PDA

View Full Version : Perez Hilton lays into Miss USA beauty contestant over gay marriage answer



FlaGator
04-20-2009, 01:00 PM
This example shows the fine state of professionalism demonstatrated by homosexuals in the media. Perez Hilton does as much good for the cause of homosexuality as the KKK does for the image of the south.


A US beauty pageant hopeful was called "a dumb bitch" by a celebrity judge after candidly answering a question about same-sex marriage.

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked by contest judge and celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton for her views on gay marriage during the Miss USA pageant at the Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, samesame.com reports.

Hilton asked this question: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalise same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”

“Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other,” 21-year-old Prejean said.

“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage," she continued.

"You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offence to anybody out there.

"But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you.”

Hilton, the self proclaimed "Queen of all media" who has campaigned for gay equal rights, called the answer “the worst answer in pageant history”.



Whole story here (http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,28383,25359158-5013560,00.html)

stsinner
04-20-2009, 01:31 PM
Did you see the look of disappointment on that fairy's face when he couldn't shame her into agreeing with his point of view? Poor dickhead.. What a chump asking her to air her views on national television, whether you agree with her or not-it's not of your business how she feels about homosexual marriage. She's not a damned legislator, so what does it matter.. He looked like he was going to cry when there was applause instead of boos... I loved the fact that she said what she believed and not what she thought he wanted to hear. Good for her.

I hope he went home and cried into his pillow, but probably not, because if you look at his blog and the comments he gets from his supporters, there are plenty of people stroking his fragile, bruised ego who also don't believe in freedom of the heterosexual to have a moral compass.

Everywhere that homosexual marriage has been put on the ballot it's lost, even in California, so what does that tell you?? The only reason gay marriage exists at all is because of corrupt judges who ignore the will of the people.. I'm all for civil unions and full rights for homosexuals, but I, too, think that marriage should be off the table.

FlaGator
04-20-2009, 01:34 PM
Did you see the look of disappointment on that fairy's face when he couldn't shame her into agreeing with his point of view? Poor dickhead.. What a chump asking her to air her views on national television, whether you agree with her or not-it's not of your business how she feels about homosexual marriage. She's not a damned legislator, so what does it matter.. He looked like he was going to cry when there was applause instead of boos... I loved the fact that she said what she believed and not what she thought he wanted to hear. Good for her.

I hope he went home and cried into his pillow, but probably not, because if you look at his blog and the comments he gets from his supporters, there are plenty of people stroking his fragile, bruised ego who also don't believe in freedom of the heterosexual to have a moral compass.

Some are speculating that her answer cost her the tiara and sash. Apparently she was considered the front runner until that moment. I just want to know who decided that Perez Hilton should host the show? There was s lack of foresight in that decision.

AlmostThere
04-20-2009, 01:34 PM
After reading the first two sentences I stopped and asked myself, "Why the hell did we let this happen?". I'm not speaking of this specific event. I'm talking about society accepting behavior for a number of years that has led us to this point.

According to the article, "On a video blog on his website Hilton said, “She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage, she lost because she’s a dumb bitch!"
Hilton said Prejean should have been more diplomatic."

SHE should have been more diplomatic? Frikking idiot!

linda22003
04-20-2009, 01:42 PM
After reading the first two sentences I stopped and asked myself, "Why the hell did we let this happen?". I'm not speaking of this specific event. I'm talking about society accepting behavior for a number of years that has led us to this point.



I have no problem with homosexuality. I think everyone's sexuality should be expressed in the bedroom rather than (as the Victorian actress said) "in the streets, frightening the horses." After reading the first two sentences, I stopped and asked myself, "Who the hell is Perez Hilton?"

stsinner
04-20-2009, 01:42 PM
After reading the first two sentences I stopped and asked myself, "Why the hell did we let this happen?". I'm not speaking of this specific event. I'm talking about society accepting behavior for a number of years that has led us to this point.

According to the article, "On a video blog on his website Hilton said, “She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage, she lost because she’s a dumb bitch!"
Hilton said Prejean should have been more diplomatic."

SHE should have been more diplomatic? Frikking idiot!

I vote for less diplomatic. Something like, "My views on this polarizing issue are my own and aren't relevant in this contest. Thank you."

Also, maybe I'd feel better about the set up if it didn't come from a flamer with an agenda where one outcome would absolutely offend him, thereby making giving an honest answer that much more difficult.. Might as well have had a black guy ask if she agreed with the civil rights movement.

FlaGator
04-20-2009, 01:44 PM
I think she should have said, "I am against any form of marriage that would involve you."

stsinner
04-20-2009, 01:45 PM
I think she should have said, "I am against any form of marriage that would involve you."
LOL!! That's spectacular!

Elspeth
04-20-2009, 10:18 PM
After reading the first two sentences I stopped and asked myself, "Why the hell did we let this happen?". I'm not speaking of this specific event. I'm talking about society accepting behavior for a number of years that has led us to this point.

According to the article, "On a video blog on his website Hilton said, “She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage, she lost because she’s a dumb bitch!"
Hilton said Prejean should have been more diplomatic."

SHE should have been more diplomatic? Frikking idiot!

So it's ok for this asswipe to call the lady "a dumb bitch" but NOT ok to have moral objections to something? WTF?:eek:

Elspeth
04-20-2009, 10:19 PM
Oh and add this:

Perez Hilton: 'The Way Miss California Answered Her Question Lost Her The Crown'

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/perez-hilton-the-way-miss-california-answered-her-question-lost-her-the-crown/21528?nc

""The way miss California answered her question lost her the crown, without a doubt!" Perez told Access Hollywood after the pageant. "Never before that I'm aware of has a contestant been booed at Miss USA."

lacarnut
04-20-2009, 11:37 PM
Oh and add this:

Perez Hilton: 'The Way Miss California Answered Her Question Lost Her The Crown'

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/perez-hilton-the-way-miss-california-answered-her-question-lost-her-the-crown/21528?nc

""The way miss California answered her question lost her the crown, without a doubt!" Perez told Access Hollywood after the pageant. "Never before that I'm aware of has a contestant been booed at Miss USA."

This Perez character should have his ass kicked on general principal for asking a dumb question. That is the most awful looking faggot outfit he is wearing. Plus, he looks like a pepophile.

RobJohnson
04-21-2009, 02:10 AM
Miss California still wins in my book.

Perez is just pissed that he can't fit into her dress.

Gingersnap
04-21-2009, 09:38 AM
The essential problem here is in having a gay guy as a judge in the first place. The Miss America contest is highly ritualized event designed to reveal a young woman who best typifies the kind of beauty, wholesomeness, and aspirations that most Americans wish their daughters were more interested in pursuing.

It's a purely heterosexual set piece. The young women have been competing in these set pieces for 10 years or more. The contest is every bit as stylized as Kabuki theater or classical ballet - and it should be.

There is no place for gay sensibilities, irony, fake outrage, gender role-blurring, or any other kind of gritty intrusion in this event. No one care about any contestant's private feelings about group marriage, anal sex, or lesbian threesomes. The questions are traditionally designed to see if the woman will be a likable charitable ambassador for the pageant and it's events.

Perez Hilton is another bitter gay man who knows that he will end up paying for sex by 40 and dead of lifestyle causes by 50.

Odysseus
04-21-2009, 10:50 AM
The good news is that most Miss America contestants are forgotten within minutes of their crowing, but Miss Prejean will be known as the young woman who lost the contest on a matter of principle. She won't go far in Hollywood, but there are other venues for a woman with her character and beauty.

That having been said, Hilton's conduct is disgraceful. The contest is not a political one, and gay marriage is not part of the pageant, but of course, Hilton couldn't resist making it all about him and his pet issue. . By imposing his personal political agenda into the contest and then attacking a contestant for giving an honest answer, Hilton has made a public spectacle of himself, demonstrating that he is self-absorbed and shallow and he has demonstrated the vicious intolerance of gay activists.

Any decent man would be ashamed of what he has done. As Hilton has no decency, and barely qualifies as a man, I have no doubt that he will feel nothing but self-righteousness and a warm fuzzy for having made himself the center of attention instead of the women of the contest, which is all a drama queen really wants.

hazlnut
04-21-2009, 12:08 PM
Some are speculating that her answer cost her the tiara and sash. Apparently she was considered the front runner until that moment. I just want to know who decided that Perez Hilton should host the show? There was s lack of foresight in that decision.

As a Californian, I thought I might weight in here...

Carrie Prejean is a knock-out and if beauty pageants were judged solely on physical looks, then she should have won. As a California Girl she does our state proud--in a superficial eye-candy sort of way.

However, these national beauty pageants feel the need to include what often turns out to be the comic relief portion of the evenings entertainment, the Q&A.

1. Swimsuits 2. Talent 3. Evening Gown and 4. The asking contestants to speak articulately on a variety of current event/ political issue type questions--which of these is not like the others? (I've always felt that a round or two of Trivial Pursuit would be more interesting and at the very least make me feel better about myself)

I know there have been a handful of gals over the years who have had graduate degrees etc., but I'd bet that's not the norm.

The question was a fair question--it's topical and easy to answer without taking sides or being too controversial. All she had to do was sound articulate. But Miss Prejean had to go try to invent a new term 'opposite marriage' in what was IMO an answer where she stood by her convictions, but did so in a somewhat inarticulate way.

How about saying: I think that the gay marriage issue is indeed a state issue which the the State of California has weighed in on for the time being, however I would always wish same-sex couples all the happiness in their lives. (maybe I should have been one of her pageant coaches)

It would seem that her beliefs and convictions on this issue were more important than the crown--giving the answer she gave to an openly gay judge--for that, although I disagree with her POV, I respect her.

Odysseus
04-21-2009, 12:43 PM
As a Californian, I thought I might weight in here...

..The question was a fair question--it's topical and easy to answer without taking sides or being too controversial. All she had to do was sound articulate. But Miss Prejean had to go try to invent a new term 'opposite marriage' in what was IMO an answer where she stood by her convictions, but did so in a somewhat inarticulate way.
It was hardly a fare question. It was one of the most contentious issues today and any answer would have been offensive to someone, even yours. It put her in a vicious bind, since the judge who asked the question clearly had his own agenda, and any answer but complete agreement would have alienated him, while agreement would have been seen as toadying up to win the prize. It was a rude and uncivil act by Perez Hilton.


It would seem that her beliefs and convictions on this issue were more important than the crown--giving the answer she gave to an openly gay judge--for that, although I disagree with her POV, I respect her.
Glad to hear it. What's your take on Hilton's comments about her?

Gingersnap
04-21-2009, 12:45 PM
The question was a fair question--it's topical and easy to answer without taking sides or being too controversial.

It's obviously not "easy to answer" unless she was willing to compromise her beliefs.

The problem here was with the judges. There is no reason to have a gay man judge an eye-wateringly heterosexual beauty pageant. There is certainly no reason allow a judge to engage in the very kind of catty, PMS-on-steroids behavior that so characterizes members of certain homosexual subcultures.

If nothing else, he has succeeded in confirming the very worst stereotype of the girly, effeminate gay man.

RobJohnson
04-21-2009, 12:57 PM
Miss CA is pretty hawt!

linda22003
04-21-2009, 12:58 PM
Why do we still have beauty pageants? Does anyone even know?

Gingersnap
04-21-2009, 01:05 PM
Why do we still have beauty pageants? Does anyone even know?

Because the pageant system offers prize money and college scholarships to winners at every level. Some people like competing in 4-H, some people like competing in high school sports, and some people like competing in evening gowns. Whatever. It's not like most of them are going to be raising pigs, working with the NBA, or "Dancing With The Stars" in 20 years anyway.

Water Closet
04-21-2009, 01:05 PM
Why do we still have beauty pageants? Does anyone even know?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRdfX7ut8gw

linda22003
04-21-2009, 01:25 PM
Because the pageant system offers prize money and college scholarships to winners at every level. Some people like competing in 4-H, some people like competing in high school sports, and some people like competing in evening gowns. Whatever. It's not like most of them are going to be raising pigs, working with the NBA, or "Dancing With The Stars" in 20 years anyway.

I've never seen a 4-H competition on TV. And don't say it's popular; Miss America got booted from network television several years ago and has been bouncing around basic cable ever since.

Face it, pageants are as dead as Bert Parks.

hazlnut
04-21-2009, 01:25 PM
Glad to hear it. What's your take on Hilton's comments about her?

He's a tabloid blog clown, IMO.

Re: "Dumb Bitch." Not too bright, okay. As far as bitch, you'd have to ask the other contestants.

I think he qualifies as more of 'bitch'.

Water Closet
04-21-2009, 01:28 PM
I've never seen a 4-H competition on TV. And don't say it's popular; Miss America got booted from network television several years ago and has been bouncing around basic cable ever since.

Face it, pageants are as dead as Bert Parks.

Bert Parks is DEAD!!! :eek:

Gingersnap
04-21-2009, 01:34 PM
I've never seen a 4-H competition on TV. And don't say it's popular; Miss America got booted from network television several years ago and has been bouncing around basic cable ever since.

People are uninterested in watching teens razor clip pigs and they aren't much enthused about watching pimply high school boys catch air. People do seem to like watching young girls parade around swimsuits and ball gowns.

Just because it can't compete with 'Battle of the Bods' in terms of viewership, doesn't mean that it still isn't of interest to a lot of people.

Lars1701a
04-21-2009, 01:36 PM
Why do we still have beauty pageants? Does anyone even know?

Me thinks someone didn't win her pageant when she was younger. :D;):p

ReaganForRus
04-21-2009, 01:38 PM
In looking at her answer on you tube, if you notice between 45 and 55 seconds the audience is cheering her, I did not here booing from the crowd. It has been reported that there was a major cat fight in the lobby afterward in which parents and supporters of contestants in which the pro homosexual crowd verbally assaulted anyone who did not support their agenda. The competition should have shown that encounter and their ratings would have gone through the roof.:D

hazlnut
04-21-2009, 01:43 PM
It's obviously not "easy to answer" unless she was willing to compromise her beliefs.

The problem here was with the judges. There is no reason to have a gay man judge an eye-wateringly heterosexual beauty pageant. There is certainly no reason allow a judge to engage in the very kind of catty, PMS-on-steroids behavior that so characterizes members of certain homosexual subcultures.

If nothing else, he has succeeded in confirming the very worst stereotype of the girly, effeminate gay man.

Ginger:

I would guess that you're somewhat aware that in beauty pageant 'circles' -- gay men are the coaches, stylists, set designers, choreographers, show sponsors and pageant runners. They are a big part of the style, beauty, and performing arts community. I'd be surprise if Hilton was the only openly gay judge for that event. He's definitely not the first openly gay judge she's seen on her way up through the pageant system.

In that respect, you are right, if she could not compromise her beliefs, that particular question would be a showstopper for any contestant. Again, that I respect.

Shannon
04-21-2009, 02:09 PM
Bert Parks is DEAD!!! :eek:

Who the hell is Bert Parks? Friggin old people.:rolleyes::p

Odysseus
04-21-2009, 02:13 PM
He's a tabloid blog clown, IMO.
Re: "Dumb Bitch." Not too bright, okay. As far as bitch, you'd have to ask the other contestants.
I think he qualifies as more of 'bitch'.
As a general rule, beauty contestants aren't known for their brains, which is why there's no swimsuit competition at MENSA events. Regardless, if the positions had been reversed, and a straight male judge (obviously highly hypothetical here) had asked her for an opinion on gay marriage and she'd answered supportively, and that judge responded with the same vicious derision, the tsunami of outrage from the MSM would be off the charts, especially for introducing a loaded political question into the contest and then using his position to suppress the contestant's opinion. Hilton deliberately politicized an apolitical event and created a litmus test for future contestants: Conservatives need not apply.

In looking at her answer on you tube, if you notice between 45 and 55 seconds the audience is cheering her, I did not here booing from the crowd. It has been reported that there was a major cat fight in the lobby afterward in which parents and supporters of contestants in which the pro homosexual crowd verbally assaulted anyone who did not support their agenda. The competition should have shown that encounter and their ratings would have gone through the roof.:D
The media has reported lots of booing. :rolleyes:
Anyone want to bet that the majority of that booing came from the media itself?

djones520
04-21-2009, 02:18 PM
As a general rule, beauty contestants aren't known for their brains, which is why there's no swimsuit competition at MENSA events. Regardless, if the positions had been reversed, and a straight male judge (obviously highly hypothetical here) had asked her for an opinion on gay marriage and she'd answered supportively, and that judge responded with the same vicious derision, the tsunami of outrage from the MSM would be off the charts, especially for introducing a loaded political question into the contest and then using his position to suppress the contestant's opinion. Hilton deliberately politicized an apolitical event and created a litmus test for future contestants: Conservatives need not apply.

The media has reported lots of booing. :rolleyes:
Anyone want to bet that the majority of that booing came from the media itself?

I think at this level brains is a requirement. I got to listen to Miss America back in 2001 speak, when I was at a convention in DC. She struck me as a very intelligent person.

hazlnut
04-21-2009, 02:30 PM
The media has reported lots of booing. :rolleyes:
Anyone want to bet that the majority of that booing came from the media itself?

Again, I point out that the gay community is pretty well entrenched in beauty pageants--the creative support staff, promotion, event organizers etc. The gay members of the audience and those sympathetic their POV reacted to her answer. The media wouldn't need to pipe in reaction from the control booth.

enslaved1
04-21-2009, 02:33 PM
Caught this interview with both of them on the Today show this morning. He comes off as a typical hyper lib, I'm right, your wrong, how dare you have and express an opinion other than mine, militant gay. He contradicts himself about a dozen time in each sentence. She comes off as someone with a backbone, with principles, and the willingness to put those first.

Link because I can't for the life of me hit the right buttons to imbed the video (http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-perez-hilton-miss-california-face-off/)

Odysseus
04-21-2009, 02:45 PM
I think at this level brains is a requirement. I got to listen to Miss America back in 2001 speak, when I was at a convention in DC. She struck me as a very intelligent person.
Yeah, I'm probably stereotyping. Sign me up for diversity training. :D

Again, I point out that the gay community is pretty well entrenched in beauty pageants--the creative support staff, promotion, event organizers etc. The gay members of the audience and those sympathetic their POV reacted to her answer. The media wouldn't need to pipe in reaction from the control booth.
According to the ReaganForRus, "In looking at her answer on you tube, if you notice between 45 and 55 seconds the audience is cheering her" The audience wasn't booing, it was the elitist support staff, promoters and organizers, but in every MSM story on the event, we're told of the boos and not the cheers. The only thing missing from this was Susan Roesgen doing an "interview" with her to explain why she was a bigot.

Caught this interview with both of them on the Today show this morning. He comes off as a typical hyper lib, I'm right, your wrong, how dare you have and express an opinion other than mine, militant gay. He contradicts himself about a dozen time in each sentence. She comes off as someone with a backbone, with principles, and the willingness to put those first.

Link because I can't for the life of me hit the right buttons to imbed the video (http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-perez-hilton-miss-california-face-off/)

No wonder she lost. Backbone, principles, and the willingness to put those first will destroy you in Hollywood. :D

PoliCon
04-21-2009, 02:55 PM
Did you see the look of disappointment on that fairy's face when he couldn't shame her into agreeing with his point of view? Poor dickhead.. What a chump asking her to air her views on national television, whether you agree with her or not-it's not of your business how she feels about homosexual marriage. She's not a damned legislator, so what does it matter.. He looked like he was going to cry when there was applause instead of boos... I loved the fact that she said what she believed and not what she thought he wanted to hear. Good for her.

I hope he went home and cried into his pillow, but probably not, because if you look at his blog and the comments he gets from his supporters, there are plenty of people stroking his fragile, bruised ego who also don't believe in freedom of the heterosexual to have a moral compass.

Everywhere that homosexual marriage has been put on the ballot it's lost, even in California, so what does that tell you?? The only reason gay marriage exists at all is because of corrupt judges who ignore the will of the people.. I'm all for civil unions and full rights for homosexuals, but I, too, think that marriage should be off the table.

What people fail to realize is that for most homosexuals their whole identity and life revolves around that one issue. If you or I reject homosexuality - in their eyes - we are attacking them at the core of their being. It's sad more than anything if you ask me. Sad that a persons life is so devoid of meaning that the core of their being is built upon their sexual attractions.

PoliCon
04-21-2009, 03:00 PM
Caught this interview with both of them on the Today show this morning. He comes off as a typical hyper lib, I'm right, your wrong, how dare you have and express an opinion other than mine, militant gay. He contradicts himself about a dozen time in each sentence. She comes off as someone with a backbone, with principles, and the willingness to put those first.

