Home - List All Discussions

Miss California denied crown

Because she supports traditional marriage

by: scopia19822

This is a classic example of Liberal intolerance. This girl who gave an honest and articulate answer is denied the crown because of her beliefs.
http://omg.yahoo.com/news/perez-hilton-the-way-miss-california-answered-her-question-lost-her-the-crown/21528;_ylt=AvjZQomD5bG6D40NVlATNvoazJV4

reply from: Faramir

I bet even most who voted for Obama believe that.
Do you think that girl should have been denied the crown because she was honest in expressing her beliefs?

reply from: lycan

I've met Carrie. Her mom used to be married to my boss.

reply from: speck

Would you be singing a different tune if it had been a racist comment?

reply from: speck

LOL Spin, I should have checked again before posting

reply from: Shenanigans

Well, she's a far sight more intelligent then that woman who got up on stage and spouted crap about helping people who dont' know where Iraq is cos they don't have maps or some such rubbish.

reply from: ProInformed

I bet even most who voted for Obama believe that.
Do you think that girl should have been denied the crown because she was honest in expressing her beliefs?
In one of the debates didn't Biden (or obama?) say that he agrees with McCain on the issue of same-sex-marriage?

reply from: ProInformed

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
What if her honest belief was along the lines of "I sure hate ni**ers"?
Then would it be OK to boot her for being an ignorant hatewad?
She didn't say anything about hating anyone - you're such a liar spinfibby.
You however, have called her an 'ignorant hatewad' a much less ambiguous example of your hatred towards her.
BTW has anyone here seen the hateful rant the homosexual judge made against her? Surely he can't be considered unbiased in his judging!
http://perezhilton.com/tv/index.php?ptvid=0bad59ed42807

Now THAT: (pereth - idiot can't even pronounce his own name correctly LOL... and BTW it's not Mith U.th.A, and North and Thouth Carolina are not the same thing - what an illiterate moron HE is) IS a REAL example of an 'ignorant hatewad'.

reply from: Yuuki

I bet even most who voted for Obama believe that.
Do you think that girl should have been denied the crown because she was honest in expressing her beliefs?
What if her belief had been that all jews should die? Or that black people should sit at the back of the bus? Intolerance is intolerance, period, and it's not right. Yes, she has a right to an opinion, but on the same token, if her views are intolerant, then that's not right.

reply from: churchmouse

Now what would have happened if this scene had been turned around and the panel were all against same sex marriage and the contestant said she was for same sex marriage?
Tolerance? Free Speech without being threatened?
She shared her opinion and was bashed by Hilton because she didnt answer in the most politically correct way. She would also have been bashed had she said she was for the Iraq war and against abortion. Those arent politically correct things to say either.
As I said, unbelievable. I admire her for not caving in to what the judges obviously wanted to hear....DEMANDED to hear. She held her own and did not compromise her standards of right and wrong. If judges are allowed to do this to a contestant, questions such as this should not be asked.
It's the same with the pro-life stance. I am sure like I said had the judges asked whether or not Miss California believed woman had the right to abort and she said no she was pro-life, the results would have been the same.
Both these views are attributed to Christian values, not to say that someone that does not believe in God cant be pro-life, but normally Christians who hold and live the Christian worldview are pro-life and against same sex marriage.
We now see one example of the start of what will be the criminalization of Christianity.
Barbara Finlay (lesbian lawyer) from British Columbia had this to say, "The legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a struggle between freedom of religion verses sexual orientation."
John Leo, "Stomping on Free Speech," Town Hall.com, 12 April 2004
First Amendment arguments all over this country are losing ground to antidiscrimination laws. It has started alread where people have been arrested simply because they have expressed their unpopular views.
Example........Texas 1995, Samuel Kent a federal judge told American students if they prayed in the name of JESUS, they would be sentenced to a 6 month jail term. Tolerance???? (Worldnetdaily, 2001 "Santa is Appalled)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25758

In Omaha, Nebraska a student was prohibited from reading his bible silently during free time or even to open his bible at school. (Gierke v Blotzer)
You think its not happening?
http://hongmark.com/voting/FreedomOfReligion.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84812

More.....http://victimsoflaw.net/Religious1.htm

A life devestated.....
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/14/local/me-lopez14

reply from: Faramir

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
What if her honest belief was along the lines of "I sure hate ni**ers"?
Then would it be OK to boot her for being an ignorant hatewad?
Then that would have been enough to preclude her from deserving the title.
But stating a belief that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a hateful or racist statement.

reply from: Faramir

I bet even most who voted for Obama believe that.
Do you think that girl should have been denied the crown because she was honest in expressing her beliefs?
What if her belief had been that all jews should die? Or that black people should sit at the back of the bus? Intolerance is intolerance, period, and it's not right. Yes, she has a right to an opinion, but on the same token, if her views are intolerant, then that's not right.
Her opinion was in line with the man you voted for and with the vast majority of citizens of the US, besides being a legitimate religious belief.
You as a Christian should know that marriage is meant to be for a man and a woman.
What you have stated in no way compares to what she stated. It's a ridiculous comparison.

reply from: Faramir

The child did not need to make that statement to you. You didn't ask for his opinion.
Miss Calfornia was asked a direct question. She answered it with intelligence and integrity, and I have heard that she said she would have done it again if given another chance, and I admire her for that kind of courage.
She could have been asked if abortion causes an unjust death, and answering in the affirmative might also have cost her.
Good for her that her convictions were more important than personal gain.

reply from: Faramir

Mabye so, but the issue here is that there was intolerance on the part of those who sympathized with gay marriage.
She should have been entitled to her belief and should have been respected for an honest answer.
She should have been judged only on how hot she looked in her swimsuit, whether she twirled the baton well, and the MANNER in which she answered her question. Why should actual substance be a concern?

reply from: yoda

That's a rare quality to find in a public personality, and I admire her grit. Her only mistake was to forget that she was in the "Agree with us or we'll kill you" state. They even put the donor list of the ballot initiative against gay marriage on the internet, so the wackos out there could harass them. And they are, from what I read.

reply from: Yuuki

I bet even most who voted for Obama believe that.
Do you think that girl should have been denied the crown because she was honest in expressing her beliefs?
What if her belief had been that all jews should die? Or that black people should sit at the back of the bus? Intolerance is intolerance, period, and it's not right. Yes, she has a right to an opinion, but on the same token, if her views are intolerant, then that's not right.
Her opinion was in line with the man you voted for and with the vast majority of citizens of the US, besides being a legitimate religious belief.
You as a Christian should know that marriage is meant to be for a man and a woman.
What you have stated in no way compares to what she stated. It's a ridiculous comparison.
What is that even supposed to mean? Hardly anyone of Obama's age approves of same sex marriage; that revolution is for MY generation to pass. She is of MY generation.
I consider hate and discrimination against gays and the restriction of their rights to be as offensive as slavery. I as a Christian know what LOVE is, and love has no bounds. Two adult people who truly love each other have the right to be joined in the eyes of the Lord and it doesn't matter what's in their pants or under the dresses.

reply from: Yuuki

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
What if her honest belief was along the lines of "I sure hate ni**ers"?
Then would it be OK to boot her for being an ignorant hatewad?
Then that would have been enough to preclude her from deserving the title.
But stating a belief that marriage is between a man and a woman is not a hateful or racist statement.
It is hateful and discriminatory towards homosexuals. What if I said "I don't think two people of different races should be allowed to marry?" That wasn't so far in our past.

reply from: Yuuki

Religion does not belong in school. It does not belong in government. What you do at home in your free time or in a private business is YOUR business. But in the public sector, you need to respect the fact that NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES THE SAME THING YOU DO.

reply from: Faramir

It is not wrong to have homosexual tendencies, but the practice of homosexuality is disordered and is a serious sin.
You don't have any regard for the Bible or the Apostle Paul?
By what authority do you claim the Lord approves of gay marriage? What are your sources?
You won't find any support in the Bible, and you certainly will not find it in the largest Christian Church, or in most of the mainstream Chirstian denominations.
It would be pretty much "roll your own" "Christianity" that would support it, and you would have to rip out big chunks of the Bible as well.

reply from: Yuuki

I do not believe the practice of homosexual behaviors is a sin. I do not believe what is written in those sections of the bible is properly interpreted, not the new testament ones. Leviticus plain old doesn't count; unless you think we shouldn't eat pork anymore?

reply from: Faramir

What about the New Testament? It doesn't take much in the way of interpretation to see that Paul is denouncing it.
What about just plain old fornication between men and women?
Is that ok in your book too?

reply from: Yuuki

What about the New Testament? It doesn't take much in the way of interpretation to see that Paul is denouncing it.
What about just plain old fornication between men and women?
Is that ok in your book too?
Paul... I don't honestly remember what that passage says. I do know one says "And God gave them over to unnatural lusts". Personally, I'm straight. If I were made to fornicate with another woman,f or ME, that would be unnatural. But to force a lesbian for fornicate with a man would be unnatural for HER. The passage is very vague about that.

reply from: Yuuki

I guess I think more about people like my parents, sorry. Or maybe it's just the impression my generation gets of the older generation?

reply from: Yuuki

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Don't be sorry, you just forgot that Barack and I came of age in the early 80's - you know - back when drug use was vogue and you could have sex without experiencing spontaneous human combustion.
We tend to be pretty liberal...
Heh lol. Well, I suppose you're the trailing edge/beginning of my generation. Sorta.

reply from: Cecilia

good for her for standing up for what she believes in, that must have been a tough position to be put in. however she should have done her research about the judge.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Pork is an unclean food and not fit for human consumption. Leviticus is necessary to Christian salvation. The anus and lower intestine were designed to perform functions within the digestive system. Committing sodomy destroys the body. Such a person is perverse and has no inheritance in the Kingdom of God.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Here is the really strange Perez Hilton. In a photo in the article he is wearing a pink woman's wig and a censor has covered over his seemingly exposed privates area.
This weirdo called Miss California a b1tch and c^nt. He also ranted and raged at Christians.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95743

reply from: Yuuki

Oh, so you're defending HER right to her opinion which offends at least 10% of the US population if not probably closer to 40%, but condemning him for his. I see how this works.

reply from: Faramir

Oh, so you're defending HER right to her opinion which offends at least 10% of the US population if not probably closer to 40%, but condemning him for his. I see how this works.
She expressed her opinion but was not abusive, as was the intolerant judge.

reply from: Yuuki

I'm sure of the slave owners were very polite and non-abusive when expressing why the felt they should have the right to continue enslaving a race of people based solely on the color of their skin.
Certain people on here state all the time that they "call them as they are" and that the "truth isn't always nice", this includes calling women murderers and scancs and wh*res.

reply from: Faramir

What about the New Testament? It doesn't take much in the way of interpretation to see that Paul is denouncing it.
What about just plain old fornication between men and women?
Is that ok in your book too?
Paul... I don't honestly remember what that passage says. I do know one says "And God gave them over to unnatural lusts". Personally, I'm straight. If I were made to fornicate with another woman,f or ME, that would be unnatural. But to force a lesbian for fornicate with a man would be unnatural for HER. The passage is very vague about that.
Do you believe a practicing Christian can have sexual relations outside of marriage, and it not be a sin?
It must be a lot of fun to belong to whatever Church you go to...
What about orgies?

reply from: BossMomma

Perez Hilton needs to get over himself, gay marriage will never be unanimously agreed upon. I personally don't have an opinion on gay marriage, it's not important enough to give a crap about IMHO with the economy going to sh*t and all the other problems we have.

reply from: Yuuki

What about the New Testament? It doesn't take much in the way of interpretation to see that Paul is denouncing it.
What about just plain old fornication between men and women?
Is that ok in your book too?
Paul... I don't honestly remember what that passage says. I do know one says "And God gave them over to unnatural lusts". Personally, I'm straight. If I were made to fornicate with another woman,f or ME, that would be unnatural. But to force a lesbian for fornicate with a man would be unnatural for HER. The passage is very vague about that.
Do you believe a practicing Christian can have sexual relations outside of marriage, and it not be a sin?
It must be a lot of fun to belong to whatever Church you go to...
What about orgies?
Orgies are fine as long as you use protection
It's wrong to cheat on your spouse in almost every religion and culture.
As I have said before on here, I am not "devout". Christianity is the language I use to express my belief in God, but I believe there are other "languages" too, and God gave every religion on earth a bit of Himself for us to learn from. Demanding one must be better than any other is actually fracturing God and hiding His true self from us.

reply from: Banned Member

Homosexual marriage is a horrid abomination.

reply from: Banned Member

You are not a Christian Yuuki and no one should confuse you with one.

reply from: Banned Member

Marriage is between one man and one woman. It is true for all persons in all time and all places. The laws of sinful legislators may say what they ever will, but I will never recognize "marriage" or "unions" between members of the same sex. I will not now or ever acknowledge or accept or tolerate such profound lies.

