Miss California may be stripped of her title.

[the_big_toe]

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12300858

Something tells me that her stance on gay marriage inspired some people to do their darndest to dig up dirt on her. From the description of the "partially nude" photos, they seem pretty innocent and innocuous (she was in panties and was photographed from the back - i.e. her privates were not actually visible in the photos).

While I do not agree with her stance on gay marriage, she has every right to voice her opinion. These efforts to discredit her and destroy her proffessionally are ridiculous and wrong.

[concha]

She's being Joetheplumbered.

[Baron Von Steuben]

She broke her K. End of story.

[the_big_toe]

She broke her K. End of story.

While neither you nor I have read or analyzed her contract, do you really think that this would be an issue if she had answered that question that she was in favor of gay marriage and was now speaking on behalf of some group that advocated gay marriage? I sincerely doubt it.

[MoeDude]

She's being Joetheplumbered.
And someone ridiculed me recently for referring to the tyranny of the current political environment. Look out if you speak your peace against the Far Left. They will do all they can to get you.

[GoalPoster]

"The contract also contains a clause asking participants to say whether they have conducted themselves "in accordance with the highest ethical and moral standards."

Do these same standards apply to the judges?

[NorrisHopper30]

I'd prefer it if she were stripped of her clothes.

[Jhubbs77]

:laugh: Her "title"

[Baron Von Steuben]

While neither you nor I have read or analyzed her contract, do you really think that this would be an issue if she had answered that question that she was in favor of gay marriage and was now speaking on behalf of some group that advocated gay marriage? I sincerely doubt it.

Do you think this would even be on the radar; putting her in danger of losing her status if she didn't exploit her 15 minutes. I sincerely doubt it.

[concha]

Do you think this would even be on the radar; putting her in danger of losing her status if she didn't exploit her 15 minutes. I sincerely doubt it.

Confront or conflict with the Left and you have to fold and go into hiding or pay the price. Don't dare stand up for your beliefs and right to free speech.
:Ohno:

[LittleCardsDad]

Man, the left is a really tolerant crowd, aren't they?

[Baron Von Steuben]

Confront or conflict with the Left and you have to fold and go into hiding or pay the price. Don't dare stand up for your beliefs and right to free speech.
:Ohno:

You want to play Joan of Arc, you get burned at the stake.

Her speaking out was a calculated move to endear her to Fudd Nation; to ensure her $$$ value went up post pageant.

Boo f'in hoo.

[LittleCardsDad]

You want to play Joan of Arc, you get burned at the stake.

Her speaking out was a calculated move to endear her to Fudd Nation; to ensure her $$$ value went up post pageant.

Boo f'in hoo.

Quit your pissing and moaning. You know damn well she didn't start this. That nobody homo that asked her the question should have known better. It's liberal women that are buttass ugly.

[concha]

You want to play Joan of Arc, you get burned at the stake.

Her speaking out was a calculated move to endear her to Fudd Nation; to ensure her $$$ value went up post pageant.

Boo f'in hoo.

Let me get this straight.

She's competing in the biggest pageant of her life and on a national stage. The questions are secret and she has just seconds to answer. But her response was calculated to bring the liberal press and establishment down on her like a ton of bricks.

Sure. Okey-dokey. :rolleyes: :Ohno:

[WykidWytch]

You want to play Joan of Arc, you get burned at the stake.

Her speaking out was a calculated move to endear her to Fudd Nation; to ensure her $$$ value went up post pageant.

Boo f'in hoo.

I'm pretty sure if Perez Hilton hadn't queened out on her after the pageant, no one would have even heard of her.

Because she voiced some religious right principles, she's been the object of character assassination.

[MOUNT-UNION82]

You want to play Joan of Arc, you get burned at the stake.

Her speaking out was a calculated move to endear her to Fudd Nation; to ensure her $$$ value went up post pageant.

Boo f'in hoo.

Yeah, because no one in their right mind could actually be against homosexual marriage right? It had to be a calculated move and stuff..

Was Obama's admission that he was against gay marriage a calculated move to gain favor with the Fudd's as well? Or does he actually believe it (as mainstream America does).

Seriously, the notion that she only said those things to gain favor with the Fudds, is extremely far reaching.

[MOUNT-UNION82]

I'm pretty sure if Perez Hilton hadn't queened out on her after the pageant, no one would have even heard of her.

Because she voiced some religious right principles, she's been the object of character assassination.

You nailed it. That's the sad truth...

[SWMCinci]

You want to play Joan of Arc, you get burned at the stake.

Her speaking out was a calculated move to endear her to Fudd Nation; to ensure her $$$ value went up post pageant.

Boo f'in hoo.

So the truth is it takes more courage to make a morality stand than it does to support the gay agenda. That's something I've bee saying for years after watching the far left slash and burn their way through people that demonstrate a quantum of morality.

If she coldly calculated her answer to a surprise question to a controversial issue in the time before she spoke, she ought to be the freaking President of the United States. That answer was more direct than some prepared speeches delivered with a teleprompter.

[concha]

So the truth is it takes more courage to make a morality stand than it does to support the gay agenda. That's something I've bee saying for years after watching the far left slash and burn their way through people that demonstrate a quantum of morality.

If she coldly calculated her answer to a surprise question to a controversial issue in the time before she spoke, she ought to be the freaking President of the United States. That answer was more direct than some prepared speeches delivered with a teleprompter.

Obama was more confused and perturbed while ordering a cheeseburger yesterday.

[Baron Von Steuben]

Quit your pissing and moaning. You know damn well she didn't start this. That nobody homo that asked her the question should have known better. It's liberal women that are buttass ugly.

You're the one whining about it.

You're crew actually believes Ann Coulter is attractive. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Infidelity]

You're the one whining about it.

You're crew actually believes Ann Coulter is attractive. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Perez Hilton thinks most of your side is attractive....well at least the one's with stones between their legs.

[Baron Von Steuben]

So the truth is it takes more courage to make a morality stand than it does to support the gay agenda. That's something I've bee saying for years after watching the far left slash and burn their way through people that demonstrate a quantum of morality.

If she coldly calculated her answer to a surprise question to a controversial issue in the time before she spoke, she ought to be the freaking President of the United States. That answer was more direct than some prepared speeches delivered with a teleprompter.

Follow along. I didn't say her answer at the pageant was calculated. Her actions post-pageant were very calculated.

What I did say, and what is factually true, is that Miss Cali, knowing what the terms and conditions of her K were, when out, spoke out, gave interviews, and broke her contract. She knew, if she read (a 50/50 proposition for most Fudds) her K, that this behavior was/is forbidden. She did it anyway, to capitalize on her fleeting moment in the sun. It was crass, calculated, and designed to get her the most bang for her buck.

[Baron Von Steuben]

Perez Hilton thinks most of your side is attractive....well at least the one's with stones between their legs.

Perez Hilton has excellent taste. I am the sun-kissed version of Adonis. Woooooo!!!!! The cute chicks get it!!:cool:

[Baron Von Steuben]

SHe's a blonde from California and gets asked this q on national TV-- so she calculates all that out and answers that fast? I mean maybe before the pageant she worked on lots of possible questions, but I'm not sure this would be one that would be on the gaydar...... I mean radar.

Everything she did post-production was calculated.

[LittleCardsDad]

Everything she did post-production was calculated.

WTF does that mean? Are you saying she knew she was going to be asked that question and planned to capitalize on it after the fact?

[LS1944]

SO she got the attention because Perez Hilton basically 'came out' and said she lost cause of her answer.......... and what did she do after that to capitalize other than to say she doesn't regret her answer? Has she made tons of money or done alot of appearances or something?

[billyjake]

Everything she did post-production was calculated.

clueless

[LS1944]

THese pics were taken when she was 17? ANd were done privately and not like for a photographer or whatever???????? Hmmm maybe we have a disgruntled ex boyfriend behind all this..........

But what the heck was she doin taking pics like that at 17 anyway?????? DOesn't make what's being done with them right by any means. But there aren't any angels on either side here, it seems.

[LittleCardsDad]

THese pics were taken when she was 17? ANd were done privately and not like for a photographer or whatever???????? Hmmm maybe we have a disgruntled ex boyfriend behind all this..........

But what the heck was she doin taking pics like that at 17 anyway?????? DOesn't make what's being done with them right by any means. But there aren't any angels on either side here, it seems.

I thought she was a paid model. Wouldn't swimsuit and undie photos be part of her job?

[LS1944]

I thought she was a paid model. Wouldn't swimsuit and undie photos be part of her job?

As I understand it, she's come out and said they were meant to be private. Will look for source on that.

[Infidelity]

THese pics were taken when she was 17? ANd were done privately and not like for a photographer or whatever???????? Hmmm maybe we have a disgruntled ex boyfriend behind all this..........

But what the heck was she doin taking pics like that at 17 anyway?????? DOesn't make what's being done with them right by any means. But there aren't any angels on either side here, it seems.


Let me guess....this makes her opinion on gay marriage invalid?

[LS1944]

I believe i said "Doesn't make what's being done with them right by any means.."

Her opinion on gay marriage is wrong because it based on a 2000-6000 year old book. Sort of like if my opinion of seizure disorder was based on the same book. It's my opinion that seizure disorder is actually demonic possession. SInce it's my opinion.... it can't be wrong. How can an opinion be wrong???????

[Infidelity]

I believe i said "Doesn't make what's being done with them right by any means.."

Her opinion on gay marriage is wrong because it based on a 2000-6000 year old book. Sort of like if my opinion of seizure disorder was based on the same book. It's my opinion that seizure disorder is actually demonic possession. SInce it's my opinion.... it can't be wrong. How can an opinion be wrong???????


You've just been promoted to leader of the loones.

Her opinion is based on science and mother nature. Why do you think they make anal lube?

[LS1944]

You've just been promoted to leader of the loones.

Her opinion is based on science and mother nature. Why do you think they make anal lube?

I dunno..... for the times saliva doesn't work?????

Her opinion is not based on science any more than that silly creation museum is based on science, or any more then the work that Samuel Cartwright did on 'Drapetomania' and 'dysasthetica ethiopia' was in the mid 19th century.

[LittleCardsDad]

I believe i said "Doesn't make what's being done with them right by any means.."

Her opinion on gay marriage is wrong because it based on a 2000-6000 year old book. Sort of like if my opinion of seizure disorder was based on the same book. It's my opinion that seizure disorder is actually demonic possession. SInce it's my opinion.... it can't be wrong. How can an opinion be wrong???????

My opinion on gay marriage is the same as his and has nothing to do with any book. It's based on evolution and common sense.

[MickeyMantle]

Perez and this dingbat are both attention-hungry whores. It's sad this story has lasted this long.

[LS1944]

My opinion on gay marriage is the same as his and has nothing to do with any book. It's based on evolution and common sense.

HOw is it based on evolution? It has no bearing on whether or not a species continues and survives as long as the genetic mutation doesn't affect the whole population..... which it does not seem to do -- as being the son or daughter of a homosexual doesn't predispose. Homosexual behavior is omnipresent in species that don't die out because of it....... :shrug:

[Infidelity]

Perez and this dingbat are both attention-hungry whores. It's sad this story has lasted this long.

Why are you calling her a ding bat? Because if you liked women she wouldn't give you the time of day?d

[Infidelity]

HOw is it based on evolution? It has no bearing on whether or not a species continues and survives as long as the genetic mutation doesn't affect the whole population..... which it does not seem to do -- as being the son or daughter of a homosexual doesn't predispose. Homosexual behavior is omnipresent in species that don't die out because of it....... :shrug:

You're right..homosexuality is a lifestyle. It has nothing to do with evolution.

[Infidelity]

Perez and this dingbat are both attention-hungry whores. It's sad this story has lasted this long.

The true story is how a lovely lady can give her opinion and a queen b homosexual can call her a c*** and a dumb b**** and be a hero among the liberal left media and women's right groups.

[MickeyMantle]

Why are you calling her a ding bat? Because if you liked women she wouldn't give you the time of day?d

If I liked women? I'll take my wife over her any day, thanks.

[MickeyMantle]

The true story is how a lovely lady can give her opinion and a queen b homosexual can call her a c*** and a dumb b**** and be a hero among the liberal left media and women's right groups.

Yea, like that duscher is a hero. They're both dingbats that are enjoying their time in the spotlight.

[CCHSFAN'97]

You're right..homosexuality is a lifestyle. It has nothing to do with evolution.

It actually doesn't. Over 1500 species of animals have been witnessed engaged in homosexual behavior. This includes acts of lesbianism. I'm pretty sure Giraffes aren't going extinct. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Infidelity]

If I liked women? I'll take my wife over her any day, thanks.

Well I would hope you'd take your wife over her since your married but I highly doubt she's as beautiful as Miss Califonria. Mine isn't either, so don't feel bad.

[Infidelity]

It actually doesn't. Over 1500 species of animals have been witnessed engaged in homosexual behavior. This includes acts of lesbianism. I'm pretty sure Giraffes aren't going extinct. Maybe I'm wrong.

Sure...good one. And the divorce rate for heterosexuals just reached 95 %.

Maybe that's why I couldn't get my dog breed. She was a lesbian.

[MickeyMantle]

Well I would hope you'd take your wife over her since she's married but I highly doubt she's as beautiful as Miss Califonria. Mine isn't either, so don't feel bad.

Mine is to me and I'm not just saying that.

Besides, Miss Cali is way too skinny, her head is too narrow and she looks like she could have a unibrow. I could be too picky.

[CCHSFAN'97]

Sure...good one. And the divorce rate for heterosexuals just reached 95 %.

Maybe that's why I couldn't get my dog breed. She was a lesbian.

You're right. Let's play that fun game, "If I don't believe it it must not be true". Homosexual behavior occurs between animals in the wild, whether you like it or not. And maybe the reason your dog wouldn't breed is because she wanted you to buy her dinner first. Or she just doesn't find you attractive. One of the two. Read her an Edith Schaeffer novel. I heard that gets all the evangelical babes hot.

[Infidelity]

You're right. Let's play that fun game, "If I don't believe it it must not be true". Homosexual behavior occurs between animals in the wild, whether you like it or not. And maybe the reason your dog wouldn't breed is because she wanted you to buy her dinner first. Or she just doesn't find you attractive. One of the two. Read her an Edith Schaeffer novel. I heard that gets all the evangelical babes hot.

Funny but I'm a nature nut and I've never seen it.

Secondly, I doubt there has been any studies stating such...especially 1500 individual species studies. Get a clue.

[Infidelity]

Mine is to me and I'm not just saying that.

Besides, Miss Cali is way too skinny, her head is too narrow and she looks like she could have a unibrow. I could be too picky.

Yea...I wouldn't touch her either.

[CCHSFAN'97]

Funny but I'm a nature nut and I've never seen it.

Secondly, I doubt there has been any studies stating such...especially 1500 individual species studies. Get a clue.

You're a nut alright. Here's a short article from National Geographic. Enjoy (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html).

[fish82]

You're a nut alright. Here's a short article from National Geographic. Enjoy (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html).

That's the article I was looking for too. There are others as well. Bottom line...it's not a "choice." You're either pre-wired for it or you're not.

But thanks....now I'll have the image of gay penguins stuck in my head all day. :laugh:

[Infidelity]

You're a nut alright. Here's a short article from National Geographic. Enjoy (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html).

Animals display homosexual behavior..if that is your defense I guess you could say homosexuals are like animals.




Secondly..I didn't see the number 1500 anywhere.

[MOUNT-UNION82]

You're a nut alright. Here's a short article from National Geographic. Enjoy (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html).

Animals have also been known to eat their own fesces as well as their young. It's part of their survival instincts, developed to procreate the species in most arduous of conditions. (a dog humping a piece of furniture falls into the same category)

Are we to apply all these things as equally natural and equally as normal to the human species? Or just the ones you have been conditioned to accept?

[Infidelity]

That's the article I was looking for too. There are others as well. Bottom line...it's not a "choice." You're either pre-wired for it or you're not.

But thanks....now I'll have the image of gay penguins stuck in my head all day. :laugh:

Go ahead..go take a break in the bathroom and get your mind off of it.

[Infidelity]

Animals have also been known to eat their own fesces as well as their young. It's part of their survival instincts, developed to procreate the species in most arduous of conditions. (a dog humping a piece of furniture falls into the same category)

Are we to apply all these things as equally natural and equally as normal to the human species? Or just the ones you have been conditioned to accept?

Only when it supports their pro gay agenda of course.

[CCHSFAN'97]

Animals have also been known to eat their own fesces as well as their young. It's part of their survival instincts, developed to procreate the species in most arduous of conditions. (a dog humping a piece of furniture falls into the same category)

Are we to apply all these things as equally natural and normal to the human species?

I wasn't saying that it's natural or normal or abnormal...or giving it any other ridiculous label for that matter. I was just pointing out the fact that it doesn't effect evolution. Homosexual behavior exists all around us. Whether we are willing to accept that is another argument all together.

And science has shown that homosexual activity in animals is not part of a "survival instinct", but a simple act of sex for enjoyment. Take it how you will, but it is what it is.

[Infidelity]

I wasn't saying that it's natural or normal or abnormal...or giving it any other ridiculous label for that matter. I was just pointing out the fact that it doesn't effect evolution. Homosexual behavior exists all around us. Whether we are willing to accept that is another argument all together.

And science has shown that homosexual activity in animals is not part of a "survival instinct", but a simple act of sex for enjoyment. Take it how you will, but it is what it is.


So again..if it's a simple act of sex for enjoyment why should we allow them to marry?

[CCHSFAN'97]

Only when it supports their pro gay agenda of course.

I have no agenda. I am interested in the science of things. Whether it is a topic I agree with or not.

[MoeDude]

...And science has shown that homosexual activity in animals is not part of a "survival instinct", but a simple act of sex for enjoyment. ...Damn, I didn't need to read this one. That just flat out creeped me out. :eek:

[CCHSFAN'97]

So again..if it's a simple act of sex for enjoyment why should we allow them to marry?

I'm not going to argue with you about that. It's a topic that, IMO has no right or wrong answer, as both sides have compelling view points...and both think the other one is wrong. So where do you get by arguing about it?

[CCHSFAN'97]

Damn, I didn't need to read this one. That just flat out creeped me out. :eek:

It may be unnerving, but again, it is what it is. Sh!t happens. Or so they say.

[MoeDude]

It may be unnerving, but again, it is what it is. Sh!t happens. Or so they say.
You just won't leave it alone will ya?!?!?! :laugh:

[LittleCardsDad]

What I've learned from this thread.

1. Animals eat their young.
2. Animals eat their feces.
3. Animals engage in homosexual behavior.
4. Homosexuals engage in animal like behavior.

Great argument, libs! :clap:

[Infidelity]

I'm not going to argue with you about that. It's a topic that, IMO has no right or wrong answer, as both sides have compelling view points...and both think the other one is wrong. So where do you get by arguing about it?

Does anything have a wrong or right answer anymore?

[LS1944]

So again..if it's a simple act of sex for enjoyment why should we allow them to marry?

because they(should) have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...... even if it grosses me out.

I say let them have civil unions...... and then let each denomination fight over what they think 'God' would or wouldn't allow.

[LittleCardsDad]

because they(should) have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...... even if it grosses me out.

I say let them have civil unions...... and then let each denomination fight over what they think 'God' would or wouldn't allow.

Should polygamists have the same right? What about brothers and sisters who want to marry? Stop making excuses for aberrant behavior. You're smarter than that.

[Infidelity]

because they(should) have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...... even if it grosses me out.

I say let them have civil unions...... and then let each denomination fight over what they think 'God' would or wouldn't allow.

So three people should be able to marry also, right? Or an adult man and son?

[Infidelity]

Wow...LCD. We think alike!!! :)

[CCHSFAN'97]

Does anything have a wrong or right answer anymore?

The sad but true answer is no.

[kingdaddy]

Wow...LCD. We think alike!!! :)

your the little puppy dog that follows the bigger, stronger alpha dog, aren't ya? :rolleyes:

[Ken Ramsey Sr.]

Obama was more confused and perturbed while ordering a cheeseburger yesterday.

They wouldn't let him bring his teleprompter inside.

[Bennies'01]

I don't give a sh!t who marries or which religious institution chooses to acknowledge what union. What I do care about is the government that openly gives special rights to unions of two heterosexual adults. What about single adults? What about homosexual adults? What about unions of three or more adults?

The easy way to solve this problem is to get the government out of the marriage business and either give the rights to all adults, or give them to no adults. Either way, let each individual religious institution decide who is "married," and who isn't, on their own.

[Ken Ramsey Sr.]

Follow along. I didn't say her answer at the pageant was calculated. Her actions post-pageant were very calculated.

What I did say, and what is factually true, is that Miss Cali, knowing what the terms and conditions of her K were, when out, spoke out, gave interviews, and broke her contract. She knew, if she read (a 50/50 proposition for most Fudds) her K, that this behavior was/is forbidden. She did it anyway, to capitalize on her fleeting moment in the sun. It was crass, calculated, and designed to get her the most bang for her buck.

Good for her, I hope she makes a ton. She will need it to pay for necessities when Obama is done, I hope she doesn't make more than $249,999.99.

[Bennies'01]

Good for her, I hope she makes a ton. She will need it to pay for necessities when Obama is done, I hope she doesn't make more than $249,999.99.

Don't worry, what the Feds don't take, California will to pay for their collapsing budget. :)

[Ken Ramsey Sr.]

HOw is it based on evolution? It has no bearing on whether or not a species continues and survives as long as the genetic mutation doesn't affect the whole population..... which it does not seem to do -- as being the son or daughter of a homosexual doesn't predispose. Homosexual behavior is omnipresent in species that don't die out because of it....... :shrug:

In the history of the world, when has a homosexual society continued it's existence? Unless some new scientific breakthrough has come about today, I've never heard of two male humans or two female humans being able to reproduce.

[Ohiostatefan]

I don't give a sh!t who marries or which religious institution chooses to acknowledge what union. What I do care about is the government that openly gives special rights to unions of two heterosexual adults. What about single adults? What about homosexual adults? What about unions of three or more adults?

The easy way to solve this problem is to get the government out of the marriage business and either give the rights to all adults, or give them to no adults. Either way, let each individual religious institution decide who is "married," and who isn't, on their own.


The only problem would be when we need to pay for taxes and health care.

[Ken Ramsey Sr.]

If I liked women? I'll take my wife over her any day, thanks.

Is your wife male or female? Might explain more.

[Jhubbs77]

Good for her, I hope she makes a ton. She will need it to pay for necessities when Obama is done, I hope she doesn't make more than $249,999.99.

Yeah, me too because that would be f'n pathetic :laugh:

[MickeyMantle]

Is your wife male or female? Might explain more.

She's female and a damn good one.

But gay folks don't bother us as they seem to bother you, little fella.

[MickeyMantle]

Yeah, me too because that would be f'n pathetic :laugh:

She'll probably milk this nonsense for all it's worth and make a fortune.

[Bennies'01]

The only problem would be when we need to pay for taxes and health care.

In what context? Who's "we"?

[nowaynohow]

Should polygamists have the same right? What about brothers and sisters who want to marry? Stop making excuses for aberrant behavior. You're smarter than that.

Yes they should. Can you show why they should not?

Note because it is gross or disgusting or wrong is not an argument.

Please enlighten us with your argumentation skills.

Why should polygamy be wrong?

[Infidelity]

Yes they should. Can you show why they should not?

Note because it is gross or disgusting or wrong is not an argument.

Please enlighten us with your argumentation skills.

Why should polygamy be wrong?


And men should probably be able to marry their adult sons also, correct?

[CCHSFAN'97]

And men should probably be able to marry their adult sons also, correct?

I don't get this slippery slope argument. If a man wants to marry 3 women(God help him because who wants that misery) or another man, why is it inevitble that someone would then want to marry a goat, or a family member? I mean, it's all assumption with no logical path between A and B.

[fish82]

I don't get this slippery slope argument. If a man wants to marry 3 women(God help him because who wants that misery) or another man, why is it inevitble that someone would then want to marry a goat, or a family member? I mean, it's all assumption with no logical path between A and B.

It's not inevitable. But, if someone down the road wants to for whatever reason, the legal precident will have been set to allow it.

[Infidelity]

I don't get this slippery slope argument. If a man wants to marry 3 women(God help him because who wants that misery) or another man, why is it inevitble that someone would then want to marry a goat, or a family member? I mean, it's all assumption with no logical path between A and B.

And their wasn't a logical path between a lot of things that have happened in the past but they happened.

It's called presidence...and it's very hard to defend against in court.

What argument are you going to make against a man marrying his son if you allow gay marriage? What argument against polygamy?

You won't have a leg to stand on.

[CCHSFAN'97]

And their wasn't a logical path between a lot of things that have happened in the past but they happened.

It's called presidence...and it's very hard to defend against in court.

What argument are you going to make against a man marrying his son if you allow gay marriage? What argument against polygamy?

You won't have a leg to stand on.

The same argument you make against a man marrying his daughter because you allow heterosexual marriage. And a man or a woman marrying someone of the same sex sets no legal precedent regarding nuptials with a goat.

[WykidWytch]

The same argument you make against a man marrying his daughter because you allow heterosexual marriage.


I'm on your side, but in all fairness the argument used against a man marrying his daughter doesn't apply to homosexual couples. With a homosexual couple, there is no danger of genetic abnormalities in offspring like there could potentially be in a father-daughter or mother-son pairing.

[MoeDude]

I'm on your side, but in all fairness the argument used against a man marrying his daughter doesn't apply to homosexual couples. With a homosexual couple, there is no danger of genetic abnormalities in offspring like there could potentially be in a father-daughter or mother-son pairing.So what you are saying is, a father-daughter and a father-son marriage could both produce little turds?

[Infidelity]

So what you are saying is, a father-daughter and a father-son marriage could both produce little turds?

No..only gay sex can produce that.

[Infidelity]

The same argument you make against a man marrying his daughter because you allow heterosexual marriage. And a man or a woman marrying someone of the same sex sets no legal precedent regarding nuptials with a goat.

Um..I don't think so.

[CCHSFAN'97]

Um..I don't think so.

It's exactly what you think. If a man and a man are allowed to get married, than the "precedent" is set for a man to marry is son. That's the premise of your argument.

Therefore, if a man is allowed to marry a woman, the "precedent" has been set for a man to marry his daughter.

Your saying I'm wrong, but I'm just using your own deep ideas as a basis.

[MickeyMantle]

It's exactly what you think. If a man and a man are allowed to get married, than the "precedent" is set for a man to marry is son. That's the premise of your argument.

Therefore, if a man is allowed to marry a woman, the "precedent" has been set for a man to marry his daughter.

Your saying I'm wrong, but I'm just using your own deep ideas as a basis.

Except we keep men from marrying daughters to prevent messed up offspring.

I don't think the "man marries son" idea works for the other side either. Who cares if they say they are married. As far as the law is concerned, isn't it the same as a power of attorney?

[CCHSFAN'97]

Except we keep men from marrying daughters to prevent messed up offspring.

I don't think the "man marries son" idea works for the other side either. Who cares if they say they are married. As far as the law is concerned, isn't it the same as a power of attorney?

I agree that's it's a stupid argument all the way around. I'm just trying to work around Infidelity's powerful logic.

[MickeyMantle]

I agree that's it's a stupid argument all the way around. I'm just trying to work around Infidelity's powerful logic.

Gotcha!

[Infidelity]

It's exactly what you think. If a man and a man are allowed to get married, than the "precedent" is set for a man to marry is son. That's the premise of your argument.

Therefore, if a man is allowed to marry a woman, the "precedent" has been set for a man to marry his daughter.

Your saying I'm wrong, but I'm just using your own deep ideas as a basis.


The precident that marriage is only between a man and a women not related has been set long ago. It was the original precident and has never been changed. We're not the one's asking to change that.

You're really not that stupid..I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Infidelity]

I agree that's it's a stupid argument all the way around. I'm just trying to work around Infidelity's powerful logic.

I'm trying to work around your lack of clear thinking but it's just too big. It's kinda like an elephant in a closet.

[MickeyMantle]

The precident that marriage is only between a man and a women not related has been set long ago. It was the original precident and has never been changed. We're not the one's asking to change that.

You're really not that stupid..I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you follow the Adam and Eve story, it cannot be the original precedent and in fact had to have been changed.

[Infidelity]

If you follow the Adam and Eve story, it cannot be the original precedent and in fact had to have been changed.

How do you figure?

[MickeyMantle]

How do you figure?

Well, isn't marriage as old as man? If Adam and Eve were put here by God as the first two humans, wouldn't their offspring have to marry?

That is, of course, taking for granted you believe in creation.

[the_big_toe]

How do you figure?

He means that if Adam and Eve were the original humans, then their offspring (in order to continue the species) would have had to engaged in incest. Not only that, but if you use them as your original precedent, then later on in the Bible there are glaring examples of polygamy, especially in the Old Testament. If Adam and Eve were the precedent, then that precedent (a heterosexual monogamous relationship) can be shown to have led to the very things you are claiming would result from legalizing gay marriage (incest and polygamy).

BTW, as far as courts ruling goes, statutes do not set precedents, prior cases do. Courts apply the rule of law to conflicts that come before them. The rule of law can have its origins in statutory authority (e.g. you violated section 1874 of title 16 of the Ohio Revised Code) or it can have its origins in case law (e.g. applying the precedent of the case of Wilmers v. Smith, you committed the tort of Battery against Davis).

[CCHSFAN'97]

I'm trying to work around your lack of clear thinking but it's just too big. It's kinda like an elephant in a closet.

I beleive I am thinking clearly. I beleive two consenting(un-related of course)adults, regardless of race, creed, or gender should be allowed to get married. Even if it is to someone of the same sex.

I like to think that's slightly clearer than, "They shouldn't be allowed 'cause I think that's gross".

Plus what TbT and MM said.

[billyjake]

I beleive I am thinking clearly.


I believe in "i" before "e" except after "c"

[Infidelity]

Alright...lets take this out of the courts.

Are you going to have any argument against someone wanting to marry their adult same sex child if you allow to homosexuals to marry?

[MickeyMantle]

I believe in "i" before "e" except after "c"

Then your location is horsecrap. ;)

[billyjake]

Then your location is horsecrap. ;)

very good catch!!!


:laugh:

[Infidelity]

I beleive I am thinking clearly. I beleive two consenting(un-related of course)adults, regardless of race, creed, or gender should be allowed to get married. Even if it is to someone of the same sex.

I like to think that's slightly clearer than, "They shouldn't be allowed 'cause I think that's gross".

Plus what TbT and MM said.

I never said that...although I find it highly repulsive at the least.

Amazing that you think it's alright to mess with the one institution that is the backbone of civilization and child rearing. Just amazes me that you want to add a sexual perversion, a chosen lifestyle into it.

But that's what we have now...relativism. Nothing's wrong anymore. Nothing really matters.

[MickeyMantle]

Alright...lets take this out of the courts.

Are you going to have any argument against someone wanting to marry their adult same sex child if you allow to homosexuals to marry?

Now you're backtracking.

Anyway, if it's out of the courts it's just a word. Take that up with your priest.

[MickeyMantle]

very good catch!!!


:laugh:

Hey, I'm the Mick. I make a lot of great catches. Well, at least I used to. :cool:

[CCHSFAN'97]

I never said that...although I find it highly repulsive at the least.

Amazing that you think it's alright to mess with the one institution that is the backbone of civilization and child rearing. Just amazes me that you want to add a sexual perversion, a chosen lifestyle into it.

But that's what we have now...relativism. Nothing's wrong anymore. Nothing really matters.


An institution that fails 50% of the time is the backbone of civilization? Well I guess since every child that is born of this institution is well taken care of, than it’s OK.

And what you see as a perversion, homosexuals see as normal. It’s your perceived opinion and your entitled too it, as I am mine. What goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults is none of my business.

[concha]

Who's trying to prevent what's going on behind closed doors?

[Infidelity]

Hey, I'm the Mick. I make a lot of great catches. Well, at least I used to. :cool:

You switch sides? You're now the pitcher?

[Infidelity]

An institution that fails 50% of the time is the backbone of civilization? Well I guess since every child that is born of this institution is well taken care of, than it’s OK.

And what you see as a perversion, homosexuals see as normal. It’s your perceived opinion and your entitled too it, as I am mine. What goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults is none of my business.



50% ? I've seen some pro homosexual sites that now have it at 75%...they number just seems to keep climbing as they reach.

Exactly....keep it behind doors. Don't try and push a deviency down my throat and expect me to embrace it or see it as normal. It's not..and will never be. 10% is normal? Well I guess the 2% of people who have sex with sheep are normal to eh?

[MickeyMantle]

You switch sides? You're now the pitcher?

What the ---- are you even talking about? What are you ever talking about?

[MoeDude]

After reading through all this IMO the best part of this thread was in the title

"Miss California may be stripped of her title. "

Now that would be something I'd really like to see. :cool:

[CCHSFAN'97]

50% ? I've seen some pro homosexual sites that now have it at 75%...they number just seems to keep climbing as they reach.

Exactly....keep it behind doors. Don't try and push a deviency down my throat and expect me to embrace it or see it as normal. It's not..and will never be. 10% is normal? Well I guess the 2% of people who have sex with sheep are normal to eh?

I'm pretty sure the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm) isn't "pro" homosexual.

See what it says: Marriage rate is 7.5 per 1000 total pop Divorce rate is 3.6 per 1000 pop, and that's with only 46 states and DC reporting. That's 48%. Marriage just isn't what people want to beleive it is, no matter how you slice it.

[LittleCardsDad]

Is Ms. California's position any different than Obie's? I wonder what that Pariz Hilton fruit loop thinks of him? Is Obie a stupid -----?

[Infidelity]

I'm pretty sure the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm) isn't "pro" homosexual.

See what it says: Marriage rate is 7.5 per 1000 total pop Divorce rate is 3.6 per 1000 pop, and that's with only 46 states and DC reporting. That's 48%. Marriage just isn't what people want to beleive it is, no matter how you slice it.

Because most generally people lack morals and are selfish.

Let's not add another nail into the coffin by including sexual deviated perversions into the mix.

[SWMCinci]

Well, isn't marriage as old as man? If Adam and Eve were put here by God as the first two humans, wouldn't their offspring have to marry?

That is, of course, taking for granted you believe in creation.

The Bible itself refers to other humans as being on the Earth, you have to read a lot of Genesis but it distinctly refers to 'sons of man' and 'sons of God'. Adam and Ever were distinctly identified as the 'created' pair and both Cain and Abel were married to daughters of the 'sons of man'.
I've heard people theorize that the reason early Biblical figures lived such long lives was due to their design by the creator - they were intended to be immortal in the garden. Over time as the gene pool was dispersed lifespans declined.

It depends on your belief set, but incest is and apparently WAS a bad idea.....

[MickeyMantle]

The Bible itself refers to other humans as being on the Earth, you have to read a lot of Genesis but it distinctly refers to 'sons of man' and 'sons of God'. Adam and Ever were distinctly identified as the 'created' pair and both Cain and Abel were married to daughters of the 'sons of man'.
I've heard people theorize that the reason early Biblical figures lived such long lives was due to their design by the creator - they were intended to be immortal in the garden. Over time as the gene pool was dispersed lifespans declined.

It depends on your belief set, but incest is and apparently WAS a bad idea.....

I don't think anybody here thinks it's a good idea.

The point is that the concept of marriage as we know it today has been changed over time.

[SWMCinci]

The point is that the concept of marriage as we know it today has been changed over time.

The historical concept has always been between a man and a woman. The 1st Biblical marriage was between a man and a woman. Cave paintings, clay tablets, etc. all refer to a man and a woman as being the basic building blocks of civilization.

[the_big_toe]

The historical concept has always been between a man and a woman. The 1st Biblical marriage was between a man and a woman. Cave paintings, clay tablets, etc. all refer to a man and a woman as being the basic building blocks of civilization.

Cave paintings? You mean like this one?

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k70/heartfulls/fredwilma.jpg

Seriously, though, what is your source for the last sentence of your post?

[MickeyMantle]

The historical concept has always been between a man and a woman. The 1st Biblical marriage was between a man and a woman. Cave paintings, clay tablets, etc. all refer to a man and a woman as being the basic building blocks of civilization.

And were these "cave folks" married? Did they live together forever?

[fish82]

And were these "cave folks" married? Did they live together forever?

Of course they were. Didn't you watch the show? Jeez, mon!

[MickeyMantle]

Of course they were. Didn't you watch the show? Jeez, mon!

I did.....and I always thought Fred and Barney had it for each other :)

[fish82]

I did.....and I always thought Fred and Barney had it for each other :)

Everybody at the Water Buffalo Lodge did. I shudder to think what went on there.

[the_big_toe]

I did.....and I always thought Fred and Barney had it for each other :)

OMG, it just occurred to me, Infidelity might be right. Gay marriage could lead to incestuous marriage being legalized at some distant point in the future. That would then explain this:


























http://www.newsgroper.com/files/post_images/1gazoobig(1).jpg

One of the children of those incestuous marriages.

[MickeyMantle]

OMG, it just occurred to me, Infidelity might be right. Gay marriage could lead to incestuous marriage being legalized at some distant point in the future. That would then explain this:


























http://www.newsgroper.com/files/post_images/1gazoobig(1).jpg

One of the children of those incestuous marriages.

And then we'll have men wanting to marry their alien sons. It's a slippery slope.

[Infidelity]

I don't think anybody here thinks it's a good idea.

The point is that the concept of marriage as we know it today has been changed over time.

So..tell me how it's changed over time.

[MickeyMantle]

So..tell me how it's changed over time.

You say one man and one woman.

In the past it has been seen as one man and as many women as he sees fit.

Now most see it as an equal partnership between a man and a woman. Many cultures see the wife as a servant more or less.

In the past, we "kept to our own" when we married.

Let's not act like marriage has been what you think of it today for all eternity.

[concha]

You say one man and one woman.

In the past it has been seen as one man and as many women as he sees fit.

Now most see it as an equal partnership between a man and a woman. Many cultures see the wife as a servant more or less.

In the past, we "kept to our own" when we married.

Let's not act like marriage has been what you think of it today for all eternity.

That "man and woman, male and female" thing seems a pretty common theme though. Imagine that.

[MickeyMantle]

That "man and woman, male and female" thing seems a pretty common theme though. Imagine that.

Nobody said it wasn't. If you'd bothered to read previous posts, the argument Infidelity made was that marriage has been the same since its inception and has never been changed.

[LittleCardsDad]

Has anyone else noticed that Ms. California is smokin' hot and all the people attacking her are a bunch of pigs? That couldn't have anything to do with it, could it? :shrug:

[Infidelity]

Has anyone else noticed that Ms. California is smokin' hot and all the people attacking her are a bunch of pigs? That couldn't have anything to do with it, could it? :shrug:

Surely not:)

It all started whith Perez. He couldn't stand her because she was much prettier than he was or could ever make himself up to be. He'll never be a queen.

[Infidelity]

That "man and woman, male and female" thing seems a pretty common theme though. Imagine that.

Yep...it's commonly overlooked by homosexual advocates as "a minor detail".

[MoeDude]

I'm still waiting for when the gays will try to strip President Obama of his title because he has the same view on marriage as she does? :shrug:

[MOUNT-UNION82]

That "man and woman, male and female" thing seems a pretty common theme though. Imagine that.

Well...ummm...back when the seeds of man were amoeba's, I bet they weren't paired up or married. Nope nope, see there, all this marriage/pairing stuff is just a giant fairy tale created by man. ;)

[MOUNT-UNION82]

I'm still waiting for when the gays will try to strip President Obama of his title because he has the same view on marriage as she does? :shrug:

Two different standards. One applied to Democratic politicians and another totally different standard applied to everyone else, particularly those that don't appear to be on the Democratic side of the fence.

Democrats will have little if anything to say when he makes a decision that doesn't fall within his campaign promises or within the enlightened progressive standards.

Democrats will call conservatives, ignorant flat earthers for having essentially the same position.

Here's a few examples that come to mind from recent events of how Democrats perceive things...

In support of military commissions: Obama: Pragmatic. Bush: Shredder of the constitution. This makes us just as bad as the terrorists that we're supposed to be fighting against. No wonder America is the embarassment of the world!!

Not in support of gay marriage: Obama: He's a great guy, he'll come around eventually. Bush: Homophobic religious nut that hates gay people.

Using tax money to fund religious operated charities: Obama: That's fine with us!. Bush: Once again, trashing the constitution by not recognizing the separation of church in state, another example what happens when a religious zealot has his way.

The list goes on and on...

[MoeDude]

Two different standards. One applied to Democratic politicians and another totally different standard applied to everyone else, particularly those that don't appear to be on the Democratic side of the fence.

Democrats will have little if anything to say when he makes a decision that doesn't fall within his campaign promises or within the enlightened progressive standards.

Democrats will call conservatives, ignorant flat earthers for having essentially the same position.

Here's a few examples that come to mind from recent events of how Democrats perceive things...

In support of military commissions: Obama: Pragmatic. Bush: Shredder of the constitution. This makes us just as bad as the terrorists that we're supposed to be fighting against. No wonder America is the embarassment of the world!!

Not in support of gay marriage: Obama: He's a great guy, he'll come around eventually. Bush: Homophobic religious nut that hates gay people.

Using tax money to fund religious operated charities: Obama: That's fine with us!. Bush: Once again, trashing the constitution by not recognizing the separation of church in state, another example what happens when a religious zealot has his way.

The list goes on and on...

Yea it reminds me of the time my wife confronted her school teacher cousin who voted for President Clinton. It would have been quite hysterical if it wasn't so pathetic. My wife went through a whole list of principles she knew her cousin believed in but were different from the position President clinton took. Abortion was the main one, her cousin was strongly against abortion. As she went through the list she would ask him if he felt this way, and knowing that the President had a different viewpoint how could he have voted for him. In the end her cousin wouldn't admit it but the whole reason he voted for President Clinton was because he was a member of the teacher's union and he didn't want to go against what his union wanted him to do. It was unfricking believable. So the guy went against all his principles because his union supported Clinton. It truly is sad.

[Bennies'01]

Though the bible is a work of mostly fiction, if I recall, it only speaks of monogamous relationships, not "marriage." Marriage, as an institution, is a relatively much more recent phenomenon, one that was based around the idea of wife as property.

Regardless, this whole discussion isn't about religion, or even the definition of marriage. No one can (or should be able to) force Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Scientologists, or any other religious group/cult to recognize gays or polygamists as being "married." However, the government should not be in the business of endorsing certain types of unions over other types of unions, or even marital statuses (in regards to single folks). I think it has to be "all or nothing." If it's not, it's discrimination, plain and simple. Certain groups are being left out of tax breaks and other basic rights based on who they are and things that they have no control over.

[WykidWytch]

Though the bible is a work of mostly fiction, if I recall, it only speaks of monogamous relationships, not "marriage." Marriage, as an institution, is a relatively much more recent phenomenon, one that was based around the idea of wife as property.

Regardless, this whole discussion isn't about religion, or even the definition of marriage. No one can (or should be able to) force Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Scientologists, or any other religious group/cult to recognize gays or polygamists as being "married." However, the government should not be in the business of endorsing certain types of unions over other types of unions, or even marital statuses (in regards to single folks). I think it has to be "all or nothing." If it's not, it's discrimination, plain and simple. Certain groups are being left out of tax breaks and other basic rights based on who they are and things that they have no control over.

You and I have agreed on this point for a long time. There should be no legal recognition of marriage. You're single till you die as far as the government is concerned and any next of kin, survivorship issues can be resolved through contracts and papers. Leave marriage to the churches to decide. After all, there are churches that will marry same sex couples.

[the_big_toe]

You and I have agreed on this point for a long time. There should be no legal recognition of marriage. You're single till you die as far as the government is concerned and any next of kin, survivorship issues can be resolved through contracts and papers. Leave marriage to the churches to decide. After all, there are churches that will marry same sex couples.

+1

[fish82]

You and I have agreed on this point for a long time. There should be no legal recognition of marriage. You're single till you die as far as the government is concerned and any next of kin, survivorship issues can be resolved through contracts and papers. Leave marriage to the churches to decide. After all, there are churches that will marry same sex couples.

+2

[Mighty Big]

Such a dumb contest, anyway. Just Donald Trump's way of trying find fresh new talent for his "services".

[Infidelity]

Though the bible is a work of mostly fiction, if I recall, it only speaks of monogamous relationships, not "marriage." Marriage, as an institution, is a relatively much more recent phenomenon, one that was based around the idea of wife as property.

Regardless, this whole discussion isn't about religion, or even the definition of marriage. No one can (or should be able to) force Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Scientologists, or any other religious group/cult to recognize gays or polygamists as being "married." However, the government should not be in the business of endorsing certain types of unions over other types of unions, or even marital statuses (in regards to single folks). I think it has to be "all or nothing." If it's not, it's discrimination, plain and simple. Certain groups are being left out of tax breaks and other basic rights based on who they are and things that they have no control over.

Yea...the bible is a work of mostly fiction. And you know this how? Just what parts are fiction and what are not? "Wife as property"...good one.

The reason people don't receive tax breaks is because they aren't married to a person of the opposite sex and do not have children.

No control over "another good one".

[LittleCardsDad]

You and I have agreed on this point for a long time. There should be no legal recognition of marriage. You're single till you die as far as the government is concerned and any next of kin, survivorship issues can be resolved through contracts and papers. Leave marriage to the churches to decide. After all, there are churches that will marry same sex couples.

Without a Government recognition of marriage, there wouldn't be any Government say so on the division of assets in the case of two people splitting up. Correct?

[WykidWytch]

You set up a contract or just "wing it" like homosexual couples and "living in sin" heterosexual couples have had to do since neither group's partnerships are legally recognized (common law marriage laws in Ohio ceased to exist in the early 90s).

[LittleCardsDad]

You set up a contract or just "wing it" like homosexual couples and "living in sin" heterosexual couples have had to do since neither group's partnerships are legally recognized (common law marriage laws in Ohio ceased to exist in the early 90s).

I can dig it.

[MickeyMantle]

Yea...the bible is a work of mostly fiction. And you know this how?

He doesn't, just like you and I don't really know it's not fiction.

[Bennies'01]

Yea...the bible is a work of mostly fiction. And you know this how? Just what parts are fiction and what are not? "Wife as property"...good one.

There is a decent amount of historical fact in the bible, but until I see proof of some of the more supernatural occurences, I'll continue to be skeptical.

As for the history of marriage, do some research. I'm telling you, if you have an open mind, you'll be a bit surprised at some of the historical basis for the institution of marriage. What it's evolved into today is far from what many cultures originally utilized it for.

The reason people don't receive tax breaks is because they aren't married to a person of the opposite sex and do not have children.

So certain groups get special rights? That's as foolish as hate crimes legislation.

No control over "another good one".

I don't know if that's really up for debate. You may think that homosexuals have feelings that they're "obligated" (according to your religion) to suppress, and that's fine. But I don't think you'd be correct in saying that those feelings are a lifestyle choice (in most cases). Most homosexuals didn't choose to be homosexual any more than you or I chose to be heterosexual. Cut them a break.

[Infidelity]

There is a decent amount of historical fact in the bible, but until I see proof of some of the more supernatural occurences, I'll continue to be skeptical.

As for the history of marriage, do some research. I'm telling you, if you have an open mind, you'll be a bit surprised at some of the historical basis for the institution of marriage. What it's evolved into today is far from what many cultures originally utilized it for.



So certain groups get special rights? That's as foolish as hate crimes legislation.



I don't know if that's really up for debate. You may think that homosexuals have feelings that they're "obligated" (according to your religion) to suppress, and that's fine. But I don't think you'd be correct in saying that those feelings are a lifestyle choice (in most cases). Most homosexuals didn't choose to be homosexual any more than you or I chose to be heterosexual. Cut them a break.



Has the history of marriage ever included anything other than a man and a wowan? That is the key.

[SWMCinci]

Well...ummm...back when the seeds of man were amoeba's, I bet they weren't paired up or married. Nope nope, see there, all this marriage/pairing stuff is just a giant fairy tale created by man. ;)

Last time I checked, with very few exceptions, most people are not amoebas.....

I also believe the concept came from a woman - no sex with other women, no looking at other women, and if you do she gets half your stuff..... well, woman or Democrat.

[GoalPoster]

The Donald says she gets to keep her crown. I liked the video, I thought she spoke well of how freedom of speech should work.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22413.html

[Bennies'01]

Has the history of marriage ever included anything other than a man and a wowan? That is the key.

I don't really care either way. The debate about "marriage" is one that religious folks can have amongst themselves. The point is that the government doesn't need to get involved or be endorsing one way of life or set of beliefs over any other. In the eyes of the government and the law, single folks, heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, and polygamists should all be treated the same. Such a policy would also protect religious sects from being forced to have to recognize homosexual couples as being "married."

[NorrisHopper30]

I don't necessarily agree that gays should be able to marry, but who the heck cares enough about this issue to actually fight over it? Let them marry each other and leave them alone.

Gay Marriage should not be an issue.

[LittleCardsDad]

The Donald says she gets to keep her crown. I liked the video, I thought she spoke well of how freedom of speech should work.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22413.html

I got the impression Trump isn't real happy with how his pageant turned out. I'd bet the person that hired that Paris Hilton flamer is in the unemployment line right about now.

[Jhubbs77]

:laugh: I just heard a clip played of her talking about how when she was asked the question she thought it was the devil tempting her, but God was in her head telling her to not compromise her position...YIKES

[LittleCardsDad]

:laugh: I just heard a clip played of her talking about how when she was asked the question she thought it was the devil tempting her, but God was in her head telling her to not compromise her position...YIKES

I don't see the logic in her thoughts, but I don't see the comedic part either.

[Infidelity]

I don't necessarily agree that gays should be able to marry, but who the heck cares enough about this issue to actually fight over it? Let them marry each other and leave them alone.

Gay Marriage should not be an issue.

Get married, have kids. You'll take it a little more seriously.

Do you really want to rewrite and redefine the core of the family?

[Infidelity]

I don't see the logic in her thoughts, but I don't see the comedic part either.

The logic lies in the fact that she could have lied to herself (the "devil" was trying to get her to do just that) but her will won out and she did what her conscience was telling her to do.....tell exactly how she felt.

[LittleCardsDad]

The logic lies in the fact that she could have lied to herself (the "devil" was trying to get her to do just that) but her will won out and she did what her conscience was telling her to do.....tell exactly how she felt.

That's what she should have said then. I don't think the devil was trying to tell her to do anything, that was just her telling herself maybe I should lie if I want to win this stupid thing. ;)

[MickeyMantle]

That's what she should have said then. I don't think the devil was trying to tell her to do anything, that was just her telling herself maybe I should lie if I want to win this stupid thing. ;)

Exactly.

[Jhubbs77]

I don't see the logic in her thoughts, but I don't see the comedic part either.

I don't know, hearing someone say being asked a question about gay marriage was the devil tempting them makes me laugh

[JElder]

I don't know, hearing someone say being asked a question about gay marriage was the devil tempting them makes me laugh

Especially when said girl has posed nude before. :)

[the_big_toe]

I got the impression Trump isn't real happy with how his pageant turned out. I'd bet the person that hired that Paris Hilton flamer is in the unemployment line right about now.

I could not disagree more. I heard a lot more of the story yesterday on the radio. I heard the recording of the question posed by Perez Hilton, the answer given by Ms. California's, as well as the recording of Perez hilton's video blog that was posted as soon as the pageant was over. I would not be surprised at all if this all turned out to be a contrived and planned controversy executed by the Trump organization to increase interest in the Miss USA pageant. Also, according to the report I heard, Miss California had made appearances prior to the Miss USA pageant where she had spoken out against gay marriage - minor appearances at her church and a few other places.

If that is the case, and somehow Trump found out about the appearances, then I would not put it past him to purposely hire Perez Hilton to be a judge, with the express purpose of having Hilton ask that question of Miss California just to generate a controversy. Perez' post-pageant comments on his video blog (which apparently was up even before the pageant aired out here in the Pacific Time Zone) just seem to have been orchestrated to create a controversy. Considering how quickly they were published, it would not surprise me if these comments were prepared in advance. We all know that controversy generates interest. Well, was anyone really interested in the Miss USA pageant before this "controversy"? Has our country been a little more interested since?

Personally, I am done with this issue since, quite frankly both sides are full of hypocrits. The people attacking Miss California would be crying to high heaven if she had answered in support of gay marriage and then been subjected to such attacks. Likewise, those supporting Miss California would have tried the exact same attacks if she had answered in support of gay marriage. IMO, Trump played both sides against each other just to get interest in this dying pageant up. It would not surprise me at all if he announced a sale of the pageant to some other third party in the next year.

[LittleCardsDad]

I could not disagree more. I heard a lot more of the story yesterday on the radio. I heard the recording of the question posed by Perez Hilton, the answer given by Ms. California's, as well as the recording of Perez hilton's video blog that was posted as soon as the pageant was over. I would not be surprised at all if this all turned out to be a contrived and planned controversy executed by the Trump organization to increase interest in the Miss USA pageant. Also, according to the report I heard, Miss California had made appearances prior to the Miss USA pageant where she had spoken out against gay marriage - minor appearances at her church and a few other places.

If that is the case, and somehow Trump found out about the appearances, then I would not put it past him to purposely hire Perez Hilton to be a judge, with the express purpose of having Hilton ask that question of Miss California just to generate a controversy. Perez' post-pageant comments on his video blog (which apparently was up even before the pageant aired out here in the Pacific Time Zone) just seem to have been orchestrated to create a controversy. Considering how quickly they were published, it would not surprise me if these comments were prepared in advance. We all know that controversy generates interest. Well, was anyone really interested in the Miss USA pageant before this "controversy"? Has our country been a little more interested since?

Personally, I am done with this issue since, quite frankly both sides are full of hypocrits. The people attacking Miss California would be crying to high heaven if she had answered in support of gay marriage and then been subjected to such attacks. Likewise, those supporting Miss California would have tried the exact same attacks if she had answered in support of gay marriage. IMO, Trump played both sides against each other just to get interest in this dying pageant up. It would not surprise me at all if he announced a sale of the pageant to some other third party in the next year.

Conventional wisdom is that Trump does something like this for publicity. But Trump is a serious person and a deadly serious businessman. While incidents like this may draw short-term attention, it's counterintuitive to the long-term business aspect of the event. I don't think this was contrived at all and I think he's genuinely irked at the way this young girl was savagely attacked.

[Infidelity]

Especially when said girl has posed nude before. :)

She posed nude eh? Could you provide some pictures?

Didn't think so....it never happened.

Get your story straight before coming on here.

[Infidelity]

I could not disagree more. I heard a lot more of the story yesterday on the radio. I heard the recording of the question posed by Perez Hilton, the answer given by Ms. California's, as well as the recording of Perez hilton's video blog that was posted as soon as the pageant was over. I would not be surprised at all if this all turned out to be a contrived and planned controversy executed by the Trump organization to increase interest in the Miss USA pageant. Also, according to the report I heard, Miss California had made appearances prior to the Miss USA pageant where she had spoken out against gay marriage - minor appearances at her church and a few other places.

If that is the case, and somehow Trump found out about the appearances, then I would not put it past him to purposely hire Perez Hilton to be a judge, with the express purpose of having Hilton ask that question of Miss California just to generate a controversy. Perez' post-pageant comments on his video blog (which apparently was up even before the pageant aired out here in the Pacific Time Zone) just seem to have been orchestrated to create a controversy. Considering how quickly they were published, it would not surprise me if these comments were prepared in advance. We all know that controversy generates interest. Well, was anyone really interested in the Miss USA pageant before this "controversy"? Has our country been a little more interested since?

Personally, I am done with this issue since, quite frankly both sides are full of hypocrits. The people attacking Miss California would be crying to high heaven if she had answered in support of gay marriage and then been subjected to such attacks. Likewise, those supporting Miss California would have tried the exact same attacks if she had answered in support of gay marriage. IMO, Trump played both sides against each other just to get interest in this dying pageant up. It would not surprise me at all if he announced a sale of the pageant to some other third party in the next year.

We would have called her a c*** and a B**** if she would have supported gay marriage? I think not.

Donald trump as greazy as he is was serious in his convictions. IMO it wasn't contrived.

[JElder]

She posed nude eh? Could you provide some pictures?

Didn't think so....it never happened.

Get your story straight before coming on here.

Sorry, she posed with her boobs exposed! She said the photo was taken of her in between photo shoots and the wind blew her shirt open. Surprisingly her hair wasn't moving when said photo was taken. I've seen this picture!

Last time I checked that's posing nude.....Get your stories straight! :wallbang:

I guess I should of known you would be offended by your little religious girl baring her assets...

[MickeyMantle]

We would have called her a c*** and a B**** if she would have supported gay marriage? I think not.

Maybe you'd have just called her a typical liberal or a goofey left-wing Californian.

[fish82]

She posed nude eh? Could you provide some pictures?

Didn't think so....it never happened.

Get your story straight before coming on here.

http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/carrie_prejean_2

[MickeyMantle]

http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/carrie_prejean_2

Praise the Lord and pass the admonition!!!!

[SWMCinci]

How could Perez Hilton still be gay after being close to that?

How could any man deny the existance of God and his perfect plan that men and women were intended to be joined after being around women.

[MickeyMantle]

How could any man deny the existance of God and his perfect plan that men and women were intended to be joined after being around women.

Hey man, you don't just look at them.

[WykidWytch]

I don't understand why posing semi-nude or even nude matters. Why is it that a person is ridiculed as a Christian if they've broken a rule? Are you saying that every person that's ever had a naked picture taken of them has no right to any moral standard? I'm not a Christian in any sense of the word, but even I think that is a stupid bit of logic.

I saw a Christian shirt once that said, "I'm not perfect, just forgiven." This idea that in order to be a "Christian" you must have a spotless record is silly. Any Christian that claims perfection had better be Jesus Christ himself...and even He was not perfect.

[SWMCinci]

.......
I saw a Christian shirt once that said, "I'm not perfect, just forgiven." This idea that in order to be a "Christian" you must have a spotless record is silly. Any Christian that claims perfection had better be Jesus Christ himself...and even He was not perfect.

Bill O'Reilly had a great segment on just this topic tonight. I usually don't catch his program but just happened to be looking around the dial for something to watch.

[LittleCardsDad]

http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/carrie_prejean_2

Those red stars don't work for me.

[Infidelity]

http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/carrie_prejean_2

Funny but I didn't see any nudity. I suppose you've spent too much time reading National Geographic.

[Infidelity]

Sorry, she posed with her boobs exposed! She said the photo was taken of her in between photo shoots and the wind blew her shirt open. Surprisingly her hair wasn't moving when said photo was taken. I've seen this picture!

Last time I checked that's posing nude.....Get your stories straight! :wallbang:

I guess I should of known you would be offended by your little religious girl baring her assets...

Not at all...I'd like to see more.

[fish82]

Funny but I didn't see any nudity. I suppose you've spent too much time reading National Geographic.

Yeah. The red stars are just part of the costume.

[Infidelity]

Yeah. The red stars are just part of the costume.

Do you think they could have been taken and were not supposed to be released?

[fish82]

Do you think they could have been taken and were not supposed to be released?

Entirely possible. That doesn't change the fact that she posed for nude photos. It puts her in violation of the pageant contract, whether they were meant for release or not.

[MickeyMantle]

Do you think they could have been taken and were not supposed to be released?

Duh?

[Infidelity]

Entirely possible. That doesn't change the fact that she posed for nude photos. It puts her in violation of the pageant contract, whether they were meant for release or not.

If she posed for nude photos we'd see nude photos..as in no clothes don't you think?

Did Janet Jackson pose for nude photos during the Superbowl because we saw a nipple?

[fish82]

If she posed for nude photos we'd see nude photos..as in no clothes don't you think?

Did Janet Jackson pose for nude photos during the Superbowl because we saw a nipple?

Dude...please stop. You're really not doing yourself any favors here.

[MoeDude]

Dude...please stop. You're really not doing yourself any favors here.
Really! From some of his post he appears to be some annal retentive dude repressing some very serious sexual desires. :cool:

[JElder]

If she posed for nude photos we'd see nude photos..as in no clothes don't you think?

Did Janet Jackson pose for nude photos during the Superbowl because we saw a nipple?

Why are you even looking at her nude photos? I thought your were gay? :confused:

[Infidelity]

Dude...please stop. You're really not doing yourself any favors here.

Somebody here said that she posed for nude photos which she didn't. We saw nipples so if you use logic Janet Jackson must have posed for a nude shot also since we saw her nipple.

[MoeDude]

Somebody here said that she posed for nude photos which she didn't. We saw nipples so if you use logic Janet Jackson must have posed for a nude shot also since we saw her nipple.Dude, you keep digging that hole deeper and wider. :laugh: By the way, did you like Janet's nipple shot? :cool:

[Infidelity]

Dude, you keep digging that hole deeper and wider. :laugh: By the way, did you like Janet's nipple shot? :cool:

If I liked seeing a softball in a pair of pantyhose I would haved.

Gross.

[SWMCinci]

Why are you even looking at her nude photos? I thought your were gay? :confused:

Not after looking at those pics.....

[Infidelity]

Not after looking at those pics.....

She is so frikking hot.
She's even more attractive when she speaks.

[MoeDude]

If I liked seeing a softball in a pair of pantyhose I would haved.

Gross.What in the heck what you watching. :shrug: I sure didn't see anything that was even close to a softball in a pair of pantyhose.
Dude, you are more perverted than I ever expected. :laugh:

[Infidelity]

What in the heck what you watching. :shrug: I sure didn't see anything that was even close to a softball in a pair of pantyhose.
Dude, you are more perverted than I ever expected. :laugh:

Those were some of the nastiest boobs I've seen.

[concha]

My new favorite band (for today at least) is the Black Eyed Peas.

Apparently their manager clocked Perez Hilton outside of a club in Toronto. The result of giving Hilton the good news was was bloodying him and giving him a black eye - how appropriate.

Here's Perez's whine:

http://perezhilton.com/tv/index.php?ptvid=0cd5e5f27f759

[fish82]

My new favorite band (for today at least) is the Black Eyed Peas.

Apparently their manager clocked Perez Hilton outside of a club in Toronto. The result of giving Hilton the good news was was bloodying him and giving him a black eye - how appropriate.

Here's Perez's whine:

http://perezhilton.com/tv/index.php?ptvid=0cd5e5f27f759

One could say that Perez got a little dose of the "boom boom pow." :D

[Jhubbs77]

She is so frikking hot.
She's even more attractive when she speaks.

Yeah its so hot when she talks about how she isn't for gay marriage

[LittleCardsDad]

My new favorite band (for today at least) is the Black Eyed Peas.

Apparently their manager clocked Perez Hilton outside of a club in Toronto. The result of giving Hilton the good news was was bloodying him and giving him a black eye - how appropriate.

Here's Perez's whine:

http://perezhilton.com/tv/index.php?ptvid=0cd5e5f27f759

Can you believe his crying? I'd beat him down out of principle.

[concha]

A little advice for Perez:

Shut your b&@#*-arse mouth. It's a wonderful antidote for getting pimp-slapped.

[SternRulz]

Weird.

Will.I.Am then says Perez called him "a f**got" at which point "the fans get all crazy and start on Perez Hilton. I'm just sitting there minding my own business waiting for a car." ...Hilton did admit calling Will.I.Am a "f**got," saying it was the worse thing he could think of to call the singer at the time.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528103,00.html