Link because I can't for the life of me hit the right buttons to imbed the video (http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-perez-hilton-miss-california-face-off/)

Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. is a stupid jackass. :rolleyes: He said on his blog that he would have gone up on the stage and taken the crown from her has she won??? Gimme a break. I have no idea why this asshole is what he is in the media.

BTW - watch the video and tell me if you don't wanna SMASH this stupid fuck in his face.

linda22003
04-21-2009, 03:49 PM
Me thinks someone didn't win her pageant when she was younger. :D;):p

Methinks it wouldn't have occurred to me to enter. :p We're not all Suzanne Sugarbaker.

Odysseus
04-21-2009, 07:31 PM
Methinks it wouldn't have occurred to me to enter. :p We're not all Suzanne Sugarbaker.

I picture you as more of the Annie Potts type. :D

RobJohnson
04-22-2009, 02:27 AM
Yeah, I'm probably stereotyping. Sign me up for diversity training. :D

According to the ReaganForRus, "In looking at her answer on you tube, if you notice between 45 and 55 seconds the audience is cheering her" The audience wasn't booing, it was the elitist support staff, promoters and organizers, but in every MSM story on the event, we're told of the boos and not the cheers. The only thing missing from this was Susan Roesgen doing an "interview" with her to explain why she was a bigot.


No wonder she lost. Backbone, principles, and the willingness to put those first will destroy you in Hollywood. :D

I didn't hear anyone boo either, even though the media tells us there was.

A local Las Vegas news station had a pretty good newsclip that showed a heated exchange of words between some Miss CA supporters and a gay couple. :D

Calif Cowgirl
04-22-2009, 04:18 AM
This blog says it all. Alicia Jacobs, a Miss USA judge, admits that Miss Calif gave the wrong answer to the question and it cost her the crown. She also states that she would have voted her as the 51st runner up if she could have. This whole incident is slathered in bias and intolerance.

Pretty is as pretty does!

I had planned that this blog entry would have been my first hand account of judging the 2009 MISS USA PAGEANT. I will write that story, but not today. Today, I want to briefly discuss what is now known as "THE MISS CALIFORNIA USA DIBACLE!"

Since Sunday night's pageant, I have been inundated with people wanting to know how Miss California's answer to Perez Hilton's question affected my final judging. I can tell you that it GREATLY affected me & the final score I gave Carrie Prejean. I can reveal that throughout the live telecast, I LIKED Miss California, but I certainly was not overly impressed by her. Throughout the competition, I gave her very good scores. (truth be known, I was probably most impressed by MISS TENNESSEE, but infortunately,she did not make it past the top 10...oh well, to each his own.)

For the final round of scoring (which is, of course, the most important) the judges are asked to assign a ranking to each young woman. As each finalist is brought to the foot of the stage, we judges then punch a number into our scoring computers. We assign a ranking of 1 thru 5. Assigning the #1, means she is our choice for MISS USA, #2, first runner-up.... and #5, means she is my choice for fourth runner-up. In our 7:30 am judges briefing, it was made VERY clear that the "final ranking" should be decided by everything we had seen throughout the entire pageant. Ironically, I asked how heavily we should weigh the girl's performance on the "final question." Miss Universe president, Paula Shugart said, that yes, it's important to articulate & answer intelligently, (remember MISS SOUTH CAROLINA TEEN USA a few years ago, "such as, U.S. Americans, such as, such as...well, Paula told us she had been winning the pageant until that fateful moment) Paula & Executive producer, Phil Gurin added that yes, the response to the question is important, but make the final ranking your overall impression of the young woman. Made sense to me.


Interestingly, of the 5 judges who asked questions, Perez was the only one who had written his own question...& when I asked him what his question was, he would not reveal it, telling me he wanted to keep it secret, but that it had been approved by Paula Shugart & the producers. So of course, when Miss California selected Perez, I couldn't wait to hear the question. HOOOOOOLLY COOOOOW!

Most of us former "pageant girls" can't help but play along, so my first thought upon hearing the "gay marriage question" was ,"what a great question!"...& in my head, I answered it, & of course, I was instantly crowned Miss USA 2009!

Ok, back to reality, to be fair, the beginning of Prejean's answer was ok...but, she made the mistake of not knowing when to shut her mouth. As she continued to speak, I saw the crown move further & further away from her. When she finished, she looked strangely proud for a moment. Personally, I was STUNNED on several levels. First, how could this young woman NOT know her audience and judges? Let's not forget that the person asking the question is an openly gay man, at least 2 people on the judges panel are openly gay. Another judge has a sister in a gay marriage. Her very own state pageant director, KEITH LEWIS is an openly gay man who has been a very generous benefactor of hers...in many ways. (2 ways in particular....if you get my drift??) Did I mention I was STUNNED? I was also personally insulted & hurt. Prejean's words hit very close to home for me. Some of the most important people in my life, happen to be gay. A few months ago, on November 1, 2008, I was maid of honor at the wedding of my very dear friends, Robert Aganza & Jorge' Rodriguez. I flashed back to that beautiful wedding ceremony, where everyone in the room was crying tears of joy & love. How can she be saying this, is all I could think in that moment. Remembering that we were on live television, I actually recall having to close my wide-opened mouth, I then looked over to Perez, who was seated right next to me, he was just shaking his head, he actually seemed a bit hurt? Then came the very loud booing in the theatre, followed by "a word from our sponsors."

During the commercial break, fellow judges, Perez, Shandi Finessey (Miss USA 2004) & I spoke, we were all shocked by what we had just heard. (I tweeted as much too ) we came back from the commercial, & now, it was the moment of truth. This was the moment where we had to assign that all-important final ranking...1 thru 5. Yes, I struggled, prior to her final question, Miss California was not my pick for Miss USA, but I would have chosen her as 1st runner-up. My final ranking for Miss California was 4th runner-up...& if I could have made her 51st runner-up, I would have.

Please understand, that as a journalist, I am passionate about freedom of speech, however, I am also passionate about the importance of compassion & humanity, & that we should ALL have the right to love & share our lives with WHOMEVER we chose. If Carrie Prejean is against gay marriage, she certainly has that right, but, if it was her intention to be MISS USA (and I think it was) why not answer that question with diplomacy & heart? Sometimes, (pageants & politics, to name a few) we have to be mindful of using a platform in a hurtful way, like international television (The Miss USA PAGEANT was seen by over 7 million viewers in the U.S. alone, & in at least 121 different countries) Yes, Miss USA should be beautiful, be physically fit, & look great in a swimsuit, she also has to be able to think on her feet & answer any question thrown at her in an articulate & non-offensive manner. Outwardly, Miss California was wonderfully prepared, & in many ways, she looked the part of Miss USA. It has occurred to me that the all-knowing power of the Universe took over the final 15 minutes of the Miss USA telecast. What were the odds that Perez Hilton, an openly gay man, who insisted on writing his own question, would have his name randomly selected by Miss California? Thank goodness, or thank the universe for this occurrence...how horrible if Miss California USA's lack of good judgement had not been disclosed until it was too late? Maybe it's true, & maybe everything really does happen for a reason. It is my opinion that MISS USA must have social grace...Miss California USA does not.

Tune in to my STAGE 3 segment tomorrow at 4:00 & 11:00 for more exclusive, first- hand scoop...including my interview with Keith Lewis, Executive Director of THE MISS CALIFORNIA USA PAGEANT, & I'll tell you about my dinner with Keith & his business partner, former Miss USA, actress, SHANNA MOAKLER. I'll also tell you exactly where Miss California & Miss North Carolina stood in the scoring BEFORE Perez' question...VERY VERY JUICY!!!!!

About Alicia
Alicia Jacobs is a native Las Vegan and UNLV Alum. She also happens to be a former Miss Nevada USA and Miss United States. Alicia began covering Entertainment News at Las Vegas' ABC affiliate, she joined KVBC News in November of 2003. She is featured on the 4 o'clock and 11 o'clock newscasts, as well as News 3 Today. Proclaimed "Queen of Celebrity Scoop" by "Vegas Magazine," Alicia's interviews have included George Clooney, Bob Hope, P. Diddy, Nicholas Cage, Jay Leno, Josh Groban, Drew Barrymore, & Andrea Bocelli's first ever English language interview. Alicia's "behind the scenes" segments have seen her actually performing on-stage in several Las Vegas productions. She suited-up as a "Siren," & danced in the "Siren's of T.I." show, performed on-stage as one of Ivan Kane's "40 Deuce Girls," became a trapeze artist in the "Moscow Circus," vanished from David Copperfield's show, & performed the lead role in the musical "Mama Mia," to name a few.

enslaved1
04-22-2009, 10:05 AM
Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. is a stupid jackass. :rolleyes: He said on his blog that he would have gone up on the stage and taken the crown from her has she won??? Gimme a break. I have no idea why this asshole is what he is in the media.

I never even heard of him until this hubub. But I don't pay a lot of attention to Hollywood style "news" either.


BTW - watch the video and tell me if you don't wanna SMASH this stupid fuck in his face.

Just saying we want to, the way things work right now, he still wins. We who are upset at his ridiculous spewings are just evil homophobes, not knowledgeable people disgusted by his complete butchery of common sense. Actually doing it, or even pulling a lib stunt like throwing a pie at him, would land us in jail with a nasty lawsuit to boot.

The pie stunt just might offer enough satisfaction to be worth it. :D


No wonder she lost. Backbone, principles, and the willingness to put those first will destroy you in Hollywood.

QFT

ReaganForRus
04-22-2009, 10:26 AM
Miss California still wins in my book.

Perez is just pissed that he can't fit into her dress.

LOL...........He was thinking "That Bitch!!!!!!!............she looks better in the outfit than I ever could!"
"I hope she gets cellulite!"!!!!!!

ReaganForRus
04-22-2009, 10:32 AM
Again, I point out that the gay community is pretty well entrenched in beauty pageants--the creative support staff, promotion, event organizers etc. The gay members of the audience and those sympathetic their POV reacted to her answer. The media wouldn't need to pipe in reaction from the control booth.

If you look at the you tube video, between 45 and 55 seconds, the audience reaction is in loud support of Miss California........there was no booing. The booing and hissy fits took place in the foyer of the theater after the contest in which openly gay activists verbally abused and verbally assaulted contestant supporters and families.

They want to enforce their beliefs and standards on everyone, and if you hold a deeply held religious belief, you are the enemy.

ReaganForRus
04-22-2009, 10:39 AM
This blog says it all. Alicia Jacobs, a Miss USA judge, admits that Miss Calif gave the wrong answer to the question and it cost her the crown. She also states that she would have voted her as the 51st runner up if she could have. This whole incident is slathered in bias and intolerance.

Pretty is as pretty does!

I had planned that this blog entry would have been my first hand account of judging the 2009 MISS USA PAGEANT. I will write that story, but not today. Today, I want to briefly discuss what is now known as "THE MISS CALIFORNIA USA DIBACLE!"

Since Sunday night's pageant, I have been inundated with people wanting to know how Miss California's answer to Perez Hilton's question affected my final judging. I can tell you that it GREATLY affected me & the final score I gave Carrie Prejean. I can reveal that throughout the live telecast, I LIKED Miss California, but I certainly was not overly impressed by her. Throughout the competition, I gave her very good scores. (truth be known, I was probably most impressed by MISS TENNESSEE, but infortunately,she did not make it past the top 10...oh well, to each his own.)

For the final round of scoring (which is, of course, the most important) the judges are asked to assign a ranking to each young woman. As each finalist is brought to the foot of the stage, we judges then punch a number into our scoring computers. We assign a ranking of 1 thru 5. Assigning the #1, means she is our choice for MISS USA, #2, first runner-up.... and #5, means she is my choice for fourth runner-up. In our 7:30 am judges briefing, it was made VERY clear that the "final ranking" should be decided by everything we had seen throughout the entire pageant. Ironically, I asked how heavily we should weigh the girl's performance on the "final question." Miss Universe president, Paula Shugart said, that yes, it's important to articulate & answer intelligently, (remember MISS SOUTH CAROLINA TEEN USA a few years ago, "such as, U.S. Americans, such as, such as...well, Paula told us she had been winning the pageant until that fateful moment) Paula & Executive producer, Phil Gurin added that yes, the response to the question is important, but make the final ranking your overall impression of the young woman. Made sense to me.


Interestingly, of the 5 judges who asked questions, Perez was the only one who had written his own question...& when I asked him what his question was, he would not reveal it, telling me he wanted to keep it secret, but that it had been approved by Paula Shugart & the producers. So of course, when Miss California selected Perez, I couldn't wait to hear the question. HOOOOOOLLY COOOOOW!

Most of us former "pageant girls" can't help but play along, so my first thought upon hearing the "gay marriage question" was ,"what a great question!"...& in my head, I answered it, & of course, I was instantly crowned Miss USA 2009!

Ok, back to reality, to be fair, the beginning of Prejean's answer was ok...but, she made the mistake of not knowing when to shut her mouth. As she continued to speak, I saw the crown move further & further away from her. When she finished, she looked strangely proud for a moment. Personally, I was STUNNED on several levels. First, how could this young woman NOT know her audience and judges? Let's not forget that the person asking the question is an openly gay man, at least 2 people on the judges panel are openly gay. Another judge has a sister in a gay marriage. Her very own state pageant director, KEITH LEWIS is an openly gay man who has been a very generous benefactor of hers...in many ways. (2 ways in particular....if you get my drift??) Did I mention I was STUNNED? I was also personally insulted & hurt. Prejean's words hit very close to home for me. Some of the most important people in my life, happen to be gay. A few months ago, on November 1, 2008, I was maid of honor at the wedding of my very dear friends, Robert Aganza & Jorge' Rodriguez. I flashed back to that beautiful wedding ceremony, where everyone in the room was crying tears of joy & love. How can she be saying this, is all I could think in that moment. Remembering that we were on live television, I actually recall having to close my wide-opened mouth, I then looked over to Perez, who was seated right next to me, he was just shaking his head, he actually seemed a bit hurt? Then came the very loud booing in the theatre, followed by "a word from our sponsors."

During the commercial break, fellow judges, Perez, Shandi Finessey (Miss USA 2004) & I spoke, we were all shocked by what we had just heard. (I tweeted as much too ) we came back from the commercial, & now, it was the moment of truth. This was the moment where we had to assign that all-important final ranking...1 thru 5. Yes, I struggled, prior to her final question, Miss California was not my pick for Miss USA, but I would have chosen her as 1st runner-up. My final ranking for Miss California was 4th runner-up...& if I could have made her 51st runner-up, I would have.

Please understand, that as a journalist, I am passionate about freedom of speech, however, I am also passionate about the importance of compassion & humanity, & that we should ALL have the right to love & share our lives with WHOMEVER we chose. If Carrie Prejean is against gay marriage, she certainly has that right, but, if it was her intention to be MISS USA (and I think it was) why not answer that question with diplomacy & heart? Sometimes, (pageants & politics, to name a few) we have to be mindful of using a platform in a hurtful way, like international television (The Miss USA PAGEANT was seen by over 7 million viewers in the U.S. alone, & in at least 121 different countries) Yes, Miss USA should be beautiful, be physically fit, & look great in a swimsuit, she also has to be able to think on her feet & answer any question thrown at her in an articulate & non-offensive manner. Outwardly, Miss California was wonderfully prepared, & in many ways, she looked the part of Miss USA. It has occurred to me that the all-knowing power of the Universe took over the final 15 minutes of the Miss USA telecast. What were the odds that Perez Hilton, an openly gay man, who insisted on writing his own question, would have his name randomly selected by Miss California? Thank goodness, or thank the universe for this occurrence...how horrible if Miss California USA's lack of good judgement had not been disclosed until it was too late? Maybe it's true, & maybe everything really does happen for a reason. It is my opinion that MISS USA must have social grace...Miss California USA does not.

Tune in to my STAGE 3 segment tomorrow at 4:00 & 11:00 for more exclusive, first- hand scoop...including my interview with Keith Lewis, Executive Director of THE MISS CALIFORNIA USA PAGEANT, & I'll tell you about my dinner with Keith & his business partner, former Miss USA, actress, SHANNA MOAKLER. I'll also tell you exactly where Miss California & Miss North Carolina stood in the scoring BEFORE Perez' question...VERY VERY JUICY!!!!!

About Alicia
Alicia Jacobs is a native Las Vegan and UNLV Alum. She also happens to be a former Miss Nevada USA and Miss United States. Alicia began covering Entertainment News at Las Vegas' ABC affiliate, she joined KVBC News in November of 2003. She is featured on the 4 o'clock and 11 o'clock newscasts, as well as News 3 Today. Proclaimed "Queen of Celebrity Scoop" by "Vegas Magazine," Alicia's interviews have included George Clooney, Bob Hope, P. Diddy, Nicholas Cage, Jay Leno, Josh Groban, Drew Barrymore, & Andrea Bocelli's first ever English language interview. Alicia's "behind the scenes" segments have seen her actually performing on-stage in several Las Vegas productions. She suited-up as a "Siren," & danced in the "Siren's of T.I." show, performed on-stage as one of Ivan Kane's "40 Deuce Girls," became a trapeze artist in the "Moscow Circus," vanished from David Copperfield's show, & performed the lead role in the musical "Mama Mia," to name a few.

What a pile of bovine feces!...........You must conform to the collective thinking or no title for you?.........
What a freakin' nazi!!!!!!!!!!!!

Odysseus
04-22-2009, 10:41 AM
This blog says it all. Alicia Jacobs, a Miss USA judge, admits that Miss Calif gave the wrong answer to the question and it cost her the crown. She also states that she would have voted her as the 51st runner up if she could have. This whole incident is slathered in bias and intolerance.
You're not kidding. But what always amazes me is that the left cannot see its intolerance, just as the media cannot see its biases. I must translate:

Interestingly, of the 5 judges who asked questions, Perez was the only one who had written his own question...& when I asked him what his question was, he would not reveal it, telling me he wanted to keep it secret, but that it had been approved by Paula Shugart & the producers. So of course, when Miss California selected Perez, I couldn't wait to hear the question. HOOOOOOLLY COOOOOW!
Translation: First, we let a faux celebrity internet scribbler with a reputation for shameless self-promotion write his own question and keep it secret. Forget for a moment that this clown was a judge in the first place (his qualifications being that he can write snarky patter about celebrities), when he took the opportunity to the pageant into his personal show, we looked the other way. Most people will have no idea who won this this farce, but the only two names that they will remember from this are Carrie Prejean and Perez Hilton, and most Americans are going to have the same recollection. Hilton's "brave" question was simply another effort to remind us that, no matter what was going on on the stage, this was all about him, him, him! We'd better spin this, but fast!

...First, how could this young woman NOT know her audience and judges? Let's not forget that the person asking the question is an openly gay man, at least 2 people on the judges panel are openly gay. Another judge has a sister in a gay marriage. Her very own state pageant director, KEITH LEWIS is an openly gay man who has been a very generous benefactor of hers...in many ways. (2 ways in particular....if you get my drift??)
Translation: We must never be afraid to speak truth to power, unless we're the ones in power. Then it's insensitive and cruel. That's why it's okay for Code Pink to show up at Walter Reed to tell the recovering troops that they were wounded for a lie, Cindy Sheehan to camp out in Crawford TX in order to confront the president, and for the Dixie Chicks to insult the president overseas during wartime... How could those people NOT know their audience? But since that audience was conservative, biased, hateful and ickypoo, it's okay to confront them with our opinions. Just don't think for a moment that this goes both ways, no matter how many of us do.
And if Carrie Prejean did know her audience and the judges, she should have given a PC answer that didn't reflect her feelings because it would have offended the people who could make or break her career. It's not that she shouldn't have even been allowed to think that way (although she shouldn't), but that she shouldn't say what it thinks if it offends the people who matter, the fabulous people, the beautiful people like Perez Hilton, Harvey Fierstein and Barney Frank.

