946 replies to this topic

[Macker]

Perez Hilton proposed to me in Vermont once.....

[Rim Job]

Support Miss California!


"After expressing her personal beliefs, Miss California Carrie Prejean's chances of winning the Miss USA 2009 pageant came to an end.

Miss California responded to a question regarding nationwide legalization of gay marriage with an answer that conflicted with the views of one of the Miss USA 2009 judges, Perez Hilton. Mr. Hilton later admitted to penalizing her and posted a video criticizing her performance and describing her with profanity.

Miss California had sacrificed much and dedicated years of her life to reach the top of her competitive industry. It's unfair for her score to suffer after she truthfully responded to a political wedge issue. Mr. Hilton was using the pageant as a platform to express his own political agenda and more Americans should be upset with his bullying tactics after he didn't get from her the response he was looking for.

Join this group to support Miss California's willingness to stand up for her beliefs and against vocal, activist bullies of the Hollywood scene, even if it cost her the pageant crown. Invite everyone you know to join in support of her courage and personal strength. "

http://www.facebook....30122628&ref=nf

coming together in love to protect marriage!

[Mr. Roboto]

"love"

[LISA]

doesn't matter who you love as long as it is love..and mutual respect..and trust...and lots of sex!

[Mr. Roboto]

All man has always wanted to do is drink, make love and dance since the beginning of time. Sounds like a great life to me.

[LISA]

me too!

[freedom78]

Support Miss California!


"After expressing her personal beliefs, Miss California Carrie Prejean's chances of winning the Miss USA 2009 pageant came to an end.

Miss California responded to a question regarding nationwide legalization of gay marriage with an answer that conflicted with the views of one of the Miss USA 2009 judges, Perez Hilton. Mr. Hilton later admitted to penalizing her and posted a video criticizing her performance and describing her with profanity.

Miss California had sacrificed much and dedicated years of her life to reach the top of her competitive industry. It's unfair for her score to suffer after she truthfully responded to a political wedge issue. Mr. Hilton was using the pageant as a platform to express his own political agenda and more Americans should be upset with his bullying tactics after he didn't get from her the response he was looking for.

Join this group to support Miss California's willingness to stand up for her beliefs and against vocal, activist bullies of the Hollywood scene, even if it cost her the pageant crown. Invite everyone you know to join in support of her courage and personal strength. "

http://www.facebook....30122628&ref=nf

First, lol at this being an "industry".

Second, what beliefs are unacceptable? Perhaps they shouldn't ask these questions if there's an unacceptable answer. Maybe we should ask questions that highlight bigotry on a questionaire before they contend at the local level or something. Like I said before, once upon a time she would have answered the same about interracial marriages, and someone somewhere would be backing her up for speaking to her beliefs. Sure, it's a free country, and you have a right to your opinions, but you can still be punished for them. If I"m around work talking about different races in a derogatory manner, I can be canned for it, just like she MAY have lost this pageant (and we also can't assume that someone didn't give her higher scores because they AGREED with her!).

[PERM BANNED]

Support Miss California!


"After expressing her personal beliefs, Miss California Carrie Prejean's chances of winning the Miss USA 2009 pageant came to an end.

Miss California responded to a question regarding nationwide legalization of gay marriage with an answer that conflicted with the views of one of the Miss USA 2009 judges, Perez Hilton. Mr. Hilton later admitted to penalizing her and posted a video criticizing her performance and describing her with profanity.

Miss California had sacrificed much and dedicated years of her life to reach the top of her competitive industry. It's unfair for her score to suffer after she truthfully responded to a political wedge issue. Mr. Hilton was using the pageant as a platform to express his own political agenda and more Americans should be upset with his bullying tactics after he didn't get from her the response he was looking for.

Join this group to support Miss California's willingness to stand up for her beliefs and against vocal, activist bullies of the Hollywood scene, even if it cost her the pageant crown. Invite everyone you know to join in support of her courage and personal strength. "

http://www.facebook....30122628&ref=nf

First, lol at this being an "industry".

