You are here

Pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6) for the uninitiated: the case of Caroline (Carrie) Michelle Prejean

Carrie Prejean

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine,
lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (Matthew 7:6)

The recent Miss USA pageant illustrated again what happens when the wisdom of Matthew 7:6 is ignored.  Miss California 2009 Carrie Prejean was asked by Perez Hilton about her opinion on same-sex marriage.  Carrie Prejean said –  

I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other.  We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.  No offense to anyone out there but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman.

People cheered her.  One has to appreciate her guts for being honest.  Carrie came in first runner up in the Miss USA pageant, and it is possible that her answer cost her the crown.  Subsequently, Carrie was brutally attacked by homosexual activists and their allies.  She was accused of polarizing people.  The fault was solely Perez Hilton’s.  People are polarized when it comes to same-sex marriage, even in the Netherlands and Scandinavian nations.  Carrie could not claim she has not made up her mind or does not want to answer because such answers would give her a low score.  But a yes or no answer would displease a lot of people.  She knew the politically correct answer is yes for same-sex marriage, but spoke her mind.  Had she said that she supported same-sex marriage, the religious right would hardly have bothered to cover the issue.  A highly polarizing question should never be asked of a beauty pageant contestant.

Carrie’s statement made no reference to her religion or the Bible, but homosexual activists and their allies immediately started mocking Christianity; she only mentioned her Christian beliefs after the contest was over.  A common tactic used by them is to quote various ceremonial laws of the Old Testament to illustrate how absurd using the Bible as a guide is when the issue is the specific passage quoted, which may contain great wisdom.  Christians don’t consider the ceremonial laws of the Bible applicable today though the moral laws in it apply.

Homosexuals and their allies tried to dig up dirt on Carrie Jean.  They found the following picture, which they extensively promoted as Carrie Prejean’s topless or semi-nude picture.  There is nothing unbefitting for a beauty pageant contestant in this picture.

Carrie Prejean

Later the following picture was dug up.

Carrie Prejean

Later still, photos featuring pictures like the following were dug up.  Whereas these pictures are not of the erotic variety, the few with the nipples showing violate Miss USA requirements.

Carrie Prejean Carrie Prejean Carrie Prejean Carrie Prejean Carrie Prejean

Photos by Dominic Petruzzi (except first)

Prejean capitalized on the attention by becoming the spokesperson for the National Organization for Marriage, an organization opposed to same-sex marriage.  Prejean’s pictures and her promoting the National Organization for Marriage’s campaign on her own initiative brought her close to losing her Miss California title, but Donald Trump allowed her to retain her Miss California title.  Trump may have been concerned about the backlash that Prejean was made to lose her title because of her politically incorrect opposition to same-sex marriage, but he made the wrong decision.  Carrie lied about having posed nude and when she had posed for them.  She should have been fired for her pictures with the nipples showing.

The Carrie Prejean brouhaha brought to light that the Miss California pageant organization had paid for Carrie Prejean’s breast implants.  What is this?  Women with breast implants, nose jobs or similar surgical enhancements should be banned from beauty pageants just as performance enhancing drugs are banned in sporting events.  But here we have the organization managing the event paying for the surgical enhancement!  If they want non-overweight contestants with prominent breasts, plenty will be found among feminine women, but the homosexuals have no use for feminine women, as extensively documented in the discussion of beauty pageants at this site.  And looking at the pre-implant breasts of Carrie Prejean (see pictures by Dominic Petruzzi above), she didn’t really need implants.  If she were feminine, then there would be no need to enhance her breasts to present a more feminine look (see example of a small-breasted woman who looks feminine).

Donald Trump needs to wake up.  I told him about Matthew 7:6 two years ago.  Giving the holy to dogs or casting pearls before swine is worse than useless.  Homosexuals will invent rights they have no claim to, declare opponents hateful bigots just for opposing their undeserved “rights” and make a mockery of mainstream major beauty pageants, which are supposed to cater to the heterosexual public.  Donald Trump has the ability to ensure that homosexuals have no influence on beauty pageants catering to the general public.



You don't think she looks like too masculine to be in a beauty pageant?

stupid article. goes nowhere.

Just noting: Yes, Carrie Prejean isn’t feminine, but the article isn’t exactly about her but about the homosexual problem plaguing beauty pageants that the Carrie Prejean incident has made clearer to more people. In blowing up the incident, homosexual activists have assisted my endeavors, and for once I am grateful to them.

I've been looking at your site for a little while now and I had suspected that this was an anti gay site. I'm now sure and will remove it from my bookmarks.


Carrie Prejean is pretty far from "not feminine": she's up there with drag queens when it comes to masculinity-femininity.

I found the Carrie Prejean "controversy" appalling. Disagreeing with the liberals, apparently, results in being vilified in the media (not surprising, considering the political affiliations that the heads of CBS, ABC, CNN, etc. have). How dare she have her own opinions! It's funny how people like Perez Hilton paint themselves as victims of "discrimination", yet he finds it perfectly appropriate to publicly defame and harass Carrie Prejean because he disagrees with her. I'm surprised Miss Prejean wasn't charged with a hate crime.

I'm just glad that the incident is finally out of the news. No more fat, earth-shatteringly stupid overgrown little boys tainting the newspaper headlines.

As for the breast implants/nudes issue... I find her breast implants far more disgusting than her smaller older breasts. Her breasts now, instead of looking dainty and natural, have the look of orange halves placed under her chest. The worst part is that men actually find this attractive. Sometimes I wonder if I'd do better to have my (32D, not particularly large) breasts reduced and replaced with implants of equal size, since plastic cleavage and the gravity-defying look seems to attract men.

Her raunchy photos weren't bad up until the nip-slip ones... Indeed, she should have been fired.

t groan: This is not an anti-gay site. It is anti-“some specific problems caused by a subset of homosexuals.”

Anneliese: The incriminating pictures of Carrie Prejean are not examples of nip-slip, but of deliberate exposure. What do you mean men actually find breast implants attractive? I have been looking for statistics on this matter but have not been successful. I generally find breast implants unattractive but then I am not particular about breast size and small breasts are fine with me. Men’s preferences regarding breast implants are bound to be all over the map, but what are the proportions?

At first glance, I would say she spoke her mind and is entitled to her own opinion, I think Perez Hilton was being a drama queen and to be honest tried to get maximum milage out of the whole controversy.

To be honest, I dislike him more than Carrie Prejean even though I feel gays are entitled to marry who they love.
If you have the right to marry, they should have the same right too, it's none of my business and I am a married straight woman but I dislike the in your face attitude of some gay activists.

But the question here is if she is a Christian where did her Christian morals go when she posed nude or topless? Her morals conveniently disappeared, this obviously makes her look like a hypocrite. If you have your morals, you should stick to them and not discard them conveniently for fame and fortune.

Voice of Reason: Carrie Prejean’s behaviors mentioned in the article have nothing to do with hypocrisy. She didn’t answer the question by invoking a higher moral ground or her religious beliefs. Her pictures pre-date the beauty pageant and it is unlikely that she discarded morals for fame and fortune by posing topless. The indication is that as far as she was concerned she was engaging in an amoral rather than an immoral act by posing topless. And even if we bring in the Bible, the immorality of the topless pictures is mild compared to homosexual behavior, which is a deadly sin.

tell me about moral

if she's a virgin, I'll give her a pass, otherwise, she's a hypocrite.

besides, women kissing each other is super hot!

anyone disagrees?

anonanon: Carrie Prejean’s virginity is irrelevant to whether she is a hypocrite since she did not make a moral or religious argument or portray herself as morally righteous. Read her answer carefully. Nothing about her that has come to light after her answer makes her a hypocrite. Even if it turns out that she is a hypocrite, her answer to Perez Hilton’s question would not be an example of her hypocrisy.

"I feel gays are entitled to marry who they love"

Gays are not entitled to marry who they love. Then I also want to be able to marry who I love - whether it be a cat, a bird, a child, a Jew etc. in a Christian Church, since I feel "entitled". No one has the right to impose their beliefs on someone else, and that is exactly what homosexuals are doing, forcing others to marry them when it runs contrary to Christian beliefs and religion.

That's something I have noticed often, homosexuals' sense of entitlement. I am not so arrogant as to believe that I have an automatic entitlement to something just because it may suit me. I respect religious freedom.

By the way, is this forced right of homosexuals to marry limited to Christianity? I haven't heard a thing about forcing Jews or Muslims to marry gay couples. That is unacceptable. Muslims and Jews should also have to marry homosexual couples, otherwise the law to me seems blatantly discriminatory and unvalid.

anyway, I think this site should be updated more frequently.

it's nice to learn how other people think about feminine beauty.

but I'm still happy that at least this one was not crowned miss usa, because she's just NOT beautiful.

I know many pornstars WAY prettier.

