give Ms. Cali credit.....whether you agree or not at least she didn't lie her ass off

In my opinion, she answered the question honestly and respectfully. She didn't dehumanize any particular group of people.

 

Co-sign.

Although I think she is archaic in her thinking and completely wrong - I do respect her right to her own opinion. and I do think she was not disrespectful.

Why would the question be in there if they only would accept one answer? Do they condone lying?? She could have lied and saved herself some trouble but she stood up for her beliefs how crappy I may think they are.
I think Perez shat a brick for nothing, it was a frekking beautypageants opinion, not a politician. Then he better not throw a tizzy if someone calls him on his beliefes - jeezzz.:smt021

For the record, I whole heartedly believe in our right to choose our partner whoever they may be. I dont have a right to pass judgement. I think its discrimination to not allow gay marriage.
But, we do have freedom of speech - and that means both sides have a righ to their opinion and to voice it - even though Im sick ad tired of the idiotic arguments proposition 8 people have.

I personally believe that proposition 8 did pass because people didnt read what acctually was the question - I cant believe that CA is against gay marriage - makes absolutely no sense.
The voting was to reverse the right to gay marriage and I think people thought if they voted "yes" they voted FOR gay marriage but instead inadveretently voted to reverse the right to gay marriage.:smt085

 

Yeah, he's attacked her needlessly and continues to verbally assault her.

 

If the situation were different, and it was IR marriage that was still illegal, I'd take any and every opportunity that I had to bring the topic up, and I would rage against anyone who opposed the legalization of IR marriage like they were the lowest form of slime on Earth.

 

I can't wait for the day when one of the contestants say what they really feel. My guess is that she'll probably be an unknown member of wwbm.com and her response will shock the living shit outta people.:smt003

 

Or a daughter of a member of wwbm.com.....:smt003

 

Yep, we are definitely on the same page.:smt003

 

What?

 

i'm not sure why these beauty pageants are fooling themselves by asking 'politically serious' questions of these women.. barely 30 minutes before the Q&A portion, they were all parading around in bikinis and high heels (not that i'm against that)..
IMO, the contests are really already determined by the time they get to the Q&A, and it's a formality to avoid the perennial criticisms that its all just a cheesecake fest.. usually the women are given something generic enough to generate a relatively innocuous answer "what's the one thing you would do to make the world a better place?" and whether they get responses from "I'd give everybody a puppy! tee-hee!" or something about third-world debt relief, pageant officials could at least say "See! we encourage sharp brains as well as beauty!"

...it was a loaded question by Hilton.. I'll watch a real political debate if I want to see people answer these types of questions..

...I'm hoping that ms. prejean doesn't totally disappear.. do Maxim, something.. maybe playboy eventually, after her tenure expires..

(and the revelation that she got implants weeks before the pageant.. priceless.. then again, I guess they cost a few grand..) :grin:

 

Why do you say she is a bigot? Because she supports preservation of the traditional form of marriage? If that is the case, the majority of Americans are bigots.

 

do we even know who won? miss cali has been on every channel...every program since the pagent...she is getting mega press...i commend her for giving an honest answer instead of some pre-programed tell the people what they want to hear...i, however, believe that we should have cival unions that should have nothing to do with religion...

 

Ridiculous. This debate is essentially about the government granting same sex couples the same ability to enter into contracts that guarantees them the protections, rights and privileges that heterosexual couple are entitled to under the law.

By the way, "traditional marriage" as it were, which has historically been a system in which women were treated as nothing more than chattel by their families and husbands, has already been disavowed by most in the Western world.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-03-gay-marriage-poll_N.htm

 

That's my take on the matter. Couples, regardless of orientation, should be able to file for civil unions. The ceremonial marriage and recognition of the union by whatever religious authority the couple subscribes to should be a totally private matter. Some religious sects recognize same sex unions, and some don't. How they define the state of "marriage" is up to them, but no one should be deprived of equal protection under the law.

 

Yes yes and sadly, yes.

The traditional form of marriage 50 years ago meant monoracial marriages. To date, I have yet to see an argument against gay marriage that was not used against interracial marriage. Back in the day, the majority of Americans were opposed to legal interracial marriage. Didn't make it right.

 

You're absolutely correct that this is about entitlements. Traditional marriage is supported by the law and the tax code because it is beneficial to society as a whole. The same cannot be said of homosexual unions.

 

:smt004

 

I was going to post the countdown ticker in my last post waiting for someone to compare homosexual rights to racial discrimation.

It was just a matter of time.

 

It most certainly can. In every state of the union there are children languishing in state & foster care, only to be thrust out into the world at 18. Homosexual couples in many of these states are adopting children, and don't we in this country think that kids are better off being raised by married parents? Isn't better for kids to be raised by two people in a stable, loving marriage who happen to be of the same gender, than by the system?

 

I compare gay marriage rights to Loving V Virginia every time the conversation is raised, so if I'm here the ticker will never last long.

 

The adoption of a child by stable adults is a positive thing, yes. That doesn't mean you declare it a marriage. If three heterosexual men living together adopted a young boy would that union be declared a marriage of three?