Video: Perez vs Prager on gay marriage
posted at 11:32 am on April 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Greg Hengler gives us the Larry King matchup between Townhall’s Dennis Prager and Perez Hilton from last night. In boxing terms, this intellectual debate would be akin to Joe Louis vs Manny Pacquiao’s public-relations guy. It’s no contest. My friend Dennis talks about philosophy, history, and biology, while Perez mostly whines about his feelings. Perez’ corner should have thrown in the towel in the first minute.
And yet … does Dennis really score any points here?
Dennis brings up several analogies, but only one of them really has any relation to the issue, and that’s the e-Harmony case. Civil litigation imposed a requirement on e-Harmony to provide services to gays, even though the owners really only wanted to serve straights. No one imposed such solutions on gay dating services, and Dennis makes the good point that a free market serves all by promoting business that cater to market demand. Very few would argue that the government should put such dating services out of business or force them to serve a market against their will.
But that’s not the same thing as government recognition of gay marriage, nor are the Girl Scouts/Boy Scouts or social club analogies that Dennis uses. Those are also private associations, not government agencies, and the Scouts have a right to organize as they see fit, as long as they don’t break other laws in doing so. American culture looks more favorably on organizing along gender lines with children than they do with adults, as the single-gender social clubs that Dennis mentions have been disappearing for decades under the pressure of gender equality. None of these have any need for government recognition, which makes them irrelevant to the issue of whether governments should recognize same-sex relationships as marriages.
If I were Dennis, I would have used a sports analogy instead. Title IX guarantees equal access on gender, but doesn’t require that schools eliminate gender separation for their athletic departments. Gymnastics, golf, baseball/softball, basketball, hockey, and other sports get separate teams for men and women, but they get equal financing. That would at least somewhat parallel the policy of recognizing marriage for heterosexual unions only while providing for civil unions for gay relationships that protect their partnership rights. That’s actually an analogous government-treatment argument that Dennis misses in favor of an irrelevant free-market argument.
For the record, I don’t think government should be in the marriage business at all. We’d be better off having everyone use partnership agreements that will get treated better than marriage contracts ever do these days in court, and leave the question of marriage to religious institutions. No-fault divorce destroyed any argument that government should protect the sanctity of marriage, and unless I’ve missed a deep groundswell for eliminating that, government does more to damage marriage now than it helps.
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 2 3 Next »
It was decided by the people of the state of California ~ Miss California’s state. Hmmmmmm………
I’m finished. Next.
Branch Rickey on April 22, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Damn that Scalia is such a squish….
/s
Branch Rickey on April 22, 2009 at 12:48 PM
This Perez character calls a Miss American contestant a dumb b**** and a c***, but she’s the one who’s considered a hater. Liberals are the most backward, twisted, hypocritical people on the Earth.
Crusty on April 22, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Well, if you read what I previously wrote:
And yeah, same-sex marriage harms children by confusing them as to what is normal behavior. You already see pre-teen girls growing up too fast because of the prevasive and blatant female sexuality in society. Popular culture is working against parental control not with it as it should.
Andy in Agoura Hills on April 22, 2009 at 12:51 PM
If we call a cow a vegetable, does that allow vegetarians to eat hamburgers?
The Monster on April 22, 2009 at 12:54 PM
I’m with you, Ed.
Let’s insure equal protection for contractual relationships under civil law. Leave marriage to the officialdom of the church, synagogue, mosque or burning wicker man in the cornfield.
Bruno Strozek on April 22, 2009 at 12:57 PM
you will have to settle because of the simple fact marriage is the cornerstone of the family , when gays can breed then we can talk about it until then. Deal with it .
The debate was lost as soon as this queen Perez opened his mouth .
I tried to join a local lesbian group but alas i was not allowed because i was a man and straight.
Mojack420 on April 22, 2009 at 12:58 PM
I admire and respect Carrie Prejean.
Perez Hilton on the other hand is a maypic narcissist. What a disgraceful scumbag he is.
chalons on April 22, 2009 at 12:59 PM
I won’t waste my time on Perez…
d1carter on April 22, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Exactly!
jeffn21 on April 22, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Exactly why they are always on the side of the morally bankrupt. Abortion, Terrorists, Dictators, High Taxes, Obama…
kirkill on April 22, 2009 at 1:01 PM
We know that there are stupid, rude, and clueless people in every group. We have to expect to encounter stupid, rude, and clueless gays.
