Gay Marriage Opponent Topless Photos Leaked

5 May 2009 @ 6:32 pm | 5 comments

Gay Marriage Opponent Topless Photos Leaked. Outrageous.

[via GayPatriot]

(Possibly) Related posts:

  1. Very scary: “Traditional Marriage”
  2. Photos of the lightning scorched Angel Moroni
  3. The double standard of media covering protests

Tags:





  1. Dan’s avatar

    Dan on 5 May 2009 at 9:21 pm

    Aww, darn, I was hoping you had them. ;)

    Just kidding dude.

    As for Miss California, she ought to realize that if she wants to claim a mantle of standing for moral issues, her own personal life better be spotless or down she comes. Those pictures were taken with her permission from what I know of the story. It’s not like paparazzi sneaking in a shot of her at a nude beach or something. I don’t see why you’re outraged. She had it coming, whether deserved or not. You should be outraged that she allowed herself to be photographed nude!

  2. Dan’s avatar

    Dan on 5 May 2009 at 9:26 pm

    Doh!

    I finally actually clicked on the link.

  3. David B’s avatar

    David B on 6 May 2009 at 9:34 am

    Beautiful silliness!

    But on the serious side, i’m with Dan on this–if you’re going to claim the moral high ground, you’d best actually be on the moral high ground. This is why i tend to think that outrage over “family-values” conservatives who are discovered not adhering to those values *ahem*David Vitter*ahem* should be greater than outrage over those who don’t adhere to such positions *ahem*Jesse Jackson*ahem*. I also think there should be greater outrage over left-leaning folk who, say, pay household workers poverty wages than right-leaning folk who do.

  4. David H. Sundwall’s avatar

    David H. Sundwall on 7 May 2009 at 5:44 pm

    This will always be a tricky issue. How pure and spotless does one have to be to be sufficiently worthy to speak out on a “moral” issue?

    In this case, I think it’s a silly attempt at character assassination. The only photo I saw was not nude but as a racy as a Sports Illustrated/Victoria’s Secret picture. Still not as pure as one would like a Mia Maid to be but not as scandalous by today’s standards, sadly.

    I don’t think she claimed moral high ground. She merely stated her opinion.

    But even if she did, can one believe in a moral high ground and express that view without being there them self? I think so. There can be a virtue in hypocrisy. Otherwise let’s all admit our imperfections and agree that we shouldn’t aspire for greater virtue.

    Being scandalized for honestly answering a question which reflects the opinion of the majority of the country seems hardly controversial. And yet she’s this season’s Palin.

    And our President states he’s against same-sex marriage for religious reasons and is unscathed on the issue. Go figure.

    (I will give you Vitter as a chump. )

  5. David B’s avatar

    David B on 9 May 2009 at 9:23 pm

    It occurs to me that this reminds me a bit of one of my students in a first-semester composition course i taught a couple years ago–she was vehemently (no, really, the word is warranted for her) anti-abortion, and she was herself very openly, um, of questionable virtue.

    The interesting thing is that, at least as far as i saw in the essays she wrote, she saw absolutely no connection between issues relating to abortion and issues relating to sexual promiscuity. For her, the former was dead wrong, while the latter was a personal right (and perhaps even right as in the correct thing to do).

    I’m not necessarily heading in any particular direction with this, except to say (as Dave did, in a different way) that people’s positions on “moral issue”-type items are often more complex than public discourse would seem to allow.