Please understand, that as a journalist, I am passionate about freedom of speech, however, I am also passionate about the importance of compassion & humanity, & that we should ALL have the right to love & share our lives with WHOMEVER we chose. If Carrie Prejean is against gay marriage, she certainly has that right, but, if it was her intention to be MISS USA (and I think it was) why not answer that question with diplomacy & heart? Sometimes, (pageants & politics, to name a few) we have to be mindful of using a platform in a hurtful way, like international television (The Miss USA PAGEANT was seen by over 7 million viewers in the U.S. alone, & in at least 121 different countries)
Translation: And we'd better tell them what they saw, or they might think that they saw a gay activist use this forum to promote himself and an agenda that most of those viewers found repugnant. Worse, they might think that they saw a young woman answer him honestly and then watched as the activist minority ignited a firestorm of outrage against her, punishing her for the free exercise of her right to speak and for taking a principled position in the face of people who she must have known would be hostile to her answer. We can't have the unwashed masses thinking for themselves, so we have to spoon feed them the answer, that she was a meanie who didn't deserve to be Miss USA. So there.

Yes, Miss USA should be beautiful, be physically fit, & look great in a swimsuit, she also has to be able to think on her feet & answer any question thrown at her in an articulate & non-offensive manner. Outwardly, Miss California was wonderfully prepared, & in many ways, she looked the part of Miss USA. It has occurred to me that the all-knowing power of the Universe took over the final 15 minutes of the Miss USA telecast. What were the odds that Perez Hilton, an openly gay man, who insisted on writing his own question, would have his name randomly selected by Miss California? Thank goodness, or thank the universe for this occurrence...how horrible if Miss California USA's lack of good judgement had not been disclosed until it was too late? Maybe it's true, & maybe everything really does happen for a reason. It is my opinion that MISS USA must have social grace...Miss California USA does not.
Translation: Miss USA should be hot, but hotties are a dime a dozen in this business. If she's going to be in the public eye, she needs to be a pretty, sparkling, politically correct, robotic clone of the judges' opinions, one that will only offend the people that we want to offend, namely conservatives, traditionalists, religious fanatics, gun nuts and anyone else who didn't vote for our savior in chief.

Tune in to my STAGE 3 segment tomorrow at 4:00 & 11:00 for more exclusive, first- hand scoop...including my interview with Keith Lewis, Executive Director of THE MISS CALIFORNIA USA PAGEANT, & I'll tell you about my dinner with Keith & his business partner, former Miss USA, actress, SHANNA MOAKLER. I'll also tell you exactly where Miss California & Miss North Carolina stood in the scoring BEFORE Perez' question...VERY VERY JUICY!!!!!
Translation: But enough about her. Back to me, me, me!

wilbur
04-22-2009, 11:15 AM
Society is functioning as it should. Bigots don't deserve tolerance. There should be a high social cost for the things that contestant said.

FlaGator
04-22-2009, 11:19 AM
Society is functioning as it should. Bigots don't deserve tolerance. There should be a high social cost for the things that contestant said.

They asked her for her opinion and she gave it. Should she have lied and said something that she didn't believe? He they wanted rote answers Perez should have asked her "what is my opinion of same-sex marriages" and the she could have, in good conscience, told him what he wanted to here.

You sound a bit bitter. Perhaps you are tired of few to no people agreeing with you on CU? ;)

wilbur
04-22-2009, 11:22 AM
They asked her for her opinion and she gave it. Should she have lied and said something that she didn't believe? He they wanted rote answers Perez should have asked her "what is my opinion of same-sex marriages" and the she could have, in good conscience, told him what he wanted to here.

No, she should just face the consequences of standing up for her beliefs. In this case, her beliefs are bigoted... so she pays the price.



You sound a bit bitter. Perhaps you are tired of few to no people agreeing with you on CU? ;)

No bitterness in what I said, I am speaking my mind. If I said there should be a high social cost for her publicly claiming that blacks are an inferior race, you would not read bitterness in that, you would agree.

There should be a high social cost for proclaiming certain things... call it a taboo, if you will :)

Calif Cowgirl
04-22-2009, 11:23 AM
You're not kidding. But what always amazes me is that the left cannot see its intolerance, just as the media cannot see its biases. I must translate:

Translation: First, we let a faux celebrity internet scribbler with a reputation for shameless self-promotion write his own question and keep it secret. Forget for a moment that this clown was a judge in the first place (his qualifications being that he can write snarky patter about celebrities), when he took the opportunity to the pageant into his personal show, we looked the other way. Most people will have no idea who won this this farce, but the only two names that they will remember from this are Carrie Prejean and Perez Hilton, and most Americans are going to have the same recollection. Hilton's "brave" question was simply another effort to remind us that, no matter what was going on on the stage, this was all about him, him, him! We'd better spin this, but fast!

Translation: We must never be afraid to speak truth to power, unless we're the ones in power. Then it's insensitive and cruel. That's why it's okay for Code Pink to show up at Walter Reed to tell the recovering troops that they were wounded for a lie, Cindy Sheehan to camp out in Crawford TX in order to confront the president, and for the Dixie Chicks to insult the president overseas during wartime... How could those people NOT know their audience? But since that audience was conservative, biased, hateful and ickypoo, it's okay to confront them with our opinions. Just don't think for a moment that this goes both ways, no matter how many of us do.
And if Carrie Prejean did know her audience and the judges, she should have given a PC answer that didn't reflect her feelings because it would have offended the people who could make or break her career. It's not that she shouldn't have even been allowed to think that way (although she shouldn't), but that she shouldn't say what it thinks if it offends the people who matter, the fabulous people, the beautiful people like Perez Hilton, Harvey Fierstein and Barney Frank.

Translation: And we'd better tell them what they saw, or they might think that they saw a gay activist use this forum to promote himself and an agenda that most of those viewers found repugnant. Worse, they might think that they saw a young woman answer him honestly and then watched as the activist minority ignited a firestorm of outrage against her, punishing her for the free exercise of her right to speak and for taking a principled position in the face of people who she must have known would be hostile to her answer. We can't have the unwashed masses thinking for themselves, so we have to spoon feed them the answer, that she was a meanie who didn't deserve to be Miss USA. So there.

Translation: Miss USA should be hot, but hotties are a dime a dozen in this business. If she's going to be in the public eye, she needs to be a pretty, sparkling, politically correct, robotic clone of the judges' opinions, one that will only offend the people that we want to offend, namely conservatives, traditionalists, religious fanatics, gun nuts and anyone else who didn't vote for our savior in chief.

Translation: But enough about her. Back to me, me, me!

Perfect translation. I believe you have hit the nail on the head. This whole thing is outrageous.

Donald Trump owns the Miss USA Pageant, and he really needs to be flooded with feedback on what people are thinking. I am going to email Alicia Jacobs' blog to him. How can he pretend that this is a legitimate pageant with the blatant bias. Perez Hilton made a fool of The Donald, and I think he needs to know that people think so!!!

Here is the contact for the Miss USA if anyone would like to voice their opinion.

http://www.missuniverse.com/missusa/info/contactus

and

Here is the contact for the Trump Organization

http://www.trump.com/Contact_Us/Contact_Us.asp

Lager
04-22-2009, 11:30 AM
Nothing she said indicates bigotry. You having to define it as such, whether because you disagree, or because you are homosexual, does not make it so. If this "society" that you mentioned, were functioning properly, there wouldn't be so many who are increasingly obsessed by a self-centeredness in there view of the world, i.e. because I disagree, and I am a member of a group who this opinion affects, I have the absolut right to be offended and I also get to define it as I see fit, without anyone questioning my definition.

FlaGator
04-22-2009, 11:36 AM
No, she should just face the consequences of standing up for her beliefs. In this case, her beliefs are bigoted... so she pays the price.



No bitterness in what I said, I am speaking my mind. If I said there should be a high social cost for her publicly claiming that blacks are an inferior race, you would not read bitterness in that, you would agree.

There should be a high social cost for proclaiming certain things... call it a taboo, if you will :)

Believe it or not I agree with you, but since the country is divided on this issue and the judges are not, then perhaps in the name of fairness the question should not have been asked. A person's ambitions can be sabotaged with a misleading question that has no other purpose than to put the person in a bad ideological light.

I suspect, however, that the contestant will end up better off than if she had won because a lot of groups that see things as she does bring her on as an advocate.

Rebel Yell
04-22-2009, 11:38 AM
No bitterness in what I said, I am speaking my mind. If I said there should be a high social cost for her publicly claiming that blacks are an inferior race, you would not read bitterness in that, you would agree.

There should be a high social cost for proclaiming certain things... call it a taboo, if you will :)

If that person is asked if they think blacks are inferior, and that's what they think, I'll have more respect for them if they just say it. I have more respect for the person who has the fuckin' spine to truthfully give their opinion when asked, even if I don't agree with it, than a jellyfish who's afraid some pillow biter might get his little panties in a wad. Fuck tip toeing around these fuckers. You have a right to live your life the way you want, and I have the right to not agree with it (as long as I don't physically harm you for it).

Gingersnap
04-22-2009, 11:44 AM
No bitterness in what I said, I am speaking my mind. If I said there should be a high social cost for her publicly claiming that blacks are an inferior race, you would not read bitterness in that, you would agree.

There should be a high social cost for proclaiming certain things... call it a taboo, if you will :)

Sex is an optional behavior. Marriage is a voluntary conditional contract. Blackness is neither.

She didn't proclaim anything, she answered a question about herself and her family and their views.

Rebel Yell
04-22-2009, 11:46 AM
Sex is an optional behavior. Marriage is a voluntary conditional contract. Blackness is neither.

She didn't proclaim anything, she answered a question about herself and her family and their views.

He used blacks because those are the lefts biggest victim cards, black and gays. Gays had already been used.

Gingersnap
04-22-2009, 12:00 PM
He used blacks because those are the lefts biggest victim cards, black and gays. Gays had already been used.

Yeah, I know. :D

FlaGator
04-22-2009, 12:15 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c78wNV10IRc

stsinner
04-22-2009, 12:28 PM
Sex is an optional behavior. .



I love that you said that.. I believe that, as well, but if it would have been me that said it, Linda would have had something to say about it...

This is what pisses me off about homosexuals comparing being disgusted by their behavior with racism or sexism, or even civil rights.. They choose sodomy, people don't choose their race or their sex, so to be offended by race or sex is ignorance. But to have morals and follow the teachings of your religion is conviction. Even if you have no religion-Anything that if we woke up tomorrow and everyone was doing it would end humanity has got to be terrible. That's not to say that I don't think people should be free to live their lives in whatever twisted way they see fit, as long as they don't harm anyone else (although I'd argue that a child raised in a homosexual marriage is greatly harmed by not having the benefit of both sexes to learn from). I do feel they should have this freedom, but don't ask me to say that I'm not offended by it. I would never preemptively offend them, and, likewise, I should not have to endure any aspect of their choice, and I will never say that I think it's normal behavior or tell my kids that it's normal and equal to a heterosexual relationship.

Hilton probably loves all the attention he's getting because for as many of us that think he was a total tool for asking a loaded question such as he did, there are plenty of, and increasing numbers of, liberal pussies with no spine who whose moral compass will point whichever direction is the most popular and least offensive..


One thing I can't understand is the rainbow sticker... Why do homosexuals feel the need to broadcast to the world their sexual preference? Part of me thinks it's a way to be in denial that you're insecure about your choice and a way to make yourself think you're really proud of your lifestyle.. Or it could be a way to meet other homosexuals, but all the ones I know who have these stupid stickers are already in relationships, so that's probably not the case.

stsinner
04-22-2009, 12:32 PM
If that person is asked if they think blacks are inferior, and that's what they think, I'll have more respect for them if they just say it. I have more respect for the person who has the fuckin' spine to truthfully give their opinion when asked, even if I don't agree with it, than a jellyfish who's afraid some pillow biter might get his little panties in a wad. Fuck tip toeing around these fuckers. You have a right to live your life the way you want, and I have the right to not agree with it (as long as I don't physically harm you for it).

Your stance is so true that it's sad that it even bears uttering... It should just be the way life is but, sadly, with all the special interest groups, you risk imprisonment for words.. In our sick and twisted litigious new society, sticks and stones can still break your bones, but now words are considered weapons, too, and carry fines and incarceration.

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 12:38 PM
Sex is an optional behavior...

Speak for yourself! :eek: :D

linda22003
04-22-2009, 12:41 PM
I love that you said that.. I believe that, as well, but if it would have been me that said it, Linda would have had something to say about it...

This is what pisses me off about homosexuals comparing being disgusted by their behavior with racism or sexism, or even civil rights.. They choose sodomy, people don't choose their race or their sex, so to be offended by race or sex is ignorance. But to have morals and follow the teachings of your religion is conviction.

Yeah, I have something to say about it. People may choose their behaviors, but I don't think they choose their orientation. I don't remember waking up one morning when I was young and saying, "Hey, I think I'll decide to be attracted to boys." It just happened.

Apparently you're squicked by the way gays have sex. However, heterosexuals have sex in that manner as well. In fact, in many states "sodomy" means same or opposite oral sex as well. I don't know too many guys who are offended by oral sex; most of them seem to be concerned about how to get more of it. :p

Rebel Yell
04-22-2009, 12:47 PM
Your stance is so true that it's sad that it even bears uttering... It should just be the way life is but, sadly, with all the special interest groups, you risk imprisonment for words.. In our sick and twisted litigious new society, sticks and stones can still break your bones, but now words are considered weapons, too, and carry fines and incarceration.

Yeah, I don't do too well with the think what you want, just keep it to yourself philosophy.

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 12:49 PM
Yeah, I don't do too well with the think what you want, just keep it to yourself philosophy.

Is that analogous to "Don't ask, don't tell?" :D

FlaGator
04-22-2009, 12:52 PM
Is that analogous to "Don't ask, don't tell?" :D

Things have to be done a little different when you have a bunch of people with loaded weapons and whose job it is to go into hostile areas and shoot them. :D

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 12:53 PM
Things have to be done a little different when you have a bunch of people with loaded weapons and whose job it is to go into hostile areas and shoot them. :D

And you're saying that's more dangerous than behind the scenes at a beauty pageant? :confused: :D

FlaGator
04-22-2009, 12:55 PM
And you're saying that's more dangerous than behind the scenes at a beauty pageant? :confused: :D

I guess all that hairspray could be considered some form of chemical warfare:eek:

stsinner
04-22-2009, 01:04 PM
Yeah, I have something to say about it. People may choose their behaviors, but I don't think they choose their orientation. I don't remember waking up one morning when I was young and saying, "Hey, I think I'll decide to be attracted to boys." It just happened.

Apparently you're squicked by the way gays have sex. However, heterosexuals have sex in that manner as well. In fact, in many states "sodomy" means same or opposite oral sex as well. I don't know too many guys who are offended by oral sex; most of them seem to be concerned about how to get more of it. :p

Of course you didn't wake up one morning and decide to be straight because that's the normal state of things.. You only have to make decisions about things that are abnormal and not natural such as being a homosexual. You have to make a decision to change course from the normal way things are, otherwise things just happen naturally with no choice making involved.. I, personally, know 4 homosexuals who were previously married to the opposite sex and after bad breakups chose to lead a homosexual lifestyle.. They all happen to be women, unfortunately, but the facts are what they are.. Two of them had children in their hetero marriages.

I'm not offended by oral sex, but anal destruction rubs me the wrong way... AND, it's against my religion.. Two great reasons to be disgusted by it (Yes, my religion guides my morals, not society's permissiveness), and no number of insults or condescending remarks about my views by you will change that one bit..

Gingersnap
04-22-2009, 01:04 PM
Yeah, I have something to say about it. People may choose their behaviors, but I don't think they choose their orientation. I don't remember waking up one morning when I was young and saying, "Hey, I think I'll decide to be attracted to boys." It just happened.


Pretty obviously you never attended my college. It was routine for some girls to "go gay" until graduation. They got a lot of positive attention from profs, the frat guys left them alone, and they got a lot of invitations to things due to their token gayness.

Five or ten years later they somehow all ended up marrying heterosexual male attorneys or business owners. After that, their unshakable belief in lesbianism must have been sorely tried by the arrival of the expected 2.1 kids.

People engage all kinds of sexual behaviors for all kinds of reasons.

linda22003
04-22-2009, 01:09 PM
Pretty obviously you never attended my college. It was routine for some girls to "go gay" until graduation. They got a lot of positive attention from profs, the frat guys left them alone, and they got a lot of invitations to things due to their token gayness.

I totally didn't attend your college. I went to the "why would I WANT guys to leave me alone?!?!?" college.

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 01:48 PM
...
I'm not offended by oral sex, but anal destruction rubs me the wrong way... AND, it's against my religion.. Two great reasons to be disgusted by it (Yes, my religion guides my morals, not society's permissiveness), and no number of insults or condescending remarks about my views by you will change that one bit..

Ah, but should your religion be the basis for laws restricting private behaviour between consenting adults?

linda22003
04-22-2009, 01:53 PM
Ah, but should your religion be the basis for laws restricting private behaviour between consenting adults?

Plus, if it's "destruction", you're doin' it wrong. ;)

linda22003
04-22-2009, 01:55 PM
I, personally, know 4 homosexuals who were previously married to the opposite sex and after bad breakups chose to lead a homosexual lifestyle. They all happen to be women, unfortunately, but the facts are what they are.

Totally understandable, if they were married to guys like..... ah, never mind. :p

stsinner
04-22-2009, 02:00 PM
Ah, but should your religion be the basis for laws restricting private behaviour between consenting adults?

Only if they subscribe to those beliefs and are a member of that church.. I don't care what people do in their bedrooms-I really dont-that means I don't even want to know if people are gay or straight.. However, homosexuals seem to think I need to know and so they slap a sticker on their car to make sure I'm clear on it.. Instead of a rainbow, the symbol of homosexuality should be a gerbil.

Marriage, however, brings their sexuality out of the bedroom.

stsinner
04-22-2009, 02:07 PM
Totally understandable, if they were married to guys like..... ah, never mind. :p

Ouch.

linda22003
04-22-2009, 02:13 PM
Sorry. I just don't understand disliking a whole segment of the population because of something that has nothing to do with me.

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 02:19 PM
Only if they subscribe to those beliefs and are a member of that church.. I don't care what people do in their bedrooms-I really dont-that means I don't even want to know if people are gay or straight.. However, homosexuals seem to think I need to know and so they slap a sticker on their car to make sure I'm clear on it.. Instead of a rainbow, the symbol of homosexuality should be a gerbil.

Marriage, however, brings their sexuality out of the bedroom.

So does romance. Do you object to gays holding hands and/or kissing in public? Should there be laws restricting such behaviour?

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 02:21 PM
Sorry. I just don't understand disliking a whole segment of the population because of something that has nothing to do with me.

Perhaps that's because you're not interested in imposing your moral code on others through the force of law.

stsinner
04-22-2009, 02:37 PM
So does romance. Do you object to gays holding hands and/or kissing in public? Should there be laws restricting such behaviour?

I absolutely object to that but it's their right.. Fortunately, the homos I associate with and see out and about are respectful of that fact that most people don't want to see it. I don't want my kids seeing it, either. I don't make out with my wife in public.

linda22003
04-22-2009, 02:39 PM
Good point. I don't want to see gays all over each other in public, because I also don't want to see straights all over each other in public. I don't care about the sexual orientation, I just don't want to see it from anyone.

stsinner
04-22-2009, 02:41 PM
Sorry. I just don't understand disliking a whole segment of the population because of something that has nothing to do with me.

It's fine with me that you have no morals rooted in religion. That's your prerogative, and it fits right in with our sick society where crime is on the rise, the rates of single parent households is on the rise, and any other number of increasing examples of debauchery on the rise, all in the name of tolerance.. Good on you to allow your morals to shift with the tide of popularity..

And, just to clarify, I don't dislike gays.. I actually work in a volunteer position for one that I don't have to do, but she's is respectful and doesn't exhibit PDA.. I think they're headed straight to hell when they die, but that doesn't mean I dislike them or even wish them ill. I bought my boss a Christmas present for the past two years, as a matter of fact..


Perhaps that's because you're not interested in imposing your moral code on others through the force of law.

It's a shame you don't think that society needs boundaries.. What's next-bestiality? Because, hey, you wouldn't want to impose your moral code on someone who simply enjoys fucking his dog, would you? And just who do you think you are telling that woman that her German Shepherd can't bang her in the privacy of her own apartment?? Stop forcing your moral code on people...

The collective moral code is forced on people every day, it's simply whose moral code that's imposed that matters...

lacarnut
04-22-2009, 02:48 PM
I think she should have said, "I am against any form of marriage that would involve you."

You are too kind; extermination of these kind of creeps comes to mind.:)

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 02:49 PM
I absolutely object to that but it's their right.. Fortunately, the homos I associate with and see out and about are respectful of that fact that most people don't want to see it. I don't want my kids seeing it, either. I don't make out with my wife in public.