reply from: Faramir

I believe there is truth and goodness in all religions, but not all religions have the fullness of that truth, and not all religions are without error.
God does not contradict Himself, yet religions contradict each other.
But most religions demand some discipline and self-denial, and to make a religion of what "feels good" is no religion at all, as it's not always good to embrace pleasure, and it's not always bad to accept pain instead of seeking an easier way.
I agree that you do embrace some Christian principles, but you also epress ideas that violate some Christian principles.

reply from: Banned Member

There are millions who believe as I do. Gay marriage will never be accepted by Christians!

reply from: Banned Member

America will burn in the fires of justice; poverty, moral chaos, wandering, despair, hopelessness, depression, disease, suffering, death, and worse. America will reap what it sows by destroying the family with homosexual "marriages" and "unions".

reply from: Banned Member

Ask your precious dead abortion doctor about abortion and gay marriage if you should happen to meet him in hell.

reply from: Banned Member

My race is not yet run, and yet you are already and still dead. Find Christ sinner!

reply from: Yuuki

The above statement just YOUR opinion. It my opinion that your above statement is very unChristian.

reply from: Yuuki

Hmn, that's not very Christian-like in my opinion, either.

reply from: Yuuki

I believe there is truth and goodness in all religions, but not all religions have the fullness of that truth, and not all religions are without error.
God does not contradict Himself, yet religions contradict each other.
But most religions demand some discipline and self-denial, and to make a religion of what "feels good" is no religion at all, as it's not always good to embrace pleasure, and it's not always bad to accept pain instead of seeking an easier way.
I agree that you do embrace some Christian principles, but you also epress ideas that violate some Christian principles.
Religions contradict themselves because they are God's words interpreted by Humans. So of course we didn't all hear the exact same thing. And they have changed throughout time as well.
I believe almost no Christian alive today fully embraces every single Christian tenant, and if they do they are viewed as freaks.

reply from: Yuuki

That's also not very Christian-like, IMO.

reply from: Faramir

That was a really crappy thing to say, Augustine.

reply from: Faramir

You're wrong.
There are plenty who do.
I embrace every one, though I will admit that I have failed many times to live up to them.
And there are plenty of others who embrace them all, and plenty who do a good job of actually practicing them.

reply from: Yuuki

You're wrong.
There are plenty who do.
I embrace every one, though I will admit that I have failed many times to live up to them.
And there are plenty of others who embrace them all, and plenty who do a good job of actually practicing them.
So, when are you selling your daughters off as slaves? Jesus didn't erradicate ALL of Leviticus. There are still a lot of funky and freaky rules in there I bet you don't follow.

reply from: Faramir

You're wrong.
There are plenty who do.
I embrace every one, though I will admit that I have failed many times to live up to them.
And there are plenty of others who embrace them all, and plenty who do a good job of actually practicing them.
So, when are you selling your daughters off as slaves? Jesus didn't erradicate ALL of Leviticus. There are still a lot of funky and freaky rules in there I bet you don't follow.
I believe all of what Catholicism teaches. I don't say I'm the best doer, but I do say that I believe it all.
There is nothing in Catholicism that would have me sell children into slavery.
I would have to do some research to see what remains of the Old Covenant and what does not.

reply from: scopia19822

Perez Hilton needs to get over himself, gay marriage will never be unanimously agreed upon. I personally don't have an opinion on gay marriage, it's not important enough to give a crap about IMHO with the economy going to sh*t and all the other problems we have.
I believe marriage is between one man and one woman, but I believe thats a states rights issue if the people of Vermont want gay marriage thats fine but Virginia does not recongnize it nor should it be forced too. It has always been against the law, but in 2005 the people voted on a constitutional amendment to codify it as so. This woman was honest and told the truth as to what she believed and this judge cricified her for that. Comparing a person who supports tradional marriage to supporting racism is just wrong. There is a difference between the two. I have no problem seeing a black man married to a white woman if they love each other . I would prefer my son to marry a Christian woman and if its the choice between a white non believer or a black whos a believer I prefer he marry the black woman. Why is if whenever one oppossed something the liberal agenda wants to impose on us they always start crying about racism. Its getting old and most people arent going to take them seriously anymore on anything.

reply from: scopia19822

Maybe she should have researched the judges, however she still should have been honest and stated what she believed in. Sometimes standing up for the right thing is costly and this is a good example.

reply from: scopia19822

Why is Yukki that you Liberals arent just happy that people tolerate things you all have to try and force us to accept them. I have been involved with women in the past and I always thought of marriage in the tradtional sense. A few gay people I know personally feel the same way. They dont want to get married they just want to live their lives in peace and go about their business. As far as interracial marriage goes, you still have people of our generation even who believe that. Most of my family does not believe in it and my dad especiallys not. Have you ever met a real bona fide racist before ?. Im not a racist, never have been , never will be one. At home however I do have a coffee cup with the Confederate flag on it. Im a Southerner and my family fought for the Confederacy and Im proud of my heritage. But I guess you would deem me a racist because of the emblem on my favorite coffee cup.

reply from: Yuuki

You're wrong.
There are plenty who do.
I embrace every one, though I will admit that I have failed many times to live up to them.
And there are plenty of others who embrace them all, and plenty who do a good job of actually practicing them.
So, when are you selling your daughters off as slaves? Jesus didn't erradicate ALL of Leviticus. There are still a lot of funky and freaky rules in there I bet you don't follow.
I believe all of what Catholicism teaches. I don't say I'm the best doer, but I do say that I believe it all.
There is nothing in Catholicism that would have me sell children into slavery.
I would have to do some research to see what remains of the Old Covenant and what does not.
Yeah, you really need to go check out Leviticus... Even I don't know exactly what Jesus erradicated and what he did not; which is why I've read what I can of the new testament, and gleaned from that the concept of unconditional Love as a theme, and forgiveness, and brotherhood. Not anti-semitism, anti-islam, or anti-gay.

reply from: Faramir

But getting back to the orginal topic, I think the judge should have been big enough to overlook his own personal bias and beliefs. His decision was selfish.

reply from: scopia19822

Exactly Faramir, I however do believe that this young lady may have a case for a lawsuit.

reply from: scopia19822

Marriage has always been a states rights issue and should remain so as far as Im concearned. Vermont just legalized it, if the people of Vermont want gay marriage than let them have it. However the people of Virginia and other states want marriage to remain between a man/woman. Virginia will not grant same sex marriage liscences and should not be forced to recongnize gay marriage lisences granted in other states.

reply from: scopia19822

Exactly Faramir, I however do believe that this young lady may have a case for a lawsuit.
On what grounds?
Discrimination. However on the Today show she will not sue and the winner commended her answer and for standing up for what she believes is right. If a person can be sued for discrimination for publically saying they disapprove of homosexuality than a person can be sued for discriminating against a person for not approving of it.

reply from: Banned Member

That's also not very Christian-like, IMO.
You would not know Yuuki. You are not a Christian.

reply from: Banned Member

Face it CP, you have no objective moral convictions. Your beliefs are grounded in nothing. You might well have onced called yourself pro-life based on the toss of a coin as on any sound moral reasoning. Yours is a hollow voice in these arguments, in love with the sound of it's own empty echo.

reply from: Banned Member

ConcernedParent; Obama supporter, abortion supporter!
The blood of the innocent unborn is on your hands! You are now responsible for the deaths of unborn children.

reply from: Banned Member

ConcernedParent! Do you deny that you supported the baby killer Barack Obama?

reply from: scopia19822

By voting for Obama you have helped peptuate abortion even further. You have voted for the most proabortion president in American history.

reply from: scopia19822

"You assume too much. I've been hearing that same crap every election for how many years now? Yeah. If I voted for McCain, everything would be rosy now, right? Sorry, I'm not convinced, and the guilt trip won't fly."
Have I ASSUMED too much? All one has to do is look at Obamas record on the issue. You can check out the sites of the Illinois and US senates for his voting record. McKaine isnt any better and I didnt vote for him. I voted for Joe the Plumber.

reply from: Banned Member

Look at what Barack Obama has done in just his first few weeks in office:
Rescinded the "Mexico City policy" and authorized your tax dollars to fund international groups that are promoting abortion around the world.
Begun the process of eliminating the "conscience clause" that protects doctors and nurses from being forced to take part in the crime of abortion.
Expanded human experimentation by increasing federal funding of destructive embryonic stem cell research.
Renewed funding for UNFPA - the United Nations group that helped China carry out its "one child" policy of forced sterilization and forced abortions.
Promised to sign the "Freedom of Choice" Act - which, if it ever were to reach his desk, would undo every pro-life law in all fifty states.
But that's far from all he's done. He's appointing rabid pro-abortion extremists to key positions in the government. The list is long and includes some of the most hard-line pro-abortion fanatics in the country:
-Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State.
-Kathleen Sebelius, the radical pro-abortion extremist governor of Kansas, has been tapped to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, had this to say about the appointment: "No matter how good Governor Sebelius' record regarding other human life concerns may be, if she is not committed to the safeguarding of human life from its very inception, she should not be entrusted with the questions of health and human services for our nation." Amen to that!
-Rahm Emanuel, is Obama's Chief of Staff. He had a 100% pro-abortion rating from NARAL while a member of Congress.
-Ellen Moran, the former Executive Director of the pro-abortion group Emily's List is now White House Communications Director.
-Melody Barnes, a board member of Emily's List, is Domestic Policy advisor.
-Dawn Johnson, a former abortion rights attorney for NARAL, is the Assistant Attorney General for the office of Legal Counsel.
-James B. Steinberg, Obama's Deputy Secretary of State, is on record saying that it is unconstitutional to keep your tax dollars from funding abortions.
-Nancy-Ann DeParle - an abortion advocate who worked on the Clinton health care plan - will head up the White House Office of Health Care Reform.
-David Ogden, our new Deputy Attorney General, represented the interests of pornographers over the protection of children.
Our Lord told us that "by their fruits you will know them."
We're seeing the anti-life fruit of Barack Obama ... and it is rotten to the core!
-Father Frank Pavone

reply from: scopia19822

If you assume another 4 years of Repub presidency was going to outlaw abortion, then yeah, you assume too much....
I have never assumed that the Republicans will outlaw abortion. However I dont ASSume that the Democrats with all of their promises of social and health care reform will reduce the number of abortions.

reply from: ProInformed

And yet such a blatantly biased peson such as Perez is allowed to be judge and his hate-speech and threats of the physical violence he wants to commit against her are supposedly OK?
She didn't say anything wrong.
It's being dishonestly pretended that SHE said she hated Perez, that she was the one who called him a filthy name, that she was the one who said she wanted to violently attack him... all lies - HE is the one who did those things and IMHO she is responding to HIS vile hate crimes against her with class and dignity.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

I voted for Obama, but to the best of my knowledge, he has never killed a baby. That would make you a liar once more, but hey, that's old news, right?
Come on CP. Man was made to rule. He is a decision maker. Obama is presently right up at the top when it comes to making decisions. He makes decisions as to whether preborn babies live or die. He is making decisions to bring about the deaths of preborn babies. His influence began as an Illinois Senator were he decided children born alive after a botched abortion should not be provided with their own doctor independant of mom's chosen "doctor", usually an abortionist motivated to kill.
Hitler may have never personally killed anyone; but those under him certainly did the job. Likewise, Obama wants moms to be able to kill their babies. Obama wants to make the killers, killing-facilities and pro-death environment available.

reply from: Yuuki

I see WOmen weren't made to rule though. Just to serve the male "decision makers".

