Perez Hilton loses Pageant for Miss CA

[Correction]

Where I live, a child parented in an orphanage would be subjected to untold amounts of ridicule by his peers, would almost certainly not be accepted, and would remain ostracized in many parts of the area for as long as he or she remained.

Kids find any reason to make fun of outsiders, so somehow thinking of their protection from schoolyard bullying is fanciful and empty at best. In your precious bible belt it's probably illegal for gays to adopt anyway so those children can sleep safe and sound in their state-supplied beds.

[Melchiah]

Melchiah, I get it, you don't want the poor kids of homo parents to get picked on. It sucks you live in a place where this would be the biggest deal ever, but honestly dude - there isn't a 6th grade class in the country of America that says "Oh, you have two gay-ass dads? Yeah, we're liberal here in these parts, I'm not going to make fun of you."

Kids are brutal. Everywhere. Shit isn't sunshine and roses outside of Alabama either. However, growing up with two gay parents is a social cakewalk compared to growing up, ya know, actually gay. Gay parents acutely know this much more succinctly than you ever will, because they had to deal with it too.

This is probably a fair statement, and I might very well be wrong in my assessment of the issue at large. Do you think the stigma of having two gay parents would lead to a perception of homosexuality in the child that might be tangent to the stigma associated with the child actually growing up gay? I think that's something worth considering, at the least.

I'm sure that where you're from, if you have one black parent and one white parent you get plenty of ignorant hicks making sideways or even direct comments, kids making fun of you, etc. etc.

Given that "difficult" upbringing and the racial confusion that follows, do you also advocate against multi-racial parentage in backwater conservative states like your own?

Multiracial households are more accepted here than homosexuals, so I think it's fair to say that the associated stigma would be different. It is an excellent counter-argument though Archie, and it's given me something else to think about.

Also the whole tax breaks thing...is just an odd stance to take unless you're going to point to specifics that address financial concerns of straight couples with children that gay couples with children wouldn't have.

Oh, and the whole "having a kid to legitimize your gay relationship" is probably the most beautiful, majestic 50-foot strawman I've ever seen on here. Do you know a single gay couple that has done this?

eh... I can't point directly to a gay couple that I know personally with this type of attitude, and I'd like to point out that that statement was originally intended to include both sexual orientations. Maybe some of you think I'm way off base, but I know more than a few people who put their lives on a nice little schedule, and their kids started out as additions to the glass curio of these people's lives, and turned into real people afterward. Furthermore, when you have mouthpieces like Perez Hilton, yeah I wouldn't think twice about including people like him in the category of parent currently being discussed.

@Eternityend:

Nice response. Got any more quip where that came from?

Edit: Weren't you "done" with this thread like... A page ago? Classic attention whore move.

I was through with this discussion, until I realized Archie thought I was being a dick to him, which he didn't deserve. I felt I needed to clear that up. Furthermore, I was dragged back into this discussion by ignorant apes twisting my words around and basically bullshitting what I originally said. Lastly, you call me an attention whore in the same breath that you basically call me out to say something else. That's about as oxymoronic as your name.

[EternityEnd]

Except I wasn't saying you were an attention whore because you now respond, I said it because you said you were leaving a thread. Only attention whores who utterly lose arguments say such things.

You're just backpedaling because you know those "ignorant apes" are taking direct quotes and slaughtering you with them. I love how you respond to nothing I say, except my comments on you being an attention whore. As for my name, it's rather obviously intentional.

[Skjie]

I grew up in Canada's bible belt. We have the most Churches (and Temples!) in the country and I'll tell you, if one of the kids I went to school with had gay parents, as long as they brought cookies like the other parents, I wouldn't have given a shit. There are people who are seriously against gay marriage in that city, but they understand that it's beyond them now and there are more important things.

Though, when there was the cities first pride parade last year, it's was fairly hilarious...

[archibaldcrane]

Maybe some of you think I'm way off base

No, you're close to base, because you're trying to use your brain. You just need a little more nudging to get fully on base, you'll be there soon.