And in Riyadh, the Saudis don't think that unmarried, heterosexual couples should do those things in public. In fact, if you do, you risk being besieged by the matawa (I'm speaking from personal experience :D). Too bad we don't have the equivalent of the matawa here to protect society's virtues, eh?

stsinner
04-22-2009, 02:50 PM
And in Riyadh, the Saudis don't think that unmarried, heterosexual couples should do those things in public. In fact, if you do, you risk being besieged by the matawa (I'm speaking from personal experience :D). Too bad we don't have the equivalent of the matawa here to protect society's virtues, eh?

Lame.

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 02:53 PM
...

It's a shame you don't think that society needs boundaries.. What's next-bestiality? Because, hey, you wouldn't want to impose your moral code on someone who simply enjoys fucking his dog, would you? And just who do you think you are telling that woman that her German Shepherd can't bang her in the privacy of her own apartment?? Stop forcing your moral code on people...

The collective moral code is forced on people every day, it's simply whose moral code that's imposed that matters...

Ah, the old pedophilia, beastiality, inanimate object argument. No, I don't think society should impose the moral code of a antiquated, desert-based religion upon private behaviour between consenting adults.

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 02:55 PM
Lame.

Why? Why is "protecting society's virtue" in the case of public, heterosexual behaviour any better or worse than doing so in the case of homosexual behaviour.

stsinner
04-22-2009, 02:57 PM
Ah, the old pedophilia, beastiality, inanimate object argument. No, I don't think society should impose the moral code of a antiquated, desert-based religion upon private behaviour between consenting adults.

And if my grandmother had a cock, she'd be my grandfather, but she doesn't, and she isn't... Meh...

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 02:58 PM
And if my grandmother had a cock, she's be my grandfather, but she doesn't, and she isn't... Meh...

:confused: okily, dokily Ned.

stsinner
04-22-2009, 03:11 PM
Why? Why is "protecting society's virtue" in the case of public, heterosexual behaviour any better or worse than doing so in the case of homosexual behaviour.

Oh, god, you utter moron.. I shouldn't have to explain this, but I will.. The people you speak of are EXTREMISTS who don't believe that women are equal to men-they can't drive, they can't go to school in parts of the country or after a certain age, they can't step outside their homes without being covered from head to doe, and they can't even talk to a man unless he's immediate family, or they risk imprisonment or death.. These aren't normal people.. When you compare me being against gay marriage, but being all for civil unions and all the benefits of marriage, to the extremism of Islam, you really look like a jackass in a desperate argument.

Here in America everyone is equal, and they are treated with human dignity and respect. There are certain things that are undeniable-they are human and they are men or women, and they are of a certain race and color. Those are all protected traits-protected by the Constitution and by the fact that we live in a civil society. When these people choose to try to add more to those protections, such as behaviors (homosexuality), society bucks back, because this isn't an inalienable right. When you choose to engage in debauchery and sodomy, you have stepped outside the realm of the norm, and people with morals will object to it. As I've said, I don't care who screws whom in the privacy of their own bedroom-it's none of my business. I don't want to see any PDA from homos, and I don't want my kids being told in schools that it's completely normal and acceptable, and I don't want them to have to see public romance of queers.
Whether you like it or not, society hasn't completely abolished religion, much to the Liberals' dismay, and some of us still practice and go to church and raise our families with the morals given us by your faith, and homosexuality is a sin. I know you hear the word sin and probably giggle, as if it's some antiquated "desert-based" religious term, but for the majority of Americans, in what was founded as a Christian nation with Christian values, it means a lot.

No one with even average intelligence would say that homosexuality is the "intended" way of nature.. Procreation happens when nature is observed and not perverted.. When you pervert nature and use a screwdriver to tighten a bolt, the parts don't fit and no procreation happens... If everyone turned gay tomorrow, it would be the end of humanity... Therefore, it's not a natural thing.

Odysseus
04-22-2009, 03:34 PM
Perfect translation. I believe you have hit the nail on the head. This whole thing is outrageous.

Donald Trump owns the Miss USA Pageant, and he really needs to be flooded with feedback on what people are thinking. I am going to email Alicia Jacobs' blog to him. How can he pretend that this is a legitimate pageant with the blatant bias. Perez Hilton made a fool of The Donald, and I think he needs to know that people think so!!!
Here is the contact for the Miss USA if anyone would like to voice their opinion.
http://www.missuniverse.com/missusa/info/contactus
and
Here is the contact for the Trump Organization

http://www.trump.com/Contact_Us/Contact_Us.asp
Wait a minute!!! Trump has that many gays around him and his hair looks like that???!!! :eek:

No, she should just face the consequences of standing up for her beliefs. In this case, her beliefs are bigoted... so she pays the price.
Who says that she's a bigot? She considers marriage a union between one man and one woman. If that your definition of bigotry, the the debate really has degenerated. Of course, that's the point, to ensure that there is no debate, just a forgone conclusion that will eventually come to pass, and the ostracism of those who oppose that endstate.

Pretty obviously you never attended my college. It was routine for some girls to "go gay" until graduation. They got a lot of positive attention from profs, the frat guys left them alone, and they got a lot of invitations to things due to their token gayness.

Five or ten years later they somehow all ended up marrying heterosexual male attorneys or business owners. After that, their unshakable belief in lesbianism must have been sorely tried by the arrival of the expected 2.1 kids.

People engage all kinds of sexual behaviors for all kinds of reasons.
In my experience, most women aren't going to have sex with other women for a bit of positive attention, and believe me, I've tried.:D There has to be more there than just that. If you buy Kinsey's position that sexual orientation is a continuum (one of his more valid hypotheses), with one end being absolutely straight and one end being flaming gay, then it makes sense that those with a position closer to the middle might indulge if the societal pressures are there to encourage it, just as they might not if the societal pressures discourage it. The real issue is, why is this important? At most, gays are 10% of the population, and the percentage that wants to marry is much smaller than that. Must we turn our entire culture on its head so that a tiny group of activists get to say that we're "inclusive?" Must we destroy the norms of our culture to accomodate the fringes of it? Why must the majority be forced, not to tolerate the different lifestyles of the minority, but to wholeheartedly embrace those lifestyles or chance being called a bigot and excluded from society?

And in Riyadh, the Saudis don't think that unmarried, heterosexual couples should do those things in public. In fact, if you do, you risk being besieged by the matawa (I'm speaking from personal experience :D). Too bad we don't have the equivalent of the matawa here to protect society's virtues, eh?
The issue is not protecting society's virtue. The issue is inverting the norms of society to conform to the wishes of a minute fraction of it. When it is over, marriage will no longer be defined as a union between a man and a woman, just as it's no longer defined as a permanent union. What will the next change be? You joke about the "polygamy argument," but if we accept that the equal protection of the laws demands that men can marry men and women, women, then who is to say that a Moslem lacks the right, under the law, to have his multiple, religiously sanctioned marriages given the same consideration that a Christian or Jewish monogamous marriage enjoys? And if that, then why should not secular polygamous groupings have the sanction? Once a precedent has been established or destroyed, it becomes much easier to establish other new precedents or demolish old ones.

wilbur
04-22-2009, 03:38 PM
Wow, this thread blew up..

Anyways, now that I think about it some more, I actually feel a little dirty and used by wasting any brain cycles over this whole thing....

You can bet the Miss USA pageant got exactly what they wished for with Perez Hilton. The only way these shallow, passe`, pageants maintain relevance in this day and age is to stir up exactly this kind of controversy.... there is one every single year.. it seems to be their only tool to remain in the forefront of peoples minds. It was all most likely entirely deliberate.

Its funny to see people bitching about Perez being shallow, self-centered etc... he's a fish in the right pond... its the damn Miss USA beauty pageant for goodness sake... a cultural celebration of vanity, vapidity, shallowness and self-centered-ness.

Goldwater
04-22-2009, 03:42 PM
How can Miss USA be "all inclusive" when it's about not letting ugly women in?

I like this lady and her answer because most would've just given a "I like world peace" speech. "Perez" is a douche.

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 03:52 PM
...
Its funny to see people bitching about Perez being shallow, self-centered etc... he's a fish in the right pond... its the damn Miss USA beauty pageant for goodness sake... a cultural celebration of vanity, vapidity, shallowness and self-centered-ness.

You're evidently correct. My girlfriend saw her speak offstage and says she's as dumb as Kendra (the dumbest of Hugh Hefner's girlfriends on his reality show).

BadCat
04-22-2009, 04:00 PM
You're evidently correct. My girlfriend saw her speak offstage and says she's as dumb as Kendra (the dumbest of Hugh Hefner's girlfriends on his reality show).

You're back?

Did you have a nice "vacation"?

wilbur
04-22-2009, 04:07 PM
No one with even average intelligence would say that homosexuality is the "intended" way of nature.. Procreation happens when nature is observed and not perverted.. When you pervert nature and use a screwdriver to tighten a bolt, the parts don't fit and no procreation happens... If everyone turned gay tomorrow, it would be the end of humanity... Therefore, it's not a natural thing.

What makes you think nature has any intent what-so-ever?

But uh... I think homosexual gametes function just as well as straight people's, so we could probably survive just fine even if everyone turned gay.

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 04:09 PM
Oh, god, you utter moron.. I shouldn't have to explain this, but I will.. The people you speak of are EXTREMISTS who don't believe that women are equal to men-they can't drive, they can't go to school in parts of the country or after a certain age, they can't step outside their homes without being covered from head to doe, and they can't even talk to a man unless he's immediate family, or they risk imprisonment or death.. These aren't normal people.. When you compare me being against gay marriage, but being all for civil unions and all the benefits of marriage, to the extremism of Islam, you really look like a jackass in a desperate argument.

But, but...I thought being an extremist was a good thing. There's a thread right now regarding the virtues of being a right-wing extremist. In survey after survey, posters boast about how they scored, each vying with the other to be more extremely conservative. I guess if you're one of our extremists, that's good; if you're one of their extremists, that's bad.

And, btw, I lived in Saudi for five years and probably don't need your explanations of Saudi cultures, mores, or values.


Here in America everyone is equal, and they are treated with human dignity and respect. There are certain things that are undeniable-they are human and they are men or women, and they are of a certain race and color. Those are all protected traits-protected by the Constitution and by the fact that we live in a civil society. When these people choose to try to add more to those protections, such as behaviors (homosexuality), society bucks back, because this isn't an inalienable right. When you choose to engage in debauchery and sodomy, you have stepped outside the realm of the norm, and people with morals will object to it. As I've said, I don't care who screws whom in the privacy of their own bedroom-it's none of my business. I don't want to see any PDA from homos, and I don't want my kids being told in schools that it's completely normal and acceptable, and I don't want them to have to see public romance of queers.

Right. Society didn't "buck" when blacks wanted equal rights. Americans just said, "well, these rights are undeniable (presumably under God)" and opened that door wide. You must not have lived in the South in the late 50s and 60s.

As to what you want to see or not see in public, that's pretty irrelevant. There are no laws against such acts. However, again, you could follow Saudi's lead and organize a fundamentalist matawa to make sure the purity of your vision is preserved.


Whether you like it or not, society hasn't completely abolished religion, much to the Liberals' dismay, and some of us still practice and go to church and raise our families with the morals given us by your faith, and homosexuality is a sin. I know you hear the word sin and probably giggle, as if it's some antiquated "desert-based" religious term, but for the majority of Americans, in what was founded as a Christian nation with Christian values, it means a lot.

Your religion, not mine.


No one with even average intelligence would say that homosexuality is the "intended" way of nature.. Procreation happens when nature is observed and not perverted.. When you pervert nature and use a screwdriver to tighten a bolt, the parts don't fit and no procreation happens... If everyone turned gay tomorrow, it would be the end of humanity... Therefore, it's not a natural thing.

Sorry, I'm pretty hetero and I don't have sex to procreate; I do it because it's a lot of fun. Further, today's headlines indicate that your statement regarding "the end of humanity" (is it 2525 already) is no longer (or soon will be no longer) true.

stsinner
04-22-2009, 04:18 PM
But, but...I thought being an extremist was a good thing. There's a thread right now regarding the virtues of being a right-wing extremist. In survey after survey, posters boast about how they scored, each vying with the other to be more extremely conservative. I guess if you're one of our extremists, that's good; if you're one of their extremists, that's bad.

And, btw, I lived in Saudi for five years and probably don't need your explanations of Saudi cultures, mores, or values.



Right. Society didn't "buck" when blacks wanted equal rights. Americans just said, "well, these rights are undeniable (presumably under God)" and opened that door wide. You must not have lived in the South in the late 50s and 60s.

As to what you want to see or not see in public, that's pretty irrelevant. There are no laws against such acts. However, again, you could follow Saudi's lead and organize a fundamentalist matawa to make sure the purity of your vision is preserved.



Your religion, not mine.



Sorry, I'm pretty hetero and I don't have sex to procreate; I do it because it's a lot of fun. Further, today's headlines indicate that your statement regarding "the end of humanity" (is it 2525 already) is no longer (or soon will be no longer) true.

UNCLE!! I'm dealing with a complete and utter moron here, and I can't take it.. You still brought race into the argument... I'll say it one last time-how a race of people is treated is a civil rights matter. Being a homosexual is a matter of morality.. We have to decide as a nation how much we want to allow the moral fiber of our society to unravel before we say enough is enough...

Oh, and BTW, I was in Iraq for 6 months, and I don't give a rats ass where you've lived or how many sheep you fucked while in the Middle East..

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 04:23 PM
UNCLE!! I'm dealing with a complete and utter moron here, and I can't take it.. You still brought race into the argument...

Oh, and BTW, I was in Iraq for 6 months, and I don't give a rats ass where you've lived or how many sheep you fucked while in the Middle East..

I brought race into the discussion? Interesting...


...

Here in America everyone is equal, and they are treated with human dignity and respect. There are certain things that are undeniable-they are human and they are men or women, and they are of a certain race and color. Those are all protected traits-protected by the Constitution and by the fact that we live in a civil society...

BTW, there aren't many sheep in Saudi. Lots of goats, but few sheep. Nevertheless, I always prefered the Aussie and Brit nurses. :D

stsinner
04-22-2009, 04:29 PM
I brought race into the discussion? Interesting...



BTW, there aren't many sheep in Saudi. Lots of goats, but few sheep. Nevertheless, I always prefered the Aussie and Brit nurses. :D

Well, now I'm jealous.

Odysseus
04-22-2009, 05:12 PM
Wow, this thread blew up..
Anyways, now that I think about it some more, I actually feel a little dirty and used by wasting any brain cycles over this whole thing....
I know the feeling.

You can bet the Miss USA pageant got exactly what they wished for with Perez Hilton. The only way these shallow, passe`, pageants maintain relevance in this day and age is to stir up exactly this kind of controversy.... there is one every single year.. it seems to be their only tool to remain in the forefront of peoples minds. It was all most likely entirely deliberate.

Its funny to see people bitching about Perez being shallow, self-centered etc... he's a fish in the right pond... its the damn Miss USA beauty pageant for goodness sake... a cultural celebration of vanity, vapidity, shallowness and self-centered-ness.
Yes, except that people tune in for the girls, not the queens. Once again, Perez made sure that the issue was raised, which meant that instead of being a vapid, shallow beauty pageant, it became a vapid, shallow political show, albeit with a swimsuit competition (which, at first glance, might look like it would improve the Sunday morning talk shows, until somebody tried to stuff Madeline Albright into a one-piece :eek:). By introducing a contentious political argument into a beauty pageant, he actually managed to lower the tone of the whole thing, something that I didn't think would be possible without adding pole dancing and g-strings.

What makes you think nature has any intent what-so-ever?

But uh... I think homosexual gametes function just as well as straight people's, so we could probably survive just fine even if everyone turned gay.
The survival of the species is the closest thing that nature has to an intent, and regardless of how well homosexual gametes work, they won't do a thing unless they're aimed at the right targets, and none of those targets are on the same sex as the shooters.

I have a suspicion that homosexuality is a function of nature that occurs when a population hits a critical mass and something clicks in the brains of some non-alpha males, turning them out of the gene pool and setting up a natural reduction in population in a given place, but it would be difficult to do a study on it because even though the places with the highest gay populations have the highest population densities, the question of whether cities attract gays or create them is too hard to prove without a census that asks sexual preference and point of origin.

BTW, there aren't many sheep in Saudi. Lots of goats, but few sheep. Nevertheless, I always prefered the Aussie and Brit nurses. :D
Ah, but did they prefer you to the male goats? :D

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 06:22 PM
Well, now I'm jealous.

Of the nurses or of the goats? :confused:

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 06:25 PM
...
Ah, but did they prefer you to the male goats? :D

Of course. I had more money than the male goats. :D

MrsSmith
04-22-2009, 06:34 PM
Society is functioning as it should. Bigots don't deserve tolerance. There should be a high social cost for the things that contestant said.

But, wilbur, you have shown rabid bigotry repeatedly on this board! :confused: Are you sure that you don't prefer to be tolerated here? :confused:

Odysseus
04-22-2009, 06:56 PM
Of course. I had more money than the male goats. :D
Ah, but who had the better table manners? :D

But, wilbur, you have shown rabid bigotry repeatedly on this board! :confused: Are you sure that you don't prefer to be tolerated here? :confused:
Usually, free speech advocates, especially liberals and libertarians (which one is Wilbur calling himself this week?) claim that the most controversial speech is the speech most in need of protection. Of course, that only applies to controversial speech that they agree with. Controversial speech that they disagree with is bigotry, illogic or some other form of unprotected speech that they are perfectly comfortable censoring.

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 07:04 PM
Ah, but who had the better table manners? :D
...

Why me, of course. I learned in Saudi that if you're male and can cook, particularly things like asparagus, veal, creme brulee, etc., supplemented by $120 black market JWB, to most attractive young women in the desert, you immediately have impeccable table manners. It also doesn't hurt to have an apartment in the south of France. :D

MrsSmith
04-22-2009, 07:05 PM
Ah, but who had the better table manners? :D

Usually, free speech advocates, especially liberals and libertarians (which one is Wilbur calling himself this week?) claim that the most controversial speech is the speech most in need of protection. Of course, that only applies to controversial speech that they agree with. Controversial speech that they disagree with is bigotry, illogic or some other form of unprotected speech that they are perfectly comfortable censoring.

And there you have the fascist center of our party of "love, tolerance and diversity." They are perfectly content with the idea that they hold the higher ground and have the right to judge and silence those whose opinions don't match their own. Hypocrisy is one thing, but for outright bigots to be both proud of their bigotry, and to be positive they have the right to force their bigoted opinions into law and onto all peoples...that is something else.

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 07:14 PM
And there you have the fascist center of our party of "love, tolerance and diversity." They are perfectly content with the idea that they hold the higher ground and have the right to judge and silence those whose opinions don't match their own. Hypocrisy is one thing, but for outright bigots to be both proud of their bigotry, and to be positive they have the right to force their bigoted opinions into law and onto all peoples...that is something else.

I'm a bit confused. It seems to me that the "people" you're referring to think that the government should not impose religious morals on people's private lives, that there should not be laws prohibiting acts such as sodomy, that homosexual couples should be able to display their affections (within the same limits as heterosexual couples) in public, that they should have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. This is bigotry? I'm not sure I understand that.

However, I do agree that Ms. California is entitled to her opinion. However, just like a question on "communism," on "world peace," on "barbie dolls," the response she gives is fair game for the judges.

Calif Cowgirl
04-22-2009, 07:28 PM
[QUOTE=Odysseus;131174]Wait a minute!!! Trump has that many gays around him and his hair looks like that???!!! :eek: QUOTE]

AND his eyebrows...oh my gosh, his eyebrows kill me! BUT...he has a beautifully decorated penthouse apartment...lol

wilbur
04-22-2009, 07:35 PM
Ah, but who had the better table manners? :D

Usually, free speech advocates, especially liberals and libertarians (which one is Wilbur calling himself this week? I've only ever called myself one of the two....) claim that the most controversial speech is the speech most in need of protection. Of course, that only applies to controversial speech that they agree with. Controversial speech that they disagree with is bigotry, illogic or some other form of unprotected speech that they are perfectly comfortable censoring.

Bigoted speech is bigoted speech... AND protected speech. But if people think you are a bigot after saying bigoted things... well then, no laws protect against that.

MrsSmith
04-22-2009, 08:22 PM
I'm a bit confused. It seems to me that the "people" you're referring to think that the government should not impose religious morals on people's private lives, that there should not be laws prohibiting acts such as sodomy, that homosexual couples should be able to display their affections (within the same limits as heterosexual couples) in public, that they should have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. This is bigotry? I'm not sure I understand that.