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Eve was a helper suitable for Adam. The twelve disciples were all men and the man is designated the head authority in the family. I would never vote for a woman because woman is not to usurp the authority of man. That is the authority structure while we are in the flesh.
The Bible says after the resurrection there is no longer marriage. I believe there will be no differences in spiritual bodies (no sexual functions) and no familial segregation of duties. There may not be any distinction between men and women. Many who were women in the flesh will receive positions in the Government of God long before most men. Most men will be dead and buried until after the Sabbath reign of Christ is completed.
Just because one is not given the so called "top" position now doesn't mean they will not be entitled to it later. In fact, God is allowing the wicked vermin to rule now and is picking out a better crop for His Government that will come to replace man's governments.
We are expected to serve now. Those who are genuinely engaged in serving others now, even if in a very small role, will be entrusted with much later.
The Lord has to be able to say to you,"Well done, good and faithful servant." before he can say, "Come and inherit the Kingdom that was prepared for you."

reply from: 4given

I am not sure we will ever know if it in fact cost her the crown. I am pleased that answered honestly. I believe that she likely has received more notoriety because of this- much more than if she had not been asked the question. I haven't even seen what the winner (Miss North Carolina?) looks like.

reply from: Teresa18

Good for her! I'd rather hold tight to my morals and lose than toss them out the window to win a competition!

reply from: 4given

Amen to that. She will be rewarded for it also. She mentioned briefly that as she began to speak she gave it to God to give her the words.. or something to that effect.

reply from: Banned Member

Miss California is the real winner, for speaking the truth.

reply from: BossMomma

Exactly Faramir, I however do believe that this young lady may have a case for a lawsuit.
On what grounds?
Descrimination perhaps.

reply from: scopia19822

"And yet such a blatantly biased peson such as Perez is allowed to be judge and his hate-speech and threats of the physical violence he wants to commit against her are supposedly OK?"
Its ok to spout "hate speech" as long as it is in line with the Liberal agenda, however if you disagree with them its all out war. Politcal Correctness is the Liberal form of Facism.

reply from: scopia19822

"Yeah.
Suggesting that two adults who love and care for each other should be allowed to marry is pretty hateful."
If they want to get married than let go to a state where its legal, but dont force the people of other states that dont want gay marriage to have to allow it. This is a states rights issue and the poeple should be allowed to vote on what they want marriage to mean in their state. If Utah decides to allow polygamy again that is the right of that state, however my state shouldnt be forced to recongnize it. Majority rules in this country and most people in America want marriage to be a man and woman as defined by both relgious and natural law.

reply from: Yuuki

I AM NOT A SLAVE TO YOUR PENIS.
Eve was a helper suitable for Adam. The twelve disciples were all men and the man is designated the head authority in the family. I would never vote for a woman because woman is not to usurp the authority of man. That is the authority structure while we are in the flesh.
The Bible says after the resurrection there is no longer marriage. I believe there will be no differences in spiritual bodies (no sexual functions) and no familial segregation of duties. There may not be any distinction between men and women. Many who were women in the flesh will receive positions in the Government of God long before most men. Most men will be dead and buried until after the Sabbath reign of Christ is completed.
Just because one is not given the so called "top" position now doesn't mean they will not be entitled to it later. In fact, God is allowing the wicked vermin to rule now and is picking out a better crop for His Government that will come to replace man's governments.
We are expected to serve now. Those who are genuinely engaged in serving others now, even if in a very small role, will be entrusted with much later.
The Lord has to be able to say to you,"Well done, good and faithful servant." before he can say, "Come and inherit the Kingdom that was prepared for you."

reply from: scopia19822

"Can we disallow other kinds of marriage?"
Other kinds of marriages are disallowed. You cant marry close relatives, you cant be married to more than one person etc. Marriage has traditionally been between men and women in all parts of the world. Its the order of things. Why is you liberals are so opposed to letting the people of each state VOTE on what they want marriage to be in their state, instead of being legilsalted to by some activist judge? After all dont we live in a democracy?

reply from: BossMomma

Well, we aren't allowed to marry animals, can't marry family, can't marry infants/toddlers/pre-teens, we can't marry inanimate objects (no marriage to the dildo, ya know?) lets see...did I miss anything?

reply from: scopia19822

The day before I left my son came up to me and said "Mommy you shouldnt have married Daddy." I ask him and he replied " Because I want to marry you when I grow up." It was so cute but I had to explain to him that parents dont marry children. Its not really that uncommon for young children to say these type of things.

reply from: churchmouse

I should say not.
"Is the language"? You are not a Christian and I do not know why you use that label to describe yourself. Now everything makes sense, everything, all your views and posts.
God did not give all religions a bit of Himself Yukki they are contradictory to one another. You have no idea what the Word says because you have never been convicted of it. All roads do NOT LEAD TO HEAVEN. And if you deny the Word, which is Christ, you know where scripture says you go. Jesus said it Himself.....
"I am the Way, the truth and the life, NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT THROUGH ME." What that means Yukki is that Muhamed and Allah and Buddha are not the way, they are false faiths. You are denying what Christ said, came and did for you.
I agree with Augustine, no Christian would say homosexual marriage was godly because it contradicts the scriptures.
From the beginning in Genesis, gods plan was for was one woman and one man to become one, to join together. Show me anywhere in the Old or New Testament that condones same sex marriage.
Where does Christ talk about homosexual love? He talks about same sex love, why did He avoid homosexual love and marriage if He condones it? He tells a man, leave your mother and father not leave your mothers or leave your fathers. The Bible is a long book full of stories, parables and eye witness accounts of miracles that happened. But find me just ONE verse or instance where a same sex couple with family is talked about. The creation story is major. This is one of the pillars of Christian living....the family structure.
Is your statement here godly according to the Bible Yuuki?
Doesnt God say sex is for married couples, one man and one woman? Where does God say group sex is ok?
You deny Christ and what He came and did for you Yuuki. You think sin should change and ajust to generations. Sin is sin is sin. Adultry is always sin, murder is always sin, coveting is always sin and having sex outside the gods boundaries is sin. You think all religions are true. By stating this you deny Christ and the Word. Any Christian that lives the Word and understands scripture can see that you are not a Christan. We have every reason to call you on it USING THE WORD AS the standard of right and wrong.
How can someone worship God when they are clearly disobeying Him Yuuki?
Ephesians 2:8-9 "God saved you by His special favor when you believed. And you can't take credit for this: this is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it."
I pray one day you get this gift Yuuki because you do not believe the way scriptures command that you believe.

I believe that there are many characteristics of false prophets. One thing is for sure the person will deny the inerrancy of the Bible as the inspired and revealed Word of God and as the absolute and final authority in faith and life. They will lower Jesus to being just a man and mix him with other prophets or teachers. They will have problems in submitting to authority. And they will violate principles of Biblical interpretation. Know anyone that fits these characteristics?

Oh I totally believe our godless nation will embrace this, there is no doubt in my mind. And I am sure in time it will also embrace group marriage. You will be able to marry anyTHING you want including your dog Spot. And I would guess in time most laws that protect the sanctity of life will go by the wayside. Then, you can drop auntie Doris off at the local euthanasia clinic and have her quickly disposed of because she is a burden for the fam. And you will have a culture where men and women look alike and act alike. The terms mother and father wont be politically correct to say. We will have a nation that has no clue who God is. People will live by THEIR own individual standard of justice and morality..... there will be no morality, everything will be acceptable including child pornography, bestiality etc. Kids will be able to do anything without parental permission. No right or wrong.....as long as it feels and tastes good......its ok.
And the average times a person will get married will be eight.....try it on and if it doesn't feel good in one week, get divorced and do it again. No feeling, no emotions or compassion......just survival of the fittest like DArwin said would happen. Stand in my way and I will mow you over.
Amen.
Now CP you wouldnt be so hypocritical as to say you are against group marriage too are you? You of all people wouldn't want to deny groups their rights. Right?
You really have never read Revelation have you? Non-believers will go to hell not because I made the rules, or Augustine did.....BUT BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT GOD SAYS WILL HAPPEN. We have faith and we believe what He said, what He promised would happen, will happen. You are blaming us for what God set in motion.
I am curious as to why the Bible has been the number one best selling book of all times.....arent you?

reply from: Yuuki

That's so cute XD hehehe.

reply from: ProInformed

Exactly Faramir, I however do believe that this young lady may have a case for a lawsuit.
On what grounds?
Descrimination perhaps.
She also has grounds for a lawsuit because he publicly threatened physical violence against her. It is not legal to slap someone just because you don't like something they said - or even to threaten to slap them.
SHE was not the one who said she hated him, SHE didn't call him a cuss-word, and SHE did not say she wanted to slap him! Yet he 'thinks' he is entitled to do all those things to her and then pretend he has somehow been victimized by her?
She probably won't do it because of fear that defending herself will just cause even more 'gay' (um foaming at the mouth furious for no valid reason) activists to target her with their insults and threats... but she does have legal grounds for a lawsuit.
Whether or not she sues him the pageant officials certainly should NOT allow Perez to ever again participate as a judge! A judge who publicly states that he would go onstage and slap a contestant and snatch the crown off her head, if she won, can't by any stretch of the imagination, or even by any excuse of wanting to be politically correct, continue to be seen as unbiased!

reply from: churchmouse

You need to studying the law. I am not held to those laws because Jesus abolished them.
"because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death."
Romans 3:28 "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law."
Galatians 2:16 "know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified."

Galatians 2:21 "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."
"Clearly no one is justified before God by the law , because, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law..."
Not so fast. Gays not only want the law changed they want to force people to ACCEPT IT. You saw what happened to Miss California. Those who think same sex marriage is sin ......they want silenced and singled out. That want to make it illegal to talk bad about homosexuality. They want to take free speech away from those who think they are wrong.
They are not tolerant.
As for a lawsuit......where and why isn't the ACLU fighting for Miss California? She was discriminated against.
This is why the Hate Crimes Bill is so damaging. It gives gays the edge and forces everyone to buy their agenda.

You voted for abortion. You voted for all the values that Obama finds dear. You helped to put a bullseye on every conceived child in the womb. That is what your vote did. You also voted to silence Christians because if Obamas Hate Crimes bill goes thru, that is what will happen.
There are two opposing worldviews here. Democrats and Republicans oppose each other almost in every way. They are engaged in a battle for control. You think the Republicans are the only ones who wants it their own way? LOL And the democrats don't? Where is this working across the aisle that Obama said would happen? It's his way or the highway. He is a hard line secular liberal pro-abortion-infanticide president. And for someone that values all life who finds abortion immoral......he is just repulsive. Anyone that would bow to a Saudi King is a traitor to his own country. And he bowed there is no doubt. You of course are a hardliner and never would admit that he did.
I agree, Hilton is a threat. Like I said, if the tables were turned and she threatened him, she would be arrested or flogged. She didn't say anything wrong, just gave her opinion. But she will be raped by the press and media sources. She might get some press on this but she is done......the media will never let this go, nor will Hollywood.

Donald Trump finally breaks his silence and defends Miss California.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517599,00.html

Here is what the filth of Hollywood had to say.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517449,00.html

Yea Scopia.........right on.
Good question. Why don't we allow groups to marry? Don't they have a right. How can gays say they have a right to marry and not groups. That is being intolerant. I am being totally serious when I say this but...... what about the person who wants to marry their pooch? Bestiality I believe is illegal.....shouldn't that law be revearsed? Don't give me the crap that we don't have animals permission for sex it wont fly. We don't get the unborn in the wombs permission to be slaughtered and we don't get the permission of the animals in the stockyards permission to die for food either.
And like scopia said.......why cant we marry even our relatives if we want to?

reply from: Rosalie

She supports intolerance, discrimination and harmful prejudice. But I suppose that not supporting those = "liberal intolerance". Right.
It's the same thing, Faramir. It's absolutely the same thing.
That is your OPINION based on your religious teaching, nothing else. And while you are allowed to have intolerant, hateful and discriminatory opinions, you are not nor should you ever be able to assign them to people who do not follow your religion (and/or finds it disgusting and unacceptable).
Not condemning intolerance, hatred and discrimination is not intolerant.
No one is forcing YOU to get married to anyone so stop being hysterical. It is YOU who are forcing your warped religious beliefs on other people who do NOT follow your faith and who should not suffer and be discriminated against because of your disgusting, discriminatory religious beliefs.

reply from: Faramir

After reading Donald Trump's comments, I'm not so sure she lost based on that question.

reply from: Faramir

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Actually, she gave a very poor answer.
Forget the content, the chick just doesn't think on her feet;
PREJEAN: "I think it
s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what? In my country and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense 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."
1) The vast majority of Americans CAN'T choose same-sex marriage.
2) Wouldn't "opposite marriage" be divorce?
3) She begins her answer stating that it's "great" that Americans can choose same-sex marriage, and ends stating that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Whiplash swings of opinion in a five sentence paragraph is just NOT the definition of poise. The other chick was just more polished.
Maybe so, but it would have been better that she had not been bashed for the content of her answer.
She was not the least bit hateful.

reply from: Faramir

Donald Trump said she would have been killed no matter how she answered the question.
I think the judge himself who asked the question could have been a little more understanding that she's entitled to have and express an opinion, even if he doesn't like it.

reply from: Faramir

How could she have answered the question, CP, without harming herself, and without dodging the issue?

reply from: churchmouse

Like what does that matter? They are not human and besides how many permission slips does a slaughterhouse get from those they butcher? How many hunters get permission from those they kill? Fishermen.....do they get permission? And do we get permission slips from the animals in the zoo?
You can adopt pets. Does the pet give its consent? I believe that someone can love their pet just as much as another member of the family.
Liberal crap answer sorry spinny. There are cults in this country where groups of people have been living as family units. Are you telling me.....that you are intolerant of their wants? That they too do not deserve to be married and get benefits under the law?
Why is it your business who they marry?
You are denying them rights and being intolerant arent you? In a land that says killing unborn babies is ok........your telling me the country should take a moral stance by denying them their rights to marriage? Pleaze.
The fundamental pillar of our society and most the worlds had been the marriage between one woman and one man.
Anyone can get married in America, so our laws do not discriminate against people. They just stipulate that if you want to marry you must marry someone of the opposite sex. They recognize gender differences and our design for sexuality. A same sex couple can not reproduce.....what does that say about the evolution of the species, as Darwin puts it. If the same sex was the norm.....then how would we have gotten here?
Why should we have to redefine marriage for a few?
It will lead to group marriage and is that good? Advocacy of legalized polygamy is growing. If gays say our present marriage laws are not fair, then they cant turn around and tell groups they cant do it, that would be discriminatory. Our government refuses licenses based on many things.... groups, age, relationships, religions and mental conditions. Any one person in those groups could say they are being discriminated against.
If two men want to marry.......why shouldnt three be able to as well?
No, the marriage between one man and one woman has been the foundation for all Western civilizations...you change that and sooner or later we will pay the price.
Although I am glad she stood up for her beliefs.....I will say it was poorly put. She probably couldnt believe she got that question. But then most beauty queens make no sense answering those the stupid questions.
Its all about beauty and in that department.....California was gorgeous and Hilton was blind.
What I wonder is how someone who acts and looks like Hilton got to be a judge to begin with. What has he ever done that is noteworthy?
I don't hate America......I hate what we have become. I dislike the people who dont give a crap that we are going down the tubes. I hate liberalism, secularism, Darwinism, socialism. And I forgot your favorite......Humanism. LOL
Iran? How long would you last?
I doubt that. You rarely ever answer the questions I put to you about them.
yea yea you give the ole excuse .....your not worth my time, but you really dont have answers. You hate Christ, Christians and Christianity. That much is obvious to us all. It clouds and colors all your posts.
Instead of answering.......Are you for euthanasia you run from the question....it probably is above your pay grade.