[kuronosan]

It's my experience that homosexuality is still taboo in my region of the country. It's fair to say that I live in a bigoted environment, and I'll go right ahead and tell you that everyone is bigoted about something, even those of you who are straight and proudly bearing the banner for gay rights in order to earn cool points. But I digress.

I'm glad you did. This was an extremely ignorant statement.

I was raised Catholic, which as everyone knows is the religion that spearheads the anti-gay sentiment after it branched off into sects. I don't bear the banner for gay rights to earn cool points. I advocate them because it's the right thing to do and every human has a right to exist and find happiness and, if they choose, marry, have children, and do as they will to obtain that happiness so long as it coincides with the laws set forth by the government.

In short, if the government approves gay marriage, there is NO reason they should not be allowed to do it. The only reason they haven't is because of crybaby conservatives who believe that religion should govern our choices and not our conscience.

Where I live, a child parented by homosexuals would be subjected to untold amounts of ridicule by his peers, would almost certainly not be accepted, and would remain ostracized in many parts of the area for as long as he or she remained.

And the same thing happened to blacks, and mexicans, and jews, and japanese, and anyone else who has ever been persecuted. You know what changed that? People NOT being bigoted. You can't call people selfish for wanting to raise children that way. It's not their fault, it's the fault of the parents who teach their children to be bigoted towards gays.

To qualify my position: None of these things are the fault of either the child or the homosexual parents in the least. Any person willing to give a good home to another person's child is a saint. However nice it is to assume altruism in people who represent a cause we want to believe in, people at heart are selfish animals regardless of sexual preference. As that relates to the issue at hand, children are many times viewed as a manner of legitimizing a household, or worse, an acquisition of a personal goal by both hetero- and homosexuals.

This I agree with.

For a homosexual couple adopt a child out of a sense of responsibility or a desire to give a child a good home is a good thing. However, subjecting a child to the sort of ridicule and excessive social awkwardness that would happen here in the bible belt is something that any rational or feeling person would have to weigh against their personal desires.

Or, perhaps the 'bible belt' should take it upon themselves to listen to the one rational thing their savior told them and that was to love their neighbors as they would want to be loved. That being said, anyone rational would understand that to mean love the sinner and not the sin.

Subjecting others to persecution just because their behavior abhors you is not a judgment you are allowed to make.

Furthermore, my comments on the selfishness issue were meant to read that there are homosexuals who genuinely want to provide a good home for a disadvantaged kid and in addition there are those who just want to validate themselves through adding a child to their collection. I never said that every homosexual couple who wants children is in it for selfish reasons, so please just stop trying to put words in my mouth.

Everyone seeks validation in some way. I think it's more selfish for people to teach their kids to hate those that are different than it is for someone to want to validate their relationship by having children in it. They're not allowed to get married. They can't physically have children (unless they're female). Adopting a child so that they feel like a family is not selfish. It's human.

...but frankly you need to stop painting the world in black and white. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are a bigot or even that they are in direct opposition to you. Grow up.

I understand you don't like their remarks... but rereading some of what you have said has clearly illustrated to me that you see the world in shades of black and white.

[Yuri-G]

No, I do not think it is selfish for a homosexual couple to want to give an orphan a home. I think it's selfish for them to adopt a child to try to validate their partnership.

So as long as their heart is in the right place, you support gay adoption? Which means you support gay marriage, since your only real argument against it was the part with the kids?

Glad we're on the same page! I wouldn't want people validating their relationship with kids either. Good thing that never happens with straight couples. Right?

[Melchiah]

So as long as their heart is in the right place, you support gay adoption? Which means you support gay marriage, since your only real argument against it was the part with the kids?

Glad we're on the same page! I wouldn't want people validating their relationship with kids either. Good thing that never happens with straight couples. Right?

To qualify my position: None of these things are the fault of either the child or the homosexual parents in the least. Any person willing to give a good home to another person's child is a saint. However nice it is to assume altruism in people who represent a cause we want to believe in, people at heart are selfish animals regardless of sexual preference. As that relates to the issue at hand, children are many times viewed as a manner of legitimizing a household, or worse, an acquisition of a personal goal by both hetero- and homosexuals.

I bolded the part where you look like an asshole who can't read.

[Yuri-G]

Oh shit, I skimmed a thread! What a fucking jerk I am.

And no, I don't think so. You're still admitting that gay couples could adopt for valid reasons, and straight couples could have kids for horrible reasons, which invalidates your main argument against gay marriages that are endorsed by society. A stable unit of two men raising a kid is almost always going to be better than being raised in the system, you have to admit - I would go so far as to say that kid would be better off 95% of the time even if his parents only adopted him to validate their relationship, although clearly it would be preferrable if the two gays were adopting the kid solely out of love and the need to care for a child.

And then there's the whole issue of gay people maybe wanting to get married and not have kids. A stable family unit of two adults that have no intention of raising a child is still better for society than two adults that have no societal endorsement for their union. Don't get me started on people who are barren or otherwise unable or unwilling to reproduce - should they not get married either?

Or is there another reason outside of children that you think straight people should be allowed a marriage endorsed by society, and gays should not? Perhaps I missed it in my egregious skimming.

I don't even think you're an asshole, but you sure are getting hot under the collar over something that really doesn't affect you. You don't even seem to have strong feelings against gay marriage really, so what gives? Just playing devil's advocate?

[Kuya]

Miss California to appear in ad for conservative group - CNN.com

lol, No offense.

[wonderlust]

Miss California to appear in ad for conservative group - CNN.com

lol, No offense.

i'm offended by her ugly fake breasts that she got a few months before the pageant (which were paid for by the Miss California organisers). why couldnt she be happy with what god gave her ; ;

[Day]

god didn't give her anything ; ;

[archibaldcrane]

According to the group, the ad will call "gay marriage advocates to account for their unwillingness to debate the real issue: gay marriage has consequences."

Think of the consequences! The horror!

[Plow]

Hadn't seen about the ad campaign.

Just got a call from "CAMPRES09," recording of her, she goes "Hello, I'm blah blah, you may know me as the Miss U.S.A. candidate that was attacked for defending marriage as being between 1 man and 1 woman. Are you registered to vote?"


And then I hung up.

[Dimmauk]

Hadn't seen about the ad campaign.

Just got a call from "CAMPRES09," recording of her, she goes "Hello, I'm blah blah, you may know me as the Miss U.S.A. candidate that was attacked for defending marriage as being between 1 man and 1 woman. Are you registered to vote?"


And then I hung up.

That is fucked up.

[Yuri-G]

Another racy Prejean photo emerges; site promises more - CNN.com

hmm, looks like she would have lost the title with or without Perez Hilton. can't believe she had the balls to lie about the pictures after the first one and claim that there weren't more. did she really think the people who have them would hold back?

dumb slut getting what she deserves, gotta love that. she might even lose her Miss California USA title now. I doubt she would have been able to hold onto the national title.

[Dimmauk]

Another racy Prejean photo emerges; site promises more - CNN.com

hmm, looks like she would have lost the title with or without Perez Hilton. can't believe she had the balls to lie about the pictures after the first one and claim that there weren't more. did she really think the people who have them would hold back?

dumb slut getting what she deserves, gotta love that. she might even lose her Miss California USA title now. I doubt she would have been able to hold onto the national title.

Should have posted the pics.

[Yuri-G]

you'll get your carrie prejean pictures when I get my aaron schock nudes!

[Demosthenes11]

dumb slut getting what she deserves, gotta love that. she might even lose her Miss California USA title now. I doubt she would have been able to hold onto the national title.

Fucking girls in america, all sluts for wearing thongs and sometimes posing in sexy pics for their boyfriends. And underwear models - fuck those sluts. Should let islam lead by example. I don't want to see another fucking female ankle not covered by 6 inches of clothing.

[Correction]

Should have posted the pics.

They aren't that titillating.

Has A Second Racy Photo Of Miss California Carrie Prejean Surfaced? | Access Hollywood - Celebrity News, Photos & Videos