This discussion is the most reasonable I have seen on matters sexual in a long long time. but anonanon in previous post is right on the money, Carrie Prejean is attractive but ordinary. I would like to see more hoesty around beauty pageants but tend to think that they are a very manipulative type of affair. (Anything at national level or higher at any rate. Unfortunately, I also think many pornstars are prettier than most beauty contestants. Maybe beauty contests will also fall victim to the democracy of the internet along with newspapers.

06/06/2009 - 10:43

by Emily

By the way, is this forced right of homosexuals to marry limited to Christianity? I haven't heard a thing about forcing Jews or Muslims to marry gay couples. That is unacceptable. Muslims and Jews should also have to marry homosexual couples, otherwise the law to me seems blatantly discriminatory and unvalid.

Why should muslims have to force to marry gay couples just because the christians are up to it? Are the muslims forcing the christians to do it? There is nothing discriminatory about that love.

To Anneliese:

As a heterosexual man, I can tell you that I do prefer women with larger breasts. However, I don't particularly like implants. The reason why it might seem to you that men like them has less to do with them preferring fake breasts over natural breasts and more to do with the fact that most men don't seem to really know the difference.

Seeing how little representation there is in the media of true femininity in women, implants are more and more represented in the media. Therefore, you have practically entire generations of men, especially those who fixate themselves a lot on what the media promotes, who will get turned on at anything coming out of a women's chest.

So feel great to know you have a great pair of natural breasts that even the waves of beauty pageant contestants can only wish they had. :)

To Emily:
I owe you a reply on another post which I will get to in due time. However, I have started to get an idea of what kind of person you are the more and more I read your comments.

In any case, it seems that you are ignorant of what homosexuals are protesting for and trying to pushing forth. In fact, based on his comment in the last paragraph of this article, Erik may be as well.

The same sex marriage debate is about having a marital union recognized by the government and all that comes with that. It has nothing to do with being recognized by religions like Christianity, which essentially mean nothing outside of those groups.

The reason why religion even becomes an issue in this debate is really because the religious groups base their very vocalized disapproval of same sex marriages on their faith.

"Why should muslims have to force to marry gay couples just because the christians are up to it? Are the muslims forcing the christians to do it? There is nothing discriminatory about that love."

Christians are not "up to it", first of all, they are being forced, and homosexuals are the driving force behind it. That is not consent, or being "up to it".

Secondly, the discrimination lies in the fact that only one religious group is being forced to wed homosexuals. That is not equality under the law - that is discrimination of one particular group, which is treated differently by the law than the others.

My point is that no one should be forced to marry homosexuals if it is against their religious belief. I think the blatant discrimination of one group is appaling, and something lawmakers should take a look at. I don't think discriminatory lawmaking could stand, and therefore I believe these laws against Christians would fall flat if they were tested and seen in the context of discrimination against one religious group.

"Christians are not "up to it", first of all, they are being forced, and homosexuals are the driving force behind it. That is not consent, or being "up to it"."

There being forced to do it andso how is making muslims or any other religious group to do the same combating the problem exactly, love? or is it just that it will be fair? LOL

"Secondly, the discrimination lies in the fact that only one religious group is being forced to wed homosexuals. That is not equality under the law - that is discrimination of one particular group, which is treated differently by the law than the others."

On the one hand you say homosexuals are forcing christians on the other you are indirectly implying its the law. Make up your mind. The law is not forcing the christians to wed homosexuals. Its the christians this particular group of people who opening themselves up to this possibility. Face it if you dont want to face it then face it. There is no relgious discrimination involved because as far as islams stance is concerned homosexuality is forbidden plain and simple.

"My point is that no one should be forced to marry homosexuals if it is against their religious belief. I think the blatant discrimination of one group is appaling, and something lawmakers should take a look at. I don't think discriminatory lawmaking could stand, and therefore I believe these laws against Christians would fall flat if they were tested and seen in the context of discrimination against one religious group."

If it is against there religious beliefs love and they had conviction in there beliefs and had enough sense they wouldnt be in the situation in the first place. All in all there is certainly no religious discrimination just because one group has taken on the act iot certainly doesnt equate to discrimination if another group fails to. The law is certainly not stopping christians from practicing there religion if the law was then you could say discrimination was involved but just because the christians have opened themselves up to wedding gay couples that certainly is not the muslims responsibility. Get a grip will you love.

It's been a long time since I looked at your site, but I thought I would just offer my two cents once again on this new issue. First, I want to apologize for calling you uneducated in my last post. It was unintentional. When I said that of the three options, being sexually inexperienced, homophobic, or uneducated, it was clear you were not the former, I had intended to say that you were not the later. On further review, it would probably be best if I just retract the whole statement all together, but I will stick my general reservations from earlier and apply them to this new situation.

Your argument is tautological. In order for it to remain logically valid, one must accept several apriori assumptions. First, the fashion industry is populated primarily by homosexual men, but not just this, that it is also driven primarily by their aesthetic preferences. Second, that 80% of men are lifetime exclusive heterosexuals, or at least that the majority of men are. Third, that the primary motive for women when they buy their lingerie, bathing suits, etc. is to attract and arouse heterosexual men. Fourth, that the conception of feminine beauty has been historically stable and biologically defined. Finally, that homosexual fashion designers are willing to set aside their business endeavors in order to push a homosexual, and communist too apparently, agenda. If one accepts these axioms, he or she will inevitably come to the same conclusions that you have, but only as some sort of thought exercise because I do not believe that these apriori assumptions hold true.

I don't know if the fashion industry is or is not populated primarily by homosexual men, and I don't think it matters. It seems clear enough to me that it is not driven solely or even primarily by homosexual aesthetic preferences. Even if my personal experience is not a counter to your assumption, the rest of your assumptions pose a problem for your first one. If indeed 80% of men are lifetime exclusive heterosexuals, and heterosexual women bought their lingerie, bathing suits, etc. in order to attract and arouse their attention, and this arousal is a stable evolutionary response to certain visual stimuli, then it seems it would be a disastrous business decision to ignore your main demographics needs and wants in order to push a politically and culturally driven agenda and that even if they were willing to take this risk, it would be doomed to result in failure. On top of this, you have not established that 80% of men are lifetime exclusive heterosexuals, only that when asked, 80% of men will "report" that they are lifetime exclusive heterosexuals, but I will concede that the majority of men are heterosexuals, whether lifetime exclusive or not.

As for the more recent issue, I want to respond to Emily on the entitlement of marriage. Gays are not "entitled" to be married in a Christian Church. Frankly, I can't see why they would want to be. But gays should be entitled to be married, whether in a court house, in a willing religious congregation, or their backyard. Here's why: when marriage was made an advantageous political status (i.e. tax benefits, insurance benefits, financial benefits, inheritance, etc.) it ceased to be solely a religious sacrament controlled by the religious authority. It became a civil arrangement controlled by the state, and thus subject to civil law, like nondiscriminatory laws. What separates a marriage between two people of the same sex and a marriage between a human and an animal or an adult and a child is consent. Adults of legal age are allowed to enter into contracts with one another, at least where it poses no social harm. This is the issue that is most debated: what is the harm? Incestuous marriage is illegal (at least to a point) base on definitive proof that there is a greater probability of mental and physical deformity in the children of these unions. Well, to date, there has been no definitive proof that homosexual marriage poses a social harm, and even if you believe that homosexual parents do pose a threat, which also has not, and most likely cannot, be definitively established either way, whether a married gay couple has the right to adopt is a separate issue from whether they have the right to marry. The comparison of homosexuality, to bestiality and pedophilia is offensive, not just to homosexuals, but to those who have been the victims of bestiality or pedophilia, not to mention the vast numbers of open-minded heterosexuals. Erik, even though we disagree on everything else, I would hope that you would agree that there is a fundamental difference between homosexuality and sexual perversions that involve direct victimization and abuse.

Billy: I don’t see circular arguments on my part.

You have misrepresented what you call my a priori assumptions. It is not that the fashion industry is populated primarily by homosexual men, but that it is dominated by homosexual men because most of the big names or those on top are homosexual men, which is verifiable.

You also described my argument as … “conception of feminine beauty has been historically stable and biologically defined.” But the argument is that those who have cited the masculine ancient Greek female figures or the obese women of Rubens as examples of changing historical standards have not shown that these were the ideal of female beauty held by most people. This is a topic that I have not fully discussed so far, but you can find an example in this discussion on overweight women being appreciated in medieval Europe: . My argument is that some abstract correlates of beauty (not necessarily minutiae or specific details) have remained the same since antiquity.

I have also not argued that “homosexual fashion designers are willing to set aside their business endeavors in order to push a homosexual, and communist too apparently, agenda.” The argument is that once you dominate an industry that makes highly desirable products (clothes, fashion merchandize that would make one look good or associate one with higher class), then you have the freedom to choose models that most people find less appealing and still not affect your business because the people desire the items you are selling. My argument has not been that the homosexual designers are selecting their female models to push a homosexual agenda; they are doing it because it pleases their aesthetic sense.