Oh you do? LOL
Naw......I'll sick around and be the thorn in your humanistic side.

reply from: Cecilia

Why is Yukki that you Liberals arent just happy that people tolerate things you all have to try and force us to accept them. I have been involved with women in the past and I always thought of marriage in the tradtional sense. A few gay people I know personally feel the same way. They dont want to get married they just want to live their lives in peace and go about their business. As far as interracial marriage goes, you still have people of our generation even who believe that. Most of my family does not believe in it and my dad especiallys not. Have you ever met a real bona fide racist before ?. Im not a racist, never have been , never will be one. At home however I do have a coffee cup with the Confederate flag on it. Im a Southerner and my family fought for the Confederacy and Im proud of my heritage. But I guess you would deem me a racist because of the emblem on my favorite coffee cup.
Wow. you are proud your relatives fought for slavery?
obviously your opnions then on gay marriage are worthless.
Maybe she should have researched the judges, however she still should have been honest and stated what she believed in. Sometimes standing up for the right thing is costly and this is a good example.
it's the shallowest thing, really - a beauty pageant. it's not like you have a lot to sacrifice to win if you are parading around in high heels and a bathing suit already.
ha ha, what a joke.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Originally posted by: GodsLaw4Us2Live:
I would never vote for a woman because woman is not to usurp the authority of man.
Cecilia's feelings:
ha ha, what a joke.
Source; Paul concerning Church governance:
1 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.
Source; Paul concerning family government:
Ephesians 5:23 "The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church."
Paul concerning those who engage in homosexual acts:
Romans 1:32 "Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."
Death is decreed for those who engage in homosexual acts.
Perez Hilton is way off the mark. Death is the only inheritance of individuals such as himself, if they persist in engaging in homosexual acts.
It should have been a "no brainer" for Miss California to say marriage of a man and woman is good and homosexuality is an unthinkable perversion from a sick mind.

reply from: Cecilia

Better get those women teachers out of schools. might teach the kids something scary like logic.
it is like "i'm a jerk" but it's okay because Paul said so.

reply from: BossMomma

ha ha, what a joke.
Amen, it'll be a cold day in hell when a man has authority in my house.

reply from: scopia19822

"Wow. you are proud your relatives fought for slavery?"
It was more than just about slavery. Have you ever took a history class just dealing with the civil war? I have and the North was on the dirty end of that filthy purse string called slavery. Who do you think it was that ran the shipping companies ? Do you think that blacks were welcomed in the North? They most certainly were not. Lets look at how the war was fought the Northern armies burned plantations and small farms from Atlanta to Charleston. They raped women and ran children through with bayonets, nobody was immune black, white, slave free, old and young. Sherman should have been hanged for War Crimes. My dads family fought for the Confederacy and none of them owned a single slave. They owned their tobacco farm and worked the land themselves. My moms family were small plantation owners they owned maybe a dozen slaves at most and worked out in the feild beside of them. My moms father was a quadroon, do you know what that is? He passed....as white. Most Southerners didnt own slaves, but they were fighing for their homes, not slaves. Go and look at the history. I would really recommend that you read John Jakes North and South Trilogy or better yet watch the miniseries, thats how it really was.

reply from: scopia19822

"Amen, it'll be a cold day in hell when a man has authority in my house."
Some people are just not meant to marry, they can serve God better. I dont think a woman has a place in the pulpit as the Bible is very clear on this matter as far as clergy qualifications go. But that does not mean that she cant be in a position in secular government, the Bible does not prohibit or even address that.

reply from: scopia19822

Who said anything about not dodging? I think the only response that would have been accepted by all would have been something of an artful dodge, you know, a politician's response. She might have said that it is her understanding that this is an issue of state's rights, so that would be for each state to decide. Better to dodge than take a direct hit, right?
She was really brave for saying what she really believed. I dont know about you but I would rather a person be honest and blunt than to shuck and jive around the issue.

reply from: BossMomma

I don't care how the church rules it's roost as long as I'm free to rule my own.

reply from: scopia19822

" I don't care how the church rules it's roost as long as I'm free to rule my own."
Doesnt sound to me like you would be a good candidate for marriage . Not all of us are you serve God by raising your children in a Godly home.

reply from: BossMomma

I know, I just get sick of this whole BS The one with the twig and giggleberries rules, philosophy.

reply from: scopia19822

"I know, I just get sick of this whole BS The one with the twig and giggleberries rules, philosophy."
I do believe that women should not be in the clergy and submission to ones husband does not mean that one has to be a doormat or a punching bag. However other than clergy a woman can do anything she wants.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

I know, I just get sick of this whole BS The one with the twig and giggleberries rules, philosophy.
Men and women were designed for different roles. A woman has a womb and breasts. She was designed specifically to spend a lot of intimate time in child rearing. Time with the kids may be the best job of all. A great gift to women.

reply from: scopia19822

"Men and women were designed for different roles. A woman has a womb and breasts. She was designed specifically to spend a lot of intimate time in child rearing. Time with the kids may be the best job of all. A great gift to women."
For some of us it is, however we are entitled to have interest of our own . We were not meant to be kept barefoot and pregnant. I have carried two children, pregnancy is not easy for some of us. The woman in Proverbs 31 was not only a wife mother she was also a business woman to a degree,

reply from: Cecilia

I know, I just get sick of this whole BS The one with the twig and giggleberries rules, philosophy.
Men and women were designed for different roles. A woman has a womb and breasts. She was designed specifically to spend a lot of intimate time in child rearing. Time with the kids may be the best job of all. A great gift to women.
Men were designed with a penis. He was designed specifically to spread his genetics around. Time best spent for a man is in the sack not at the pulpit-- but your street doesn't flow two ways.
Both genders were designed with a brain. it seems to me that it would be a sacriliege to deny the gifts god has given. if a woman has intelligence and the ability to guide, it would be blasphemous to deny what god has given her and disallow her the ability to lead.
All this christian belief system is hullabooey. my favrote is that 'the bible is true because it says it is true'. ha ha, what a joke.

reply from: churchmouse

What is the best selling book of all time? Art in Western and European cultures have always been a reflection on peoples desire to glofify god. Raphael, Michelangelo etc. And how about music? Bach....Literature. C.S Lewis, Chesterton, Dante, Bunyan All had an impact on our world. Where did they get their inspirations?
You seem to think that Christianity was very small that the minority accepted its worldview. Not so.
No one has ever yet proven that God does not exist. But I believe that there are many arguments and evidences that prove He existed.
I like this popular analogy.
Suppose there is a great palace with a hundred entrances, ninety nine doors are open but one is closed. You can't reasonably say that the palace couldnt be entered. Unbelievers focus on the one door that is closed and forget the ninety nine that are open.
The majority of mankind looks to the ninety nine doors that are open. The majority of mankind has had a belief in God because they see the evidence.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2005/12/25/Poll-says-US-majority-believes-in-God/UPI-49451135517773/

Look at the prophecy that has come true. It even talks about people like you Cecilia.

reply from: scopia19822

"You seem to think that Christianity was very small that the minority accepted its worldview. Not so."
Christianity is the largest religion in the worlld, isnt it amazing that a man that wanst rich, held no politcal office had more impact on human history than anyone else. The RCC has a billion believers, the Eastern Orthodox about 300 million, Protestants make up the rest. We are not going anywhere no matter how many people would like us too?

reply from: scopia19822

"Both genders were designed with a brain. it seems to me that it would be a sacriliege to deny the gifts god has given. if a woman has intelligence and the ability to guide, it would be blasphemous to deny what god has given her and disallow her the ability to lead. "
A woman is not be to be in the clergy, the Bible is very clear on that. However she can be a CEO of a fortune 500 company, President, Govenor etc. She isnt prohibted in taking a place of leadership in employment or the secular government.

reply from: Cecilia

What is the best selling book of all time? Art in Western and European cultures have always been a reflection on peoples desire to glofify god. Raphael, Michelangelo etc. And how about music? Bach....Literature. C.S Lewis, Chesterton, Dante, Bunyan All had an impact on our world. Where did they get their inspirations?
Oh, okay so it is the "best selling book" it must be true. Ha ha!! The Koran is next I suppose that is a little less true?
I don't understand this comment.
god is not the same as christianity. the concept of a higher power or spiritual world is not one i dismiss altogether. the bible i do because it is a piece of fiction organized by men with certain texts dismissed and other chosen to be added. but i suppose you would say that 'god inspired them' or some such nonsense. it is impossible to debate with christians because of their mythological belief system that everything come back to. its the same as couple who decide to undergo fertilization procedures and if they have five embryos the doctors warn against problems but then the couple says 'it will be as god wills'. apparently though it wasn't as god wills which is why the went fertilzation.
continuing on my tangential thoughts, i hear alot of people say that if no one believed in god people would act like hellions without a care. on the other hand I think that if no one believed in god they would appreciate what they have here more, enjoy the light dancing on a leaf or that person in your life more so.
god is not the same as christianity.

reply from: Cecilia

why is she unsuitable to be in clergy?
probably more about historical context than anything else.

reply from: scopia19822

"why is she unsuitable to be in clergy?"
Look at Jesus he did not desginate women to be his apostles. The Bible is very clear in the matter that a minister, priest, bishop and deacons are to men of god charachter, husband of only one wife.

reply from: scopia19822

"Leviticus 27 clearly implies that women are inferior to men (God supposedly told Moses women were worth less...), which is understandable, since women were essentially dominated by the men of that time, and treated primarily as possessions."
In Galatations its says that all are of equal worth in the eyes of God, man, women, Gentile, Jew, slave or free. Being a minister is a huge responsibilty and for women being a wife and mother as just as huge responisbilty. When I look at the Book Religions (Christianity, Islam , Judiasm) Judiams is the only one that has historically defined women as property. I have read the Quran from cover to cover, while Islam is more strict on conduct for both men and women, women are given explict rights in the Quran. A woman is entitled to support from her husband, she can reject a potential suitor, she can inherit property, pursue an education, she keeps her maiden name upon marriage.

reply from: Cecilia

is that an answer to the question?
i read Leviticus 27 CP and that seems more like a set of laws from a lawbook than a spiritual text. now there is misogyny! ha ha!

reply from: Cecilia

I don't think anyone can even answer that question without looking ridiculous. Why aren't women unsuitable to be in the clergy? Because they have a womb? Because Jesus didn't have a female apostle (and if he did would we even hear of it?) Because 'the bible says so'?
Do Christians ever examine their bleifs? or would that be 'the work of the devil'?

reply from: scopia19822

Your not a Christian so you arent bound by these teaching. However the following chapter is very clear on the qualifications for a member of the clergy. We are no longer bound by Mosaic law, women are not inferior to men, just different . No matter how hard a woman tries to emulate men, the fact is they are women not just in body, but in mind as well.
Timothy 3
1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
13For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
14These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

reply from: scopia19822

"t is also clearly stated that God chose the Hebrews as special to him, and he clearly (allegedly) valued them more highly than Gentiles, who they were free to enslave or even kill. If the Bible is true, God clearly did not value all people equally."
He did because they were the first to choose to obey him! However as time passed they disobeyed him. Jesus came down and died on the cross for all of mankind not just the Jews. God wanted all of us to have salvation. Jesus sacrifice nullified the animal sacrifices, the penalties for vairous offenses that required death, the food laws etc. Read the Gospels.

reply from: Cecilia

I never did see answer to my question.
I think you need to reconsider your beliefs on that scopia:
1 Timothy 2:12, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
but Paul was just a man who wrote letters. what he said or may not have said (isn't there a theory he didn't write timothy?) is not some kind of theocratic authority. he was just a man.
can you imagine if letters between your neighbors became the basis of a religious movement?