However, I do agree that Ms. California is entitled to her opinion. However, just like a question on "communism," on "world peace," on "barbie dolls," the response she gives is fair game for the judges.


Society is functioning as it should. Bigots don't deserve tolerance. There should be a high social cost for the things that contestant said.

She not only has the right to her opinion, she has the right to state a calm and reasoned opinion that does not call for degrading anyone or promote violence against anyone without being labeled and punished for "bigotry." She especially has that right in light of the fact that her beliefs are not only not extreme, they are mainstream...as evidenced by the voters of every state. That a mainstream belief should be labeled bigotry and produce punishment is a sad statement on the values of the party of "tolerance."

Odysseus
04-22-2009, 08:23 PM
Why me, of course. I learned in Saudi that if you're male and can cook, particularly things like asparagus, veal, creme brulee, etc., supplemented by $120 black market JWB, to most attractive young women in the desert, you immediately have impeccable table manners. It also doesn't hurt to have an apartment in the south of France. :D
Just don't get the hands mixed up. :D

And there you have the fascist center of our party of "love, tolerance and diversity." They are perfectly content with the idea that they hold the higher ground and have the right to judge and silence those whose opinions don't match their own. Hypocrisy is one thing, but for outright bigots to be both proud of their bigotry, and to be positive they have the right to force their bigoted opinions into law and onto all peoples...that is something else.
Bigots are almost always proud of their bigotry. It's what separates them from those that they disdain. I've come to expect that, but what I refuse to tolerate is when bigots try to muzzle those who oppose them. A bigot can only feel that pride if his/her bigotry is never questioned. Thus, a bigot who hates Jews, blacks, gays or conservatives cannot accept arguments that call his or her premises into disrepute, hence the hysterical demand to censor opposing thought.

AND his eyebrows...oh my gosh, his eyebrows kill me! BUT...he has a beautifully decorated penthouse apartment...lol
Those are his eyebrows??? I thought that he was breeding caterpillars!

Bigoted speech is bigoted speech... AND protected speech. But if people think you are a bigot after saying bigoted things... well then, no laws protect against that.
Yes, but since when does opposition to gay marriage make you a bigot? And the judges of the Miss USA pageant clearly feel that they have the right to suppress opposing points of view and are offended when someone doesn't toe their extremely intolerant line. So, who's the bigot, Carrie Prejean or Perez Hilton?

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 08:45 PM
She not only has the right to her opinion, she has the right to state a calm and reasoned opinion that does not call for degrading anyone or promote violence against anyone without being labeled and punished for "bigotry." She especially has that right in light of the fact that her beliefs are not only not extreme, they are mainstream...as evidenced by the voters of every state. That a mainstream belief should be labeled bigotry and produce punishment is a sad statement on the values of the party of "tolerance."

Interesting argument. However, I've heard you make the exact opposite argument regarding abortion, in which you argue that the mainstream can't be trusted, as witness slavery. It must be nice to be able to argue both sides, even if it's at differing times.

marinejcksn
04-22-2009, 09:12 PM
Who the hell is Perez Hilton?

stsinner
04-22-2009, 09:19 PM
Bigoted speech is bigoted speech... AND protected speech. But if people think you are a bigot after saying bigoted things... well then, no laws protect against that.

Wilbur, I'm beginning to think that you wouldn't know a bigot if it shit on your cereal....

FlaGator
04-22-2009, 09:22 PM
Bigoted speech is bigoted speech... AND protected speech. But if people think you are a bigot after saying bigoted things... well then, no laws protect against that.

Kind of like a lot of people think that you are a religious bigot who should be the last person counciling people on what views should and shouldn't be tolerated by society?

MrsSmith
04-22-2009, 09:31 PM
Interesting argument. However, I've heard you make the exact opposite argument regarding abortion, in which you argue that the mainstream can't be trusted, as witness slavery. It must be nice to be able to argue both sides, even if it's at differing times.

No, I've argued that the number of people who are against abortion is growing. Education always helps. Understanding that abortion kills a human, not a blob of cells, always makes a difference. Of course, there is also a slight difference between ending someone's life, and telling someone that he/she will have to pay a lawyer to draw up papers to gain specific legal rights. Homosexuals have all the same rights as anyone else, and "educating" everyone about how "horrible" it is to not be able to change the definition of marriage for the entire country just doesn't compare.

In fact, I would be in favor of a legal "civil" marriage that would cover any 2 people, if constitutional protections are given to churches so they aren't forced to perform ceremonies for those that can never be truly married. Of course, it should cover ANY 2 people...there is no reason to base it on sexual experiences.


BTW, how does it come about that you've returned to a site that has banned you multiple times? Just can't live without us, or what?

stsinner
04-22-2009, 09:41 PM
BTW, how does it come about that you've returned to a site that has banned you multiple times? Just can't live without us, or what?

LOL.. Cold Warrior....

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 10:22 PM
No, I've argued that the number of people who are against abortion is growing. Education always helps. Understanding that abortion kills a human, not a blob of cells, always makes a difference. Of course, there is also a slight difference between ending someone's life, and telling someone that he/she will have to pay a lawyer to draw up papers to gain specific legal rights. Homosexuals have all the same rights as anyone else, and "educating" everyone about how "horrible" it is to not be able to change the definition of marriage for the entire country just doesn't compare.

No, you've argued specifically that a majority favoring abortion was analogous to a majority favoring slavery. If you'd like me to pull the threads, I'll be happy to. To deny this is to be, at best, disingenuous.


In fact, I would be in favor of a legal "civil" marriage that would cover any 2 people, if constitutional protections are given to churches so they aren't forced to perform ceremonies for those that can never be truly married. Of course, it should cover ANY 2 people...there is no reason to base it on sexual experiences.

So would I. However, I would have been in favor of this prior to having it forced down my throat. And, in fact, that (civil unions) is not the way it is in the vast majority of the states as well as in regards to the federal government. Another poster in this thread suggested that since discrimination based upon race was illegal under the constitution, that the majority of Americans said "OK, that's cool. Let's let blacks into our businesses, our universities, our government." Well, that ain't the way it happened. Blacks had to force their way past the Wallaces of the world, just as gays have to force their way past the current crop of whacky-whackies of the world. It's not going to happen by being nice.


BTW, how does it come about that you've returned to a site that has banned you multiple times? Just can't live without us, or what?

Ah, multiple is such a harsh word. It's liike the statement that "we used birth control and we knew what we were doing, yet I got preggers multiple times." In that case, multiple would mean between 5 and 10. I've only been back twice, so I hardly think that rates the use of the term "multiple."

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 10:23 PM
LOL.. Cold Warrior....'

Bright (albeit slow) boy.

stsinner
04-22-2009, 10:26 PM
'

Bright (albeit slow) boy.

Weren't you banned ? I'm wondering why I'm forced to endure your ignorance....

wilbur
04-22-2009, 10:27 PM
Yes, but since when does opposition to gay marriage make you a bigot?


The very core claim of gay marriage opponents is that 'homosexual marriage will devalue the institution of marriage'. Most here would agree with that or have even said it themselves at one time.

Well, that claim is bigotry.. there's no way around it. Its also an unwitting assertion that the rest of society is equally bigotted. The implication is that loving, caring, normal, straight couples just won't be able to enjoy marriage knowing that a certain additional group of peoples have been included in the tradition. They will be so disgusted, or turned off, that they will simply turn away from the institution all together. Obviously, if homosexuals can marry, all sacredness and meaning will have been bled out of the institution, and it will be left in ruins. That is bigotry, perfected.

So... there is NO point in time when opposition to same-sex marriage has NOT been rooted in bigotry.



And the judges of the Miss USA pageant clearly feel that they have the right to suppress opposing points of view and are offended when someone doesn't toe their extremely intolerant line. So, who's the bigot, Carrie Prejean or Perez Hilton?

Whos suppressing? Many people didnt like what she said, and are freely expressing their disgust. Are you sure its really they that are the "censors" here?

Water Closet
04-22-2009, 10:28 PM
Weren't you banned ? I'm wondering why I'm forced to endure your ignorance....

Demonstrate. I've run circles around your meager attempts at argument. And you, with your own website and everything. :eek: :D

Gingersnap
04-22-2009, 10:48 PM
Obviously, if homosexuals can marry, all sacredness and meaning will have been bled out of the institution, and it will be left in ruins. That is bigotry, perfected.

No, it isn't. Most countries that have extended marriage or marriage-like status to homosexuals have experienced a drop in overall marriage rates. That's just fact. When, as you say, "all sacredness and meaning will have been bled out of the institution", people do lose interest in it. Religious people will always do it but as societies become more secular and more nominal in religious behavior, the status loss to marriage will make it less desirable.

The problem here is that children really do better in families that are started by formally committed opposite-sexed partners who have a direct biological relationship to the children. That's not bigotry, it's human nature.

The other problem is that once marriage can include two same-sex people, it can hardly forbid any consensual group who are interested in the legal benefits.

Again, this is why domestic partnerships make much more sense than gay marriage. Make everybody who feels like it have a domestic partnership. We will no longer be interested in the configuration of these couplings or even interested if they do couple.

Marriage goes back to being a religious rite.

We may not make the world better for kids who have to endure the random sexual activity of their parents but we can at least stop talking about marriage being some kind of human right. :rolleyes:

wilbur
04-22-2009, 11:48 PM
No, it isn't. Most countries that have extended marriage or marriage-like status to homosexuals have experienced a drop in overall marriage rates. That's just fact.

They haven't. Most experienced no change in the trajectories of their marriage rates in correlation with same-sex marriage (while a couple had a slight uptick in heterosexual marriages). That claim that marriage rates suddenly dropped with gay marriage is about as true as the claim that Bill Clinton fixed the deficit. I might concede that if one truly believes such claims, they might be less parts bigot, and more parts misinformed... but that only goes so far.



When, as you say, "all sacredness and meaning will have been bled out of the institution", people do lose interest in it.


Well ok... in a society of homosexual bigots, homosexual marriage might devalue the institution in the eyes of the populace... in the same way that interracial marriage might devalue marriage to a racist society. However, its not the marriages that are the problem in either case.


Religious people will always do it but as societies become more secular and more nominal in religious behavior, the status loss to marriage will make it less desirable.

Well, then thats a separate issue. Religions could easily embrace same-sex marriages, and some do. So they are really two separate things.



The problem here is that children really do better in families that are started by formally committed opposite-sexed partners who have a direct biological relationship to the children. That's not bigotry, it's human nature.


Better in what way, and compared to what? Better than single parent homes? Better than same-sex homes? As it is, the presence of both a penis and a vagina in a relationship is a pretty piss poor indicator of the caliber of parenthood that will be present in a household. So, it follows that if child rearing is the whole purpose of the institution of marriage, than the entire institution is a failed experiment and completely misses the mark.

But child rearing isnt the only reason for marriage... one cannot omit the part of human nature that desires to live in a stable home, committed to a sexual and emotional companion, as an equally real, and equally noble reason for the institution (some present company excluded (WC;))). This desire can and does exist apart from the desire to have children.

That and same-sex couples can't actually knock themselves up on accident, which really makes this point moot. There at least has to be a desire for children in a same-sex relationship. This alone could actually cause straight households to look very bad in comparison, when it comes to child rearing.



The other problem is that once marriage can include two same-sex people, it can hardly forbid any consensual group who are interested in the legal benefits.


I've been over this before in the other thread..



Again, this is why domestic partnerships make much more sense than gay marriage. Make everybody who feels like it have a domestic partnership. We will no longer be interested in the configuration of these couplings or even interested if they do couple.

Marriage goes back to being a religious rite.


On this, we agree.

RobJohnson
04-23-2009, 03:27 AM
I never even heard of him until this hubub. But I don't pay a lot of attention to Hollywood style "news" either.





The only other time I seen Perez on TV was Donald Trump calling him on Apprentice.

RobJohnson
04-23-2009, 03:31 AM
[COLOR="DarkRed"]
About Alicia
Alicia Jacobs is a native Las Vegan and UNLV Alum. She also happens to be a former Miss Nevada USA and Miss United States. Alicia began covering Entertainment News at Las Vegas' ABC affiliate, she joined KVBC News in November of 2003. She is featured on the 4 o'clock and 11 o'clock newscasts, as well as News 3 Today. Proclaimed "Queen of Celebrity Scoop" by "Vegas Magazine," Alicia's interviews have included George Clooney, Bob Hope, P. Diddy, Nicholas Cage, Jay Leno, Josh Groban, Drew Barrymore, & Andrea Bocelli's first ever English language interview. Alicia's "behind the scenes" segments have seen her actually performing on-stage in several Las Vegas productions. She suited-up as a "Siren," & danced in the "Siren's of T.I." show, performed on-stage as one of Ivan Kane's "40 Deuce Girls," became a trapeze artist in the "Moscow Circus," vanished from David Copperfield's show, & performed the lead role in the musical "Mama Mia," to name a few.

I see her on the Vegas news, she is not the best public speaker and I always wondered how she got that job...now I know! I did not know all this history about her.

Alicia should be careful, most of the news anchors on Channel 3 like Miss California! :D

Lager
04-23-2009, 05:21 AM
Well, Wilbur, if you think someone who makes the statement that marriage should be between a man and a woman, is a bigot; then you must also feel the same way about people who believe that adultery is wrong, or that prostitution is bad for society. We could also apply your definition to people who believe that young people should hold off before engaging in sex, or even those who believe brothers and sisters should not marry. Those opinions must be considered "bigoted" as well.

Water Closet
04-23-2009, 07:55 AM
No, it isn't. Most countries that have extended marriage or marriage-like status to homosexuals have experienced a drop in overall marriage rates. That's just fact. When, as you say, "all sacredness and meaning will have been bled out of the institution", people do lose interest in it. Religious people will always do it but as societies become more secular and more nominal in religious behavior, the status loss to marriage will make it less desirable...

That doesn't appear to be true, at least in the case of Scandinavia...


In fact, the numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest. In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they've been since the early 1970's. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed. Furthermore, in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia remained basically unchanged.

Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/)


The problem here is that children really do better in families that are started by formally committed opposite-sexed partners who have a direct biological relationship to the children. That's not bigotry, it's human nature.

The other problem is that once marriage can include two same-sex people, it can hardly forbid any consensual group who are interested in the legal benefits.

If it's consensual, i.e., doesn't include children, animals, or inanimate objects :eek: , I'm not sure it's a "problem."


Again, this is why domestic partnerships make much more sense than gay marriage. Make everybody who feels like it have a domestic partnership. We will no longer be interested in the configuration of these couplings or even interested if they do couple.

Marriage goes back to being a religious rite.

We may not make the world better for kids who have to endure the random sexual activity of their parents but we can at least stop talking about marriage being some kind of human right. :rolleyes:

Today many people are beating the drum for "domestic partnerships" (with which I completely agree, btw) who would not have been doing so 10 years ago. I would suggest that it has been the "in your face" tactics and the full frontal assault on marriage that has brought about that change. I understand that comparison of this situation to that of blacks in the US in the 50s and 60s is flawed in some aspects, but I think in this aspect it is not -- it was only when blacks got in whites' faces and demanded equal rights that changes came about.

And, while I believe you're correct that many people "will not longer be interested in the configuration of these couples..." given universal domestic partnerships, I think this thread illustrates that many people will not feel that way, that they will never be content to co-exist with the "sinners."

stsinner
04-23-2009, 08:37 AM
Demonstrate. I've run circles around your meager attempts at argument. And you, with your own website and everything. :eek: :D

Yeah, you've run circles around it all right... You've run clear of the core point, that's for sure. You've attempted to equate race with sexual preference, and I handed you your ass on that one.. You're so clever.

stsinner
04-23-2009, 08:40 AM
No, it isn't. Most countries that have extended marriage or marriage-like status to homosexuals have experienced a drop in overall marriage rates. That's just fact. When, as you say, "all sacredness and meaning will have been bled out of the institution", people do lose interest in it. Religious people will always do it but as societies become more secular and more nominal in religious behavior, the status loss to marriage will make it less desirable.

The problem here is that children really do better in families that are started by formally committed opposite-sexed partners who have a direct biological relationship to the children. That's not bigotry, it's human nature.

The other problem is that once marriage can include two same-sex people, it can hardly forbid any consensual group who are interested in the legal benefits.

Again, this is why domestic partnerships make much more sense than gay marriage. Make everybody who feels like it have a domestic partnership. We will no longer be interested in the configuration of these couplings or even interested if they do couple.

Marriage goes back to being a religious rite.

We may not make the world better for kids who have to endure the random sexual activity of their parents but we can at least stop talking about marriage being some kind of human right. :rolleyes:

That was masterful.. You made very good points.

Water Closet
04-23-2009, 08:45 AM
Yeah, you've run circles around it all right... You've run clear of the core point, that's for sure. You've attempted to equate race with sexual preference, and I handed you your ass on that one.. You're so clever.

Actually, no. You brought race into the discussion with your analysis of change in America. You stated that society "bucks" at the thought of same-sex marriage as sexual preference and marriage is a choice (or preference). You compared this with constitutional rights based upon race or gender and, by implication, asserted that society accepted these because these were not choices, these were factors beyond the individual's control.

Well, that demonstrates you know little about race history in this country. Society did indeed "buck" at the prospect of equal (not separate) rights for blacks and it bucked badly. In fact, the blowback against blacks was far worse than that in the current situation. There have been few Selmas in the unfolding of the same-sex marriage issue in this country. Therefore, your premise that society judges the merits of one over the other based upon the differentiation between choice and uncontrollable factors (race, gender) is demonstrated to be patently false.

Too easy.

linda22003
04-23-2009, 09:03 AM
Well, that demonstrates you know little about race history in this country. Society did indeed "buck" at the prospect of equal (not separate) rights for blacks and it bucked badly. In fact, the blowback against blacks was far worse than that in the current situation. There have been few Selmas in the unfolding of the same-sex marriage issue in this country. Therefore, your premise that society judges the merits of one over the other based upon the differentiation between choice and uncontrollable factors (race, gender) is demonstrated to be patently false.



WC, you pretty much have to be fifty or older to remember the things you are talking about here. It now seems incredible that we saw police turn firehoses on blacks in the South during the civil rights movement, but I remember it.

stsinner
04-23-2009, 09:05 AM
Actually, no. You brought race into the discussion with your analysis of change in America. You stated that society "bucks" at the thought of same-sex marriage as sexual preference and marriage is a choice (or preference). You compared this with constitutional rights based upon race or gender and, by implication, asserted that society accepted these because these were not choices, these were factors beyond the individual's control.

Well, that demonstrates you know little about race history in this country. Society did indeed "buck" at the prospect of equal (not separate) rights for blacks and it bucked badly. In fact, the blowback against blacks was far worse than that in the current situation. There have been few Selmas in the unfolding of the same-sex marriage issue in this country. Therefore, your premise that society judges the merits of one over the other based upon the differentiation between choice and uncontrollable factors (race, gender) is demonstrated to be patently false.

Too easy.

Too easy, my ass.. All you said was nonsense.. I never equated interracial marriage with same-sex marriage. Again, race is a civil-rights issue, and sexuality is a morality issue.. The two cannot be compared or used interchangeably in any way.

Water Closet
04-23-2009, 09:37 AM
Too easy, my ass.. All you said was nonsense.. I never equated interracial marriage with same-sex marriage. Again, race is a civil-rights issue, and sexuality is a morality issue.. The two cannot be compared or used interchangeably in any way.

No? How do you explain the argument below? If that's not a comparison of civil rights with same-sex marriage, I'm not sure what is...


Originally Posted by stsinner
Here in America everyone is equal, and they are treated with human dignity and respect. There are certain things that are undeniable-they are human and they are men or women, and they are of a certain race and color. Those are all protected traits-protected by the Constitution and by the fact that we live in a civil society. When these people choose to try to add more to those protections, such as behaviors (homosexuality), society bucks back, because this isn't an inalienable right. When you choose to engage in debauchery and sodomy, you have stepped outside the realm of the norm, and people with morals will object to it. As I've said, I don't care who screws whom in the privacy of their own bedroom-it's none of my business. I don't want to see any PDA from homos, and I don't want my kids being told in schools that it's completely normal and acceptable, and I don't want them to have to see public romance of queers.