And I have not accused the homosexuals designers of pushing communist agenda. Leftists have promoted the homosexual rights movement in recent decades but have an extensive previous history of persecuting homosexuals. So there is no intrinsic relationship between homosexuality and communism. Starting from the early 1970s, leftists found the nascent political homosexual rights movement useful to their major goals, and the leftist/communist leadership led a change in attitude toward homosexuals.

Regarding 80% of men being lifetime-exclusive heterosexual men, this was derived from a representative study of Americans where people were anonymously asked if they had ever experienced same-sex attraction or indulged in homosexual behavior: . The figure is not set in stone and varies by a few percent points in different nations, but you get the idea, and most people would not have a need to lie in an anonymous survey.

Your defense of same-sex marriage is based on consent among adults and lack of harm. Either argument is poor.

Let us look at consenting adults. What if a brother and sister wanted to marry each other, both adult and both sterile? What harm would result since they are not going to have children together? But society will deny them the right to marry and typically prosecute them if they marry each other or indulge in a sexual relationship. The issue here is that most people find this kind of relationship disgusting. Whereas I have no wish to criminalize this behavior or relationship, I draw the line at having to accept this relationship as morally or legally equivalent to non-incestuous sexual relationships between consenting adults and I will not be pleased if I am called a bigot because of this. Being consenting adults is not enough.

The other issue is lack of harm. Do you believe that the numerous state or federal legal benefits made available to opposite-sex marriages are based on lack of harm? No, they are based on some benefits that such relationships potentially offer, benefits that do not result from homosexual behavior. The major societal benefit here is that long-term-stable heterosexual relationships among consenting adults tend to result in couples having children with each other and raise them together, which is of obvious value to any society. This occurs in such frequency that society is justified in granting benefits to those who enter marriage, thereby indicating their potential or promise to contribute to society in said manner, even though not all marriages will last in the long run or lead to children. In contrast, homosexuals cannot have children with each other and at best can raise children together that are the biological offspring of one parent only. Thus, we can grant legal recognition to homosexual relationships and offer various legal benefits to homosexual couples, but there is no justification for legally equating homosexual relationships to heterosexual relationships because such relationships are different; there is no justification for granting homosexual and heterosexual relationships the same benefits package because the societal consequences of these relationships are different.

If one points out that, say, both pedophilia and homosexuality are statistically uncommon, is this a comparison of pedophilia and homosexuality? Yes it is, but only with respect to the issue being considered, which here is statistical prevalence, and there is nothing offensive about it. Anyone who extrapolates this comparison to unmentioned issues is coming up with a nonsense argument or straw man that will then be used to complain about being offended.

Why do you need to contrast homosexuality with sexual perversions involving victimization and abuse? Nobody is saying they are the same, and it is telling that one would need to defend homosexuality by contrasting it with extreme abusive and victimizing sex acts.


Emily's post on 6/6/2009 compared homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia. An argument that we do not allow legal unions between humans and animals or humans and children is no argument against a marriage between same sex partners because they are not analogous situations for the reasons I listed above, and yes, it is offensive, not because I am looking for a reason to be offended, because it equates homosexuals to sexual predators.

Even if you can verify that homosexual men dominate the top of the fashion industry, which I do not believe you can considering names like Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, Donna Karen, Anne Klein, and so on and so on (and yes I am aware of your diatribe on the male names I have listed and it doesn't hold water. Just like the males in the study you list, at least 2 of the 3 males listed above claim that they are completely straight and the other one has been a little ambiguous on the issue), you still cannot verify that homosexual male taste dominates the fashion industry. You have assumed that homosexual men will choose to represent their own tastes in this industry because they can (I will concede for the sake of argument that you have not claimed they push their taste intentionally), but as I have demonstrated, this is your assumption and not a very good one at that. It would be more logical to assume that if you turn off your consumers, your industry will fail. We have not observed this, so it is likely that the designers are doing something right and turning on their consumers (both male and female). Could I be wrong? Certainly, but then again so could you. My point is that you have not proved anything. And besides, if consumers are simply purchasing the items despite their objections to the models, who cares? In that case, their tastes are not having a social impact. 80% of men are still heterosexual, they are not being influenced by homosexual designers, and they are not being brainwashed by androgynous models paraded in front of them, so why does it matter so much to you? Obviously, you do believe that their is a social impact, but your other arguments contradict this belief. You believe that male sexual preferences are biologically determined (like the hip-to-waist ratio, jaw line, length of face, etc.) and stable, and you believe that 80% of the male population are lifetime exclusive heterosexuals. So who cares about an ineffectual aesthetic movement? I on the other hand believe that the fashion industry selects their models to respond to the current aesthetic tastes and trends, and their success demonstrates their efficacy. That's an inductive argument, one that starts with what is observable and moves to a conclusion. Yours is tautological. You have a conclusion in mind, and you select what to observe in order to "prove" it.

As for your argument about the social good of heterosexual unions being the reason for benefits. Completely fallacious. Married couples receive a whole additional set of benefits for having children. They receive benefits for marriage because they have created a legally unified household, and therefore, their overall consumption of land, utilities, and most importantly, municipal, state, and federal services has decreased. The same is true of homosexual cohabitation, but they receive no benefits. The reason gay marriage is not allowed is not because they cannot have children, it is because of a religious moral order that finds it objectionable. I believe you are free to find it objectionable, but I also believe that in the U.S. the church and state are separate and the tyranny of the majority shall not be allowed to impede the rights of the minority.

As for the incestuous but sterile couple, that is another issue all together. I admit, I do not like the idea, but up until the end of the nineteenth century, marriages between first cousins were very common in Western Europe and the U.S., and as the following article demonstrates ( this is not as certain an issue today as you seem to think. Furthermore, incestuous marriages are not prosecuted, at least not in the majority of states, the marriage is just null, and incestuous sexual activity is targeted to very specific instances and treated very differently in each state. This is more of a thought exercise though, because incest is an action not an identity and incestuous but sterile couples are not a recognized social group. People can be prevented from engaging in incest without being prevented from any couplings whatsoever. Homosexuals are not told that they simply are not allowed to marry this particular person, but that they are not allow to marry anyone who is of the same sex. For them, that is everyone they could marry happily, and this violates their inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. By the way, the Declaration of Independence does not say you have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as long as you are performing a social good. You are simply restricted from impeding the rights of others, and homosexual marriage would not impede the rights of anyone else.

Billy: Your description of Emily’s argument is an extreme straw man. Emily said, “Gays are not entitled to marry who they love. Then I also want to be able to marry who I love - whether it be a cat, a bird, a child, a Jew etc.” She was pointing out the fallacy of the argument that love entitles one to marry the beloved. You described this as equating homosexuals to sexual predators, which isn’t implied at all.

The gold standard or the most coveted of fashion world products is haute couture or high fashion, something meant for the elite. You are naming successful mass marketing fashion designers such as Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger, but they don’t cater to the rich. Even low class people can afford their clothes with not much money to save. Look at the big names in high fashion and you will see that homosexuals dominate and they are the ones who set the standards. Besides, there is no way that Calvin Klein is exclusively heterosexual.

Regarding the designers turning on or off the consumers, the main issue is what they do with respect to their products. They are turning on the consumers with their merchandize, just not with their models, and since they have virtually no competition, they can get away with their choice of models.

Why does the issue of gay fashion designers setting the model standards matter to me? Their choices are not just limited to high-fashion models, but they have brought lingerie models and beauty pageant contestants more in line with their tastes. There is no mainstream outlet for feminine beauty appreciation. There are also other issues such as the negative health behaviors resulting from many girls and women trying to acquire the thinness of high-fashion models. Belief in such impacts does not contradict my belief in homosexuals being born that way.

Your belief that the designers select their models to cater to the current aesthetic tastes of the consumers is abundantly falsified by a great deal of studies showing the general public strongly preferring above average femininity and normal body weight in women; these studies are described all over this site.

Again, I have made no circular arguments. If I decided on a conclusion beforehand and then went about finding evidence for it, then it could be that by chance, luck or guesswork I arrived at the correct conclusion and then found evidence for it. So accusing me of doing this does not help your argument. You have to show why the conclusion doesn’t follow from the evidence or that there is an alternative conclusion that explains the data in a more comprehensive and better manner.

There is nothing fallacious about my argument about the social goods associated with opposite-sex marriage being the reason for marriage benefits. Marriage between a man and a woman has long been recognized as a desirable institution that should be promoted. The current legal benefits associated with it do not stem from overall consumption of land and utilities but are extensions of legal benefits and responsibilities associated with the institution of marriage in previous generations … going back to antiquity. What lies at the root of the benefits-responsibilities package? I already mentioned it; it is the societal value of raising children conceived in a loving relationship by parents in a long-term-stable relationship, an issue that is not applicable to homosexual couples.