reply from: scopia19822

Under the mosiac law it cost more to redeem a male than a female and the Israelites were Gods chosen people and even Paul says that they have never lost that place. However since Jesus who was God incarnate came down and died on the cross he did not just do that for the Jews, he did it for all of mankind. Gal 3:28 clearly states that all are equal in Christ, hence in the eyes of God,
Galatians 3:28 (New International Version)
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

reply from: Cecilia

I think you need to reconsider your beliefs on that scopia:
1 Timothy 2:12, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
but Paul was just a man who wrote letters. what he said or may not have said (isn't there a theory he didn't write timothy?) is not some kind of theocratic authority. he was just a man.
can you imagine if letters between your neighbors became the basis of a religious movement?
no comment scopia? or is questioning your beliefs the work of the devil to be avoided?

reply from: scopia19822

I think you need to reconsider your beliefs on that scopia:
1 Timothy 2:12, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
but Paul was just a man who wrote letters. what he said or may not have said (isn't there a theory he didn't write timothy?) is not some kind of theocratic authority. he was just a man.
can you imagine if letters between your neighbors became the basis of a religious movement?
no comment scopia? or is questioning your beliefs the work of the devil to be avoided?
The verse you are referring too is a matter of womens role in Church, not in the secular government. It means a woman is not to be in the pulpit, simple as that. I question many things including some of the doctrines of the RCC, especially its emphasises that marriage and family are only for producing the next gernation of Catholics.

reply from: carolemarie

Personally, I find the notion of parading women around and judging them on their looks to be a sick sexist degrading idea.....looking for pretty meat.....ick!
But be that as it may, her comments showed a lack of diplomacy. This is a beauty contest, all she had to do is give a meaningless answer or be for ending poverty or something like that to have won. It isn't about charactor or intellet at all.

reply from: churchmouse

I have read them and I am not afraid of reading anything. The TRUTH Concerned is JESUS CHRIST. He is the truth. I do not need to understand everything. No one in the world including you.....knows everything about everything. We believe what we do based on the evidence that we see around us. You hold a worldview that rejects religon and faith in God. If you could prove without a shadow of a doubt that Christ did not do what He said He did you would be a rich man. The majority of mankind has had a belief in God even if it wasnt the Christian God. You are in the minority. You say I cant prove anything........but what can you prove? If you say the Bible is in error......then cant every other recorded piece of literature we have ever had be in error as well.
The only thing that matters to me is Christ. I love the OT but I am bound to the NT and the things Christ said for me to do.
In Romans 1:19-20. Paul says, "19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God."
We can't hide from God. Adam and Eve tried and failed. God will not hear excuses. The fact is, there are consequences for WILLINGLY rejecting the gospel. We as believers need to tell people that.
Romans 1:17-18 also says in the gospel, the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."
I have faith that what God has revealed in the scriptures and through creation is the truth. He sent Christ and I believe He is the TRUTH.
And what will your excuse be if your wrong.
John said, "Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son" (1 John 2:22)
"Scoffers will come in the last days,, walking according to their own lusts." (2 Peter 3:3) The apostle Paul calls them "lovers of themselves....boasters, proud...haughty" (2 Timothy 3:2-4) Jude calls them "grumblers, complainers"
I will say this, those who speak evil of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the people of God, the kingdom of God, and the attributes of God are called blasphemers. Jude calls them godless men who "speak abusively against whatever they do not understand....They are clouds without rain.....trees, without fruit....wild waves of the sea....wandering stars" (verses 10-13) the apostle Paul said that he himself was a blasphemer before his conversion to Christ (1 Timothy 1:13)
Athenian women had no part in public office at all in fact didnt even socialize with men. Greek women were considered inferior only a distraction and temptation. Women in Rome were considered inferior.
Jews looked at women a little bit better. Some women in the OT were considered heros...Deborah, Rahab and Ruth are just a few. But for the most part women were not valued highly.
Now contrast this with what Christ thought of women. He spoke with women everywhere He went. Women were not disciples but they were not excluded from being in his company. He even let a woman wash His feet with her hair. Read what Paul had to say about women. He spoke of Prisca and Aquila as FELLOWWORKERS in Jesus Christ. They were a married couple. He even mentioned her name before his. Paul mentions eight women by name when he talks about church leaders.
Ephesians 5:21 says, "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ."
THIS IS FOUNDATIONAL. This means that BOTH be subject to one another. It does not say wives just be subject to their husbands. The gospel requires MUTUAL subjection. Paul says that husbands are the head of the family, the wife. This parallels Christs headship. It does not mean God loves the man more.

What a blessed thing it was to have carried Christ. God gave a woman this blessing. He honored his mother throughout His life and at His crucifixion. He not only respected his mother he respected women.....Mary Magdeline. In a culture where women were not considered reliable witnesses Jesus Christ chose women as the first witnesses of his resurrection. They were at the birth and death of Jesus.
How about Mary and Martha? Jesus went to their home. He called both to be disciples of Jesus, to learn from Him and to teach others.

Christ healed the disabled women in Luke and He did it on the Sabbath. He even called her the daughter of Abraham.
"After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household: Susanna: and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means." (Luke 8:1-3)
Christ ignored culture traditions about women and because of that Christianity has elevated women. We might be the weaker sex physically but not where it counts most. We are entitled to all the blessings God gave men. What other religion does this?
With Christianity we are coheirs of eternal life with men. The Holy Spirit inspired King Solomon to dedicate an entire chapter in Proverbs - Chapter 31 - to the dignity of a "virtuous woman." He remarked that "her price is far above rubies" or pearls. "Far above." All the value of all the precious stones could not compare to her worth. "She is priceless!"
Lydia was an experienced businesswoman. Phebe was a "patron" who defended the cause in the courts. She held a notable position in the church. Priscilla, Lois and Eunice all women of faith and loved by God.
This says it all.
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself" (Eph. 5:25-28).
And He might have in the OT but He certainly changed His tune after Christ came. We are not held to the old law.......
You know Concerned....you certainly are conceited and puffed up. I now know why you reject God, the God we love and believe in. Because you consider yourself to be all knowing, all encompassing god. LOL Damn are you into yourself.
God knows everything. He is not bound by space or time. He also cant lie. Hebrews 6:8.
Numbers 23:19 (NIV)
19 God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?
The bible is true every word of it. You have no faith and the Holy Spirit never convicted you because your heart is hardened towards Him. That is why the Word means something different for you than for a believer. God talks about you in the Bible but then if you are so smart you knew this already. THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH and you do not live by faith.
"Scoffers will come in the last days,, walking according to their own lusts." (2 Peter 3:3) The apostle Paul calls them "lovers of themselves....boasters, proud...haughty" (2 Timothy 3:2-4) Jude calls them "grumblers, complainers"
If the shoe fits.........

reply from: kd78

so gays just can't win, huh? they can't get married because so many people thinks it's just for one man and one woman. but if they stay together unmarried then they are committing some other attrocity somehow? exactly how does jim and mike's marriage affect bob and karen's marriage? and why was britney spears' 55 hour "marriage" more valid than two guys' or two women's relationships that have been together for 10 years?
interfaith and interracial marriages used to be illegal, too. there are still people out there that disapprove of both.

reply from: churchmouse

I believe the Word of God which is the Bible. God says all sex outside the boundaries of marriage is sin. That does not only go for homosexuals and lesbians that goes for heterosexuals as well.
I am curious are you also for group marriages as well?
You certainly would not want to be intolerant of their love and commitment would you by denying them marriage?

interfaith and interracial marriages used to be illegal, too. there are still people out there that disapprove of both.

reply from: kd78

not good enough. is there a secular reason for it?
i wear pants, have worked on sunday, have eaten pork and shellfish. i have a beautiful daughter out of wedlock, and i don't feel bad about having her. those things are against the bible, too. there are so many things frowned upon in the bible that it would be impossible for any human being to keep up with all of them.

reply from: lukesmom

I agree but also find it very refreshing that a "Barbie Doll" actually had the courage to show some character and she should not have been discriminated against for her views and lifestyle same as gays should not be discriminated against for their views and lifestyle.
How is the discrimination against her any different than the discrimination against gays or anyone else?

reply from: Cecilia

I agree but also find it very refreshing that a "Barbie Doll" actually had the courage to show some character and she should not have been discriminated against for her views and lifestyle same as gays should not be discriminated against for their views and lifestyle.
How is the discrimination against her any different than the discrimination against gays or anyone else?
same way you discriminate against skin heads or neonazis. their "opinions" are not to be tolerated nor should they be represetnatives of any organization.

reply from: Cecilia

I think you need to reconsider your beliefs on that scopia:
1 Timothy 2:12, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
but Paul was just a man who wrote letters. what he said or may not have said (isn't there a theory he didn't write timothy?) is not some kind of theocratic authority. he was just a man.
can you imagine if letters between your neighbors became the basis of a religious movement?
no comment scopia? or is questioning your beliefs the work of the devil to be avoided?
The verse you are referring too is a matter of womens role in Church, not in the secular government. It means a woman is not to be in the pulpit, simple as that. I question many things including some of the doctrines of the RCC, especially its emphasises that marriage and family are only for producing the next gernation of Catholics.
t doesn't say that. pretty clear cut to me.
I enjoyed this site:
http://www.womenpriests.org/scriptur/timothy.asp

why do non chrisitans do more research than people who say they are ?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Right.....and you're a self righteous b**** who still doesn't seem to understand that I'm not an atheist even though I've tried to explain it to you dozens of times, you are disgustingly condescending, you obviously feel I am beneath you, you have stated that you "hate humanism," which, according to the definition, belies your own professed faith, since it is basically caring about your fellow man......You're unteachable, CM. You are incapable of learning the first damned thing about me or anyone else, and your mind is made up on every issue that ever crossed your narrow mind, so I question why I even bother responding to you at all.
It is ironic that you say you "know" why I "reject God," since you don't even "know" that I do. You "know" precious little about me, despite the time I have taken attempting to explain some things about myself and my beliefs. It's as if you have never heard a word I've said...If ignorance is bliss, enjoy.
Maybe, concernedparent, you're a riddle wrapped inside an enigma?
What is most important in life is revealed by the requirement that we love God and man. We are to visit the orphans and widows in their time of need and help them. We are to rule righteously, making decisions that are fair and equitable for the defenseless and powerless. Never is one to use unjust balances and take advantage of another. The Bible says we are to look after the affairs of others with the same kind of diligence we use in our own affairs. We are to love others as ourself. We are to treat others in the same way we desire to be treated. Like Jesus, we need to bend down and serve others by figuratively washing their feet.
At the same time, Jesus and the Apostle Paul told people they were murderers to their face. They were hated. People desired to stone and kill them. Jesus warned to be wary of murderous men. Utopia is not a one-sided endeavor.

reply from: Cecilia

Right.....and you're a self righteous b**** who still doesn't seem to understand that I'm not an atheist even though I've tried to explain it to you dozens of times, you are disgustingly condescending, you obviously feel I am beneath you, you have stated that you "hate humanism," which, according to the definition, belies your own professed faith, since it is basically caring about your fellow man......You're unteachable, CM. You are incapable of learning the first damned thing about me or anyone else, and your mind is made up on every issue that ever crossed your narrow mind, so I question why I even bother responding to you at all.
It is ironic that you say you "know" why I "reject God," since you don't even "know" that I do. You "know" precious little about me, despite the time I have taken attempting to explain some things about myself and my beliefs. It's as if you have never heard a word I've said...If ignorance is bliss, enjoy.
Maybe, concernedparent, you're a riddle wrapped inside an enigma?
What is most important in life is revealed by the requirement that we love God and man. We are to visit the orphans and widows in their time of need and help them. We are to rule righteously, making decisions that are fair and equitable for the defenseless and powerless. Never is one to use unjust balances and take advantage of another. The Bible says we are to look after the affairs of others with the same kind of diligence we use in our own affairs. We are to love others as ourself. We are to treat others in the same way we desire to be treated. Like Jesus, we need to bend down and serve others by figuratively washing their feet.
At the same time, Jesus and the Apostle Paul told people they were murderers to their face. They were hated. People desired to stone and kill them. Jesus warned to be wary of murderous men. Utopia is not a one-sided endeavor.
Except for gays and other people who you don't agree with of course.

reply from: lukesmom

I agree but also find it very refreshing that a "Barbie Doll" actually had the courage to show some character and she should not have been discriminated against for her views and lifestyle same as gays should not be discriminated against for their views and lifestyle.
How is the discrimination against her any different than the discrimination against gays or anyone else?
same way you discriminate against skin heads or neonazis. their "opinions" are not to be tolerated nor should they be represetnatives of any organization.
EVERYONE in this country is guarenteed by law the right to thier opinion. What is not acceptable is if they unlawfully and violently act out that opinion. Ms California voiced her opinion and was discriminated against and publically lambasted because she lawfully expressed her opinion. Do you also advocate censorship?