Also, gays have achieved enough power that their eventually achieving what they consider full equality is a foregone conclusion, but they don’t have equality now and they have memories of a non-liberated past. This is pretty analogous to the environment when the masses would revolt against the state. Most revolutions are crude, rough things. Analogously, it is just to be expected that there will be jerks and morons arguing for gay marriage now. It’s not an argument against gay marriage that people without subtle minds argue for gay marriage now.
thuja on April 22, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Pres and VP are not for gay marriage…why aren’t they called names?
nor on April 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Because anyone who has paid attention knows that they will be pro-gay marriage when polls show majority support for gay marriage.
thuja on April 22, 2009 at 1:08 PM
How about seafood, because I have some Rocky Mountain Oysters for you.
BohicaTwentyTwo on April 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Who in the hell is PeReZ hIlToN, and why should anybody give a RaTs-AsS about his hOmOsExUaLiTy??? The only thing this loser would be good for, is to inspect sewers…maybe!
byteshredder on April 22, 2009 at 1:13 PM
My stance exactly Ed.
smfoushee on April 22, 2009 at 1:13 PM
So let me get this straight:
If a homsexual or lesbian wants to live a normal monogamous life with their significant other, and have insurance and inheritance benefits from said partnership:
AND:
1. Wants smaller government
2. less taxes from said smaller government
3. Thinks Islamic fundamentalists are nuts for stoning gays, and women who happen to be raped (or even alone with a man)
4. Is for freedom of all speech, even when it goes against their own lifestyle
They should be thrown out of the party because your bible says so?
It reminds of when the Catholic church defended Iran against Salmund Rushdie. How about you leave instead?
The best way to defend your religion is to, again, KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT!
Dont beleive in gay marriage? Cool. No one should make your church marry them. But if one church wants to, shut your mouth. It’s your freedom, its everybodys freedom.
But as my last post said its the big picture, not your religious beliefs that protect us all. And that is freedom of religion. It protects us all..
Keep government out of the marriage business!!!
tottoritodd on April 22, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Ms Prejean needs to come out and say that I agree with Pres. Obama and VP Biden, that marriage should be between a man and a woman.. See what kind of reaction THAT gets…
reshas1 on April 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Prager loses by even appearing with this bottom-feeder.
JammieWearingFool on April 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Is a beauty contest any place for a religious “gotcha”? I think not.
tree hugging sister on April 22, 2009 at 1:25 PM
By the very definition of the word bigot Perez and his ilk (we all know them) are the true bigots!
“A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.”
By the example above the operative words are “taking offense of other opinions” Miss California by NO means was offended by gay marriage she stated she didn’t approve of it but, respected others opinions. But, Perez and his ilk were offended by her opinion.
So, you decide who is the bigot by the very definition of the word!
xler8bmw on April 22, 2009 at 1:28 PM
I am in favor of gay marriage myself. But I see the objection to gay marriage as more than a political objection; it is also a religious objection.
Those who oppose gay marriage do so primarily because it is not in their faith to accept it. This contestant opposed gay marriage because her church teaches against it. Therefore, as I see it, to discriminate against someone because of his or her faith, as this contestant clearly was, is an act of religious discrimination.
It is not much different than discriminating against a Muslim woman for wearing a barqua, or a Jewish male for wearing a yarmulke. On these grounds, the contestant should sue. No one should be punished for their adherence to their faith.
DarkKnight3565 on April 22, 2009 at 1:29 PM
I think we agree in principle, but when I think about falling back on the basics, I think of the original intent of the legal entanglement, while you are thinking of the original sociological construction. Let the government boil it down to the basics of setting up incentives for good behavior (or not), while leaving religion to tend to its own ceremonies.
Count to 10 on April 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM
I must confess. After careful consideration and years of indepth soul searching, I am coming out of the closet.
I AM A LESBIAN!!! I LIKE WOMEN!!!
My wife will be very impressed.
PappaMac on April 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM
another annoying gay that won’t shut his trap.
lavell12 on April 22, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Okay, here’s my argument against same sex marriage. I’ve never heard anyone else make this particular argument, but it makes sense to me.
First of all, I believe that some people are born with a genetic defect that makes them gay. For these people, being in a gay relationship is normal and natural.