And, btw, who mentioned "inter-racial marriage?" No me. In fact, you've accused me several times of bringing race into the discussion, so I decided to review the entire thread to see if that was true. I've mentioned race in this thread exactly five times: three times (four if you include this post) in response to your nonsensical argument above, once (110) as a reference to slavery in an old argument that Mrs Smith is apt to make regarding public acceptance of abortion, and once (126) refering to the tactics of the civil rights movement in a response to Snaps.

So, in addition to your argument being patently false, you also seem to mischaracterize my position. I have never compared same-sex marriage to inter-racial marriage and have not, in this thread at least, compared the situation of homosexuals to that of blacks.

Far, far too easy.

Rebel Yell
04-23-2009, 09:39 AM
Why? Why is "protecting society's virtue" in the case of public, heterosexual behaviour any better or worse than doing so in the case of homosexual behaviour.

Who exactly are you arguing with? There is a huge difference between "I don't want to see it" and "It should be illegal". Example, "I don't want to see another romantic comedy starring Matthew McCounaghy, but if that's women's cup of tea, so be it. I just won't watch."

Gingersnap
04-23-2009, 09:46 AM
Today many people are beating the drum for "domestic partnerships" (with which I completely agree, btw) who would not have been doing so 10 years ago. I would suggest that it has been the "in your face" tactics and the full frontal assault on marriage that has brought about that change. I understand that comparison of this situation to that of blacks in the US in the 50s and 60s is flawed in some aspects, but I think in this aspect it is not -- it was only when blacks got in whites' faces and demanded equal rights that changes came about.

And, while I believe you're correct that many people "will not longer be interested in the configuration of these couples..." given universal domestic partnerships, I think this thread illustrates that many people will not feel that way, that they will never be content to co-exist with the "sinners."

I didn't say that legislation extending marriage-like rights to homosexuals caused a precipitous drop in marriage rates, I said that marriage rates in most of those countries has steadily declined and they have. It's a combination of a number of factors of which looser sexual mores, easier divorce, and a decline in the status of marriage are important elements.

I, at least, have wanted domestic partnerships before they even had a name for it. I have had several family members who have lived together and taken care of each other deep into old age. This arrangement was perfectly satisfactory to them and it relieved the State from providing welfare and services to each of them separately. After "saving" the State such an enormous amount of resources, it seems only fair that these people should see the same type of legal rights that are extended to other adults in a nearly identical situation.

That none of these people were banging each other like a screen door in a high wind should make no difference.

stsinner
04-23-2009, 09:58 AM
No? How do you explain the argument below? If that's not a comparison of civil rights with same-sex marriage, I'm not sure what is...



And, btw, who mentioned "inter-racial marriage?" No me. In fact, you've accused me several times of bringing race into the discussion, so I decided to review the entire thread to see if that was true. I've mentioned race in this thread exactly five times: three times (four if you include this post) in response to your nonsensical argument above, once (110) as a reference to slavery in an old argument that Mrs Smith is apt to make regarding public acceptance of abortion, and once (126) refering to the tactics of the civil rights movement in a response to Snaps.

So, in addition to your argument being patently false, you also seem to mischaracterize my position. I have never compared same-sex marriage to inter-racial marriage and have not, in this thread at least, compared the situation of homosexuals to that of blacks.

Far, far too easy.

You are insane, and I'm beginning to believe that in a clinical sense.. I was illustrating to you how the two-race/sex/gender rights and sexual preference rights are different and that the case can't be made for equality.

Water Closet
04-23-2009, 09:59 AM
Who exactly are you arguing with? There is a huge difference between "I don't want to see it" and "It should be illegal". Example, "I don't want to see another romantic comedy starring Matthew McCounaghy, but if that's women's cup of tea, so be it. I just won't watch."

As one would expect from you, a very sensible and reasonable attitude. See upthread the concerns of another poster regarding the corruption of his children caused by witnessing homosexual PDAs, as he refers to them.

And, btw, who would want to see a Matthew McCounaghy movie now that Penelope Cruz won't be in it? :confused: :D

wilbur
04-23-2009, 10:00 AM
I didn't say that legislation extending marriage-like rights to homosexuals caused a precipitous drop in marriage rates, I said that marriage rates in most of those countries has steadily declined and they have. It's a combination of a number of factors of which looser sexual mores, easier divorce, and a decline in the status of marriage are important elements.


Don't you see how this is just the same old 'homosexual partnerships devalue the institution' claim, flipped over on itself? It has all the same exact connotations... the implications are that its only societies who have lost their morals, descended into depravity, or given up on values and families all together that would ever entertain the notion of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is obviously so depraved, that only depraved societies would ever allow it. Hence, the "gay marriage is a symptom" arguments, which are just more of the same. In other words, its all about prejudice.

Water Closet
04-23-2009, 10:02 AM
You are insane, and I'm beginning to believe that in a clinical sense.. I was illustrating to you how the two-race/sex/gender rights and sexual preference rights are different and that the case can't be made for equality.

A contrast is simply a negative comparison. And you were patently wrong regarding your assertion that society "bucks" at changes based upon a group's choice or preference and doesn't "buck" at changes based upon a group's so-called natural rights. The civil rights movement demonstrated that is false.

wilbur
04-23-2009, 10:06 AM
Yeah, you've run circles around it all right... You've run clear of the core point, that's for sure. You've attempted to equate race with sexual preference, and I handed you your ass on that one.. You're so clever.

You do realize that homosexuals have been one of the most consistently discriminated against groups of people in the history of the world, don't you? For most of human civilization, being outed would have been an immediate death sentence, and still is in much of the world. They were even right there along side the Christians and the Jews in the gas chambers in WWII.

Yea, totally absurd to draw parallels between race and sexual orientation discrimination..

stsinner
04-23-2009, 10:08 AM
A contrast is simply a negative comparison. And you were patently wrong regarding your assertion that society "bucks" at changes based upon a group's choice or preference and doesn't "buck" at changes based upon a group's so-called natural rights. The civil rights movement demonstrated that is false.

There you go again... The civil rights movement was based on RACE!!!!!!!! Nothing to do with morality or religion!!!! You cannot compare the civil rights movement with homosexual marriage!! Good God, why can't you get this...

Homosexual marriage is a MORALITY issue, and since America is a mojority Christian nation, we don't like things that are immoral, and the fact that homo marriage has been defeated every time it's been put to a vote demonstrates that this is true.

Check out this little nugget I found... Omaha is calling my name......

OMAHA, Nov 9 (LSN.ca) - In a dramatic display of pro-family support, a ballot measure which bans homosexual marriage and domestic partnerships in Nebraska was passed by 70% of voters. Initiative 416, read: "Only a marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska."

The Conservative News Service reports that Nevada passed a similar measure. Also, Maine voters rejected adding "sexual orientation" to the state's anti-bias laws. The measure failed even after the Catholic diocese of Portland dropped its opposition to the measure after it secured an exemption for religious organizations.

stsinner
04-23-2009, 10:16 AM
You do realize that homosexuals have been one of the most consistently discriminated against groups of people in the history of the world, don't you? For most of human civilization, being outed would have been an immediate death sentence, and still is in much of the world. They were even right there along side the Christians and the Jews in the gas chambers in WWII.

Yea, totally absurd to draw parallels between race and sexual orientation discrimination..

Race is something you can't change, while being a homosexual is, in my opinion, a choice to lead an immoral life-and that's why they've been the most discriminated against group in the world.. Rational people know that this isn't normal behavior. It's a sickness. There is absolutely NOTHING natural about a man looking at another man and being attracted to him.. It's a perversion of nature..

I know that in our increasingly secular culture we're being browbeaten to accept everything and to think that what's wrong is subjective and depends on who's judging and that straight, religious, married people are the real enemies, but I'm not going to ignore the morals and principles that I was raised with and that have served me well so far.

As I said, I'm not anti-homosexual, because it's really none of my business what people do IN PRIVATE, but I don't want to see it on my TV, I don't want to be inconvenienced for 1 second by a stupid gay rights march, I don't want them in my St. Patrick's Day parade, and I don't want to see them making out.. And I'm not alone, but most people are afraid to say it because the first act of the ignorant is to call names like bigot and homophobe, which normally immediately shuts down the argument because of the guilt forced on us by our sick society for having values and morals and observing right and wrong..

Water Closet
04-23-2009, 10:23 AM
There you go again... The civil rights movement was based on RACE!!!!!!!! Nothing to do with morality or religion!!!! You cannot compare the civil rights movement with homosexual marriage!! Good God, why can't you get this...

Homosexual marriage is a MORALITY issue, and since America is a mojority Christian nation, we don't like things that are immoral, and the fact that homo marriage has been defeat every time it's been put to a vote demonstrates that this is true.

You still don't get it do you? First, I am not making a comparison between the two, you did. You said that society accepted one set of changes and is rejecting ("bucking at") another set of changes based upon the first being natural rights and the second being rights given according to a preference. Now I am not and have not in this thread ever put forward the idea that homosexual marriage should be based upon the same legal foundations as civil rights. However, your argument that society accepted black equality based upon the premise that this was a natural right is specious, as anyone who remembers the civil rights movement knows. In fact, same-sex marriage is coming to America much more easily than did civil rights for blacks.

stsinner
04-23-2009, 10:27 AM
You still don't get it do you? First, I am not making a comparison between the two, you did. You said that society accepted one set of changes and is rejecting ("bucking at") another set of changes based upon the first being natural rights and the second being rights given according to a preference. Now I am not and have not in this thread ever put forward the idea that homosexual marriage should be based upon the same legal foundations as civil rights. However, your argument that society accepted black equality based upon the premise that this was a natural right is specious, as anyone who remembers the civil rights movement knows. In fact, same-sex marriage is coming to America much more easily than did civil rights for blacks.

That's because society today doesn't allow you to express opinions that are based on virtue and moral values. Religious opinions, the main reason for the distaste for homosexual marriage, are called crackpottery by the mainstream media. It's almost begging to be shunned if you even mention that you're a Christian today. It's a brave (sick) new world.... They've almost eliminated God from our society, but not quite. There are still a few of us bitterly clinging to our guns and our religion.

And, P.S., I don't remember the civil rights movement because it happened largely before I was born.. I can read about it, but I have no idea the feelings that were involved or the news reports that were broadcast, but one thing is for sure-they were much more honest and forthcoming than the news is today with it's spin and bias.

linda22003
04-23-2009, 10:27 AM
However, your argument that society accepted black equality based upon the premise that this was a natural right is specious, as anyone who remembers the civil rights movement knows. In fact, same-sex marriage is coming to America much more easily than did civil rights for blacks.

He does not remember it, and like most younger people, assumes that the way things are now is the way things have always been. ;) Someday, his kids will wonder why dad hates gays.

stsinner
04-23-2009, 10:35 AM
He does not remember it, and like most younger people, assumes that the way things are now is the way things have always been. ;) Someday, his kids will wonder why dad hates gays.

lol

wilbur
04-23-2009, 10:47 AM
Race is something you can't change, while being a homosexual is, in my opinion, a choice to lead an immoral life-and that's why they've been the most discriminated against group in the world.. Rational people know that this isn't normal behavior. It's a sickness. There is absolutely NOTHING natural about a man looking at another man and being attracted to him.. It's a perversion of nature..


Wow, just wow..... I think you are rather proving my point about prejudice.



I know that in our increasingly secular culture we're being browbeaten to accept everything and to think that what's wrong is subjective and depends on who's judging and that straight, religious, married people are the real enemies, but I'm not going to ignore the morals and principles that I was raised with and that have served me well so far.

Actually, I think homosexual discrimination and opposition to homosexual marriage is OBJECTIVELY wrong.



As I said, I'm not anti-homosexual, because it's really none of my business what people do IN PRIVATE, but I don't want to see it on my TV, I don't want to be inconvenienced for 1 second by a stupid gay rights march, I don't want them in my St. Patrick's Day parade, and I don't want to see them making out.. And I'm not alone, but most people are afraid to say it because the first act of the ignorant is to call names like bigot and homophobe, which normally immediately shuts down the argument because of the guilt forced on us by our sick society for having values and morals and observing right and wrong..

Well, you'll be sorry to note that you are making the case, by demonstration, that same-sex marriage opposition is mostly driven by prejudice. Those are some "virtues" and "morals" you have going for you there..

stsinner
04-23-2009, 10:49 AM
Wow, just wow..... I think you are rather proving my point about prejudice.



Actually, I think homosexual discrimination is OBJECTIVELY wrong.



Well, you'll be sorry to note that you are making the case, by demonstration, that same-sex marriage opposition is mostly driven by prejudice.

Having morals and observing your religion is not prejudice. It's called having a spine. I refuse to let others legislate my morality.

wilbur
04-23-2009, 10:56 AM
Having morals and observing your religion is not prejudice.

It can be, actually.



It's called having a spine. I refuse to let others legislate my morality.

So your morals change in accordance with government legislation? Weird.

hazlnut
04-23-2009, 10:59 AM
Race is something you can't change, while being a homosexual is, in my opinion, a choice to lead an immoral life-and that's why they've been the most discriminated against group in the world.. Rational people know that this isn't normal behavior. It's a sickness. There is absolutely NOTHING natural about a man looking at another man and being attracted to him.. It's a perversion of nature..

IMO--you are not very well-informed in this area and are clinging to a belief which keeps you in your blissful zone of comfort.

I suggest you get out more, read some current articles on psychology and biology--preferably not ones from Bob Jones University or the like.

Sexual attraction and orientation is a hard-wired behavior. Think left-handed/right handed. There are two (and only two factors) that contribute to brain development and these types of personality traits. Genetics and pre-natal nutrition. This is hardly a choice.

No, there is not one homosexual gene--a persons degree of homosexuality vs. heterosexuality is now known to be a complex combination of brain development genes and pre-natal factors. This is not a choice.

Remember back in the 50s, when teachers tried to force left-handed children to write with their right hand. Some were able to manage it a little while others found it impossible and so unnatural to the way their brain was wired.

I have to call 'em like I see 'em, you are guilty of a type of bigotry spawned by ignorance and an unwillingness to get better informed.

Find a pediatrician you respect and who is respected in his/her profession and ask them to point you in the right direction to get better informed on this issue. They will tell you how it is now possible to spot homosexual traits in toddlers. It's hard-wired. I understand, though, how setting aside your current beliefs may be too difficult and my cause you to lose friends in your community. Sometimes being smart and well-informed means being less popular. That's the way it goes.

Odysseus
04-23-2009, 11:03 AM
The very core claim of gay marriage opponents is that 'homosexual marriage will devalue the institution of marriage'. Most here would agree with that or have even said it themselves at one time.

Well, that claim is bigotry.. there's no way around it. Its also an unwitting assertion that the rest of society is equally bigotted. The implication is that loving, caring, normal, straight couples just won't be able to enjoy marriage knowing that a certain additional group of peoples have been included in the tradition. They will be so disgusted, or turned off, that they will simply turn away from the institution all together. Obviously, if homosexuals can marry, all sacredness and meaning will have been bled out of the institution, and it will be left in ruins. That is bigotry, perfected.

So... there is NO point in time when opposition to same-sex marriage has NOT been rooted in bigotry.

That's completely circular logic. First, you make the unwarranted assertion that the one argument against gay marriage that you've cited is the only argument, then you make a leap to the assumption that it asserts bigotry by distorting the effect of the argument. The secular argument that has been consistently made against gay marriage is that the redefinition of marriage away from its basic components distorts and devalues it, while creating precedents which will further expand the definition to include polygamy, inanimate object marriage and a host of other forms which will render the institution meaningless, not that it will offend straight couples, but that it will eliminate any value for anyone to bother with it. But, by redefining the argument, following it with multiple non-sequiturs and then equating that with bigotry. It doesn't fly. Wikipedia defines a bigot as "a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset." No one here is taking offense at the gay lifestyle, but we are genuinely concerned that the changes that they are demanding of us will cause significant damage to our lifestyles. That's not bigotry. One can respect Islam without wanting to live under Sharia law, and one can respect gays without wanting to redefine marriage to placate them.


Whos suppressing? Many people didnt like what she said, and are freely expressing their disgust. Are you sure its really they that are the "censors" here?
Yes, they are censors. They are imposing their standard of what is and is not acceptable thought for a contestant for a position that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue in the question.

If the questioner had been a conservative and the question was her opinion of the Obama administration, and she'd said that she liked what he was doing, would he have been within his rights to call her a "dumb bitch" as Hilton did, and remove her from consideration? What if she'd said that she supported gay marriage and a Catholic priest had been the questioner (don't laugh, the priest probably has more of an appreciation for women than Perez Hilton does), would it have been right to exclude her?


They haven't. Most experienced no change in the trajectories of their marriage rates in correlation with same-sex marriage (while a couple had a slight uptick in heterosexual marriages). That claim that marriage rates suddenly dropped with gay marriage is about as true as the claim that Bill Clinton fixed the deficit. I might concede that if one truly believes such claims, they might be less parts bigot, and more parts misinformed... but that only goes so far.

I wondered why you didn't respond to my post about this in the inanimate object marriage thread. Now I know that you didn't want to deal with my refutation of this argument. In fact, you're wrong. Here's what I wrote:


Want to bet? The nations that have adopted full same-sex marriage are:

Belgium
Canada
Netherlands
Norway
South Africa
Spain
Sweden

South Africa has a huge polygamous population. Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden have de facto polygamy in their Moslem enclaves and recognize those marriages in their welfare and legal systems. In addition, these countries also have serious problems with arranged marriages involving child brides in those same quarters. The exception, so far, is Canada, but their legalization of same-sex marriage is extremely recent and the demographic fallout has yet to be observed. Amsterdam has a massive human trafficking problem, as does Norway and Belgium. Sexual crimes such as rape are epidemic in South Africa. Again, this is not a causal relationship between same-sex marriage and polygamy or underage marriage, but evidence that the same dissolution of traditional marriage mores that permits same-sex marriage also creates a more permissive attitude towards polygamy, underage marriage and the objectification and sexual abuse of all people.

In short, you've put the final nail in the coffin, but you did it from the inside.


Well, then thats a separate issue. Religions could easily embrace same-sex marriages, and some do. So they are really two separate things.
Sure, what's a deeply held belief in the face of the whims of a fickle electorate? After all, it's all just superstition, right? The unenlightened gruntings of the gullible masses aren't of any interest to such an evolved, mature mind such as yours, right? There's no reason that you should be compelled to tolerate the primitive terrors of believers, and we all know what a person who is "intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own" is called, don't we? :rolleyes:

stsinner
04-23-2009, 11:04 AM
It can be, actually.



So your morals change in accordance with government legislation? Weird.

Um, no... that's what I meant... Just because activist judges tell me that homo marriage is legal here in MA, I'm not going to view it as okay any more than I did before. Just because my ex-wife had a gay uncle, I didn't view it as okay any more than before.. I treated him with respect when we met, but i would never say that I was okay with his lifestyle choice.. Just because you call me prejudiced, I'm not going to say anything other than what I believe, and that is that homosexual marriage is wrong in my opinion.

I just love how everyone is allowed to have an opinion, as long is it doesn't offend anyone.. Now that's equality.

linda22003
04-23-2009, 11:06 AM
I treated him with respect when we met, but i would never say that I was okay with his lifestyle choice..

And that's all you have to do. Did he care if you were okay with his lifestyle choice?

stsinner
04-23-2009, 11:10 AM
IMO--you are not very well-informed in this area and are clinging to a belief which keeps you in your blissful zone of comfort.

I suggest you get out more, read some current articles on psychology and biology--preferably not ones from Bob Jones University or the like.

Sexual attraction and orientation is a hard-wired behavior. Think left-handed/right handed. There are two (and only two factors) that contribute to brain development and these types of personality traits. Genetics and pre-natal nutrition. This is hardly a choice.

No, there is not one homosexual gene--a persons degree of homosexuality vs. heterosexuality is now known to be a complex combination of brain development genes and pre-natal factors. This is not a choice.

Remember back in the 50s, when teachers tried to force left-handed children to write with their right hand. Some were able to manage it a little while others found it impossible and so unnatural to the way their brain was wired.

I have to call 'em like I see 'em, you are guilty of a type of bigotry spawned by ignorance and an unwillingness to get better informed.

Find a pediatrician you respect and who is respected in his/her profession and ask them to point you in the right direction to get better informed on this issue. They will tell you how it is now possible to spot homosexual traits in toddlers. It's hard-wired. I understand, though, how setting aside your current beliefs may be too difficult and my cause you to lose friends in your community. Sometimes being smart and well-informed means being less popular. That's the way it goes.