reply from: Cecilia

You don't understand. of course she can say whatever she wants and have whatever opinion she wants.
you wouldn't select an openly antisemite or racist to represent an organization if they "did" nothing wrong. or maybe you would, I don't know. i'm glad they didn't.

reply from: churchmouse

Can you imagine if that situtaion had been turned around.......and Miss California had been the one that was for same sex marriage and the judge was against it and spoke his mind by calling her names and verbally attacking her.
We are not on level playing ground, not anymore...no fair play.
And if you are against gay marriage then you better watch out, the worst is coming. They do not want tolerance they want acceptance by everyone and they will do anything to get it.

reply from: churchmouse

slavery is totally different spinny and you know it.

reply from: Faramir

According to Trump, her response was not why she lost.
Anyway, what I've lost site of is that this is a private contest and not a democratic process. They could have totally stacked the deck against anything conservative or religious if they wanted to, and it would be the choice of the contestant whether or not to compete in that environment.

reply from: carolemarie

I agree Faramir....this is a private contest looking for pretty meat to parade about. As if a womans worth is based on her attractivness.....but sexist contest aside, i thought S. Carolina was prettier ....maybe that is why she won the beauty contest.....

reply from: scopia19822

If she had been attacked for supporting gay marriage by the judge the media would be up in arms about his conduct. It is a double standard.

reply from: lukesmom

If she had been attacked for supporting gay marriage by the judge the media would be up in arms about his conduct. It is a double standard.
That goes without saying. All depends on what is considered pc at the time.

reply from: lukesmom

Yes, they were "exercising their rights of free speech also but in attacking manner. They also asked the stupid question which she stupidly answered truthfully which actually shows she has the courage to stand by her convictions. She did this in a nonjudgemental way. I am wondering why they are so upset when they are the ones who asked such a stupid, politically charged question. They also may "judge" her answer but how is their attack on her beliefs and lifestyle not as discriminatory as her beliefs about thier beliefs and lifestyle?
I am not saying she should have won or not won as I don't watch these really stupid contests. What I am saying is she has a right to her beliefs same as they have a right to theirs and both have the right not to be attacked physically OR verbally.
I always find it funny how those who shout discrimination often practice their own brand of discrimination.

reply from: scopia19822

"Would you want her representing the U.S? Would you commend her for standing up for what she believes? I'm not even implying that Miss California is in that league, but do you see my point? Some of you are only outraged because you agree with her views. Had she advocated gay rights and been attacked for it, my guess is that some of you would not be defending her, but joining in the "attacks.""
If she said that she supported gay marriage and was given flack for it, while I may not agree with her. I would commend her for standing up for her beliefs and being honest about it.

reply from: lukesmom

Nope, I would not be defending or "joining in the attacks" but instead would be saying the same thing as I am now. Discrimination is discrimination no matter what view is pc at the time. For the record, I am not a gay basher and I am not a fan of these barbie doll contests but I do find it pretty amusing they asked a charged question and didn't get the pc answer they were expecting. I am also amazed that someone would stand up for their convictions in this kind of contest.

reply from: lukesmom

Last I heard Ms Cal wasn't advocating or acting out violence toward the gay population in voicing her mistaken beliefs; unlike Tiller who has killed countless humans in his mistaken beliefs.

reply from: scopia19822

It was a rhetorical question, but color me skeptical....Tiller believes he is providing a valuable service to humanity by performing abortions. I do not believe he is "evil," but like most prochoicers, misguided. Do you commend him for standing up for what he believes? How about other prochoicers? When was the last time you were outraged about "attacks" against someone who "stood up" for beliefs you did not agree with? Uh huh, don't answer that. It is a rhetorical question, meant only to stimulate thought...
What Tiller does cold blooded murder, it must be opposed and I would not commend anyone who stood up for racism, abortion or any other evils. However while I oppose gay marriage, this involves consenting adults who in the long run are not harming anyone.

reply from: scopia19822

You are comparing apples and oranges. Abortion is a human right violation and supporting it is supporting human rights violation. Opposing gay marriage is not a human right violation.

reply from: Cecilia

Yes, they were "exercising their rights of free speech also but in attacking manner. They also asked the stupid question which she stupidly answered truthfully which actually shows she has the courage to stand by her convictions. She did this in a nonjudgemental way. I am wondering why they are so upset when they are the ones who asked such a stupid, politically charged question. They also may "judge" her answer but how is their attack on her beliefs and lifestyle not as discriminatory as her beliefs about thier beliefs and lifestyle?
I am not saying she should have won or not won as I don't watch these really stupid contests. What I am saying is she has a right to her beliefs same as they have a right to theirs and both have the right not to be attacked physically OR verbally.
I always find it funny how those who shout discrimination often practice their own brand of discrimination.
Now even asking what someone's thoughts are on gay marriage is "a stupid question".
and you can't be against gay marriage without also being judgemental. sorry.
she has a right to her beliefs, and they have a right to not allow her to represent their pageant. it's not just "pc" to support gay marriage it's the right thing to do.

reply from: yoda

How do you feel about taking away someone's life?
Is that a form of "control" that you approve of?

reply from: lukesmom

Yes, they were "exercising their rights of free speech also but in attacking manner. They also asked the stupid question which she stupidly answered truthfully which actually shows she has the courage to stand by her convictions. She did this in a nonjudgemental way. I am wondering why they are so upset when they are the ones who asked such a stupid, politically charged question. They also may "judge" her answer but how is their attack on her beliefs and lifestyle not as discriminatory as her beliefs about thier beliefs and lifestyle?
I am not saying she should have won or not won as I don't watch these really stupid contests. What I am saying is she has a right to her beliefs same as they have a right to theirs and both have the right not to be attacked physically OR verbally.
I always find it funny how those who shout discrimination often practice their own brand of discrimination.
Now even asking what someone's thoughts are on gay marriage is "a stupid question".
and you can't be against gay marriage without also being judgemental. sorry.
she has a right to her beliefs, and they have a right to not allow her to represent their pageant. it's not just "pc" to support gay marriage it's the right thing to do.
It's a stupid question if you expect everyone to believe the same way and are shocked to find out differently. If you can't handle a truthful answer, asking the question is stupid. Of course it's pc to support gay marriage the same way it is considered pc to support abortion make nasty remarks about religion and obese people and many other topics. And yes, you can be against gay marriage without being judgemental as you can judge the act without judging the person. And your assertion that supporting gay marriage is "the right thing to do" is your opinion and by your own statement; judgemental.
"They" also have a right not to allow her to represent their pageant, no one is arguing that. "They" don't have a right to verbally attack her because she didn't lie to win.

reply from: Yuuki

You are comparing apples and oranges. Abortion is a human right violation and supporting it is supporting human rights violation. Opposing gay marriage is not a human right violation.
I think it is; it is a restriction of their freedoms. YOU have the right to marry right? You probably consider it an intrisic right and would consider your rights to be violated if all marriage was suddenly outlawed, right?

reply from: lukesmom

eewww! You are sick dude and it doesn't have anything to do with gay rights! HEHEHEHE!

reply from: Yuuki

Basically yes. I can't marry another woman because I AM a woman, and that's gender discrimination to the T. I can't do something because I'm a woman. A man can't carry a man because he's male. Discrimination.
By the way, D.C. just passed a bill about allowinggay marriage!

reply from: carolemarie

You are comparing apples and oranges. Abortion is a human right violation and supporting it is supporting human rights violation. Opposing gay marriage is not a human right violation.[
*******************
In your opinon abortion is a human rights violation. In other people's opinion opposing gay marriage is a human rights violation.
Just because you believe something doesn't make it true and the same with the other point of view.
So that is why how we dialog with people is so important, because we have to be able to look at it from their viewpoint to understand why they are so full of passion about what they believe....

reply from: churchmouse

Anyone can scream this over anything. Who should say what civil rights are?
ARe you for group marriage as well? Do they and should they have rights? How about a couple who are related that want to marry and they cant....are they being denied their rights? And how about the guy who wants to have sex with his pet animal? I'm serious I am not joking. This may seem ridiculous to you but for some it isnt.
Isn't everything about sex in our culture today spinny? Everything is about the Word for me.
Then you should marry him if he gave you a goat. I can only imagine what else your going to get. LOL (just joking)
You dont get it spinny......its not my standards, they are Gods that I accept as my own.

reply from: Cecilia

Some things are not a matter of opinion. marriage is a goverment act. denying gays right to marry is obvious discrimination.
You brought up "the act". you can say "I don't judge the person just the act" but we all know that is b.s. People against gay marriage have a problem with gays, not just the sex act. you are not being honest or not thinking about it enough. if you didn't judge the people you wouldn't deny them validation of their relationship in a legal manner just like you want for yourself.
ha ha, hypocrisy. she can say what she wants but they don't have a right to do the same.

reply from: yoda

No, marriage is not a "government act". Marriage is a contract between two people who meet the criteria defined by a legislative act. Legislatures set the criteria, and they are the ultimate authority. Marriage is a privilege granted by state governments, it is not a "civil right".
If it were, I can guarantee you that the SCOTUS would have had a "gay marriage" case before them by now.
BTW, do you think that taking someone's life electively is an act of "control'?

reply from: lukesmom

Where did I say anything judgemental? Where have I said I believe in denying anyone the "validation of their relationship in a legal manner"? You are now putting words in my mouth.

reply from: scopia19822

"I think it is; it is a restriction of their freedoms. YOU have the right to marry right? You probably consider it an intrisic right and would consider your rights to be violated if all marriage was suddenly outlawed, right?"
Gays are not the only people who are prohibted from marrying. In my state I could marry my first cousin if I wanted too, other states I could not and in some states that prohibt cousin marriages will not recongnize these same marriages that were perfomed in other states. Some states have blood test requirements and waiting periods. Marriage is a states rights issue and should be left as such.

reply from: Yuuki

It is a HUMAN rights issue and should be addressed as such. The reason first cousins or brothers/sisters etc can't marry is because of the effect in-breeding has on the gene pool. It's not healthy to have a child with someone you're closely related to. However, if there were some way to ensure that the couple never had biological children (like both of them consenting to sterilization or something) then I cannot see any ethical reason they can't marry - no matter how disgusting I find it to be. The only thing "wrong" with it is the danger of in-bred children with tons of genetic problems, so if you prevent that there are no problems.
And on that note, gay people can't breed at all with each other, so there's no risk whatsoever of genetically damaged children! Gay marriage is not harmful in any way shape or form.

reply from: kd78

well miss california is getting flack for taking naked pictures of herself at 17 to apply to be a victoria's secret model. at 17, it's considered kiddie porn to intentionally pose suggestively or naked under the age of 18.

reply from: churchmouse

You have a file just for me hon? Man am I flattered. Wow. I mean I am flattered.
So you think this post is not rational?
I just wasnt thinking right was I? LOL

If we are talking about freedoms here and the right to marry...then it should be opened up across the board and everyone should be able to marry whomever they want, even if its a family member or you want to marry more than one person. How can these people that say yes same sex marriage is ok, but nothing else should also be legalized.
Everything could fall into the category of human rights. And everyone has a different idea about what should be included in human rights.
I know what you are saying here Yukki and I agree BUT...like I said earlier, playing devils advocate here ......what business is it of our government to deny us the right to marry whomever we want even if its a close family member. What right does the government have in forcing someone to get sterilized? So what there are geneticc problems. Aren't our bodies our own?
They can't breed because God created man and woman to breed. That is His Will and it is nature. No two animals of the same sex can have children. What does that tell you?
I agree and am glad Miss California stood up for her beliefs. Beliefs can change over the years. Yuuki was once pro-choice, Concerned was once pro-life, I was once pro-choice. So she could have changed. Unfortunately for her she made a big boo boo that cant be hidden....the proof is in the photo for all to see.
I pray that she stays strong but gets it together and drops this beauty pageant mentality. I hope her walk is more in tune with what Christ would want her to do with her new notoriety.

reply from: Yuuki

I just wasnt thinking right was I? LOL

If we are talking about freedoms here and the right to marry...then it should be opened up across the board and everyone should be able to marry whomever they want, even if its a family member or you want to marry more than one person. How can these people that say yes same sex marriage is ok, but nothing else should also be legalized.
Everything could fall into the category of human rights. And everyone has a different idea about what should be included in human rights.
I know what you are saying here Yukki and I agree BUT...like I said earlier, playing devils advocate here ......what business is it of our government to deny us the right to marry whomever we want even if its a close family member. What right does the government have in forcing someone to get sterilized? So what there are geneticc problems. Aren't our bodies our own?
They can't breed because God created man and woman to breed. That is His Will and it is nature. No two animals of the same sex can have children. What does that tell you?
I agree and am glad Miss California stood up for her beliefs. Beliefs can change over the years. Yuuki was once pro-choice, Concerned was once pro-life, I was once pro-choice. So she could have changed. Unfortunately for her she made a big boo boo that cant be hidden....the proof is in the photo for all to see.
I pray that she stays strong but gets it together and drops this beauty pageant mentality. I hope her walk is more in tune with what Christ would want her to do with her new notoriety.
To putposely procreate when you know the risks are highly elevated is paramount to smoking or doing other drugs like alcohol during pregnancy, and in my opinion that is child abuse.

