Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: The Coach on April 20, 2009, 10:15:11 AM
-
Absolutely Pathetic............
Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton was crowned Miss USA on Sunday, but the big story to come out of the normally politics-free telecast was Miss California's comments regarding gay marriage.
When asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, whether she believed in gay marriage, Miss California, Carrie 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."
Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement.
"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family."
Co-director Shanna Moakler told FOXNews.com that she fully supported Lewis' statement.
PHOTOS: Hot pics from last night's exciting show.
Miss California's answer sparked a shouting match in the lobby after the show. "It's ugly," said Scott Ihrig, a gay man, who attended the pageant with his partner. "I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are."
Charmaine Koonce, the mother of Miss New Mexico USA Bianca Matamoros-Koonce, argued back.
"In the Bible it says marriage is between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"
POP TARTS: More on Miss California's "gay marriage answer" controversy.
The pageant had enjoyed a scandal-free year until earlier this month, when Miss Universe 2008 Dayana Mendoza was skewered for a blog posting from a trip to Guantanamo Bay. The entry described having "aloooot of fun" at a base that houses the notorious military prison; it was later deleted from the pageant's Web site.
You Decide: Did Miss California's answer cost her the crown?
The winner, Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton, a 22-year-old aspiring motivational speaker and entertainer from Wilmington, edged out first runner-up Miss California, and second runner-up Miss Arizona USA Alicia-Monique Blanco, of Phoenix.
"It feels really natural," Dalton said of her win. "I've worked so be here and this has been my lifelong dream and it's finally here. And whoever knew you could win in a turquoise gown?"
Contestants from all 50 states and the District of Columbia competed in the pageant, aired live on NBC. Contestants were judged by their performance in swimsuit and evening gown modeling contests and their responses to a question asked onstage; unlike the rival Miss America pageant, Miss USA contestants do not perform a talent.
The top 15 contestants worked the stage in white string bikinis designed by pop star Jessica Simpson's swimwear line. Rocker Kevin Rudolf performed his song "Let it Rock," followed by The Veronicas, who performed their single "Untouched" as the top 10 beauties showed off their choice of glittering evening gowns.
Dalton's was a flowing, blue Grecian number that stood out among a series of white gowns.
Her 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.
She also will go to the Bahamas in August to compete in the Miss Universe pageant, where American beauties haven't been lucky in recent years. Both Miss USA 2008 Crystle Stewart and her predecessor, Rachel Smith, wiped out on stage during the evening gown competition, becoming accidental YouTube stars.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
-
This is disgusting. Whatever you believe about the definition of marriage, this girl did not saying anything derrogatory. She has a right to her opinion and if they want to pose a question like this (which isn't appropriate for a Mrs. America pagent IMO) then they can't blow up if they don't get the answer certain people may want. More than 50% of the country agrees that marriage is defined as a man and a woman. Many of us are in favor of civil unions which extend all the same rights and privilages under the state.
IMO, this is reverse intolerance and is unacceptible.
-
This is disgusting. Whatever you believe about the definition of marriage, this girl did not saying anything derrogatory. She has a right to her opinion and if they want to pose a question like this (which isn't appropriate for a Mrs. America pagent IMO) then they can't blow up if they don't get the answer certain people may want. More than 50% of the country agrees that marriage is defined as a man and a woman. Many of us are in favor of civil unions which extend all the same rights and privilages under the state.
IMO, this is reverse intolerance and is unacceptible.
I could care less about the issue of gay marriage. The government needs to get out of the entire business of marriage anyways, be it a man, woman, or sheep.
However, all this proves is how fucking stupid these beauty pageant women are. I mean for fuck's sake she's from California. Did she really think she was going to win after a comment like that? She learned the hard way that's for sure. Atleast she wasn't as bad as the previous years Miss America.
-
Understood....but this also shows direct intolerance of the shows judge and co-producer, which is not appropriate. The fact that this young lady was criticized for her opinion (and her placing possibly affected) is very disturbing. Many on the left are incredibly intolerant if you do not share their view.
-
I applaud her for having the courage to express her views. Screw the Liberal weenies who booed her.
-
That was just a stupid (and totally inappropriate) question for a beauty pageant judge to be asking.
-
Agreed, especially if they throw a fit if you don't agree with their view. Hope this question is thrown out in the future. Also hope that people see that this girl was treated unfairly.
-
Understood....but this also shows direct intolerance of the shows judge and co-producer, which is not appropriate. The fact that this young lady was criticized for her opinion (and her placing possibly affected) is very disturbing. Many on the left are incredibly intolerant if you do not share their view.
Heck, her answer represents what at least 52% of the voters in her states said last November.
The posters boys of tolerance being anything but that, when they don't get their way. Color me shocked!!!
-
Heck, her answer represents what at least 52% of the voters in her states said last November.
The posters boys of tolerance being anything but that, when they don't get their way. Color me shocked!!!
Hey, in Cali they protested and just short of rioted when they didn't get their way. They try to force it down societies collective throat via the voting box, then when that always fails they go hit up some liberal judge to declare the opposing viewpoint unconstitutional.
-
Hey, in Cali they protested and just short of rioted when they didn't get their way. They try to force it down societies collective throat via the voting box, then when that always fails they go hit up some liberal judge to declare the opposing viewpoint unconstitutional.
Tell me about it. And, there are rumors of gay activists doing yet more of that, acting a complete fool, if the CA court rules that Prop. 8 is simply an amendment and it remains in place (which, at the moment, appears likely).
Actually they didn't go the way of the ballot box. Prop. 8 was to counter the judges overturning Prop. 22 last year.
There was an article in the SF Chronicle by a black lesbian, in which she mentioned how much "hate mail" she and other blacks (gay and straight) got on her site and others. That came white gay activists and sympathizers, who were miffed by the reported 70% of black CA voters who tipped the scales for Prop. 8.
-
Good for her. Someone needs to teach homosexual marriage proponents about tolerance.
-
Incredibly stupid to ask such a question and then become offended when the contestent gives an honest answer. Don't ask controversial questions if you are not prepared for "real talk."
-
Incredibly stupid to ask such a question and then become offended when the contestent gives an honest answer. Don't ask controversial questions if you are not prepared for "real talk."
Real talk and beauty pagents, that's like oil and water.
-
Hey, in Cali they protested and just short of rioted when they didn't get their way. They try to force it down societies collective throat via the voting box, then when that always fails they go hit up some liberal judge to declare the opposing viewpoint unconstitutional.
Mexicans.
-
Mexicans.
Probably.
-
This is disgusting. Whatever you believe about the definition of marriage, this girl did not saying anything derrogatory. She has a right to her opinion and if they want to pose a question like this (which isn't appropriate for a Mrs. America pagent IMO) then they can't blow up if they don't get the answer certain people may want. More than 50% of the country agrees that marriage is defined as a man and a woman. Many of us are in favor of civil unions which extend all the same rights and privilages under the state.
IMO, this is reverse intolerance and is unacceptible.
I agree completely.
Don't ask the question if you're not prepared to hear the answer people.
She said what she believes and I find no fault in it.
I don't agree with her stance, but it's her right to say it.
Fuck anyone who can't handle it.
-
I could care less about the issue of gay marriage. The government needs to get out of the entire business of marriage anyways, be it a man, woman, or sheep.
However, all this proves is how fucking stupid these beauty pageant women are. I mean for fuck's sake she's from California. Did she really think she was going to win after a comment like that? She learned the hard way that's for sure. Atleast she wasn't as bad as the previous years Miss America.
You do realize that California passed Prop 8 last year which reversed the previous decision that gay marriage was legal? That was voted by the majority of voters in Cali which means most of the people in Cali don't believe it.
I don't' care one way or the other and I definitely agree with you about the government not being involved in marriage. Everyone is entitled to her opinion so this really should be a non-issue. Who fucking cares?
-
This is disgusting. Whatever you believe about the definition of marriage, this girl did not saying anything derrogatory. She has a right to her opinion and if they want to pose a question like this (which isn't appropriate for a Mrs. America pagent IMO) then they can't blow up if they don't get the answer certain people may want. More than 50% of the country agrees that marriage is defined as a man and a woman. Many of us are in favor of civil unions which extend all the same rights and privilages under the state.
IMO, this is reverse intolerance and is unacceptible.
I agree
-
The fat cock gobbler Perez Hilton pushed to ask the question asked during a judges meeting. I'm sure he assumed that he'd get a free promotion of his gay marriage agenda over the airwaves. When she offered an opposing point of view, fatty decided to punish her. I applaud Ms. California for standing by her beliefs, knowing the homo would make her pay.
I just saw Perez Hilton give an interview, and he is such a smug asshole. He should punched in the face on national television.
-
You do realize that California passed Prop 8 last year which reversed the previous decision that gay marriage was legal? That was voted by the majority of voters in Cali which means most of the people in Cali don't believe it.
EXACTLY!!!
Hilton tried to use this paegant as a "informercial", using the beauty queen from his state. And, it BACKFIRED. That's what this was all about.
I mean, did he really believe that there was no chance that she would acutally think that marriage is between a man and a woman?At least 52% of voters of his state think that.
-
This is disgusting. Whatever you believe about the definition of marriage, this girl did not saying anything derrogatory. She has a right to her opinion and if they want to pose a question like this (which isn't appropriate for a Mrs. America pagent IMO) then they can't blow up if they don't get the answer certain people may want. More than 50% of the country agrees that marriage is defined as a man and a woman. Many of us are in favor of civil unions which extend all the same rights and privilages under the state.
IMO, this is reverse intolerance and is unacceptible.
x2
-
Absolutely Pathetic............
Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton was crowned Miss USA on Sunday, but the big story to come out of the normally politics-free telecast was Miss California's comments regarding gay marriage.
When asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, whether she believed in gay marriage, Miss California, Carrie 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."
Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement.
"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family."
Co-director Shanna Moakler told FOXNews.com that she fully supported Lewis' statement.
PHOTOS: Hot pics from last night's exciting show.
Miss California's answer sparked a shouting match in the lobby after the show. "It's ugly," said Scott Ihrig, a gay man, who attended the pageant with his partner. "I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are."
Charmaine Koonce, the mother of Miss New Mexico USA Bianca Matamoros-Koonce, argued back.
"In the Bible it says marriage is between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"
POP TARTS: More on Miss California's "gay marriage answer" controversy.
The pageant had enjoyed a scandal-free year until earlier this month, when Miss Universe 2008 Dayana Mendoza was skewered for a blog posting from a trip to Guantanamo Bay. The entry described having "aloooot of fun" at a base that houses the notorious military prison; it was later deleted from the pageant's Web site.
You Decide: Did Miss California's answer cost her the crown?
The winner, Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton, a 22-year-old aspiring motivational speaker and entertainer from Wilmington, edged out first runner-up Miss California, and second runner-up Miss Arizona USA Alicia-Monique Blanco, of Phoenix.
"It feels really natural," Dalton said of her win. "I've worked so be here and this has been my lifelong dream and it's finally here. And whoever knew you could win in a turquoise gown?"
Contestants from all 50 states and the District of Columbia competed in the pageant, aired live on NBC. Contestants were judged by their performance in swimsuit and evening gown modeling contests and their responses to a question asked onstage; unlike the rival Miss America pageant, Miss USA contestants do not perform a talent.
The top 15 contestants worked the stage in white string bikinis designed by pop star Jessica Simpson's swimwear line. Rocker Kevin Rudolf performed his song "Let it Rock," followed by The Veronicas, who performed their single "Untouched" as the top 10 beauties showed off their choice of glittering evening gowns.
Dalton's was a flowing, blue Grecian number that stood out among a series of white gowns.
Her 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.
She also will go to the Bahamas in August to compete in the Miss Universe pageant, where American beauties haven't been lucky in recent years. Both Miss USA 2008 Crystle Stewart and her predecessor, Rachel Smith, wiped out on stage during the evening gown competition, becoming accidental YouTube stars.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Sticky Studs is against gay marriage? LOL :-*
-
Whatever she believes, I am happy she said it and said proud.
-
Understood....but this also shows direct intolerance of the shows judge and co-producer, which is not appropriate. The fact that this young lady was criticized for her opinion (and her placing possibly affected) is very disturbing. Many on the left are incredibly intolerant if you do not share their view.
how does dicrimination feel, you like it? try being a fuckin taxpayer and paying big taxes always on time and being treated like a second class citizen.
-
how does dicrimination feel, you like it? try being a fuckin taxpayer and paying big taxes always on time and being treated like a second class citizen.
-
how does dicrimination feel, you like it? try being a fuckin taxpayer and paying big taxes always on time and being treated like a second class citizen.
What in the world are you talking about?
This young lady merely gave her opinion she was asked, nothing more or less.
-
This thread is gay.
-
What in the world are you talking about?
This young lady merely gave her opinion she was asked, nothing more or less.
opinions are like assholes...everyone's got one.
-
opinions are like assholes...everyone's got one.
. . . . and they all stink. ;D
-
. . . . and they all stink. ;D
um, i douche so mine dont
-
I could care less about the issue of gay marriage. The government needs to get out of the entire business of marriage anyways, be it a man, woman, or sheep.
However, all this proves is how fucking stupid these beauty pageant women are. I mean for fuck's sake she's from California. Did she really think she was going to win after a comment like that? She learned the hard way that's for sure. Atleast she wasn't as bad as the previous years Miss America.
She was stupid. Period. Who did she think was in the audience? Who does she think patronizes a beauty pageant (be it Miss USA or Mr. Olympia)? This reminds me of Mel Gibson making negative comments abut Jews in his drunken rant? Who has the power in Hollywood? Um… hello?
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
By the way saying, “that’s how I was raised” is the mark of a coward. If you hold a value claim it as your own and defend it—don’t hide behind the phrase “that’s how I was raised.” Most people, at some point in their lives, realize that some aspects of “how I was raised” was simply wrong and reject the examples and models of their parents. The question was not “how were you raised?”
Instead of asking public figures if they believe in gay marriage interlocutors should be asking them, “do you believe people should be treated equally?” That is the question America has had to ask itself again and again… in the 1860s, 1920s, 1960s, 2009… It is a simple GED question and stupid people keep getting it wrong. ::)
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
-
WTF was a beauty pageant contestant asked this question in the first place? ???
Are bodybuilders asked what their position is on abortion after the posedown?
Are Heisman trophy nominees asked about global warming?
Would you ask kids at a spelling bee what their opinion is on the war in Iraq?
Not only was the question stupid to ask in the first place, the backlash she received for being honest is downright scary. She has the same position as the majority of Americans and is now being treated like a pariah. The thought police are alive and well.
-
She was stupid. Period. Who did she think was in the audience? Who does she think patronizes a beauty pageant (be it Miss USA or Mr. Olympia)? This reminds me of Mel Gibson making negative comments abut Jews in his drunken rant? Who has the power in Hollywood? Um… hello?
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
By the way saying, “that’s how I was raised” is the mark of a coward. If you hold a value claim it as your own and defend it—don’t hide behind the phrase “that’s how I was raised.” Most people, at some point in their lives, realize that some aspects of “how I was raised” was simply wrong and reject the examples and models of their parents. The question was not “how were you raised?”
Instead of asking public figures if they believe in gay marriage interlocutors should be asking them, “do you believe people should be treated equally?” That is the question America has had to ask itself again and again… in the 1860s, 1920s, 1960s, 2009… It is a simple GED question and stupid people keep getting it wrong. ::)
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
she's certainly not an evolving person
-
she's certainly not an evolving person
She has a right to her opinion as you do.
I personally think gay marriage is an aberation but am open to people thinking otherwise.
-
She has a right to her opinion as you do.
I personally think gay marriage is an aberation but am open to people thinking otherwise.
I thought you weren't religious? ???
-
I thought you weren't religious? ???
Im not religious at all. My belief system comes from history, common sense, nature, and observation.
-
Good for her. Someone needs to teach homosexual marriage proponents about tolerance.
Never gonna happen.
This has become one of the third rail topics and people are losing free speech.
-
She was stupid. Period. Who did she think was in the audience? Who does she think patronizes a beauty pageant (be it Miss USA or Mr. Olympia)? This reminds me of Mel Gibson making negative comments abut Jews in his drunken rant? Who has the power in Hollywood? Um… hello?
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
At least 52% of the people in her state VOTED that marriage is a union between a man and a woman....UM...HELLO!!!!!!!!???
By the way saying, “that’s how I was raised” is the mark of a coward. If you hold a value claim it as your own and defend it—don’t hide behind the phrase “that’s how I was raised.” Most people, at some point in their lives, realize that some aspects of “how I was raised” was simply wrong and reject the examples and models of their parents. The question was not “how were you raised?”
Instead of asking public figures if they believe in gay marriage interlocutors should be asking them, “do you believe people should be treated equally?” That is the question America has had to ask itself again and again… in the 1860s, 1920s, 1960s, 2009… It is a simple GED question and stupid people keep getting it wrong. ::)
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
The mark of a coward is one who can't be a fair and impartial judge, as Hilton was hired to be. And the only thing "Stupid. Stupid. Stupid" was Hilton and his reaction. Again, he tried to turn this contest into a make-shift infomercial for gay "marriage" and it backfired. That wasn't the time or the place for that.
Let’s get real, here. Did Hilton REALLY expect that no one on that stage believed that marriage is a union between a man and a woman?
At last count, least 43 states defined marriage as such. The federal government defined it at such. The current president does, as did his Democratic predecessor, who SIGNED THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT INTO LAW.
I'm sorry. But, I thought this was the Miss USA contest, not the Miss PC USA contest, or the Miss Left-Wing-Liberal-Policy show. If cowtowing to gay activists is a requirement to be in that show, let the contestants know that from the get-go and they can make the decision, whether or not they wish to participate.
-
She was stupid. Period. Who did she think was in the audience? Who does she think patronizes a beauty pageant (be it Miss USA or Mr. Olympia)? This reminds me of Mel Gibson making negative comments abut Jews in his drunken rant? Who has the power in Hollywood? Um… hello?
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
By the way saying, “that’s how I was raised” is the mark of a coward. If you hold a value claim it as your own and defend it—don’t hide behind the phrase “that’s how I was raised.” Most people, at some point in their lives, realize that some aspects of “how I was raised” was simply wrong and reject the examples and models of their parents. The question was not “how were you raised?”
Instead of asking public figures if they believe in gay marriage interlocutors should be asking them, “do you believe people should be treated equally?” That is the question America has had to ask itself again and again… in the 1860s, 1920s, 1960s, 2009… It is a simple GED question and stupid people keep getting it wrong. ::)
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
Who gives a shit, she was marked down for her OPINION not what the popular answer was supposed to be.
-
Who gives a shit, she was marked down for her OPINION not what the popular answer was supposed to be.
I saw her interviewed last night. The girl was absolutely gorgeous, great body and well spoken. Didn't sound stupid at all. I think she knew her answer would be unpopular and possibly cost her the title and she had the conviction to say it anyways. Why even let someone like Perez Hilton ask a question to a contestant? He's a guy known for internet gossip always of a negative and inflammatory type.
-
She was stupid. Period. Who did she think was in the audience? Who does she think patronizes a beauty pageant (be it Miss USA or Mr. Olympia)? This reminds me of Mel Gibson making negative comments abut Jews in his drunken rant? Who has the power in Hollywood? Um… hello?
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
By the way saying, “that’s how I was raised” is the mark of a coward. If you hold a value claim it as your own and defend it—don’t hide behind the phrase “that’s how I was raised.” Most people, at some point in their lives, realize that some aspects of “how I was raised” was simply wrong and reject the examples and models of their parents. The question was not “how were you raised?”
Instead of asking public figures if they believe in gay marriage interlocutors should be asking them, “do you believe people should be treated equally?” That is the question America has had to ask itself again and again… in the 1860s, 1920s, 1960s, 2009… It is a simple GED question and stupid people keep getting it wrong. ::)
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
Whether or not you agree with her point, you have to respect her opinion.
I certainly don't agree with it and would never teach my children that, but I respect that her opinion is that and that's pretty much all their is to it.
-
Did anyone think that maybe, just maybe she got second because she DESERVED 2nd? 12 judges thought so..
-
Did anyone think that maybe, just maybe she got second because she DESERVED 2nd? 12 judges thought so..
By asking such a question, it seems that it opened the door to speculation.
-
She was stupid. Period. Who did she think was in the audience? Who does she think patronizes a beauty pageant (be it Miss USA or Mr. Olympia)? This reminds me of Mel Gibson making negative comments abut Jews in his drunken rant? Who has the power in Hollywood? Um… hello?
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
By the way saying, “that’s how I was raised” is the mark of a coward. If you hold a value claim it as your own and defend it—don’t hide behind the phrase “that’s how I was raised.” Most people, at some point in their lives, realize that some aspects of “how I was raised” was simply wrong and reject the examples and models of their parents. The question was not “how were you raised?”
Instead of asking public figures if they believe in gay marriage interlocutors should be asking them, “do you believe people should be treated equally?” That is the question America has had to ask itself again and again… in the 1860s, 1920s, 1960s, 2009… It is a simple GED question and stupid people keep getting it wrong. ::)
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
She was brilliant.She will make 100 times more money and get 100 times more fame and fortune then the winner.Whats her name again?NO ONE CARES!!!They are talking about her,she is everywhere,she will make millions.Meanwhile that limp wristed fem Perez Hilton will fade away and probably end up pulling tricks on Craigs List.
-
It's funny that Perez Hilton is making her out to be a gay basher or something. Seriously, they should have stuck to the candy ass questions they always ask. I guess along with Miss California Perez Hilton must hate Mormons and Blacks in California too, a majority of them voted down gay marriage.