Second, what beliefs are unacceptable? Perhaps they shouldn't ask these questions if there's an unacceptable answer. Maybe we should ask questions that highlight bigotry on a questionaire before they contend at the local level or something. Like I said before, once upon a time she would have answered the same about interracial marriages, and someone somewhere would be backing her up for speaking to her beliefs. Sure, it's a free country, and you have a right to your opinions, but you can still be punished for them. If I"m around work talking about different races in a derogatory manner, I can be canned for it, just like she MAY have lost this pageant (and we also can't assume that someone didn't give her higher scores because they AGREED with her!).

That's quite a leap to assume that because one is against gay marriage they would have also been against interacial marriage. There are plenty of non"bigoted" reason to be cautious about cononing the homo-sexual community. The alarming STD rate namely among them. Although I didn't watch any of this contest (I couldn't care less), there are religous and personal ethics which may lead one to view homosexuality in a negative light. As I assume the question was derived to her personal opinion on the matter, I see no issue with it. Personally I believe adults can interact and do with one another however they choose; but that doesn't mean that I personally condone or accept homosexuality as "normal." We need to get out of the practice of having the government involved in our personal relationships, regardless of the sex of the people involved.

[freedom78]

Support Miss California!


"After expressing her personal beliefs, Miss California Carrie Prejean's chances of winning the Miss USA 2009 pageant came to an end.

Miss California responded to a question regarding nationwide legalization of gay marriage with an answer that conflicted with the views of one of the Miss USA 2009 judges, Perez Hilton. Mr. Hilton later admitted to penalizing her and posted a video criticizing her performance and describing her with profanity.

Miss California had sacrificed much and dedicated years of her life to reach the top of her competitive industry. It's unfair for her score to suffer after she truthfully responded to a political wedge issue. Mr. Hilton was using the pageant as a platform to express his own political agenda and more Americans should be upset with his bullying tactics after he didn't get from her the response he was looking for.

Join this group to support Miss California's willingness to stand up for her beliefs and against vocal, activist bullies of the Hollywood scene, even if it cost her the pageant crown. Invite everyone you know to join in support of her courage and personal strength. "

http://www.facebook....30122628&ref=nf

First, lol at this being an "industry".

Second, what beliefs are unacceptable? Perhaps they shouldn't ask these questions if there's an unacceptable answer. Maybe we should ask questions that highlight bigotry on a questionaire before they contend at the local level or something. Like I said before, once upon a time she would have answered the same about interracial marriages, and someone somewhere would be backing her up for speaking to her beliefs. Sure, it's a free country, and you have a right to your opinions, but you can still be punished for them. If I"m around work talking about different races in a derogatory manner, I can be canned for it, just like she MAY have lost this pageant (and we also can't assume that someone didn't give her higher scores because they AGREED with her!).

That's quite a leap to assume that because one is against gay marriage they would have also been against interacial marriage. There are plenty of non"bigoted" reason to be cautious about cononing the homo-sexual community. The alarming STD rate namely among them. Although I didn't watch any of this contest (I couldn't care less), there are religous and personal ethics which may lead one to view homosexuality in a negative light. As I assume the question was derived to her personal opinion on the matter, I see no issue with it. Personally I believe adults can interact and do with one another however they choose; but that doesn't mean that I personally condone or accept homosexuality as "normal." We need to get out of the practice of having the government involved in our personal relationships, regardless of the sex of the people involved.

I worded my post(s) poorly. When I say "she" what I really meant is that there was a time when a contestant like her could have given a nearly identical answer regarding inter-racial marriage. In other words, issues come and go, and yesterday's common wisdom becomes today's bigotry.

RE: homosexuality...a few thoughts. First, there are no gay only diseases. I understand that increased risks come from things like anal sex, but I'm unaware of any serious STD that can't be prevented via safe sex. If one wants proof that being anti-gay isn't going to prevent STDs, one needs only look to Africa for more devastating proof than one could ever need. Second, the issue here is gay marriage, not homosexuality in general. And, since the Supreme Court has ruled that laws against homosexual conduct are a violation of privacy rights, I'm not certain that her opinion should matter one way or the other. After all, we've already condoned the "risky" part (sex), so how does the argument against marriage hold water?

I would agree that homosexuality isn't normal. It's a deviation from the norm. But abnormal doesn't equate with unnatural. A man with a six fingered hand is abnormal, but hardly unnatural (assuming no intentional genetic manipulations, etc.). The truth is, "normal" isn't a standard to go by. I can think of many things about myself that are abnormal. That doesn't mean we should legislate them, however. We have to ask what purpose legislation serves. To my mind, it serves two fundamental purposes: (1) to prevent us from harming each other (i.e. you can't murder, steal, rape, etc.) and (2) to better our country/society (i.e. "let's build a road!"). I've not heard a single compelling argument that banning gay marriage does either of these things. In fact, there is likely far greater harm in allowing minors to marry, for example. This is often forced on youths under the guise of religion, leaving them little or no choice in the matter and leading to a life I can only imagine.

I know you have a serious libertarian streak and are already on record in this thread as having no issue with gay marriage, so forgive me if this came across as me lecturing. It's just that issues like this are stunningly supported by those who claim (quite hypocritically) to support "small" government, and I've not once heard a strong anti-gay marriage argument that hasn't been based in religious principles. Whenever I hear someone resort to such arguments, it reminds me of one of my favorite little clips:



In other words, it's little more than a wedge issue. It serves no purpose. Unlike abortion, there's no legit claim that something (a fetus...not to get into a life debate) is harmed. Arguments that gays being married somehow lessens my own marriage? Bunk. My marriage is no more affected by homosexuals marrying than by heterosexuals divorcing (which has, of course, been far worse to the institution than has anything gays have done). Religious reasons? Even if they were valid, doesn't that mean that we should respect the religions that allow gay marriage? Unitarians, for example, seem to have little problem with it. Or perhaps gay Christians want to form a new church? Surely Protestants couldn't take issue with that, as it's the root of their existence.

[PERM BANNED]

There's a larger issue with gay marriage. I think there is more to it than simply the surface. You're right, two men or two women agreeing under law to be "joined" has no bearing on your relationship. However, marriage comes with other legal privledges. Adoption for example. Now let's address a popular retort up front. There is no lack of hetero couples willing to adopt children. We have to import children from third world countries there is such a demand for children in America. So the issue of gay parents being able to provide a loving home for unadopted children is bogus in my opinion. This is where it gets tricky. As the government is responsible for these children prior to their adoption, they do have a responsibility to ensure that these children go into stable homes. What defines stable? A subject of great debate for sure, but I don't think it a dramatic stretch to argue that the typical homosexual couple is not a stable environment for a child. Meaning, statistics showing the amount of partners homosexual (men mostly) have as well as the cultural acceptance of "swinging" that is a reality in gay culture. Of course there are gay couples who are monogamous and just as "normal" as any happily married hetero couple. The issue becomes is that kind of environment suitable to raise a child in. I know it's not PC, but there is plenty of evidence to support that claim that a two parent household is ideal and beneficial to children. We'd also have to compete with the right to privacy of adults. It's certainly not a black and white issue. Which is my point really. People on either side of the aisle want to make it a simple issue, and it's anything but. As citizens they have inalienable rights and we shouldn't judge or prohibit people from something just because a segment of their "group" behaves (arguably) inappropriately. This issue begs so many other quesions, it becomes more and more complex the further you go. Should the government have any role in how people parent? Many here would argue that the Jesus heads down south who home school their kids and teach them creationism are abusing their children. I make no moral judgements here because it doesn't affect me (directly) and I have other issues to worry about. My point is that there is more to this issue than just bigotry (though you are correct that hate is probably the leading factor for most who oppose gay marriage) and requires much research and thought.

