I don't watch Miss USA pageants. But the controversial events of the 2009 Miss USA pageant have made this year's edition worth following.
Celebrity blogger Perez Hilton (a pageant judge) asked the following question to Miss California, Carrie Prejean: "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?"
Prejean responded: "Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you."
Since Prejean offered her answer, Hilton has gone on a tirade. I don't use expletives in my writing, but I will say that he did refer to Prejean as a "B" word and added in an MSNBC interview that when he said the "B" word, he was thinking "C" word.
Perez Hilton only seems to tolerate his own views. Yes, same-sex marriage is a controversial issue. But Hilton was the person who posed the question and opened the can of worms. Prejean merely stood up for what she believed in.
How about a little common sense? Here goes: If judges want to ask politically divisive questions, they shouldn't be offended when they receive politically divisive answers. But anyway, let's move on...
Hilton needs to accept that not everyone shares his views. He believes in same-sex marriage, Prejean doesn't.
But Prejean is not alone. Millions of people share her views. That doesn't make those people offensive or evil. It just means they aren't easily swayed by what Hollywood celebrities and other liberal forces have to say.
Let us always remember... Hilton's status as a glorified Hollywood tag-along does not make him a moral authority. With that said, there's a bigger point to be made... Hilton needs to stop degrading women.
There is no reason to ever call a woman the "B" word or the "C" word. It is both offensive and immature.
When Hilton makes those sorts of comments, the only person who comes off looking like a fool is him. Prejean is handling the whole situation with class. She is showing the country what true Miss USAs should be: women of character and integrity who aren't afraid to be themselves.
I agree, he shouldn't have called her a bitch. That was imature and nasty.
It was also foolish - there's a far more applicable and insulting "B" word to apply here - Bigot.
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Miss California holds the same position on this issue that Barack Obama does. Does that make President Obama a "B" and a "C"?
Posted By: Paul (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM
"But Prejean is not alone. Millions of people share her views. That doesn't make those people offensive or evil. It just means they aren't easily swayed by what Hollywood celebrities or the mainstream media have to say."
And they aren't easily swayed by, say, rights or equality. Millions of people could very likely share the view that black people shouldn't be allowed to marry white people, but it doesn't matter if millions of people agree on something when it's WRONG.
Hilton's a moron, yes, but you don't seem to understand the point of this debate, it's not "Hollywood" vs "Moral beliefs", it's "rights" vs "fictional religious dogma" or simply "ignorance".
Posted By: Shane O Mac (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Factual point: this was the Miss USA, not Miss America pageant.
Posted By: Paul J. Amore (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Shane O Mac,
If marriage is not a unique civil institution to which only a man and a woman may enter, by what logic due you use to discriminate against three adults wanting to marry?
By the way, I will admit to my ignorance but it is possible to have a logical argument against gay marriage without appealing to someone's fictional religious dogma.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynuts (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Could not be a better expression of self-righteous liberal hypocrisy!!
Cry and scream and snivel about freedom - about believing in whatever they feel like - about doing whatever they want without any form of judgment - about saying whatever you want at anytime.
Yet it only applies to them. If someone has an opinion that differs from what they think, they are attacked and called names and censored.
Either there is freedom of expression for everyone or there isn't. Make up your fucking minds.
If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question...
Posted By: Mikel (too lazy to log in) (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 12:50 PM
So everyone who criticizes Miss California on this issue must also admit that Barack Obama is an ignorant bigot as well. Good to know.
Posted By: Red5 (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Hey Ashish, think this column got posted to the wrong section of the website by mistake. Just a heads-up.
Posted By: Scotty H (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 01:02 PM
A Bigot?....when someone (or millions) don't agree with your view they are labeled/viewed a bigot, racists, homophobe or some other PC term that suits your agenda...What about the other persons view? Are they not entitled to have a view different than yours? You are a liberal idiot.
Posted By: J (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 01:06 PM
It plain bulling from a minority that wants to dominate what the majority says. Kudos to Miss America for standing up what she believes in. Given the hostile reaction one could think that we have turned into communist Russia. It’s not that she engaged in gay bashing. She said “…its great that America has choices” but she believes in traditional values. Is that a crime or an insult? Gays and other minority groups need to get a life, the world does not revolve around them.
Posted By: hunter53 (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 01:14 PM
Perez just because you are openly gay doesn't give you the right to name call. I mean outside of being ugly as a person who are you anyhow. If you want equality try to act mature enough to handle the responsibility of receiving an answer you desreved for asking it.
Posted By: bob (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 01:17 PM
You know, I have two big problems with Hilton's question and subsequent hissy fit. The first is it's a bullshit question. This is a Miss USA pageant, not a political debate. The question was a powder keg, if she would have said "I support gay marriage," she would have pissed off a lot of people, and by saying she didn't support it she pissed off a bunch of people. What kind of question is that for a beauty pageant anyway? Did the other contestants have to answer questions concerning abortion? illegal immigration? gun control? birth control? She was screwed no matter how she answered, and the comity approving the questions should not have allowed it because of that fact.
The second problem I have with this situation is Prejean's answer was her opinion. She didn't sound all that intelligent while answering it, (and I happen to disagree with her opinion) but I think that can be chalked up to her being blindsided by such a lightning rod of a question. The fact that someone can lose or even have her chances hurt in one of these ridiculous, sexist, and objectifying beauty pageants because one of the judges disagrees with a contestant's opinion is ludicrous. Hilton may not like her opinion, but it's not his job as a judge to like or dislike her opinion, but to be objective as possible in assessing her answer, of which she was at a disadvantage when she was asked such a bullshit question in the first place. In addition it wouldn't have been fair if she had said she supports gay marriage and that pleased Hilton and that resulted in her getting the crown.
Posted By: John (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 01:19 PM
Generally speaking, if you say anything that disagrees with liberal dogma, you get attacked, smeared, and destroyed. I mean, look at Pat Shepard's post; he called her a bigot because she disgrees with gay marriage. How does that make her a bigot? She has a different opinion. As far as I know, she doesn't have the power to effect that opinion, thus depriving anyone of anything. It just doesn't work for her, the way interracial marriage doesn't work for some people. Why must you tar her with the epithet "bigot" because she happens to disagree with you. Typical liberal reaction. Paul points out that our prez-o-dent shares Ms. Prejean's view. Does that make HIM a bigot? Your messiah, a bigot? Heaven forbid. Marriage, outside antiquated religious beliefs, is a social contract, and a society should be able to decide what it wants to recognize as acceptable. MOST people are against gay marriage. Not against gays, per se, but against sanctioning aberrant behavior and giving it the same status as what is biologically acceptable. Frankly, I don't give a shit about whether gays can marry or not. It affects me and my family in no way I can understand. I don't think it's a civil rights issue, because it only affects behavior, not what someone is, fundamentally, so to compare it to the black civil rights movement is fallacious. But I hate to see anyone attacked merely for having a rational opinion, shared by the majority of, not only the U.S., but the world. I'm sick of you "good, open-minded liberals" preaching tolerance, but never exercising it. You're supposed to be the people who welcome all beliefs and opinions, when in reality, you eschew, torment, degrade, smear, attack, and humiliate anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow world view. It is YOU who demonstrate all the hallmarks of intolerance, fascism, racism, and discrimination. I'm so happy I'm not one of you, and I'm sure you are, too. God forbid someone with half a brain join your little group.
Posted By: What Big Tent? (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 01:27 PM
If you look at what Prejean actually said, she stated it's great that people have the right, but doesn't agree with it personally. What is wrong with that? You can assert your right to free speech, but you can't require me to AGREE with you. I'm all for legalizing it as a matter of civil rights, but demanding every citizen in America attend the pride parades and celebrate it is extremist and nuts.
For all the crap the right is given about religion (much of it brought on themselves), sometimes I think the left's religion is a sense of moral superiority and demanding apologies and groveling from anyone who dares disagree with them.
"If someone has an opinion that differs from what they think, they are attacked and called names and censored."
Good point Mikel. Whether it's cursing or reflexively using labels like "liberal", there are better ways to make an argument.
"Miss California holds the same position on this issue that Barack Obama does. Does that make President Obama a "B" and a "C"?"
Paul & Red5 I've been asking about that since the campaign. Obama favors separate but equal (civil unions) yet is NEVER taken to task by "progressive" Dems.
AdmChesterMynuts: What logic do YOU use for not allowing three people to marry? That has no direct tie to allowing two men to marry, so the question is irrelevant. The slippery slope argument presents a false choice.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 01:55 PM
It's a simple rule, but it's been reversed from its original intent as the tide of opinion has turned: "Don't ask, don't tell."
Problem is, Perez asked. Perez, you want the truth? You can't handle the truth! B**ch.
Posted By: David (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 01:56 PM
Would it have helped if he had prefaced it with "No offense, but..."? It seems like you can make any bigoted comment as long as you include that. Give me a second while I shed a single tear for her.
Posted By: Rachel (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 02:04 PM
I love these people arguing that some sort of "freedom of thought" position makes her magically *not* a bigot.
Freedom of thought and expression makes her free to think and express bigoted thoughts. It doesn't make them not bigoted.
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 02:05 PM
Hilton's a moron.
Now that we have that out of the way...
What stops 3 people from getting married? Well, Adm, if you want to go that route, I guess we should get rid of two people marrying also. Your argument is complete bullshit, and you know it. What next, the box turtle argument?
Anyone claiming that this isn't like blacks fighting for their civil rights, put on the dunce cap. Especially when you try to make the claim that it's not similar because gays choose to be gay. No, you don't. I have several gay friends, and they all say that if they had the choice, they wouldn't have chosen to be forced to deal with bigots like you. They wouldn't have chosen to be discriminated against. They wouldn't have chosen to be attacked and beaten and killed just because of who they are.
Oh, and I love the ignorant "you get attacked if you disagree with liberal dogma" bullshit response. Yeah, let's pull up some Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Beck, Coulter, Malken, O'Reilly... but of course it's OK when they do it because they're your people, right?
As usual, the Republicans in here are crying and trying to label liberals as something they are not. Yes, you have the right to your little backwards medieval opinions. No one is trying to take them away from you. It's when you try to force us to live by your backwater way of thinking that we speak up. Don't like gay marriage? Fine, don't have one! Don't like the pagans dancing around the Maypole? Don't dance! It's your right! We won't force you to smoke a meat marlboro or dance around the maypole. The problem we have with you is that you're not content with a "you live your life and we'll live ours" mentality. You want to force the rest of us to live by your rules... and when you do that, we're going to push back.
And no, telling you that you are not allowed to force us to live by your rules is not attacking you. Grow up.
Posted By: Scott B (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 02:19 PM
"But I hate to see anyone attacked merely for having a rational opinion, shared by the majority of, not only the U.S., but the world."
Exactly the same argument that once upon a time people gave defending slavery, banning interracial marriage, the right to rape your wife, killing political prisoners, slaughtering conquered nations, torture... Once upon a time the majority of the world thought those things were fine too. Despite that, they were nasty and immoral.
Fascinating to see just how relativist the Right is on this issue. Bring up the right to fire striking workers and damn the cannons fire in favor of an absolute right to property. But bring up pretty much any civil rights issue and suddenly the Right is offended that someone would *dare* demand decent and equal treatment for all.
Oh yeah, forgot, you all are in favor of interracial marriage *now*. The vote for women *now*. Blacks in the military *now*.
Fifty years from now you'll all have conveniently forgotten your current bigotry and be fighting against common decency on a new front, just as you've consistently done in the past.
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 02:28 PM
"There is no reason to ever call a woman the "B" word or the "C" word..."...unless your talking about Anne Coulter or Michelle Malkin. I keed I keed! (Okay I'm not)
Perez Hilton is a bitch. He reminds me of everything I hated about people in High School. Grow the f' up!
Posted By: MydniteSon (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 02:38 PM
Pat, how does her opinion make her a bigot? Is it only because it's different from yours? She never said they shouldn't be granted the right to marry. You could make an argument that THAT statement would be bigoted. She only said SHE didn't agree with it, but that it's great people have choices. YOU choose to not be rational, inclusive, or intelligent, but it's great people have choices.
Posted By: What Big Tent? (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 02:46 PM
Pat and ScottB are perfect examples of the hypocrisy of the left. THEIR opinions are OK. MY opinion is somehow backward and medieval. Whatever, guys. Have fun and live your lives. I'll do the same, and we can agree to disagree. Be gay all you want, as long as you stop trying to convince me it's 'normal', and attacking me for MY opinion. It's not, and if you were to speak this way in person, you'd probably be carrying an asswhipping. Medieval enough for you? Yeah, I know succumbing to violence is the last resort of the ignorant, but when dealing with ignorant fascists like you, it seems to be the only way. Anyhow, that's all I have to say on the subject. Be who you want to be, but allow other people the freedom to do the same.
Posted By: What Big Tent? (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 02:56 PM
This guy expressed his opinion about this girls opinion, isn't that ok? The girls opinion is that gay people shouldn't have equal rights, that opinion seems more ignorant to me. It's sooooo funny to me that so many people are saying such harsh things about a guy because he said harsh things!!!
"Given the hostile reaction one could think that we have turned into communist Russia. "
thats what I was thinking when hearing the angry right.
Posted By: L (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 03:01 PM
It's the dynamic tension between authoritarian "all the responsibilities and none of the rights" conservatives and empty-headed "all the rights with none of the responsibilities" liberals that keeps the country moving forward, and I, for one, think it's a beautiful thing.
Posted By: Alfred E. Neuman (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 03:02 PM
I am a Liberal Democrat who believes in civil unions. That said, I think that Ms. California was the Winner of the debate, through her stunning advantage regarding Class. In calling her the b and/or c word, Perez is beyond obnoxious. If he wants to further the cause of gay marriage, he really needs to shut up.
And I wouldn't blame the GOP if they are already considering Carrie Prejean as a candidate. They could do a lot worse.
Posted By: John Bryans Fontaine (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 03:19 PM
bigot   /ˈbɪgət/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [big-uht] Show IPA
–noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Wouldn't this by definition make Perez a bigot? Perez doesn't sound very tolerant of opinions differing from his own.
Posted By: natalie (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 03:32 PM
This guy is a complete idiot. Her answer just said what she believes in and she didn't even answer it in any offensive manner. The one thing she didn't do was give an answer at the end. She didn't say if the states should or shouldn't allow gay marriage. If the guy is going to ask a question this contraversial then he shouldn't be surprised of any answer that he would get. It's not like he was at Miss Gay America or anything. Whoever picked the gay pompas judge was an idiot to.
Posted By: Amanda Miller (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 03:41 PM
This article nailed it perfectly
Don't ask a question if you're not ready for an honest answer to it
Posted By: JP (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 03:42 PM
I would give the "B" and the "C" word and even the "F" word to Perez Gayton. You are not worth to be the judge of any thing. And I get mad with whomever chose him as judge.
Posted By: J. Nguyen (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 03:59 PM
A bigot is someone who has a prejudice against a particular group. Therefore it is not clear from her pageant response (I haven't seen anything but that) if she is a bigot or not. Her reason could be that it would really upset her sick dad, so she doesn't want to see gay people be able to marry. What I'm getting at is that from that response, you can't know her rational. If in some later interview she said that she things gay marriage is wrong because she disagrees with homosexuality, then she's a bigot.
We have put an emotional attachment to the word bigot that doesn't belong there. It is neither positive or negative. It is descriptive. The real debate is whether she is prejudice against gay people or not.
As for gay marriage itself, it is inevitable. If people want to keep fighting, well, that's your right, but you will lose. With every generation, the stigma of homosexuality lessens a bit, and it would take something extremely radical happening to reverse that. Even when I visit Kentucky (I was born there, I live in California now), most of the people there only have a general distaste for homosexuality. When I was a child, I remember a lot more vehemence against it.
Posted By: xjuggernaughtx (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 04:07 PM
Ok...here are my thoughts on the “gay marriage” subject…
First, please STOP referring to your "civil rights" as the core of this issue. Nobody is attempting to deny any sect of society of any rights. This is NOT the same as being African-American, Hispanic, Asian…so stop making everyone feel like their being racist…gayness is NOT a race…it’s an orientation. When I apply for a job, I don’t see “Select one…African-American, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian…oh yeah…or Gay”. In addition to that, there are rights that the gay community has over straight unmarried couples, such as domestic partner benefits at most major companies, yet I don’t hear these same people in the gay community speaking out against PREFERENTIAL treatment….so you don’t want to be treated differently unless it is beneficial…interesting.
Second, if it is “rights” these individuals are looking for, what is wrong with having a separate but equal “civil union” with ALL the same legal aspects (legal, financial, etc.) as a traditional marriage…a true 1 for 1 comparison except in name? I’ll tell you why, because these same individuals in the gay community are NOT interested in fairness…they are interested in forcing the majority of this country to accept their CHOICE in lifestyle (I’ll go more into “choice” later). This is about parasitically embedding themselves in ALL aspects of society…especially where it is not welcome…“You will accept us whether you like it or not”. I’m in full favor of a “civil union”…that way (in 50 years or so) society as a whole can gather statistical information on the success/failure rate of same sex unions…which would be impossible if “marriage” was used to encompass all unions.
Third, I recall (back in the 70s and 80s) when most, if not all, in the gay community referred to their lifestyle as a “preference”. Of course, in the 90s this was changed to “orientation” because it became indefensible to explain why one would choose (which “preference” implies) a same sex partner over one of the opposite sex. This convenient change in label does not change what many still see as a choice…not some embedded biological code that “forces” the choice.
Finally, I feel the majority in this country wants to see the traditional institution of “marriage” maintained. I don’t see anything wrong with that. It isn’t a racist position (which again would not apply because being gay is not a race). Is it narrow minded...if you want to think so…you have that right. Marriage, to many, was defined long before this country existed…whether biblical (which is the basis for my belief), or legal. Societies throughout history have established rules for themselves which help promote stability and longevity. Leave “marriage” to straights…and you can have “civil unions”...that sounds
Posted By: BobbyM (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 04:11 PM
"If marriage is not a unique civil institution to which only a man and a woman may enter, by what logic due you use to discriminate against three adults wanting to marry?"
Because marriage can still (and will probably always) be a civil institution from which only TWO people can enter. Repeat again for those of us that lack frontal lobes, a PERSON, and ANOTHER person. The fact that you can't differentiate between allowing gays to marry and allowing more than two people (and also I assume, animals in your mind) to marry makes me think that you probably should never operate heavy machinery.
Posted By: Shane O Mac (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 04:22 PM
Natalie, that definition makes almost every "liberal" a bigot. I am a gay man. I used to vote Democrat in every election, until I realized what they are. "Liberals" are so much more hypocritical than conservatives. If a conservative doesn't like what you stand for, they'll say so. A liberal will preach tolerance, yet ruthlessly attack anything they disagree with. Now, I disagree with Ms. Prejean's opinion, but I respect her right to have it. As strange as it sounds, I respect her so much more than someone like Perez Hilton, who claims to be 'standing up for gay rights', but it's his brand of flaming homosexuality and obnoxious rhetoric that makes people hate us. I have lots of straight friends, oddly enough, mostly conservative, who don't give a damn about what goes on in my bedroom. All my liberal friends...well that seems to be all they want to talk about. Sex is what I do, not who I am. I've felt much more welcomed by conservatives than liberals. Weird, huh? Much like Dick Cheney hurts his cause every time he opens his mouth, Perez Hilton hurts the cause of gay rights whenever he opens his. There *are* gay conservatives in the world, and I'm proud to be one of them. Frankly, I'm ashamed and embarassed by most of my more liberal 'allies'. I'm so happy you posted this story.
Posted By: Beefcake (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 04:29 PM
Adm-
"If marriage is not a unique civil institution to which only a man and a woman may enter, by what logic due you use to discriminate against three adults wanting to marry?"
It's funny, I raised a similar question in another thread, and before you know it, I had been accused of advocating fornication with goats. Funny world we live in.
Shock and Scott B -
"What logic do YOU use for not allowing three people to marry? That has no direct tie to allowing two men to marry, so the question is irrelevant. The slippery slope argument presents a false choice."
"What stops 3 people from getting married? Well, Adm, if you want to go that route, I guess we should get rid of two people marrying also. Your argument is complete bullshit, and you know it. What next, the box turtle argument?"
Ok, based on the similarity of your responses I'm assuming you've both read up on techniques for countering this sort of assertion. So let me get something out on the table right now:
I am 100% in support of gay marriage.
So, please, understand that when I ask my forthcoming question it is not because I am trying in some way to argue against or debunk gay marriage, and I also am aware that, historically, this question is used for that purpose.
So the question is, as you can guess, what is the logical, secular argument against polygamous (or polyandrous) marriage?
I honestly want to know, because I want to hold a fully defensible, secular opinion on this matter. The interspecies and incestuous "Box Turtle" arguments truly are reductio ad absurdum fallacies. We have scientific, biological reasons why those sorts of unions are, and should remain, verboten. However, I cannot seem to bring my head around on polygamous and polyandrous unions being of the same stripe. Many of the same civil rights arguments would seem to apply: hospital visitation, emergency medical decisions, custody rights, inheritance rights, etc. So on what ethical grounds does opposing marriage to multiple partners rest?
I was discussing this with friends the other day, and we weren't able to come to any solid conclusions. The best anyone could come up with was that it would create a literal nightmare for our income tax system, but that seemed kind of hollow. I even joked that polygamous and polyandrous marriage rights will be the hot-button civil rights issue of the 22nd century. Except I'm not sure I'm wrong...heh.
So, any thoughts?
Posted By: lol (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 04:37 PM
Perez Hilton is incredibly wrong in this situation. He is obviously wrong for insulting the woman needlessly. He is also wrong for getting upset at her answer... as her comparative-non-answer is actually more in-line with Hilton's views than not.
The question was "Do you think the other 46 states should follow suit?". She responded that she loves the fact that this country allows you to chose one way or the other, and that /PERSONALLY/ she thinks marriage is between a man and a women. She never said the other states shouldn't follow suit; she said that it's great that we have a choice and that she doesn't see gays being together as married. There is a HUGE difference between "I disagree with gay marriage" and "I don't think gays should be allowed to marry.
"If marriage is not a unique civil institution to which only a man and a woman may enter, by what logic due you use to discriminate against three adults wanting to marry?" - Posted By: AdmChesterMynuts
You don't have to "discriminate" against anything. Marriage, for the purpose of this conversation, is a transferal of certain legal rights to one person. There's no big difference between transferal of rights to a man and transferal of rights to a woman. There is, however, a big difference between transferal of rights from one person to another and transferal of rights to a group.
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 04:49 PM
Pat Shepard: Legalizing gay marriage across the country is inevitable, while history tells us eradicating ignorance is impossible. My issue with Perez Hilton is he cornered a young woman on a volatile subject who didn't agree to talk about it and didn't have the option to pass. Rather than lie she stated how she feels. Having gone to a Catholic high school (despite not being Catholic) I can tell you they are taught that the SOLE purpose of marriage is procreation, and numerous other denominations believe the same. According to her beliefs gay marriage serves no purpose so she doesn't support it, yet thinks it's "great" people can choose. Disagree? Fine, so do I. But there's a difference between voicing rebuttal to hate speech and dragging an opinion out of someone for the designed purpose of berating them for it. Unless that girl is using her sash to assemble an anti-gay marriage rally, I don't care what she thinks.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 04:50 PM
Thank you Miss California. I admire you for your willingness to speak you conviction. As for perez hilton I hope this ends your career.
Posted By: wilson (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 04:59 PM
@ lol
Just as my two cents, I don't think that an argument against polyamorous marriage exists. I personally don't see a good reason not to let them marry. I can think of a lot of good LEGAL reason, as it gets messy with divorces, inheritances, and taxes as you said before. But if we believe in freedom, why not?
As for the slippery slope people, I would just prefer that we cross those bridges when we get there. Why let fear of something else stop us from something now? The public will hold a referendum down the road on beastiality or polyamorous marriage. It is a red herring for people do dangle this stuff out as though the threat of it somehow makes gay marriage too dangerous to allow.
Posted By: xjuggernaughtx (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 05:16 PM
It doesn't make her evil or offensive. It makes her an ignorant person who has no grasp of how our constitution works. Inalienable rights, all men created equal, separation of church and state, etc. The government could never force a church/temple/etc to perform a gay marriage, but it has no right itself to deny any pair of consenting adults who show up at town hall for a marriage license. Denying homosexuals marriage rights, is the same as saying Muslims can't vote. Unconstitutional.
Posted By: Bavitz (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 05:54 PM
I don't see anything wrong with Gay marriage and I'm for it. However, I don't see how being against it should be a mark against being Miss America.
Posted By: Drew (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 06:23 PM
Perez should have never ask such a question in the first place and then he got upset with her answer. Perez needs to get a life and not get so upset with someone's views. I think he's scores should removed from the contest. If he was hoping to embarrass Ms Ca, the embarrassment is actually on him.
Posted By: Toni (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 06:28 PM
Well said, Bavitz.
Posted By: xjuggernaughtx (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 06:36 PM
There is a certain type of person - call them the "bully whiner". When they try to bully someone and find that their intended target has the 'guts' to fight back, they find something in the situation to whine about. The idiot Mario Lavanderia (Perez) tried to bully a 21 year old girl in a very public forum. She stood up to him. Then he whines that the pageant should not be a forum for politics. There are some people who are so stupid they don't even know they are stupid. He is not doing the gay rights efforts any good. Time to relegate him to the trash heap. Maybe if everyone just ignores him, he'll go away.
Posted By: guest (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 06:42 PM
For years now all the people like Perez Hilton have been screaming at the rest of us to be "tolerant" of them - their lifestyle - their BELIEFS; yet, when faced with the flip side of the coin it is apparent that the "tolerance" he wants is only a one-way street........how dare us disagree with his opinions.
Complete thumbs up to Ms. Prejean on her standing upon her beliefs even though it cost dearly. Integrity is one of the greatest qualities and she has shown us that.
Another note, just what the hell was a gay/homosoexual intolerant man doing as a judge of women in a beauty contest? He obviously couldn't be impartial in his judging ability and it's sad to see he was allowed a podium for his childish perversive views.
Posted By: K Michael Caruthers (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 06:50 PM
It's nice to see this turned into a political debate. Truth be told, this is a simple case of a minority trying to force his/her opinion on someone who disagrees. Perez Hilton seems to be an EXTREMELY unintelligent homosexual. Most of my gay friends tend to be on the educated side. I'm sure they're not happy to have this idiot as a poster child for same sex marriage.
That said. I disagree with same sex marriages. Much like Ms California, it isn't how I was raised. My religion clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman. In the old testimant you'll find the phrase 'A man shall not lay with a man as he should a woman'. I'm not free of sin, but I do know what my religion tells me on this matter.
Now.. I said nothing about barring gays or lesbians from marrying. Ms California didn't, either. She simply stated her opinion. Anyone who says she's ingorant for that opinion or makes comments against her character really needs to look in the mirror.
Conservatives, Liberals.. there are WAY too many radicals. Here's an idea. Go out and do YOUR job well before you tell others how to do their job. Raise your kids before telling others how to raise their children. Make yourself a better person prior to attempting to change other people. It would make for a better society.
I know.. sounds logical. Sorry
Posted By: Brad (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 06:58 PM
I am behind miss california,I believe you will get rewarded from GOD. I feel sorry for perez hilton, he does not know GOD and will pray for him.Their is a judgement day coming and he will remember this answer for erenity.
Posted By: sylvia (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 07:32 PM
Look, come on, all opinions aren't created equal. I'm not saying anything about this particular debate except that I think 1) Perez Hilton was dumb, and continues to be, 2) the contestant has a view I strongly disagree with, but I don't think beauty contests shouldn't be decided by social issues value judgments.
But, no, you are not perfectly entitled to your opinion whatever it is. You can be entitled to your opinion no matter how ill informed and foolish it is, I have no problem with that. When your opinions are harmful to others, you're not entitled to them. You wouldn't be entitled to think black people are dumb, for example, and you wouldn't be applauded for having the guts to say that one on national TV.
Posted By: Andrew Tobolowsky (Registered) on April 23, 2009 at 08:02 PM
Andrew Tobolowsky said:
"You wouldn't be entitled to think black people are dumb, for example, and you wouldn't be applauded for having the guts to say that one on national TV."
I think you've said that a little too strongly for me to agree with. I think people are entitled to hold whatever views they want, including insane views like "Jews should be incinerated" or "All Fags molest little boys." However when they start publicly espousing those views the *correct* thing to do is call them out for the nasty human beings they are.
And that's what I expect, indeed morally demand, even from those whose ethical evaluations differ from mine. If someone *really* thinks abortion is murder, they damned well better be troubled by the fact I think it should be legal and they'd better be making it absolutely clear that they think I'm supporting something evil.
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 08:49 PM
I disagree with Miss Californias views, and I'm all for gays rights to marry.
But for me the issue is Hilton basically being unprofessional and rude. So what if he didn't like the answer. Why ask the question if you're going to piss on the answer you personally don't agree with?
And something as moronic as a beauty contest doesn't seem like the logical setting to raise such an important issue in the first place. Its mindless "entertainment", not politics.
But like I said, I agree with Hilton's view on the matter, but, geez, come on...
Posted By: Earl (Guest) (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 08:57 PM
How is it that we now have no freedom to believe? Are you telling me that if I don't think along the same lines as a homosexual then he has the right to prevent my promotion? Does free speech only apply to those who agree with me? How many times can we all act as if everything is "hunky-dory"? Does the majority of Americans really believe this country is heading in the right direction? If I quote scripture from the Bible - as is my right - am I to believe that MY speech can be denounced as hate speech. I'm sorry, but whether it is right for me to do what you would have me do or what God would have me do, you be the judge. We have all witnessed that a Christian woman no longer has the right to run for Miss America. Or at the least, to be considered for the crown. This is STILL the America that was built on prayer to a specific God; the Lord Jesus Christ. I pray that this note is not considered "hate speech" so that my right to free speech and the rights of others to hear it are not foundationally & constitutionally burned before it can be witnessed.
Thank you Miss Prejean for not compromising your God,your values, or your morals. How refreshing and inspiring it is to see a young woman still practicing American freedom that God has blessed us with.
Posted By: guest (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 09:09 PM
@Pat
Stop showing your ignorance by comparing gays to black/jew people, just as you will not be allowed to enter lady's room if you are a man (if you are or admit you are). Denying you from entering lady's room doesn't mean denying your right to restroom.
BTW, when you find whatever B word for Ms. CA, then you will eat that word down your throat finally. Period.
Posted By: wj (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 09:20 PM
Mr./Ms. P. Hilton needs to go away!! He should never have been a judge at any event other that involving gays like himself. If I could kick him off Planet Earth he would have been gone yesterday. His opinions/thoughts don't amount to a hill of beans.
Go crawl in a hole and die you slime ball, waste of human flesh!!
Posted By: Rogar (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 09:23 PM
I think that alicia jacobs should get black balled for her comment about how she could made miss california 51 runner up what a loser, also the comment that perez hilton calling her a dumb bitch, he should get black balled has well, if I was miss california I would get a lawyer and sues his ass for slander and other things
Posted By: Guest#9831 (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 09:53 PM
Im sick of people who hide their bigotry behind the bible, if you dislike gay people, just say it. Be brave enough to stand behind your views, dont bring God into it. If homosexuality was that big of a deal to God, wouldnt Jesus have spoken about it?
And she has the right to free speech, if she wants to say it, good for her, but we do not have to reward stupiditiy and ignorance...
Posted By: elry (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 10:27 PM
I also like how the Republicans continue to play the victim card, with the whole "oh those mean liberals, if you say something they dont like they attack you."
Pot. kettle.
Posted By: elry (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Why is one a bigot when they have a different opinion? Wouldn't that make Perez Hilton a bigot? Perez wants everyone to think and feel as he does...or else! The greatest thing about Perez Hilton is his inability to have a child...then everyone would be at risk of another bigoted "A" spewing venom. He would've been right at home in Nazi Germany...until he was found out anyway. Grow up you little pervert.
Posted By: AJ (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 10:39 PM
'Wouldn't Jesus have spoken about it?'
He did: 'But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery' (Mat 5:28) - Do you think He left homosexuals out because it slipped his mind? He did not need to mention it directly because it was already defined as a sin in the Old Testament.
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on April 23, 2009 at 11:24 PM
first for the person who asked who hired this judge, it was donald trump, although he wasn't hired per se, but perez hilton asked, 2nd somebody should remind perez hilton that not once but twice in california, they voted to upheld traditonal maariage, and 3rd perez failed to mention, that so far only one of the 4 states vermont, has gay marriage been dictated by the courts, as vermont was the first state to actually have the legisalture pass it, 4 he mentioned her answer was the worst in pageant histroy, hey perez u must of missed miss south carolina who butchered the english language
Posted By: coby preimesberger (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 12:13 AM
It wasn't the Miss America Pageant. It was the Miss USA Pageant.
Posted By: Ric (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 12:33 AM
I hope this story goes away so I don't have to listen to that pole smoker Perez talk in his gay flaming voice anymore.
Posted By: John (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 01:04 AM
To the person who is "sick of people who hide their bigotry behind the Bible". With what reasoning & knowledge did you come to the conclusion that God fearing people "don't like" gay people? You again "assume" that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality. I invite you to read a Bible (start with Romans chapter 1. We will never know what it says if we don't read it - if we rely solely on the opinions of others who think they know. - "There is a way that seems right to a man but it's end is the way of death." - I will say this to you: Jesus gave us two new commandments, To love God with all our hearts, and to love each other as He loved us. Believe me or not but I would trade my life for Perez Hilton to come to the saving knowledge of Jesus. I would do the same for you also. If we all knew what was in store, we wouldn't be so flippant in regards to God. I don't wish eternal separation from God on ANYBODY and neither does He.
I agree with you, we shouldn't reward stupidity & ignorance. That is why I am sharing this with you. It is not my intention to belittle you.
You challenged me to be brave enough to stand behind my views. I pray that you understand that I have.
This young girl at the pageant stood in front of millions of people and did the same. She could have folded up like a cheap suit and compromised her beliefs but chose to do exactly what you are talking about.
God bless her, you, Perez, & God bless America.
Posted By: Mike - guest (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 01:15 AM
Ok, everyone read this, and read this carefully.
After watching both the videos posted by Kristopher, I do see that Miss USA is handling this very well. She is coming off classy, she isn't resorting to the name calling that Perez is, and overall, I would just say she handled this extremely well. Kudos to her.
Perez, now, is not. He has resorted to calling her names, like the "b-word" and the "c-word" over something that is her opinion. Sure, Hilton wants a Miss USA that represents the people. But he was supposed to judge her on how well she answered, not what her opinion was.
Now, with that said, let me point that I totally understand how Perez must feel. Ok, Prejean doesn't support gay marriage. But her answer was sort of a poor one. She says "we are lucky to live in a country where someone has the right to choose"...but we don't. Perez even stated in his question that only certain states allow gay marriage. So, I don't know what country she is from, but the one I live in, there is "limited" gay marriage.
Second, yeah sure, this is her opinion and we need to respect that. But..her opinion dominates and controls this country. Its more than an opinion...its a law! Its a law that says gays cannot get married. So quit telling Perez to be tolerant of her opinion because Perez, and others like Perez, have an opinion too, and that opinion is that homosexuals should be allowed to get married. But right now, their opinion doesn't matter. They can't get married. They have to go by what the majority thinks. So, stop calling out Perez's lack of respect her opinion because by not allowing homosexuals to get married, your not respecting his either, and thats what they are fighting for right now.
I'm sure if Prejean said "I don't think black people should share things with white people" there would be an uproar! But since its the "sinful, evil" homosexuals who she doesn't agree with, its "oh lets respect her opinion!"
Lets respect Don Imus's opinion too, and Kramer from Seinfelds opinion. Oh, and Mel Gibson's too...them jews are cheap. And the gays? Well, they're just creations of the devil...and God may have mercy on their souls.
Posted By: Vic (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 04:37 AM
Have to comment .. what is the world coming to when you have a beauty pageant where the contestant is able to answer the question in a clear and rational manner ?
WTF !! Bring Back the "I want to travel the world and be nice to small children brigade" ...
Posted By: Northants Grecian (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 07:38 AM
Yes, the correct term is "Miss USA."
Thanks,
Kristopher Rodriguez
Posted By: Summa06 (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 09:36 AM
Elry:
It's a bad move to even acknowledge the bible in this debate because it implies that if the religious can in fact quote scripture against gays or gay marriage that it would validate their argument. And as I said about the second amendment, the fact something is written somewhere or worded a certain way doesn't make it correct.
lol:
Regarding polygamy, in a college business law class I learned that for any contract to be legally binding there must be "a meeting of the minds". That is to say it requires that the involved parties agree to something. In the case of three people marrying, it can be argued that no such agreement is practically possible. Marriage is just too complex an institution for multiple participants to agree on all crucial matters. What if one of them is hospitalized and the other two disagree on treatment? If one of them dies without a will, how are their assets divided? There are major legal issues that don't exist in a two party marriage. Beyond the legal issues, I can't think of one good reason polygamy should be outlawed so long as all parties know of other spouses and are consenting adults. On an aside, why is it always one man and many wives? Have you ever heard of one woman with ten husbands? I wonder why the women never think about that.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 10:00 AM
First: Mikel, Jesus DIDN’T say anything about homosexuality. The quote you used said nothing of the sort. Don’t try to read His mind. I am truly sick of Christians (and even I’ve been guilty of this) taking quotes from the Bible and using that as an interpretation for their own agenda. As much as one can quote Romans, or any book that does not supply ACTUAL quotes, we are taking words written down by one of His disciples. A MAN. Fallible. *NOT* Jesus. You, and they - CAN’T READ GOD’S MIND – so please, stop looking for subtext. That just makes you a blasphemer. Harsh word, but the truth.
Look, the thing is she didn’t ANSWER THE QUESTION. She just said what she believes and left it at that. I think her actual specific response would have been more telling. I’m for gay marriage, but I don’t think she’s a “bigot”. She has her convictions, just as I have mine. She said it’s great the country has a choice. She just doesn’t believe in said choice. That’s fine. Just as she has the *right* to disagree with it, I have the *right* to agree.
I think this is where the FRINGE on both sides need to get nuked. People can agree to disagree. Gay marriage will happen within the next quarter, century and no one will be able to do anything about it – I am fine with that, as I support it, simply based on the fact that it doesn’t affect me in any way, but it affects friends and family I care about. At the same time, though – this is NOT like the civil rights movement. Gays are not being executed simply for *existing*. There are no spots that says “Straight Only” nor do they have to sit at the back of the bus. This is not even like Harvey Milk being assassinated for his beliefs.
The fact of the matter is humans, by nature are progressive. That means we are NOT conservative. As centuries marched on, we have become more universally TOLERANT as a majority. Girls got married at 12 at one time. They were forced to marry men they had no connection with. Some were nothing more than leverage points for a business deal for land or a chance at power. They couldn’t vote. Now, we have female world leaders.
Africans were sold, then hunted and captured to build this country. They were whipped and raped, treated like no more than animals. They grew the crops that gave us its first taste of industry. They built the buildings that give us our history. They were shackled and lived in huts. Even after the Emancipation Proclomation, they were still lynched. It was a FELONY for one to marry a caucasian. Now, we have the son of an African as our President.
Gay rights do not equal any of these (at least in its most extreme forms), but there is no way that this country (and the world) will not become more progressive when it comes to marriage. It’s a little thing called change.
Posted By: Guest#0659 (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 11:58 AM
I actually do not really care who or how many get married. The way I see it is that I will be forced to pay for the health care coverage of non-contributing same-sex participants whether they are allowed to sponge off their partner's policy or sponge of Uncle Sugar. That is what this is really about isn't it?
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 02:08 PM
Mike wasn't even trying to quote Romans, He was telling you to READ it. He was quoting Proverbs. Furthermore, Jesus IS "The Word of God", the Bible IS "The Word of God" Jesus Himself said that "heaven & earth will pass away but My words will by no means pass away" (Matthew 24:35)John 1 says "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word WAS God. Verse 14 says "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us". The contents of the Bible belong to God and is given to us for our instruction, whether you think so or not. ---- We want "change", we got it. We want God/Jesus out of this country? It's a scary thing, what we've become.
Posted By: ksps (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 04:33 PM
I don't comment on here very often but I feel the need to say this. As a black woman do not compare my history or my today with the gay rights because its not the same. I love gay people dont know any who are not related to me but wouldnt mind having a gay friend.
Not one gay person (uless they are black) have been pulled over for DWB, (driving while black for those wo dont know) followed in stores because they are gay, denied loans or any other basic rights. I'm not going to repeat what Guest#0659 has already said cause that point was made perfectly. You have every right to live your life however you so please. But the black community would appreciate if the gays and non gays stop comparing the two.
And in regards to Miss Ca she has every right to feel the way that she does last time i checked this is a free country.
Posted By: T (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 04:34 PM
I just want to say I'm proud of this girl, Carrie Prejean. I never intended to argue. I'll follow the Lord, you do what you do. This is the first time I've ever read one of these things & it will be the last (but I'm still praying for ya) Bye
Posted By: Mike - guest (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 04:47 PM
Gay this, Gay that. We even have the vulgar gay pride parades (what a sick joke). What else do these gay people really want? The truth is simple, if it weren’t for a MALE and FEMALE the gays wouldn’t be here to bitch and bully us. In fact humanity came about through Adam and EVE not through Adam and Steve.
I truly believe that it all boils down to what AdmChesterMynutz said in his comment. You gay people all need to get a life, carry on what you been doing for eternities where nobody cared either. Nobody wants anything from you people and you’re not that important either. The world does not revolve around you it revolves around MALE and FEMALE.
Perez Hilton is an utter idiot!!!
Posted By: hunter53 (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 04:49 PM
Wow judging by most of the comments I'm reading, people in America have come a long way, but still has much MUCH more ways to go. I pray for all of you.
Posted By: Vic (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 04:53 PM
I hope Perez Hilton gets shot in the fucking face. That guy is this worst piece of shit in the world
Posted By: Kent Baker (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 06:02 PM
You, and they - CAN’T READ GOD’S MIND -
Tell that to the homosexuals that tell us God wants them to be gay.
We don't have to read His mind, we have His words to speak for Him. It's clear, concise, and without reproach. If you can't handle that, thats you're personal problem....
And since Jesus didn't speak specifically about horse-fucking and child-molesting, do you automatically take the position therefore that is perfectly normal and God wants them to be that way?
Homosexuality is acceptable simply because it goes against Gods will. Our society is like a 15 yr old child that hates everything their parents believe in and indulges themselves in everything their parents don't approve of.
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 09:02 PM
I wholeheartedly support gay marriage.
But, if you ask a question that requires an opinion - don't get angry if the answer is one you disagree with.
Mind-blowing that someone could react the way Hilton did... should the girl simply have lied???
Posted By: J.D. (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 09:04 PM
Awwww... What Big Tent is an internet toughguy! Gimme your address, tough guy, should I ever be near your (red)neck of the woods, I'll be glad to stop by and call you an ignorant backwoods retard to your face.
And I have the right to call you that, just like you have the right to your opinion. And I also have the right to tell you when your opinion is IGNORANT. You don't like homosexuality? Fine. But the overwhelming evidence says that you are WRONG when you try to say that these people choose to live that lifestyle. And I will use my RIGHTS to tell you that you are wrong. To say you actually wish to do physical violence to me because I am correcting your WRONG opinion shows that you know that you are wrong, and are unable to come up with any further attempts to defend your ignorance.
Posted By: Scott B (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 11:43 PM
My biggest problem with the "Bible is the literal word of God" argument is that God did not write any of this.
I don't care what God or gods you believe or don't believe in, but honestly how can anyone read the Bible and conclude that it is literal truth when it was written by people thousands of years ago in languages that don't translate well into English?
And do you really trust that the people who transcribed God's/Jesus words about something that essentially controls how you should live were as accurate as they could be? You don't think things were lost in translation? You don't think as infallible as God/Jesus is/was that the men that wrote the book were as well? That they could not have possibly changed a word or two that makes things easier to read, but may as some languages do, alter the meaning of a passage. Hell, the lack of spacing/punctuation could turn two words into a single one and no one but the original writer would know better. And then we get into the fact all copies were hand written back in the day and we still get errors in books in the year 2009 with mechanical printing presses and grammar/spelling software.
Can you honestly believe that anything written that long ago, by that many different hands/people could possibly be the accurate word of God?
It could be a close facsimile for all I know, but I will never claim to know for a fact it is or not. I just lean towards a book written by men thousands of years ago and that only a handful of gospels were chosen to be the Bible, just seems, so very human to me.
Posted By: pd (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 09:06 AM
Everyone is missing the whole point: marriage itself should be outlawed. I mean, doesn't one of the adverse effects of marriage, divorce, do more damage a percentage of the time than all the illiegal drugs combined? Hell, look at what a bad marriage that ends in divorce can do to someone's life savings and mental health (let alone physical health.) I have seen too many people 'let themselves go' physically once they're married. Maybe we should just look into common law for both "Adam and Eve" and "Adam and Eve"!!! I'm just saying...
Posted By: D-Bo (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 12:07 PM
So what I'm getting from this is that people want us to be tolerant of their own intolerance? Gottcha.
Posted By: Josh (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 01:05 PM
A few things I feel haven't been addressed in the comments I've read so far.
1. You cannot compare gay marriage to bestiality or polygamy. Gay marriage supporters are talking about marriage between TWO HUMANS.
2. The difference between saying you don't personally agree in gay marriage vs saying black people are dumb comes down to the nature of the statement. It is not a fair comparison to make. The former has to do with a personal belief on behavior (for instance "I don't believe people should consume alcohol" or "I believe gambling is wrong") The latter statement is making a negative generalization about a race of people.
3. I understand that the country is mostly Christian and apparently its fun for many on the left to pick on the bible with this issue. However, this is something that is also widely believed in Judiasm, Islam, Hinduism, and Sikhism. Buddhism is unclear on the issue. There are a few sects in some of these religions that are ok with homosexuality but the majority are not. My main point being, supporters of gay marriage are hurting their cause by ridiculing religions that have existed for thousands of years and have BILLIONS of followers. It's clear that neither side will totally agree but I think there can be a resolution that makes a lot more sense than the usual stupid name calling from both sides.
I think what we have lost sight of in this issue is the ability to coexist. This especially true with radicals on the left and right. The radical left tends to be mad with anyone who dares to say they don't agree with homosexuality and the radical right responds by condemning the other side to hell (while making a hero out of anyone who stands up to the left). The truth is many of us have friends who believe in different faiths than our own (and for atheists Im sure you do have some friends who believe in a god or gods). While the beliefs may be different, it does not (and should not)stop us from living our lives and forming great friendships with people of different faiths or upbringings. The same idea applies to this issue. I don't personally believe homosexuality is natural but I also don't believe that gay people are bad people or deserve fewer rights. I think it would be great if they were granted the right to marry or have civil unions (the title really isn't a big deal to me). It is okay for both sides to agree to disagree on this issue. However, I think it is a much easier issue to resolve if both sides would approach it with more common sense.
Posted By: JBB (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 06:07 PM
John 3:36 - "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
Revelation 3:20-21 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
(What is it that's holding YOU back?)
Posted By: guest (Guest) on April 25, 2009 at 06:15 PM
Not one gay person (uless they are black) have been pulled over for DWB, (driving while black for those wo dont know) followed in stores because they are gay, denied loans or any other basic rights. I'm not going to repeat what Guest#0659 has already said cause that point was made perfectly. You have every right to live your life however you so please. But the black community would appreciate if the gays and non gays stop comparing the two.
And in regards to Miss Ca she has every right to feel the way that she does last time i checked this is a free country.
Posted By: T (Guest) on April 24, 2009 at 04:34 PM
And neither have you. It's an excuse because you won't behave. You blame everything on "racism". It's horseshit. Police have better things to do that pick on you "poor unfortunate black folk". Cut the shit. Behave yourself, and you'll be fine.
Posted By: Sam Spade (Guest) on April 26, 2009 at 01:14 AM
Gay people constantly say, "I'm more than my sexuality" and "There's more to me than just my sexuality", but why is it every argument they make focuses on their sexuality? Seriously, if they's shut the fuck up for five minutes, everybody would forget about them. Then, they could go on being themselves, and people wouldn't hate them so much. Seriously, gay people, Perez Hilton is NOT a good spokes-cum dumpster for you.
Posted By: Banky Edwards (Guest) on April 26, 2009 at 01:20 AM
Hey perez, I got a suggestion for you...come on down to texas so I can beat your fucking ass. Just because your a beefstick intake doesn't mean the rest of us have to like it too. Fuck you faggot. Grow some balls and shut the fuck up. I hate people like you who have to ram it down everyones throat. Excuse me, but some of us don't agree with your lifestyle choices. I'm not saying it's right or wrong it's your call, but that;s just it YOUR call, not mine, not hers. Now shut the fuck up about it queer
Posted By: Sco Sco (Guest) on April 26, 2009 at 11:20 AM
the 'B' and the 'C' word? What are you six? They're just words man grow up and get over it.
Posted By: stronelis (Guest) on April 27, 2009 at 10:38 AM
And neither have you. It's an excuse because you won't behave. You blame everything on "racism". It's horseshit. Police have better things to do that pick on you "poor unfortunate black folk". Cut the shit. Behave yourself, and you'll be fine.
Posted By: Sam Spade (Guest) on April 26, 2009 at 01:14 AM
And you know this because??? The majority of blacks do not use excuses its just assumed that we are by racist like you... Also You dont know anything about me and my experiences so when you have something intelligent to say, then holla at me until then direct your unintelligent opinions to someone else. Also I am in a relationship with a police office that happens to be white, so I do have some knowledge of what’s going on, on both sides...
So can we get back to the gay issue? Like i said you can not compare the two being black also happens to be a physical characteristic being gay is not and there is no comparison to the two.
Posted By: T (Guest) on April 27, 2009 at 10:43 AM
I've read the Bible. Many times. Led a youth group. Went to revivals. My mother is a deacon. I think I have a little knowledge.
I also know that The Book of John was written 100 years after Jesus' death. Should I *still* take that as The Word of God?
Look, I know you think homosexuality is wrong. I understand you think it's disgusting and a disease and irrational in a world where man+woman=baby, but all that I - and others are saying on here is you can't use your God as an argument against this because:
1) We are NOT supposed to use any religion to create or uphold ANY law in this country. That is fact. Fact, fact, fact.
2) Again, until you have PROOF, not faith, not belief, not "oh, he is speaking FOR Him" - PROOF, identifiable, undeniable, tangible EVIDENCE that what you are spouting are in fact from the James Earl Jones' sounding VOICE OF GOD, you have NO ARGUMENT. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Some of you hate gays. Fine, I am not gay. But two of my cousins are. I have friends who are. They are family to me. I don't agree with their lifestyle, if only because I don't agree with it - but that does not make them any less of a human citizen with rights in this country under the LAW. If any of you gay-hating douchebags EVER tried to hurt any of them in any way, I would show YOU the "Wrath of God" - and believe me, because as you are reading the words from this block of text, you can trust this is FACT, it would be a lot worse than you could ever imagine. That's being "my brother's keeper". That's "hating the sin/loving the sinner".
Most of you wouldn't know God's Love it He came by and smacked you upside the head with it. I feel very sorry for you and your place in hell.
Hypocrites.
Posted By: Guest#9600 (Guest) on April 27, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Well, at least she ain't Miss Teen South Carolina...
Posted By: Ramsey (Guest) on April 27, 2009 at 02:36 PM
Boycott Perez Hilton AND his advertisers!!!
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on May 11, 2009 at 06:15 PM
Guest 9600.....YOU ARE SO WRONG. You have gays in your family and that is the ONLY reason you fight for them, or you are gay. That's is the only reason there is any acceptance of gays, because someone we know is gay. So now, we are supposed to accept it and forget our own core values. You expect us to believe you have read the bible many times...yet you want to spin it to agree with your own warped beliefs. The only valid argument for gay marrage is that they love each other (this is their whole argument, we love each other too so why shouldn't we be able to marry). What if a 40 year old man loves a 18 year old girl. Oh!....I see... an 18 year old isn't capable of love. Or is that OK? What if they were a father and daughter.....still OK? And if not, why not....at least they have the right equipment to pro-create How about a 21 year old women and a 17 year old man....is that OK? Why not.... they claim they are in love as well. NO SIR, it is not.....because it is wrong......lets face it...its all about sex....isn't it. And if we (the majority of Americans)think that it is immoral and unnatural for an adult to marry a child or for family members to get married, who are you to say it isn't. After all, Adam and Eve's children got married, so in your view the bible OK'es incest, isn't that right? Homosexuallity is immoral and wrong and no supposed forward thinking morons like you will ever make it right. Should we follow France, Spain and Portugal and make insest legal? You are not forward thing, you are just another kool-aid drinking liberal who thinks that you are right and everyone who dosen't agree with you is wrong and only you and your ilk should have a voice in the name of progress.You can't think for yourself so you let others do your thinking for you. You critisize someone for having values and then stick up for a sick homo who has no business judging a beauty contest. He should be out judging she-male contests held in places that won't offend americans that still have morals. This country has become a place where those of us with morals walk on egg shells so that we don't offend those of you who have none. If we really had free speech in this country....the VAST MAJORITY us us would send the queers back to the closet.
Posted By: CB World (Guest) on May 12, 2009 at 06:22 PM
Perez needs to be put to death.
Posted By: Jeremy (Guest) on June 23, 2009 at 08:36 AM
STAY CURRENT