-
She was stupid. Period. Who did she think was in the audience? Who does she think patronizes a beauty pageant (be it Miss USA or Mr. Olympia)? This reminds me of Mel Gibson making negative comments abut Jews in his drunken rant? Who has the power in Hollywood? Um… hello?
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
By the way saying, “that’s how I was raised” is the mark of a coward. If you hold a value claim it as your own and defend it—don’t hide behind the phrase “that’s how I was raised.” Most people, at some point in their lives, realize that some aspects of “how I was raised” was simply wrong and reject the examples and models of their parents. The question was not “how were you raised?”
Instead of asking public figures if they believe in gay marriage interlocutors should be asking them, “do you believe people should be treated equally?” That is the question America has had to ask itself again and again… in the 1860s, 1920s, 1960s, 2009… It is a simple GED question and stupid people keep getting it wrong. ::)
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
Didn't she say that was how she was raised and that is what she believes? Get over it dude. You cannot legislate people to accept others. They either do or don't. I didn't hear her say she hates gays or any other group. She believes that marriage is between a man and woman. I'm pretty sure gay unions allow for everything but the title of marriage, or so a lawyer friend told me. See the thing is that everything is you either agree or you're a bigot but it's not that black and white. Are you going to fault a 90 year old woman in CA for not agreeing with gay marriage? Is she supposed to give up the morals and values of her lifetime?
-
Another example of the gay agenda being forced down peoples throats. I hope a few thousand more people vote 'yes' on the next measure 8 that comes along because of it. There was no reason to ask this kind of question in this situation.
-
homophobia is gay
-
homophobia is gay
There is nothing homophobic about it. Nobody is afraid of any homosexuals here. The issue is that some retard psudo-celebrity used a public forum to cram their gay agenda into the spotlight.
People are getting tired of it.
-
just making a statement... I like the saying :)
-
Its amazing to me just how IL-lliberal most liberals are when it comes to people who disagree with them on issues.
-
Who gives a shit, she was marked down for her OPINION not what the popular answer was supposed to be.
opinions matter, is a subjective sport..
-
She was brilliant.She will make 100 times more money and get 100 times more fame and fortune then the winner.Whats her name again?NO ONE CARES!!!They are talking about her,she is everywhere,she will make millions.Meanwhile that limp wristed fem Perez Hilton will fade away and probably end up pulling tricks on Craigs List.
It was a shitty Q to ask her.
But she did answer what she knew would be a controversial response. Her opportunities may be greater as a result.
Perez hulton went on MSNBC and told Norah O'Donnell that he wanted to call Miss Cali the C-word. It was a pretty awkward moment.
-
Its amazing to me just how IL-lliberal most liberals are when it comes to people who disagree with them on issues.
Yes! Liberals pride themselves on keeping an open mind about everything, up until the point that someone dares have an opinion different than theirs. Then you are a bigot if you don't agree. Don't think the term 'marriage' should apply to people who can't be married by definition? You must be a bigot...
-
Yes! Liberals pride themselves on keeping an open mind about everything, up until the point that someone dares have an opinion different than theirs. Then you are a bigot if you don't agree. Don't think the term 'marriage' should apply to people who can't be married by definition? You must be a bigot...
and she should have won because of her answer? haha
-
opinions matter, is a subjective sport..
Opinions obviously matter to just one of the 12 judges on that panel. Hilton even said himself if she would have gave a different answer she would have probably won. Basically what he is suggesting, because of her views, she's a homophobe. That's BS.
-
Opinions obviously matter to just one of the 12 judges on that panel. Hilton even said himself if she would have gave a different answer she would have probably won. Basically what he is suggesting, because of her views, she's a homophobe. That's BS.
how do you know it was 1 judge who hated her answer...maybe it was donald trump or 10 others. i think you're upset because the bigot lost
-
Interesting commentary.
ANDREA TANTAROS: Miss USA’s Outrageous Double Standard
By Andrea Tantaros
Republican Political Commentator/FOXNews.com Contributor
Apparently, there is a litmus test to be Miss (Liberal) USA these days.
Until the interview round of the contest, Carrie Prejean– who was representing the State of California was the front-runner. She drew a question by celebrity blogger Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. who posts under the pseudonym Perez Hilton, the “Queen of Mean.”
The question:
“Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”
Prejean’s response:
“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.”
The outcome: The front-runner fell to first runner up and Miss North Carolina USA took the crown.
When people are arguing for tolerance and equal rights for gays they undermine their own argument when they resort to intolerant, hateful language that shows a complete disrespect for women.
Perez Hilton has since gone on an angry blogging tirade against Prejean’s answer calling her an absolutely reprehensible five-letter word and later an even more unacceptable four-letter word that begins with “c” on a mainstream news network. He later apologized for his remarks, but then retracted his apology. “She lost it because of that question,” he admitted. “She was definitely the front-runner before that.”
Let’s consider the source: Perez Hilton is an openly gay, unstable and unreasonable left-wing blogger who reports on rumors with great braggadocio — not even real news — and often outs closeted gays in the public eye. If he doesn’t have respect for other homosexuals or an individual’s right to privacy why would he have respect for anything else?
When people are arguing for tolerance and equal rights for gays they undermine their own argument when they resort to intolerant, hateful language that shows a complete disrespect for women. Whether you are talking about gay marriage or the price of coffee at Starbucks, it is absolutely unacceptable to use that language about females to advance your argument.
The double standard is astounding.
I didn’t hear the outrage when Joe Biden said that he and Barack Obama are against gay marriage. No incendiary language, no insults, no four letter obscenities.
Why is it acceptable for Obama and Biden to have this opinion but not a conservative female? And where are the women’s rights and feminist groups to speak out against this kind of language? Or gay rights groups to denounce this clown because he does nothing to advance their agenda of tolerance? The same place they were when other females who possessed traditional values or beliefs like Sarah Palin exercised their right to free speech and expressed these views: they’re nowhere to be found.
I ask: How can a pageant that is supposedly designed to advance women put a judge who clearly has no respect for females on the judging panel? Enter Donald Trump. The Miss Universe organization is a for profit organization owned by Trump. The Donald, who I wouldn’t exactly call a champion for women’s rights or a moral touchstone, recently, defended the diatribe of Hilton. Congratulations Donald, we knew you were rich, just not ignorant. You can now add apologist for sexism and blatant disrespect for women to your resume after real estate mogul and reality TV producer.
Going forward no participant will stand up for what they believe in fearing punitive action. What message does that send to young girls? You can be fearless and unapologetic as long as you have traditional beliefs? Keep in mind the pageant was televised by NBC, which seeks to propagate and advance a far left agenda. Enough said. Apparently the network has joined the Leftist jihad of intolerance and disrespect toward females, and free speech.
This issue goes beyond beauty contests and reveals a much scarier truth: You cannot voice a dissenting opinion without being assaulted by the progressive left. The left is not interested in debating, only suppressing debate. Destroying your life and career is the sentence for anyone who dissents on these issues. The activists will carry out the sentence with the willing assistance of a compliant media.
If Perez Hilton, The Miss USA organization, Donald Trump, the mainstream media and the Left want to get in battle over free speech and treatment of women, bring it on.
Andrea Tantaros is a conservative commentator and columnist. Her commentary can be found at www.andreatantaros.com.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/21/tantaros_miss_usa_outrageous/
-
stupid answer, didnt ask for her personal opinion
-
stupid answer, didnt ask for her personal opinion
??? What exactly is this question asking for if not her personal opinion?
“Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”
-
how do you know it was 1 judge who hated her answer...maybe it was donald trump or 10 others. i think you're upset because the bigot lost
Don't tell me you're one of the one's who just because of her answer thinks she's a bigot? Thats rediculous.
-
fucking libs. ::)
-
Don't tell me you're one of the one's who just because of her answer thinks she's a bigot? Thats rediculous.
the question was about voting not her personal choices she's a stuipd idiot and didnt deserve to win and because she's a bigot i'm happy she didnt win. by the way speaking of bigots what happened to the obama chia pet thread you started?
-
I saw her interviewed last night. The girl was absolutely gorgeous, great body and well spoken. Didn't sound stupid at all. I think she knew her answer would be unpopular and possibly cost her the title and she had the conviction to say it anyways. Why even let someone like Perez Hilton ask a question to a contestant? He's a guy known for internet gossip always of a negative and inflammatory type.
What’s really messed up is that the woman who won Miss USA seems to be spending more time, talking about the runner-up. It detracts from her victory, even though she didn’t do anything wrong.
Her crown is tainted, through no fault of her own, but because of some numb-skulled gay judge, who couldn’t put his personal feelings on the back burner and do his job.
Miss California may end up being the BIG winner, after all (especially since few here in the USA care who wins the Miss Universe). People have rallied behind her and the fact that she stood up for herself. She may shine and get much more exposure long after this mess is over.
So, the only “Dumb *@&!&” in this entrie scenario is Perez Hilton.
-
the question was about voting not her person choices she's a stuipd idiot and didnt deserve to win and because she's a bigot i'm happy she didnt win. by the way speaking of bigots what happened to the obama chia pet thread you started?
Perez 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?”
“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage,” Prejean said. “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.”
-
Perez 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?”
“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage,” Prejean said. “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.”
the Obama Chia Pet thread you strated? where is it?
-
the question was about voting not her personal choices she's a stuipd idiot and didnt deserve to win and because she's a bigot i'm happy she didnt win. by the way speaking of bigots what happened to the obama chia pet thread you started?
The question was, "Should other states follow suit? Why or why not?"
She basically gave her opinion as to "why not". And, since she believes that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, her answer to whether other states should follow suit would be "No!" (BTW, 52% of her fellow Californians felt much the same way, when they passed Prop. 8).
Speaking of Obama, why don't you call him a bigot? He's gone on record as saying he believes marriage is a union between a man and a woman. And, so did his Democratic precedessor. In fact, didn't that guy sign DOMA into law, after it passed EASILY in both the House and Senate.
Why don't you Pres. Clinton a "bigot"? Or VP Biden? Stop me anytime you like.
Again, the stupid label falls squarely on Hilton. Thanks to that knucklehead, the runner-up is getting MORE PRESS than the actual winner.
-
today is the 139th birthday of Lenin. Let's sing!
-
there all fucking libs...yur a dumb lib, yur all antiamerican libs...
-
there all fucking libs...yur a dumb lib, yur all antiamerican libs...
Quit being a troll Deicide. If all you're going to contribute to threads are these stupid one-liners, which say the same thing in every thread, then go post on another board.
-
Great article, Double B!!
-
Quit being a troll Deicide. If all you're going to contribute to threads are these stupid one-liners, which say the same thing in every thread, then go post on another board.
Why? You rightwing bigots don't do anything but call people names when serious questions are asked; I am merely imitating that style.
For example:
Question: do you think American foreign policy is beneficial to the American people?
HH6, BF, GW, etc...Shut the fuck up you anti-American lib, you can't get laid worth your life...
DO those sorts of contributions count as trolling? I think they should. They say nothing, don't debate and merely hurl names. To quote your godman, look to the splinter in your own eye.
-
Why? You rightwing bigots don't do anything but call people names when serious questions are asked; I am merely imitating that style.
For example:
Question: do you think American foreign policy is beneficial to the American people?
HH6, BF, GW, etc...Shut the fuck up you anti-American lib, you can't get laid worth your life...
DO those sorts of contributions count as trolling? I think they should. They say nothing, don't debate and merely hurl names. To quote your godman, look to the splinter in your own eye.
Nonsense. No one this board, other than you, posts the same one-liner in every thread. I'm not going to tell you how to have a discussion, etc., I'm saying stop being a troll. You made your point.
-
Great article, Double B!!
Thanks. :)
-
It was a shitty Q to ask her.
But she did answer what she knew would be a controversial response. Her opportunities may be greater as a result.
Perez hulton went on MSNBC and told Norah O'Donnell that he wanted to call Miss Cali the C-word. It was a pretty awkward moment.
Perez Hilton is a queen who outs other homosexual people before they are prepared to face their family and friends with it.
He's a horrible despicable human being for that.
-
Perez Hilton is a queen who outs other homosexual people before they are prepared to face their family and friends with it.
He's a horrible despicable human being for that.
That is totally not cool.
-
By asking such a question, it seems that it opened the door to speculation.
no it just gave the right wing a reason to say people are now being punished for wanting to have marriage between a man and a woman... its the far right thats stiring this up... I could care less how she answered... thats her opinion... no big deal to me... i have friends who think it should be between a man and a woman, and i have other friends who think "marriage" is to people showing their love publicly... either way I could care less... it doesnt effect me 1 bit... nor does it effect anyone else in this country... who cares who you sleep with at night in your own bed room...
-
That is totally not cool.
Many people in the gay community can't stand him for it... I think he's a douche bag.
-
Many people in the gay community can't stand him for it... I think he's a douche bag.
Being gay is probably very hard for many and to have someone do that is horrible.
-
i never heard of him until today.
-
i never heard of him until today.
Very well known around the LA paparazzi scene.
Met him once... complete shitbag.
-
There is nothing homophobic about it. Nobody is afraid of any homosexuals here. The issue is that some retard psudo-celebrity used a public forum to cram their gay agenda into the spotlight.
People are getting tired of it.
I can't believe YOU made this post. I actually agree with you for once.
As for her answer, ...it was a stupid answer. Whether you support gay marriage rights or oppose them,
her answer fell short of an articulate response to the question posed. Had she addressed the actual question she might have won, and Perez wouldn't have had the opportunity to get all pissy, ...but I didn't see the pageant. I don't know how the winner actually answered her question. I know the pain of being the front runner all the way to the finish line, then losing it on the final question, ...but that doesn't mean she didn't deserve her final runner-up position.
-
Sweet! :D
Whatever her answer may have been, it was an inappropriate question to ask in that forum. People need to leave politics and personal agendas out of things once in awhile.
-
We've seen "Perez Hilton" quite a few times when we go to a restaurant called "Koi". He's slob, fat and unkept.
-
Sweet! :D
Whatever her answer may have been, it was an inappropriate question to ask in that forum. People need to leave politics and personal agendas out of things once in awhile.
Darn!, ...just as we were starting to agree on something. :'(
Ya it was a cheap attempt to push a cause near & dear to his heart, ...but it's not the first time pageant contestants have been asked to comment on current affairs, and probably won't be the last. Many a contestant has been asked a question that some think is perfectly fine, while others get apoplectic about. Current affairs, especially controversial ones have a tendency to do that. Deal with it. It's not the question, but rather the grace, diplomacy, skill and intelligence used to answer it that counts. Whether or not you liked the question or the subject matter in question, she should have responded more intelligently... bottom line, she didn't. It was like when Chelsea Clinton was asked about Lewinsky while on the campaign trail for her Mom. Her response "None of your business" while accurate wasn't the most intelligent answer to the question posed. It was a fair question, ...although the motives behind the question more than likely came with an agenda, ...she didn't provide the best response. Deal with it.
-
We've seen "Perez Hilton" quite a few times when we go to a restaurant called "Koi". He's slob, fat and unkept.
Did you lose your appetite?
-
no it just gave the right wing a reason to say people are now being punished for wanting to have marriage between a man and a woman... its the far right thats stiring this up... I could care less how she answered... thats her opinion... no big deal to me... i have friends who think it should be between a man and a woman, and i have other friends who think "marriage" is to people showing their love publicly... either way I could care less... it doesnt effect me 1 bit... nor does it effect anyone else in this country... who cares who you sleep with at night in your own bed room...
The "far right" isn't stirring any of this up. In fact, we likely wouldn't even be talking about this, had Perez Hilton not made a complete fool of himself and gone on that tirade of his. And, in case you missed it, Hilton ADMITTED THAT HE PENALIZED HER for her answer.
Thanks to him, the RUNNER-UP of the paegant is getting more face time than the winner.
-
Perez Hilton is a queen who outs other homosexual people before they are prepared to face their family and friends with it.
He's a horrible despicable human being for that.
No less wrong than pretending to be something you're not. Closet people are lying every day, all day.
-
Darn!, ...just as we were starting to agree on something. :'(
Ya it was a cheap attempt to push a cause near & dear to his heart, ...but it's not the first time pageant contestants have been asked to comment on current affairs, and probably won't be the last. Many a contestant has been asked a question that some think is perfectly fine, while others get apoplectic about. Current affairs, especially controversial ones have a tendency to do that. Deal with it. It's not the question, but rather the grace, diplomacy, skill and intelligence used to answer it that counts. Whether or not you liked the question or the subject matter in question, she should have responded more intelligently... bottom line, she didn't. It was like when Chelsea Clinton was asked about Lewinsky while on the campaign trail for her Mom. Her response "None of your business" while accurate wasn't the most intelligent answer to the question posed. It was a fair question, ...although the motives behind the question more than likely came with an agenda, ...she didn't provide the best response. Deal with it.
You have a point, although I can see why she answered the way she did. She said that we live in a country, where we can choose between straight marriage and gay "marriage".
Technically, she's right. People in each state can vote for how they want marriage to be defined (barring any federal constitutional breaches). The fact that the lion's share of the country has said it's a 1M-1W union doesn't clash with her response. In fact, she represented the very state in which, just six months after the CA court deemed gay "marriage" legal, the people got to decide (again) how they wanted marriage defined. And, at least 52% said "one man and one woman".
But, I don't think going into a detailed explanation about how the Supreme Court in 1972 dismissed on it merits two gay activists' appeal to the MN court ruling on "Baker v. Nelson" (allowing states to define marriage as union between a man and a woman) would have helped her that much. People want the answers to be brief and succint.
-
We've seen "Perez Hilton" quite a few times when we go to a restaurant called "Koi". He's slob, fat and unkept.
give him your business card u joke
-
She was supposed to say what they all say... "I want world-wide peace and hope to work with children and animals some day. I see myself as an ambassador of peace." How hard was that? She could easily have said, "I hope we live in harmony one day, although we all have differing opinions." Too many big words, and she got flustered with the opposite thing.
If the question had been about the Iraqi occupation, and she had 5 brothers who died there, her answer should/would have been, "my brothers died so world peace could happen." Not, "our family believes in killing all the f**kers who killed mine."
It's about the children, and the animals. :) It's good for her she did have an opinion, as she will now be bought up by the fundies (even though this flagrantly vanity thing is bad in God's eyes) and will make lots of money on the tour. Everybody wins, really. :)
-
give him your business card u joke
Wouldn't train her even if she begged me.
-
She was supposed to say what they all say... "I want world-wide peace and hope to work with children and animals some day. I see myself as an ambassador of peace." How hard was that? She could easily have said, "I hope we live in harmony one day, although we all have differing opinions." Too many big words, and she got flustered with the opposite thing.
If the question had been about the Iraqi occupation, and she had 5 brothers who died there, her answer should/would have been, "my brothers died so world peace could happen." Not, "our family believes in killing all the f**kers who killed mine."
It's about the children, and the animals. :) It's good for her she did have an opinion, as she will now be bought up by the fundies (even though this flagrantly vanity thing is bad in God's eyes) and will make lots of money on the tour. Everybody wins, really. :)
Maybe it’s just my old ears, but has anyone notice the somewhat deafening SILENCE of all these alleged “women’s rights” groups, regarding Hilton’s tirade on Ms. Prejean?
On Hannity, there was a lady, a college professor, acting as part of Hannity’s “Great American Panel”, along with a conservative commentator and former American Gladiator, Dan “Nitro” Clark.
When the question was asked about Hilton’s less-than-savory comments, she kept flipping the script about how pageants objectify women and teach little girls that their only (or primary) worth is their bodies.
While some will agree with her on that point, the fact that she kept dodging the issue about the "women's rights" groups' lockjaw (although she clearly lashed at Hilton for his remarks) appears to be part and parcel with what the conservative commentator mentioned. It appears that evangelical and conservative women are fair game for disparaging, sexist, and disgusting remarks.
-
Maybe it’s just my old ears, but has anyone notice the somewhat deafening SILENCE of all these alleged “women’s rights” groups, regarding Hilton’s tirade on Ms. Prejean?
On Hannity, there was a lady, a college professor, acting as part of Hannity’s “Great American Panel”, along with a conservative commentator and former American Gladiator, Dan “Nitro” Clark.
When the question was asked about Hilton’s less-than-savory comments, she kept flipping the script about how pageants objectify women and teach little girls that their only (or primary) worth is their bodies.
While some will agree with her on that point, the fact that she kept dodging the issue about the "women's rights" groups' lockjaw (although she clearly lashed at Hilton for his remarks) appears to be part and parcel with what the conservative commentator mentioned. It appears that evangelical and conservative women are fair game for disparaging, sexist, and disgusting remarks.
Why would a womens right group care if one women bashed another.Hilton is just another bitter left wing lib women who happens to have a penis.
-
Maybe it’s just my old ears, but has anyone notice the somewhat deafening SILENCE of all these alleged “women’s rights” groups, regarding Hilton’s tirade on Ms. Prejean?
On Hannity, there was a lady, a college professor, acting as part of Hannity’s “Great American Panel”, along with a conservative commentator and former American Gladiator, Dan “Nitro” Clark.
When the question was asked about Hilton’s less-than-savory comments, she kept flipping the script about how pageants objectify women and teach little girls that their only (or primary) worth is their bodies.
While some will agree with her on that point, the fact that she kept dodging the issue about the "women's rights" groups' lockjaw (although she clearly lashed at Hilton for his remarks) appears to be part and parcel with what the conservative commentator mentioned. It appears that evangelical and conservative women are fair game for disparaging, sexist, and disgusting remarks.
Do women really watch this shit?