California... Go figure.

I love how you think talking intelligently and sounding reasoned will compel me to forsake my morals.. In our increasingly homo-friendly society, I'm not surprised you could find a doctor that will tell you that you can identify homo traits in toddlers.. What do you do then, treat them like a homo for their childhood, dressing boys in dresses and the like, thereby making the lifestyle choice a self-fulfilling prophecy? After all, it would be disingenuous and bigoted, now that you know your boy is going to be a lady, to treat him as if he's straight, now wouldn't it? If you don't capitulate, you must have something against homosexuals...
Only a sick bastard with even dream of looking at toddlers for homosexual traits. Nothing good can come of that. "Hey, honey, let's go have Johnny evaluated and see if we got a gay! I just gotta know... After all, being gay is all the rage these days...."

There are all kinds of bogus studies out there that one could cite, including this one:

"In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls"

And what about this:

"The scientific research contained in a book called, "The Unhappy Gays" confirms this. The book also makes it clear that homosexuals are "made not born" homosexual. Fathers play a significant role in the raising of children in many areas and a father’s actions can be critical in preventing his children from becoming both homosexual or lesbian.

As the Doc says: "A former homosexual who has carried on an effective ministry for five years among homosexuals reported, 'I have counseled over three hundred homosexuals and have yet to find one that enjoyed a warm love relationship with his father.'" "

Looks like everyone's an expert... Do yourself a favor and don't let yourself be brainwashed by the latest fad..

stsinner
04-23-2009, 11:12 AM
And that's all you have to do. Did he care if you were okay with his lifestyle choice?

We didn't discuss it, and he didn't make out with his boyfriend in our presence.. And I didn't make out with my wife.. See, we can be agreeable and respectful toward each other, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.. We actually had nice conversation-he had a '69 Camaro, and we went for a ride together... Ooops... There goes the argument that I'm a bigot... My whole premise is that what they do in private is THEIR business. I just don't want to have to codify their sodomy with a marriage ceremony.. Civil unions and full rights should be enough.

linda22003
04-23-2009, 11:13 AM
We didn't discuss it, and he didn't make out with his boyfriend in our presence.. And I didn't make out with my wife.. See, we can be agreeable and respectful toward each other, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it..

That sounds fine. People climbing all over each other in public is distasteful, no matter what genders they belong to.

Rebel Yell
04-23-2009, 11:14 AM
Find a pediatrician you respect and who is respected in his/her profession and ask them to point you in the right direction to get better informed on this issue. They will tell you how it is now possible to spot homosexual traits in toddlers. It's hard-wired.

So, are you saying it's a birth defect? Did you just call homosexuals handicapped?

linda22003
04-23-2009, 11:15 AM
So, are you saying it's a birth defect? Did you just call homosexuals handicapped?

No, but she's made sure StSinner REALLY stares at his kids when he goes home tonight. :p

Water Closet
04-23-2009, 11:16 AM
Having morals and observing your religion is not prejudice. It's called having a spine. I refuse to let others legislate my morality.

Is that true for all religions, or simply the one you believe in?

stsinner
04-23-2009, 11:37 AM
No, but she's made sure StSinner REALLY stares at his kids when he goes home tonight. :p

:D that was a good one.. You're so pleasant and funny between insults.. You're a real mindfuck.... But I sort of like you in a self-destructive kind of way.. Like a moth to a flame, I guess....


Is that true for all religions, or simply the one you believe in?

Of course people are free to believe as they wish, that doesn't mean I have to accept their beliefs or denounce my own. That's the great part about America (of yesteryear).

wilbur
04-23-2009, 11:39 AM
That's completely circular logic. First, you make the unwarranted assertion that the one argument against gay marriage that you've cited is the only argument, then you make a leap to the assumption that it asserts bigotry by distorting the effect of the argument.

Its the core belief, from which all arguments against gay marriage are derived.



The secular argument that has been consistently made against gay marriage is that the redefinition of marriage away from its basic components distorts and devalues it,

You just restated what I claimed the argument is, yet claim I distorted it!



while creating precedents which will further expand the definition to include polygamy, inanimate object marriage and a host of other forms which will render the institution meaningless, not that it will offend straight couples, but that it will eliminate any value for anyone to bother with it.


Which have all been post-hoc excuses to dress up the core position in a disguise of reason, because you can cite no evidence for any of it, except pure speculation.



But, by redefining the argument, following it with multiple non-sequiturs and then equating that with bigotry. It doesn't fly. Wikipedia defines a bigot as "a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset." No one here is taking offense at the gay lifestyle,

You must not be reading the thread.



but we are genuinely concerned that the changes that they are demanding of us will cause significant damage to our lifestyles. That's not bigotry. One can respect Islam without wanting to live under Sharia law, and one can respect gays without wanting to redefine marriage to placate them.


When you can cite no objective evidence that same-sex marriages will cause the damage you claim, it reveals the prejudice. In the other thread, you backtracked at the end, and did the usual shuffle that happens in these conversations... same-sex marriage all of the sudden wasn't the 'cause' or the door opener to depravity anymore, it was simply a symptom of a sick, depraved society.



Yes, they are censors. They are imposing their standard of what is and is not acceptable thought for a contestant for a position that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue in the question.

If the questioner had been a conservative and the question was her opinion of the Obama administration, and she'd said that she liked what he was doing, would he have been within his rights to call her a "dumb bitch" as Hilton did, and remove her from consideration? What if she'd said that she supported gay marriage and a Catholic priest had been the questioner (don't laugh, the priest probably has more of an appreciation for women than Perez Hilton does), would it have been right to exclude her?


Organized Christian or other religious groups are some of the biggest enforcers of these types of socially enforced consequences.



I wondered why you didn't respond to my post about this in the inanimate object marriage thread. Now I know that you didn't want to deal with my refutation of this argument. In fact, you're wrong. Here's what I wrote:


I didnt reply because it scrolled off the page before I got a chance too, and didnt feel like hunting for it... and it doesnt take long for these things to come back. But the problem with your list is that you omit the very relevant fact that the growing recognition of polygamy has been a widespread phenomenon in most of Europe for quite a while now, regardless of a country's policies on same-sex marriage. And that acceptance of polygamy is basically driven by the appeasement of certain religious beliefs.



Sure, what's a deeply held belief in the face of the whims of a fickle electorate? After all, it's all just superstition, right? The unenlightened gruntings of the gullible masses aren't of any interest to such an evolved, mature mind such as yours, right? There's no reason that you should be compelled to tolerate the primitive terrors of believers, and we all know what a person who is "intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own" is called, don't we? :rolleyes:

Please... The same-sex marriage opponents are the ones who arent content to live and let live here, and claim that the very knowledge that people of the same sex can partake in the institution of marriage, actually devalues their own , then claim society must use the law to preserve that perceived value at the expense of the desires of others.

Water Closet
04-23-2009, 11:48 AM
...
Of course people are free to believe as they wish, that doesn't mean I have to accept their beliefs or denounce my own. That's the great part about America (of yesteryear).

I was not asking in terms of what actions you have available to you as a believer, but rather as to your observation that since you were following the principles of your religion you couldn't be deemed as prejudiced. Do you believe that is true of all those who follow the principles of their religions, regardless of the religion, or only true of those who follow the religion you believe in?

stsinner
04-23-2009, 11:56 AM
I was not asking in terms of what actions you have available to you as a believer, but rather as to your observation that since you were following the principles of your religion you couldn't be deemed as prejudiced. Do you believe that is true of all those who follow the principles of their religions, regardless of the religion, or only true of those who follow the religion you believe in?

You can't answer that in a blanket statement because there are fringe religions out there that believe wacky things, like Muslims, many of whom believe that they are justified in killing people for not being Muslims, etc... They aren't representative of the religion of Islam as a whole (we're told), but I can't just say that I wholly feel that they're entitled to those beliefs, because I don't believe they are.
I believe the judgment about X belief must be made by a reasonable person acting prudently, and as a Christian, one of the largest and widely accepted religions in the world, I don't expect that my religious morals and values are at all extreme. Yes, I know, there are wacky Christians out there, too, but they aren't representative of the flock as a whole.

Odysseus
04-23-2009, 12:33 PM
Its the core belief, from which all arguments against gay marriage are derived.
You just restated what I claimed the argument is, yet claim I distorted it!
Reread what you claim it is and what I stated. You're seeing gay marriage as a distinct, separate cultural phenomenon that has no relation to any other. I'm seeing it as a part of a continued redefinition of marriage that is eroding the basic concept. My objections to gay marriage are the same as my objections to no-fault divorce, which made marriage into a weak contract, polygamy, inanimate object marriage and all of the other permutations which have been practiced globally at one time or another, but which are alien to western civilization as it has stood for the last two millenia.


Which have all been post-hoc excuses to dress up the core position in a disguise of reason, because you can cite no evidence for any of it, except pure speculation.
No, your refusal to accept the cited evidence doesn't mean that there isn't any. I cited polygamy acceptance throughtout those nations which have permitted gay marriage, but you tried to pull a bait and switch, which I will address shortly.


You must not be reading the thread.
I am reading it. Who here has objected to gays living as they choose in the privacy of their own homes? Who is objecting to them having whatever relationships that they see fit? The objection is not to what they choose to do, it's to their imposition of their standards of conduct on the rest of us. It's not our tolerance that's at issue, but theirs.


When you can cite no objective evidence that same-sex marriages will cause the damage you claim, it reveals the prejudice. In the other thread, you backtracked at the end, and did the usual shuffle that happens in these conversations... same-sex marriage all of the sudden wasn't the 'cause' or the door opener to depravity anymore, it was simply a symptom of a sick, depraved society.
I never said that it was the cause, but a symptom, and I never called this a sick, depraved society. I said that it was part of an ongoing redefinition of a critical institution which is eroding that institution until it will ultimately become meaningless. I have cited objective evidence that this erosion is ongoing, by showing an increase in other forms of marriage in those places where the practice is most accepted. You just don't want to acknowledge the evidence by pretending that it isn't there.


Organized Christian or other religious groups are some of the biggest enforcers of these types of socially enforced consequences.
Didn't answer the question, did you? Would you have considered it acceptable for a conservative to have treated a same-sex advocate the same way that Perez Hilton treated Carrie Prejean?


I didnt reply because it scrolled off the page before I got a chance too, and didnt feel like hunting for it... and it doesnt take long for these things to come back. But the problem with your list is that you omit the very relevant fact that the growing recognition of polygamy has been a widespread phenomenon in most of Europe for quite a while now, regardless of a country's policies on same-sex marriage. And that acceptance of polygamy is basically driven by the appeasement of certain religious beliefs.
Yes, clicking the "next" link is sooooo taxing. Perhaps you should take a break from the rigors of bulletin boards?
BTW, I didn't omit the fact that pro-polygamy arguments are driven by religious groups. I brought that up in the inanimate object thread as an example of how polygamists would frame the issue, but the fundamental precedent, that marriage is no longer a union between one man and one woman, provides a wedge for those arguments. You claimed that if gay marriage led to polygamy, then we'd see an increase in it in those nations that had legalized the former. When I demonstrated that, in fact, there had been an increase in polygamy in those countries, you moved the goalposts and claimed that the reasons were unrelated. So, first you demand to see a corelation, and when it is provided, you demand to see a causation. What you refuse to see is that the cause and effects exist, that one change here leads to further changes in the future, that the expansive definition of marriage favored by the activists leads to further expansion on the same grounds, of equal protection and "fairness."

Please... The same-sex marriage opponents are the ones who arent content to live and let live here, and claim that the very knowledge that people of the same sex can partake in the institution of marriage, actually devalues their own , then claim society must use the law to preserve that perceived value at the expense of the desires of others.
Tell that to Carrie Prejean. She wasn't going out of her way to pick a fight over gay marriage, Perez Hilton forced her to address it, then publicly insulted her for doing so honestly. The other judges ostracized her and their enablers in the media have lined up to villify her. How can you honestly look at the behavior of the gay marriage advocates and claim that they are anything but rabid bigots who have no tolerance for any dissent? At this point, you're reduced to the rhetorical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming because you refuse to acknowledge evidence that contradicts your premises. This brings us back to the second part of Wikipedia's definition of bigotry: "Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable." Your views on this have been challenged and proven false so often in this and other threads that it's become a joke. Your intolerance of religion and religious people and the contempt in which you hold them is practically a textbook example of bigotry. I'm no more of a believer than you are, but I respect the views and practices of religion so long as those practices don't include the use of force against others, but you view them as something to be suppressed or destroyed. If that's not bigotry, what is?

wilbur
04-23-2009, 03:13 PM
Reread what you claim it is and what I stated. You're seeing gay marriage as a distinct, separate cultural phenomenon that has no relation to any other. I'm seeing it as a part of a continued redefinition of marriage that is eroding the basic concept. My objections to gay marriage are the same as my objections to no-fault divorce, which made marriage into a weak contract, polygamy, inanimate object marriage and all of the other permutations which have been practiced globally at one time or another, but which are alien to western civilization as it has stood for the last two millenia.


Nothing about same-sex marriage fundamentally weakens the marriage contract at all.. and the only way you think it can is by believing underneath it all that same-sex marriages will "tarnish" the institution in some way. The entire context with which you frame the issue is entirely in the negative... that it has a negative character, that it can only drag us down, and then concoct wildly absurd connections to justify why. Its plain as day.

But in the end, same-sex marriage is fundamentally no different that hetero marriage between two adults, unlike the other forms of marriage we have talked about.



I am reading it. Who here has objected to gays living as they choose in the privacy of their own homes? Who is objecting to them having whatever relationships that they see fit? The objection is not to what they choose to do, it's to their imposition of their standards of conduct on the rest of us. It's not our tolerance that's at issue, but theirs.


Sorry, they are rejecting the imposition of others standards being placed upon them... not the other way around.



I never said that it was the cause, but a symptom, and I never called this a sick, depraved society.


You constructed quite an elaborate little scenario, in which same-sex marriage was the catalyst for the future acceptance of other bizarre marriage scenarios. You framed it as the reason. When that was torn down, you switched to the "its a symptom" tactic.



Didn't answer the question, did you? Would you have considered it acceptable for a conservative to have treated a same-sex advocate the same way that Perez Hilton treated Carrie Prejean?


It would be with in their rights. It would also be within my rights to complain about it. I haven't really said its not within anyones rights to express their opinions and act accordingly.

I expressed my delight that its becoming socially taboo to discriminate against homosexuals by opposing same-sex marriage, to the extent that one suffers socially imposed consequences. If any peoples should be able to understand cultural norms enforced through cultural taboo's it should be those with Judeo-Christian mindsets.. even if, in this case, the taboo works against them.



BTW, I didn't omit the fact that pro-polygamy arguments are driven by religious groups. I brought that up in the inanimate object thread as an example of how polygamists would frame the issue, but the fundamental precedent, that marriage is no longer a union between one man and one woman, provides a wedge for those arguments.



Perhaps, but its an insignificant wedge in light of all the human rights issues that are raised with the other forms of marriage you are so scared of.



I said that it was part of an ongoing redefinition of a critical institution which is eroding that institution until it will ultimately become meaningless. I have cited objective evidence that this erosion is ongoing, by showing an increase in other forms of marriage in those places where the practice is most accepted. You just don't want to acknowledge the evidence by pretending that it isn't there.

...

You claimed that if gay marriage led to polygamy, then we'd see an increase in it in those nations that had legalized the former.


The actual discussion was about more than just polygamy. I also noted that polygamy was a special case, since it can be argued that there aren't necessarily human rights problems involved with it, and because it has a large historical precedent. Same-sex marriage or no same-sex marriage, the arguments for and against polygamy still remain, and are just as challenging.



When I demonstrated that, in fact, there had been an increase in polygamy in those countries, you moved the goalposts and claimed that the reasons were unrelated. So, first you demand to see a corelation, and when it is provided, you demand to see a causation. What you refuse to see is that the cause and effects exist, that one change here leads to further changes in the future, that the expansive definition of marriage favored by the activists leads to further expansion on the same grounds, of equal protection and "fairness."


The correlation is of your own invention, by selectively singling out countries which have same-sex marriage.. then you look for polygamy, ignore the broader context in which polygamy has invaded all of the EU, (even in nations that do not recognize same-sex marriage), and cite same-sex marriage as the cause, when its actually the growing political influence of Islam. Many of those countries have long track records for appeasing Islamic traditions, as well as other religious traditions in ways that we would never consider here. This point has been nothing more than an example of confirmation bias.

Considering the growing influence of Islam, its doubtful that more progressive policies like same-sex marriage will be able to last.



Tell that to Carrie Prejean. She wasn't going out of her way to pick a fight over gay marriage, Perez Hilton forced her to address it, then publicly insulted her for doing so honestly. The other judges ostracized her and their enablers in the media have lined up to villify her. How can you honestly look at the behavior of the gay marriage advocates and claim that they are anything but rabid bigots who have no tolerance for any dissent?


Such acts are in fact acts of dissent by the homosexual movement against the discrimination from the mainstream. I don't think its really bigotry to rebel the bigoted status quo, though I don't think anyone except your typical tabloid reading celeb gossip fanatic, is impressed with or cares about Perez Hilton.



At this point, you're reduced to the rhetorical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming because you refuse to acknowledge evidence that contradicts your premises.


Again, what evidence? Evidence consisting of nothing but assertions out of thin air that allowing marriages that are functionally no different than heterosexual marriages will somehow open the door for marriages that involve what amounts to child slavery?



This brings us back to the second part of Wikipedia's definition of bigotry: "Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable." Your views on this have been challenged and proven false so often in this and other threads that it's become a joke. Your intolerance of religion and religious people and the contempt in which you hold them is practically a textbook example of bigotry. I'm no more of a believer than you are, but I respect the views and practices of religion so long as those practices don't include the use of force against others, but you view them as something to be suppressed or destroyed. If that's not bigotry, what is?

I respect religious beliefs in the same way most here "respect" liberalism... except I generally give religious people more respect than most here would give a liberal.

FlaGator
04-23-2009, 03:33 PM
I respect religious beliefs in the same way most here "respect" liberalism... except I generally give religious people more respect than most here would give a liberal.

So I gather that if people here behave badly then it's ok for you to behave just as badly? That seems to be what your saying. Try that out in a court of law."Everybody there was stealing so I stole too. That makes it ok right?"

All add that you use to be respectful of religion but you stopped doing that.

BadCat
04-23-2009, 03:36 PM
Geez, a couple of you are certainly vehement in your beliefs that genetically or socially (you pick) aberrant people should be able to get married.

There is something WRONG with those people. They are defective. They should not be coddled or even accepted by society.

Lager
04-23-2009, 04:11 PM
Rest assured Wilbur. As much as those here may oppose it, you will see gay marriage accepted and made legal nationwide in your lifetime, and possibly very soon. What is it, about 3 percent of the American population that is gay? And how many of those are content as things are? But that's okay, cause that's what America is about today. Everybody has a right to their own little grievances, and to air them loudly. Line up and pick your special interest. Tell the world what little need you have that you demand be filled. Burdens like that are too heavy to carry on such spindly shoulders.

You are correct that gay marriage itself isn't going to ruin society. No one quite knows what results come of a population where adolescence is now carried forward into the early 30's, or where there is a shortage of males to teach boys how to become men. What damage does it do when you can forget about anybody putting any cause or ideal above their own personal interests-- one's own needs need to be nurtured first ? That's really gonna deal a blow to the family. And who knows what kind of society can function where it's decided who's right, by who talks the loudest.

A whole nation of people who were once proud to do things for themselves are bleating like sheep for the government to take care of everything in their lives.
The funny thing is they don't realize the government is made up of people just as dysfunctional as them.

In the tempest that's swirling around us, is the exact perfect time to swiftly squeeze into place the laws that will aleviate the gross injustice endured by you and the rest of the 3 percent. And as a poster said earlier, it's going to be surprisingly easy.

So it's fairly apparent why instead of arguing with those who disagree with you, you are content to stop the debate by throwing out the "bigot" term. Or any of those discussion ending terms such as "racist", "homo-phobe" etc. You don't really need to argue when you see that in spite of any opposition, your view is going to prevail.

stsinner
04-23-2009, 04:52 PM
Lager, that was VERY well said! Bravo.

FlaGator
04-23-2009, 04:56 PM
Geez, a couple of you are certainly vehement in your beliefs that genetically or socially (you pick) aberrant people should be able to get married.

There is something WRONG with those people. They are defective. They should not be coddled or even accepted by society.

