What I don't understand is how you go from a question about homosexuality to a question about bailouts. ???????????????? Yes, I know that homosexuality & gay rights are a huge thing in America, but talk about the broadest spectrum!

"Do you think tax payer money should be used to help bail out struggling companies?" While I understand the "good aspects" of bailouts, you have to be an idiot to support it as a whole. What if she would have said yes? Would she have been booed like Carrie Prejean? No. People would have laughed and said, "Har har har, you're stupid! You dumb blonde!"

The questions went from moral to ethical and THAT's what wasn't fair. They should have both been asked the same question, and not been allowed to hear each others answer.

You may or may not not agree what she said, but everyone has different opinions when it comes to gay marriage. I agree with it, I mean why not? Heterosexuals don't take it seriously. Anyway, she was asked a question from a gay man and of course he isn't going to like her answer. You can't stone her to death for her answer if you agree with it or not. There were other questions and Perez decided to ask that question. If you ask me, he put her in tough spot.

I do not agree w/ what the USA pageant contestant at all, but I would rather her saying what she did than lying and said that she was FOR gay marriage b/c that's what we need, another liar. *snorts*

While I disagree w/ her completely, it is her RIGHT to her opinion. Yes I find it intolerant and uneducated and untrue, but as that is MY right to believe that of her, so is it HERS to believe that gay marriage shouldn't be legal.

God will I rejoice in the day that this isn't a hot topic anymore. -__-

Although Perez really needs to stfu. God he's annoying as hell.

I fail to see how someone believing that marriage is one man+one woman is intolerant and uneducated. What IS intolerant is saying that she is intolerant because of her beliefs. Just by the fact that she believes in their right to believe differently than her shows far more tolerance and education than the majority of the people in this thread. Being tolerant doesn't mean that you have to agree with everyone else on any one particular issue. It SIMPLY means that you have to respect their right to believe differently than you. She is allowing others to believe differently than her (which is more than can be said for Perez Hilton...along with many others in this thread), which shows her to be VERY tolerant.

And in case people disagree with the definition of tolerance:
showing respect for the rights or opinions or practices of others

She showed respect even in her disagreement. How many of YOU who disagree with her can say the same thing? I don't count many at all.

I fail to see the point of this. I have a problem w/ what she believes in, not b/c she said it. And yes, it's more than can be said for Perez but he's a retard to begin w/ anyways.

But you called her intolerant and uneducated because of her belief. Her belief is not intolerant, based on the true definition of intolerant. And uneducated just because she doesn't agree with you? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Just because you have a problem with what someone believes doesn't make then intolerant or uneducated. Calling her intolerant because you disagree with her is what is actually intolerant.

.... They very reason why I disagree w/ her is b/c I find her intolerant, so what else am I s'posed to call her? Your sentences are making my head spin.

Intolerance: 1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.

I respect her opinion, I find HER opinion intolerant.

"unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs"

Ok, so tell me where she refused to tolerate or respect beliefs contrary to hers? SHE DIDN'T!! And THAT is the point I am TRYING to make here. You don't have to AGREE with someone in order to respect their opinion. Her beliefs do NOT make her intolerant. If she were to tell you that you have no right to believe the way you do, THAT would be intolerant.

HOW is that concept so difficult to understand?

....

I'm not going to run around w/ you in circles. I know what I was saying, you apparently just didn't get it. Inherent beliefs will not be changed by arguments made on the internet.

I know what you were saying, but I also know that what you were saying is that unless they agree with you, they are intolerant. Which proves she is not the uneducated one, but you.

Have a nice day.

The trouble with this issue is that those FOR gay marriage see those who oppose it to be uneducated. The truth is, most people who disagree with it ARE educated, but value different beliefs. I do not support nor recognize gay marriage. However, I have come to this decision because I accept the teachings of my faith regardless of who find these teachings "fair." My beliefs are not dictated by majority rule or popularity, but God's word and conviction. Would the Christian life be easier if God said homosexual behavior is acceptable? Yes! But He doesn't. Regardless of what this means to others, God's word is FACT to me. For true Christians, God's word stands alone as the only standard of morality, period. Until this principle is accepted and understood, a person cannot define themselves as tolerant.

nor can they call themselves educated!
Great way to word this.

The only reason that's it's difficult for me to use the Bible as a reference, despite it's historical importance, is because God's mood seems to be inconsistent. That, or the prophets who wrote it got it all wrong. God is filled with anger, hatred, spite, and wrath - old testament. He's filled with love, compassion, understanding, and tolerance - new testament.

In the NEW testament, he seems to be loving and understanding, but still carries his old-testament-disdain for anyone who hasn't gotten to their comfortable point of faith.

Getting more to the point, it seems the scriptures written on homosexual relations are ambiguous.

Romans 13:1-2 (NIV): "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

Seems that the only thing preventing gay marriage is the LEGAL SYSTEM.

There is nothing in the scripture that forbids two men or two women to be wed under God.

But given the numerous verses that warn against homosexual behavior (Old and New Testament), shouldn't it be implied that gay marriage is null? And what about the verses that do describe marriage as being between a man and a woman?

If there is a verse that specifically says that marriage is between a man and a women, then I must have skipped over it. Everything else is ambiguous.

Marriage perhaps, however, it does state that a man should not lay with a man as he does a woman (and the opposite can be said as well). I take it you don't believe that to mean sex?

You won't find a verse that says marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman, nor will you find a verse that says "gay people cannot marry," but this is inferred because of other contextual verses condemning homosexual behavior. That is - if you assume marriage involves sex (which is also supported in scripture - Song of Songs is one place to start).

In many portions of Biblical history, marriage was not sanctioned by the government in the first place - heterosexual or homosexual. But that's another topic entirely.

The bible condemns a lot of things. We still do them on a regular basis. Do you believe it should be legal to divorce? Do you believe it should be legal to lie? Why would it matter if two people who you're never going to meet marry?

*illegal, on both counts.

Technically, from what I remember, it doesn't condemn divorce. Christ frowned upon it, but from what I remember (and my memory is 5 years old at this point for this kinda stuff), it wasn't something that was as controversial as homosexuality.

Matthew 19:8-9 - Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

That's pretty much what I've gathered on the point of divorce.

I stand corrected. ^_^ 5 years and then 2 hours of sleep really don't make me intelligent. ^_^;;;;

One of the basic tenets of Christianity is that human beings will never meet the standard of perfection that God requires. So you are correct - we're all sinners despite what we know to be right or wrong.

Taking the government out of marriage (and all moral issues!) entirely would remove the necessity of legality, which is why I fully support the idea.

To answer your last question, I'll remind you that to a Christian, there is but one source of Truth, and that is the word of God. This Truth is absolute, therefore it matters very much to me that I stand up for what I believe (regardless of whether I meet the individuals involved or not). Quite honestly, homosexual behavior will continue whether gay marriage is legal or not - so this debate doesn't matter too much in the grand scheme of sinfulness.

When I saw you responded to my post, I figured it would be the point where we both have laid down our bare-and-basic opinions, no facts. I figured it would be the point where no further argument could have been made, and we would have to agree to disagree.

I was wrong. Two polar-opposite opinions boil down to an agreement.

Back on topic, yes, I fully support the idea of the government completely taken out of marriage. The government could set up their own system of civil companionship that mimics the benefits they currently have set up for marriage. Marriage has always been a religious thing, but I do believe that everyone should have the same legal rights to marriage as the people who are able to marry.

I see two compromises. One of which has already been mentioned, or government legalizes gay marriage and leave it up to the individual church to decide whom they want to marry.