“Well I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other,” she said. “We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No 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. Thank you very much.”

These were the words that may have cost Miss California the title of Miss America. Now before anyone goes off on a temper tantrum let me ask everyone regardless of what side of the issue you presently hold what was so offensive about her statement. She was asked a direct question and she gave her own opinion in which there was not even a hint of hatred, animosity or evil intention. What did they expect her to say, "I am all for it," if in fact she was as her stated opinion that she personally believed marriage was between a man and woman. This is her belief, her values, her model for her life and it is unbelievable to me personally that those (gay community) who always scream for tolerance are so intolerant of another's opinion that is contrary to their values and moral standards.

If anything those who call for tolerance should be the first ones to demonstrate that quality of which they expect and even demand from others. Anything less than that just proves you to be the hypocrite maybe even the bigot you claim others are because they are opposed to your views. Come on America let the woman have her opinion, let her have her values and you know what when a person has values and morals or a set of beliefs that is contrary to our own that doesn't give us the right to punish them for those beliefs it should cause us to rejoice that in our nation we have the right to have an opinion and state them openly. That is called democracy and that is what our soldiers shed their blood to protect.

They also said that she was to represent all of america though.. personally i dont think she should of been asked such a thing at all, because america.. or the world really goes both ways.

I don't think that this was an accidental event. This was done on purpose to bring forth the response that was given only to get his cause and his name in the limelight.

his?

Perez Hilton...he know what he was fishing for and he got it.

perhaps, but hes a gossip mill anyway

They also said that she was to represent all of america though...

And? America as a whole just elected a president who has gone on record being against same-sex "marriage."

yes, and thats fine. but as i said the country as a whole, goes both ways.

Hmmm... I disagree that there wasn't a hint of hatred in her response. Sure, she said it in a nice and respectful way, but being a non-supporter of same-sex marriage promotes hatred, exclusion, intolerance and disrespect towards the gay community.

Of course, I agree with you that we should be respectful of her opinion. I mean, jumping down her throat isn't looking at the big picture and it isn't going to change anything anyway. I think we should be respectful of her opinion, but challenge the overarching hate and intolerance imbedded in what she said.

Now, I don't know anything about Perez Hilton or what he said, but I just wanted to throw that out there. :)

I don't think that's true at all. Being against same-sex marriage could mean that you believe your religion should be respected. It doesn't necessarily mean that you hate homosexuals.

Good point. Although I didn't mean to imply that being against same-sex marriage means you hate homosexuals - but I think being against same-sex marriage is disrespectful and intolerant because it means that you believe the GLBTQ community doesn't deserve the same rights as heteresexual people... that's what I meant to get accross in my previous post. :)

The thing is marriage is not a right.

Back when marriage was invented, not everyone had a right to marry. Women were forced to marry, etc. It's a religious thing that the government should have nothing to do with, and it should be up to the specific church who they will and won't marry.

Although I didn't mean to imply that being against same-sex marriage means you hate homosexuals - but I think being against same-sex marriage is disrespectful and intolerant because it means that you believe the GLBTQ community doesn't deserve the same rights as heteresexual people...

Here's another false dichotomy: you're assuming that everyone who believes that homosexuality is wrong and same-sex "marriage" invalid is automatically in favor of stripping rights from homosexuals. Did you ever stop to consider that perhaps the issue isn't as simplistic as that? For example, I believe that civil government should get out of the marriage business entirely. If that were to happen, then this alleged "right" wouldn't be trampled upon.

"I think being against same-sex marriage is disrespectful and intolerant because it means that you believe the GLBTQ community doesn't deserve the same rights as heteresexual people"

Not true. I, as a heterosexual, cannot legally marry a man (in my state) just as well as a homosexual man cannot. Seems like we both share the same right not to marry a member of the same sex to me. He can get married, just as I have. Just not to another man. But, then again, neither could I, if I were of the mind to do so.

Hmmm... I disagree that there wasn't a hint of hatred in her response. Sure, she said it in a nice and respectful way, but being a non-supporter of same-sex marriage promotes hatred, exclusion, intolerance and disrespect towards the gay community.

So anyone who has moral/ethical objections to homosexuality is automatically considered to be "promoting hatred" toward homosexuals? I don't particularly like smoking and I think it ought to be banned from restaurants. Does that mean that I'm promoting "hatred, exclusion, intolerance and disrespect" toward the smoking community?

It's very interesting that you accuse us of such conduct, especially after Perez Hilton's very hateful rant on YouTube against Miss California. But that's okay because he's a homosexual, right?