[PERM BANNED]

Excuse the grammatical errors as always. I try to post while doing work, so they don't get my standard academic review before submittal.

[freedom78]

There's a larger issue with gay marriage. I think there is more to it than simply the surface. You're right, two men or two women agreeing under law to be "joined" has no bearing on your relationship. However, marriage comes with other legal privledges. Adoption for example. Now let's address a popular retort up front. There is no lack of hetero couples willing to adopt children. We have to import children from third world countries there is such a demand for children in America. So the issue of gay parents being able to provide a loving home for unadopted children is bogus in my opinion. This is where it gets tricky. As the government is responsible for these children prior to their adoption, they do have a responsibility to ensure that these children go into stable homes. What defines stable? A subject of great debate for sure, but I don't think it a dramatic stretch to argue that the typical homosexual couple is not a stable environment for a child. Meaning, statistics showing the amount of partners homosexual (men mostly) have as well as the cultural acceptance of "swinging" that is a reality in gay culture. Of course there are gay couples who are monogamous and just as "normal" as any happily married hetero couple. The issue becomes is that kind of environment suitable to raise a child in. I know it's not PC, but there is plenty of evidence to support that claim that a two parent household is ideal and beneficial to children. We'd also have to compete with the right to privacy of adults. It's certainly not a black and white issue. Which is my point really.

People on either side of the aisle want to make it a simple issue, and it's anything but. As citizens they have inalienable rights and we shouldn't judge or prohibit people from something just because a segment of their "group" behaves (arguably) inappropriately.

This issue begs so many other quesions, it becomes more and more complex the further you go. Should the government have any role in how people parent? Many here would argue that the Jesus heads down south who home school their kids and teach them creationism are abusing their children.

I make no moral judgements here because it doesn't affect me (directly) and I have other issues to worry about. My point is that there is more to this issue than just bigotry (though you are correct that hate is probably the leading factor for most who oppose gay marriage) and requires much research and thought.

I'd correct to say there's no shortage of couples to adobt babies (as opposed to children, many of whom spend their childhoods in orphanages or hopping between foster homes). Now, if gay people wanted to adopt such children, I would argue that that's fantastic. These kids need loving parents and good homes.

As for the "swinging" bit...well, hetero couples do that too, and who's to say what sorts of sexual behaviors consenting adults should engage in? I'm sure some people are strictly missionary, and don't want kids growing up in homes where they may encounter more animalistic sexual positions. And, of course, it goes without saying that simply being straight doesn't make one a good parent, and neither does being married. Really, the root of such arguments about how gay behavior will affect kids goes back to the old fear that gay begets gay, and I don't believe there's any evidence for that at all. We can't enforce rigid guidelines of good parenting. So long as you feed, shelter, and send your kids to school, I think you're doing all the law requires. And, no, I don't think we should legislate much beyond that. We SHOULD encourage people to be good parents and give them resources to do just that. But once upon a time, things like reading to your children didn't exist, and it's no wonder that, instinctually, we think of parenting as food and shelter.

Anyway, I'm now way off on a tangent, so let me reel myself back in. The basis of my point is this...we made many similar arguments against interracial marriage that we do about gay marriage. And some of what you say is absolutely correct. If nothing else, a kid whose parents are named John and Joe, is likely to experience a different childhood, but I'd argue that, on average, most of those differences in the home will be a wash. The kid will likely grow up a bit more open minded. Now, outside of the home is different, and will likely be negative. I recall some kids in my junior high seeing a mixed race kid and singing something from Jungle Fever at him (he kicked their asses, by the way), and I'm sure kids in same sex homes will experience the same. But change is rarely easy, even when it's right. The same applies to segregation, whether racially in our public institutions, sexually in our military, or whatever. Change can bring difficulty, but at some point you have to act on principle. It IS a complex issue, but in some ways it is ALSO a simple one. And if we look at the Constitution, and things like the Full Faith and Credit Clause or the Equal Protection Clause, then for me the answer is simple and obvious.