reply from: carolemarie

First, she posed for modeling pictures, which is legal. She posed for bathing suit and topless, with her hands covering herself. Even topless is legal at 17.
It is not considered kiddie porn. Remember Miley Circus topless shots? She is 15. It is legal as long as it is art.
Making porn is illegal under 18., so are lewd shots there is a fine line. What she did doesn't fall into the illegal category.

reply from: Faramir

Why should the state sanction something that does not benefit the state?
In a heterosexual marriage, it's the rule, and not the exception, that it produces children, which is a benefit to the state. Providing a legal framework and some benefits give an incentive for the couple to stay together, instead of going from flower to flower, which would leave children in an unstable situation.
A homosexual union cannot produce new citizens.
Of what benefit is it to the state to cater to a minority and provide the same benefits as to those who rear new families?
And why should it stop at monogomous homosexual relations? If we go down that road, why would it not be unfair to deny a bisexual man the right to have a husband and a wife?

reply from: Faramir

They don't become parents just like straight people.
A gay woman would not be relying on her spouse to be the "father" of her baby.
She needs to borrow a husband for that to happen, so she needs to go outside of the family unit, and must rely on a stud to have a child. How is that arrangement "just like straight people"?
IVF is an immoral and unjust system, and there is no way I could see that as a legitimate means to parenthood for anyone.
As far as adoption is concerned, I cannot see your point unless you can demonstrate that two gay people could conceive a child on their own and offer it up for adoption, as heterosexuals can.
And what do you say to the idea of a bisexual man having a husband and a wife? Should that be allowed?

reply from: Faramir

CP, she asked for some nonreligious reasons why there should not be gay marriage, and I responded as best I could without using any religious reasons, so I don't see why the gratutious slam against Christians.
Should a bisexual man be able to have a husband AND a wife, btw?

reply from: Faramir

Maybe it would be better the state sanction NO marriage. Then there would be no unfairness to anyone, especially those who choose to be single.
Marriage could then be left in the realm of religion.

reply from: Faramir

This is a loaded question, and irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is equality, equal treatment under the law. The point is that marriage is allowed, just not to gays. If we allow or do not allow multiple spouses, so be it, as long as one group is not treated differently than others, like if Mormons were allowed multiple spouses, but not others....Understand?
Mormons are a religious sect.
Being bisexual is not.
Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman, so it's "allowed" for a man and a woman to be married, and a gay man can marry a woman if he so chooses.

reply from: Faramir

And I logically destroyed your hastily concocted rationalization, did I not?
I am 100% in agreement that you believe that.

reply from: Faramir

In your humble opinion. I don't see it that way.
Yes I agree. Allowing one sex to have multiple partners and not the other would be discriminatory.
Against whom? Against blacks? Against hispanics? Against women? Against men? A man may have one wife, and a woman may have one husband. There is no discrimination.
If a man has a desire to link his reproductive organ to the elimination system of another man, why is that something the state should sanction? This is seriously disordered behavior, and it is unfair to put in the same category as race or gender.
A gay man may marry a woman. He has the same right as a straight man.

reply from: Faramir

A man and a woman may each marry the opposite sex.
You're going to say it's unfair to women because men may marry them and women may not? That's that's "discrimination"? That's a stretch if that's where you're going with this.
Men are supposed to use the men's room too, and the ladies are supposed to stay out. Is that discrimination?
In a marriage, the "ladies room" is a man, and the "mens room" is a woman. It's equal.
Anyway, it goes back to the original point, that men and women procreate, and men and men and women and women do not, and that's the primary reason why I think the state has an interest in heterosexual marriages, and not in catering to a small minority who join their reproductive organs to another member of the same sex, making reproduction an impossibility.

reply from: Faramir

What if you are already married and love your wife and still fall in love with Jessica Alba? It's possible.
What you have to do is give up one of them for the other, and the honorable thing would be to go back to your wife, as much as it would hurt to turn your back on the other.
Romantic love is linked to sexuality, and when a man falls in love with another man, he's all dressed up but with no place to go sexually, so he has to be clever and find a way to turn his lover into a woman. But he's "not allowed" to have reproductive rights with his partner, because it's impossible.
Some things are just "not allowed" by nature, and sometimes it sucks and sometimes it hurts, but that's life.

reply from: churchmouse

And why arent we talking about them? They are directly linked to everything outside the marriage of one man and one woman.
You have to look at the big picture. What will the legalization do to society.
For one thing it would open the door to other unions, and why not? Why shouldnt groups be able to be married. Surely you would not deny them what you want gays and lesbians to get.
First of all I am a Christian 24/7, so that means my views are the same as what God has layed out in the scriptures. God does not condone same sex marriage.
I could give all sorts of scriptural reasons, none that you would probably address because you dismiss the bible or the parts that you dont like. If I asked you to make a case for same sex marriage from this text, you would not be able to do it. Because God calls sex outside marriage is sin.
Traditional marriage in society has always been between one man and one woman and nature backs up this union. I think this is righteous reasoning because procreation can only take place between a man and a woman. This is a pertinent fact.
To the revisionist thinker same sex marriage is right, to the righteous thinker it is wrong.
About humanism......
Does this group or organization have it wrong? One of their supporters is the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the American Humanist Association. ARe you a member, sounds like you.
http://www.meetup.com/Hearts-of-the-south/about/?name=About_this_Meetup
"Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity."
"Humanism includes those who are agnostic about claims of ultimate realities, supernaturalism and absolute truths and who adhere to an enlivened ethic that informs our lives and guides our relationships with all living things. It also includes those who have examined religious claims and found no evidence to support a belief in them."
http://www.meetup.com/Hearts-of-the-south/about/?name=About_this_Meetup

This is one of the biggest Humanist Organization in the country. Are they all wrong about the definition of Humanism?
Humanists reject God even the idea of God.

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

God has given man his workdays to build the type of society mankind wants. Concernedparent is at the head of the pack in doing so. Do you recall what the punishment was for Sodom due to their homosexual acts? This is in the Bible as a warning that eternal destruction will befall sodomites. A wise man, Solomon, said, "It's an evil work being done under the sun." I side with Solomon.
Besides having men stick things in their anus; maybe druggies should be sticking needles in their arms, moms should be sticking scissors in the back of baby's heads and drunk party goers should be smashing their vehicles into a young family, ending their lives.
You are so profane concernedparent.

reply from: Yuuki

In your humble opinion. I don't see it that way.
Yes I agree. Allowing one sex to have multiple partners and not the other would be discriminatory.
Against whom? Against blacks? Against hispanics? Against women? Against men? A man may have one wife, and a woman may have one husband. There is no discrimination.
If a man has a desire to link his reproductive organ to the elimination system of another man, why is that something the state should sanction? This is seriously disordered behavior, and it is unfair to put in the same category as race or gender.
A gay man may marry a woman. He has the same right as a straight man.
But why can women ONLY marry men and men can ONLY marry women?
A woman has the right to marry a man but a man doesn't have that right. Discrimination.
A man has a right to marry a woman but a woman doesn't. Discrimination.

reply from: Yuuki

They don't become parents just like straight people.
Of course, because ALL straight people are fertile and NONE of them EVER adopt. Many single mothers have babies just like that.

reply from: churchmouse

So back on topic.....I gave her the benefit of the doubt but after the press conference I changed my mind.
Saw the press conference with the Trump yesterday morning as he defended the beautiful Miss California. I think he used the term beautiful 50 times during the taping. LOL
"She is beautiful, such a natural beauty, a beautiful most beautiful woman."
Well yes Donald she is. You helped make her so. You gave her money to get her tiny breasts made bigger. Because bigger is better and it makes you more beautiful and appealing to the masses of people who want to be her, who hold her up as a role model.
Well Miss Californ-e-a stood there and lied and the Big Trump backed her up because she was beaut-ti-ful. He even had her parents stand up to show why she is so beautiful. Do you think he would give anyone the time of day if they werent good looking?
It's all about the outside, not the inside for Trump, not for his organization. I mean they gave her money for a boob job. A beautiful face isnt enough.
I saw the photos the same ones where she said she had a wardrobe malfunction. Do they think we the public are just stupid? I saw the one where she said the wind was blowing and it blew her top open. LOL
The photos were staged and she posed. And she broke her contract because the contract said.......semi nude or nude.
Did she glorify God........you tell me.

reply from: nancyu

Yes she did. Do you? No you don't.

reply from: Faramir

I did a search and found a couple of the "topless" photos, and the ones I saw did not look posed or finished, but like they were between shots. I'm sure she intended to wear a skimpy revealing top, but I don't think she intended that any final photographs be revealing all the goods. (Based on what I've seen).

reply from: Yuuki

Wow. Nancyu is really startling on this topic. Being naked is okay as long as you hate gays and are pro-life.
Personally, I don't know if she took the photos on purpose or not. But whether she did or not, what's important is whether she KNEW about them. If she knew they existed, then she lied to the pagent officials, and that'a against the rules.

reply from: churchmouse

And you do?
And gee I thought I was on ignore nancy.
Faramir those shots were posed.
I am with you Yuuki. She knew these photos were out there and she signed the contract.
Wardrobe malfunction? Heavy winds? Pleaze.
http://www.ktla.com/ktla-pg-carrie-prejean-swimsuit,0,342795.photogallery

Pose 3 and 9 really look like she is trying to hide her breasts doesnt it?

reply from: Faramir

Photo number 2 obviously was not posed. In all the photos there was an intent to be covered.
If anything should disqualify her, it should be fake boobs.
They ought to compete with what they have naturally.

reply from: Faramir

This is the most revealing photo in the set I saw:
http://bumpshack.com/2009/05/12/miss-california-carrie-prejean-racy-topless-lingerie-photo-shoot/carrie-prejean-bikini-topless-photos/

Is this POSED?
Who poses like that? It was obviously BETWEEN poses.
I'm convinced she intended to show a lot of skin, but am also convinced that showing her nipples in finished photos was not what she had in mind.
I'm wondering why these photos are a concern NOW, and not before? Maybe she's being made to pay for speaking her mind?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

That's funny! Isn't "eternal destruction" the penalty for liars as well? See to your own salvation with fear and trembling.
And you're the one who keeps giving graphic descriptions of homosexual acts, but I'm the one who is "profane" because I don't think it's right to oppress gays? Freaking hilarious!
Destroying the human body is profane, whether your own through sodomy, or a child's through abortion. We show the abomination of both. You say it is profane to show or paint a picture of deadly acts, but it is not profane to commit the deadly act?

reply from: churchmouse

Faramir, faramir they all were posed because obviousy the photographer got the shot. LOL
These are nude photos. She signed a contract that said she had NEVER TAKEN SEMI NUDE OR NUDE pictures. Come on......can you or cant you see her total breast.
I mean how many women here walk around and strike poses like she did in these pictures.
Donald let her skate by because she is beautiful, period.
Well it is evident that she wanted to show skin. But does this picture.....
http://bumpshack.com/2009/05/1...ikini-topless-photos/

.......look like she is in any rush to hide her breasts? NO. She is fixing her bangs. If she did NOT WANT THEM EXPOSED AND SHE WAS NOT POSING SHE WOULD HAVE PULLED THAT EXTREMELY SMALL VEST OVER HER BREASTS OR HAD A TOWEL THAT YOU COULD HAVE GRABBED.
She did not care if they were exposed and they were exposed.
This whole thing shows what can happen if you mess up. It shows how bad you can look if you lie. And she is not telling the truth. She said she made a mistake by doing this. She claims to be a Christian so I certainly can see why she feels bad about what she did because its hard to stand on the Word but have your actions speak a different story. These pictures show a young girl with a beautiful body a body that she is proud of. If she was not proud of it she wouldnt have taken off her clothes. But are these photos gloryifying God in any way? I dont believe they are.
She signed a contract that she broke and she got away with it because she is beautiful. What Trump said was that its ok to breat a contract as long as you are a knock-out.
She has every right to pose nude if she wants. She has every right to speak her mind especially about her faith. What I am saying is that she based her opinion on her faith in God and how she was raised. And I see a problem with pornography and God.

reply from: Faramir

She was not posing in picture number 2, and I'm still convinced she intended that everything be covered for any photos that would be published, and your link doesn't work. With high speed digital cameras, it's an easy matter to take continuos photographs while the model would be arranging herself for the next pose.
I don't see how these pictures are "nudes" or anything all that big a deal. If you want to make a case she was dressing and posing provocatively and that's not how a Christian girl should behave, then maybe you have a point, but it seems silly to me to make such a big deal about them.
I think this is just a backlash because she was outspoken about gay marriage and someone wanted to get even.
If Trump made the call in her favor, then she didn't break any contract. He's smart enough to understand about setting a precedent, and I hardly think a man who can (and has) bought the most beautiful women in the world was mezmerized by her and just "had" to let her off the hook. This issue will come up again in the future and he had to abide by the standars set or at least the spirt of the rule.
Look at those who are so gleeful about these pictures, and that ought to tell you something.

reply from: churchmouse

I think she posed in all of them. She made no attempt to cover up and looked very natural standing there. If she did not want her breasts...nipples included to be photographed she could have covered up instead of trying to fix her bangs. She was in a skimpy vest three sizes to small and she did not care if they were taken that much is obvious. If you know that a photographer can take multiple pictures fast, she probably does too. And if she doesnt then what does that say about her mental capacity to reason and think on her feet?

So if your wife were topless like this on a beach with another male, you wouldnt be upset. She wouldnt be nude at all right? Would any of these photos have made a nice Christimas card? LOL
Its a big deal because she lied about them. She signed a contract and the only reason she got away with this is because Trump only sees tits and ass. She based her answer to gay marriage on her faith particularly her Christian faith and her upbringing. i personally dont know of one Christian family that thinks getting a boob job is godly. Most people know that Chrisians dont believe in pornography. So her words and actions dont align with the faith. Its not a big deal had she not have related it to Christianity. She basically said, gays are wrong because scripture says so......but its ok for me to pose nude for provocative pics, to get ahead in life. its ok for me to make pictures that men could lust over.
It like a pastor that preaches against adultry, then gets caught in an affair and tries to justify it. At least Carrie should have admitted bad judgement and that it was not godly. But if she did this, then she would have admitted a wrong....then she would lost her sash and crown. This was more important than her faith and owning up to what she did. Now impressionable Christian girls think lying and posing for stuff like this is ok. Even getting a boob job to look even more seductive. I mean you dont even think she was nude for crying out loud. Come on.......if she was not nude then could she have worn that outfit to the supermarket or to any speaking engagement?
She was attacked unfairly because of what she said. The press the judges, Hollywood were out of line in bashing her. That was before all these pics came out. But she is a hypocrite and she lied and the press called her on it. That is what is bad. She is a phoney who put her ambitions above that faith she talks about.

Then why have a contract? She signed 16 pages of contract that said she could not have posed nude or SEMI NUDE. The rest of the girls signed it too. If Trump thinks posing nude is ok....then throw the rule out.
This is like when Clinton said he NEVER HAD SEX WITH THAT WOMAN. He did have sex unless you dont think oral sex is sex. Which at this point I wouldnt be surprised if you thought that. Your a man and obviously you fall into the same boat with those men who think looking at lustful pictures are ok. You justify it anyway you can. She got into the outfit she did for that photo shoot and she knew what she was doing.
I wonder if she was posing for the magazine Christianity Today, that she would wear outfits like this? She isnt nude remember.
ARe you talking about yourself here? LOL Cause you dont think they are bad, she isnt nude remember. LOL
Just like a man I tell ya.

reply from: Faramir

If two parties are in a contract and one of them is satisfied the other one behaved in line with the contract, then what business is that of anyone else?
Again, she's being villified because she "a gay basher."
What is outrageous is the meanspirited retaliation.
A couple of accidental "nipple photos" means she is very bad and a hypocrite and threfore her comments about marriage don't count.

reply from: Yuuki

You don't have to show nipples for it to be nude.
SEMI nude was also a no-no. And showing as much as she did in even the first VERY obviously posed picture is enough to qualify as a semi-nude image.

reply from: Faramir

Someone link to the part of the contract she allegedly violated.
I haven't seen the contract yet or how the contract defines "nude."
But apparently those who are villifiying her have succeeded. They want to change the subject to her instead of her message. They are using this insiginficant issue as a way to shut her up.

reply from: scopia19822

Most contracts of this nature have a morality clause in them. I would like to see the contract as well. However while I commend her for actually giving an articulate answer to the gay marriage question, she has done something that makes her a bad role model and she should have lost her crown. It would have been one thing if she expressed repentence and regret for her actions , but she has not and that makes a difference. Now she is coming out in the media as a hypocrite.

reply from: Yuuki

They don't like her or her message. Well I don't anyway.

reply from: scopia19822

She posed indecently, she should have lost her crown.

reply from: carolemarie

I am glad she gets to keep the scholarships and the endorsements she won by being Ms. California.
So all is well that ends well.
And cosmetic surgery is allowed, this contest is about being pretty meat, and if you need to adjust the meat to make that mark, then go for it.....
she is a pretty woman.....i have more issues with the contest in general and the attitude that women are to be judeged on their looks rather than their accomplishments....it is very sexist

reply from: churchmouse

This was a pageant contract and all the girls had to sign it.
So do they all have to follow it, or should Trump make exceptions?
Vanessa Williams had to give up her crown. And Trump made Miss Nevada give up her state title. She probaby was not beautiful enough.
I think people are picking on her now because of the pics. Because they caught her red handed in a lie. That trumps what she said at the pageant. The pictures where there.......what she did is coming back to haunt her. But hey she will be more famous because she bucked the system that most of us have to follow. When we sign legal contracts we are held accountable. She has been rewarded.
THEY WERE NOT ACCIDENTAL NIPPLE PHOTOS. lol
I am with scopia on this one. She should have lost her crown. She should have admitted wrong and made it right.
She then could have been taken more seriously about her stance on same sex marriage.
I think Trump wants in her pants sorry.......maybe hes lookin for wife number three !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he only stays married for so long to one woman.

reply from: scopia19822

The lesson that young girls will learn from this is that if you are pretty enough you can get away with anything. A good role model for young girls Like Vanessa Williams who was way prettier IMHO had to give up her crown. I have to agree with Churchmouse. I think Trump wants in her pants.

reply from: carolemarie

Pretty girls already know they can get away with stuff and rich people know they can get away with murder, (OJ, Cullen Davis....)
I think Trump let her keep the crown to silence those who were screaming she lost the USA title due to gay marriage.

reply from: Faramir

I'm not going to judge whether a contract is violated unless I see the actual wording of the contract.
Then it is up to the party who has been harmed by the contract violation do deal with it as they see fit.
This was a beauty contest and not an election to an office.
What is most troubling to me is that nobody would have cared at all about those photos. They are only an issue because she offended Mr. Gay Judge, and they surfaced as a form of retaliation and to shut her up.
"You say marriage is between a man and a woman. Really? Lookee here. We have pictures of your nipples. Naughty girl. You do bad things too, so whatever you say doesn't count."

reply from: scopia19822

OJ may have gotten away with murder but not robbery. He is in jail now.

reply from: churchmouse

And you forgot one big thing. Her answer was based on her faith in god particularly Christianity. And people like some here....love to bash Christians because they are not perfect.
Miss California lied and we all know it. If you watch even the conservative television stations they laugh about this. She lied, Trump lied.........and its a terrible lesson because she is NOT CREDIBLE.
Shana Moeckler resigned and I give her a lot of credit........because she could not go back to California and pretend this was not a sham, a lie. She was upset that Carrie did not take responsiblity for what she did.....she blamed everyone....the wind, the photographer.....etc.
The bigger picture has nothing to do with what she said that night about gay marriage. And I agree with what she said.
Its about stepping up and taking responsiblity for your actions EVEN IF THEY ARE BAD. She did not do this, because anyone with a brain and eyes can see those shots were posed. THEY WERE POSED and she got caught and the photos bit her in her fantastically beautiful behind. LOL
She is a liar and no role model.

reply from: carolemarie

yeah, perhaps she should have said she was for gay marriage, since she posed for the pics, and you can only say you are a christian if you are perfect?????
If you thought she did good speaking up about her opinion on gay marriage then you should still be glad she said it, even if she isn't 100 percent consistant in her life on her beliefs...

reply from: iCelebr8Life

It is presumptuous and self-serving for her to say that was the reason she didn't win. Her answer was definitely not articulate. In fact, she didn't directly answer the question. The question was inappropriate and Perez Hilton is himself a graceless and insulting person.
Just because someone calls herself a Christian, and talks some almost Christian sounding rhetoric, but dresses and acted like a Jezebel, be careful about calling her a role-model.
That matters not. Why is this even on a pro-life forum? She is not promoting carrying a child to term. Who knows? The next scandal might be that she had an abortion. God forgive me.

reply from: Faramir

She's a gay rights activist, so her resigning might be sour grapes.

reply from: carolemarie

Christians have abortions almost in higher numbers than non christians.....
having had an abortion doesn't make you not a Christian.

reply from: nancyu

Carole are you saying that it is a "matter of opinion" that taking a human being's life is a human rights violation?

reply from: 4choice4all

Geez Scopia.....the civil war wasn't about slavery (therefore the confederate flag isn't racist) and now shuck n jive....eek, I'm guessing you are not black?
I don't agree with her position...I do agree she had the right to state it...and I think people have the right to disagree with her and engage her in debate over that issue.

reply from: scopia19822

"Geez Scopia.....the civil war wasn't about slavery (therefore the confederate flag isn't racist) and now shuck n jive....eek, I'm guessing you are not black? "
I have no clue what you are referring too. I do agree that while slavery was an issue it was not the only issue.My ancestors fought for the Confederacy and I have a coffee mug with the rebel flag. I am not "black ". I am Irish, English , Spanish and French and part black as my maternal grandfather was a quadroon who "passed"

reply from: Cecilia

did everyone see she lost her crown?
did everyone see the emails from this 'role model'? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525726,00.html

reply from: sander

Did everyone see what a jackass you are? Did everyone see you rejoicing in someone else's pain?
Maybe you'll luck out and nobody will pay any attention to you...

reply from: 4choice4all

From what I gather....she deserved to be stripped.

reply from: Cecilia

Did everyone see what a jackass you are? Did everyone see you rejoicing in someone else's pain?
Maybe you'll luck out and nobody will pay any attention to you...
rejoicing? i might be having a glass of merlot but that is not a celebration over a homophobic beauty queen losing her crown.
it's the news. don't be such a prolife 'stereotype' (profane names).

reply from: sander

Did everyone see what a jackass you are? Did everyone see you rejoicing in someone else's pain?
Maybe you'll luck out and nobody will pay any attention to you...
rejoicing? i might be having a glass of merlot but that is not a celebration over a homophobic beauty queen losing her crown.
it's the news. don't be such a prolife 'stereotype' (profane names).
Don't be a proabort, leftist, extremist 'stereotype' and stop acting like a jackass.

reply from: 4choice4all

Sander....is it even possible for you to express an opinion about the Carrie Prejean dethroning?

reply from: sander

Of course it's possible.
I don't know if you've noticed, but this is a PRO-LIFE website....I only responded to someone just chomping at the bit to spread some bad news about another person.
I'm not surprised, you people live off of the demise of others.

reply from: 4choice4all

A prolifer actually started the thread...and 15 pages required more than just prochoice individuals talking.

reply from: yoda

Gay Rights Group Tells President Obama That His Pro-DOMA Legal Brief Caused LGBT Community Pain
June 15, 2009 2:53 PM
The Obama Justice Department last week wrote a brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which as a candidate then-Sen. Obama called "abhorrent."
The brief, which compared in legal terms same-sex marriages to incestuous ones, has met with some anger in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, among others.
Today Joe Solmonese, the president of the LGBT rights organization the Human Rights Campaign, wrote to the Presidentexpressing the feeling that "when your administration filed a brief defending the constitutionality of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act, I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours. I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you."
Solmonese took issue with the Obama Justice Department's use of "the well-worn argument that excluding same-sex couples from basic protections is somehow good for other married people." (The brief said that "Because all 50 States recognize hetero-sexual marriage, it was reasonable and rational for Congress to maintain its longstanding policy of fostering this traditional and universally-recognized form of marriage.")
full article: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/gay-rights-group-tells-president-obama-that-his-pro-doma-legal-brief-caused-lgbt-community-pain.html

reply from: sander

Why is no one accusing me of supporting gay marriage and questioning my sincerity on this issue?
Because nobody cares.
ew, was that the sound of a bubble just bursting....

reply from: 4choice4all

Well said CP.
In American politics...you basically get 2 choices. We have no viable 3rd parties....so you essentially get to pick one of two people. It's absurd to think that you are going to agree with a candidate 100%. I voted for Obama. I actually heavily campaigned for him once Palin was chosen as a running mate. I was thrilled that he won. I probably agree with him 50% of the time. I'm so far left I'm falling over the edge and he is WAY WAY too moderate for my tastes.

reply from: faithman

http://www.lifedynamics.com/Abortion_Information/Pro-life_Product/maafa.cfm

reply from: sander

Why should I be denied the opportunity to bring you a news flash now and then....
sheesh

reply from: faithman

http://www.lifedynamics.com/Abortion_Information/Pro-life_Product/maafa.cfm

reply from: faithman

Click here http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=MAAFA+21&aq=f to watch clips of MAAFA 21.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Do you believe intolerance should be tolerated? People of ALL political parties are intolerant of something. Would you honestly care about her losing the crown if the question had been about interracial marriage and she opposed it?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics