This thread makes me want to protest gay marriage... Not because I think it's wrong (I think they have the same right to marriage as the rest of us), but because you fucking idiots and especially Perez Hilton are so fucking self-righteous (oh, sweet irony) that you make me sick.

Her statement was innocuous and rather benign. Why is it so fucking bad to acknowledge that others' beliefs differ than yours when faith is involved?

This world makes me sick. One side is just as self-righteous as the other.

I'm not defending Hilton, but I think it should be noted that gay marriage was one of many issues that all the contestants got to study and prepare for.  Prejean claims she was nervous about that issue and was hoping that wasn't the question she got.  Then she got to actually choose which judge asked her a question, and she chose the flamboyant gay celebrity blogger.  She might have wanted that question for some reason.  The controversy will make people remember her more than they remember the winner.

I think half the fuss about this is that "the gay guy asked the gay question."  I didn't even know who this Hilton guy was before this mess, he seems like internet paparazzi scum, and I might never hear of him again.  He says he wanted her to not decide one way or the other and her only right answer was "each state should decide for itself," so as not to alienate either side on the issue.  So now he's asking riddles about states' rights instead of direct questions about equal civil rights.  At a beauty pageant.

Either way, this was a dumb event owned by Donald Trump and highlighting Jessica Simpsons's swimwear line (so she's a designer now?), this is the best press they've had since those other winners tripped and fell over and looked stupid and that other moron talked about maps and the Iraq, and all that came out of it is Hilton made himself look like an idiot for calling her "a dumb bitch" on his "celebrity blog" and he made the whole gay marriage movement look like snotty spiteful dickwads, and Prejean has now become a triumphant hero of Fox News and the anti-gay community.

Just what we need, more blonde models on Fox telling the rest of us what God wants.

I think I should've made it clear earlier when I said I think she's dumb, that I think Hilton definitely came off as far worse and the obvious bad guy in this story.

But I don't think I'm being self-righteous or a fucking idiot when I argue for secular law being completely separate from religious law.  Matters of faith can do whatever they want as long as they don't dictate the law.

You don't know who Perez Hilton is? Really? The guy is a fucking douchebag blogger who made his name by trashing people over the most minute of infractions. He's been doing it for years.

I never called you self-righteous (though you are, same as I). I merely pointed out that the people who choose to look down on her for pointing out her opinions are no better than her for making that (IMO, bloody stupid) comment. In fact, many are worse.

And going for the "secular law" vs. "religious law" argument is folly. It's no different than my arguing that I think socialized medicine is bullshit. Different ideals, different opinions. Faith is universal; whether you put it under organized religion is no different than socialism, which is no different than Libertarianism, and that's no different than Communism. We're all the same.

I had no idea who Perez Hilton was. I always thought people were mispelling Paris Hilton as some kind of insult.

I guess I'm not up on the gay fashion / celebrity critics.

I sure as hell hope not, if she did that is just bad form from the gay communities…I mean its not like she said she didn’t think as a society we should have it, it was just her personal opinion and belief to not go with it, thank god she has her own opinion….wait its not our opinion…well that is just wrong

But gays aren't just offended that they can't get married, there's also an injustice being done upon them. If we legalized gay marriage lots of people would be offended. But you've got to ask yourself, is satisfying the majority, who have no real reason to be against gay marriage except their own subjective views on what marriage should be, fairer than satisfying gay people, who just want equal rights?

What if I want to get married? Why should I be forced to call it something else just to mentally satisfy those with some stupid complex about how marriage is sacred? It's their problem, not mine. Legalizing gay marriage would be a good thing for the gay community. We could feel like normal citizens, instead of second class citizens.

Calling gay marriages 'civil unions' just to satisfy those with bigoted, unfounded views, on why THEIR definition for marriage is correct, is not to me equal rights. Your whole argument "historically marriage has been between different genders and should stay that way so people with a silly complex don't get offended". My argument "Gays do not have equal rights, and they should". Which argument is honestly better? You can't possibly think yours is.

What you're doing is in the same realm as saying black people shouldn't be called people or citizens, they should be called beople and bitizens, even though they have equal rights. Would that be fair? No. That would be wrong. This, while less drastic, is the same type of thing. Gays are getting treated like they are less than.

But she said, "in my country". She worded it very wrong, and she's in a pagent where you're supposed to be pretty and say the right things. She is pretty, but she said the wrongs things. She sounds like she has some cognitive dissonance...

Yes, we all have faith in something. I have faith in facts. The facts are there's no valid reason on why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed.

Sad to see that she may have lost due to the intolerance of others.

I got rid of the last two paragraphs.  They were based once again on your assertion that my view is bigoted, yours is not, and that this bares any relation to the race debate, which again is simply a leftist association falsely generated in an attempt to frame the debate.

So....bolded one.  Do you not realise what you're doing?  Because of YOUR own SUBJECTIVE views, you wish to change marriage from something it has been for millenia, devaluing it for billions of people around the world. 

Bolded two.  It has already been established that homosexuals (under the model I am discussing, which exists in some countries) have the same rights as heterosexuals do.  You can argue that they want more, but on paper their rights are completely equivelant.

Bolded three.  I thought this last line was extremely interesting.  Are you suggesting that too feel normal- that for a homosexual person to feel normal- they must see themselves as being accepted into an inherently heterosexual institution?  There are a great many things that would be a good thing for the gay community, ninty per cent of which I support.  But the one you're suggesting is one you fight for simply to score some tokenistic victory over the religious right.  And as someone who values marriage as it stands, along with the views of the vast majority of human beings on this earth, I don't believe you're political pointscoring is worth giving up something that is extremely important to a whole lot more people, when there is no practical advantage to be gained for homosexuals.