[Mr. Roboto]

Gay Couple from New Jersey

[Mr. Roboto]

Maine becomes 5th state to allow same-sex marriage AUGUSTA, Maine – Maine's governor signed a freshly passed bill Wednesday approving gay marriage, making it the fifth state to approve the practice and moving New England closer to allowing it throughout the region. New Hampshire legislators were also poised to send a gay marriage bill to their governor, who hasn't indicated whether he'll sign it. If he does, Rhode Island would be the region's sole holdout. The Maine Senate voted 21-13, with one absent, for a bill that authorizes marriage between any two people rather than between one man and one woman, as state law currently allows. The House had passed the bill Tuesday. Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, who hadn't previously indicated how he would handle the bill, signed it shortly afterward. In the past, he said he opposed gay marriage but supported civil unions, which provide many benefits of marriage. Debate was brief. Senate President Elizabeth Mitchell, D-Vassalboro, turned the gavel over to an openly gay member, Sen. Lawrence Bliss, D-South Portland, to preside over the final vote. Republican Sen. Debra Plowman of Hampden argued that the bill was being passed "at the expense of the people of faith." "You are making a decision that is not well-founded," warned Plowman. But Senate Majority Leader Philip Bartlett II said the bill does not compel religious institutions to recognize gay marriage. "We respect religious liberties. ... This is long overdue," said Bartlett, D-Gorham. Maine is now the fourth state in New England, to allow same-sex marriages. Connecticut enacted a bill after being ordered to allow gay marriages by the courts, and Vermont passed a bill over the governor's veto. New Hampshire's House was also expected to vote on a bill Wednesday and send it to Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat. Massachusetts' high court has ordered the state to recognize gay marriages. In Rhode Island, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage has been introduced but is not expected to pass this year. Outside New England, Iowa is recognizing gay marriages on court orders. The practice was briefly legal in California before voters banned it.

[Mr. Roboto]

The drama keeps on going.... Shanna Moakler Resigns as Miss California Pageant Director Us Magazine - May 13, 2009 2:05 PM PDT The day after Carrie Prejean was told she could keep her Miss California crown, Shanna Moakler has resigned, she confirms to Usmagazine.com exclusively. "Since the press conference yesterday, I had a chance to think about what has taken place, and I feel that at this time it is in my best interest to resign from the Miss California USA organization," Moakler tells Us. "I cannot with a clear conscious move forward supporting and promoting the Miss Universe Organization when I no longer believe in it, or the contracts I signed committing myself as a youth," she continues. "I want to be a role model for young women with high hopes of pageantry, but now feel it more important to be a role model for my children. I am sorry and hope I have not let any young supporters down but wish them the best of luck in fulfilling their dreams." Miss California USA pageant director Keith Lewis told Us in a statement: "Shanna has, and will continue to be, a large part of my life. Although I am sad she has come to this decision, I will always respect the convictions that brought her to this place." Prejean, 21, first ignited controversy at the April 19 pageant when she told judge Perez Hilton that she believed marriage should be between only a man and a woman, igniting a cultural debate. The runner-up said her answer cost her the crown. Prejean later announced that she'll be launching a campaign opposing gay marriage with the National Organization for Marriage. Shortly after, Moakler announced she was appearing in new ad supporting gay rights. She shot a print ad April 28 slamming Proposition 8, the initiative that bans gay marriage in California. On Tuesday, pageant owner Donald Trump announced Prejean would keep her crown despite failing to reveal she had posed in her underwear as a teenager. (Prejean said the pictures were leaked to humiliate her because of her anti-gay marriage views, calling it a "vicious and mean-spirited" attacks. Even more photos hit the web before Trump's press conference Tuesday morning.) On Monday, California pageant officials announced that Prejean violated her contract by lobbying on behalf of an anti-gay-marriage group and by failing to reveal that she had posed in her underwear as a teenager. They appointed Tami Farrell, her runner-up, as "Beauty of California Ambassador" to fulfill any duties that Prejean might not be able to carry out.