Video: Perez Hilton at the Miss USA contest?
posted at 1:35 pm on April 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Mix an almost-anachronistic beauty contest with an outspoken gay liberal blogger, and you get … a classically awkward moment. I’ve gotten a lot of e-mail about Miss California’s response to Perez Hilton about her stance on gay marriage, all of it cheering her defense of traditional values:
Stay classy, Perez. And I think you need something much stronger than a cocktail. (Thanks to my co-blogger Allahpundit for the second vid)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 6 7 8 9 Next »
silly faggot, dicks are for chicks
UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST on April 21, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Weird. Where did the comments go?
carbon_footprint on April 21, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Try page 1-7, and put down the pipe…
right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Seriously, for about a minute there were no comments to view until I made my comment. Must be Mozilla messing up.
On second thought, it may have had something to do with that profane post above my original comment.
carbon_footprint on April 21, 2009 at 11:48 AM
According to this AP article he is co-owner with NBC. I recall a year or two ago he was in the news with that year’s winner who the tabloids were saying was “partying too hard”. The solution, of course, required camera time for Donald.
In the AP article the part about Trump is near the bottom and says “The contest, which is owned by NBC and reality TV mogul Donald Trump, was hosted by “Access Hollywood” co-anchor Billy Bush and Nadine Velazquez”.
dedalus on April 21, 2009 at 11:56 AM
It happens to me, I think it may be them updating their site…sometimes the format is messed up.
right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 12:02 PM
My mistake, I thought he owned the other one, Miss something else.
But I don’t follow, and I didn’t read all the way through, nor care that much.
But some of the comments are pretty good…as usual the comments are more entertaining then the original subject.
right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Here’s the difference. Even back then, interacial marriage fit the definition of being between a man and a woman.
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 21, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Hey, but I live in Wilmington, so a hometown girl almost made it…and there are more then just her around town.
right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Being homosexual (attracted to people of the same sex) is not a sin. However, engaging in homosexual activity is.
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 21, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Relax Allah. Miss California isn’t half the woman Meghan McCain is.
bw222 on April 21, 2009 at 12:11 PM
When my wife points to a boy and says “that is my son” she means that he is a boy that carries half her DNA and who grew inside of her for 9 months.
If another woman at the playground says, “that is my son”. She could mean any of the following:
1.) Naturally conceived child.
2.) Child from her husband’s first marriage.
3.) Child adopted at birth.
4.) Child conceived in vitro that doesn’t carry her DNA.
5.) Adult adopted for estate purposes.
One might guess at what she means by the term “son” based on the context, but society continues to function without legally requiring unique terms for each of these relationships.
dedalus on April 21, 2009 at 12:12 PM
What a sad situation for the girl. Her dream dashed because a silly man/political hack is too dumb to realize it was an inappropriate question to ask in such a situation.
What is next asking them about abortion or who they voted for president and why?
Chubbs65 on April 21, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Well pedophelia is also “a natural manifestation that happens in nature” so I guess that’s not wrong either
Here both the inclination (burning with lust) and the act are condemned as unnatural and perverse.
Everyone is free to accept the Bible or not. What’s ridiculous is the modern revisionism which tries to stand the Bible on it’s head and relativize a moral truth that has been clearly understood by all christians for centuries. Reject the Bible if you wish, but please don’t try to have it both ways. Either accept the Bible or accept homosexuality as natural. You can’t have both.
frank63 on April 21, 2009 at 12:18 PM
I think he also owns “Miss Universe”. Given that Donald doesn’t have a job with the again-bankrupt “Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc.” He seems to have focused on his calling, which is making pompous statements while in the company of incredibly beautiful women. Good work if you can get it.
dedalus on April 21, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Sorry, last post was missing verse.
Well pedophelia is also “a natural manifestation that happens in nature” so I guess that’s not wrong either
Romans 1:27
“In the same way, their males also abandoned their natural sexual function toward females and burned with lust toward one another. Males committed indecent acts with males, and received within themselves the appropriate penalty for their perversion.
Here both the inclination (burning with lust) and the act are condemned as unnatural and perverse.
Everyone is free to accept the Bible or not. What’s ridiculous is the modern revisionism which tries to stand the Bible on it’s head and relativize a moral truth that has been clearly understood by all christians for centuries. Reject the Bible if you wish, but please don’t try to have it both ways. Either accept the Bible or accept homosexuality as natural. You can’t have both.
frank63 on April 21, 2009 at 12:20 PM
How cute. Another moby.
DethMetalCookieMonst on April 21, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Exactly, which is why we need to have defining words. Marriage is between a man and a woman, unless you preface it or change it.
right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 12:36 PM
The Hiltons had 3 kids…one of each
Bevan on April 21, 2009 at 12:41 PM
If a woman says “my son” I understand that there is some type of parental relationship between her and the other person–however, I’m possibly clueless about the biological or legal nature of the relationship.
If a woman says “my spouse”. She may mean a man or a woman. It may mean that she is legally married, in a civil union or just in a committed relationship.
Both cases enable the society to function. We could require people to say “adopted son” or “same sex partner”, but it seems unlikely that language will evolve that way.
dedalus on April 21, 2009 at 12:47 PM
You are totally missing the point…and you have been taught to “miss” the point.
We (earthly) judge actions, not what is in the heart. That is for God to judge.
So, a pedophile is not a pedophile until they take action…we are all born with sin, it is the manifestation of that sin that is a “no no”.
You are the one that is making your self a god. It is explicit that we only judge actions.
So if someone has “lustful” feelings, you don’t punish them for those “feelings”, but if a man cheats on his wife, that is punishable by the church.
Get it? It is difficult for many to understand, but being “homosexual” is not a sin, the actions are.
The word “burn” is an action word in Hebrew, and it was the actual “event”, not just a feeling.
Otherwise, God was wrong when he said for us to judge only actions.
So you can’t revise the bible to fit your beliefs…either God was right in saying we judge actions, but not the heart, or He was wrong.
I tend to say God is right…
So here is my challenge to you:
Do you judge actions…or as a Christian do you judge what you think is in the heart?
right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Can’t something be natural and wrong? Some level of lust seems natural though morally wrong. Hunger is natural but gluttony wrong.
In the U.S. homosexual acts are legal but pedaphilic acts are illegal. Both are natural, though not normal.
dedalus on April 21, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Great, when they say spouse, it may mean several things…when they say “married” they mean to the opposite sex, when they say my civil companion, I would take that to mean same…until the “same” come up with their own term. I vote for gayriage.
This is my partner, we are gayried, then we have a definitive term. If they don’t want to be defined (as hetero’s are now) then just say “this is my partner”.
Everyone keeps the nomenclature that they understand, and society isn’t burdened with a new definition of an already existing word.
right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Because someone’s reasoning is incompatible with your own, it’s “dubious”?
Sorry, Jet, but this grocery store tantrum from the gay community is getting very tiresome. Somebody has to win this argument, and hopefully it will be the parent.
capitalist piglet on April 21, 2009 at 1:07 PM
That was my take on it, too. But this is how the left goes about normalizing the fringe, by bringing it into mainstream contexts it has no place in being and making like it is not politically loaded. Because no normal person (with a fully functioning frontal lobe, ala Garofalo) would ever dare answer it in a way that would clearly displease the asker.
Putz Hilton is a jacka** and the pageant is worse for letting him get away with this. He should have been removed from the panel for asking the question because of a ‘reasonable apprehension’ of bias in his assessment of the answers.
ProfessorMiao on April 21, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Where did I say anyone should be punished for lustful feelings? All I’ve ever said is that I don’t support gay marriage…do you consider that a form of punishment? If so, I don’t follow your logic here. You concede that homosexual acts are sinful…isn’t it reasonable to assume that married gay people perform sex acts with each other? So if for the sake of argument I agree with you that only acts and not thoughts are sinful, am I not still being consistant to disapprove of gay marriage?
frank63 on April 21, 2009 at 1:31 PM
It serves no one when a homosexual displays the worst characteristics of the homosexual stereotype. Hilton should be ashamed of himself, for (1) his vicious attack on someone whose only crime was to respectfully disagree with him, and (2)for reinforcing the image of gays as whining, petulant, nasty and aggressive. People like him should be shunned by the gay community.
Dee2008 on April 21, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Please, one of your arguments was that homosexuality is wrong, sinful, and you picked out some verses.
My retort and challenge was that the feelings are not wrong, it is the action.
Then you accused me of “revising” the bible, and I pointed out where it was you doing the revision…
It is not for you to judge if homosexual feelings are wrong, only the actions…that was the point I was making.
That being a homosexual is not a sin we should concern ourselves with…in fact, those that are and “suppress” those feeling should be honored in the Christian church.
But you posted this:
Looks like you said more then you thought you posted…
But regardless, you are changing your mind and beliefs, and that is what is important.
That Christians know that being homosexual is okay, it is not a sin.
right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 1:45 PM
If the tables were turned and Miss California had answered Hilton in the manner that he spoke about her in public…
Let’s do the mental exercise: Miss California answers, “Do I believe gay marriage should be allowed in all states? No, you stupid fag, what sort of inappropriate question is that since it is such a controversial issue?”
Right. She would not just have lost the contest, she would probably be on the hook for so-called “hate speech.” BTW I always wonder how lefties handle such conflicts of victim mentality. Do you hate Miss California more because she’s a “homophobe,” or Perez Hilton for using sexist language? I know what the answer is, of course, I just wonder if there’s even a teeny, tiny flicker on the hypocrisy meter for the left.
evergreen on April 21, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Couldn’t agree more…there is nothing more stereotypical then a gay calling someone a “bitch” with a shake of the head…
right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 1:46 PM
I don’t think the word the government uses is important–gayiage is OK (or just refer to the form number). If gay people have equal legal and tax protection then probably a majority of people would approve of the solution.
Language and meaning will evolve based on the culture, and may evolved differently in different regions of the country.
dedalus on April 21, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Co-opting words and the established meanings thereof is a favorite tool of the militant gays.
Gay used to be “happy”. Now it means that that person is engaged in abhorrent sexual acts.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. The militant gays want it to mean any consenting adults. If they get their way, the NAMBLA sickos will use the same logic to legalize marriage with little boys. And polygamists, and zoophiles, etc, etc, etc.
The beauty of this is that if the militants get their way, we normal hetros will simply use a different word to define marriage. Then the militant gays will still be singled out as a bunch of sexual deviants. (which is what the militants think this is about) In reality, it is simply about keeping your nose out of hetro business.
csdeven on April 21, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Really getting sick of these fruits and nuts as well
as the liberals and dems whining, crying , and acting
all upset over anything they can use to claim they’re
victims with. . . . Somethings going to explode before
long.
Texyank on April 21, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Riiiight. And I walk with a limp because of those words. There are nights I can’t go to sleep without the aid of pain relievers because of these words.
The fact is this: everything I know about Christianity, I was taught by Christians (Southern Baptists, to be exact). The Bible *specifically* calls for gays to be murdered – and I have first-hand experience of people trying to put actions behind these words.
And, guess what, I had these experiences because I made the near-fatal mistake of trusting a preacher. What were his EXACT words again? Oh, yeah: “The salvation of Christ is not open to fags.”
So, next, you and several others will attempt to feed me platitudes about how “Christians aren’t like that…blahblahblah,” and those platitudes will be no more true today than the first time I heard them.
Actions, as they say, speak louder than words, and actions are the criteria by which I render judgement.
And, to be honest, I don’t give a damn about gay marriage. It’s an issue for the states to decide – not the federal government’s, not the church, and certainly not some queeny, trash-talking miscreant of little significance like Perez Hilton.
Vic on April 21, 2009 at 1:59 PM
There is a glitch in Hot Air’s blog software.
If you open a thread when the previous page is full, but no additional comment has yet been posted, all comment pages “disappear.” For anyone to access any of the previous comment pages, someone must first start a new page by posting a new comment.
I have experienced this twice, and have now reported it to Ed & Allahpundit.
Loxodonta on April 21, 2009 at 2:03 PM
You seem to be arguing that the legality of something determines whether it’s normal or not. Prior to about 20 years ago homosexual acts were illegal in some states. So is the Supreme Court of the United States the arbitrer of what’s normal in our society? One day something is abnormal and the next day it’s normal? I’m sure there were just as many homosexuals 20 years ago than there are today (albeit more closeted). Were gays who lived 20 years ago abnormal while those alive today are normal? I don’t think most gay people would be willing to concede that. I really don’t think we can argue about the normality of something based on legality.
What makes homosexuality abnormal is not religion per se but biology. You don’t need an anatomy textbook to see the complementary nature of the male and female sexual organs. Whether you believe in God or just the forces of nature, it’s clear that from a bioligical standpoint sex is closely tied to procreation. That’s why even with heterosexuals, it’s considered abnormal to be sterile.
Ultimately, gay marriage is an attempt to subvert the natural order. Biology dicates that families are formed by the sexual union of a male and female. No law in the world (politically speaking) can change that.
frank63 on April 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Has NAMBLA made headway on legalizing sex with children, much less marriage? It has been decades since anti-fornication and anti-sodomy laws were struck down, preventing the government from criminalizing private sexual conduct between consenting adults.
Currently, five states recognize gay marriage. Has NAMBLA filed lawsuits yet in those states?
dedalus on April 21, 2009 at 2:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElW6GLW15qM
An excellent biblical perspective on this issue.
TTheoLogan on April 21, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Sure, I’ll say it, how is a queer in ANY WAY qualified to judge in a woman’s beauty pageant?!?!?!? I mean, maybe in the tallent contest? Now maybe in a males body building contest, a lot of those guys are queer too, after all.
My standing on homosexuality is simple. It is contrary to the basic survival of the species, and as such should be expunged from the gene pool. It is no more useful than a genetic trait that would create a preclivity to jump off cliffs (minus parachute), or have sex with motorcycles. Sorry EK, you’re excluded from the latter.
Falconsword on April 21, 2009 at 2:15 PM
I did not say more than I thought. You’re the one who is saying more. I never said homosexual feelings were necessarily sinful. I said they were unnatural and perverse (see my 12:20pm post). I took those words right from Romans 1:27. I did not inject my own opinion. If you don’t like that Bible verse, you’ve got an issue with St. Paul, not me.
I happen to agree with you that those who suppress their homosexual inclinations are indeed doing a commendable thing in the church. That doesn’t change the fact that their inclinations are unnatural. Unnatural and sinful do not always mean the same thing.
frank63 on April 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM
For clarification: I think we are using words differently in a manner that might be confusing, let me define what I mean.
Normal: A commonly occurring characteristic.
Natural: Something with a biological origin.
These are not always good, “death” is natural and normal though we try to avoid it. Being “left handed” is natural but less normal than being “right handed”.
Moral/immoral: Actions judged according to a belief system.
These are not always perfectly reflected in law. Fornication is legal, normal, natural but often immoral.
If marriage is about families should we tie all of the benefits to people that actually raise children?
dedalus on April 21, 2009 at 2:25 PM
A supermajority of heterosexual couples can and do have children. 100% of homosexual couples cannot have children. They have to take someone else’s children.
Next.
TTheoLogan on April 21, 2009 at 2:35 PM
My question is, how would any beauty pageant be so desperate for judges that it would hire this tiresome fellow?
DrMagnolias on April 21, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I think this entire situatio0n is an excellent example of why I am irritated by the gay community. The activist gays run around injecting their own politics into every place they can. Sometimes it is appropriate and sometimes it is not. There is not any way that injected an opinion about same-sex marriage into the Miss America pageant was appropriate. yet it became the determining factor for at least one activist judge and cost a young woman her chance to reach a dream.
Activist gays are rabid, viscous, mean spirited nazis. they criticize the religious right for imposing their version of morality upon the universe while they blatantly seek to do the same. The gay community is one of the most decadent and hedonistic aspects of our society. The health problems suffered by many gays are not imagined. They are real and they are documented. They are also a product of promiscuity that would make Caligula blush.
I have been in favor of same sex civil unions in the past, but stunts like this will turn me away from that support if they do not stop their own persecution of the innocent. Support of SSM is not a measure of moral standing. It is the right of every American to have their own position on this topic and persecuting people for it either way is OUT OF BOUNDS!
Perez Hilton is a little bitch that thinks he is more intelligent than most people. In truth he is nothing more than a gay pride nazi.
Hawthorne on April 21, 2009 at 2:37 PM
You are so tiresome on this subject. I have debated it with you before, but it is OBVIOUSLY what you are here for. You never miss a chance to ply your skills in the effort to lobby for the gay cause celebre.
The gays in America already have equal protection. They can marry in the same sense that anybody else can. They can marry a person of the OPPOSITE SEX! This is NOT an equal protection case.
Hawthorne on April 21, 2009 at 2:40 PM
One way to compare the stupidity of opposite marriage is to watch chickens. I have more roosters than hens. Roosters tend to practice Zoology, however the hens tend to stay with only one rooster. Which leaves the other roosters to, er, um, mate amongst themselves.
It’s not pretty, I can assure you that. Hilton reminds me of that.
Kini on April 21, 2009 at 2:48 PM
The number of gay and straight people using artificial fertility methods is changing the landscape for infertile, older or gay couples.
The contention that marriage must be about children, in some general sense that includes childless couples but excludes lesbians with multiple children unravels with a modest amount of scrutiny. One can’t architect a building or navigate a ship with logic that is more convenient than it is reasoned.
dedalus on April 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Since there is an unending supply of little boys, NAMBLA can take their time. AND headway has nothing to do with it. 40 years ago gays were in the same position and look at them now. They are on the verge of co-opting the meaning of a word for their own selfish wants. And the gays certainly don’t care if NAMBLA gets their way either.
csdeven on April 21, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Normal: A commonly occurring characteristic.
dedalus on April 21, 2009 at 2:25 PM
If marriage is about families should we tie all of the benefits to people that actually raise children?
frank63 on April 21, 2009 at 3:06 PM
We probably agree that this issue should be decided in state courts rather by the federal court.
I’m more interested in financial questions than this particular one, but on this issue people select quotes and respond to my comments–seldom will you see me comment except in reply.
My concern is this: the GOP has made a bet on this issue in the past that probably paid off. However, falling in love with a bet is dangerous and this bet is turning against the party.
This particular issue plays into a concern in the North East that the GOP is beholden more to Biblical teaching than it is to pragmatic issues.
The state courts have begun ruling on this issue and the trajectory of public opinion is clear. Some people looked into the numbers for mortgage backed securities two years ago and had a good idea what the future held others realized much too late.
The GOP needs to do something similar or consider a future as a regional party.
dedalus on April 21, 2009 at 3:11 PM
In the 1960’s there was some effort to portray MLK as a communist. I forget whether there was some merit to the charges, but while today it doesn’t seem too relevant to the question of black civil rights at the time there was a lot of fear that there was a black movement that was determined to disrupt society far beyond just getting their rights.
Gays, inarguably, have made headway during the past 40 years in terms of public acceptance. Maybe NAMBLA or rapists will someday too, but I doubt it. The sexual abuse of children is more feared and focused on today than 40 years ago. In that regard NAMBLA seems further away today than ever.
dedalus on April 21, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Then you can accept that fact that you were mis-informed, and you are confusing what “Christians” say and what the Bible states.
If you consider the truth “platitudes” then I can’t change your mind…it is closed.
That is why some of these “churches” are such an abomination. But then we know that men are sinful by nature, so why wouldn’t church leaders be any different.
That was the wonder of the Reformation, it brought the Bible to people to read and understand…you don’t have to just rely on what one preacher states.
However, I would suggest you take more then one “teacher”, use more then one resource when trying to discover the truth.
Nowhere in the NT does it say that homosexuals won’t be blessed or enter the kingdom of heaven…we don’t make that judgment.
And if you read any of my posts, I am adamant about only actions being judged…you are on the right track. Just don’t judge (if you believe in what you state) someone by others actions. Not all “preachers” are the same, not all teachers are the same, not all gays are the same, not all of any group are the same.
right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 3:26 PM
In my 2:25PM response, my contention would be that homosexuality is not normal but it is natural. It might be somewhat similar to someone being left-handed.
Homosexual acts are legal but immoral to many.
dedalus on April 21, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Couldn’t watch it all the way…his basic facts are so wrong, that I have to assume his theology is just as sloppy…I may be wrong, but when someone can’t get the simple facts straight, then I have to make the assumption that difficult facts will not be correct either.
right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Kim Ficera on Fatboy Hilton’s outing of celebrities:
In other words, LIBERAL FASCISM and the GAY GESTAPO
RobCon on April 21, 2009 at 3:35 PM
I dont know about anyone else, but I am REALLY dang proud of this young woman. She stood true to her personal beliefs and didnt buckle to the pressure of the liberal judges. Hilton is a sick, petty, very angry person.
ousoonerfan15 on April 21, 2009 at 3:36 PM
And to take on the argument that changing a name or the meaning is “meaningless”.
Here is a little something from Orwell’s book, 1984, a classic that everyone should read (you can get the “notes” on line) now with this administration.
Remember Snowball was one of the two leader pigs who helped solidify the uprising.
Of course later on it became “Four legs good, two legs better” at the end of the book. They were always changing the description of their words and statements to conform with the dictators in power.
right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 3:39 PM
This was meant on an individual level and not a group level. Contrary to what many supporters of gay marriage seem to believe, the opposition to gay marriage is not motivated, as a general rule, in large part or small, by bigotry. I am aware there are many gay-marriage advocates who refuse to accept that there really can be a legitimate difference of viewpoint on the issue.
These are the same people who, let me suggest, are not so much concerned about how they live their own lives as they are with forcing other people to accept how they live, to validate the lives they have made for themselves. And that’s what inspires the first conservative objection to gay marriage, the one born out of respect for society and those social traditions that, over time, have demonstrated that they exist for everyone’s benefit.
Marriage goes in that category and is, indeed, one of the reasons that so much of the civil code is concerned with the idea of marriage. And by that I don’t mean marriage as we have come to believe it should be — two starry-eyed people mooning over each other, in love forever — but marriage as the best way to establish an enduring relationship between adults to best protect the interests of children and, to some degree, women. Marriage established a mechanism for the training and upbringing of children and provided for the disposition of familial assets in ways that protected the property rights of those who had a share in creating the assets in the first place.
originally posted at right wing nut!
sargentj on April 21, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Comparing homosexuality to left handedness is more apples and oranges. Left handed people can write, paint, type, etc. just the same as right handed people. Both can perform the same functions with their hands. They just use a different hand. Gay people can NOT perform a natural, reproductive sex act with each other. They do not have complementary sexual natures. With gay sex, a man is not using his “part” in a way that performs any necessary biological function. On the other hand, whether they are left or right handed, a person’s preferred hand is still being used for it’s biological & anatomical purpose.
As far as your defintion of “natural”, it seems to be that if some subset of the population (no matter how small) engages in a certain type of behavior, then it’s by definition natural. If that’s true, then what type of human behavior is NOT natural?
frank63 on April 21, 2009 at 4:00 PM
FIFY. =)
I honestly really don’t have a horse in the gay marriage race, and what two consenting adults do to each other in the privacy of their home is no business of mine if it only affects themselves. It is up to them to live with the consequences of whatever they decide to do.
What I do have problems with is the whole “tolerance” idea, where you have to agree with someone or else you are called “a dumb bitch”. True story. I made the mistake of being in downtown Minneapolis with my 3 young daughters on the same day as the gay pride parade. I really enjoyed having to play dodge the guys wearing buttless chaps and leave the area, as I did not feel that was appropriate viewing for 3 children under 10 years of age. It is not the idea of two people in a loving relationship that bothers me at all…it is the fact of sexual behavior being forced into public viewing and being demonized if you are not accepting of said behavior. Hetero or homo, the public square is not the place to force others to see you engaging in that behavior.
coyoterex on April 21, 2009 at 4:11 PM
So marrying animals and raping little boys are the same as the civil rights movement?
Why use such an inappropriate example?
csdeven on April 21, 2009 at 4:14 PM
The statement is more that there is an “imprint”. So it is “naturally” occurring, just like some people are born with an extraordinary math skills, or music skills, others are born with missing a heart valve, etc.
The point being is that we are not “animals”, whatever we are born with, we have free will to do what we want with these talents, desires, handicaps, or advantages.
And many, many homosexuals have a “normal” family, children, spouse, and are monogamous. Just like many men with “lust” do not cheat on their wives…we aren’t a bunch of baboons, we can control the “thorns in our side”.
right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Not natural would one that is technical. When we get beyond our senses into realms of engineering, probability, legal analysis we are often forced to put aside intuition and rely on methodology.
If someone has sex for monetary reasons or to make a political point that would be unnatural.
I see your point with left-handedness. Functionally, it is nearly equivalent to right-handedness.
Gay sex can’t cause conception, but that is also rarely the intention of straight sex. Evidently, it can convey tenderness, affection, trust, and love among other emotions which is most frequently what straight sex is engaged in for.
dedalus on April 21, 2009 at 4:21 PM
It is relevant when we rhetorically isolate the arguments against each. The opposition to civil rights was forceful and tried to persuade people who were somewhat sympathetic to individual black rights that there were larger questions involved.
Was MLK tied to some communists? Maybe, but extraneous to the underlying question.
dedalus on April 21, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Thanks for the correction, of course Snowball or Napoleon or Squeaky was not in 1984 but Animal Farm.
You are absolutely correct, and that is what is so frustrating about the gay issue. It is not them being “gay” it is the actions they impose on society.
If they stood up and denounced the Folsom Fair, and other such parades, and most gay parades, then they could be tolerable.
But the fact is, their ACTIONS, are deplorable under any definition but there own.
And as a side note….when Hilton and his “ilk” act “gay”, that is all you are GAY…that is what we see, and the hand gestures, the shake of the head, is not effeminate, not “girlie”, it is just GAY and it looks ridiculous, and it is stereotypical, it is cartoonish.
right2bright on April 21, 2009 at 4:52 PM
That may be true but now you’re in the emotional realm. My argument is that from the standpoint of biology and anatomy gay sex is both unnatural and abnormal. Homosexuality is very difficult to explain & defend by either religion or science. If you believe in God who designed everything, the question is why would God NOT give gay people sexually complementary parts if he expected them to engage in sex acts together? And from the standpoint of evolution, it’s reproduction that drives the whole Darwinian machine. Life that does not reproduce is weeded out by nature itself. Again, more evidence that homosexuality in and of itself is a state of disorder.
frank63 on April 21, 2009 at 5:00 PM
I think the evidence supports evolution. However, I tend to believe the following:
1.) Genetic inferiority doesn’t equate to individual inferiority.
2.) Genocide isn’t a requirement or inevitable.
3.) We should care for the old and weak as much as the strong.
4.) Meaning and purpose in life are not a function of how often you reproduce.
Since gay people can’t couple and reproduce the genetic code that drives the tendency persists via natural heterosexual sex. Perhaps, it has a Darwinian role. But, regardless, I don’t think we base morality on Darwin.
dedalus on April 21, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Best post of the day
The Wall on April 21, 2009 at 6:27 PM
No problem at all. I remember that book well, as it was required reading for me in High School. Really had a profound influence on my way of thinking.
coyoterex on April 21, 2009 at 6:34 PM
I’m actually somewhat skeptical of Darwin’s theory myself, at least major parts of it. I was just trying to approach the argument from all sides. I certainly wouldn’t base morality on Darwin either. Science can’t tell us what is right or wrong. But it can explain what is natural and unnatural. My whole point is that homosexuality is not normal and natural. Does that mean it’s also wrong? I guess not necessarily. But the fact that it is unnatural is certainly a reasonable starting point for someone to make a case against gay marriage.
As far as the genetic issue, I think the jury is still out as to how much genetics influence homosexuality. As far as I can see, it can only play a partial role if at all given studies that have been done on identical twins.
frank63 on April 21, 2009 at 6:44 PM
To go back to your point about left-handed people. You had mentioned that they can write and paint. Both are unnatural (regardless of handedness). Writing and painting are learned behaviors that we teach our hands. Most people can’t paint well, and a few hundred years ago only monks and the nobility could write.
Clearly here we’ve used hands for something beyond their primary evolutionary purpose.
A hand might also be used for non-procreative sexual contact. Certainly, not the primary purpose of either the hand or the sex organ, and not likely to win any points in a Darwinian race to spread your DNA. But if done by a married couple to express love, most would find the act moral, even kind or tender.
I agree with your points on genetics.
dedalus on April 21, 2009 at 8:07 PM
I am so glad I don’t have a television in the house, Last thing I need is idiotic, clueless and confused people like Perez Hilton polluting my kids. Perez Hilton please don’t step into Texas, I might be tempted to water-board your dumb liberal arse and it’s not cause you like it up the ole’ dirt road it’s because you’re an idiot.
riko on April 21, 2009 at 8:46 PM
No you were not. I am an American and I was not selected as a judge.
Yes as you apparently never stop telling eveyone.
Are you bragging or complaining? In any case, who the frack cares?
Yes, as in a spotlight used in a Gestapo like interrogation.
Apparently a good cross section of goose stepping little PC fascists.
What you decided was that she did not pass your PC fascist litmus test. You’re not fooling anybody of any discernible substance.
Save your prayers for yourself. You are going to need all you can get.
Why? So you can make some perverted proposition to the performers? I doubt that you are at all their type.
MB4 on April 21, 2009 at 9:08 PM
That dumb-ass asked her a loaded political question and then blames her for giving a political answer. That little brat set her up and he’s proud of it. What an Axx Hxxx!!!
Hal-9000 on April 21, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Hahaha. Listening to Dennis Prager debate perezhilton. No contest.
Blake on April 21, 2009 at 10:30 PM
Your example is silly. The issue is that once the gays have co-opted “marriage”, NAMBLA and the rest will follow suit. NAMBLA is not the initial problem. The problem begins with gays trying to redefine a word by a ridiculous justification based on moral relativity.
Why wont the gays just get their own word to describe the union of same sex couples? They are selfish and conniving.
csdeven on April 21, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman
long_cat on April 22, 2009 at 12:54 AM
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexuals and political questions do not belong at a beauty pageant.
They may want to consider stopping their in your face aggression. The backlash may not be nice.
dogsoldier on April 22, 2009 at 6:45 AM
I’m not saying that body parts can’t be used for other purposes than what their biologial function is. The main point I am trying to make is that heterosexual sex is more natural then homosexual sex. Can you not concede that narrow point? Is there not a complementary relationship between the primary sexual organs of a male and female that is totally absent with two people of the same gender?
frank63 on April 22, 2009 at 7:25 AM
Perez Hilton = Bucktooth squirrel bait. Neanderthal sewer pipe expert. The world’s lonliest fagot. There is justice in this world, and all you have to do is look at this azzclown to see it in living color.
Griz on April 22, 2009 at 8:23 AM
Donald Trump to Perez Hilton “You’re Fired”.
MSGTAS on April 22, 2009 at 9:22 AM
Carrie said last night to Sean Hannity that she feels sorry for that guy and that she has forgiven him already.
She faced the golden image head-on and refused to bow down to it. As a result, she was burned in that oven, but the fires did not consume her. She will be fine, and the better human being for it.
On the other hand, he has some serious issues beyond his hatred of her.
newton on April 22, 2009 at 9:40 AM
MORE IMPORTANTLY, a relationship between a black and a white could result in a baby. Every baby needs a mother and a father to be raised right. Barack Obama is a good example of that.
Gay people have no chance of ‘accidentally’ having a baby so there’s no need for them to be ‘married’.
ThackerAgency on April 22, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Opposite sex organs are certainly physically complementary in the way that same sex organs are not.
You seem to be teetering on a biology = destiny rationale. Reproduction isn’t the same as love (ask a deadbeat dad). Love is also something different than jointly caring for children (how many couples “stay together only for the kids”?)
Many animal species are loyal to each other and are protective of their offspring–gibbons, wolves, eagles. However, nearly everyone would agree that human “love” (for a spouse or child) is something beyond what a pair of gibbons experience.
For an unclear reason gay people experience love and physical intimacy with the same sex. It is reproductively illogical. However, unless one believes that love is restricted to reproductive activities then one has to allow that gay people can love, and potentially form committed relationships. They certainly already have the right to reproduce and have done so within those committed relationships. Those entities are de facto families. The question is what legal recognition does the state provide.
dedalus on April 22, 2009 at 11:30 AM
I favor taking the word marriage out of the government realm and having it reside with churches. The government marriage form could just have a code, and there can be separate codes for gay and straight couples.
dedalus on April 22, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Unlike a straight couple, a gay couple can not reproduce as a pair. They can reproduce separately via artificial means, but ultimately they need a member of the opposite sex to accomplish it. That in and of itself tells us that we are moving outside the realm of the natural when we start talking about gay families.
A mother is not the same as a father. There are differences between males and females that go beyond body parts. A mother can give something to a child that a father can not. And vice versa. No other civilization in history, including those quite tolerant of homosexuality in general, have ever tried to set up same sex unions as the foundational unit of the legal family structure. The acceptance of gay marriage in some quarters of the modern West is an historical anomaly.
Many people, myself included, believe that there is an intelligent force behind the universe that has created the natural order that we see around us. We subvert that order at our own peril.
frank63 on April 22, 2009 at 12:25 PM
I respect your overall point. I have two children who benefit from the fact that their mom and dad have very different skills and approaches. If they had two dads or two moms I think they’d be lacking an important influence.
Unfortunately, in many places two-parent families are the minority when you look at a class of grade-schoolers. Is having two moms ideal? Probably not, but having one mom is probably worse–and there is a lot, too much, of that.
dedalus on April 22, 2009 at 12:42 PM
I appreciate the fact that you seem willing to concede that a mother and a father is preferable. Most gay marriage advocates have dug in their heels and will not cede an inch to any argument that does not put traditional and gay families on absolute equal footing. You seem to have a more reasonable approach to the gay marriage debate than the Perez Hiltons of the world.
In any case, I have to disagree with your logic that since a 2 parent gay family is better than a single parent family, then the state might as well approve and encourage gay families. First of all, most single parent families are not that way by design. One partner is usually lost through death or divorce. That’s not true of gay families where a child is brought up in a family that is motherless or fatherless by design. Second, it seems to me that the primary interest of the state in marriage should be the well being of the potential children, not the sexual interests of the parents. Shouldn’t the state be encouraging the best possible arrangement for children?
frank63 on April 22, 2009 at 1:09 PM
I think right2bright is confusing homosexuality with the temptation toward homosexual action. I agree that temptation not acted upon is not sin. But that does not make the temptation not a perversion. And while other Christians may not judge anyone for the unmanifested lust that is in their heart, surely God does. I applaud those who identify more with Christ than with their temptations (be it homosexuality, alcohol, gambling, etc.) and so live in Him without acting out their temptations. To some extent all Christians have to overcome temptations to please God and we find we can only do it through Christ in us.
One of my favorite verses in the Scripture is from Paul’s letter to the Corinthian church, a group of Christians:
Paul is saying that Christ changes our nature when we accept Him as our Savior and Lord, and through Him we can have victory over any temptation.
Christian Conservative on April 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Is marriage a government institution that should managed for the general welfare of the state or is it an individual right?
In practice, and by court decision, it is a right for straight people. I’m not entirely in favor of that, and wish that people were required to demonstrate some basic level of competency or seriousness before marrying. Having children is certainly even more consequential.
I’d content that most single parent families are the way they are not by intention but by irresponsible planning. As a result a child grows up deprived of (usually a male) role model. Undoubtedly, having two gay parents would be confusing for an adolescent, but it would be somewhat offset by the increased probability that an adult was home with a vested interest in the child’s safety and success in school.
Unfortunately, (for the kids) there is no state regulation about when someone can bring them into the world. Single moms will have kids, parents will divorce, and gay partners will avail themselves of legal technology to create children. I think the challenge of the state is how to attend to the well-being of the children within those family units.
dedalus on April 22, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Is marriage a government institution that should managed for the general welfare of the state or is it an individual right?
frank63 on April 22, 2009 at 2:04 PM
I think your question summarizes the issue well. We live in a rights-obsessed society, which explains my earlier point that the modern West’s acceptance of gay marriage is an historical anomaly. The normal parental instinct is to put the welfare of the next generation, ie. their children, above their own. That idea got lost somewhere in the ME generation of the 60s and 70s. We see the fruits of this everywhere. It’s why the same society that accepts gay marriage has no problem mortaging it’s children’s and grandchildren’s future in an orgy of reckless government spending.
I’m afraid gay marriage is more about gay people finding acceptance and self affirmation than about forming social institutions that are in the best possible interest of children.
frank63 on April 22, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Maybe. I’d guess the reason varies among the few million gay people in the country.
I think you raise valid points that have helped me think through the issue. I’m going to break off from this thread. I’m sure we’ll touch base on some other thread. Thanks for the insight.
dedalus on April 22, 2009 at 2:47 PM
here’s fagboys email:
perez@perezhilton.com
NRA Lifer on April 22, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 6 7 8 9 Next »