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?

Patty if you were held to the religious standards of the Puritans, you would be living a very different life in America today.

That's true. One that lives closer to the word of God. Just one example is corporal punishment. When someone disobeyed the law, they were put in public stocks for the day. There was rarely a repeat of that crime. We don't have any problem with throwing our criminals in a cage and subjecting them to possibly being being beaten, raped or murdered, not to mention the $30,000. it cost yearly to keep them there, yet consider giving them a public flogging which works by humiliating them out of a criminal life, and now you're not being just. You're right that things would be different. Better.

They came here because they were being persecuted for religious reasons. They did not set out to have a country that operates the same way as the country they fled. That is why separation of church and state is the right thing to do for a Democratic nation.

They came here to be able to worship God freely. The country they fled from would only allow one denomination of Christianity. They wanted to live according to the Holy Bible, and not the churches made up rules or doctrine. They didn't come here to worship Buddah or Allah or Mother Earth freely. It was Jesus.

No one is telling you that you can't worship the way you wish, believe what you want to believe and be very vocal about it if you so desire.

That's true, but if you knew what the word of God says about the end, which is that people will be calling all that is 'right' in God's eyes 'wrong' and all that is 'wrong' in his eyes 'right', and that christians would be persecuted for what they stand up for, and that in the end, before Christ returns, they will even be killed by others for not being tolerant or accepting of the world's sins, and the world would want to get rid of all these 'christians' who stand in their way of unrighteousness, (you know how the people feel religion wrecks everything) then you would understand why christians don't want to allow laws like gay marriage and abortions, etc.

But if you want a country that incorporates one particular religion, one religious doctrine that governs everyone, then you don't want a free democratic nation.

Not true. I want a country that is Christian, as it began, and a country that does not discriminate against any other faith.If you want to worship Buddah or even Satan, go ahead, but just don't try to change what the founding fathers began here which was christianity.A quote from George Washington, "It is impossible to govern rightly without God and the bible."and Thomas Jefferson said this, "Can the liberties of a Nation be thought secure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God."

On the surface it seems that the gay marriage argument revolves around the term "marriage" which some of you believe can only defined by the language of the Bible. But I'm afraid that the real problem won't be solved by changing the term from marriage to legally wed or legal union, or any other term. Many of you just have an aversion to gays living together and don't want your country recognizing their lifestyle as legal in any way.

(see my comments above)

The arguement is the turn from what's right in God's eye's to what's not right. The more the people choose to push God out of this great country, the less he will be involved. The same way we don't want our country to legalize abortions because it is a sin is the same way we don't want gay marriages to be legalized. Because it is a sin. We also wouldn't want stealing to be legalized because it is a sin. If we could keep smoking cigarettes from the people, we would. That's a sin, too. What's wrong with not wanting those things that are sinful from being allowed? You think people would be happy to keep unrighteousness from the land.

It's onething to go ahead and live any way you choose, sinful or not, it's quite another thing to make it a law that the Nation adheres to. If people want to sin, this country gives them that freedom to do so, and so does God for that matter, but once the country bands together and formally makes it okay with their laws and statutes, God sees that the people have made their choice. They choose sin over him. He then removes his blessings from us. Is that what you want?

Beth: Two wrongs don't make it right.

You state your case very well, patty. I just do not believe everything you say is true or God's will.

Thanks for the point out. And also, QUIT NAGGING ME, WOMAN!!

*snicker*

Also, I think it's funny that Clinton took the moral ground on marriage. That's like Jimmy Carter making fun of Obama's economic policies.

*double snicker*

Beth: Two wrongs don't make it right.

I don't get it... I thought this was a right-wing issue. When shown your messiah said virtually the same thing Miss California did, all you have to say about HIM is two wrongs don't make a right?

True, two wrongs may not make a right, but three rights make a left. :mad2:

Sorry Nancy. My mistake.

Thanks for the point out. And also, QUIT NAGGING ME, WOMAN!!

Also, I think it's funny that Clinton took the moral ground on marriage. That's like Jimmy Carter making fun of Obama's economic policies.

It's ok Plain we all make mistakes.

If you don't want a truthful answer, don't ask. I have always been that way, and all those that know me respect me for that. Miss Cali, answered honestly. If you ask me, I would say the same thing; however, I do not condone the mistreatment of any group of people. I do not believe in calling people the other word, so group of people is my term.

People say that they accept others, but then behind closed doors, they laugh and pick at them. If you accept people for who they are, then why do we poke fun of them? For instance, in the media, movies and etc. I would rather a person be real with me about how they feel than to be a hypocrite in saying I really agree with same sex couples/marriage. One thing I can say, I may not agree with same sex marriage, but I do respect the person. I do not beleive in making fun of certain groups of people, harassing, namecalling and etc.

Edited May 13, 200917 yr by LLPlady3

Good for you trell! Tolerance and respect are important components in getting along in this world.