-
Why would a womens right group care if one women bashed another.Hilton is just another bitter left wing lib women who happens to have a penis.
Had the tables been turned and a conservative judge gone on a tirade, calling a contestant names, because she was for gay "marriage" and later admitted to marking her down (possibly costing her the title), those groups would have gone BANANAS.
Remember the Don Imus "Nappy Headed Ho's" comment?
-
Had the tables been turned and a conservative judge gone on a tirade, calling a contestant names, because she was for gay "marriage" and later admitted to marking her down (possibly costing her the title), those groups would have gone BANANAS.
Remember the Don Imus "Nappy Headed Ho's" comment?
For the first time since I have read your posts, I'm seeing a gut wrenching performance of "O Fortuna" and one of those Belgian sky-opening, purple cloud scenes.
-
Scenes like this one make me think we should wait on gay marriage a little longer.
-
For the first time since I have read your posts, I'm seeing a gut wrenching performance of "O Fortuna" and one of those Belgian sky-opening, purple cloud scenes.
???
-
No less wrong than pretending to be something you're not. Closet people are lying every day, all day.
I don't necessarily disagree on the fact they are lying, but my understanding is simply that it's very difficult to come out to family and friends, especially if you are in an area that is perpetually conservative for fear of being ostracized.
People don't stay in the closet to perpetuate a lie... They do it to keep themselves from being hurt or ridiculed... At least that's my understanding of the situation.
It would be like someone running around telling someone that you have 1 testicle... It's just not their business to tell.
-
I don't necessarily disagree on the fact they are lying, but my understanding is simply that it's very difficult to come out to family and friends, especially if you are in an area that is perpetually conservative for fear of being ostracized.
People don't stay in the closet to perpetuate a lie... They do it to keep themselves from being hurt or ridiculed... At least that's my understanding of the situation.
It would be like someone running around telling someone that you have 1 testicle... It's just not their business to tell.
What is you have 3? ???
-
???
That reference was a little too obscure for me too--was Deedee somehow trying to insinuate that your comments were overly dramatic? No idea what she meant by that. I agree with what you said btw.
-
What is you have 3? ???
I don't get it.
-
Scenes like this one make me think we should wait on gay marriage a little longer.
why?
-
Absolutely Pathetic............
Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton was crowned Miss USA on Sunday, but the big story to come out of the normally politics-free telecast was Miss California's comments regarding gay marriage.
When asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, whether she believed in gay marriage, Miss California, Carrie 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."
...
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
I agree. What a dumb girl. The object is to win. Not to give your opinions. If you want to win and there is a gay judge and there is a question about about gay marriage, you best commence with ball washing.
Or does anyone here really believe that the winners want to work for world peace?
She got what she deserved.
-
I agree. What a dumb ####. The object is to win. Not to give your opinions. If you want to win and there is a gay judge and there is a question about about gay marriage, you best commence with ball washing.
Or does anyone here really believe that the winners want to work for world peace?
She got what she deserved.
If you think the winners don't really do that much, why is it so important for her to suck up to a judge and tell him what he wants to hear?
Besides, few would know about her, if that brain surgeon Hilton hadn't thrown a hissy-fit. Now, Prejean is getting more press than the woman who won the show.
-
If you think the winners don't really do that much, why is it so important for her to suck up to a judge and tell him what he wants to hear?
If she wants to win, she should play to the judges.
I think that's fairly obvious.
Besides, few would know about her, if that brain surgeon Hilton hadn't thrown a hissy-fit. Now, Prejean is getting more press than the woman who won the show.
I could care less. It's just common sense to play to the whims of the judges to win the competition.
-
If she wants to win, she should play to the judges.
I think that's fairly obvious.
I could care less. It's just common sense to play to the whims of the judges to win the competition.
So she took a stand and was honest and should be discounted for it????
Why is that????
Im glad someone said the Un-PC thing for once.
-
If you think the winners don't really do that much, why is it so important for her to suck up to a judge and tell him what he wants to hear?
Besides, few would know about her, if that brain surgeon Hilton hadn't thrown a hissy-fit. Now, Prejean is getting more press than the woman who won the show.
Listen to yourself. Work backwards if it helps you.
-
pwned by Deedee.
-
pwned by Deedee.
Deedee pwns everyone sooner or later. She's just so darned sweet about it, ...you don't always know she whumped ya.
-
So she took a stand and was honest and should be discounted for it????
Why is that????
Im glad someone said the Un-PC thing for once.
Yes. She stood her ground...as runner-up.
-
Yes. She stood her ground...as runner-up.
Ok, so be it.
Its a dumb contest to begin with.
-
Ok, so be it.
Its a dumb contest to begin with.
Exactly. A quasi-stripping contest is sacred? I think not. I like the way the bathing suits cling to the Vulva. That's always exciting for me.
Who gives a fuck what their views are on anything?
-
Listen to yourself. Work backwards if it helps you.
If you're trying to stick it to someone who said something with which you don't agree, going on a blog and throwing a tirade, folllowed by admitting that you marked her down, because of the nature of her answer, isn't the right course of action.
It's really silly, when you're acting like a immature brat about it (and you're supposed to be the "tolerant" one), while she's being gracious, kind, and classy about it (and she's supposed to be the mean, "intolerant" one).
-
Yes. She stood her ground...as runner-up.
Maybe being honest was worth it. She showed character where most people would have lied and tried to appease a gay judge.
The simple fact that this has become an issue people are not allowed to disagree on makes me think gay marriage isn't such a good idea.
It's unfortunate Hilton insinuated himself into this debate to attention whore. His little hissy fit showed us some of the people demanding tolerance apparently have none. He's probably loving all the attention but it's doubtful this incident made a good case for gay marriage.
-
she gave a selfish answer to a general question. she should NOT have been hired and the judges affirmed it
-
she gave a selfish answer to a general question. she should NOT have been hired and the judges affirmed it
How was the answer selfish?
She basically said it doesn't work for me but people can do what they like.
-
she gave a selfish answer to a general question. she should NOT have been hired and the judges affirmed it
She gave her belief. Whether you agree with it or not, she is entitled to her beliefs.
It actually was very refreshing for someone to give a honest answer as opposed to the PC garbage and pap that most people would have said.
-
Maybe being honest was worth it. She showed character where most people would have lied and tried to appease a gay judge.
The simple fact that this has become an issue people are not allowed to disagree on makes me think gay marriage isn't such a good idea.
It's unfortunate Hilton insinuated himself into this debate to attention whore. His little hissy fit showed us some of the people demanding tolerance apparently have none. He's probably loving all the attention but it's doubtful this incident made a good case for gay marriage.
He's giving more attention to the girl he tried to undermine.
she gave a selfish answer to a general question. she should NOT have been hired and the judges affirmed it
What was so "selfish" about her answer? She was basically right.
We do live in a country where people can choose how they want to define marriage in their state (It just so happens most of the people, including those in her state, say it's one man and one woman).
As for the "that's how I was raised" comment........That's how nearly ALL of us were raised.
-
She gave her belief. Whether you agree with it or not, she is entitled to her beliefs.
It actually was very refreshing for someone to give a honest answer as opposed to the PC garbage and pap that most people would have said.
from the internet: "
Miss Vermont: "Everyone has a right to their own actions. But I totally disagree with Carrie. I have a very different perspective on gay marriage and I would have never said what she said."
Miss Connecticut: "In general, when you're answering a question like that, you have to be politically correct about it. I would've answered differently to help accommodate all beliefs. It's a decision between two individuals, and not just a man and a woman."
Miss Massachusetts: "It's really hard to think that people still think that way. But at the same time, there's a lot of girls in pageants who wear their religion on their sleeve. If that's what she thinks, I give her credit for expressing that, but that's not how I feel. If two people are in a loving relationship, regardless of their sexual orientation, I think they should have equal rights."
Miss Iowa: "Being from Iowa, I'm proud to say that our state has interpreted the Constitution to say that gays have the right to marry."
And the overlooked winner of the pageant, Miss USA Kristen Dalton, sort of punts on the question: "In short, I would say everyone should be able to enter into a civil union, where they're legally recognized as a couple and earn the same rights as a married couple. I'm not going to say whether or not I think it should be defined as marriage because that's up to our politicans and our elected officials."""
-
was asked opinion not beliefs glad the idiot wasnt hired
The irony is that she will probably now have more opportunuties and $$$$$ than the winner after all is said and done.
-
from the internet: "
Miss Vermont: "Everyone has a right to their own actions. But I totally disagree with Carrie. I have a very different perspective on gay marriage and I would have never said what she said."
Miss Connecticut: "In general, when you're answering a question like that, you have to be politically correct about it. I would've answered differently to help accommodate all beliefs. It's a decision between two individuals, and not just a man and a woman."
Miss Massachusetts: "It's really hard to think that people still think that way. But at the same time, there's a lot of girls in pageants who wear their religion on their sleeve. If that's what she thinks, I give her credit for expressing that, but that's not how I feel. If two people are in a loving relationship, regardless of their sexual orientation, I think they should have equal rights."
Miss Iowa: "Being from Iowa, I'm proud to say that our state has interpreted the Constitution to say that gays have the right to marry."
And the overlooked winner of the pageant, Miss USA Kristen Dalton, sort of punts on the question: "In short, I would say everyone should be able to enter into a civil union, where they're legally recognized as a couple and earn the same rights as a married couple. I'm not going to say whether or not I think it should be defined as marriage because that's up to our politicans and our elected officials."""
What's your point?
-
The irony is that she will probably now have more opportunuties and $$$$$ than the winner after all is said and done.
i agree with you. Anita Bryant Jr.
-
i agree with you. Anita Bryant Jr.
Who is that?
-
Who is that?
another bigot beauty pageant winner who wore religion on her sleeves for profit.
-
another bigot beauty pageant winner who wore religion on her sleeves for profit.
So everyone who disagrees on gay marriage is a bigot?
-
another bigot beauty pageant winner who wore religion on her sleeves for profit.
She is entitled to be a bigot. That is what is great about the USA. You can believe anything you want, so long as you dont impose on anyone else.
If being again gay marriag makes me a bigot - fine.
If being against illegal aliens makes me a bigot - fine.
If my beliefs make me part of the VRWC - fine.
i have no problem being honest about my beliefs and will back them up with history, common sense, and reason.
-
from the internet: "
Miss Vermont: "Everyone has a right to their own actions. But I totally disagree with Carrie. I have a very different perspective on gay marriage and I would have never said what she said."
Miss Connecticut: "In general, when you're answering a question like that, you have to be politically correct about it. I would've answered differently to help accommodate all beliefs. It's a decision between two individuals, and not just a man and a woman."
Miss Massachusetts: "It's really hard to think that people still think that way. But at the same time, there's a lot of girls in pageants who wear their religion on their sleeve. If that's what she thinks, I give her credit for expressing that, but that's not how I feel. If two people are in a loving relationship, regardless of their sexual orientation, I think they should have equal rights."
Miss Iowa: "Being from Iowa, I'm proud to say that our state has interpreted the Constitution to say that gays have the right to marry."
And the overlooked winner of the pageant, Miss USA Kristen Dalton, sort of punts on the question: "In short, I would say everyone should be able to enter into a civil union, where they're legally recognized as a couple and earn the same rights as a married couple. I'm not going to say whether or not I think it should be defined as marriage because that's up to our politicans and our elected officials."""
So, these four girls, representing states in which gay "marriage" is legal, gave their answers. Yet, Miss California (who represents a state that just passed Prop. 8, defining marriage as 1M-1W union) gives her and that's a problem?
another bigot beauty pageant winner who wore religion on her sleeves for profit.
You mean like the guy who currently sits in the White House, who basically said the same thing......or his VP.....or his Secretary of State.....or her husband (who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law)?
Furthermore, the winner of this pageant represents this country. And last time I checked, the overwhelming majority of people in the USA clearly believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
-
She is entitled to be a bigot. That is what is great about the USA. You can believe anything you want, so long as you dont impose on anyone else.
If being again gay marriag makes me a bigot - fine.
If being against illegal aliens makes me a bigot - fine.
If my beliefs make me part of the VRWC - fine.
i have no problem being honest about my beliefs and will back them up with history, common sense, and reason.
you would not have been hired either :)
-
you would not have been hired either :)
Not because of my views, but because of my looks. :) :) :)
-
you would not have been hired either :)
Then, they should call this contest what it really is: Miss. Left-Wing-Liberal-“PC” USA, NOT Miss USA.
-
So, these four girls, representing states in which gay "marriage" is legal, gave their answers. Yet, Miss California (who represents a state that just passed Prop. 8, defining marriage as 1M-1W union) gives her and that's a problem?
You mean like the guy who currently sits in the White House, who basically said the same thing......or his VP.....or his Secretary of State.....or her husband (who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law)?
Furthermore, the winner of this pageant represents this country. And last time I checked, the overwhelming majority of people in the USA clearly believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
she answered the question wrong and wasnt hired. it happens in business every day.
-
she answered the question wrong and wasnt hired. it happens in business every day.
She was asked if she felt that the other states should do as Vermont did and legalize same-sex "marriage", followed by the qualifier, "Why or why not?"
That means she has the option of agreeing or disagreeing (without any punitive action taken against her).
If she could answer such a question "wrong", that just validates what I said earlier. This is really "Miss-Left-Wing-Liberal-PC-USA", not Miss USA.
If they want the contest to be such, they should advertise it as such from the beginning, not pretend that it's simply a down-the-middle deal.
They have such specific pageants, like Miss Black America. Nobody expects a full-blooded Chinese girl to win that show. If she’s mixed (half-Chinese, half-black), that’s another issue. ;D
Only numbskulls from the left would be surprised that someone believes that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, which reflects the overwhelming majority of this country, from the President on down, on this issue (especially when stated by a woman from a state that JUST REVERSED its court's ruling and re-established marriage as a 1M-1W union).
-
...Only numbskulls from the left would be surprised that someone believes that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, which reflects the overwhelming majority of this country, from the President on down, on this issue (especially when stated by a woman from a state that JUST REVERSED its court's ruling and re-established marriage as a 1M-1W union).
Wrong-O Mary Lou...try to peddle that fish to HEather's Two Mommies.
To everyone concerned, unless you're a gay person seeking equal protection under the laws, shut the fuck up. It's none of your goddam business. No one cares about your fricken opinions on the matter. It's like asking an Australian his views on the politics of Tonga. It just doesn't matter.
Miss California flunked the job interview.
Now she'll have to go back to lap-dancing instead of answering sociological questions in her bathing suit.
-
To everyone concerned, unless you're a gay person seeking equal protection under the laws, shut the fuck up. It's none of your goddam business. No one cares about your fricken opinions on the matter. It's like asking an Australian his views on the politics of Tonga. It just doesn't matter.
Huh??!? Apparently it mattered enough for Perez Hilton to ask the question, so I guess he, for one, would disagree with you.
i agree with you. Anita Bryant Jr.
And how can you even compare Miss California to Anita Bryant? Anita Bryant was actively anti-gay, all this poor girl did was state her opinion in response to that fat cow Hilton's question--and she said gays could do what they want, but she personally was against it. How is that wearing her religion on her sleeve for profit? If anything she probably knew her answer would be unpopular with the PC beauty pageant crowd.
-
Huh??!? Apparently it mattered enough for Perez Hilton to ask the question, so I guess he, for one, would disagree with you.
....
Since he's gay, I'd say he has a horse in this race. Wouldn't you?
-
Wrong-O Mary Lou...try to peddle that fish to HEather's Two Mommies.
NEWSFLASH!!! At least 43 states (30 by constitutional amendment) define marriage a union between a man and a woman.
And, unless you missed it, THE MAN WHO SITS IN THE OVAL OFFFICE said the same thing, when asked, point blank.
That's the fact, whether Heather's two mommies like it or not.
To everyone concerned, unless you're a gay person seeking equal protection under the laws, shut the fuck up. It's none of your goddam business. No one cares about your fricken opinions on the matter. It's like asking an Australian his views on the politics of Tonga. It just doesn't matter.
Wrong again, genius!! Furthermore, your statement is even more bone-headed than it sounded initially, because most of the people (either the judges or Legislatures) that legalized gay "marriage" in those four states AREN'T EVEN GAY THEMSELVES.
Per the state's constitutions, the people's opinions DO MATTER. And they exercised such at the ballot box. Just ask the people in California (and Florida, and Arizona, and 27 other states).
Miss California flunked the job interview.
Now she'll have to go back to lap-dancing instead of answering sociological questions in her bathing suit.
One more time, since when did the "interview" require giving left-winged liberal, gay-activist-sympathizing answers?
As stated earlier, if you want such distinctive paegants, why not just spell it out from the start (i.e. Miss Black America)?
-
Since he's gay, I'd say he has a horse in this race. Wouldn't you?
He also lives in California, the same whose voters JUST REVERSED its state court ruling, returning the original definition of marriage (1M-1W union).
So, why is this guy surprised that MISS CALIFORNIA believes that marriage should be a union between a man and a woman? The odds are at least 50-50 that she would.
-
NEWSFLASH!!! At least 43 states (30 by constitutional amendment) define marriage a union between a man and a woman.
And, unless you missed it, THE MAN WHO SITS IN THE OVAL OFFFICE said the same thing, when asked, point blank.
That's the fact, whether Heather's two mommies like it or not.
I was joking you walking testimonial to the morose.
Wrong again, genius!! Furthermore, your statement is even more bone-headed than it sounded initially, because most of the people (either the judges or Legislatures) that legalized gay "marriage" in those four states AREN'T EVEN GAY THEMSELVES.
You're an old lady with nothing better to do than tell other people how to live their lives.
And while your at it....stay off my lawn you goddam kids.
Per the state's constitutions, the people's opinions DO MATTER. And they exercised such at the ballot box. Just ask the people in California (and Florida, and Arizona, and 27 other states).
So there's a lot of people like you out there who think what people do with there lives is somehow your business. It's not. Keep your nose in your own affairs.
Nobody cares what the hell you do...until you start interfering with other peoples's lives...like you are now.
How does this gay marriage affect you? It doesn't. So go away. You are part of the problem.
One more time, since when did the "interview" require giving left-winged liberal, gay-activist-sympathizing answers?
When one of the judges is gay....that's when.
As stated earlier, if you want such distinctive paegants, why not just spell it out from the start (i.e. Miss Black America)?
There is a miss black america.
If you want to jettison common sense, go right ahead.
Miss California did the same thing. Now she's just a runner-up like the other 48 contestants. She has her opinion...but no crown.
-
He also lives in California, the same whose voters JUST REVERSED its state court ruling, returning the original definition of marriage (1M-1W union).
So, why is this guy surprised that MISS CALIFORNIA believes that marriage should be a union between a man and a woman? The odds are at least 50-50 that she would.
Like I said, just because a portion of the population is composed of interfering know-it-alls doesn't make their interference right.
Mind your own business. Gay marriage is not your business.
-
Why was her answer wrong?
-
Like I said, just because a portion of the population is composed of interfering know-it-alls doesn't make their interference right.
Mind your own business. Gay marriage is not your business.
neither is religion, but non religious ppl seem to have that stuck in their craw
-
Why was her answer wrong?
b/c it wasnt politically correct
-
I was joking you walking testimonial to the morose.
You're an old lady with nothing better to do than tell other people how to live there lives.
And while your at it....stay off my lawn you goddam kids.
So there's a lot of people like you out there who think what people do with there lives is somehow your business. It's not. Keep your nose in your own affairs.
That tired canard is as false as is laughable. One, they can live their lives how they want. But, the citizens of that state DO NOT have to proclaim that their relationship is a marriage. And at least 43 of them have said as much.
Two, we have these thing called LAWS, that tell EVERYONE how to live their lives, in certain areas.
Nobody cares what the hell you do...until you start interfering with other peoples's lives...like you are now.
How does this gay marriage affect you? It doesn't. So go away. You are part of the problem.
Tell that to the owners of a New Mexico wedding chapel that got sued and fined over $6,000 in legal fees for refusing to perform a lesbian couple's "committment ceremony" (Gay "marriage" ain't even legal there).
BTW, people vote on a number of issues that supposedly doesn't affect them. It's called DEMOCRACY.
When one of the judges is gay....that's when.
So, the poster boys for “tolerance” aren’t expected, as judges in contest, to call it down the middle, which is what Hilton was hired to do?
You don't ask the question, unless you really want to know the answer. And since Hilton knows how the majority of Americans feel on this issue (especially with what just went down in CA, regarding Prop. 8 ), his freaking out because Ms. CALIFORNIA gave the answer she did is just plain stupid.
There is a miss black america.
If you want to jettison common sense, go right ahead.
Miss California did the same thing. Now she's just a runner-up like the other 48 contestants. She has her opinion...but no crown.
That jettison common sense thing would fall on both you and Perez Hilton.
Common sense says that one doesn't freak out that she gives such an answer, when the bulk of the country (INCLUDING her home state) thinks the same way.
Nor, does common sense dictate that you act a fool on a blog using stupid tirades, with the end result giving the runner-up MORE positive publicity than the actual winner, making yourself look like a buffoon in the process.
On top of that, the point you missed by a mile (regarding the Miss Black America comment) was that such a paegant STATES UP FRONT what's required and expected of the contestants: they must be BLACK WOMEN. If gays, gay-sympathizers, and other far-left bubbas want their beauty queens to give answers that tickle their liberals ears, then make a "Miss-Left-Wing-Liberal-PC-USA" paegant.
That way, folks like Hilton won't go into epileptic shock, when a contestant give a view that reflect THE MAJORITY OF HER STATE (and the country) on a particular issue, like marriage.
-
b/c it wasnt politically correct
If the topic can't be discussed without all the rhetoric and inflammatory language, maybe it's too soon.
