prompt for a bit of Hedgehog theology.  It seems that when Lot was visited in Sodom by two angels (male), all the men of Sodom gathered round his door desiring to "know" them.

Apart from this being an attempt at gang rape, one doubts if the proportion of men of homosexual orientation was significantly greater than anywhere else.

So while there may have been some homosexuals among the crowd (diversity), the majority were probably heterosexuals wanting to engage in anal intercourse, literally, "for the hell of it" (perversity).

Your opinion, please.

Erinaceus Europaeus | 04/22/09 | 16:27 PM
jtwitten's picture
Sexual violence, both heterosexual and homosexual, has been used from ancient to modern times as a method for exerting power over other individuals.  Our historical experience shows that such violence is completely disconnected from the actual sexual preferences of the individuals involved.  This story seems to be a mythologized description of this tragically common human experience.

It is also important to remember that many cultures, both modern and historical, do not share Western attitudes toward sex.  For example, I have yet to enter a church with temple prostitutes, yet this would have been common at times in the ancient world.  So, there may have been some effort in this story by the authors to distinguish Judaism from other religions in the area. 

Josh Witten | 04/22/09 | 18:15 PM
had the question been about interracial marriage, prejean would have vilified by the media. but since her comments were made toward gay marriage, then her opinion is considered valid. to say that prejean's opinion is as valid as the next merely because it is an opinion is to say that ignorance/prejudice are to be tolerated merely because some people are ignorant/prejudice.

and remember, perez hilton is a homosexual man (a second-class citizen in america) whose basic civil rights are being denied because of ignorant people like prejean...he has the right to detest his oppressors (and those complicit toward his oppression).

Anonymous (not verified) | 04/22/09 | 21:54 PM
jtwitten's picture
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to be criticized for it.  The point is that there was absolutely no point in Hilton asking for an opinion in his capacity as a judge if only one opinion is valid from his point of view.  The fact that I happen to agree with Perez on this issue is irrelevant.  No one said Prejean's view was valid.  We are free to strongly disagree with her opinion and try to convince her that she is wrong.  It is, however, a value judgment, not a question of objective evidence.  I think all people inherently have equal rights and dignity and, therefore, should have the legal right to marry whomever they choose, but I can't scientifically prove any of that to you.  On toleration of ignorant/prejudiced ideas, who gets to decide what is ignorant and prejudiced?  These are still value judgments.  The majority?  Because it is that majority that is repressing same-sex couples.  What if the people making that decision change?

Perez's sexual orientation and oppressed status is immaterial to the discussion.  Absent philosophical issues, his reaction was  a practical disaster making him look ridiculous (taking anything a pageant contestant says that seriously will do that to you) and removed the focus of the debate from where it should be by focusing attention on two doofuses.  Expecting everyone to agree with your point-of-view doesn't exactly say oppressed individual to the public. Hilton is a lout, who happens to be a member of an oppressed group.

Josh Witten | 04/22/09 | 22:19 PM
rholley's picture
Josh,

Do you have the equivalent of civil partnerships in the USA?


Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities identical to civil marriage. Civil Partners are entitled to the same property rights as married opposite-sex couples, the same exemption as married couples on inheritance tax, social security and pension benefits, and also the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children, as well as responsibility for reasonable maintenance of one's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full life insurance recognition, next-of-kin rights in hospitals, and others. There is a formal process for dissolving partnerships akin to divorce.

Here in Blighty, we have achieved this compromise, rather like in the time of Good Queen Bess, when the Anglican Church developed a form of doctrine that could allow people both Catholic and Protestant in spirit to co-exist without fireworks.

As with the Anglican compromise, there were those who struggled to pull the legislation their way:

On the one hand, there were those who would not be satisfied unless the law were so defined as to make a philosphical statement to the effect that a same-sex union could be not only equal under law, but identical (in the sense of a mathematical identity) to marriage.

On the other hand, some said that the rights should be extended to, for example, a pair of celibate siblings, so that the survivor of a pair sharing a property would not get clobbered with inheritance tax.  This also failed, but I cannot say to what extent this was due to those pressing for the first agenda, and how much to the Treasury wanting get its hands on all that "luvly" Inheritance Tax.  As it is written:


   The leech has two daughters:
   'Give! Give!' they cry.

(from Proverbs 30:15) 

Robert H Olley | 04/27/09 | 16:03 PM
Hank's picture
Marriage, being outside the enumerated powers in the constitution, is done by states rather than the US government. So a gay marriage in the UK won't be legal in California but the civil union certainly is. It's basically the same thing except opponents are concerned that mixing government unions and religious marriage ceremonies would force churches to permit the ceremonies and proponents believe that it's unfair from a civil rights perspective to not be allowed to do it.

You folks don't bother with that whole written constitution thing, which has its benefits at times.

Hank Campbell | 04/27/09 | 16:44 PM

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.