Yes, opposition to same-sex marriage comes from many religious quarters, but opposite-sex marriage is not a religious institution in many nations even though religions concern themselves with marriage. There are plenty of religious arguments against same-sex marriage but a few in favor also. And I didn’t give you religious arguments against same-sex marriage. So opposing same-sex marriage has nothing to do with separation of Church and State or the tyranny of the majority in Western nations. In the U.S. and many other nations, most people don’t have a problem with homosexuals cohabiting and some sort of legal recognition of same-sex relationship, but homosexuals are not justified in having heterosexuals accept homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual relationships and can’t describe this as some sort of tyranny. People are under no obligation to consider sexual relationships they find alien and disgusting equivalent to their own sexual relationships.

Regarding incest, the example I gave you was a brother and sister (immediate relative), not first cousins. My example makes it clear that the consenting adults argument is useless. In any case, I don’t think that first cousin marriages have been very common in the U.S. or Western Europe until the 19th century. Regarding prosecution of incest, what would happen when people find out that a consenting adult couple is indulging in brother-sister or mother-son or father-daughter incest? Most people will be disgusted and the couple in question can expect ostracism at the very least if not legal prosecution, i.e., some type of persecution.

Disallowing same-sex marriage does not violate the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness for homosexuals because they are free to cohabit, maintain a relationship with mutually agreed upon terms of responsibilities and obligations, and take advantage of legal tools such as contracts, deeds and trusts to assign their partners various rights and benefits. Aside from this, if it makes homosexuals unhappy that heterosexuals don’t find homosexuals relationships equivalent to heterosexual ones, so be it because, again, people are under no obligation to find disgusting behaviors socially acceptable and assign the practitioners the same benefits package they would give themselves. The institution of marriage is strongly associated with what most people consider socially acceptable and desirable. Homosexual couples have no claim to belong to this institution because most people find homosexual behavior disgusting.

Again, impeding the rights of others is a non issue. Homosexuals don’t have to harm heterosexuals in order to be denied same-sex marriage; they just have to have no reasons to belong to the institution of marriage.


You are missing the heart of my argument. I do not believe people opposed to homosexual marriage for whatever reason are obligated to celebrate, accept, or even tolerate it. I believe that the state has no basis to ban it. The difference between incest and homosexuality is clearly defined above, but I will do so again briefly. Incest is an action and not a protected group. Homosexuality is an identity and a recognized social minority. Homosexuals are left with no other avenue for a happy marriage if gay marriage is banned. People who would like to commit incest can still find marital gratification elsewhere. As for the specific sterile brother/sister scenario you presented above. I admit that it is an interesting thought exercise, but it is also a hypothetical that does not present an analogy to same-sex marriage.

I mentioned the marriage of first cousins because most people would also find that objectionable, but it does not disallow their marriage in many instances, even if they are socially ostracized. First cousins in the U.S. and Western Europe were commonly married until the end of the nineteenth-century whether you believe so or not. In some cases, it was because of geographical isolation, but more often than not it had to do with maintaining the possession of an estate within a family line or the maintenance of nobility.

My response to Emily is not a straw man at all. Her argument is that their is a limit to the entitlement to marriage. If we allow the limit to be moved a little further, we will have to allow it to move even more and so on and so on. She has made a slippery slope argument. I have simply pointed out that moving the limit to include homosexuals is in no way caprious or arbitrary and in no way implies that the limit would eventually move to include bestial or pedophile unions.

Victoria Secret is not haute couture. Neither is the SI Swimsuit Issue or the Miss USA pageant. Haute couture is not the standard. If it were, it wouldn't be haute couture. Haute couture is fashion as art and often avant garde. It is meant to challenge the standard, not represent it. The designers I mentioned may draw ideas from haute couture, but they dull those ideas down so they can have mass appeal. Let me emphasize the "mass" of "mass appeal", meaning the majority of people not only cannot afford haute couture, but does not find it fitting for their wardrobe.

If on the other hand, you meant luxury fashion, which essentially means expensive clothing, like Gucci or Versace, I see little difference in the clothing they design than that by more mainstream designers except the price tag.

However, I know that you are less concerned with the aesthetics of the clothing than you are with the aesthetics of the models. I agree that the standard for beauty set by fashion models is destructive to the self-image of women, but I'm surprised to hear you make this argument. Here is where the circularity comes into effect. If women, like men, judge feminine beauty to be curvier and at a more normal body fat percentage than the typical fashion model, why would they be trying to look like fashion models? Can you explain this contradiction in your argument, or at least, stop ignoring the question in your responses to me? I'll state it again as directly as possible. If men and women are genetically predisposed to prefer a normal body fat percentage and a "feminine" face, how could homosexual fashion designers skew their tastes otherwise? Or, if homosexual fashion designers have skewed the ideal self-image of women, how could it be genetically predetermined? After you answer these questions we can address the issue of the outlet for mainstream feminine beauty.

As for marriage, you have disregarded my primary point. Married couples receive a tax break because as a couple, they consume less municipal, state, and federal services. That is why it is a desirable institution from the perspective of the government and why they promote it. It has nothing to do with children. The tax breaks you get for having children are related to the extra financial demand of raising children and the desire of the state that parents be equipped to meet it. As far as antiquity goes, there were no tax benefits for anything period. Unless of course, you were the one collecting them.

I'm glad to hear you allow for civil arrangements between homosexual couples. I think this is a good option presently as long as it offers commensurate benefits and legal status analogous to marriage. However, separate is not equal and thus I agree with homosexual activists who argue that for the sake of equality, they must be allowed to marry.

Whether you have made a religious argument against same-sex marriage or not, this is the primary mode of opposition, as evidenced by Emily in her posts, not to mention the numerous arguments espoused during the Prop 8 debate. Separation of church and state and the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority has everything to do with it, even if you can't see why.

Don't celebrate it and don't accept it. That is your right, and I would fight as vehemently to make sure your rights are not impeded upon as I do to support the cessation of discrimination against homosexuals. Make no mistake, I do not seek to silence or label you for your personal tastes and beliefs (even if I allowed my passions to get the best of me in the past, which I apologized for above). I simply want to point out that you should not be allowed to discriminate against others because of your personal tastes and beliefs.

Billy: I am not missing the heart of your argument. If you believe that people are under no obligation to celebrate, accept or even tolerate homosexual marriage, then neither are those the people elect to represent them in government.

The state has no basis to ban same-sex marriage? The issue is not a state ban because we are coming from a scenario where marriage is clearly implicitly defined as a special union between a man and a woman. Some activists want this definition altered; this is not an example of removing a ban but of changing what marriage means. Some legislatures have formally defined marriage as between a man and a woman only in response to homosexual activists getting judges to rule in favor of same-sex marriage, but this is an example of explicitly describing an institution whose long-standing meaning has been implicitly clear all along. Secondly, in a democracy, the state represents the people and has no business to extend marriage to homosexual couples if most people don’t find homosexual relationships on par with their own. In a constitutional republic such as the U.S., there is no argument in the constitution mandating same-sex marriage and hence the state is under no obligation to approve of it, and since the officials are democratically elected they are bound to comply with the wishes of the majority as long as these wishes do not defy the constitution.

So incest is an action but not a protected group, and homosexuality is an identity and a recognized social minority? There are people indulging in homosexual acts who do not identify as homosexual or bisexual. There are social constructionist who believe that homosexuality as in homosexual identity is a 19th century social construction, and they explain previous documentation of homosexual behaviors as action, not identity and not a recognized social minority. The social constructionists are, of course, wrong since there are documented examples of people having identified with their homosexual orientation without encountering the concept of homosexuality (i.e., coming across homosexuals as a recognized taxon or social minority among their peers or in society). Similarly, just because there is no political movement of incest-o-sexuals, it does not mean that there are no incestuous couples out there for whom their incestuous orientation is a major aspect of their identity.

Yes people who wish to commit incest can marry a non-relative but so can homosexuals marry someone of the opposite sex. But those in incestuous love will no more derive marital gratification from marrying someone other than they love than homosexuals will by marrying someone of the opposite sex. In any case my bringing incest into the picture was never meant to be an analogy but was simply to show the absurdity of your consenting adults argument.

Your response to Emily is an egregious straw man. Emily never indulged in a slippery slope argument. Her argument was that there is no entitlement to marry someone you love. In addition, a slippery slope argument is not necessarily a fallacy because there are plenty of scenarios where some changes lead to others.

Regarding haute couture being the standard, the standard that matters with respect to major influence is the ultimate reference clothing standard in social settings (doesn’t include lingerie or swimsuits), and the designers who come up with these clothes will be the trendsetters and those who dictate the norms of the fashion world. Haute couture is the ultimate in clothes for social settings, and yes it is far better than ready to wear clothing because of better materials and custom fitting for the buyers.