I'd rather not have gay marriage than lose the right to disagree without being called bigot, racist, blah blah blah. I was on the fence about it until today.
-
If the topic can't be discussed without all the rhetoric and inflammatory language, maybe it's too soon.
I'd rather not have gay marriage than lose the right to disagree without being called bigot, racist, blah blah blah. I was on the fence about it until today.
LOL i agree you talk to ppl like jag or others on here and say you are not in favor of it and all of a sudden your a homophobe ::)
-
Like I said, just because a portion of the population is composed of interfering know-it-alls doesn't make their interference right.
Mind your own business. Gay marriage is not your business.
It is, when it's public policy, especially of my state. I voted for the marriage amendment in my state, because I have the right to do so as a citizen.
So do the folks in California. That's why we have these things called ELECTIONS!!! People get to decide what laws they want and do not want (barring any constitutional breaches).
That doesn't go away, just because YOU don't like the outcome, on a particular issue.
-
it is wrong answer becuase those hiring didnt like it. DEAL WITH IT
-
it is wrong answer becuase those hiring didnt like it. DEAL WITH IT
It was you that finally convinced be gay marriage is a bad idea.
-
That tired canard is as false as is laughable. One, they can live their lives how they want. But, the citizens of that state DO NOT have to proclaim that their relationship is a marriage. And at least 43 of them have said as much.
Like I said, it's none of your business. So keep your opinions to yourself b/c you're harming others with your bigotry.
Two, we have these thing called LAWS, that tell EVERYONE how to live their lives, in certain areas.
Yes, there are laws I concede that. There are bad laws too.
Tell that to the owners of a New Mexico wedding chapel that got sued and fined over $6,000 in legal fees for refusing to perform a lesbian couple's "committment ceremony" (Gay "marriage" ain't even legal there).
we have these thing called LAWS, that tell EVERYONE how to live their lives, in certain areas.
BTW, people vote on a number of issues that supposedly doesn't affect them. It's called DEMOCRACY.
That it does. It still doesn't justify why you think it's your business how people live their lives.
Why do you think that you can tell other people whether they can marry or not? Why is it your business?
So, the poster boys for “tolerance” aren’t expected, as judges in contest, to call it down the middle, which is what Hilton was hired to do?
Pointing out Miss California's obvious intolerance of gays is not itself intolerance.
You don't ask the question, unless you really want to know the answer. And since Hilton knows how the majority of Americans feel on this issue (especially with what just went down in CA, regarding Prop. 8 ), his freaking out because Ms. CALIFORNIA gave the answer she did is just plain stupid.
The majority of americans thought women were second class citizens, that separate but equal was dandy, and that blacks were chattel.
He's gay. He's a gatekeeper to the crown. Miss. Cal. wants that crown. And Miss Cal. criticizes gay rights.
Who's stupid again?
That jettison common sense thing would fall on both you and Perez Hilton.
See above.
Common sense says that one doesn't freak out that she gives such an answer, when the bulk of the country (INCLUDING her home state) thinks the same way.
The bulk of the country, some 51-8%, is not the judge deciding who wins the crown.
The gay guy is.
Nor, does common sense dictate that you act a fool on a blog using stupid tirades, with the end result giving the runner-up MORE positive publicity than the actual winner, making yourself look like a buffoon in the process.
It's a free country. The contest...it has rules...like a gay guy can be judge.
On top of that, the point you missed by a mile (regarding the Miss Black America comment) was that such a paegant STATES UP FRONT what's required and expected of the contestants: they must be BLACK WOMEN. If gays, gay-sympathizers, and other far-left bubbas want their beauty queens to give answers that tickle their liberals ears, then make a "Miss-Left-Wing-Liberal-PC-USA" paegant.
The gay guy was a judge. Deal with it.
What if a question of women's rights came up...or abortion and there was a woman from Planned Parenthood on the panel?
Speak from your heart....and lose your chance at a gravy job.
That way, folks like Hilton won't go into epileptic shock, when a contestant give a view that reflect THE MAJORITY OF HER STATE (and the country) on a particular issue, like marriage.
The majority is full of shit and should tend to their own affairs.
Last time I checked, the bulk of marriages end in divorce.
If the marriage supporters want to invest their time helping straight people keep their marriages together, go ahead.
In Southern California the divorce rate is believed to be even higher, somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-75%.
http://www.usattorneylegalservices.com/divorce-statistics.html
Otherwise step off and stop getting your kicks stomping on other people's dreams.
-
Otherwise step off and stop getting your kicks stomping on other people's dreams.
::)
Thanks "Decker" for your mucking up this thread with your circular logic. Entirely predictable.
-
I guess tolerance only goes in one direction.
-
::)
Thanks "Decker" for your mucking up this thread with your circular logic. Entirely predictable.
kiss my ass.
-
I guess tolerance only goes in one direction.
Yeah, it does. Tolerance of bigotry is kind of foolish, isn't it?
-
Yeah, it does. Tolerance of bigotry is kind of foolish, isn't it?
Your argument is very foolish.
-
Your argument is very foolish.
Which one?
-
Which one?
I want a reason why you and your ilk think it's your business to interfere with the happiness of other people.
MCWAY says it's a democracy and that people vote on things that do not affect them personally.
For example, I have no children but I contest the property tax rate that supports our school and by extension the education level of my society.
There's a reason I can understand.
Guys like you give no reason why the gays should be second class citizens.
I want to know the truth.
-
I want a reason why you and your ilk think it's your business to interfere with the happiness of other people.
MCWAY says it's a democracy and that people vote on things that do not affect them personally.
For example, I have no children but I contest the property tax rate that supports our school and by extension the education level of my society.
There's a reason I can understand.
Guys like you give no reason why the gays should be second class citizens.
I want to know the truth.
He quotes himself to keep it going? LOL
(http://plognark.com/Art/Sketches/CircularLogicMascot.JPG)
-
::)
Thanks "Decker" for your mucking up this thread with your circular logic. Entirely predictable.
What gives?? You and Decker are both flaming libs and as such, presumably on the same side--never mind that your point about circular logic is valid.
What's with this dissension amongst the ranks?? You guys need to close ranks, circle the wagons, and show some liberal solidarity in the face of this conservative onslaught.
-
Which one(s)?
Gays compared to blacks; Stupid, careless and intentionally inflammatory. Also counts on the reader being stupid, racist or both.
Disagreeing about gay marriage being bigotry; Assumes gays are a separate race.
None of your business; redefining marriage cannot possibly happen in a vacuum so arguing things will not change is disingenuous.
Disagreeing means criticizing; Political correctness aborts honest discussion. If people can't articulate an idea it would be better if they shut the fuck up instead of yelling and calling people names. It just makes everyone for a position look like the loudest yeller. Same idiotic problem has made it so people can never discuss race without being called racist. Tons of actual racial issues never get talked about because people are scared shitless of being called a racist. The black community would be much better off if these things could be openly discussed. Even black people can't criticize each other at this point.
Her answer should depend solely upon the panel's whims. Another misleading statement that argues that you would have been totally fine with her saying "I hate both gay and interracial marriage" if there were three KKK members on the panel. We all know people would have been just as inflamed so that's just plain dishonesty on your part.
I've just had it with people arbitrarily deciding what issues can/cannot be honestly discussed.
-
He quotes himself to keep it going? LOL
(http://plognark.com/Art/Sketches/CircularLogicMascot.JPG)
Since you're so adept, would you please point out the circular argument?
-
What gives?? You and Decker are both flaming libs and as such, presumably on the same side--never mind that your point about circular logic is valid.
What's with this dissension amongst the ranks?? You guys need to close ranks, circle the wagons, and show some liberal solidarity in the face of this conservative onslaught.
You obviously don't know me, son. ;)
-
Gays compared to blacks; Stupid, careless and intentionally inflammatory. Also counts on the reader being stupid, racist or both.
Those are legal classifications as well as phenomenological categories. This argument relies on the reader NOT being stupid and having some degree of education on the matter. Those categories of people - racial, gender, are considered classes of people who have a history of oppression in this country. The gays suffer the same indiginity.
Disagreeing about gay marriage being bigotry; Assumes gays are a separate race.
This sentence makes no sense.
None of your business; redefining marriage cannot possibly happen in a vacuum so arguing things will not change is disingenuous.
I'm looking for the counter argument for why gays should be denied the opportunity to marry, I have yet to see one coherent argument put forth.
Stating your opposition is not a reason.
Disagreeing means criticizing; Political correctness aborts honest discussion. If people can't articulate an idea it would be better if they shut the fuck up instead of yelling and calling people names. It just makes everyone for a position look like the loudest yeller. Same idiotic problem has made it so people can never discuss race without being called racist. Tons of actual racial issues never get talked about because people are scared shitless of being called a racist. The black community would be much better off if these things could be openly discussed. Even black people can't criticize each other at this point.
Please, dear god, criticize your opposition to gay marriage. From where I'm sitting, I don't see any valid fact-based criticism so I implore you to pipe down and stay out of these people's way. If I'm wrong, let's see the criticism.
Her answer should depend solely upon the panel's whims. Another misleading statement that argues that you would have been totally fine with her saying "I hate both gay and interracial marriage" if there were three KKK members on the panel. We all know people would have been just as inflamed so that's just plain dishonesty on your part.
Her answer should depend solely upon the panel's whims.
That's beautifully stated. For a job with a private employer, you do the fucking dance the employer wants you to do to get the job.
If you disagree, then state your case and do not whine about the results.
It's not astrophysics. It's a fricken beauty contest.
I've just had it with people arbitrarily deciding what issues can/cannot be honestly discussed.
I understand.
It's beauty contest. It's not policy dissertation on rights in America.
But you're right. Let her speak her mind and knowingly piss off the judges. I'm sure her chances for getting the crown improved dramatically.
-
It was you that finally convinced be gay marriage is a bad idea.
ok "Dr" ::)
-
Like I said, it's none of your business. So keep your opinions to yourself b/c you're harming others with your bigotry.
As I said, it is my business, when it involves the public policy of my state and especially when such can adversely affect my livelihood (i.e. the wedding chapel owners in New Mexico, among other examples).
There are no constitutional breaches. So, you can bleat about "bigotry" all you want. Bottom line, if the people say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman (per the laws of their state), they can do it.
And that's the view of the bulk of the citizens of this country, INCLUDING the president, vice-president, former First Lady/current Sec. of State and her husband (the former Prez who signed DOMA into law, after it passed by one of the most lopsided margins in history).
Yes, there are laws I concede that. There are bad laws too.
But, the marriage law isn't one of them.
That it does. It still doesn't justify why you think it's your business how people live their lives.
One more time! They can live their lives how they want. But, neither I nor the fellow citizens of my state are required to call or recognize their "arrangement" as a marriage (especially, if there are potential punitive damages in our business and religious lives, for stating our opposition to it). And we said as much last November, 62-38.
Why do you think that you can tell other people whether they can marry or not? Why is it your business?
I explained that earlier. Recap: If a policy/law affects me (directly or indirectly) in a manner that I don’t like, I can voice my opposition to such at the ballot box on election day, if the matter is on the table.
We decide what the policies are in our state (barring any breaches of the US constitution). Our law has long stated that marriage is a 1M-1W union. But, to keep certain judges from hijacking that, we voted for and PASSED Amendment 2.
The majority of americans thought women were second class citizens, that separate but equal was dandy, and that blacks were chattel.
Yet, we passed amendments and laws, when we thought such was different. Or did you forget about that pesky 14th amendment we have?
The majority of Americans picked Barack Obama to be president (particularly in the electoral college). Should we just chuck him out of office, just because some people don't like him in the White House?
When people don't like the current laws, they have them changed, either through their elected representatives OR THEY CHANGE THEM DIRECTLY, through the power of their vote.
That's what the folks in CA did, when those judges struck down Prop. 22 last year. They passed Prop. 8, which is well within their rights to do.
But, for some reason the left think that they can hijack the rights of people to vote on issue, to pass gay "marriage" (or any other left-winged canard that suits their fancy)
He's gay. He's a gatekeeper to the crown. Miss. Cal. wants that crown. And Miss Cal. criticizes gay rights.
Who's stupid again?
See above.
That would be HILTON.
The "gatekeeper" was hired to call it down the middle, not to bleat and cry and ask loaded questions, hoping to use the paegant as an informercial for "gay rights". What Miss California did was give an answer that represents the MAJORITY view of the citizens in her state and in the USA on this issue.
Hilton knows that. So why is he shocked that she answered in the manner she did?
The bulk of the country, some 51-8%, is not the judge deciding who wins the crown.
Impartial judges are supposed to be deciding who wins the crown, not weak-kneed gay activists who are scared of getting their little feelings hurt, when people don't tell them what they want to hear.
Again, if they want the girls to schmooze up to their liberal sacraments, make the contest the Miss "liberal-left-wing-gay-activist-sympathizing" USA.
The gay guy is.
It's a free country. The contest...it has rules...like a gay guy can be judge.
The gay guy was a judge. Deal with it.
And, the gay guy is supposed to call it down the middle JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE JUDGES, not inject his personal bias (especially when he's squealing about "equality").
What if a question of women's rights came up...or abortion and there was a woman from Planned Parenthood on the panel?
Speak from your heart....and lose your chance at a gravy job.[/quote]
Let see you sing that tune, should a pro-choice contestant face a pro-life judge, and results are adverse for that young lady.
The majority is full of shit and should tend to their own affairs.
Last time I checked, the bulk of marriages end in divorce.
If the marriage supporters want to invest their time helping straight people keep their marriages together, go ahead.
In Southern California the divorce rate is believed to be even higher, somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-75%.
http://www.usattorneylegalservices.com/divorce-statistics.html
Otherwise step off and stop getting your kicks stomping on other people's dreams.
Another bone-headed and tired canard from the left: Arguing about the divorce rate and how bad marriage is one minute, yet bleating and blubbering when people pass marriage amendments, defining marriage as a 1M-1W union, the next minute.
Marriage can't be that bad. Otherwise you and other gay-"marriage"-sympathizing folks wouldn't be yelping about not being able to re-define it to accomodate homos.
-
Those are legal classifications as well as phenomenological categories. This argument relies on the reader NOT being stupid and having some degree of education on the matter. Those categories of people - racial, gender, are considered classes of people who have a history of oppression in this country. The gays suffer the same indiginity.
Big words don't change the fact that the comparison is intentionally inflammatory. The hearer is supposed to compare indignities or be privately outraged over blacks having a 'right' gays are being denied.
This sentence makes no sense.
Again, it's a matter of intentionally inserting language of race. Creating another third rail so the topic can't be discussed makes no sense. If it's really that important, the topic can be discussed.
I'm looking for the counter argument for why gays should be denied the opportunity to marry, I have yet to see one coherent argument put forth.
I've read bigdumbell's posts and have come to the conclusion that anything such an inarticulate, quarterwit is for must be a bad. :)
Stating your opposition is not a reason.
Please, dear god, criticize your opposition to gay marriage. From where I'm sitting, I don't see any valid fact-based criticism so I implore you to pipe down and stay out of these people's way. If I'm wrong, let's see the criticism.
They are in their own way. I wouldn't have voted 'no' if there were a referendum until today. My initial thoughts were that marriage shouldn't be redefined but expanded. That slowly moved to a kind of apathy and relief that legalizing gay marriage would mean never having to hear gays bitch about it again. Ultimately I was punished for not caring because it's become crystal clear that we are losing free speech when contestants in something as useless as a Miss America pageant have no chance to win unless they concede on gay marriage. If her right to expression is gone mine is compromised as well. At some point a perspective employer may ask the same question and I'm not ceding the right to be honest just to play along.
I'm against creating more litmus tests. I enjoy being articulately disagreed with but have no patience for being bullshitted.
As far as dancing goes....... I only tap dance for nickles. :)
-
That's beautifully stated. For a job with a private employer, you do the fucking dance the employer wants you to do to get the job.
If you disagree, then state your case and do not whine about the results.
It's not astrophysics. It's a fricken beauty contest.
When did the "private employer" state that kissing a gay judge's behind and acquiescing to his "gay rights" mantra are required to "get the job"?
Are pro-choice contestants supposed to "dance" for pro-life judges? Are contestants who oppose school vouchers supposed to two-step for voucher-supporting judges?
Again, call it Miss "liberal-left-wing-gay-activist-sympathizing-PC" America, if that's the case. Then, you can be shocked that someone would give an answer as Miss California did, just as you'd be shocked if a full-blooded Chinese woman won the Miss Black America contest.
Otherwise, a Miss USA judge (now matter how GAY he is) shouldn't have a seizure when a woman reflects a view on marriage that represents THE MAJORITY OF HER HOME STATE (where this judge just happens to live) and THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, as well.
-
Gays compared to blacks; Stupid, careless and intentionally inflammatory. Also counts on the reader being stupid, racist or both.
Disagreeing about gay marriage being bigotry; Assumes gays are a separate race.
None of your business; redefining marriage cannot possibly happen in a vacuum so arguing things will not change is disingenuous.
Disagreeing means criticizing; Political correctness aborts honest discussion. If people can't articulate an idea it would be better if they shut the fuck up instead of yelling and calling people names. It just makes everyone for a position look like the loudest yeller. Same idiotic problem has made it so people can never discuss race without being called racist. Tons of actual racial issues never get talked about because people are scared shitless of being called a racist. The black community would be much better off if these things could be openly discussed. Even black people can't criticize each other at this point.
Her answer should depend solely upon the panel's whims. Another misleading statement that argues that you would have been totally fine with her saying "I hate both gay and interracial marriage" if there were three KKK members on the panel. We all know people would have been just as inflamed so that's just plain dishonesty on your part.
I've just had it with people arbitrarily deciding what issues can/cannot be honestly discussed.
This about sums it up.
-
As I said, it is my business, when it involves the public policy of my state and especially when such can adversely affect my livelihood (i.e. the wedding chapel owners in New Mexico, among other examples).
You are a wedding chapel owner? Frankly, I doubt your wedding chapel story but we'll leave that alone.
How does gay marriage affect you? Again, I get nebulous crap about "I can form public policy if I want to".
Have you ever answered a question straight?
Why Do You Oppose Gay Marriage? You personally, Your reason, Your fact based reason.
There are no constitutional breaches. So, you can bleat about "bigotry" all you want. Bottom line, if the people say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman (per the laws of their state), they can do it.
That's absolutely correct. The same sort of justification was given for slavery, abortion, segregation and women's rights.
Your reasoning keeps consistent company.
And that's the view of the bulk of the citizens of this country, INCLUDING the president, vice-president, former First Lady/current Sec. of State and her husband (the former Prez who signed DOMA into law, after it passed by one of the most lopsided margins in history).
But, the marriage law isn't one of them.
They're just as misguided as you and your ilk are on the matter.
One more time! They can live their lives how they want. But, neither I nor the fellow citizens of my state are required to call or recognize their "arrangement" as a marriage (especially, if there are potential punitive damages in our business and religious lives, for stating our opposition to it). And we said as much last November, 62-38.
Why?
I explained that earlier. Recap: If a policy/law affects me (directly or indirectly) in a manner that I don’t like, I can voice my opposition to such at the ballot box on election day, if the matter is on the table.
How does it affect you?
I mean outside of the Wedding chapel scandal...which you don't own...and which probably didn't happen.
We decide what the policies are in our state (barring any breaches of the US constitution). Our law has long stated that marriage is a 1M-1W union. But, to keep certain judges from hijacking that, we voted for and PASSED Amendment 2.
How does it affect you?
Does gay marriage undermine something?
Yet, we passed amendments and laws, when we thought such was different. Or did you forget about that pesky 14th amendment we have?
14th amendment? I've heard of that somewhere... Something about equal protection or due process...I must have missed that day of law school.
The majority of Americans picked Barack Obama to be president (particularly in the electoral college). Should we just chuck him out of office, just because some people don't like him in the White House?
Why do you want to crush the happiness of gay people? What do you stand to gain? What are you protecting?
When people don't like the current laws, they have them changed, either through their elected representatives OR THEY CHANGE THEM DIRECTLY, through the power of their vote.
That's what the folks in CA did, when those judges struck down Prop. 22 last year. They passed Prop. 8, which is well within their rights to do.
But, for some reason the left think that they can hijack the rights of people to vote on issue, to pass gay "marriage" (or any other left-winged canard that suits their fancy)
Why do you want to crush the happiness of gay people? What do you stand to gain? What are you protecting?
That would be HILTON.
The "gatekeeper" was hired to call it down the middle, not to bleat and cry and ask loaded questions, hoping to use the paegant as an informercial for "gay rights". What Miss California did was give an answer that represents the MAJORITY view of the citizens in her state and in the USA on this issue.
Hilton knows that. So why is he shocked that she answered in the manner she did?
Impartial judges are supposed to be deciding who wins the crown, not weak-kneed gay activists who are scared of getting their little feelings hurt, when people don't tell them what they want to hear.
Again, if they want the girls to schmooze up to their liberal sacraments, make the contest the Miss "liberal-left-wing-gay-activist-sympathizing" USA
And, the gay guy is supposed to call it down the middle JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE JUDGES, not inject his personal bias (especially when he's squealing about "equality").
Speak from your heart....and lose your chance at a gravy job.
Let see you sing that tune, should a pro-choice contestant face a pro-life judge, and results are adverse for that young lady.
It's a fucking beauty contest owned by Donald Trump.
It's not an olympic event.
Trump is a private Employer who can hire any judge he wants.
Why are you suddenly getting your panties in a bunch over the sacred duty of beauty contest judges to be even-handed with their judgments?
On the one hand, the beauty contest is bullshit. On the other hand, gay marriage is not. You're confusing what's important here I think...a little bit.
Another bone-headed and tired canard from the left: Arguing about the divorce rate and how bad marriage is one minute, yet bleating and blubbering when people pass marriage amendments, defining marriage as a 1M-1W union, the next minute.
Marriage can't be that bad. Otherwise you and other gay-"marriage"-sympathizing folks wouldn't be yelping about not being able to re-define it to accomodate homos.
You shore got a purty mouth. But all that nonsense flowing out takes off some of the shine.
I like marriage. It works for me and my wife. I'm very happy. I'd hate to think that I hold a belief that denies that happiness to someone else just b/c they are different with their choice of partner.
Apparently you have no problem relegating other people to second class status, but I do.
You still haven't given me your concrete reason why you want to treat gays this way.
You tap dance with talk of democracy and fucking wedding chapels...but you got no answer.
-
Big words don't change the fact that the comparison is intentionally inflammatory. The hearer is supposed to compare indignities or be privately outraged over blacks having a 'right' gays are being denied.
Ten dollar words, fancy words. How about accurate words in describing the oppression of classes of people.
Tell Matthew Shepard this is about 'rights' only. See he was the product of oppression. Thousands of 'hate crimes' occur annually against gays.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/section1.htm
Again, it's a matter of intentionally inserting language of race. Creating another third rail so the topic can't be discussed makes no sense. If it's really that important, the topic can be discussed.
You're drawing a nonsensical conclusion. It's obvious that as a matter of class/category, the gays share oppression with race based classes as well as gender-based classes. There's nothing wrong with making comparisions especially when it's apt.
I've read bigdumbell's posts and have come to the conclusion that anything such an inarticulate, quarterwit is for must be a bad. :)
They are in their own way. I wouldn't have voted 'no' if there were a referendum until today. My initial thoughts were that marriage shouldn't be redefined but expanded. That slowly moved to a kind of apathy and relief that legalizing gay marriage would mean never having to hear gays bitch about it again. Ultimately I was punished for not caring because it's become crystal clear that we are losing free speech when contestants in something as useless as a Miss America pageant have no chance to win unless they concede on gay marriage. If her right to expression is gone mine is compromised as well. At some point a perspective employer may ask the same question and I'm not ceding the right to be honest just to play along.
It's a beauty contest man. You are going wayyyyy too far with your concession to political correctness. Ms. Cali is some twat in a g-string strutting her stuff to win a gravy job. She fucked up playing her ARchie Bunker card instead of her Meathead card. That's it. End of story.
And gays have a right to bitch now and then, that comes from centuries in the closet. They don't go there voluntarily. They don't have high suicide rates b/c it's fucking hoot being a shmomo.
They have a legitimate grievance.
Now, back to this bullshit about beauty contests. Trump owns it. That's my summation on the gravity this thread is due.
I'm against creating more litmus tests. I enjoy being articulately disagreed with but have no patience for being bullshitted.
As far as dancing goes....... I only tap dance for nickles. :)
(http://www.brent-krueger.com/images/2004%20Uncirc%20Nickel%20obverse-gs.jpg)
-
When did the "private employer" state that kissing a gay judge's behind and acquiescing to his "gay rights" mantra are required to "get the job"?
Are pro-choice contestants supposed to "dance" for pro-life judges? Are contestants who oppose school vouchers supposed to two-step for voucher-supporting judges?
Again, call it Miss "liberal-left-wing-gay-activist-sympathizing-PC" America, if that's the case. Then, you can be shocked that someone would give an answer as Miss California did, just as you'd be shocked if a full-blooded Chinese woman won the Miss Black America contest.
Otherwise, a Miss USA judge (now matter how GAY he is) shouldn't have a seizure when a woman reflects a view on marriage that represents THE MAJORITY OF HER HOME STATE (where this judge just happens to live) and THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, as well.
Relax Jack, it's a beauty contest owned by Donald Trump. End of story. She was Archie when she should have been Meathead.
By the way, this is about as bad as the bogeyman of PC gets. Fuck gay oppression, forget the last eight years of political homicide....this beauty contest is a joke! man!
A fricken PC joke!
hahahahahaha
-
Ten dollar words, fancy words. How about accurate words in describing the oppression of classes of people.
Tell Matthew Shepard this is about 'rights' only. See he was the product of oppression. Thousands of 'hate crimes' occur annually against gays.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/section1.htm
You're drawing a nonsensical conclusion. It's obvious that as a matter of class/category, the gays share oppression with race based classes as well as gender-based classes. There's nothing wrong with making comparisions especially when it's apt.
It's a beauty contest man. You are going wayyyyy too far with your concession to political correctness. Ms. Cali is some twat in a g-string strutting her stuff to win a gravy job. She fucked up playing her ARchie Bunker card instead of her Meathead card. That's it. End of story.
And gays have a right to bitch now and then, that comes from centuries in the closet. They don't go there voluntarily. They don't have high suicide rates b/c it's fucking hoot being a shmomo.
They have a legitimate grievance.
Now, back to this bullshit about beauty contests. Trump owns it. That's my summation on the gravity this thread is due.
(http://www.brent-krueger.com/images/2004%20Uncirc%20Nickel%20obverse-gs.jpg)
Should we all hold hands and sing "Let my people go" to end this class oppression?
It seems everyone would have been happier with a lie and an admission of her true feelings later. People confuse feelings with fact all the time so it probably wouldn't have been that big a deal. Her being stripped of the crown for lying would have been interesting especially considering it was probably the only way to win.
I give the g-stringed twat credit for being honest especially considering there was no 'right' answer that allowed her honest feelings to be expressed. Fortunately the next contestants will know how to answer the question.
Personally, if someone ever asked that on a job interview the response would be "why does that matter?". If they had a legitimate, job related reason for asking I'd give an honest answer.
-
You are a wedding chapel owner? Frankly, I doubt your wedding chapel story but we'll leave that alone.
How does gay marriage affect you? Again, I get nebulous crap about "I can form public policy if I want to".
Have you ever answered a question straight?
Why Do You Oppose Gay Marriage? You personally, Your reason, Your fact based reason.
I answered your question straight. That fact that you don't like it makes no difference, one way or the other.
No, I don’t own a wedding chapel (never claimed I did). But, the mere fact that something like that can happen to someone in this country is of a great concern to me. And, I’d rather not wait until it happens to me to put a halt to it.
Recap: I oppose it, because such affects public policy in my state (the fact that I could be fined or potentially jailed, for believing such is wrong doesn't sit well with me or a lot of other citizens).
On a personal note, my reasons for believing that gay “marriage” is wrong is based on my religious upbringing and background (which is hardly a secret, to anyone here).
As for my answer being "nebulous crap", that's quite ridiculous, especially considering YOU just mentioned that you've voted on policy that doesn’t affect you directly.
That's absolutely correct. The same sort of justification was given for slavery, abortion, segregation and women's rights.
Your reasoning keeps consistent company.
So, what are you blubbering about? When people thought those things were wrong, they passed laws and amendments to deal with the situation.
People think that gay "marriage" is wrong; therefore, they are passing laws and amendments to make sure that the definition of marriage remains that of a union between a man and a woman.
They're just as misguided as you and your ilk are on the matter.
Oh, so our former President, current President, VP, Sec. of State etc. are all "misguided", because they don't subscribe to your gay "marriage" sympathy. Be sure to inform them and their supporters of that.
Why?
How does it affect you?
I mean outside of the Wedding chapel scandal...which you don't own...and which probably didn't happen.
And why didn't this supposedly happen, because you said so? I see!!! ::)
Ask the owners of Elane Photography, Jon and Elaine Huguenin. They were fined $6,600 by the New Mexico Human Rights Association for refusing to take photos for a lesbian's couple "committment ceremony", espeically ridiculous considering that gay "marriage" isn't even legal in New Mexico.
Furthermore, I've already mentioned several time how it affects me.
And, since you just posted not that long ago, that you've voted on issues that don't affect you directly, you sound awfully silly, criticizing me for doing the same.
How does it affect you?
Does gay marriage undermine something?
I mentioned that earlier. The Alzheimers’ stuff must be acting up.
14th amendment? I've heard of that somewhere... Something about equal protection or due process...I must have missed that day of law school.
The marriage laws DO NOT CLASH with that 14th amendment. "Baker v. Nelson" mentioned that some 36 years ago, when gay activists tried using that argument to squash Minnesota's marriage laws. When they lost, they appealed to the US Supreme Court, who dismissed their appeal ON ITS MERITS.
And, since you missed that day in law school, let me refresh your memory. When the US Supreme Court dismissed an appeal of a state court ruling on its merits, that's the US Court's effectively agreeing with the lower court. And such is binding on other lower courts.
The District Court dismissed this action on the basis that Baker v. Nelson, supra, was dispositive of the issues raised therein. We agree. The Minnesota Supreme Court explicitly held that marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited and that the applicable Minnesota statute did not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Baker v. Nelson, supra, 191 N.W.2d at 186, 187. The appellants were plaintiffs in that state action which settled the issues adversely to their present claim.
In addition, the Supreme Court's dismissal of the appeal for want of a substantial federal question constitutes an adjudication of the merits which is binding on the lower federal courts. See Hicks v. Miranda,422 U.S. 332, 343-345, 95 S.Ct. 2281, 45 L.Ed.2d 223 (1975). The appellants have had their day in court on the issue of their right to marry under Minnesota law and under the United States Constitution. They, therefore, are collaterally estopped from relitigating these issues once more. See Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Ill. Fdn., 402 U.S. 313, 91 S.Ct. 1434, 28 L.Ed.2d 788 (1971); Gerrard v. Larsen, 517 F.2d 1127 (8th Cir. 1975).
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/547/547.F2d.54.76-1606.html (http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/547/547.F2d.54.76-1606.html)
So, with no federal constitutional breach, people can define marriage as they see fit. And the majority of this country says: One man and one woman.
The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment./4/
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967), upon which petitioners additionally rely, does not militate against this conclusion. Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, prohibiting interracial marriages, was invalidated solely on the grounds of its patent racial discrimination. As Mr. Chief Justice Warren wrote for the court (388 U.S. 12, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1018):
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L. Ed. 654 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations."
Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.
We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Affirmed.
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm (http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm)
Why do you want to crush the happiness of gay people? What do you stand to gain? What are you protecting?
I have no interest in crushing anything of gay people (nor is my cause in life to make them happy).
As far as protecting stuff goes, the institution of marriage is rough shape as it is. The last thing it needs is FURTHER deterioration by gay activists.
Besides, weren't you just barking about divorce rates not that long ago? If marriage is so bad, why are you bleating about gays not being able to re-define it?
It's a fucking beauty contest owned by Donald Trump.
It's not an olympic event.
Trump is a private Employer who can hire any judge he wants.
Why are you suddenly getting your panties in a bunch over the sacred duty of beauty contest judges to be even-handed with their judgments?
Ummm....genius, the issue isn't whether or not a gay judge can be part of the panel. It's the fact that the gay judge should call it down the middle AS THE REST OF THE JUDGES ARE EXPECTED TO DO.
On the one hand, the beauty contest is bullshit. On the other hand, gay marriage is not. You're confusing what's important here I think...a little bit.
Acutally, you hold that position. If homos and gay-"marriage" sympathizers can't be "tolerant" (the thing about which they whine and wail to no end), in regards to something as meager as a beauty contest, what makes you think they can do the same when the stakes are much higher?
You shore got a purty mouth. But all that nonsense flowing out takes off some of the shine.
You're one to talk. You've stated that you vote on issues that don't affect you directly; yet you howl when others do the same.
I like marriage. It works for me and my wife. I'm very happy. I'd hate to think that I hold a belief that denies that happiness to someone else just b/c they are different with their choice of partner.
Cookie for you. Last time I checked, my purpose in life wasn't to walk on eggshells, fearing that my beliefs might deny someone happiness. Then again, I believe that people shouldn't steal; that won't make thieves very happy.
Apparently you have no problem relegating other people to second class status, but I do.
I'm not relegating anyone to second-class status. In my home state, I can't "marry" someone of the same sex; the fact I have absolutely no desire to do so hold no bearing on the matter. The same definition of marriage applies to everyone in the Sunshine State.
You still haven't given me your concrete reason why you want to treat gays this way.
You tap dance with talk of democracy and fucking wedding chapels...but you got no answer.
I've given my answers, point blank. Whether you think they're concrete or not is hardly a concern of mine.
-
So everyone who disagrees on gay marriage is a bigot?
No, ...but Anita Bryant sure does! It took me years to disassociate orange juice with vile hatred.
-
She is entitled to be a bigot. That is what is great about the USA. You can believe anything you want, so long as you dont impose on anyone else.
What the heck do you call Prop 8? Gay marriage was legal until the bigots chose to impose their beliefs on gays. ::)
-
Furthermore, the winner of this pageant represents this country. And last time I checked, the overwhelming majority of people in the USA clearly believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Bingo! And that's why the winner should be someone who has the ability to answer with intellligence & diplomacy.
Saying "Sorry if I offend, ...but that's just how I was raised" shows neither. It was a lazy answer given with fore-knowledge that she was going to offend. She should have composed a better answer, one that showed her worthy of an ambassadorial role. She didn't.
-
Why was her answer wrong?
Because "That's just the way I was raised" is a lazy cop out. C'mon Jake. Regardless of your position,
...an educated, intelligent man like you can how stupid an answer that was can't you?
That's like asking some guy in Afghanistan to comment. Now that gov of Afghanistan allows women in NATO controlled territory to work and be educated, do you think this policy should apply throughout all of Afghanistan? Why or why not? And the guy answers "No, ...cause that's just how I was raised". Can you not see what a butt stupid lazy answer that would be?
Now if he said "No, because the entire country is not yet under NATO control. The mentality of the people has not progressed far enough that this could be implemented without adding further fuel to the insurgency... which could risk setting back the gains NATO and the women of Afghanistan have made thus far..." while we may not agree with him, he would have at least put some thought into a response, that despite not being what some would want to hear, ...shows at least one or two synapses at work. Her answer showed none. It was a piss poor brain dead answer, ...and she deserved to be marked down for it.
-
LOL i agree you talk to ppl like jag or others on here and say you are not in favor of it and all of a sudden your a homophobe ::)
No, ...not homophobe, just anti-gay. I thought we already established that. :P
-
When did the "private employer" state that kissing a gay judge's behind and acquiescing to his "gay rights" mantra are required to "get the job"?
Probably about the same time that "the pivate employer" stuck a gay judge on the panel.
And not just any gay judge... this was not Svend Robinson, ...we're talking Perez Hilton. {lol}
-
Because "That's just the way I was raised" is a lazy cop out. C'mon Jake. Regardless of your position,
...an educated, intelligent man like you can how stupid an answer that was can't you?
That's like asking some guy in Afghanistan to comment. Now that gov of Afghanistan allows women in NATO controlled territory to work and be educated, do you think this policy should apply throughout all of Afghanistan? Why or why not? And the guy answers "No, ...cause that's just how I was raised". Can you not see what a butt stupid lazy answer that would be?
Now if he said "No, because the entire country is not yet under NATO control. The mentality of the people has not progressed far enough that this could be implemented without adding further fuel to the insurgency... which could risk setting back the gains NATO and the women of Afghanistan have made thus far..." while we may not agree with him, he would have at least put some thought into a response, that despite not being what some would want to hear, ...shows at least one or two synapses at work. Her answer showed none. It was a piss poor brain dead answer, ...and she deserved to be marked down for it.
I realize you're being facetious but diatribes like that really are giving people the impression that all Canadians are dumbasses. :)
Since you're not an American and no fan of civil liberty or common sense I'll type this explanation really slow: People are ignoring the bigger issue here. Ultimately, I would have never voted against gay marriage until Bigdumbass and others finally proved this issue is becoming a new litmus test. When she loses her right to respectfully disagree, we all do. This is a free thought/speech issue with far reaching ramifications because if it's acceptable to punish her for disagreeing there becomes a point where other citizens will suffer the same fate. Prospective employers cannot ask about religion, pregnancy intentions and a host of other issues, having the right to ask about gay marriage allows people to discriminate based upon religious views. Americans are pretty lazy and we always tend to overcorrect on issues instead of applying thought. Her, or anyone else, losing the right to disagree on a social issue has bigger consequences than people are willing (or able) to understand.
Plenty of people do things because they were 'raised that way'. I'm generally polite to elders because of being raised to respect them, is that a lazy cop out? We're supposed to assume people who lived a long time have managed to learn something. :)
This is a simple case of some guy deciding to grandstand. Unfortunately he ended up showing no tolerance or class and proved to people that this is is an issue where no other opinion can be respected.
We all know free speech isn't free, that's a given. But not even being able to say 'people can do their own thing but it doesn't work for me' severely limits people's rights. If she said "I hate gays and think same sex marriage endangers children and should be illegal" being punished would make some sense in the competition's context. Having no right answer that didn't appease one judge makes no sense. We shouldn't "throw the baby out with the bath water", LOL!
-
I realize you're being facetious but diatribes like that really are giving people the impression that all Canadians are dumbasses. :)
Since you're not an American and no fan of civil liberty or common sense I'll type this explanation really slow: People are ignoring the bigger issue here. Ultimately, I would have never voted against gay marriage until Bigdumbass and others finally proved this issue is becoming a new litmus test. When she loses her right to respectfully disagree, we all do.
That's where, you, I, and quite a few of the posters here part ways. I don't see this as her losing the right to respectfully disagree. I see this as her delivering a piss poor answer.
This is a free thought/speech issue with far reaching ramifications because if it's acceptable to punish her for disagreeing there becomes a point where other citizens will suffer the same fate. Prospective employers cannot ask about religion, pregnancy intentions and a host of other issues, having the right to ask about gay marriage allows people to discriminate based upon religious views. Americans are pretty lazy and we always tend to overcorrect on issues instead of applying thought. Her, or anyone else, losing the right to disagree on a social issue has bigger consequences than people are willing (or able) to understand.
I thought her answer was a good reflection of that laziness.
Plenty of people do things because they were 'raised that way'. I'm generally polite to elders because of being raised to respect them, is that a lazy cop out? We're supposed to assume people who lived a long time have managed to learn something. :)
Had you left it at "because of being raised to respect them", it would have been. But you qualified it with sound reasoning, that reflects you have some understanding of the basis and rationale for this deference, as opposed to
"Duh, I dunno, I was just raised that way." which indicates a person or sheeple who follows the herd without any thought as to why.
This is a simple case of some guy deciding to grandstand. Unfortunately he ended up showing no tolerance or class and proved to people that this is is an issue where no other opinion can be respected.
Oh Puleaze! We're talking Perez Hilton. Are you saying a cynic like you actually thinks him capable of tolerance or class? If so, ...you're even more naive than me, ...and that's saying something. :P
We all know free speech isn't free, that's a given. But not even being able to say 'people can do their own thing but it doesn't work for me' severely limits people's rights. If she said "I hate gays and think same sex marriage endangers children and should be illegal" being punished would make some sense in the competition's context. Having no right answer that didn't appease one judge makes no sense. We shouldn't "throw the baby out with the bath water", LOL!
Saying 'people can do their own thing but it doesn't work for me' is hardly an articulate answer to the question posed. Even you must acknowledge that. What is with you people and your willingness to ignore questions? What do you have against answering questions? Why do you fail to recognize that a question posed was not even answered? And uttering a response, no matter how lazy and illogical doesn't count.
If you asked me if I liked the colour green? Why or why not? And my response was "Crayola makes 64 shades of crayons, and I believe that when you colour in your colouring books, you should always outline the drawing, then colour within the lines. Sorry, that's just how I was raised." What the heck does that have to do with Crayola's green crayon? She gave a shitty answer. Whether it was unPC or not, it was a crappy answer. Are you so biased that you can not see that? And you even dare to state you fear all civil liberties will be lost because 1 obnoxious tacky dramaqueen threw a hissy fit? :-[ I'm embarrassed for you
-
What the heck do you call Prop 8? Gay marriage was legal until the bigots chose to impose their beliefs on gays. ::)
Or, you could say that marriage was a 1M-1W union until the "bigots" (judges) chose to impose their beliefs on the citizens of California.
-
Or, you could say that marriage was a 1M-1W union until the "bigots" (judges) chose to impose their beliefs on the citizens of California.
Your issue is with the Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights, ...not gay people who want equality.
-
Bingo! And that's why the winner should be someone who has the ability to answer with intellligence & diplomacy.
Saying "Sorry if I offend, ...but that's just how I was raised" shows neither. It was a lazy answer given with fore-knowledge that she was going to offend. She should have composed a better answer, one that showed her worthy of an ambassadorial role. She didn't.
Good point made. But, it's the answer itself, not the way she presented that answer that's caused Hilton's infantile tirade. Again, had he not gone off the deep end, he could have simply penalized her for that, gone about his merry way, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
As I said, how succintly could she have explained what I just posted earlier, regarding "Baker v. Nelson"?
Plus when you ask that question, you're going to OFFEND SOMEBODY: Either those who support or oppose gay "marriage".
Probably about the same time that "the pivate employer" stuck a gay judge on the panel.
And not just any gay judge... this was not Svend Robinson, ...we're talking Perez Hilton. {lol}
Then, as I said, have a seperate paegant, called Miss "Liberal-left-winged-gay-'marriage'-sympathizing-PC" America. Again, gay judges should not be shocked when someone reflect a view on marriage that is indicative of the vast majority of this country (especially when the contestant is from California, where Prop. 8 was just passed less than six months ago).