Closet desires maybe...

SaintLouieWoman
04-23-2009, 04:57 PM
Weren't you banned ? I'm wondering why I'm forced to endure your ignorance....

I echo your thoughts. And I believe he was banned twice previously. Perhaps some of the long time posters here can enlighten us.

Odysseus
04-23-2009, 05:15 PM
Nothing about same-sex marriage fundamentally weakens the marriage contract at all.. and the only way you think it can is by believing underneath it all that same-sex marriages will "tarnish" the institution in some way. The entire context with which you frame the issue is entirely in the negative... that it has a negative character, that it can only drag us down, and then concoct wildly absurd connections to justify why. Its plain as day.
Whereas you frame it entirely in positive terms and refuse to consider the possibility that radically redefining marriage could damage the concept of marriage as a whole. History is full of changes which, at the time, seemed inconsequential, but which proved to have profound impacts. The sexual revolution followed a simple technological change, the introduction of the birth control pill. Millions of people changed their behavior radically over one pharmaceutical innovation. Millions more changed theirs after the legalization of abortion. Look at the changes in divorce rates following the introduction of no-fault divorce. Even if you consider each of these developments a positive one, you can't deny that they were changes that were far in excess of the perceived cause. Human relationships are infinitely complex, and the institutions that have formed to protect and nurture them have evolved through trial and error over centuries. Are you so arrogant that you can dismiss our concerns for a future that you can see no better than anyone else?


But in the end, same-sex marriage is fundamentally no different that hetero marriage between two adults, unlike the other forms of marriage we have talked about.
In your opinion. But by the same logic, a marriage in a state with no-fault divorce is no different than a marriage in a state where divorce requires actual cause. And yet, in the former, marriages are less likely to last than in the latter. You refuse to even consider that there is more to the issue than you want there to be.


Sorry, they are rejecting the imposition of others standards being placed upon them... not the other way around.

No, the standard for a marriage has been in place for over two millenia. They aren't simply rejecting the standards of the majority, they are demanding the right to redefine them.


You constructed quite an elaborate little scenario, in which same-sex marriage was the catalyst for the future acceptance of other bizarre marriage scenarios. You framed it as the reason. When that was torn down, you switched to the "its a symptom" tactic.

I have always said that it's a part of an ongoing trend, albeit one of the most obvious and potentially transformative ones because the precedent that it establishes would be the most dramatic redefinition of marriage in the last millenium.


It would be with in their rights. It would also be within my rights to complain about it. I haven't really said its not within anyones rights to express their opinions and act accordingly.
But you have said that bigots deserve no tolerance and defined any opposition to a radical change to an institution that predates recorded history as bigotry. So, do we have the right to disagree with that demand and oppose it, or not? Does a judge in a beauty pageant that has nothing to do with gay marriage have the right to make the politicall correct opinion a litmus test for the contest, to make agreement with his personal view a condition of further employment?


Perhaps, but its an insignificant wedge in light of all the human rights issues that are raised with the other forms of marriage you are so scared of.
Yes, the marital rights of inanimate objects are far more important than preserving the legal, cultural and social customs of billions of people. :rolleyes:

The actual discussion was about more than just polygamy. I also noted that polygamy was a special case, since it can be argued that there aren't necessarily human rights problems involved with it, and because it has a large historical precedent. Same-sex marriage or no same-sex marriage, the arguments for and against polygamy still remain, and are just as challenging.
No, the arguments change if you redefine marriage. As of a few years ago, every state in the nation recognized marriage as the union of one man and one woman, period. This was not open to interpretation. It was cut and dried and comprehensible to everyone with half a brain. Now you're demanding that they change the definition, but to what? Two adults? How long will that last once you have accepted that the definition is malleable? If you change that definition once, why can't a court change it again? That's the other thing that you refuse to take into account, that having this legislated by a few judges doesn't make us freer, it enslaves us to the tyranny of the bench. You accept the precedent that judges can make law where no law existed previously, which means that all it will take to introduce polygamy is a majority of judges in a few states, or even a majority in one federal circuit court (the Ninth comes to mind for some reason).

The correlation is of your own invention, by selectively singling out countries which have same-sex marriage.. then you look for polygamy, ignore the broader context in which polygamy has invaded all of the EU, (even in nations that do not recognize same-sex marriage), and cite same-sex marriage as the cause, when its actually the growing political influence of Islam. Many of those countries have long track records for appeasing Islamic traditions, as well as other religious traditions in ways that we would never consider here. This point has been nothing more than an example of confirmation bias.
Circular logic again. Since accepting the basic premise, that opposition to gay marriage equals bigotry, any defense of that position must be a confirmation of bias. And let's recall that you're the one who claimed that there was no correlation between polygamy and gay marriage. The countries that I cited weren't cherry-picked, they were the only nations that were listed as having given gay marriage full legal standing. The fact that polygamy has invaded the entire EU is partly a result of the cultural changes coming from Islamic immigration, but it's also a function of a group of nations that have so liberally redefined marriage that they no longer have a legal basis from which to argue against yet another radical change.

Considering the growing influence of Islam, its doubtful that more progressive policies like same-sex marriage will be able to last.
You'll just have to settle for polygamy, child marriage and honor killings then, won't you?

Such acts are in fact acts of dissent by the homosexual movement against the discrimination from the mainstream. I don't think its really bigotry to rebel the bigoted status quo, though I don't think anyone except your typical tabloid reading celeb gossip fanatic, is impressed with or cares about Perez Hilton.
Then why was he allowed to judge one of the two most prestigious beauty pageants in the US? And let me just make sure that I understand your position: Perez Hilton introduced a question that had nothing to do with the pageant, called Miss California a "dumb bitch" for disagreeing with him, then added a photo of her to his website, complete with a penis photoshopped in place of a microphone. You consider that infantile behavior to be a legitimate act of dissent?


Again, what evidence? Evidence consisting of nothing but assertions out of thin air that allowing marriages that are functionally no different than heterosexual marriages will somehow open the door for marriages that involve what amounts to child slavery?
The evidence that you demanded, a corelation between same-sex marriage and polygamy, for starters. I presented it, you ignored it and then pretended that it didn't mean what it obviously does. The diverging rates of divorce in countries and states with no-fault vs. contested divorce laws is another. Every single point raised about how the redefinition of marriage has made marriages less secure, you've ignored or ridiculed without actually refuting any of it.


I respect religious beliefs in the same way most here "respect" liberalism... except I generally give religious people more respect than most here would give a liberal.
So, you're saying that most of the members here would happily suppress dissent the way that you want to suppress religion? Pardon me if I don't buy that. First, most liberals here tend to go out of their way to make themselves obnoxious to the majority (remember Eyelids?). The biggest exception, Noonwitch, is unfailingly polite and and civil and it is because of that, that she is treated with respect here. Second, most of the members here would love to have a debate with a liberal that didn't devolve into namecalling. Unfortunately, it's the liberals who tend to lower the tone and suppress dissent. But don't take my word for it, go over to Democratic Underground and try arguing for a conservative position on fiscal responsibility, be as polite as you can be, and count down how long it takes for them to tombstone you.

Water Closet
04-23-2009, 05:36 PM
Closet desires maybe...

Hardly worthy of you, FlaGator. Instead of the stereotype of the guy who supports gays being gay, why don't we do the guy who drives the hummer, gots his guns and his God, and denounces gays all the time being gay. Or maybe the minister who rails against gays from the pulpit having liasons with male rent boys. Those have much more resonance in current events.

linda22003
04-23-2009, 07:10 PM
I echo your thoughts. And I believe he was banned twice previously. Perhaps some of the long time posters here can enlighten us.

I can't explain why someone is "forced" to read someone's posts. I just skip over some posters. It's pretty easy to do.

Water Closet
04-23-2009, 07:15 PM
I can't explain why someone is "forced" to read someone's posts. I just skip over some posters. It's pretty easy to do.

Given that, I'm surprised you replied to this one! :D

linda22003
04-23-2009, 07:17 PM
I have no problem with SLW, or with you. I may be the only person here who can claim THAT intersection. :p

Water Closet
04-23-2009, 07:28 PM
I have no problem with SLW, or with you. I may be the only person here who can claim THAT intersection. :p

A truly odd intersection, one of space and time, ideas and images, perhaps the intersection known as the...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y


:D

FlaGator
04-23-2009, 09:24 PM
I have no problem with SLW, or with you. I may be the only person here who can claim THAT intersection. :p

I fit that profile as well so their are two of us.

Gingersnap
04-23-2009, 09:27 PM
I echo your thoughts. And I believe he was banned twice previously. Perhaps some of the long time posters here can enlighten us.

I guess that would be me (among others). CU doesn't have a hard and fast exclusionary policy and formerly banned members frequently reinvent themselves here with good success. A little time out is often good for the soul.

So long as a member doesn't cross the lines and violate the rules in a new incarnation, I'm not too concerned. That we are having a rip-roaring debate with a high level of back-and-forth is of much more interest to me. :)

Water Closet
04-23-2009, 09:40 PM
I fit that profile as well so their are two of us.

Yeah, but you're weird too! :D

SaintLouieWoman
04-23-2009, 09:49 PM
A truly odd intersection, one of space and time, ideas and images, perhaps the intersection known as the...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y



:D


It's not so odd. Linda #'s and I have common interests and points of view. She is a very nice, well-read woman, who doesn't stoop to insults. Of course, she might let up just a tiny bit on the corrections of grammar and spelling. :D

RobJohnson
04-24-2009, 05:33 AM
That sounds fine. People climbing all over each other in public is distasteful, no matter what genders they belong to.

Sometimes I like to watch. :p

I know I have lived lifestyles that many did not understand or approve of. In fact, I might not approve of those lifestyles today. But in all of my relationships babies could be made! So it must of been ok. :D

Odysseus
04-24-2009, 12:42 PM
Access Hollywood has started rumors about Prejean being booted as Miss California, based on her having been late for a meeting with Donald Trump.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/04/23/access-hollywood-falsely-suggests-prejean-danger-losing-crown

Calif Cowgirl
04-24-2009, 01:58 PM
hmmm...so the Donald has broken his silence...seems to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth???


Exclusive: Donald Trump Breaks Silence on Miss California's Gay Marriage Comments
Friday, April 24, 2009

Donald Trump has broken his silence.

The owner of the Miss Universe franchise finally addressed the scandal surrounding his Miss USA pageant to FOX News Thursday, saying that he has received thousands of calls and letters, the majority of which support Miss California's comments on gay marriage.

Trump had been mum during the firestorm that followed the Sunday telecast, when first runner up Carrie Prejean's responded to a question about the controversial issue of gay marriage.

When asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, whether she believed in gay marriage, Prejean said "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

Many have argued that the answer cost Prejean the crown. But Trump disagreed, congratulating Dalton and saying that she deserved to win.

"I am very honored that she won," Trump told FOX News. "She really did a fantastic job ... She was doing well on every single card and she really did answer also a very, very tough question very well."

But Trump defended Prejean as well, disagreeing with Perez Hilton's assertion that it was the worst answer in the history of the Miss USA pageant.

"Miss California has done a wonderful job, that was her belief ... It wasn't a bad answer, that was simply her belief."

Trump added that Prejean's question was "a bit unlucky," arguing that no matter how she answered the question "she was going to get killed."

Prejean told FOX News that she believes her question cost her the crown. Dalton, the winner, told FOX News that she was not bothered by all the attention garnered by the first runner up because she feels it brings attention to the Miss USA organization, but that she was confident in her win.

"I think if they watch the pageant and they see the scores throughout the competition, they'll see who was in the lead throughout the competition," Dalton said. "There was a panel of 12 judges, it was collective judging, it wasn't just one judge that made her not win."

She also argued that she did not feel it was an unfair question, as it is an issue that concerns all Americans, and she has been asked the question about "five times in her career."

Dalton's title comes with a year's use of a New York apartment, a public relations team, a two-year scholarship at the New York Film Academy and an undisclosed salary.

Odysseus
04-24-2009, 03:45 PM
hmmm...so the Donald has broken his silence...seems to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth???

But Trump defended Prejean as well, disagreeing with Perez Hilton's assertion that it was the worst answer in the history of the Miss USA pageant.

"Miss California has done a wonderful job, that was her belief ... It wasn't a bad answer, that was simply her belief."

Trump added that Prejean's question was "a bit unlucky," arguing that no matter how she answered the question "she was going to get killed."
Actually, I think that Trump's gotten in about right. She did answer according to her belief, and it wasn't a bad answer. Also, she was going to generate a firestorm of controversy no matter which way she answered, which is why the question was inappropriate. It put her in an untenable position and had nothing to do with the pageant.


Dalton's title comes with a year's use of a New York apartment, a public relations team, a two-year scholarship at the New York Film Academy and an undisclosed salary.
And Perez Hilton's seal of approval, and fifteen minutes of fame, if that. At next year's pageant, they'll be talking about Carrie Prejean and Perez Hilton, but nobody will remember the name of the winner without looking at the program.

linda22003
04-24-2009, 03:47 PM
And Perez Hilton's seal of approval, and fifteen minutes of fame, if that. At next year's pageant, they'll be talking about Carrie Prejean and Perez Hilton, but nobody will remember the name of the winner without looking at the program.

And maybe Perez Hilton's. Really, how many Miss Americas do you remember? For me, it's Bess Myerson, Lee Meriwether, and Vanessa Williams. That's about it.

Odysseus
04-24-2009, 04:47 PM
And maybe Perez Hilton's. Really, how many Miss Americas do you remember? For me, it's Bess Myerson, Lee Meriwether, and Vanessa Williams. That's about it.

Same here, and I don't remember them for being Miss America so much as for being either in politics or scandals. I also remember that Shanna Moakler was Miss USA, but mostly because she posed for Playboy. Pageant winners are almost as forgettable as pageant judges. If Hilton is a judge next year, everyone will be watching him closely to see what kind of stunt he comes up with, and if he isn't, the media will lament the "persecution" of the brave little judge who spoke power to the truthful, so his name will be on everyone's lips (and hopefully, only his name :eek:).

Calif Cowgirl
04-24-2009, 04:58 PM
Actually, I think that Trump's gotten in about right. She did answer according to her belief, and it wasn't a bad answer. Also, she was going to generate a firestorm of controversy no matter which way she answered, which is why the question was inappropriate. It put her in an untenable position and had nothing to do with the pageant.


And Perez Hilton's seal of approval, and fifteen minutes of fame, if that. At next year's pageant, they'll be talking about Carrie Prejean and Perez Hilton, but nobody will remember the name of the winner without looking at the program.

Sorry...my bad...in another article I read, Trump said that he didn't think that it was an unfair question. As far as what he said about her answer, I too agree with him. I would have just liked for him to say that the question was unfair. Of course, the publicity from this might cause more people to tune in next year, so it is a win win for the Donald...even keeping Hilton as a judge will get people to watch to see what kind of stunt he pulls, like you said. I would have been quite happy if Trump had fired him and Alicia Jacobs as judges, but doens't look like a possibility. It just infuriates me that they can ADMIT that they gave her the lowest score that they could because of her BELIEFS. Obviously some of the other 19 judges weren't as biased as these 2!

Odysseus
04-24-2009, 05:32 PM
Sorry...my bad...in another article I read, Trump said that he didn't think that it was an unfair question. As far as what he said about her answer, I too agree with him. I would have just liked for him to say that the question was unfair. Of course, the publicity from this might cause more people to tune in next year, so it is a win win for the Donald...even keeping Hilton as a judge will get people to watch to see what kind of stunt he pulls, like you said. I would have been quite happy if Trump had fired him and Alicia Jacobs as judges, but doens't look like a possibility. It just infuriates me that they can ADMIT that they gave her the lowest score that they could because of her BELIEFS. Obviously some of the other 19 judges weren't as biased as these 2!

I suspect that by that point, there wasn't much damage that they could do. Most of the points were already in, and unless each round started from scratch, the final question would only be a small percentage of their overall scores. So, Perez Hilton and Alicia Jacobs managed to keep her out of first place, but assuming that the new Miss USA does something scandalous and gets replaced, the first runner up, Prejean, will take over and serve out her term. Imagine if that happened and she was on the stage, talking about her previous year as Miss USA while Hilton and Jacobs sit as judges. Would they be able to behave themselves? Would people tune in just to see the fireworks? That's about the best possible scenario for a ratings jump that Trump could ask for. If I were this year's winner, I'd be very careful not to do anything that might result in getting my crown stripped.

Calif Cowgirl
04-25-2009, 12:26 AM
I suspect that by that point, there wasn't much damage that they could do. Most of the points were already in, and unless each round started from scratch, the final question would only be a small percentage of their overall scores. So, Perez Hilton and Alicia Jacobs managed to keep her out of first place, but assuming that the new Miss USA does something scandalous and gets replaced, the first runner up, Prejean, will take over and serve out her term. Imagine if that happened and she was on the stage, talking about her previous year as Miss USA while Hilton and Jacobs sit as judges. Would they be able to behave themselves? Would people tune in just to see the fireworks? That's about the best possible scenario for a ratings jump that Trump could ask for. If I were this year's winner, I'd be very careful not to do anything that might result in getting my crown stripped.

LOL...I agree...and how sweet would that ending be???

agua bendita
05-16-2009, 06:42 AM
I do not think this was posted but we have a new smart beautiful conservative lady to support..Miss California Carrie Prejean Miss California asked about gay marriage Perez Hilton calls answer "worst ever" Hilton says contestant a "dumb bitch"
Did her answer keep her from winning?

Frankly, if so I am glad she did not win.

AN OPED on the situation can be found at this link: http://blogs.courant.com/roger_catlin_tv_eye/2009/04/same-sex-unions-and-miss-usa.html

The questions for the final five candidates in the show Sunday were all tied to contemporary issues. One was about domestic violence and mentioned Chris Brown by name. Two had loaded phrases about the use of "taxpayer's money," for bailouts and Afghan elections. Miss Utah chose not to answer her question about universal healthcare saying only "it's a question of integrity" (say what?).

But it was Miss California who was asked - by Perez Hilton no less - about same sex unions.

RobJohnson
05-16-2009, 07:19 AM
And maybe Perez Hilton's. Really, how many Miss Americas do you remember? For me, it's Bess Myerson, Lee Meriwether, and Vanessa Williams. That's about it.

Judi Ford, 1969 Miss America.

Simply because she lived in the same little town as me.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Ford

Odysseus
05-16-2009, 01:35 PM
I do not think this was posted but we have a new smart beautiful conservative lady to support..Miss California Carrie Prejean Miss California asked about gay marriage Perez Hilton calls answer "worst ever" Hilton says contestant a "dumb bitch"
Did her answer keep her from winning?

Frankly, if so I am glad she did not win.

Yeah, but the whole political litmus test for something as trivial the Miss USA pageant just means that we're accepting the premise that liberals can impose their agenda anywhere. What if she'd gotten the universal healthcare and came out against nationalizing the industry? Supposing she gave a free-market answer on the bailouts? Would a judge have subjected her to vitriol because she opposed using public funds for what has become a massive slush fund for the administration? How fair is it to ask these incredibly loaded questions at what should be an apolitical event? And if they are going to do so, they should put out a questionaire beforehand so that the contestants know what the acceptable answer is, because heaven knows that we wouldn't want a Miss USA who wasn't 100% politically correct, now would we?

I propose a multiple choice test, with a few possible hot-button issues below as samples. Please fill out your answers completely and justify each one with a paragraph essay so that we know, for future reference, whether your political positions are acceptable for a Miss USA contestant:


Gun Control: For or against?
Abortion: On demand, some restriction or total ban?
Darfur: Intervention or no intervention?
Iraq: War of liberation or no blood for oil?
The Constitution: Original intent or "living document?"
The Middle East: Two-state solution, no solution, or blame the Joooooooooos?
Illegal Immigration: Amnesty or deportation?
Tax code reform: Flat tax, increased progression in rates, status quo, Fair Tax, VAT or a combination of any two plus egg roll?
The Armenian Genocide: Blame the Turks or let bygones be bygones?
TARP bailouts: Yes, no, maybe or "here's my offshore account number, start shoveling?"
Hawley-Smoot Tariff: Job-killing trade barrier or protection for the "little guy?"
Henry VIII's Great Question: Catherine of Aragon or Anne Boleyn?
Star Trek: Kirk or Picard?
The Siege of Troy: Trojan Horse is a gift from the gods or a dark, cramped space filled with sweaty Greeks? (Which, BTW, brings us full-circle to gay marriage)