Practically every gay person I’ve ever met exudes a world weariness that comes from the fact that they’ve had to deal with the stigma of being different ever since they were kids. They may be out in the open about being gay and support gay rights, but it’s obvious that being gay hasn’t exactly been a picnic for them.
On the other hand, bisexuals come across as happy-go-lucky heterosexuals who are proud of themselves for being “progressive” enough to engage in behavior that most people consider to be taboo. They’re like people who get tattoos and piercings all over their bodies just for the shock value. If they had to keep their bisexual escapades a secret, it would take all the fun out of it.
I don’t believe that there’s such a thing as a true bisexual who is equally capable of falling in love and being in a long term relationship with either a man or a woman. I think that bisexuals are heterosexuals who engage in sexually deviant behavior because they think it’s cool. I know people who went to art school, where it’s considered to be a rite of passage to have a gay experience in order to show how open minded and liberated you are. I read an interview with Mick Jagger several years ago where he was asked if he ever engaged in bisexuality. He wouldn’t give a straight answer. Instead he said something along the lines of “you have to understand, back in the early 1970′s everyone was doing it, it was considered to be the cool thing to do”.
I don’t think that you can turn a heterosexual into a homosexual, or turn a homosexual into a heterosexual, but I think that bisexuality is something that people can be lured into. Two parallels come to mind off the top of my head. People who have lousy singing voices, who would never be caught dead singing in public. Then they go to a karaoke bar with some friends, they have a few drinks and say “what the hell, my voice doesn’t suck any worse than most of these other people”. Or middle aged wives who have girl’s night out parties where they go to clubs that feature amateur pole dancing. It’s all about being egged on to do things you wouldn’t normally do.
If same sex marriage is legalized for the entire population, it’s like society is telling people that marrying a member of the same sex is every bit as normal as marrying a member of the opposite sex. Not just normal for gay people, normal for everyone. It’s like society is telling people that we’re all capable of going either way. Combine this with school children being taught that having two mommies or two daddies is every bit as normal as having a mommy and a daddy, and the end result is that these kids will be much more likely to engage in bisexuality when they get older.
Sorry, but I don’t want to see a return to the decadence of ancient Rome. I can empathize with gay couples who have been together for many years. It’s the swinging bisexual crowd, who seem to revel in thumbing their nose at the whole notion of sexual morality, who frighten me. I don’t want to see these people legitimized anymore that they have been already.
ardenenoch on April 22, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Until two men or two women can create a family by them selves, JUST SHUT-UP, CASE CLOSED!
DougDavis on April 22, 2009 at 1:33 PM
I just want to be able to be myself without being called names and treated as if I am a deviant or evil or someone who should be punished by the state for committing a crime.
Yet, this has happened to me more than once because I’m Catholic and I oppose Gay Marriage.
I don’t want those who disagree with me thrown out of the Party. I don’t want any homosexual verbally harassed or in any way mistreated for simply being or acting as a homosexual. However, I also don’t want my faith, speech and religious practices marginalized, defamed and criminalized.
It seems that there can be a way of addressing your concerns as well as mine. Ed Morrissey has suggested one such way. There may be others as well.
Loxodonta on April 22, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Well, biological daughters of two women is probably not too far down the road, and that could be followed shortly by biological children of two men via a surrogate mother. Presumably, an artificial womb will be developed, and that is a whole can of worms in and of itself. The real kicker, though, will be when we actually acquire the technology to do a complete change of sex on an adult human (rather than the genital mutilation that we ridiculously call a “sexual reassignment” now a days). I figure at about that point, we will probably be able to keep people from aging anyway, and technological advances will have made the economy virtually unrecognizable, so who the heck knows.
Count to 10 on April 22, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Exactly. . .I caught myself watching about 10 seconds of that clip and just cancelled it. . .Why do I care what a fruit loop thinks. Just don’t have any interest in your pissy little problems.
BTW Fruit loops and gays are not the same. Perez is a
friggin crybaby fruit loop.
Texyank on April 22, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Do you think that the “Lawrence v Texas” ruling and other similar overturning of anti-sodomy laws made gay sex more popular.
People argue whether the gay population is 3% or 5% or some other number. I don’t know, but 0% of the straight people I know learned about “Lawrence” and said “now that it is legal I can finally try out some homosexuality”.
