Gay sinks Miss America. (This contest is starting to suck)

[CoolBreeze]

'You dumb bitch!' Miss USA beauty pageant turns ugly as Perez Hilton insults Miss California over gay marriage slur

It was the night a beauty contestant turned ugly.

When Miss California was asked her opinion on same-sex marriages by an openly gay judge she could have chosen a diplomatic reply.

Instead, 21-year-old Carrie Prejean answered with honesty.

But in saying marriage should be between a man and a woman, it was a reply that may have cost her the Miss USA crown and led to her being called a 'dumb bitch'.

Prejean picked celebrity blogger Perez Hilton, who is openly gay and calls himself 'queen of all media'.

Hilton asked her: 'Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalise same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?'

Prejean paused for a moment before replying: 'Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.'

She continued: 'And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.

'No offence to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be - between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.'

Hilton went on to describe Prejean as having 'half a brain' and said he would have stormed onto the stage and ripped off her tiara if she had won.

There was speculation that the reply had cost her the Miss USA crown, as she was named runner-up with Miss North Carolina, Kristen Dalton, winning the title.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... -slur.html

[Lee]

I don't see anything wrong with her answer.

[CoolBreeze]

"Most" Americans don't either.

[Bob Campbell]

Miss North Carolina won and I didn't even know the contest still existed.

[Greg Goodfellow]

There was ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with her answer.

If a certain vocal minority wants to pony up the money for "Miss Gay USA," then let them have at it. Otherwise, I always thought that we were free to express our opinions openly. How silly of me.

[The-Hammer]

There was ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with her answer.

If a certain vocal minority wants to pony up the money for "Miss Gay USA," then let them have at it. Otherwise, I always thought that we were free to express our opinions openly. How silly of me.

And the judges are perfectly free to tank her score if they don't like what she has to say.

[The Interpreter]

Uh...The Miss America contest had exactly NOTHING to do with any of this.

It was Miss USA.

Not that Miss America is a paragon of honesty, etc., either, though.

[genlock]

Donald Trump owns one of these pageants.

[Lester]

Trump owns the USA pageant.

[Jet Black]

Who was the brainiac who picked a nancy boy to judge a beauty contest? Common sense takes another dive.

[Bar Rat]

I'd like to see Miss North Carolina lose the crown somehow (nothing too degrading, even perhaps an abdication would be even more sweet) and have it pass down the line to Miss Honesty and Miss Who Represents The Vast Majority Of The USA.

[Bob Campbell]

Which one was that?
Most Americans could give a rats' patoot about gay marriage.
You know what they say. If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.

[genlock]

I don't give a damn about the whole state of Michigan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jx5TVBf6cWM

[Mike]

Silly faggot. Dicks are for chicks.

Sorry, but I firmly believe that homosexuality is an abnormality and a defect. Of course, like many others it can be overcome or dealt with and the person can be a productive citizen, but sexual confusion is in my mind unquestionably as much a genetic or mental disability as is autism, down's syndrome, and other disorders.

Fact of the matter is, desiring your own sex as a sexual partner is NOT normal and is NOT optimal for society (ie: impossible to produce children). No amount of PC can change that. While I think anyone has the right to do anything they wish until it gets to the point of violating the rights of others OR violating the wallet of others, as in demanding the public fund research into a 100% preventable, 100% lifestyle CHOICE induced disease that is 100% fatal, AIDS, then yes, it does become my right to object to, and yes, ban, unless no demand on others for funding to deal with the consequences of that lifestyle is made.

The only true innocent victims of AIDS are the children who contracted it from their mother who was a drug abuser who shared needles with AIDS infectees, or who got it from their mother by virtue of her getting it from a bisexual partner who buggered a man who had AIDS, or who was straight but himself a drug abuser who shared needles with AIDS victims. Or from a blood transfusion but that should no longer happen. Those children, YES, we as a society do have a moral obligation to support, as they were inflicted not out of choice.

This is the main reason why I actually oppose drug legalization despite the libertarian in me in spirit being for it, is that in our current climate drug abusers would be "entitled" to public funding for treatment for the consequences of their misuse of drugs instead of held personally responsible in the same way buggery is.

With freedom comes responsibility. If there is no freedom, there is no responsibility.

The reverse is true... If there is no responsibility there can be no freedom.

As for marriage, I oppose government involvement in it in ANY way.

This means that everyone has to file taxes as an INDIVIDUAL. Children are in the best interest of our country and should be a deduction, but I don't think that a married couple or a couple gays shacking up should ever have to file jointly or ever suffer any sort of "marriage penalty" (which is built into the tax code to punish two income families for earning more than one individual earner plus a stay at home can earn).

I think that people should be married by the church, not the government. There are so-called "Christian" churches that will do same sex marriage. All well and good for them. Of course, the real ones won't. But I digress. Government involvement in marriage is actually a relatively recent phenomenon, not really coming into importance until the federal income tax happened...

[Bar Rat]

Fact of the matter is, desiring your own sex as a sexual partner is NOT normal and is NOT optimal for society (ie: impossible to produce children). No amount of PC can change that. While I think anyone has the right to do anything they wish until it gets to the point of violating the rights of others OR violating the wallet of others, as in demanding the public fund research into a 100% preventable, 100% lifestyle CHOICE induced disease that is 100% fatal, AIDS, then yes, it does become my right to object to, and yes, ban, unless no demand on others for funding to deal with the consequences of that lifestyle is made.

The only true innocent victims of AIDS are the children who contracted it from their mother who was a drug abuser who shared needles with AIDS infectees, or who got it from their mother by virtue of her getting it from a bisexual partner who buggered a man who had AIDS, or who was straight but himself a drug abuser who shared needles with AIDS victims. Or from a blood transfusion but that should no longer happen. Those children, YES, we as a society do have a moral obligation to support, as they were inflicted not out of choice.

Your two statements contradict each other. If AIDS is a 100% lifestyle-induced disease, then how do you explain the innocent victims in the next paragraph? Since it is a 100% choice disease, then there can be no innocent victims.

And if there are innocent victims, you're saying that the government should just abandon them and ignore their problem with the disease?

Just wondering which way is correct

[Bob Campbell]

And what of all the animal species ( including the benobo, a variety of chimpanzee) that practice homosexuality? Do they do it by choice? Can they be "cured"?
And who in the world would choose to practice a lifestyle that would guarantee their persecution by the lunatic fringe and their exclusion from the basic rights enjoyed by others.

And should those who contracted HIV from tainted blood also be included in your list of the doomed. And if Aids is 100% fatal, who is that man masquerading as Majic Johnson?

Here's Mike.
Here's the tide of history.
Poor Mike, don't get crushed.

If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay.

[Nate G]

I'm confused, is it a genetic disorder like Down Syndrome or a choice? I'm not sure how it could be both? I assume we're still talking about homosexuality? Hello? Hello?

[Force Commander]

I don't give a damn about the whole state of Michigan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jx5TVBf6cWM

After reading this, I can see why you don't.

http://www.freep.com/article/20090421/B ... t+Michigan