There is no contradiction in my saying that most people prefer above average femininity and normal body weights in women and that the thin fashion standard has a negative effect on many women. Controlled laboratory studies that document most people’s preferences shown them a range of physiques; from feminine to masculine and from thin to obese. But when it comes to top models, people are not shown this range. Some people are bound to come to the conclusion that high-fashion model looks must be considered highly desirable by most people or at least those that matter or else these models wouldn’t get to be in their positions, and some would undoubtedly try to acquire such looks even though they, at first, couldn’t understand why people would prefer these looks. Only people with a strong aesthetic sense shared with the majority of humans will immediately reject the notion that there is something desirable about the looks promoted by the high-fashion. People with a weaker aesthetic sense but intrinsic preferences shared with the majority will need to be exposed to the kind of contrast one would encounter in controlled laboratory studies to realize that their own preferences are clearly distinct from the fashion industry’s and realize that this is also true of the majority of people when they are presented with the evidence. One of the goals of this site is to present this contrast to the public though much remains to be done, especially since nudity has to be avoided to make a mainstream presentation, and explain what most people find optimally attractive in women. You will see a mainstream version of this site at some point.

I have not disregarded your primary point about marriage. Today’s justifications about marriage benefits involving issues such as municipal land use and taxes would not apply in the past, but the root reason for the institution of marriage and its attendant celebration of the marriage ceremony and marriage benefits stems from an essential service rendered to society by heterosexual couples, something that has remained unchanged throughout the history of humanity. Homosexual couples don’t render this service to society and there is no reason to assign the same benefits package to homosexual couples as heterosexual couples or to consider homosexual and heterosexual relationships as legally equivalent.

I didn’t say anything about allowing for civil arrangements between homosexual couples. Homosexual couples have recourse to contracts, deeds and trusts even if they don’t have the options of same-sex civil unions or same-sex marriages.

Yes, separate is not equal but equality cannot be demanded when the behaviors and consequences are not equal.

You have presented opposition to same-sex marriage as an example of discrimination based on personal tastes and beliefs, but it is the homosexuals who need to come up with reasons why their relationships should be treated like heterosexual relationships, failing which – and they have failed – they have no basis for making a discrimination claim.


You're absolutely right. Elected officials do not have to accept or celebrate same-sex marriage, at least not in their personal lives, but they also cannot legally ban it. Marriage is not defined as a union between a man and a woman. Those opposed to same-sex marriage want to define it this way officially, but marriage simply means the intermingling of two substances into one. As a description of a union between two people, it serves as a metaphor. How we interpret that metaphor today is up to us. The constitution neither allows same-sex marriage nor marriage between heterosexuals. Marriage is not a constitutional issue, but fair and equal treatment is. By the way, the constitution also does not explicitly allow quasi-journalism disseminated in a semi-published and electronic format. I bet you believe you are entitled to it.

Because marriage is a legal institution today, where it was not in the past, it must be held to a different set of principles than in the past. These principles include equality and liberty, at least in this country. Homosexuals are entitled to equal treatment under the law and the freedom to pursue their own idea of happiness, as long as they cause no harm to others, no matter how much it disgusts others.

The fact that homosexuals were not considered a socially recognized and protected group in the past has nothing to do with the recognition they are afforded today. African Americans were only considered 3/5 a person in the past. That figure certainly does not and should not affect are society today. Similarly, maybe in the future, "incest-o-sexuals" will be a recognized social group, but as of now, they are not. I do not see this as a likelihood, however, because in general, incest does cause harm to the next generation. Also, if your incest scenario is not an analogy for same-sex marriage, it can hardly shed any light on my consenting adults argument, let alone prove it absurd. I might as well say the example of fruit flies altering their inherited memory over generations proves your stable and genetic predisposition to a traditional "feminine" aesthetic absurd, but I think that would be a gross simplification. Your application of incest to the consenting adults scenario is a gross simplification as well.

I'm not sure you understand what Emily is arguing in her post above, or else you actually think Emily is saying there is no entitlement to marry someone you love. Emily argued that love does not entitle someone to marriage. There is a difference between these two statements, and she definitely said the later. Furthermore, I agree with her that love does not necessarily entitle one to marriage and that a limit must be drawn. My argument is that the limit can include heterosexuality without including bestiality and pedophilia, which she most certainly implies.

Haute couture: so what your saying is better fabric and person fitting is a homosexual aesthetic, because now I'm confused. I thought the models who all wore one size represent the homosexual aesthetic. What does this have to do with personal fitting, or better fabric for that matter? What does the silhouette of the clothing, which is how fashion is judged at its most basic, have to do with fabric or personal fitting? The fashion industry pays attention to haute couture. The rest of us pay attention to ready-to-wear clothing. Haute couture has as much influence on ready-to-wear clothing as Jasper Johns has on graphic artists, which isn't to say none, just that the influence is within limits.

Your suggestion that laboratory experiments are didactic is ridiculous. People are not supposed to learn anything as participants in laboratory experiments. The experimenter is meant to learn something. If the participants are learning something, the experiment is faulty. Also, there are plenty of explanations why an observer would react one way to a silhouette and another to a full picture. If you abstract one element of aesthetic beauty from the manifold, is it any surprise that it would need to be exaggerated in order to achieve a response? I'm not saying that this is the only way to explain it, there are plenty of interpretations. I just mean to say that even laboratory experiments involve interpretation, and thus can produce biased data, and I do not believe your interpretation is a very reasonable one.

Your faith in laboratory data is to the extreme. Humans create laboratory studies and humans are fallible. They are capable of making mistakes in the design of the experiment, the collection of data, and the interpretation of that data. This is especially true of any experiment that collects data on the social or psychological make-up of people. The best an experiment can do is demonstrate correlates of variables, but causation is always going to be interpretive. This is simply because a participant will always bring a number of uncontrollable variables into the experiment. The best an experimenter can do is test an abundance of participants and proffer a reasonable interpretation of the patterns found in the data collected. This will never result in absolute certainty.

Erik, in your last post you said, "I didn’t say anything about allowing for civil arrangements between homosexual couples. Homosexual couples have recourse to contracts, deeds and trusts even if they don’t have the options of same-sex civil unions or same-sex marriages." What do you think civil arrangements are if not contracts? What do you think the legal status of marriages and civil unions are if not that of a contract?

You also said, "You have presented opposition to same-sex marriage as an example of discrimination based on personal tastes and beliefs, but it is the homosexuals who need to come up with reasons why their relationships should be treated like heterosexual relationships, failing which – and they have failed – they have no basis for making a discrimination claim." Homosexuals do not have to prove that their relationships are like heterosexual relationships to make a discrimination claim. Their opposition has to prove that homosexual relationships are not like heterosexual relationships in order to defeat a discrimination claim. That is how discrimination laws work. If you don't understand this, I can see why you might think your personal tastes and beliefs have a bearing on whether or not same-sex marriage is legalized. They don't.

I don't believe we will ever come to a consensus on these topics, so let me end by stating what I agree with you on. I also believe that the fashion industry has had a negative effect of the self-image of many women. I think this industry has skewed the desires of men and caused them to be attracted to women who are sacrificing their health for an unreasonable standard of beauty. I have found your information on the genetic predispositions of the anatomical female body compelling, and this furthers your arguments about the destructive influences of the fashion industry on women by demonstrating that the fashion model's body is a standard that is not only unreasonable, but genetically impossible for the vast majority of women to achieve. I just don't understand why you have to bring sexual orientation into the mix. It muddles up your argument by adding in an element that seems to have very questionable relevance to the purpose you've stated in the first paragraph of the intropage to this site. If and when you go to a mainstream version of this site, I believe that if you eliminate your arguments about homosexual designers, lifetime-exclusive heterosexual males, and the like, you will have a much more convincing and appealing website. These are just my two cents. I don't know whether they'll have any impact on you or if you will consider them, but please don't dismiss them off-hand. People who disagree on all the issues we have discussed in the past week can agree on the synopsis of your arguments I've offered above in this paragraph.


In the above post I said:
My argument is that the limit can include heterosexuality without including bestiality and pedophilia, which she most certainly implies.

I meant:
My argument is that the limit can include homosexuality without including bestiality and pedophilia, which she most certainly implies.


I fail to understand why they need to feel like "everyone else" when they are not. The homosexual community has been offered same sex unions which offer the same rights to health insurance, inheritance, etc. The term marriage comes from a Judeo-Christian ethic that does not include them. Secondly, I hate when people compare this to miscegenation laws. Those had no solid biblical basis and one cannot choose their "race" Someone can choose who you sleep with. There has been no conclusive proof that homosexuality is strictly hereditary. There is some proof linking certain genes with a predisposition. that is it.

Secondly gays have much more power and influence than people of color. Their agenda is pushed from numerous fronts.

poor Carrie Jean. i am still glad she stood up for herself, and I hope people continue to.

Kristin, I'm not sure if what you wrote was to be a response to me, but I would like to respond. Homosexuals have been offered civil unions in very few states, and in some of the states that have offered it, they are more limited than marriage. Also, the federal government does not recognize civil unions and DOMA enables other states to ignore civil unions obtained in other states. Read more here: The reason homosexuals want marriage is because they believe that the term "civil union" implies that their unions will be socially less than heterosexual unions even if they are, eventually, legally equal.

The term marriage is not derived from the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. Marriage is a practice of nearly every culture in nearly every geographical location, and in many of these cultures, it is/was practiced very differently than in the Judeo-Christian tradition. In fact, in the Jewish tradition marriage was practiced very differently than it is now. Polygamy was common for instance.

I never compared homosexual marriage to biracial marriage, though I do think it is an apt comparison. Whether homosexuality is strictly hereditary or not (I do not believe it is strictly hereditary by the way) it is still not a choice. We have constructed a false binary as a culture. We argue that either homosexuality is completely hereditary or it is completely a matter of choice. Anyone who knows the first thing about nature vs. nurture studies knows that most character traits are likely a result of a combination of the two. Homosexuals chose their sexual orientation as much as heterosexuals chose theirs.

As far as this quote: "Secondly gays have much more power and influence than people of color. Their agenda is pushed from numerous fronts." I'm not sure how homosexuals have more "fronts" than other minorities. Could you be more specific? Also, why the military language? Is the mainstream at war with minorities? I hope that is not actually your attitude, because minorities, including homosexuals, are as much citizens of this country as the members of the majority, and the constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, was created to protect them from the majority, not the other way around.

Billy: Yes, elected officials can ban same-sex marriage if unelected judges go beyond their duty, which is interpreting law, but start making laws instead. If you believe that marriage means “intermingling of two substances into one,” then it has long been implicitly understood that the two substances happen to be a man and a woman. If you believe that marriage “as a description of a union between two people” serves as a metaphor and that “how we interpret that metaphor today is up to us,” then it is time for you to understand that most people do not interpret this metaphor to include same-sex marriages, and that a number of people who have come around to supporting same-sex marriage have been misinformed about the nature of homosexuality by the mainstream media and the secular education they get in public schools and the typical college. Tell the masses about the true nature of homosexuality and see what proportion supports same-sex marriage, and I can give you a hint: there is a good reason why countries with strong support for “homosexual rights” such as Canada and Sweden outlaw the truth about homosexuals, depicting it as “hate speech.”

The U.S. constitution doesn’t spell everything that is allowed. It was obvious to the authors of the constitution that one cannot write down legislation for any scenario that may occur in the future. So the issue is what is unconstitutional. Heterosexual marriage, this website and banning same-sex marriage are all consistent with the constitution.

Again, you have brought up the issue of fair and equal treatment. But in the typical scenario, homosexuals and heterosexuals are treated similarly. Since the matter being discussed is same-sex marriage, and the fact remains that homosexual relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships in terms of both nature and consequences, there cannot be a legal basis to have these two types of relationships made legally equivalent with respect to marriage.

African-Americans were never considered three-fifths of a person in the U.S. The matter was as follows. A state’s representation in congress is dependent on its population. Southerners wanted greater clout and and hence wished to count all Africans among them as a whole person for the purposes of electoral representation, whereas northerners wanted to regard the Africans as zero persons, obviously to undermine the strength of the southerners. A comprise was reached and each African was regarded as three-fifths of a free man for the purposes of electoral representation; the matter had nothing to do with personhood.

Yes, the incest argument nullifies the consenting adult argument without being meant as an analogy. Your argument was that “consenting adults have a right to …,” which is what I responded to, and showed that it is not sufficient to be consenting adults.

I am not saying that “better fabric and person fitting is a homosexual aesthetic,” but that the top designers, the ones who come up with very expensive designer clothing that is custom made to fit rich clients, are the designers with greatest clout in the fashion industry. These are the people who will set the standards for how high-fashion models typically look like. They are using the models to display their designs. The items being sold are the designer products, not the models. The mater isn’t what kind of clothes have the greatest impact on people. Haute couture is beyond the means of the masses, but the matter is that the masses are exposed to top high-fashion models extensively.

Regarding controlled laboratory studies, it is simple. People are exposed to variety they don’t see among top models and pick their choices. The participants don’t learn anything but the researchers learn about the preferences of the participants. I never suggested these experiments are didactic. The laboratory data are simple and not difficult to interpret once you gather a whole lot of it and look at underlying patterns. You are welcome to explain the data in a different manner, but instead of doing so you left a bunch of concerns in your comment. Substantiate these concerns with respect to the data in question.

The claimant needs to prove his claim. You have a long-standing system of marriage between a man and a woman and then people come along demanding same-sex marriage and say that opposition to this demand is a form of discrimination. So who needs to prove the discrimination claim? The ones arguing for same-sex marriage. You cannot portray this matter as needing to prove or disprove that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are equivalent. It is obvious that these relationships are different in fundamental ways: same-sex vs. opposite-sex partners, the ability to conceive a child together, etc.

Legal civil arrangements are contracts between consenting individuals, but when I said, “I didn’t say anything about allowing for civil arrangements,” this was because there is no need to allow for civil arrangements between homosexual couples since they are free to sign a contract between the two of them detailing rights, responsibilities and inheritance issues without the government allowing for civil unions and same-sex marriage. By doing so, many homosexual couples will be cohabiting in a marriage-like relationship. Of course, the government can allow a civil unions provision for homosexual couples that comes with a pre-package of benefits, rights and responsibilities, and many people, including myself, have no objections to this as long as these civil unions don’t function as marriage by a different name.

You said, “I think this industry has skewed the desires of men and caused them to be attracted to women who are sacrificing their health for an unreasonable standard of beauty.” I don’t believe this. It is more like the top 10 or top 100 most attractive women being voted by men are based on the limited choice being offered to them.

You can’t understand why I am bringing sexual orientation into the mix? Because it is required to explain how female models at odds with the aesthetic preferences of most people can occupy the top ranks among female models.

A mainstream version of this site will not necessarily be a website, but it will basically feature attractive women and not bother with other issues you see within this site.


The issue is not whether or not homosexuals are treated equally in typical situations but whether they are treated equally in all situations. The issue is also not whether or not the majority of people favor same-sex marriage or not. The issue is whether or not it is constitutional to ban a legal agreement between two consenting adults simply because the majority, who will receive no harm from the agreement, do not approve. The majority of people in the South were against integration, but segregation was still found to be unconstitutional.

What is the true nature of homosexuality? How are heterosexual marriages constitutional and homosexual marriages not when neither are actually mentioned in the constitution?

Marriage, by definition, could be the marriage of two ketchup bottles into one. It has nothing to do with gender. We use the English word "marriage" metaphorically to refer to the social arrangement between two people to become, what used to be, one legal entity. But married couples are no longer one legal entity and certainly have not been since women's suffrage. Now the term means something different and so the historical practice of marriage has little to do with the practice today. If the union of two homosexuals, by today's standards, is equal to the union of two heterosexuals, then marriage is an appropriate term. Now, you do not feel that they are equal, and that is your opinion which you of course are entitled to. I do feel they are equal, but the burden of proof is on the opposition to prove that they are not equal. Homosexuals have already proven that there is a legal union allowed to other couples that is not allowed to them. Now the opposition must prove that there is a good, and constitutional, justification for it, and children have nothing to do with it. Children may have had something to do with this social arrangement back before marriage became a legal arrangement, but in our society today, marriage only refers to the union of two people and has nothing to do with whether or not they become parents. By the way, no matter how you feel about homosexual parents, there are an abundance of children in need of adoption, and homosexual parents can provide them a home. Some would see this as a social good even if you do not.

My argument was not "consenting adults have a right to …" It was, "Adults of legal age are allowed to enter into contracts with one another, at least where it poses no social harm." The portion of the sentence obscured by the ellipsis is as important as the portion you have presented. The incest example does not apply, and the very narrow scenario you proposed involving incest is a poor analogy, because sterile incestuous couples are not a recognized social group. Maybe someday the laws will change to allow marriage in this very narrow circumstance. It would bother me, but I guess it is none of my business in the end.

Ask African-Americans if being counted as 3/5 a person in the census was a judgment on their identity as a person. Beyond this, I was referring to their social status. Homosexuals believe being disallowed marriage reflects an inequality in their social status, and thus this is an apt comparison.

"People are exposed to variety they don’t see among top models and pick their choices." Are you kidding? Do you see top models walking around everywhere you go? I sure don't? People are exposed to a variety they don't see among top models every day of their lives. If they go into the experiment and choose a more "feminine" version of beauty, it's because that's what they think is beautiful and understand that the beauty of fashion models is something that exists within that industry. They may appreciate it, but they are still capable of appreciating and even preferring the curvier aesthetic as well. If they are having an epiphany during the experiment while exposed to images by the experimenter, then they are participating in a horribly designed experiment. As far as the data in specifics, despite your reservations about Donohoe et al.'s interpretations of their data, I agree with them. If one element of beauty is abstracted from the manifold, the judgment of the participants may contradict a societal standard without discounting the veracity of that standard.

"You can’t understand why I am bringing sexual orientation into the mix? Because it is required to explain how female models at odds with the aesthetic preferences of most people can occupy the top ranks among female models." Why does this matter, especially if their standard of beauty is at odds with most people's aesthetic preferences? Isn't it enough to say that these women do occupy this position? This is an issue of cause and effect. When you address the effect of fashion models on the self-image of women, you are compelling, but when you address the cause, homosexual designers, you are not. There is a simple reason for this, it is a fairly outlandish claim, and you do not have much to support it except conjecture. The fashion industry as a whole seems drawn to unusual and androgynous yet pretty women. You are convinced that this originated with homosexual designers, but this is hardly fact. However, your exploration of the genetic predisposition of the female body and problems with eating disorders are compelling. Your claim that fashion models set an unreasonable and even impossible standard of beauty is reasonable. How they became this standard involves far too many variables to be ascertained with any degree of certainty. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not very convincing. This is why so many responses to your posts end up arguing about gay rights and not "feminine" beauty. If you were to eliminate the element of sexual orientation from your argument, present a clear case for why fashion models present a standard of beauty genetically out of reach for most women, and champion an aesthetic alternative to this standard that laboratory science seems to indicate to be actually preferable to the fashion model standard, then I believe you would be more effective at achieving your aims.

Billy: It is not possible to have the meaning of equality extend to all situations. What if I am seeking models for advertising tanning lotions and an African applies and I reject the African? Would this be an example of racial discrimination? How many Africans purchase tanning lotion? To consider another example, let us say that the government decides to handle the societal burden of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Since nonheterosexuals are disproportionately responsible for society’s STI burden, on what basis can heterosexual and nonheterosexual demographic groups be considered equivalent in this scenario? But if a homosexual and a heterosexual get a traffic ticket, then there is no reason why they should be treated differently. You cannot have equality extend to all situations because equality is not characteristic of all situations. Same-sex marriage is not an equality issue but a privilege issue that activists are claiming they have a right to.

You have incorrectly portrayed the marriage issue as matter of “whether or not it is constitutional to ban a legal agreement between two consenting adults simply because the majority, who will receive no harm from the agreement, do not approve.” Nothing prevents a homosexual couple from signing a wide variety of contracts between the two of them. But the contract you have mentioned is a very specific contract that comes with a pre-assigned package of rights/responsibilities/obligations, some not necessarily explicitly stated, that carries with it the approval of society and it is a contract that stems from what society values highly. This very specific contract has long been understood as between a man and a woman.

It is also misleading for you to state that the majority of southerners were against integration but that segregation was found to be unconstitutional. Are you not aware that the constitution had to be changed before segregation was found unconstitutional, and that this change was pushed by a hostile minority against an unwilling majority?

There is not enough space here to be discussing the nature of homosexuality and this is not the site for it. It should be obvious that if there were not plenty of unflattering correlates of homosexuality then there would be no need to ban free speech regarding homosexuality-related issues, which several nations do.

By describing marriage as something that has nothing to do with gender, you are coming up with a concept unshared by most people. Why does one have to prove that the union of two heterosexuals is different from a union of two homosexuals? What do “heterosexual” and “homosexual” tell you?

You said, “The incest example does not apply, and the very narrow scenario you proposed involving incest is a poor analogy, because sterile incestuous couples are not a recognized social group.” Again, the incest example was never meant to be analogous to same-sex marriage. It was simply to show that being consenting adults is insufficient.

People don’t see top models everywhere they go, but they extensively encounter them on TV and in magazines. The study by Donohoe et al. has nothing to do with anything refuting what is clear about the majority’s preferences regarding women’s looks. Donohoe et al. documented averageness as a correlate of beauty, which has been long known, but did not have the study design to extract other components of beauty, and used the wrong sets of women labeled as “super attractive.”

It is not enough to just document that the typical appearance of high-fashion models is inconsistent with majority preferences. One has to explain why. How else will I account for the discrepancy? And the why is also important when it comes to undermining the negative impact on some girls and women. If you just tell them that most people don’t think highly of high-fashion model looks, they could just respond by saying that fashion industry professionals know better than you what works. These girls and women need to be told about the reason why: male homosexual designers’ aesthetic preferences for the early-adolescent-boy look, and once they know about this, few would want to acquire looks to make themselves more pleasing to this demographic. This claim may seem outlandish to some but it is backed up a considerable amount of evidence: the top ranks of the fashion industry being dominated by homosexual men; the preference for female models not just very thin but also masculinized such that many of them bear an uncanny resemblance to boys in their early adolescence, especially when they start modeling in their early or mid teens; considerable evidence for a strong association between same-sex attraction and sexual interest in children, etc. People have proposed alternatives such as why a preference for very thin models or masculine looks, but the challenge is to explain both elements and also explain time trends. No alternative explanation regarding this matter is as comprehensive and parsimonious as mine, and I am by no means the first proponent of this notion.


It has become increasingly clear that we won't be able to come to a consensus on almost everything that we have discussed thus far, so let me just make a few closing remarks. You believe that there is an fundamental difference between a same-sex marriage and an opposite-sex marriage, and I believe the difference is negligible. These are simply opposing opinions, and we will have to agree to disagree.

Note: the 14th and 15th amendments are part of the constitution. They are not simply "changes" to the constitution. Once an amendment is passed it shares equal weight with any other article or amendment. The claim that homosexuals are more prone to pedophilia and to contract STDs is a myth. Most pedophiles are straight, and STDs can be contracted by anyone.

I think it is enough to document that the appearance of high fashion models is out of step with the majority's preferences. If you provide people with the information to support that claim, then young girls and women affected by fashion images may be convinced. If you make it clear that the fashion industry has an aesthetic that they use to sell their clothing, but it is not as aesthetic that appeals to most people outside of that context, then you have done your job. Why that aesthetic exists within that industry can be speculated upon, and if you're going to offer your theory, then at least balance it with other educated opinions. This will remove the appearance of bias from your argument and increase its efficacy.

I have enjoyed debating these issues with you, and I hope you have enjoyed it as well. I also hope you have felt that I have extended a level of respect to you despite our differences. For my part, I thank you for considering my points and not just dismissing them off-hand. Perhaps in the future I will return to the site again to see what new information you have posted. Until then, take care, and I will be looking forward to your response to these closing remarks.

I think it is absurd that such a question was asked in the first place. I understand that the "personality" portion of the pageant is important, but asking one's views on gay marriage is akin to asking one's stance on abortion, the death penalty, etc. It is inappropriate and what the f#@* was Perez Hilton doing there, judging, in the first place? He is just some Hollywood gossip peddling ass who makes no significant contributions to the entertainment business. I applaud the honesty of Miss Prejean. I'm sorry that it cost her the crown, but then again, after being subjected to such nonsense, I'd think twice about what the politics of pageantry has done to that insitution, and then wonder if I'd really want to be a part of it at all. And why on earth are gays now trying to scandalize her further? That's a joke. Some, not all, of these "elitist" gays will stop at nothing to promote their agenda. They've already taken over fashion and much of the pop culture we enjoy. If you wish to engage in a certain lifestyle, than you have to accept that their are certain limitations upon making that choice. It's not punishment, it's reality.

"it ceased to be solely a religious sacrament controlled by the religious authority. It became a civil arrangement controlled by the state, and thus subject to civil law"

The key word being "solely". It is still VERY MUCH a religious act, that should be guided by the teachings and beliefs of the Christian Church. You have no right to come and dictate what we should believe and not believe, change our faith, or force preasts to marry you.

The mere fact that you compared marriage to the marriage of kethcup bottles speaks volumes, and shows how insensitive and cold you are to religious traditions and faith.

"Marriage, by definition, could be the marriage of two ketchup bottles into one. It has nothing to do with gender."

The fact remains that it is up to Christians to say who can be wed in the Christian Church, since it is OUR religion. Marrying homosexuals runs contrary to Christian belief. As long as we have free religion no one has the right to try to change our faith. The mere fact that you are trying is a disgrace, but is applauded by the enemies of Christians.

Regarding the legal aspects of marriage you do have a point. Therefore it exists in Sweden a partnership law, that makes it possible for homosexuals to get a registered partnership, with legal benefits equal to that of a married couple. In other words, you will have all rights that married people have, for example inheritance laws, "divorce" laws, etc. will be the same.


"Registered partnership is one of several terms synonymous with a civil union or civil partnership similar to marriage, typically created in order to provide same-sex couples the legal and social benefits of traditional marriage and thus could be described as quasi marriages. The term is used in the Scandinavian countries, The Netherlands, Czech Republic and Switzerland. The same concept under slight different terminology can also be found in Germany, Hungary and the United Kingdom. "

"Registered partnerships in these countries are nearly equal to marriage. The Scandinavian registered partnership laws are short, and basically state that, wherever the word "marriage" or "spouse" appears in the country's laws, it will also be construed to mean "registered partnership" or "registered partner", respectively."

Just leave religion out of it.


Just to clarify, I do not believe that homosexuals have a right to get married in a Christian Church, or any religious congregation for that matter, and I have already stated that unequivocally. Even heterosexual couples don't have that right. Only the church itself has the authority to determine who they will or will not marry, and that right should never be infringed upon. "Marriage" as a word has nothing to do with gender but is defined as the intermingling of two substances into one. The practice that is generally referred to with the word "marriage," has traditionally been defined as a union of a man and a woman, but we can change the practice if we choose. However, homosexuals could only be married by the state and willing religious congregations. No religious group can be forced to marry anyone. For instance, even though I am a heterosexual, a Catholic priest may refuse to marry me because I am not Catholic, and I would have to accept that. I could, however, go to the court house and be married by a justice of the peace, and as long as the marriage is legal, the state could not deny me my marriage. A legal marriage is still a marriage even if it isn't a religious marriage. The fact that I have little to no respect for organized religion has nothing to do with it, because I have been talking about legal marriages, not religious ones.

I think civil unions are at the very least, a good compromise for the present. Now all that remains is making them available in all 50 states and making them commensurate with marriage.

"Marriage" as a word has nothing to do with gender but is defined as the intermingling of two substances into one."

Oh, stop the semantics. It is intellectually dishonest. Marriage, when you talk about religious matters, IS the union between man and woman in every religion - not betweeen two ketchup bottles, or two men, or women..

Homos deliberately intend to blur and confuse the issue since it would open the door to marriage. I'm sorry, I don't believe you for a second. When you give homosexuals their right to registered partnership that is suddenly not enough. They constantly want to move the bar, and they do intend to try to force the Church to marry them, so stop the hypocrisy.

And, yes, two Christians of the opposite sex have the moral right to be married, and the Church marries them with joy. Don't try to ever make heterosexual and homosexual couples the same when it comes to marriage within the Christian church, because you are not equal to us, and never should be or will be, and that is the end of it, as long as we have free religion. long as we have free religion, no one is superior to anyone for their religious beliefs. Once again...marriage, when it comes to "religious matters", does not apply to the practice of marriage I have been discussing. I'm going to make this as clear as possible. I have been talking about legal marriage. Religious organizations can marry or not marry whoever they want. In fact, Unitarian Churches routinely marry homosexuals, but that does not apply to this debate, because those marriages aren't legal. You're engaging in a fight that doesn't even exist.

Homosexuals do not have the right to registered partnerships in this country. Read your own quote from Wikipedia. There are very few states that have offered registered partnerships, civil unions, or any of the like to homosexuals. As I have said several times now, I think that civil unions are a fair compromise at least in the immediate present, but, because I am not gay and certainly not a deciding voice for the gay community, my assessment of what is fair is not really at issue.

You say you're a Christian? What about John 13:34: "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." This was Jesus's commandment to his disciples; the one rule that would replace all previous rabbinical law. Nothing trumps it. Even if you believe that you are in a position to judge anyone else (which of course the New Testament strictly forbids) you must do so from a position of love if you want to represent Christ's example. Also, though Paul was careful to say that marriage is not a sin and that in the following quote, he did not speak for God, he advised against marriage in any form: 1 Corinthians 7:32-33, "But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife." So marriage may not be as universally celebrated among Christians as you think, or at least it has not always been as celebrated as it is today. Paul did, however, believe in love: 1 Corinthians 13:4-5, "Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered." If "love" is the sole commandment of Christians, are you sure you are one?

What exactly makes her "unfeminine?"

I really like this site and I appreciate that you have put a lot of work into it.
What really spoils it for me is the homophobia.
I agree with you on so many things, but this fear of homosexuality has ruined my enjoyment of your work.
Just tell me, do you hate lesbians as much as you hate gay men? Just curious.


"There are also other issues such as the negative health behaviors resulting from many girls and women trying to acquire the thinness of high-fashion models. Belief in such impacts does not contradict my belief in homosexuals being born that way."

Your quote above and your idea in general is extremely flawed. By stating this you are simply a hypocrite.

Let's begin with a few points. First of all let's ignore the homosexual argument and stick to facts:

1) The fashion industry selects women that appear a certain way
2) It appears that they particularly want masculinized, tall, uncurvy, and very very thin women for whatever underlying reason
3) However, some women are naturally thin due to genetics, just as these same women are naturally masculine
4) Just because some women who are not genetically skinny starve themselves to fit that standard, it doesn't mean that the standard is necessarily wrong. It is just a standard, and some women will naturally fit this standard.

See, essentially you are doing the exact same thing the fashion industry is doing. You have an ideal and belief, and you would like that ideal and belief to dominate a certain industry and society in general. You believe that feminine beauty needs an outlet, and clearly you would like that outlet to be the fashion industry.

You too have standards just as "unhealthy" as the fashion industry standards. You too want to push YOUR ideals on other people.
1) You select women that appear to be a certain way
2) It appears you want particularly feminine women, that are of feminine height, curvy, and a "feminine" weight (you claim that weight gain actually masculinizes a woman)
3) Some women are naturally feminine due to genetics, some are not
4) Just because some women who are not genetically feminine do negative things to their health like taking estrogen pills and what not, it doesn't mean your standard is necessarily wrong, just that it is a standard

HOWEVER, and this is where you become a hypocrite, you try to claim that your standard is healthier and more beneficial overall to society. In reality it is not. Just as the fashion industry promotes an unhealthy standard that few women fit into, you too promote an unhealthy standard that few women fit into.

There are women in the world that will fit the fashion industry's standard and your standard without having any health defects. But the majority won't.

Women starve themselves to look like models, resulting in anorexia and other eating disorders and issues.
Women that want to live up to your standard Erik, take estrogen pills, perhaps will get breast implants. Some may get their legs lengthened, because you have a whole page about porportions and how certain leg porportions are more attractive etc. How are these things not as risky and unhealthy as what women do to look like supermodels?

So please, cut this bullshit. You are not promoting anything healthier than the fashion industry. The majority of women do not fit your standards and if your ideal of an outlet for feminine beauty happend, then women would see those pictures and imitate those women by resorting to extremely unhealthy ways to do so.

Breast cancer and other health defects would be on the rise because of the consumption of estrogen products or products that imitate the effects of estrogen. Plastic surgery for feminine breasts buttocks etc. would be even more on the rise, even though they ultimatley won't attain the desired resutls

Not to mention that the type of woman you find ideal is prone to breast cancer, being overweight or obese in later life, asymmetry (especially in the face) due to the effects of estrogen in the womb, lack of bone structure (because although femininity makes the face "pretty" many times the face looks too weak and "retarded" which seems to appeal to Erik for some reason)

So you are a hypocrite.

You are just angry that homosexuals dominate a certain industry. However, writing about this won't make any difference. To truly promote "feminine" beauty you have to market feminine beauty to people and you are not doing that. So until you do that, don't be surprised that people dont give a shit

And might I add that if people are so biologically wired to find feminine women so beautiful, you should'nt even have to put a lot of effort into marketing anything. IT should be a piece of cake.

I'd also like to add that you ignore the fact that masculine women when put together are more uniform. Masculine features are more uniform in general. If you try to make clothes for feminine women on a runway show, it woudl be a disaster. Even if they all had standard hourglass figures, they would be so different it would take years to fit them all for the show. An hourglass body type is simply an inefficient body shape for the fashion industry. Ruler straight is the most efficient, and notice most models are ruler straight.

you guys really believe this girl is too masculine? I fear that the ideal of beauty these days are girls so skinny that they are about to die from starvation, and yes some models have.

sanctimonious wuss.

by sanctimonious wuss, i was not meaning carrie, but was referring to this commenter:"I've been looking at your site for a little while now and I had suspected that this was an anti gay site. I'm now sure and will remove it from my bookmarks."

good riddance. i love the religious devotion of the members of the church of what's-hot-right-now. they are so sensitive to the slightest blasphemy. they have to make all 'couldn't-care-less' types into 'opposition'. and of course from there all opposition must be 'christian'. that is who they are picking a fight with because they can't fight back because fighting back would be 'aggressive' and we all know that aggression is what the saviour was against so they would be proving their lack of faith by defending themselves. tight little game fellas.

This is a frickin' hate site. I'm a heterosexual and I think you should TRULY be ashamed for writing with such obvious contempt for the GLBT community. You're no better than a bunch of white supremacists using the N word in the name of Jesus. BTW, Jesus and the rest of us TRUE CHRISTIANS are ashamed by people like you. "Ye with no sin cast the first stone."

Click here to post a new comment