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?

oh and getting back to miss california - ms prim and proper and holy and god like ... why did she have to get a new set of tatas before the competition....yep new boobs, couldn't she just love herself enough to appreciate her flat chested self????

There's no commandment stating "Thou shalt not get false boobs". In fact, I applaud her courage in getting fake boobs. If only all women were this brave.....:ohmy::biggrin:

As a resident of California I was disgusted at the downright bigotry shown by my fellow Californian's.

I assume you mean the prop 8 stuff? Funny how the majority of people in California are "bigots", just because they don't agree with you.

This is all so complicated, or just being made that way , my God loves everyone she just thinks, mean people suck, and they do! end of story if you are kind to all Gods creature you get to go to heaven (if there is one).

Well, I think we create heaven and hell right here on earth, we're living it NOW. If you're a good person, good things come to you. If you do wrong by others, well, what goes around comes around. You dont need to believe in God to think of it this way.

Patty seems to have gone. She's probably down at the mall glaring daggers at breastfeeding mothers for being so evil and immodest.

Well, I think we create heaven and hell right here on earth, we're living it NOW. If you're a good person, good things come to you. If you do wrong by others, well, what goes around comes around. You dont need to believe in God to think of it this way.

Patty seems to have gone. She's probably down at the mall glaring daggers at breastfeeding mothers for being so evil and immodest.

I agree w/you when I see trees and young children playing, (whether they are gay or not) nature in all her glory, to me that is heaven. I love my life here and I do good I am not perfect and some of the stuff I have done would be considered wrong by some, but I have never intentionally hurt someone or any critters. So if there is a heaven I get to go. We just need to be nice to each other, unless the other sucks then you can be onery to them.:ohmy:

I have not right to take away someone else’s right to marry the life partner of their choosing.

You have the right to vote for or against it. If you feel morally you can't take that away, then you can vote for gay marriage.

I assume you mean the prop 8 stuff? Funny how the majority of people in California are "bigots", just because they don't agree with you.

Touche. Name-calling seems to be the only way to combat those that some disagree with.

Labeling someone who doesn't agree with you isn't necessarily right, however when someone discriminates, for whatever reason, they are considered a bigot in our little world.

The word bigot is defined as a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc. And they are also considered narrow-minded and prejudiced.

It seems that the word "bigot" has been appropriately used in this thread.

As for you folks who are unhappy with pattygreen's preaching, didn't she start this thread?

Is it a surprise to anyone that she started it to give herself the opportunity to proselytize?

Labeling someone who doesn't agree with you isn't necessarily right, however when someone discriminates, for whatever reason, they are considered a bigot in our little world.

The word bigot is defined as a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc. And they are also considered narrow-minded and prejudiced.

It seems that the word "bigot" has been appropriately used in this thread.

I guess then it can be used against those who want to force something on the majority that is not popular opinion or creed as well and choose to hold blindly and intolerantly to their view as the only one that is acceptable. Thanks for the definition. :ohmy:

Edited April 30, 200917 yr by BethFromVA

As for you folks who are unhappy with pattygreen's preaching, didn't she start this thread?

Is it a surprise to anyone that she started it to give herself the opportunity to proselytize?

As hard as it is to admit, especially to you (:thumbup:), touche. :ohmy:

plain: "Regardless of which side of the issue you're on, I think it's beyond stupid to bash somebody on their opinion when it's asked of them."

But isn't that exactly what you do to me nearly every time I try to answer one of your questions?

Beth: "I guess then it can be used against those who want to force something on the majority that is not popular opinion or creed as well and choose to hold blindly and intolerantly to their view as the only one that is acceptable."

Uh, whut? I didn't make it up you know.

Beth: "Thanks for the definition."

Uh you're welcome, I think.

Beth: "I guess then it can be used against those who want to force something on the majority that is not popular opinion or creed as well and choose to hold blindly and intolerantly to their view as the only one that is acceptable."

Uh, whut? I didn't make it up you know.

Beth: "Thanks for the definition."

Uh you're welcome, I think.

I'm saying it works both ways. Those who are hating on those who stick to their convictions, regardless of which side of the aisle they are on, can be called bigots by your very definition: "choosing to hold blindly and intolerantly to their view."

Those on the pro-gay side that choose to lob names and insults to the other side can also be labeled bigots and haters against the popular norm. :ohmy:

..... I would like to see the rights of gay couples protected. By rights I mean property, hosp. visits, insurance, etc. These are rights that everyone should have anyway, whether gay or not. But, aren't these rights already there for everyone who knows how to see an attorney and have what they want written up?

But a married hetero couple doesn't have to seek out (and pay) an attorney to draw up a special agreement - so why should a gay couple have to take those steps?

Also - if marriage was created by God and is a religious concept, are you saying that a hetero couple that has only a civil ceremony isn't truly married?

The word bigot is defined as a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc. And they are also considered narrow-minded and prejudiced.

It seems that the word "bigot" has been appropriately used in this thread.

But that assumes that EVERYbody who doesn't support gay marriage holds to that opinion blindly and intolerantly. Perhaps some people have thought out the issue well. Perhaps some follow the leadings of their church. I'm just saying....there are potentially many reasons a person could be against gay marriage. Sure, some that are against it are bigots, but not ALL.

plain: "Regardless of which side of the issue you're on, I think it's beyond stupid to bash somebody on their opinion when it's asked of them."

But isn't that exactly what you do to me nearly every time I try to answer one of your questions?

Not really. I merely challenge you when you present your opinions as facts. Opinions are fine, but in a debate ya GOTTA be able to back up your position.

Edited April 30, 200917 yr by plain