I don't have a problem with what Ms. Cali said either. I just don't think anyone should have expected her to win the crown if she didn't play the game of pagent politics. Meaning that she needed to talk the talk of respect and tolerance toward others even if she didn't walk it. When you allow yourself to be used to represent something, you can't go all rogue and do your own thing with no regard for your title.

Good for you trell! Tolerance and respect are important components in getting along in this world.

I don't have a problem with what Ms. Cali said either. I just don't think anyone should have expected her to win the crown if she didn't play the game of pagent politics. Meaning that she needed to talk the talk of respect and tolerance toward others even if she didn't walk it. When you allow yourself to be used to represent something, you can't go all rogue and do your own thing with no regard for your title.

But what she said WAS said with respect and tolerance -- for traditional marriage. Simply because she doesn't agree with something which goes against the norm doesn't make one intolerant. Even if it DID, she is still entitled to adhere to her traditional beliefs.

It's funny, because another California contender (maybe the runner-up) said that she herself was for gay marriage and that Prejean did not represent the state of California. Um, the other ditz represents California even less! Traditional marriage was upheld in California, so saying that because she believes in gay marriage makes her more representative of the state is plain wrong.

She showed her tolerance by what she said about gays, in spite of her stance on gay marriage.

Some of the negative talk about gay marriage has revealed a deep-seated dislike of gays in general and a lack of respect for them and their lifestyle. That's why I comended trell on her post.

She showed her tolerance by what she said about gays, in spite of her stance on gay marriage.

Some of the negative talk about gay marriage has revealed a deep-seated dislike of gays in general and a lack of respect for them and their lifestyle. That's why I comended trell on her post.

You can respect people without respecting everything they do or choices they make. Anybody who has children can tell you that.

But to go further, where does it end? Multiple wives/husbands? Marrying siblings? Parents? One's favorite pet?

Because for some of us, we realize that this issue will become a catalyst for all other "alternative lifestyle" people to come out in droves and demand their desires be accepted too.

She showed her tolerance by what she said about gays, in spite of her stance on gay marriage.

Some of the negative talk about gay marriage has revealed a deep-seated dislike of gays in general and a lack of respect for them and their lifestyle. That's why I comended trell on her post.

I don't believe that there is a deep seated dislike for gays in general as you say. I know that's not it in my case and I'm sure others feel the same way. It is a deep seated dislike for their action of having sex with the same sex. My son smokes cigarettes, and I hate that. I LOVE my son dearly, I dislike his smoking habit. The negative talk is our 'objection' of the sin.

A catholic Bishop said this, and I agree with him: "We don't see same sex marriage as a civil rights issue because there's never a right to do something that's morally wrong." If others want to call those opposed to same sex marriage 'intollerant', then so be it. We that are opposed know that we are not intollerant of people, but of their wrong doings.

I said in an earlier post my reasons for why same sex marriage shouldn't become law. Mainly that it is one thing to be free to do the things that you want in the privacy of your own home, sinful or not, but that it is quite another thing to make it lawful. I saw on TV yesterday that there are those who are now desiring marriage for a threesome. See what I mean? Where will it end? Can we have marriage between siblings? How about If I loved my pet enough to marry it? It's my 'right'.

If you don't want a truthful answer, don't ask. I have always been that way, and all those that know me respect me for that. Miss Cali, answered honestly. If you ask me, I would say the same thing; however, I do not condone the mistreatment of any group of people. I do not believe in calling people the other word, so group of people is my term.

People say that they accept others, but then behind closed doors, they laugh and pick at them. If you accept people for who they are, then why do we poke fun of them? For instance, in the media, movies and etc. I would rather a person be real with me about how they feel than to be a hypocrite in saying I really agree with same sex couples/marriage. One thing I can say, I may not agree with same sex marriage, but I do respect the person. I do not beleive in making fun of certain groups of people, harassing, namecalling and etc.

I, too, would not condone the mistreatment of any group of people. Nor would I poke fun at anyone. I also wholeheartedly believe in stating an honest, (real, as you call it) answer to why I don't agree with same sex marriages while respecting all people. If I were miss California, I would have answered in the same way and never have regretted it. Marriage is for 2 people only and they are 1 woman and 1 man.

I do not believe that Miss Cali hates the group she was talking about, I believe she spoke what was in her heart, and what she knows to be right.

I am just saying that there are some people who say they are for certain groups, but then they poke fun at them. Either we truly accept people or we don't.

I agree with beth.

I agree that you can show people respect even if you don't agree with everything they do.

I also have trouble believing that some people aren't just paying lip service because it sounds politically correct, but that they have pretty deep-seated bigotry at their core.

What is with the right and this messiah thing? I have never thought of Obama as a messiah nor do I agree with everything he has done. No one I know agree's with him 100%.

It actually is really dumb. When they start with the messiah, savior, whatever thing it just shows they can't articulate opinions without put downs.