Plus, you could just as easily argue that Hilton should have known that this young lady (a student at San Diego Christian College) would more than likely believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
-
Your issue is with the Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights, ...not gay people who want equality.
Why would my issue be with the Bill of Rights or the Supreme Court (at least the federal one) on this issue?
As for the equality thing, therein lies the irony of this discussion. We have a gay judge who wails about "equality", when it comes to marriage, penalizing a beauty paegant contestant, for her disagreement with his view on gay "marriage" (not on the style or delivery of the message, but the message itself).
-
That's where, you, I, and quite a few of the posters here part ways. I don't see this as her losing the right to respectfully disagree. I see this as her delivering a piss poor answer.
I thought her answer was a good reflection of that laziness.
Had you left it at "because of being raised to respect them", it would have been. But you qualified it with sound reasoning, that reflects you have some understanding of the basis and rationale for this deference, as opposed to
"Duh, I dunno, I was just raised that way." which indicates a person or sheeple who follows the herd without any thought as to why.
Oh Puleaze! We're talking Perez Hilton. Are you saying a cynic like you actually thinks him capable of tolerance or class? If so, ...you're even more naive than me, ...and that's saying something. :P
Another good point there, regarding Hilton.
Saying 'people can do their own thing but it doesn't work for me' is hardly an articulate answer to the question posed. Even you must acknowledge that. What is with you people and your willingness to ignore questions? What do you have against answering questions? Why do you fail to recognize that a question posed was not even answered? And uttering a response, no matter how lazy and illogical doesn't count.
If she didn't answer the question, why are you claiming that her answer was poor? She was asked if other states should follow Vermont's example.
By saying that marriage should be a union between a man and a woman, apparently her answer was "NO!".
Now, with regards to "why or why not?" (as Hilton asked), I can see your point, there. But, on the other hand, her answer has to be short and sweet. I don't think that, for example, the "Baker v. Nelson" argument can be summed up in a quick sound byte.
If you asked me if I liked the colour green? Why or why not? And my response was "Crayola makes 64 shades of crayons, and I believe that when you colour in your colouring books, you should always outline the drawing, then colour within the lines. Sorry, that's just how I was raised." What the heck does that have to do with Crayola's green crayon? She gave a shitty answer. Whether it was unPC or not, it was a crappy answer. Are you so biased that you can not see that? And you even dare to state you fear all civil liberties will be lost because 1 obnoxious tacky dramaqueen threw a hissy fit? :-[ I'm embarrassed for you
He stating that he's concerned about civil liberties being lost, because some people with Hilton's drama-queen-hissy-fit mindset judge FAR more than just a beauty contest.
-
That's where, you, I, and quite a few of the posters here part ways. I don't see this as her losing the right to respectfully disagree. I see this as her delivering a piss poor answer.
I thought her answer was a good reflection of that laziness.
Had you left it at "because of being raised to respect them", it would have been. But you qualified it with sound reasoning, that reflects you have some understanding of the basis and rationale for this deference, as opposed to
"Duh, I dunno, I was just raised that way." which indicates a person or sheeple who follows the herd without any thought as to why.
Oh Puleaze! We're talking Perez Hilton. Are you saying a cynic like you actually thinks him capable of tolerance or class? If so, ...you're even more naive than me, ...and that's saying something. :P
Saying 'people can do their own thing but it doesn't work for me' is hardly an articulate answer to the question posed. Even you must acknowledge that. What is with you people and your willingness to ignore questions? What do you have against answering questions? Why do you fail to recognize that a question posed was not even answered? And uttering a response, no matter how lazy and illogical doesn't count.
If you asked me if I liked the colour green? Why or why not? And my response was "Crayola makes 64 shades of crayons, and I believe that when you colour in your colouring books, you should always outline the drawing, then colour within the lines. Sorry, that's just how I was raised." What the heck does that have to do with Crayola's green crayon? She gave a shitty answer. Whether it was unPC or not, it was a crappy answer. Are you so biased that you can not see that? And you even dare to state you fear all civil liberties will be lost because 1 obnoxious tacky dramaqueen threw a hissy fit? :-[ I'm embarrassed for you
There's a distinct difference between respectfully disagreeing and throwing out silly answers just to get in the last word.
A lazy answer would have been some religious reason or saying "gays are icky".
I've met more old dumbasses than wise ones. At this point I've come to respect people managing to survive long periods of time despite being stupid. Becoming a 'glass half full' kinda guy. :) Ultimately, the people who said "Always respect your elders" grew up in an era where grandparents were older and had managed to accumulate wisdom in most cases. These days some people are becoming grandparents in their 30s so it probably doesn't apply. :)
Sadly, Hilton was placed in that position and failed miserably. Displaying one iota of restraint, tolerance or class would have helped but no, he just couldn't resist the attention. My expecting him to show tolerance is naive? That's a lame answer especially considering everyone is criticizing the chick for not answering properly. He should have acted like an adult or thought about other people long enough to realize how the reaction would affect the public's perception on gay marriage.
-
McWay- Dont argue law with Decker. He thinks the laws of this country should only be applied in the warped manner he sees fit when they are in harmony with his pathetically partisan point of view.
Also- Dont argue facts or history with him either because he will pull up an incredibly disreputable study conducted by a left wing fringe group that demonstrates irrefutably that gay marriage was legal according to our countries forefathers- as was polygamy and bestiality-- Also the study will likely conclude that freedom of speech is a myth perpatrated by Fox News.
Finally, and most importantly, do not try to argue that the majority of Americans dont agree with gay marriage. In Deckers opinion, what the majority thinks is irrelevant and wrong, unless of course it applies to elections where democrats are elected or where the majority of terrorists and their supporters think American interrogation tactics are "torture".
-
McWay- Dont argue law with Decker. He thinks the laws of this country should only be applied in the warped manner he sees fit when they are in harmony with his pathetically partisan point of view.
Also- Dont argue facts or history with him either because he will pull up an incredibly disreputable study conducted by a left wing fringe group that demonstrates irrefutably that gay marriage was legal according to our countries forefathers- as was polygamy and bestiality-- Also the study will likely conclude that freedom of speech is a myth perpatrated by Fox News.
Finally, and most importantly, do not try to argue that the majority of Americans dont agree with gay marriage. In Deckers opinion, what the majority thinks is irrelevant and wrong, unless of course it applies to elections where democrats are elected or where the majority of terrorists and their supporters think American interrogation tactics are "torture".
Apparently the issue is so important Americans don't have a right to vote on it.
Maybe we should declare marshal law. :)
-
Apparently the issue is so important Americans don't have a right to vote on it.
Maybe we should declare marshal law. :)
"Crayola makes 64 shades of crayons, and I believe that when you colour in your colouring books, you should always outline the drawing, then colour within the lines. Sorry, that's just how I was raised." :P
-
"Crayola makes 64 shades of crayons, and I believe that when you colour in your colouring books, you should always outline the drawing, then colour within the lines. Sorry, that's just how I was raised." :P
He asked a stupid and intentionally inflammatory question. People shouldn't ask opinions if they can't handle the answers. A truly lazy answer would have been "I believe whatever the law is". :)
Crayola isn't the only company to make crayons. Using your logic, a judge preferring another brand could still subtract points.
The PC Nazis shut her up. Given time they'll get to you. :)
-
He asked a stupid and intentionally inflammatory question. People shouldn't ask opinions if they can't handle the answers. A truly lazy answer would have been "I believe whatever the law is". :)
Let's see: She's from California, a state that just voted to reverse a state court ruling that legalized gay "marriage". And, she attends San Diego CHRISTIAN college.
I wonder why Hilton never saw that answer coming. ::)
-
Let's see: She's from California, a state that just voted to reverse a state court ruling that legalized gay "marriage". And, she attends San Diego CHRISTIAN college.
I wonder why Hilton never saw that answer coming. ::)
well, first, as you know, not all christians agree on this or any issue
personally - I think it's fine for her to express her true feelings and it's also fine for others to judge her for that.
she has no reason to bitch.
she disagrees with gay marriage and others disagree with her and some may even hold it against her
seems fair to me
-
well, first, as you know, not all christians agree on this or any issue
This coming from someone, who just posted something about Christian "group think" and "zombies" on another thread.
They may not all agree. But, I think it's safe to say that the odds are quite safe that she'll think marriage is a 1M-1W union.
personally - I think it's fine for her to express her true feelings and it's also fine for others to judge her for that.
she has no reason to bitch.
Are you talking about Prejean or Hilton?
she disagrees with gay marriage and others disagree with her and some may even hold it against her
seems fair to me
Holding a view of marriage, that the vast majority of this country (and at least 52% of her state's voters) holds is now a bad thing?
Again, if that's the case, they should simply hold a Miss Liberal-left-wing-PC-Gay-sympathizer USA.
-
This coming from someone, who just posted something about Christian "group think" and "zombies" on another thread.
They may not all agree. But, I think it's safe to say that the odds are quite safe that she'll think marriage is a 1M-1W union.
Are you talking about Prejean or Hilton?
Holding a view of marriage, that the vast majority of this country (and at least 52% of her state's voters) holds is now a bad thing?
Again, if that's the case, they should simply hold a Miss Liberal-left-wing-PC-Gay-sympathizer USA.
God you're dense.
where to start?
first - 52% is not a vast majority
second - there are plenty of opions and picking and choosing among people who call themselves christian.
The "group think" zombies are the people who follow a leader like Falwell who said things like "Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions". Most people in this country have no problem understanding the difference. What's your problem?
Third - Hilton is a guy so when I refer to "HER" and "SHE" that would be Prejean
-
God you're dense.
where to start?
first - 52% is not a vast majority
The 52% refers to California voters. The words "vast majority" was not referring to them (hence the reason I put the number of CA voters in parentheses).
So, the "dense" moniker is yours alone, on this one.
second - there are plenty of opions and picking and choosing among people who call themselves christian.
The "group think" zombies are the people who follow a leader like Falwell who said things like "Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions". Most people in this country have no problem understanding the difference. What's your problem?
My "problem" is that your comments were hardly limited to Falwell's congregation, student body, or TV audience. That is but your feeble attempt to backtrack, when your words betray you.
It's also your pitiful way of feigning ignorance to the fact that the majority of professed Christians believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That means that folks like Hilton should hardly be surprised when a lady from Christian college, in a state that passed Prop. 8, would have such a view.
Third - Hilton is a guy so when I refer to "HER" and "SHE" that would be Prejean
Again, the "dense" moniker falls on YOU.
-
The 52% refers to California voters. The words "vast majority" was not referring to them (hence the reason I put the number of CA voters in parentheses).
So, the "dense" moniker is yours alone, on this one.
show me some proof of this vast majority you claim exists.
My "problem" is that your comments were hardly limited to Falwell's congregation, student body, or TV audience. That is but your feeble attempt to backtrack, when your words betray you.
are we talking about comment in two different threads? I made no comment in this thread about zombie christians. I made it in another thread regarding a guy at Jerry Falwells University and the quote from my avatar is from Falwell and we all know people who fall into that category. I'm even starting to suspect that you're in that category.
It's also your pitiful way of feigning ignorance to the fact that the majority of professed Christians believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That means that folks like Hilton should hardly be surprised when a lady from Christian college, in a state that passed Prop. 8, would have such a view.
since there is no one "christian" church it seems pretty clear that there are many many many interpretations of the bible I have no reason to believe the majority of christians share the same view on anything. Maybe a majority in your church agrees with you but drive down the road and you'll find another christian church where the majority believe something else.
Again, the "dense" moniker falls on YOU.
you seem a bit defensive. Are you still confused by my original post.
I'll try to make it easier for you to understand.
Miss California should be free to express her opinion and other should be free to judge her opinion and she has no reason to be upset if people judge her for her opinions and/or if it has negative consequences.
It's all fine
-
show me some proof of this vast majority you claim exists.
At last count, at least 43 states have marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman, 30 of those have state constitutional amendments.
are we talking about comment in two different threads? I made no comment in this thread about zombie christians. I made it in another thread regarding a guy at Jerry Falwells University and the quote from my avatar is from Falwell and we all know people who fall into that category. I'm even starting to suspect that you're in that category.
Did I not use the words, "in another thread", when I first brought this up here?
since there is no one "christian" church it seems pretty clear that there are many many many interpretations of the bible I have no reason to believe the majority of christians share the same view on anything. Maybe a majority in your church agrees with you but drive down the road and you'll find another christian church where the majority believe something else.
Once again, your feigning ignorance is astounding.
you seem a bit defensive. Are you still confused by my original post.
I'll try to make it easier for you to understand.
Miss California should be free to express her opinion and other should be free to judge her opinion and she has no reason to be upset if people judge her for her opinions and/or if it has negative consequences.
It's all fine
I understand what you said just fine, which is why I can comment on how silly it is. She has reason to be upset, if the judging is supposed to be objective but it is not. Jaguar's point is right on the money. If her being marked down dealt with her lack of smooth delivery, a lack or clarity, or her not giving accurate support of a definitive answer, that'd be one thing.
But, that wasn't the case, as Hilton admitted later.
-
McWay - you can find #'s that support almost anything you want.
I do think that a majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage but I don't think it's a "vast majority".
According to Gallup the # is 56%. Perhaps it's semantics and that # represents a vast majority to you.
Regarding the topic of this thread, I think she should feel perfectly free to express her opinion and she should be smart enought to know that people will judge her for it (she's being judged on everything else) and it might have consequences that she doesn't like.
-
McWay - you can find #'s that support almost anything you want.
I do think that a majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage but I don't think it's a "vast majority".
According to Gallup the # is 56%. Perhaps it's semantics and that # represents a vast majority to you.
Regarding the topic of this thread, I think she should feel perfectly free to express her opinion and she should be smart enought to know that people will judge her for it (she's being judged on everything else) and it might have consequences that she doesn't like.
and so should of that pugly looking flamer hilton, he shouldnt have asked the question if he didnt want to hear what she had to say and RESPECT her for saying it.
-
and so should of that pugly looking flamer hilton, he shouldnt have asked the question if he didnt want to hear what she had to say and RESPECT her for saying it.
personally, I couldn't give a rats ass about the contest and I think it was unfair to ask her that question unless they were going to ask everyone an equally polarizing question.
I don't think anyone has to respect her answer. This whole "contest" is subjective bullshit and they are judged on everything else they do so I see no reason why that part should be any different
-
McWay - you can find #'s that support almost anything you want.
I do think that a majority of Americans are opposed to gay marriage but I don't think it's a "vast majority".
According to Gallup the # is 56%. Perhaps it's semantics and that # represents a vast majority to you.
I'm not talking about polls. I'm talking about cold hard facts. And the cold hard fact is that 30 states have marriage amendments, that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Let me remind you that several polls in CA, just weeks before election day, had Prop. 8 being defeated and the majority of voters supporting gay "marriage" in that state.
Enough said.
Regarding the topic of this thread, I think she should feel perfectly free to express her opinion and she should be smart enought to know that people will judge her for it (she's being judged on everything else) and it might have consequences that she doesn't like.
She knows they will judge her for it; she expects to be judged FAIRLY for it, which she was not.
-
personally, I couldn't give a rats ass about the contest and I think it was unfair to ask her that question unless they were going to ask everyone an equally polarizing question.
I don't think anyone has to respect her answer. This whole "contest" is subjective bullshit and they are judged on everything else they do so I see no reason why that part should be any different
I agree i could care less about it i didnt even know it was going on until all this shit happend...There is a big difference Straw between not agreeing with and not RESPECTING an answer. She didnt call anybody names she gave her answer in a respectful way and it should be recieved as such not the way that tool and others are taking it. I may not agree with all the things that are said on this board but that doesnt mean i dont respect your opinion that is if your opinion isnt just off the wall assinine which you can surely agree that hers is not that.
I agree as well that was a hot button question and the other chick got a easy ass question, not really fair she seems to be taking it very well though and putting a positive spin on getting 2nd unlike hilton who is stirring in his own hate.
-
I agree i could care less about it i didnt even know it was going on until all this shit happend...There is a big difference Straw between not agreeing with and not RESPECTING an answer. She didnt call anybody names she gave her answer in a respectful way and it should be recieved as such not the way that tool and others are taking it. I may not agree with all the things that are said on this board but that doesnt mean i dont respect your opinion that is if your opinion isnt just off the wall assinine which you can surely agree that hers is not that.
I agree as well that was a hot button question and the other chick got a easy ass question, not really fair she seems to be taking it very well though and putting a positive spin on getting 2nd unlike hilton who is stirring in his own hate.
I honestly haven't followed this at all and no nothing about it.
I think a gay judge is going to subjectively mark that against her and another judge (for all we know) may give her a higher mark because he agrees with her.
If anyone else is being disrespectful of her then I don't think thats fair. I do think she should be aware that it's a polarizing issue with high emotions on both sides. Really too bad for her she got handed that question.
-
I agree i could care less about it i didnt even know it was going on until all this shit happend...There is a big difference Straw between not agreeing with and not RESPECTING an answer. She didnt call anybody names she gave her answer in a respectful way and it should be recieved as such not the way that tool and others are taking it. I may not agree with all the things that are said on this board but that doesnt mean i dont respect your opinion that is if your opinion isnt just off the wall assinine which you can surely agree that hers is not that.
I agree as well that was a hot button question and the other chick got a easy ass question, not really fair she seems to be taking it very well though and putting a positive spin on getting 2nd unlike hilton who is stirring in his own hate.
Word is that, they all got "softball" questions, except for Miss CA. Again, she's from CA, attends a Christian college, and gets hit with that question by a flamingly gay judge from that same state.
-
Word is that, they all got "softball" questions, except for Miss CA. Again, she's from CA, attends a Christian college, and gets hit with that question by a flamingly gay judge from that same state.
can't you attend a christian school and not be a christian?
can't you also be a christian and be for gay marriage?
-
I honestly haven't followed this at all and no nothing about it.
I think a gay judge is going to subjectively mark that against her and another judge (for all we know) may give her a higher mark because he agrees with her.
If anyone else is being disrespectful of her then I don't think thats fair. I do think she should be aware that it's a polarizing issue with high emotions on both sides. Really too bad for her she got handed that question.
I agree but again subjectively viewing an answer and marking accordingly is being respectful in terms of judging him going on his website and calling her a dumb bitch is NOT and only shows the intolerance of a minority that yells for tolerance. Nobody is telling them they cant be gay she just said she didnt believe in gay marriage which most ppl dont.
-
I agree but again subjectively viewing an answer and marking accordingly is being respectful in terms of judging him going on his website and calling her a dumb bitch is NOT and only shows the intolerance of a minority that yells for tolerance. Nobody is telling them they cant be gay she just said she didnt believe in gay marriage which most ppl dont.
I have absolutely no idea of anything Perez Hilton does. I was not even aware who he was until I read this.
I read the quote of her answer and I saw nothing wrong with it and if this Hilton guy is smearing her then it just reflects badly on him.
-
she gave a stoopid answer. the fact she's a bigot is icing on the cake.
-
and so should of that pugly looking flamer hilton, he shouldnt have asked the question if he didnt want to hear what she had to say and RESPECT her for saying it.
How the heck is Perez Hilton going to RESPECT her for her answer? ...regardless of whatever it is?
Hilton is seething with jealousy that he can't be her. Don't you think he'd love to stroll down a runway is a flowing diaphanous gown, wearing a diamond tiara, while having a vagina between his legs? That would be his ultimate fantasy. But since he can't be that, ...he resorts to punitively judging women in beauty pageants he can't ever have a hope of competing with. Let's get some perspective here folks. Perez Hilton may be one of the loudest, but he's hardly representative of the typical gay male, ...as most of you quiet-in-the-closet types know. :D
So let's not bash gay men because of one flaming little turd.
-
Gay's right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" doesn't mean "prohibiting the free exercise there of; or abridging the freedom of speech" others have.
Let's forget that people are saying the issue is too important that Americans don't have a right to vote on it. If Bush said the war was too important for us to have an election everyone would freak out.
-
Gay's right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" doesn't mean "prohibiting the free exercise there of; or abridging the freedom of speech" others have.
Let's forget that people are saying the issue is too important that Americans don't have a right to vote on it. If Bush said the war was too important for us to have an election everyone would freak out.
Isn't that what happened? Actual election results posed an eminent threat to PNAC's nefarious plans.
-
McWay- Dont argue law with Decker. He thinks the laws of this country should only be applied in the warped manner he sees fit when they are in harmony with his pathetically partisan point of view.
Also- Dont argue facts or history with him either because he will pull up an incredibly disreputable study conducted by a left wing fringe group that demonstrates irrefutably that gay marriage was legal according to our countries forefathers- as was polygamy and bestiality-- Also the study will likely conclude that freedom of speech is a myth perpatrated by Fox News.
Finally, and most importantly, do not try to argue that the majority of Americans dont agree with gay marriage. In Deckers opinion, what the majority thinks is irrelevant and wrong, unless of course it applies to elections where democrats are elected or where the majority of terrorists and their supporters think American interrogation tactics are "torture".
If you don't wish to discuss something with me don't.
But don't go off crying like a pussy to other people about it.
-
Should we all hold hands and sing "Let my people go" to end this class oppression?
It seems everyone would have been happier with a lie and an admission of her true feelings later. People confuse feelings with fact all the time so it probably wouldn't have been that big a deal. Her being stripped of the crown for lying would have been interesting especially considering it was probably the only way to win.
I give the g-stringed twat credit for being honest especially considering there was no 'right' answer that allowed her honest feelings to be expressed. Fortunately the next contestants will know how to answer the question.
Personally, if someone ever asked that on a job interview the response would be "why does that matter?". If they had a legitimate, job related reason for asking I'd give an honest answer.
It's beauty contest.
Truth, honesty and integrity...and second place.
I applaud her sense of integrity.
-
This whole debate is becoming unnecessarily complicated and clouded.
That degenerate fruit cake asked the contestant a question- She responded respectfully. This is America. We don't all have to agree on everything. She is entitled to her opinion. It doesn't make her a bigot anymore than it would have made her a closet homo to say she supported gay marriage.
She should not have been penalized for speaking her mind and quite frankly the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place. It was a beauty pageant, not a fucking competition for the UCLA debate team.
To everyone trying to equate homo rights with the struggle of blacks and other minority groups is absurd. This country never fought a war over homosexuality- There were never homo only segregated water fountains or gay rights riots where cops turned on fire hoses. Gays hold and have held prominent positions in American society for quite a while-- And in todays society, the stigma associated with homosexuality is relatively benign. I for one, have no problem with homosexuals whatsoever. I have gay friends and family members and I believe that they should be entitled to the same respect as everyone else. However, I do not support gay marriage. Civil Unions are fine- but marriage is something that should only exist between men and women IMO.
Lets also not forget that every single mainstream religion looks at homosexuality as an abomination- Most Americans do not believe in gay marriage and regardless, not supporting gay marriage does not necessarily mean you are a homophobe. One has nothing to do with the other.
-
If you don't wish to discuss something with me don't.
But don't go off crying like a pussy to other people about it.
LOL- Who is crying? I am stating the obvious and I have told you exactly what I posted here on numerous occasions. Don't get your sand in your vagina just because your liberal commrades at arms are turning against you in this thread and you look like a total jackass.
Notice you didn't deny anything I wrote. Truth!?!? :P
-
How the heck is Perez Hilton going to RESPECT her for her answer? ...regardless of whatever it is?
Hilton is seething with jealousy that he can't be her. Don't you think he'd love to stroll down a runway is a flowing diaphanous gown, wearing a diamond tiara, while having a vagina between his legs? That would be his ultimate fantasy. But since he can't be that, ...he resorts to punitively judging women in beauty pageants he can't ever have a hope of competing with. Let's get some perspective here folks. Perez Hilton may be one of the loudest, but he's hardly representative of the typical gay male, ...as most of you quiet-in-the-closet types know. :D
So let's not bash gay men because of one flaming little turd.
I dont think i called him the typical gay male if i did im mistaken for sure but his actions and exploits put a face on the gay community for much of the population. So if my actions say im a closet case does your actions say your a full blown lesbo? :-*
LOL you bash reps all the time on this forum b/c of bush so why is stereotyping allowed there and not here? :D
-
This whole debate is becoming unnecessarily complicated and clouded.
That degenerate fruit cake asked the contestant a question- She responded respectfully. This is America. We don't all have to agree on everything. She is entitled to her opinion. It doesn't make her a bigot anymore than it would have made her a closet homo to say she supported gay marriage.
She should not have been penalized for speaking her mind and quite frankly the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place. It was a beauty pageant, not a fucking competition for the UCLA debate team.
To everyone trying to equate homo rights with the struggle of blacks and other minority groups is absurd. This country never fought a war over homosexuality- There were never homo only segregated water fountains or gay rights riots where cops turned on fire hoses. Gays hold and have held prominent positions in American society for quite a while-- And in todays society, the stigma associated with homosexuality is relatively benign. I for one, have no problem with homosexuals whatsoever. I have gay friends and family members and I believe that they should be entitled to the same respect as everyone else. However, I do not support gay marriage. Civil Unions are fine- but marriage is something that should only exist between men and women IMO.
Lets also not forget that every single mainstream religion looks at homosexuality as an abomination- Most Americans do not believe in gay marriage and regardless, not supporting gay marriage does not necessarily mean you are a homophobe. One has nothing to do with the other.
I don't see it as absurd, ...and you forget Stonewall.
To say the stigma is relatively benign disregards the fact that there still is a stigma. There shouldn't be.
Ya Hilton melted down, ...but understand, for many their mere existence is an act of rebellion, and a fight for survival.
If you say civil unions are fine, ...but marriage isn't, ...what's the difference?
Have not the years of Jim Crow not taught you that separate but equal are most often if not always NOT?
Gay marriage is not a threat to marriage. As StrawMan so eloquently put it before: Divorce is it's biggest threat.
-
I dont think i called him the typical gay male if i did im mistaken for sure but his actions and exploits put a face on the gay community for much of the population. So if my actions say im a closet case does your actions say your a full blown lesbo? :-*
LOL you bash reps all the time on this forum b/c of bush so why is stereotyping allowed there and not here? :D
"Crayola makes 64 shades of crayons, and I believe that when you colour in your colouring books, you should always outline the drawing, then colour within the lines. Sorry, that's just how I was raised." :P
-
"Crayola makes 64 shades of crayons, and I believe that when you colour in your colouring books, you should always outline the drawing, then colour within the lines. Sorry, that's just how I was raised." :P
LOL ignorant arguement she answered the question and gave her reasoning whether or not that reasoning was good enough for you isnt important. I dont think she would have got many points for saying homosexuality is a pointless futile endevour and that it makes no sense to strive for justification or recognition of a pointless behaviour.
-
LOL ignorant arguement she answered the question and gave her reasoning whether or not that reasoning was good enough for you isnt important. I dont think she would have got many points for saying homosexuality is a pointless futile endevour and that it makes no sense to strive for justification or recognition of a pointless behaviour.
It wouldhave been a much better composed and qualified answer than the piece of tripe she put forth. ;D
-
I don't see it as absurd, ...and you forget Stonewall.
To say the stigma is relatively benign disregards the fact that there still is a stigma. There shouldn't be.
Ya Hilton melted down, ...but understand, for many their mere existence is an act of rebellion, and a fight for survival.
If you say civil unions are fine, ...but marriage isn't, ...what's the difference?
Have not the years of Jim Crow not taught you that separate but equal are most often if not always NOT?
Gay marriage is not a threat to marriage. As StrawMan so eloquently put it before: Divorce is it's biggest threat.
Jim Crow?!!?!? Really?!!
Put down the wine and call it a night.
-
Jim Crow?!!?!? Really?!!
Put down the wine and call it a night.
Sorry, ...not a very big consumer of alcohol.
-
I think her answer was sincere and unscripted
look what we have learned
"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite.
what land is she speaking of?
has anyone ever referred to a husband and wife as opposite marriage?
-
I think her answer was sincere and unscripted
look what we have learned
"We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite.
what land is she speaking of?
has anyone ever referred to a husband and wife as opposite marriage
Hence, one of the stupidest answers to be given in the history of beauty pageants,
...but luckily for her, not the stupidest. Who can ever forget Miss Teen South Carolina? :D
-
Well, of course someone very visible on television is going to cause a "furor" when that person says something contrary to what the pro-homosexual, pro-immigration, globalist, post-colonial guilt ridden, politically correct popular media holds near and dear. Or what it pretends to hold near and dear with whatever position would afford it the most money.
Few people, outside of San Francisco or Wilton Manors, aren't going to give it much thought anyways, even if they do support the idea of gay marriage. The media, along with the rich, noisy, vocal gay civil rights groups(mafia) are out to cause a furor where there normally wouldn't have been one in the first place.
Keep it up America. You hear the roaring of equality when it comes to gay marriage from celebrities and politicians, but absolutely nothing about other places where brutality of women is very real and often. Its that very barbarism(along with much higher birthrates) that will come along and possibly sweep away the new Western minority.
-
Well, of course someone very visible on television is going to cause a "furor" when that person says something contrary to what the pro-homosexual, pro-immigration, globalist, post-colonial guilt ridden, politically correct popular media holds near and dear. Or what it pretends to hold near and dear with whatever position would afford it the most money.
Few people, outside of San Francisco or Wilton Manors, aren't going to give it much thought anyways, even if they do support the idea of gay marriage. The media, along with the rich, noisy, vocal gay civil rights groups(mafia) are out to cause a furor where there normally wouldn't have been one in the first place.
Keep it up America. You hear the roaring of equality when it comes to gay marriage from celebrities and politicians, but absolutely nothing about other places where brutality of women is very real and often. Its that very barbarism(along with much higher birthrates) that will come along and possibly sweep away the new Western minority.
What about those radical libs in Iowa
what the heck is going on there?
-
Sorry, ...not a very big consumer of alcohol.
I figured there must have been some valid excuse for the Jim Crow line.
-
can't you attend a christian school and not be a christian?
can't you also be a christian and be for gay marriage?
Technically, you can, just as you can go to Spelman, Grambling, or FAMU and be white.
-
How the heck is Perez Hilton going to RESPECT her for her answer? ...regardless of whatever it is?
Hilton is seething with jealousy that he can't be her. Don't you think he'd love to stroll down a runway is a flowing diaphanous gown, wearing a diamond tiara, while having a vagina between his legs? That would be his ultimate fantasy. But since he can't be that, ...he resorts to punitively judging women in beauty pageants he can't ever have a hope of competing with. Let's get some perspective here folks. Perez Hilton may be one of the loudest, but he's hardly representative of the typical gay male, ...as most of you quiet-in-the-closet types know. :D
So let's not bash gay men because of one flaming little turd.
All of my criticisms were aimed squarely at him. But, he may not have been the only one, who punished Prejean for her answer.
Another judge, Las Vegas entertainment reporter Alicia Jacobs, wrote a blistering anti-Prejean blog entry that received so much negative attention that it was later deleted. In the entry -- dubbed "Pretty is as pretty does" and still available via a Google cache -- said Prejean's answer "GREATLY affected me & the final score I gave [her]." Prejean, Jacobs said, "made the mistake of not knowing when to shut her mouth." Jacobs further said that, including Hilton, at least two of the judges were homosexual and that a third has a sister in a "gay marriage." Jacobs said she was "personally insulted & hurt."
"As she continued to speak, I saw the crown move further & further away from her," Jacobs wrote. She revealed how she voted on the final tally, which took place after the questioning round: "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."
Bumping her from first runner-up to fourth runner-up impacted the 12 judges' average score, which determines the winner.
Not to be outdone, Giuliana Rancic, a news anchor on E! Television, wrote on her Twitter account regarding Prejean, "i know i'm a journalist, and i should be objective...but she is an ignorant discrace [sic] and she makes me sick to my stomach."
Gary Schneeberger, vice president of Focus on the Family, said the incident exposes a double standard when it comes to the practice of tolerance.
"Those who lean to the left ideologically like to paint those of us on the other side as the 'intolerant' ones," he wrote. "But some of them are going to have a hard time whitewashing the intolerance they've shown to Carrie Prejean since she said during the weekend pageant that she believes marriage should be defined as solely the union of one man and one woman."
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=30370 (http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=30370)
-
Well, of course someone very visible on television is going to cause a "furor" when that person says something contrary to what the pro-homosexual, pro-immigration, globalist, post-colonial guilt ridden, politically correct popular media holds near and dear. Or what it pretends to hold near and dear with whatever position would afford it the most money.
Few people, outside of San Francisco or Wilton Manors, aren't going to give it much thought anyways, even if they do support the idea of gay marriage. The media, along with the rich, noisy, vocal gay civil rights groups(mafia) are out to cause a furor where there normally wouldn't have been one in the first place.
Keep it up America. You hear the roaring of equality when it comes to gay marriage from celebrities and politicians, but absolutely nothing about other places where brutality of women is very real and often. Its that very barbarism(along with much higher birthrates) that will come along and possibly sweep away the new Western minority.
QFT
And Jaguar you mist really be drunk or a drug addict to compare homos with blacks. Being that you are a black person, your assertion is particularly outrageous.
If a civil union provides the same rights as marriage without being a marriage how is there inequality? Invoking the name of Jim Crow is yet another example of your frightening ignorance of American history. The 1812 comment was pretty awful, but this is right up there.
-
QFT
And Jaguar you mist really be drunk or a drug addict to compare homos with blacks. Being that you are a black person, your assertion is particularly outrageous.
If a civil union provides the same rights as marriage without being a marriage how is there inequality? Invoking the name of Jim Crow is yet another example of your frightening ignorance of American history. The 1812 comment was pretty awful, but this is right up there.
It's the stupidest comparison people can make.
-
It's the stupidest comparison people can make.
The gays would get a lot more sympathy if they simply stopped trying to jam their damn agenda down everyones' throats (No pun in intended) and simply admitted to themselves and everyone else what they are.
-
The gays would get a lot more sympathy if they simply stopped trying to jam their damn agenda down everyones' throats (No pun in intended) and simply admitted to themselves and everyone else what they are.
x2
-
End tax benefits and state welfare for all marriage, gay or straight!
-
What tax benefits are there?
-
What tax benefits are there?
I don't know about Ca. but in NY you get a whole bunch of tax writeoffs and other shit; in most European countries you get HUGE tax breaks.
-
What kind of tax writeoffs? If you are married in NY, you can lower your effective tax bracket?
-
It's the stupidest comparison people can make.
It's made even more so, when they bash Christianity on the one hand, while on the other hand they try and graft onto the black civil rights movement.
I guess it never occured to them that the movement started IN BLACK CHURCHES and its greatest champion was a black minister.
-
QFT
And Jaguar you mist really be drunk or a drug addict to compare homos with blacks. Being that you are a black person, your assertion is particularly outrageous.
If a civil union provides the same rights as marriage without being a marriage how is there inequality? Invoking the name of Jim Crow is yet another example of your frightening ignorance of American history. The 1812 comment was pretty awful, but this is right up there.
You leave Jag alone George. Did you know she claims to have a 160 IQ? Same as Einstein.
-
And a star is born. :)
Miss California to star in TV ad from conservative group
Posted: 01:39 PM ET
From CNN's Peter Hamby
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Carrie Prejean, the Miss USA contestant from California who famously declared her opposition to same sex marriage on the pageant stage, will star in a new $1.5 million ad campaign funded by the National Organization for Marriage.
Prejean was roasted by same-sex marriage advocates after she stood up for what she called "opposite marriage" (marriage between a man and a woman) when responding to a question from celebrity blogger Perez Hilton during the pageant. But she's also become a fresh-faced standard-bearer for the same-sex marriage opponents, who have rallied to her defense.
The National Organziation for Marriage has scheduled a press conference with Prejean in Washington on Wednesday to unveil the new ad, called "No Offense."
"She is attacked viciously for having the courage to speak up for her truth and her values," the group said in a press release. "But Carrie's courage inspired a whole nation and a whole generation of young people because she chose to risk the Miss USA crown rather than be silent about her deepest moral values."
According to the group, the ad will call "gay marriage advocates to account for their unwillingness to debate the real issue: gay marriage has consequences."
The Miss California TV ad is the group's second. Their first, called "A Gathering Storm," ran in several states earlier and featured actors issuing ominous warnings about the threats posed by same-sex marriage.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
-
And a star is born. :)
Miss California to star in TV ad from conservative group
Posted: 01:39 PM ET
From CNN's Peter Hamby
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Carrie Prejean, the Miss USA contestant from California who famously declared her opposition to same sex marriage on the pageant stage, will star in a new $1.5 million ad campaign funded by the National Organization for Marriage.
Prejean was roasted by same-sex marriage advocates after she stood up for what she called "opposite marriage" (marriage between a man and a woman) when responding to a question from celebrity blogger Perez Hilton during the pageant. But she's also become a fresh-faced standard-bearer for the same-sex marriage opponents, who have rallied to her defense.
The National Organziation for Marriage has scheduled a press conference with Prejean in Washington on Wednesday to unveil the new ad, called "No Offense."
"She is attacked viciously for having the courage to speak up for her truth and her values," the group said in a press release. "But Carrie's courage inspired a whole nation and a whole generation of young people because she chose to risk the Miss USA crown rather than be silent about her deepest moral values."
According to the group, the ad will call "gay marriage advocates to account for their unwillingness to debate the real issue: gay marriage has consequences."
The Miss California TV ad is the group's second. Their first, called "A Gathering Storm," ran in several states earlier and featured actors issuing ominous warnings about the threats posed by same-sex marriage.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Good for her, LOL!
-
Good for her, LOL!
$1.5 million haha
-
And a star is born. :)
Miss California to star in TV ad from conservative group
Posted: 01:39 PM ET
From CNN's Peter Hamby
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Carrie Prejean, the Miss USA contestant from California who famously declared her opposition to same sex marriage on the pageant stage, will star in a new $1.5 million ad campaign funded by the National Organization for Marriage.
Prejean was roasted by same-sex marriage advocates after she stood up for what she called "opposite marriage" (marriage between a man and a woman) when responding to a question from celebrity blogger Perez Hilton during the pageant. But she's also become a fresh-faced standard-bearer for the same-sex marriage opponents, who have rallied to her defense.
The National Organziation for Marriage has scheduled a press conference with Prejean in Washington on Wednesday to unveil the new ad, called "No Offense."
"She is attacked viciously for having the courage to speak up for her truth and her values," the group said in a press release. "But Carrie's courage inspired a whole nation and a whole generation of young people because she chose to risk the Miss USA crown rather than be silent about her deepest moral values."
According to the group, the ad will call "gay marriage advocates to account for their unwillingness to debate the real issue: gay marriage has consequences."
The Miss California TV ad is the group's second. Their first, called "A Gathering Storm," ran in several states earlier and featured actors issuing ominous warnings about the threats posed by same-sex marriage.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
....."and while people are having a tough time remembering who actually won the Miss USA, Ms. Prejean will be remembered for her sweet but steady stance on marriage, despite the infantile tirade by a certain flaming homo judge."
Plus, Fox News loves beauty queens; so if she's a journalism major, we may see her reporting the evening news, before long.
Who says nice guys (or gals, in this case) finish last?
;D
-
And, since Fox News loves beauty queens, we may see her reporting the evening news, before long.
pray miss thing pray
-
LOL- Who is crying? I am stating the obvious and I have told you exactly what I posted here on numerous occasions. Don't get your sand in your vagina just because your liberal commrades at arms are turning against you in this thread and you look like a total jackass.
Notice you didn't deny anything I wrote. Truth!?!? :P
You're crying like a little girl b/c the complexities of my views and arguments leave you dumbfounded.
Duuhhhhhhh you say the majority is right with torture but wrong with gay marriage....duhhhhhhhhhh hhh you are a hypocrite.........duuuuu uh
Life's a little more involved than that Bud.
I'm not going sort out your undeveloped intellect for you. That takes work on your part. I like you. But the content of your criticism is bush league.
-
She'd have been forgotten by now if a tiny bit of tolerance had been shown.
-
I'm not talking about polls. I'm talking about cold hard facts. And the cold hard fact is that 30 states have marriage amendments, that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Let me remind you that several polls in CA, just weeks before election day, had Prop. 8 being defeated and the majority of voters supporting gay "marriage" in that state.
Enough said.
She knows they will judge her for it; she expects to be judged FAIRLY for it, which she was not.
Cold hard facts?
Here are some more cold hard facts. Organized business is against same-sex marriage b/c coverage of an employees spouse costs money.
Then we get the religious crowd that wants to treat gays as second class citizens b/c a book of stories from thousands of years ago 'told them to do so'.
Here are some cold, hard facts: The bible is not a book of history...any more than the Iliad is a book of History.
There are no gods, devils, ghosts, angels, demons or the like. Demonic possession is not real. Those are literary devices that some unfortunate souls have, in their fervor, accepted as reality.
Maybe that bit of information will help to inform your opinion. B/c your opinion matters...you do have an effect on today's concrete reality.
-
Cold hard facts?
Here are some more cold hard facts. Organized business is against same-sex marriage b/c coverage of an employees spouse costs money.
Then we get the religious crowd that wants to treat gays as second class citizens b/c a book of stories from thousands of years ago 'told them to do so'.
The "religious crowd" wants to keep their rights as American citizens to vote on public policy as they see fit, provided such does NOT clash with the US constitution. Their rights don't go away, simply because homosexuals want to shack and pretend to play husband and wife.
Here are some cold, hard facts: The bible is not a book of history...any more than the Iliad is a book of History.
DEAD WRONG, Decker.
A prime example would be the statements of one R. P. Doughtery, a one-time Biblical skeptic, who upon learning about the Nabonidus Chronicles (an archaeological find, confirming the existence and the status of Belshazza (a figure that Biblical skeptics deemed was fictititious) went on to say that next to the cuneiform evidence itself, the most accurate depiction of Neo-Babylon can be found in the BOOK OF DANIEL (part of the Bible).
Time and time again, Biblical skeptics have claimed that events and people of the Bible were false or fictitious, only to be royally embarrassed, when the historical and archaeological data supports the Biblical account. Usually, I let Loco handle that portion of listing the numerous examples of such.
There are no gods, devils, ghosts, angels, demons or the like. Demonic possession is not real. Those are literary devices that some unfortunate souls have, in their fervor, accepted as reality.
Maybe that bit of information will help to inform your opinion. B/c your opinion matters...you do have an effect on today's concrete reality.
That "bit of information" was little more than slapstick comedy, born of some sort of frustration on your end.
-
....."and while people are having a tough time remembering who actually won the Miss USA, Ms. Prejean will be remembered for her sweet but steady stance on marriage, despite the infantile tirade by a certain flaming homo judge."
Plus, Fox News loves beauty queens; so if she's a journalism major, we may see her reporting the evening news, before long.
Who says nice guys (or gals, in this case) finish last?
;D
I may have been onto something, when I posted this. Guess who was on “Fox and Friends” (again) this morning, filling in for Gretchen Carlson.
-
The "religious crowd" wants to keep their rights as American citizens to vote on public policy as they see fit, provided such does NOT clash with the US constitution. Their rights don't go away, simply because homosexuals want to shack and pretend to play husband and wife.
DEAD WRONG, Decker.
A prime example would be the statements of one R. P. Doughtery, a one-time Biblical skeptic, who upon learning about the Nabonidus Chronicles (an archaeological find, confirming the existence and the status of Belshazza (a figure that Biblical skeptics deemed was fictititious) went on to say that next to the cuneiform evidence itself, the most accurate depiction of Neo-Babylon can be found in the BOOK OF DANIEL (part of the Bible).
Time and time again, Biblical skeptics have claimed that events and people of the Bible were false or fictitious, only to be royally embarrassed, when the historical and archaeological data supports the Biblical account. Usually, I let Loco handle that portion of listing the numerous examples of such.
That "bit of information" was little more than slapstick comedy, born of some sort of frustration on your end.
The Hittite civilization
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/hittite-faq.htm
The Old Testament mentions the ancient Hittite civilization more than 50 times, either by their Hebrew name "Chitti" or by their designation as the sons and daughters Heth. However, prior to their rediscovery in the 19th century, there appeared to be no evidence for their existence outside of the Bible. Skeptics cited the missing evidence as evidence that the Bible actually fabricated their existence. This called the reliability of the biblical account into question. Basically the skeptics said, "We can't find any evidence for the Hittite civilization outside of the Bible. This demonstrates that the Bible cannot be trusted as an historical source."
Then, in the 19th and 20th centuries archaeologists hit the jackpot, not only identifying extrabiblical references to the Hittite civilization, but by actually finding and excavating the ancient Hittite capital city of Hattusa (modern day Boðazköy in northern Turkey). The rediscovery of this ancient civilization vindicated the Biblical record.
Evidence for the Hittites was bolstered in Egypt with the discovery of a treaty between Pharaoh Ramses II and the Hittite Empire. Originally written on silver tablets in Heliopolis and Hattusus, a huge copy was found on a wall of the great Karnak Temple. After years of fighting between the Hittites and the Egyptians, Ramses II and the Hittite king settled on a treaty whereby the territory of Syria and Canaan would be divided between them.
King David
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/the-house-of-david-inscription-faq.htm
The House of David Inscription (also known as the "Tel Dan Inscription") was discovered in 1994 during excavations at the ancient city of Dan. It is considered by many to be the first reference to the "House of David" discovered outside the biblical text.
The House of David Inscription appears to be a fragment of a victory monument erected by a king of Damascus (Aram) during the 9th century BC, some 250 years after King David's reign. The fragment specifically mentions victories over a "king of Israel" (probably Joram) and a king of the "House of David" (probably Ahaziah).
The House of David Inscription (Tel Dan Inscription) currently resides in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem.
Ancient Roman Crucifixion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Archaeological_evidence_for_ancient_crucifixion
Despite the fact that the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, as well as other sources, refer to the crucifixion of thousands of people by the Romans, there is only a single archaeological discovery of a crucified body dating back to the Roman Empire around the time of Jesus which was discovered in Jerusalem in 1968. It is not necessarily surprising that there is only one such discovery, because a crucified body was usually left to decay on the cross and therefore would not be preserved. The only reason these archaeological remains were preserved was because family members gave this particular individual a customary burial.
The remains were found accidentally in an ossuary with the crucified man’s name on it, 'Yehohanan, the son of Hagakol'. Prof. Nicu Haas, an anthropologist at the Hebrew University Medical School in Jerusalem, examined the ossuary and discovered that it contained a heel bone with a nail driven through its side, indicating that the man had been crucified. The position of the nail relative to the bone indicates that the feet have been nailed to the cross from their side, not from their front; various opinions have been proposed as to whether they were both nailed together to the front of the cross or one on the left side, one on the right side. The point of the nail had olive wood fragments on it indicating that he was crucified on a cross made of olive wood or on an olive tree. Since olive trees are not very tall, this would suggest that the condemned was crucified at eye level. Additionally, a piece of acacia wood was located between the bones and the head of the nail, presumably to keep the condemned from freeing his foot by sliding it over the nail. His legs were found broken, perhaps as a means of hastening his death as described in John 19:31-35. It is thought that, since in Roman times iron was expensive, the nails were removed from the dead body to cut the costs, which would help to explain why only one has been found, as the tip of the nail in question was bent in such a way that it couldn't be removed.
Prof. Haas had also identified a scratch on the inner surface of the right radius bone of the forearm, close to the wrist. He deduced from the form of the scratch, as well as from the intact wrist bones, that a nail had been driven into the forearm at that position.
-
The Hittite civilization
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/hittite-faq.htm
King David
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/the-house-of-david-inscription-faq.htm
Ancient Roman Crucifixion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Archaeological_evidence_for_ancient_crucifixion
Right on time, Loco.
Here's a statement about the Belshazzar account:
"The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling because it employs the name Belshazzar, because it attributes royal power to Belshazzar, and because it recognizes that a dual rulership existed in the kingdom.” - R. P. Dougherty, Yale 1929.
-
The "religious crowd" wants to keep their rights as American citizens to vote on public policy as they see fit, provided such does NOT clash with the US constitution. Their rights don't go away, simply because homosexuals want to shack and pretend to play husband and wife.
The religious folks want to couch their bigotry in religious absolutism. That way they are inviolable.
That's the cowards way.
DEAD WRONG, Decker.
A prime example would be the statements of one R. P. Doughtery, a one-time Biblical skeptic, who upon learning about the Nabonidus Chronicles (an archaeological find, confirming the existence and the status of Belshazza (a figure that Biblical skeptics deemed was fictititious) went on to say that next to the cuneiform evidence itself, the most accurate depiction of Neo-Babylon can be found in the BOOK OF DANIEL (part of the Bible).
Time and time again, Biblical skeptics have claimed that events and people of the Bible were false or fictitious, only to be royally embarrassed, when the historical and archaeological data supports the Biblical account. Usually, I let Loco handle that portion of listing the numerous examples of such.
The Bible is not a history book any more than the Iliad. Homer mentions Greece and Troy? Maybe I'm wrong. I don't think so.
Are Hamlet or MacBeth or Othello also historical tomes of academic import?
No. Grasp that fact and you're on your McWay to a truer life.
That "bit of information" was little more than slapstick comedy, born of some sort of frustration on your end.
You don't believe in the Devil?
You don't believe in the HOly Ghost?
You don't believe Christ exorcised demons?
You don't believe Christ was the living dead?
What kind of a Christian are you?
-
The religious folks want to couch their bigotry in religious absolutism. That way they are inviolable.
That's the cowards way.
Nobody is couching anything and there's hardly any cowardice involved. The simple fact is, regarding the issue, people have the right to define marriage as they see fit. They've done so, within the law and the confines of the US Constitution. The fact that you don't like it and are blubbering like a baby (because of it) makes precious little difference.
The Bible is not a history book any more than the Iliad. Homer mentions Greece and Troy? Maybe I'm wrong. I don't think so.
Are Hamlet or MacBeth or Othello also historical tomes of academic import?
You're as wrong as two left shoes, regarding the Bible. Your pitiful attempts to denigrate the Bible, to prop your tirade is laughable, to say the least.
No. Grasp that fact and you're on your McWay to a truer life.
You don't believe in the Devil?
You don't believe in the HOly Ghost?
You don't believe Christ exorcised demons?
You don't believe Christ was the living dead?
What kind of a Christian are you?
When you actually start posting some facts, business will pick up.
-
Nobody is couching anything and there's hardly any cowardice involved. The simple fact is, regarding the issue, people have the right to define marriage as they see fit. They've done so, within the law and the confines of the US Constitution. The fact that you don't like it and are blubbering like a baby (because of it) makes precious little difference.
The basis of your conclusion that gays shouldn't marry is crazy. You shouldn't be allowed to decide the fate of other americans when you believe in demons and god personified...not to mention the notions of heaven and hell.
Why don't I just get some schizophrenics to pass judgment on your lifestyle. I mean just look at church.
You're as wrong as two left shoes, regarding the Bible. Your pitiful attempts to denigrate the Bible, to prop your tirade is laughable, to say the least.
Good point.
Why have history texts or science books or sociology texts when we can just read the bible?
The bible is a collection of stories with Giants, demons, angels and devils.
That's all real.
It's history.
When you actually start posting some facts, business will pick up.
You don't believe in angels?
What's really sad is that your decadent beliefs hurt people. Not in the fucking 'next life'...but here and now.
So thanks to you and your superstitious beliefs, real people are really suffering.
Thanks.
-
The basis of your conclusion that gays shouldn't marry is crazy. You shouldn't be allowed to decide the fate of other americans when you believe in demons and god personified...not to mention the notions of heaven and hell.
Why don't I just get some schizophrenics to pass judgment on your lifestyle. I mean just look at church.
Good point.
Why have history texts or science books or sociology texts when we can just read the bible?
The bible is a collection of stories with Giants, demons, angels and devils.
That's all real.
It's history.
You don't believe in angels?
What's really sad is that your decadent beliefs hurt people. Not in the fucking 'next life'...but here and now.
So thanks to you and your superstitious beliefs, real people are really suffering.
Thanks.
I was going to post a video as a punctuation mark to this, ...but thankfully, it's gone from YouTube. Good thing too.
-
The basis of your conclusion that gays shouldn't marry is crazy. You shouldn't be allowed to decide the fate of other americans when you believe in demons and god personified...not to mention the notions of heaven and hell.
Why don't I just get some schizophrenics to pass judgment on your lifestyle. I mean just look at church.
Good point.
Why have history texts or science books or sociology texts when we can just read the bible?
The bible is a collection of stories with Giants, demons, angels and devils.
That's all real.
It's history.
You don't believe in angels?
What's really sad is that your decadent beliefs hurt people. Not in the fucking 'next life'...but here and now.
So thanks to you and your superstitious beliefs, real people are really suffering.
Thanks.
Real people are hardly suffering because of my beliefs. They're suffering largely because of VIOLATIONS of those beliefs (which, at minimum, include six of the Ten Commandments).
Again, when you quit your pitiful anti-Christian blubbering, ripe with silliness but void of substance, and actually post some facts, business will actually pick up.
Loco and I have already chopped your bone-headed claims about the Bible historicity to pieces (and we can do more of that easily, but on a different thread).
Back to the subject at hand, Miss California (who made a second appearance on "Fox and Friends" last week; she may have a job lined up after her reign is over ;D ) got raked over the coals for giving her honest answer to a loaded question.
As I've posted elsewhere, the gay "marriage" bubbas who run (or ran) the Miss CA paegant had a PSA in the works to promote their cause. And the goal was to use Miss CA to promote. But Ms. Prejean ain't buying it and, in fact, (after Hilton's infantile tirade) did some promos for the opposition (National Organization for Marriage, Focus of the Family, etc).
That's why witchhunt started and her family's been raked over the coals. Then came all the flap about her pics (which were PG-13, at worst), pushed to the hilt by one of the paegant directors, Shanna Moakler (who, ironically enough got butt-naked and did softcore porn for Playboy).
But, the Donald got the final say, and since he made it clear that he had no intention of stripping Prejean of her crown, Moakler hauled off and quit.
All's well that ends well.
- Miss California is still just that (she becomes Miss USA, if the current title holder, whoever the heck she is, wins Miss Universe).
- Prop. 8 stays put.
- And, the PC mask finally comes off, exposing gay activists for the anything-but-"tolerant" folk they really are.
-
MCWAY,
Tolerance is only for people who agree with them. :)
-
MCWAY,
Tolerance is only for people who agree with them. :)
AMEN to that!!
Miss California can certainly testify to that statement.
-
AMEN to that!!
Miss California can certainly testify to that statement.
Liberals are typically the least tolerant people I have ever met.
-
Real people are hardly suffering because of my beliefs. They're suffering largely because of VIOLATIONS of those beliefs (which, at minimum, include six of the Ten Commandments).
That's insane.
Again, when you quit your pitiful anti-Christian blubbering, ripe with silliness but void of substance, and actually post some facts, business will actually pick up.
Loco and I have already chopped your bone-headed claims about the Bible historicity to pieces (and we can do more of that easily, but on a different thread).
Harry Potter has scenes in England.
Harry Potter books are books of geography and HIstory. Never mind the witches and warlocks.
It is history.
Your defense of the Bible as a book of history just shows me one more reason why your grasp is insane.
Why Homer's The Odyssey is also history!
Telemachus, Odysseus's son, is only a month old when Odysseus sets out for Troy to fight a war he wants no part of.[5] At the point where the Odyssey begins, ten years after the end of the ten-year Trojan War, Telemachus is twenty and is sharing his absent father’s house on the island of Ithaca with his mother Penelope and a crowd of 108 boisterous young men, "the Suitors", whose aim is to persuade Penelope that her husband is dead and that she should marry one of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey
I liked the part about the giant Cyclops.
That reminds me of David and Goliath.
I just wish there were more angels in the Odyssey.
Don't you?
Back to the subject at hand, Miss California (who made a second appearance on "Fox and Friends" last week; she may have a job lined up after her reign is over ;D ) got raked over the coals for giving her honest answer to a loaded question.
As I've posted elsewhere, the gay "marriage" bubbas who run (or ran) the Miss CA paegant had a PSA in the works to promote their cause. And the goal was to use Miss CA to promote. But Ms. Prejean ain't buying it and, in fact, (after Hilton's infantile tirade) did some promos for the opposition (National Organization for Marriage, Focus of the Family, etc).
She's a hero.
That's why witchhunt started and her family's been raked over the coals. Then came all the flap about her pics (which were PG-13, at worst), pushed to the hilt by one of the paegant directors, Shanna Moakler (who, ironically enough got butt-naked and did softcore porn for Playboy).
Being a believer in angels and devils, are you speaking literally here with your term 'witchhunt'?
But, the Donald got the final say, and since he made it clear that he had no intention of stripping Prejean of her crown, Moakler hauled off and quit.
All's well that ends well.
- Miss California is still just that (she becomes Miss USA, if the current title holder, whoever the heck she is, wins Miss Universe).
- Prop. 8 stays put.
- And, the PC mask finally comes off, exposing gay activists for the anything-but-"tolerant" folk they really are.
Tolerance of bigots is no tolerance at all.
It's just relativism.
You and drkaje just can't seem to grasp that concept.
I am clearly stating that your bigoted ideas are inferior and not worth the time of day if they (and you) did not hurt other people. But they/you do.
That's the exact opposite of relativism.
-
Liberals are bigots themselves
-
Liberals are bigots themselves
Under these facts, how? Please explain yourself.
-
Under these facts, how? Please explain yourself.
Liberals typically demean any of the following:
1. Conservative minorities as "uncle toms"
2. southern white people as all racists and rednecks
3. Evangelicals
4. Ethnic whites
5. Pro-life supporters
6. Mormons
7. Poor whites
-
Liberals typically demean any of the following:
1. Conservative minorities as "uncle toms"
2. southern white people as all racists and rednecks
3. Evangelicals
4. Ethnic whites
5. Pro-life supporters
6. Mormons
7. Poor whites
You forgot trailer trash.
-
Liberals typically demean any of the following:
1. Conservative minorities as "uncle toms"
2. southern white people as all racists and rednecks
3. Evangelicals
4. Ethnic whites
5. Pro-life supporters
6. Mormons
7. Poor whites
That's a list all right. But what does it have to do with the facts at hand? If a person holds a bigoted view, such as 'the bible says gay marriage is wrong therefore gay marriage should not be permitted', isn't it incumbent on 'liberals' to point that out and also point out the irrational foundation of such a belief?
-
That's a list all right. But what does it have to do with the facts at hand? If a person holds a bigoted view, such as 'the bible says gay marriage is wrong therefore gay marriage should not be permitted', isn't it incumbent on 'liberals' to point that out and also point out the irrational foundation of such a belief?
Perhaps, but liberals who engage in the same behavior that they criticize others for typically are never themselves open to ANY facts showing the fallacy of their views on certain subjects.
-
Perhaps, but liberals who engage in the same behavior that they criticize others for typically are never themselves open to ANY facts showing the fallacy of their views on certain subjects.
What is this Conservative obsession with fallouses? :-X
-
Miss California Shocker: Mom's Gay Affair!
Beauty queen Carrie Prejean has become the poster girl for opponents of gay marriage. But in a shocking exclusive, Star has learned that the reigning Miss California USA's own mother, Francine Coppola, was entangled in a steamy lesbian love affair right up until the night Carrie placed second in the Miss USA contest!
http://www.starmagazine.com/news/15614
lOOK OUT!
More rumors are circulating around Miss California and this time it is "all in the family" as the gay card was once allegedly played by her parents, according to the Advocate.
Apparently, during the rock n' roll 80's, when Miss California's folks were amidst an ugly divorce, they allegedly each tossed around the gay card with intended malice.
According to TMZ, divorce documents unveil that Carrie Prejean's mother accused her father of being gay-in a parking lot in front of tons of people-including their own children.
When mama Prejean remarried years later, she claimed her ex-husband had talked to the kids about their new stepfather being gay. Papa Prejean allegedly told the kids, "All men with mustaches are gay."
http://www.shewired.com/article.cfm?id=22636
No wonder this poor girl is deluded. Look at the broken home she came from.
-
Miss California Shocker: Mom's Gay Affair!
Beauty queen Carrie Prejean has become the poster girl for opponents of gay marriage. But in a shocking exclusive, Star has learned that the reigning Miss California USA's own mother, Francine Coppola, was entangled in a steamy lesbian love affair right up until the night Carrie placed second in the Miss USA contest!
http://www.starmagazine.com/news/15614
lOOK OUT!
More rumors are circulating around Miss California and this time it is "all in the family" as the gay card was once allegedly played by her parents, according to the Advocate.
Apparently, during the rock n' roll 80's, when Miss California's folks were amidst an ugly divorce, they allegedly each tossed around the gay card with intended malice.
According to TMZ, divorce documents unveil that Carrie Prejean's mother accused her father of being gay-in a parking lot in front of tons of people-including their own children.
When mama Prejean remarried years later, she claimed her ex-husband had talked to the kids about their new stepfather being gay. Papa Prejean allegedly told the kids, "All men with mustaches are gay."
http://www.shewired.com/article.cfm?id=22636
No wonder this poor girl is deluded. Look at the broken home she came from.
Key words...RUMORS!!!
Thank you for validating what 333386 has been saying from the start.
You’re relying on a TABLOID, to besmirch the character of Miss California and her family, because they don’t bow down to the left’s sacred cow of gay “marriage”.
This, even by your standards, is just pitiful.
-
Even if they are gay, what does that have to do with her????? Nothing.
The leftist bigots dont realize that they are worse than those they point their fingers at.
-
Even if they are gay, what does that have to do with her????? Nothing.
The leftist bigots dont realize that they are worse than those they point their fingers at.
And, at times, they are their own worst enemies.
The more they keep showing their behinds, figuratively and sometimes (unfortunately) literally, the more people will continue to repeatedly WHIP those behinds at the ballot box.
-
And, at times, they are their own worst enemies.
The more they keep showing their behinds, figuratively and sometimes (unfortunately) literally, the more people will continue to repeatedly WHIP those behinds at the ballot box.
Maybe... definitely not in 2008 though.
-
Maybe... definitely not in 2008 though.
Not in 2008?
As I recall, three marriage amendments passed last year.
Florida's Amendment 2: 62-38
Arizona's Amendment 102: 56-44
and, of course,
California's Proposition 8: 52-48
-
Not in 2008?
As I recall, three marriage amendments passed last year.
Florida's Amendment 2: 62-38
Arizona's Amendment 102: 56-44
and, of course,
California's Proposition 8: 52-48
Yes, and the abortion votes all went more liberal... What's your point?
Gay marriage is the new abortion.
-
Yes, and the abortion votes all went more liberal... What's your point?
Gay marriage is the new abortion.
My point is specifically with gay "marriage". Your claim that they didn't, as I stated to the contrary, get their behinds whipped at the box in 2008 is in accurate.
They lost there, yet again, by an average margin of 57-43 (from those three state elections, alone).
-
My point is specifically with gay "marriage". Your claim that they didn't, as I stated to the contrary, get their behinds whipped at the box in 2008 is in accurate.
They lost there, yet again, by an average margin of 57-43 (from those three state elections, alone).
That's not what your quote said though... You simply said liberals were getting whipped at the ballot box... which is not true.
The gay marriage votes went conservative yes, but liberals didn't even come close to getting beat at the ballot box in 2008. Abortion won as well as most liberal democrats.
Yes, Gay marriage got beat at the ballot box... but that's the only conservative measure that did.
All of the rest got beat handily... Gay marriage will go down too eventually to be honest, but I don't really give a damn about it to be honest. I'm not gay, nor getting married again.
-
That's not what your quote said though... You simply said liberals were getting whipped at the ballot box... which is not true.
The gay marriage votes went conservative yes, but liberals didn't even come close to getting beat at the ballot box in 2008. Abortion won as well as most liberal democrats.
Yes, Gay marriage got beat at the ballot box... but that's the only conservative measure that did.
All of the rest got beat handily... Gay marriage will go down too eventually to be honest, but I don't really give a damn about it to be honest. I'm not gay, nor getting married again.
I was responding to 333386's quote. So, perhaps I should have clarified my statement.
I was, in fact, talking specifically about gay "marriage" supporters (333386 may have talking about liberals, in general, including those folks).
-
I was responding to 333386's quote. So, perhaps I should have clarified my statement.
I was, in fact, talking specifically about gay "marriage" supporters (333386 may have talking about liberals, in general, including those folks).
Fair enough... I agree that currently, gay marriage is definitely something that most voters do not want.