I also don’t see how marriage/unions for gays increases decadence. My straight friends have found that their married life put a damper on their decadence.
dedalus on April 22, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Oddly enough, I think you have just about everything backward there, except the point about hedonistic behavior having negative results.
Count to 10 on April 22, 2009 at 1:45 PM
The ability to have children is not a prerequisite for marriage. People are under no obligation to have babies once married, and people who are infertile can get married. Case reopened.
Proud Rino on April 22, 2009 at 1:45 PM
God is the Author of the family. He created man from the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7), and he fashioned woman from the side of man (2:21). It was God Himself who “brought [the woman] unto the man” (22). Henceforth man was to leave his parents for the establishment of a new family unit. He was to “cleave unto his wife,” and they would be “one” (24). Marriage was Heaven’s orchestration – not man’s. From the Genesis record, several facts about the marriage relationship, as originally designed by the Maker, are apparent.
-Marriage is not a relationship that may be trifled with by foolish and hedonistic rebels. It is God’s arrangement, originating from His mind; we have no business attempting to “reimagine” His plan.
-Marriage was fashioned as a monogamous relationship – one man for one woman, as long as both are living. That there were subsequent departures from this original intention (cf. Gen. 4:19), does not alter the primitive standard.
-Moreover, the fact that God tolerated breaches of the ideal during a time of incomplete revelation (cf. Mt. 19:8; Acts 14:16; 17:30), does not mean that such laxness is overlooked today under the “better” (cf. Heb. 8:6, etc.) and more demanding regime of the Christian ethic.
-Marriage was designed as a heterosexual union. Sodomite relationships, though trendy with many today, were, and are, an abomination before God (cf. Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Jude 7).
-Marriage was intended to be a life-long union. The merry-go-round relationships of this fickle and immoral society are not consistent with the original plan (Mt. 19:8), and today Jehovah does not sanction capricious divorce.
Jesus, restoring marriage to its pristine condition under the new covenant arrangement, allows divorce and remarriage only on the basis of marital infidelity (Mt. 5:32; 19:9).
And so, the Perez Hiltons can rage on, and imagine vain things, but the Word of God remains stable, and the divine law of marriage is inflexible.
DougDavis on April 22, 2009 at 1:45 PM
It is not really about adults set in their ways. It’s about children learning what to do.
Count to 10 on April 22, 2009 at 1:47 PM
An argument for making the marriage benefits contingent on having children, not extending said benefits to even more places.
Count to 10 on April 22, 2009 at 1:49 PM
That’s fine from the standpoint of a believer, but I think we can rule out it being part of the faith of the people in question. You are going to have to base an argument on principles they accept in order to change their minds.
Count to 10 on April 22, 2009 at 1:51 PM
I agree with you 100%. I think calling people who are against gay marriage names is awful. It is your faith and I respect it. I also find it offensive when commenters use the terms “faggot” amd “sodomites”.
When they call tea party folks “racist”, it boils my blood. But it makes it no better, when people who agree with me on some issues, use the latter terms.
I really believe the best way for religion (or lack of it) is to get the government out of the equation. I think Perez Hilton is a moron.Name calling is for third graders and nazis.
I think we can address all of our concerns if we just let the private, stay private. Those that try to ruin that are the problem. That would be a government that wants to tell me how to live my life and a religious movement that wants to kill me for my beliefs.(or lack of)
If we can just agree to the first we can overcome the latter.
tottoritodd on April 22, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Regardless of the laws, the culture is changing. Children are increasingly exposed to other children who have gay parents. At that point the existence of a government certificate or set of legal agreements seems almost irrelevant to what the children learn.
dedalus on April 22, 2009 at 1:54 PM
And thats all in the bible. And the constitution protects your right to believe in it. But not one passage you quoted is in the Constitution. So as long as no one is forcing you to go against your personal beliefs in your personal life, whats your complaint?
tottoritodd on April 22, 2009 at 1:58 PM
That’s like giving up on smoking prevention just because some parents smoke. Or education just because some parents are illiterate.
Count to 10 on April 22, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Do you think that the “Lawrence v Texas” ruling and other similar overturning of anti-sodomy laws made gay sex more popular.
People argue whether the gay population is 3% or 5% or some other number. I don’t know, but 0% of the straight people I know learned about “Lawrence” and said “now that it is legal I can finally try out some homosexuality”.
