Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was runner up for the Miss USA Pageant. She answered a question about gay marriages, and gave her opinion on what she feels about homosexuals being allowed to get married. She said that she feels they should not be married. She was told by her state sponsors that she needed to apologize to the gay community. They also told her to not talk about her beliefs. She refused to do so. Since when, in this country, can't you speak your opinion, without being bashed for it? The homosexual community has no problem telling others how they feel about it. I don't agree with them, but I'm not asking for an apology from anyone who's gay.

I applaud her for standing up for what she felt was the right answer and not backing down on her beliefs when the question was posed. She was representing the majority of the people in California when she gave her answer, after all.

I believe that if you are homosexual and you want to live that life style, it's your life, so go ahead. But I also believe that God instituted the marriage union between a man and a woman together. They say their vows to Him. So, to call the homosexual lifestyle a 'marriage' is a wrong term for it. It's not a marriage. Why can't they call it a civil union, or anything else they like. Like maybe "Partnership" or how about "a love unit". Whatever. The term 'marriage' is already taken. They can still have all the same rights as married couples do. Why aren't they satisfied with that? Do they just like to argue?

I honestly don't know how many people live here. I thought it was 4.5 million. So instead, you insulted 7.7 innocent individuals because frankly, you are no different than what you accuse me of being, apology or not.

True colors come out through those who say something on purpose AND those who just flippantly toss it out there and then try to take it back. Thank you for proving that.

Welcome to the haters' corner. You will be getting your decoder ring and rules to the secret handshake shortly.

Can my ring be pink? I like pink. Purple is ok too. But I would really like pink.

I TOOK responsibility, Nancy! I said it and I'm not sorry that I called Perez Hilton anything. What is that if not responsibility??

If you and a couple others got offended, that is not my responsibility. You can choose to be offended that I called a cretin like him those names or you can choose not to. It's YOUR choice.

Besides, if I had a nickel for everything everbody gets offended by, I'd be a rich woman. Offense is the new buzz word, and I don't really care about it, even my own.

I will ask again: Were you as offended that this pond scum called a young woman who simply and honestly answered a question asked of her a bitch and a c*nt? I've asked three times now and you seemingly refuse to answer that.

Of course I find someone being called a bitch and/or a cunt offensive, but Perez Hilton and I aren't on a forum together.

Can my ring be pink? I like pink. Purple is ok too. But I would really like pink.

I'll put the order in today. Pink it is.

Of course I find someone being called a bitch and/or a cunt offensive, but Perez Hilton and I aren't on a forum together.

So? The comment was directed AT Perez Hilton ONLY.

As I've said previously, I have some neighbors who are two of the nicest guys you'd ever want to meet. They watch over the older ladies on our side of the street, have watched our dogs when we went on vacation, and are just wonderful people. I would never in a million years refer to them as even gay, much less anything less kind. They are good people who have been together as long as my husband and I have. I've heard them teasingly refer to each other as "fag" and "homo," but it was in situations that were rather funny. I just see them as people, and I would do anything to help them out as neighbors and friends (other than vote for a cause I don't believe in).

Perez Hilton put himself out there and verbally assaulted a woman for sticking to her God-given right to her beliefs. He besmirched her by calling her a bitch and a c*nt. He does not deserve the care and respect I feel for my neighbors.

OK let me ask you this Beth. Do you think your neighbors who you hold in such high regard would be the least bit offended by any of your posts where you're using the words "fag and flame" even if it is only to refer Perez Hilton? I have a feeling they would.

OK let me ask you this Beth. Do you think your neighbors who you hold in such high regard would be the least bit offended by any of your posts where you're using the words "fag and flame" even if it is only to refer Perez Hilton? I have a feeling they would.

I have no idea. And frankly, I am not responsible for how others feel about what I say about Perez Hilton.

Head hitting desk really hard:nonod:

[quote name=BJean;1219228}

One thing I know for sure: the color of one's skin' date=' or one's sexual preferences or the choice of one's church, do not reveal whether a person is good or bad. You have to dig much deeper than those superficial things to find out whether you're dealing with a person of quality and high moral values.[/quote]

You don't have to dig as deep as you say to find out if you are dealing with a person of high moral values like you say. 2 out of the 3 examples you gave (the color of ones skin, and their choice of a church, unless it's the church of Satan)can't determine whether a person is good or bad. But ones sexual preferences can. Sorry to offend anyone here, but there are some things that are not gray areas. Homosexuality is a sin. Adultry is a sin. Lying is a sin. Stealing is a sin. Gluttony is a sin. These and many others are black and whites.

Anyone remember the Vanessa Williams fiasco? She got thrown out on her ear. Just as others have been, before and since.

Vanessa Williams' photos were far racier than Prejean's. Williams had full nudity and simulated lesbian acts. Prejean doesn't even show nipple.

So when caught lying on her pagent form she told another lie that the picture in question was the only picture when in fact their are FOUR pictures, two of which have not been made public because she has full frontal topless nudity and claims she was 17 so they can't be posted online.

I have a feeling that if there ARE topless photos, they'll leak out, regardless of the underage question. Meanwhile, if there are no topless photos for us to see, we have to take her word that there are no topless photos.

So she lied on her contract and that should not matter because she will answer to god for it? That makes no sense to me. Why even have a justice system then? To me it does not matter how the pictures came to light they are there, she lied, she broke her contract, done. Crown the runner up. I would say the same thing if she had answered that gay marriage was the best thing for America.

But let's not kid ourselves....If she had done the politically correct thing, this would be waaaaaay less of an issue.

[QOUTE=DownInSocal;1219029]The pictures are not the only way she has broke her contract. She has also been doing appearences and commercials without permission which is strictly forbidden in her contract.

I'm with you on this one. The picture issue (as I understand it....maybe I'm wrong) is that she signed "no nude pics", and the pics she had done didn't show any nudity. However, she HAS launched into full-out spokeswoman mode, and I'm pretty sure that DOES violate her contract. Let's not kid ourselves AGAIN.....She is trying to "brand" herself for fame. Every single person in Hollywood would do the same thing, but she should be more honest about it.

You say that the "majority" of American feels the same way she does. How can she be "punished" for something that is "main stream"?

Because the entertainment field is more statistically gay than mainstream America. It would be analogous for an anti-gay radical (not me, ya smartasses) to experience discrimination when trying to shop in some San Francisco areas.

i admit to mocking certain religions, specifically the ones that hide behind a bible/god to spread hate. where tolerance is given, tolerance is shown.

I agree. There are religions that are CLEARLY hateful, and I have no problem mocking them (I'm thinking of the radical baptist church that protests soldiers' funerals and breaks up AIDS rallies....I think they're out of TN). It helps that I'm a conservative, and as such, everybody on here expects me to be intolerant and insensitive anyway. It's you liberal types that have to shoulder the "tolerant" load, heehee. I'm kidding.

One thing I know for sure: the color of one's skin, or one's sexual preferences or the choice of one's church, do not reveal whether a person is good or bad. You have to dig much deeper than those superficial things to find out whether you're dealing with a person of quality and high moral values.

*nods head vigorously* Mmmmmm-Hmmmmmm......

I admit it did not come across well and my apologies to anyone who is from the great state of Virginia or missing teeth.

I'm missing some teeth. Don't be a tooth-ist.

It's like abortion rights in a way. It doesn't affect most people and so they might say they believe one way or the other, but when the real arguments get put forth, they surprise even themselves sometimes by realizing that they do not want to vote against women's right to choose on such a very personal issue.

True. I'm pro-life....but I wouldn't vote to overturn Roe V. Wade. I think there are some areas the government doesn't need to stick its nose into. I'm not scared of gay marriage in Texas (heck, even if it were legalized, that's ok with me too), but I STRONGLY feel that it should be voted state-by-state, by the people of the state.....and not by some judicial activists (pro OR con).

So who's arguing against gay rights? The very religious folks who are doing it because they hear only one side of the issue and they have heard it all their lives and they continue to hear it often and loudly.

That's a little simplistic. It's not being opposed on SOLELY religious grounds. The ones that do oppose it on religious grounds have probably heard both sides of the issue (unless they watch any Fox news, right BJean? ) unless they're Amish.

Do not allow them their right to all the things that heretosexual people have in this country.

I think this is a different issue. I would vote against gay marriage, but I have absolutely no problem with the institution of "civil unions" that bestow legal rights upon same sex couples. Petty? Maybe.....but I suspect a LOT of people feel this way. Sometimes I wonder if there is a compromise to be made here.

What I've said is that it is Constitutionally correct to allow gays and women all the rights (including the right to privacy) that they deserve in our this country.

But that's kinda the cruxt of the debate: Is marriage a constitutionally protected right? (Heck, is HEALTHCARE? but that's for another thread, lol) Privacy is....marriage and abortion are a little more "gray".

Beth: "I feel no heat, BJean." Well you're obviously a very strong and thick-skinned woman, eh?

plain: "Is marriage a constitutionally protected right?" As I've said before, if we were JUST talking about the civil union that we call marriage on all of our government documents, it would be one thing. But what we're talking about is that marriage causes people to be treated differently than single people under our laws. It isn't really a difficult thing to understand, is it?

Changing the terminology could solve the problem, but I don't see any reason to do that.

My point is that to be fair under the law, gays cannot be banned from being married as things stand right now. If people want to change the word marriage to civil union on all government documents, then that's an issue that we should discuss and perhaps vote on. If they want to simply ban gays from being "married" as the term is used within our government documents, that's another question and that's what is being debated. Banning people because they are gay and exluding them from being able to have the same rights as other people is what is patently unfair.

I really don't care if it is a religious issue or not. It's just that I have observed that religious people are funding the fight and doing the negative debating. If there is an organized group of folks who are against gay marriage, who are not religious in any way, I am unaware of them. Please, enlighten me.

Beth: "I feel no heat, BJean." Well you're obviously a very strong and thick-skinned woman, eh?

Obviously more than some, yes.

Bjean. I don't believe there are any 'organized' groups that are against gay marriage that aren't religious. But, I am sure that there are many individual people who are not religious who 'know' deep down inside themselves that 2 people of the same sex having sex together is wrong, and would vote against it for that reason. The bible says that God has placed within each man the ability to understand what is sinful or not. (I believe it's our own consciences) So even if you are not deeply religious and read the bible and know for yourself what God has to say on this issue, if you dig deep down into your own soul you will have to admit to yourself when you ponder it, that it is not right to have sex with the same sex. Therefore, I believe that there are many individuals who feel it is wrong and wouldn't vote for it for that reason. (even if they can't really understand there own reasons for voting against it)

I agree. There are religions that are CLEARLY hateful, and I have no problem mocking them (I'm thinking of the radical baptist church that protests soldiers' funerals and breaks up AIDS rallies....I think they're out of TN). It helps that I'm a conservative, and as such, everybody on here expects me to be intolerant and insensitive anyway. It's you liberal types that have to shoulder the "tolerant" load, heehee. I'm kidding.

Those hateful people in that church are from Arkansas not Tennessee. The tried to disrupt a funeral here in TN, but were run out of the state by some biker group.

These are the type of people who give Christians a bad name.

I agree. There are religions that are CLEARLY hateful, and I have no problem mocking them (I'm thinking of the radical baptist church that protests soldiers' funerals and breaks up AIDS rallies....I think they're out of TN). It helps that I'm a conservative, and as such, everybody on here expects me to be intolerant and insensitive anyway. It's you liberal types that have to shoulder the "tolerant" load, heehee. I'm kidding.

Those hateful people in that church are from Arkansas not Tennessee. The tried to disrupt a funeral here in TN, but were run out of the state by some biker group.

These are the type of people who give Christians a bad name.

That's true. Christians who do crazy stuff to protest, like blowing up abortion clinics, don't have their head screwed on right. They nullify what they say by making wrong out of it. It's a shame they don't understand that 2 wrongs don't make a right.

patty: "But, I am sure that there are many individual people who are not religious who 'know' deep down inside themselves that 2 people of the same sex having sex together is wrong, and would vote against it for that reason. The bible says that God has placed within each man the ability to understand what is sinful or not. (I believe it's our own consciences) So even if you are not deeply religious and read the bible and know for yourself what God has to say on this issue, if you dig deep down into your own soul you will have to admit to yourself when you ponder it, that it is not right to have sex with the same sex. Therefore, I believe that there are many individuals who feel it is wrong and wouldn't vote for it for that reason. (even if they can't really understand there own reasons for voting against it)"

What people do not seem to understand is that according to the law, this is not a religious issue at all. It is a proposed law that seeks to ban people from being married based on the religious views of some of our citizens. It would ignore the fact that people in this country are supposed to be treated equally under the law and that all individuals have the same rights.

The government is not supposed to discriminate against a minority of people siimply because they are different than the majority of the people.

This simple fact falls on the deaf ears of those who want to discriminate against others based on their personal beliefs and prejudices.

It is for these reasons that there should be a distinct separation of church and state in this country. I'm not saying that we should not be able to pray, I am saying that one group of people should not be able to take away another group of people's basic rights, based on religious beliefs; ANY kind of religious beliefs, not just Christianity.

To ensure that our form of government will always stand the test of time, we cannot have whatever religion may be popular at any given time, to infiltrate our laws and cause harm to any group of people who do not share that particular religious belief.

If we did not work hard to preserve this feature that our government documents promise us, we might eventually become the kind of country that insists that we all must worship _________________ (fill in the blank with whatever religion is in power) religion.

It should be obvious to Americans that this is actually not all that different than the human rights issues that we do not condone in other countries. We even go to other countries to intervene in the oppression and human rights violations that some governments impose on their citizens.

We are very aware that religious beliefs are the bases for all kinds of discrimination throughout the world. These kinds of issues are the very things that separate us from being a government like they have in Iran and Afhganistan and so many others where people are unable to vote in an open election, women are made to cover their bodies or forced to have mutilation surgery and other even more horrible atrocities.

Everyone of us Americans should work very hard to ensure that all our citizens are guaranteed the freedom to live their lives as free Americans, not oppressed victims of unfair laws.

Edited May 11, 200917 yr by BJean