After re-reading what I wrote, the word "hatred" is too strong. But yes, I do believe that those who object to homosexuality are being disrespectful of homosexuals. You're right though, it's not that simplistic for everyone... and both you and Lady Anonmyous Source make a very good point that the government shouldn't have anything to do with it. That's never even crossed my mind before, but it makes sense. :)

I just wanted to make the point though that I don't think homosexuality and smoking are comparable... I mean, smoking should be banned from restaurants because it affects the health of the other people there - but I can't think of any way that two people of the same sex getting married can negatively affect other people in society. So I don't think banning smoking in restaurants is disrespectful, but preventing two people from expressing their love through marriage is.

Oh and I haven't seen Perez Hilton's video about Miss California... but obviously it's not ok for him to be hateful just because he's a homosexual. I'm not sure where that comment came from, I definitely never said anything like that.

Anyway, we could probably go back and forth about this forever and we would never come to an agreement - this is one of those debates that society isn't going to resolve for a long time! :P

But yes, I do believe that those who object to homosexuality are being disrespectful of homosexuals.

I take umbrage at this statement because I see it as a cheap shot to avoid actually discussing the issue itself. You're talking about people you don't even know and accusing them of being malacious simply because of what they believe. How is that not bigotry? Homosexuals don't like it when people make generalizations about them. Christians ought to have the same courtesy.

I do my best every day to treat everyone with the respect they deserve, homosexual or not. Everyone is created in the image of God and this fact doesn't escape me when I'm discussing this particular topic. I don't disrespect homosexuals any more than I disrespect people who engage in pre-marital sex, commit adultery, or any other sexual sin. To disagree with someone's behavior doesn't mean you disrespect them.

I just wanted to make the point though that I don't think homosexuality and smoking are comparable...

I never said that homosexuality and smoking are comparable. That wasn't the point of my analogy. I was simply making the point that disapproval of a particular behavior--whatever it happens to me--doesn't equal hatred of the individual engaging in said behavior. You implied that it was.

So I don't think banning smoking in restaurants is disrespectful, but preventing two people from expressing their love through marriage is.

Why do homosexuals require state sanction in order to express their "love" for each other?

Why do homosexuals require state sanction in order to express their "love" for each other?

That is a very good point!

"Why do homosexuals require state sanction in order to express their "love" for each other?"

Then by this same argument, why do straight people require state sanction in order to express their "love" for each other?

Then by this same argument, why do straight people require state sanction in order to express their "love" for each other?

Exactly. That's why I favor getting civil government out of the marriage business entirely.

I wasn't talking about Christians specifically when I said that, just people in general who object to homosexuality.

And it's not that homosexuals require state sanction to express their love, it's the fact that they can't if they want to. But heteresexual people can, if they wish.

And I totally get the point that disagreeing with someone's behaviour doesn't mean you disrespect them. But in my mind, not allowing two people of the same sex to marry is more than just disagreeing with their behaviour, you know?

I wasn't talking about Christians specifically when I said that, just people in general who object to homosexuality.

Well you were talking about Christians indirectly since that's where most of the political opposition is coming from in the first place. Basically, you're generalizing an entire group of people, Christian or not, by questioning their motives concerning why they oppose same-sex "marriage." Apparently it's okay to question our motives, but yours are sacrosanct. That is the message I'm getting from you.

And it's not that homosexuals require state sanction to express their love, it's the fact that they can't if they want to. But heteresexual people can, if they wish.

Then why not say that in the first place instead of bringing this arbitrary defintion of "love" into the picture? And maybe some homosexual couples don't get "married" for love for the same reason many heterosexual couples don't. We aren't talking about an expression of love, but a legal institution. In full disclosure, my position has been that we ought to eliminate marriage as a legal institution altogether. I think that's the only reasonable alternative to the status quo.

But in my mind, not allowing two people of the same sex to marry is more than just disagreeing with their behaviour, you know?

No, I don't. I see nothing disrespectful about the state upholding the true definition of marriage.

Um... question: Where did she say "Christians" exactly? You assume she meant Christians. They are not the only religious set to disagree with same sex marriage.

Um... question: Where did she say "Christians" exactly? You assume she meant Christians. They are not the only religious set to disagree with same sex marriage.

That's true, but in almost every instance the ire of the far-Left is aimed at Christians. Moreover, the vast majority of the political opposition to same-sex "marriage" has come from conservative Christians.

I don't see why it's a big deal that she said it, if that's the way she feels that's fine. I disagree with her opinion, but she's entitled to it. As for it costing her the competition, I suppose it's up to the judges to determine who wins it, so if they feel that opinion disqualifies her, oh well, she'll have to go to a different competition where the sentiment isn't a factor.