I also don’t see how marriage/unions for gays increases decadence. My straight friends have found that their married life put a damper on their decadence.
dedalus on April 22, 2009 at 1:42 PM
People are heavily influenced by what society does and does not condone. Alchohol is legal, and therefore, socially acceptable. You go to a baseball game and see people drinking beer and think nothing of it. You go to a wedding a see a minister or a rabbi drinking alchohol, and think nothing of it. You go to a restaurant and see a family consisting of grown children, middle aged parents, and elderly grandparents all sharing a bottle of wine, and think nothing of it.
You walk down the street and smell marijuana and people say “ooooohhhh, naughty, naughty, somebody’s smoking weed”.
No, I don’t think that legalizing same sex marriage will immediatley cause people to run out and engage in bisexuality. But over a long period of time there’s no question that this is what it will lead to. And it’s not because gay people are getting married. It’s because society is telling EVERYONE that same sex marriage is perfectly normal for EVERYONE.
ardenenoch on April 22, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Neither of those is the source of a child’s nurturing or support. Teaching a class of children that some of their parents shouldn’t be married (or even given birth to them) is unrealistic, not to mention cruel.
In the past few days I was thinking that the rationale against gay marriage based on an inability to naturally conceive really hints at a criteria for society necessarily recognizing gay unions.
Insofar one believes marriage has been supported for millenia by communities primarily because it is a foundation for operating a family unit, the recent technological changes in fertility and increase in gays living openly with children creates a societal change that the law wouldn’t be driving but, instead, addressing.
The prevalence of this societal change varies greatly from state-to-state, so I think a federalist approach can function in a jury rigged manner for now.
dedalus on April 22, 2009 at 2:22 PM
I’m GLAD (pun intended) she gave the answer she did, but not for the reasons all the oh-so-”enlightened,” politically “correct” judges and “sponsors” are for her answer, as they proudly bash her mercilessly.
You see, you brilliant knuckleheads, your unmitigated, unstoppable ugliness toward her, in addition to your oh-so-”tolerant” catty, juvenile hatred for her answer, hurts only YOU.
How do you not get that? Are you as dumb as you are blind?
You’ve made her a martyr, a hero, someone with whom the majority of Americans agree — including your precious president, Barack Obama (who gave practically the same answer as she did).
I wait breathlessly for all you hypocrites to bash and castigate B.O. with the same vitriol with which you giddily laid on to this contestant.
And the best part about your hypocrisy: You spew vile venom at a young woman who makes no rules, passes no “executive orders,” or is in any position to compel Congress to enact laws or nominate activist judges to pass laws to give you what you want, but you ignore your own beloved (with a slobbering love, btw) president’s negative position on gay marriage — even though he can do all of the above.
You’re a delight in your proud stupidity. It’s very entertaining and does not go unnoticed.
Dion on April 22, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Thanks for your response.
No person deserves the derogatory slurs thrown at them that are typical of contemporary “debate,” especially on the internet. I don’t support PC policing, but self-discipline. Describe the behavior, disagree with the viewpoint, but let us respect one another’s humanity.
I understand humans can lose our tempers and say things we later regret. I have. If so, be good enough to admit your error and try to make amends. I have.
(Of course, as a Catholic, I’m willing to feel guilty about anything, anytime, and try to be a better person.)
At the moment, I’m “debated out” on this subject on which we share some agreement and have some disagreements. However, I wanted to make sure that at least someone told you flat out that people shouldn’t be banned from the conservative movement just because they are homosexual or because of disagreement on one or more issues. if so, there will be several million very small and ineffective conservative movements.
My best wishes to you.
Loxodonta on April 22, 2009 at 2:37 PM
And the family is the foundation of any society. Marriage is the glue that holds the family together. If you consider that government is supposed to reflect the will of the society, it seems reasonable for the government to have authority to protect both the family and marriage.
Homos have no family in the traditional sense so there is no need for them to be bound by marriage.
docdave on April 22, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Oops, I forgot that the WH rules by poll numbers.
nor on April 22, 2009 at 2:41 PM
i agree completely. Bisexuality is a pestilence.
However, seeing the militant gay movement lately has certainly hardened my opposition to gay marriage. Activism in the courts, the anti-mormom near riots in California and Perez Hilton do nothing to further the cause.
It is possible not to be a bigot against gays but still want to preserve the original definition of marriage. I should not have to be forced to accept a particular behavior or lifestyle as mainstream.
Daemonocracy on April 22, 2009 at 2:42 PM
I’m not arguing. I’m just trying to get the truth out to those who have lost their way.
To those whose hearts are hard, I just shake the dust off my shoes.
You can lead a horse to water and all that…
My complaint is the loss of morality in this country is destroying it! Does that not bother you?
DougDavis on April 22, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Do we only recognize traditional families?
What about gay families?
dedalus on April 22, 2009 at 2:44 PM
It’s already happening with Young girls today.
Daemonocracy on April 22, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Like it or not, the government is in the “marriage business”.
And, as long as government is in the marriage business, I want my government to do everything necessary to outlaw gay marriage. And that includes civil partnerships.
pabarge on April 22, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Perez is a pez head. A dolt. He demeans himself, and his arguments, when he spews with the name calling, and vitriol. I don’t take him, or his hissy fits, seriously. Nor should anyone else.
capejasmine on April 22, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Well, look at that!
Prager said what I’ve been saying all along….that religious marriage and secular marriage are, and should be separate.
And Hilton agrees.
Unfortunately, the anti-gay marriage crowd will still claim it’s an “attack on religion” and all gays really want is to kill Christianity and civilization as we know it.
*sigh*
JetBoy on April 22, 2009 at 2:58 PM
The libs complain that we conservatives try to cram our “morality” down their throats. My complaint is they try to “cram their “IMMORALITY” down ours.
miron on April 22, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Perez is just the typical hate mongering liberal who believes anybody that diagrees with anything he wants is beneath him. The filth that emits from his mouth with such ease is acceptable only to those who feel they are above the norm for no other reason other than they “think” they are. Their delusions are self inflicted and no rational thought can change that.
volsense on April 22, 2009 at 3:14 PM
It is too keep order. When you have public records, those records are invaluable historically. That is why marriages have been part of every government from the beginning of time.
One of the most important part of gov. “business” is to keep order, and historical documents of marriage are one of the most important documents we have, and have had for 10 of thousands of years.
right2bright on April 22, 2009 at 3:19 PM
The simple truth is that normal, non-hating straight people and well-adjusted, functional homosexuals largely remove themselves from this conversation, ceding it to the truly homophobic and to the unending freakshow that the gay community produces, i.e., Perez and Barney and the Butch Nation.
I don’t think anyone cares about gays’ sex lives; they care about freakishness of all kinds, from the tattoo and hair clowns to the guys with chaps on.
Jaibones on April 22, 2009 at 3:21 PM
First off I cheer Miss California for honestly answer a question like that. As far as Perez Hilton..I have news for him the only B… and C… I saw in this story is him.
Now on same sex marriage…I have no problem with civil unions. but to me the term “marriage” has certain religious tones that the government should stay out of. But all in all just my opinion
JKotthoff on April 22, 2009 at 3:21 PM
I think gays are more opposed to the idea of straight people being able to do certain things that they can’t do than in favor of having these things made available for themselves.
Gays would have been more happy if e-harmony was shut down. They just hate the idea of something happening somewhere that is barred to them due to nature or due to their own life choice, whatever the case may be.
When California overturned prop 22, the very first thing they did was ban bride and groom wedddings. Straight people were instantly forced to give up thousands of years of culture and assimilate the homosexual terms of “Party A- Party-B”. This despite the fact that California has laws that require government documents be printed in several languages at an expense of millions of dollars every year.
When prop 8 passed, the gay marriage advocates responded by pushing to have all marriages banned in California. When it comes right down to it, they just don’t like the idea of men and women marrying each other.
We can predict what the future will hold based on these actions they have already taken. I guess at the far extreme of predictions would be that men and women will be forced to give up breeding because it’s something that gays can’t do and therefore it creates inequality. But long before we arrive at that point, we would be dealing with things like mail-order spouse equality that will be fueled by political and profit motives. Most gays might not really care to be married but they will do it for money and to increase the numbers and political clout of the homosexual community.
Like all liberalism, these things seem far fetched right up until the day it happens, and then we stand there blind-sided with a stupid look on our faces wondering what we can do to stop it. I had never even heard of the concept of gay marriage until the day our troops were entering Baghdad and then everything was about gay marriage and I’m sitting there wondering wtf is going on. It’s like we were supposed to be distracted at that moment. Bush handled that very well though.
Buddahpundit on April 22, 2009 at 3:22 PM
It seems Ed and his lemming followers are parroting the same stupidity about “government out of marriage.” Not surprising, none of them are lawyers(or probably know anything about anthropology) and have probably never taken a family law or property class.
Seriously, stop parroting the same stupidity about “government out of marriage” and go spend some time reading about any state’s law, or at a family court in a state, etc. The entire legal system is based on the state being involved in marriage because of property, custody, etc.
The idiotic idea that this is only religious seems to not taken into consideration the fact that marriage is standard in nearly all societies throughout history… both religious and secular ones. Oh, that’s right, people in China and communist russia were never married.
Seriously, you guys are making conservatives look bad.
TTheoLogan on April 22, 2009 at 3:22 PM
truth is thats what its all about…why you don’t recognize what is obvious to everyone else is beyond me…oh wait, you’re a LIBERAL…nevermind…
right4life on April 22, 2009 at 3:33 PM
those people are not conservatives.
right4life on April 22, 2009 at 3:33 PM
If gay means happy…why does Perez wear an eternal frown.
Is he bitter because of his choice?
Jed1899 on April 22, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Allowing gays to marry is changing the meaning of the word.. Most favor “legal partnerships” that have the same perks as marriage, but its like calling your leg, your arm. The insistance on “marriage” by gays is just a way to shove it down hetero’s throats. No pun intended
Bevan on April 22, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Perv-ez Hilton is a lot of things, but bright is not one of them.
tballard on April 22, 2009 at 3:52 PM
So only the religious can get married. Sure.
jgapinoy on April 22, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Perez always a bridesmaid never a groom SNARK oh and look I didn’t have to call anyone a dirty name.
Dr Evil on April 22, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Sure, Ed, throw the baby out with the bath water.
Let’s fix the no-fault laws instead, Ed!
jgapinoy on April 22, 2009 at 3:57 PM
e-Harmony should serve whomever they want. Gay marriage is about government discrimination.
Sports analogy is silly. Women’s athletic teams basically exist (sorry women) because they can’t compete with men. Such is their physiology. Full equality would mean that men and women would compete for a place in the same team with the latter always losing. (Yes, that exception you have in mind just confirms the rule.)
Marriage is nothing like that. Gays are perfectly happy to have identical standards applied to them. They aren’t saying we should have equal numbers of straight and gay marriages. They don’t ask for special treatment. They are happy with full equality.
Stop using stupid analogies and give people their right to raise families with people they love.
radiofreevillage on April 22, 2009 at 4:15 PM
POS Perez Hilton and his homosexual agenda doesn’t belong judging in a Miss. U.S.A. beauty pageant, or as a matter of fact, anywhere! I have to lay blame on the person[s] that placed this mistake of mankind at the judging table. Let’s hope this queer nonsense doesn’t EVER happen again.
byteshredder on April 22, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Pearls before swine.
liquidflorian on April 22, 2009 at 4:33 PM
how about pedophiles and polygamy? guess you’re just BIGOTED to deny them their feelings…after all its just an ‘alternative lifestyle’
right4life on April 22, 2009 at 4:40 PM
what BS. they want special rights, and they want to squelch the rights of any who dare disagree with them…because the gay movement is a fascist movement. as CA and this clown demonstrate…
right4life on April 22, 2009 at 4:41 PM
This pretty much epitomizes debate between the right and the left. Conservatives come to the table with ideas, facts and reason, while liberals ignore them throw emotional tantrums.
Grafted on April 22, 2009 at 4:52 PM
There is no doubt that the gays I know insist upon “marriage” as the only choice. They don’t want to hear about legal arrangements, they want the mantle of marriage from straights.
Jaibones on April 22, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Nice piece Ed, but Perez is still a cocksucker.
GarandFan on April 22, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Government involvement in one’s personal life does more to infringe on one’s rights than it does to help.
maverick muse on April 22, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Point.
maverick muse on April 22, 2009 at 5:37 PM
We would not have to re-define the word “marriage” if we instead re-defined the word “woman”.
The word “woman” could be re-defined to mean “females plus gay men”.
Gay men would from now on be called women.
Therefore a marriage could remain a union between a man and a woman.
Problem solved.
pappy on April 22, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Girl-Brains on Testosterone. What did you expect?
Pole-Cat on April 22, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Dennis Prager, a man I have always admired, did a great job. He completely controlled the conversation, and presented to us why we should oppose gay marriage. He also should have mentioned that once gay marriage is legalized, churches and their private organizations will have litigation problems.
Frank T.J Mackey on April 22, 2009 at 6:30 PM
I’m tired of straight folks entering into every argument about this kissing the ring of whatever homosexual they might be talking to.
You are already equal.
Quit whining.
You have average per capita incomes 50% higher than everyone else. You hold positions of prominence in nearly every walk of life. You obviously have time enough to spare to spend every waking moment marching for “gay pride” and harassing businesses into giving you special consideration and soothing every imagined “injustice” done to you.
Now, like two-year-olds, you want something that Mommy said you can’t have, and you’ll trash everything, burn down buildings, threaten old women and generally have a thermonuclear tantrum till you get your way.
Grow up.
spmat on April 22, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Shut up Mario and go back to dissing Britney Spears…oh wait, she cleaned YOUR clock in court for stealing from her.
This idiot used to run PageSixSixSix.com until he was hit by one defamation suit after another. Hey dufus, crawl back under your rock and stop propositioning boys on the Santa Monica Pier.
nelsonknows on April 22, 2009 at 7:54 PM
He’s also had legal action against him for theft of intellectual property. He’s less than a class act.
dedalus on April 22, 2009 at 8:19 PM
I have no penchant to understand what gay is. I don’t see any good reason why society cannot perfect legal status between two people, but I don’t say this in order for this to be a means for legitimizing a gay relationships. Gay relationships are complex personal disorders. Anyone that would suggest a gay relationship is natural needs to do a lot more studying – especially Darwinists. Same gender relationships may be the most rewarding that two people could hope to attain.
ericdijon on April 22, 2009 at 8:31 PM
Indeed. For now. 60% down to 52% in a decade? I give it another 5 years and Prop 8 will be repealed.
JohnAGJ on April 22, 2009 at 8:50 PM
Btw, as for Perez: he’s a despicable putz. Have at ‘im.
JohnAGJ on April 22, 2009 at 8:50 PM
Perhaps you would rather I used explicit and graphic descriptions of the various activities that these deviants perform. That would not offend you, right?
How about you get over your fantasy fetish about the allure of sodomite behaviors. If you want to do them, get on with it but just keep it to yourself since NOBODY who is normal wants to hear about it.
And if you don’t have such a fantasy, then stop running interference for these perverts. They are disgusting, they know they are disgusting, and they LOVE normal useful idiots like you chastising people who are honest about this filthy effort to destroy what is decent.
platypus on April 22, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Actually, “useful idiots” like you speaking your mind as openly and freely as you like is far more helpful for us “perverts” than anything tottoritodd can say on our behalf (not that I don’t appreciate his/her efforts). So by all means, please do continue. “Faggots” and “sodomites” are rather blase, how about something with more oomph?
JohnAGJ on April 22, 2009 at 9:00 PM
Useful idiots have a short shelf life. The principles and traditions that I have adopted and espouse are those that are tried and true and eternal.
If those terms are rather blase (as you contend), then where is the issue? Why does anyone even mention it?
In any event, this is about the Cult of Personality versus the Forces of Truth. Sodomites cannot leave a legacy when they die, except for the damage they do to others.
platypus on April 22, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Amen. Ask any married couple…did you feel “more” married when you stood up in front of your family and friends, and professed your undying love for your partner, or when you stood in line at the county office and filled out a form?
Personally I could care less about the county-issued marriage certificate sitting in a folder in my office. When my wife and I stood in front of God, our loved ones, and our pastor…that’s when we were married.
Have a domestic partnership arrangement for the protection of insurance as well as property and custody rights, and leave the marriage definition up to the individual.
As for Perez, he gets points for making fun of vapid celebrities on his website, but his obvious disdain for anyone of the Christian faith just comes off as bitter and ignorant.
TheMightyMonarch on April 22, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Speaking of truth about sodomites, try this:
http://tinyurl.com/dkesny
platypus on April 22, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Keep government out of the marriage business!!!tottoritodd on April 22, 2009 at 1:14 PM
So atheists can’t get married?
spmat on April 22, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Only the Male ones.
When was the last time you heard of an all-female golf club being broken apart on the basis of gender equality?
BKennedy on April 22, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »