Ms. California (smear campaign)

[Steve19]

A possibly disjointed contribution. Two points.

First, we need to remember that Christianity is not the only religion. Divorce is not forbidden in all religions. (Please don't PM me if you need a list urgently, for conversion purposes )

Second, marriage is a religious institution. That it has been appropriated by the secular state for regulation doesn't change that fact. I understand what you mean Gator, but the Divine source of marriage as an institution remains. That doesn't mean we should not talk about religion.

Religious tolerance and amity can be achieved. The Cape Town Interfaith Initiative has done wonderful work. In fact, Inglehart's World Values Survey actually measured a higher increase in religious tolerance in the province than any other region of South Africa, which is an indicator of their work. We hosted one of their meetings at the business school. I attended one of their meetings recently and there is a similar initiative in Columbus, Ohio because one of their people had sent a picture back from a conference there last week. They had no idea I was from Columbus.

I cannot tell you, by the way, how much pride I felt to hear the wonderful things she wrote, in her message to these folks, about Columbus--my people, my culture. I wish you all could have heard it. I was deeply, deeply affected. A priest, a sheik, and a guru walked in [you fill in the joke here].

Anyway, while I understand why some posters in the thread would feel that we should avoid religion in our discussion, I'd like to suggest another view for consideration. Perhaps we need to give people who have religious beliefs the space to speak and have tolerance if they hold beliefs that are based in their scriptures but that we find hard to accept.

In the Cape Town meeting, I watched two people closely to see just how much unity these guys really had. One was among the Baha'is who had formally protested to our university about an on-campus conference on religious xenophobia hosted by the other, who is a Shia Muslim cleric. Turns out that the conference was financially sponsored by Iranian government department responsible imprisoning and oppressing the Baha'is in Iran (about which the US, UK, and UN recently passed resolutions).

Chaired by an Anglican priest with the assistance of a Jewish woman sitting next to another Muslim cleric, they mentioned the debate very calmly, expressed support for seven Baha'i leaders currently imprisoned on bogus charges of spying for Israel, resolved to continue to pressure for their release, and agreed that the matter should not create disunity among them. When a similar disagreement emerged about other matters, they handled it the same way. The Baha'i and the Shia cleric were very cordial to one another and shook their heads when the Anglican priest speaking mentioned that the group needed to find unity about the issue. It struck me if folks like that can react as they did, then perhaps I need to lift my game a little when I have difficulty with another's views.

We all know show-stoppers. Some issues like homosexuality raise immediate tolerance issues. However, the issues aren't that we hold different views, it's how we react to one another when we do. Usually, difficulties arise because we are trying to project our beliefs on others.

Taken to the extreme, religious intolerance gives you the intolerance and bigotry of that lot that crashed into the World Trade Center.

Consider again that I believe marriage is a Divine institution. I have friends who are atheists, who have the most wonderful marriage and loving relationship, by any measure. They are moral, decent people and any religious group would be proud to point to them as exemplary of their teachings.

Who the hell am I to say that they are wrong or that their marriage is somehow less than my own? Who am I to stand on some soapbox and spout words that I accept as the revealed Word of God, in a tone of intolerance that disallows them their right to hold different beliefs? I can indicate that I have faith. If they want to know more about that, then I can share what I believe in a fashion that allows them to make up their own minds. When I take steps to actively change them against their will, or without their concious consent, then I am the one who is in the sinner, in my opinion.

This is my point. Fine, I accept that we need diversity and we need to discuss it openly. However, if we are to speak about diversity, the intolerance of political correctness must not stifle the richness of discussion. White people also have something to say. Heterosexuals also have something to say. [You name the religion] also have something to say.

When we lose the ability to hear each other, we lose the ability to be truly happy.

[BrutuStrength]

Originally Posted by jlb1705

I can't speak for previous generations, but I don't think the man-woman relationship and the "traditional" idea of a family is the way it has always been or the way it takes place in many instances right now. It seems to me that too much empahsis is placed on the biological component of family at the expense of focus on positive and stable social arrangements...

I'd argue that you have the logic backwards. First we must recognize that the purpose of life is to beget life. We see this all throughout nature and understand that to be our own anatomical build as well, as our bodies have specific anatomical components to reproduce in specific types of relationships/interactions. The fact that reproduction can only be naturally completed via such specific relationships/interactions helps us to understand that these specific relationships/interactions are the ones in which we are meant to engage.

Originally Posted by jlb1705

Many of us are not a part of a family with a man-woman social arrangement at its center. Some families have parents that leave or are taken. Some families incorporate other people like aunts, uncles or grandparents who may live in the same household as part of the arrangement. Me - I was raised by a single mother and was fortunate enough to be part of a close community of friends in my neighborhood and church that to this day I consider to be part of my "family". And yes, right now there are homosexual couples that are raising adopted children in a stable household. What bothers me is the idea that there is only one way to arrive at a positive, stable family arrangement - especially when so many families formed under the most narrow definition fail and ones formed outside of that definition succeed. I think the idea that the narrow definition of family is the only one capable of resulting in a stable, functional household is motivated by bigotry. I'm not saying anybody here is making the argument from that point of view, but it's something that I observe in our society and felt the need to speak about.

I'm well aware of these things, as I personally have adopted nieces that are being raised by a committed homosexual couple within my own family organization.

Originally Posted by jlb1705

Why should our government have an interest in producing offspring? Do we need to fill a quota?

I believe it was Russia that only a few years ago was paying women to stay home and have children, as the influx of working women was causing a shortage of babies/children. If there isn't a significant number of new lives created, then there will be a shortage of people left to continue running businesses, governments, or even taking care of the elderly population. So, while I don't know what the specific reproduction requirement is for us to maintain ourselves going forward, I'm sure there's a bean counter somewhere that has that number, and you can rest assured that there is a quota calculated by our gov't.

Originally Posted by jlb1705

Why do so many arguments against gay marriage/civil unions assume that legalization sits at the the precipice of a slippery slope that leads downward to universal homosexuality and extinction from lack of procreation?

I don't know that anyone's arguing that point here. I think most people realize that homosexuals live in our society, and are a fairly small part of the community (around 5%), and are productive members of our society (which is to say that we've largely moved beyond the "homos are sexual deviants" phase). But when we look at the different relationships that exist (hetero and homo) we clearly understand that such relationships are inherently different, each with definitive anatomical distinctions and abilities (as do different genders) and that we as a community/gov't have a vested interest (see above) in ensuring that procreation is continued.

Originally Posted by jlb1705

I'll cede your point that everyone has an equal right to enter a heterosexual marriage/civil union. Why does that mean that we all shouldn't have the equal right to enter into a homosexual marriage/civil union instead?

That's fine. I think most people in this forum understand that there is probably a need to grant homo couples similar benefits to hetero couples. But this is where many believe that a distinction is appropriate. Marriage has always existed between hetero couples, so if we're now going to recognize homo couples, we're no longer talking about "marriage," rather we are actually talking about officially recognizing a new form of relationship, so it should be recognized under a different name (partnerships, civil unions, etc).

Originally Posted by jlb1705

If you're an Indians fan but that were illeagal, would it be satisfactory if somebody said to you that you have an equal right to root for the Reds just like anybody else?

Sorry, but that's a flawed analogy. Someone's being homosexual, is not illegal. Their being in a loving and committed homo relationship is also not illegal. So they're not being mistreated or penalized in any way. In fact, they still retain the option to be married in accordance with the existing rules (with a member of the opposite sex). So please keep in mind, and this is important, they are not being denied any existing rights.

What they are doing is asking for a new type of relationship to be officially recognized by the gov't. Ya see, they're really not asking for "marriage," it's already available to them. They want something else, something that is inherently different, but they want to call it "marriage." That, at a minimum, is something that is not intellectually honest.

Originally Posted by jlb1705

It may be equal rights, but it's not justice - and that's just if we accept your definition of how equality is measured. Equality certainly does not exist in most states right now...

It certainly does, they are all allowed to enter into marriage. As I've demonstrated above, they really don't want marriage, they want something else.

Originally Posted by jlb1705

...if it is measured by each person's right to marry/enter a legal partnership the consenting adult that they love - or by each person's right to enter into a marriage/civil union with a mutual head of household, regardless of sex.

Equal in this instance simply means that everyone has the same rights. In this case, everyone does. What they want are new/extended rights. And by adding formal partnerships/civil unions, everyone will continue to have equal rights. Again, they really don't want marriage, that want something else.

Originally Posted by jlb1705

I've said it before, but I agree with the idea that as a legal distinction, all formal partnerships (hetero or homo) should be distinguished as civil unions. Marriage is a social/religious distinction and they can handle this matter as they deem appropriate, separate from couples' legal rights.

Marriage stopped being soley a social/religious distinction as soon as the first secular gov't formally recognized such a union. But that doesn't mean that marriages ceased to be the base family unit in society.

Originally Posted by jlb1705

I agree completely with that statement, though I suspect each of us takes it to mean something different.

Okay, but I'm not sure how else one can take it to mean.

[jlb1705]

Originally Posted by BrutuStrength

I'd argue that you have the logic backwards. First we must recognize that the purpose of life is to beget life. We see this all throughout nature and understand that to be our own anatomical build as well, as our bodies have specific anatomical components to reproduce in specific types of relationships/interactions. The fact that reproduction can only be naturally completed via such specific relationships/interactions helps us to understand that these specific relationships/interactions are the ones in which we are meant to engage.

That may be the purpose of life in general - plants and other animals and such, but I don't believe it is the sole puropse for human beings. Participating in fulfilling interpersonal relationships regardless of orientation or even the involvement of sex or reproduction is another important purpose we have.

Besides, what I meant by the statements you quoted was that I'm sure that going back through the years there were all kinds of non-traditional families and households that thrived. A father doesn't come home from war - a mother dies during childbirth - children are orphaned and adopted - parents remarry. Sure, a man and a woman are required for conception and birth, but not necessarily to raise the child. Sometimes that part happens without one or the other. Sometimes it happens both of one but none of the other. I think these arrangements should be judged on their success or failure as a household, not on whether the heads of household represent both anatomical sets.

Originally Posted by BrutuStrength

I believe it was Russia that only a few years ago was paying women to stay home and have children, as the influx of working women was causing a shortage of babies/children. If there isn't a significant number of new lives created, then there will be a shortage of people left to continue running businesses, governments, or even taking care of the elderly population. So, while I don't know what the specific reproduction requirement is for us to maintain ourselves going forward, I'm sure there's a bean counter somewhere that has that number, and you can rest assured that there is a quota calculated by our gov't.

If we (somehow) experienced a population decline because of gay marriage/civil unions, wouldn't that also mean that as a society we would also need fewer businesses, smaller government and eventually have less elderly to take care of?

Additionally, the gay people who are currently not getting married/united are also already not producing children, so I think we're already seeing whatever effect if any it has on our total population and growth rate. If Ohio legalized gay marriage/civil unions tomorrow I don't think you or I would think about switching teams - I don't think a change in legal status would result in "defections" and have an effect on the population.

Originally Posted by BrutuStrength

I don't know that anyone's arguing that point here. I think most people realize that homosexuals live in our society, and are a fairly small part of the community (around 5%), and are productive members of our society (which is to say that we've largely moved beyond the "homos are sexual deviants" phase). But when we look at the different relationships that exist (hetero and homo) we clearly understand that such relationships are inherently different, each with definitive anatomical distinctions and abilities (as do different genders) and that we as a community/gov't have a vested interest (see above) in ensuring that procreation is continued.

Yes, but I'd argue that that is primarily in the interest of the species, not necessarily of individuals. There are plenty of people regardless of orientation that have no desire to reproduce. I don't think that rather small minority is doing a disservice to humanity. Besides, Octomom and countless other welfare queens who pop out kids for a bigger gov't check are picking up the slack just fine.

Originally Posted by BrutuStrength

That's fine. I think most people in this forum understand that there is probably a need to grant homo couples similar benefits to hetero couples. But this is where many believe that a distinction is appropriate. Marriage has always existed between hetero couples, so if we're now going to recognize homo couples, we're no longer talking about "marriage," rather we are actually talking about officially recognizing a new form of relationship, so it should be recognized under a different name (partnerships, civil unions, etc).

It's probably six in one, half dozen in the other, but I think the different names should be for the religious distinction (marriage - hetero only if that institution so believes/chooses) and the legal distinction (same name for both types of relationships). I'm getting married next year. I think it should be such that I go to the courthouse for a civil union license, and I take that license to the church when the wedding ceremony is performed. and I become married to my future wife. Government has traditionally called it marriage for legal purposes, but I feel that is now not appropriate and is something we should not be afraid to adjust.

Originally Posted by BrutuStrength

Sorry, but that's a flawed analogy. Someone's being homosexual, is not illegal. Their being in a loving and committed homo relationship is also not illegal. So they're not being mistreated or penalized in any way. In fact, they still retain the option to be married in accordance with the existing rules (with a member of the opposite sex). So please keep in mind, and this is important, they are not being denied any existing rights.

Originally Posted by BrutuStrength

What they are doing is asking for a new type of relationship to be officially recognized by the gov't. Ya see, they're really not asking for "marriage," it's already available to them. They want something else, something that is inherently different, but they want to call it "marriage." That, at a minimum, is something that is not intellectually honest.

Originally Posted by BrutuStrength

It certainly does, they are all allowed to enter into marriage. As I've demonstrated above, they really don't want marriage, they want something else.

Equality is necessary, but not sufficient. Justice is necessary and sufficient. As a matter of justice, should a new type of relationship be legally recognized and distinguished that carries all the same legal rights/responsibilites/protections as we now have for marriage?

Originally Posted by BrutuStrength

Equal in this instance simply means that everyone has the same rights. In this case, everyone does. What they want are new/extended rights. And by adding formal partnerships/civil unions, everyone will continue to have equal rights. Again, they really don't want marriage, that want something else.

That appears to be your answer to that question and it seems we are really closer together on this issue from an outcome standpoint that I thought. It looks like our difference is simply a matter of what we call it. Your side doesn't want to call homosexual relationships "marriage" because it violates your beliefs and sensibilities about how we distinguish heterosexual relationships. On my side people feel that having separate terminology for something that still affords equal rights implies condescension and disrespect - real or perceived. Personally, I feel the terminology is best divided along religous/secular lines rather than between sexual orientations. The reality is though, even if the distinction is made on a religous/secular basis it would probably result in a de facto distinction in terminology along the lines of orientation anyway. That's just the way we would process it as a culture. I think that is an are where the pro-gay marriage/civil union crowd should be prepared to compromise - so long as the new/extended recognition actually results in equal rights in practice.

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by Steve19

Second, marriage is a religious institution. That it has been appropriated by the secular state for regulation doesn't change that fact. I understand what you mean Gator, but the Divine source of marriage as an institution remains. That doesn't mean we should not talk about religion.

Marriage has both been a religious institution and also a strictly societal and cultural institution. You have to ask what year and what culture to get the then current view. And I am not saying that it is not a sacrament, nor that it should considered only civil. I am just saying that it mystifies me that the word "marriage" is such a big deal, when it obviously had more than one meaning. If two Wiccan followers can be "married", then it makes no sense to say that gays can have a civil union, but not a "marriage". I would agree with you if the law said that atheists could not get "married", but could have civil unions - but they can get married.

And because they can, the word "marriage" cannot logically be seen as belonging to, or exclusively defining the sacrament of Cristian marriage.

Originally Posted by Steve19

Anyway, while I understand why some posters in the thread would feel that we should avoid religion in our discussion, I'd like to suggest another view for consideration. Perhaps we need to give people who have religious beliefs the space to speak and have tolerance if they hold beliefs that are based in their scriptures but that we find hard to accept.

We all know show-stoppers. Some issues like homosexuality raise immediate tolerance issues. However, the issues aren't that we hold different views, it's how we react to one another when we do. Usually, difficulties arise because we are trying to project our beliefs on others.

Yep. And, practically, some issues are not amenable to much middle ground. If you are for gay marriage, the other guy saying "I hate your sinning but I still love you as a sinner - but I believe your actions offend God and therefore you cannot be granted marriage rights" is not going to cut it as a middle ground, no matter how sincere, kind, or well intentioned the speaker is meaning to be. A problem for sure. And the problem is that for most people the real reason they have a problem with gay marriage is not because they have an abiding worry about the number of kids born ( I mean, it's not like they are going to say "Well, since I can't get married to Steve, I guess I'll go chase p**** and raise a family.") The problem is that many people have a HUGE problem with homosexuality as a practice, and their religion says that those that engage in it are going to Hell and are moral deviants who are wrecking society. The Pat Roberts view, as it were. And I am more than willing to allow anyone their own religious views. That is absolutely without question essential to this discussion.

So even if one holds the hate the sin and love the sinner view, that approach is doomed to failure, as it exudes a judgmental and paternalistic tone. IMO, even if that is one's sincere belief, common ground can only be found by saying "We are all sinners. I am a sinner too. I am concerned that you may be sinning, but since you are probably closer to God's wishes in ways where I am farther away, I will try to resist my false pride that leads me to think that your sins are greater than mine."

So you are exactly right Steve. We have to address it from a non-judgmental path. And that also means that the gay community cannot say that Christian are deluded followers of a hateful and false philosophy. I have seen that hateful attack on Christians as well, and it is also hypocritical. There are many anti-Christians who use the words of judgmental Christians to mock and ridicule religion and Christianity. Both sides are to blame for that.

Originally Posted by Steve19

Taken to the extreme, religious intolerance gives you the intolerance and bigotry of that lot that crashed into the World Trade Center.

True.

Originally Posted by Steve19

Consider again that I believe marriage is a Divine institution. I have friends who are atheists, who have the most wonderful marriage and loving relationship, by any measure. They are moral, decent people and any religious group would be proud to point to them as exemplary of their teachings.

Who the hell am I to say that they are wrong or that their marriage is somehow less than my own? Who am I to stand on some soapbox and spout words that I accept as the revealed Word of God, in a tone of intolerance that disallows them their right to hold different beliefs? I can indicate that I have faith. If they want to know more about that, then I can share what I believe in a fashion that allows them to make up their own minds. When I take steps to actively change them against their will, or without their conscious consent, then I am the one who is in the sinner, in my opinion.

This is my point. Fine, I accept that we need diversity and we need to discuss it openly. However, if we are to speak about diversity, the intolerance of political correctness must not stifle the richness of discussion. White people also have something to say. Heterosexuals also have something to say. [You name the religion] also have something to say.

When we lose the ability to hear each other, we lose the ability to be truly happy.

Very well spoken and agreed with Steve. But the fact remains that as long as this is a political issue subject to vote, the views on the issue - religious or not - will by the political process work to impose a view on one side or the other that the other is not willing to embrace. When that happens, the dynamic is no longer abstract views and discussions between tolerate equals, but a forcing of views on one another. That is hard enough on a purely political issue (see Obama and Reagan followers on almost anything). But when the thing that is thrust upon you is - as you readily admit - largely based upon religious tenets that some do not hold, then that control of my wishes on something so basic as marriage to the one that I love is a huge problem.

I submit that there is not much room to move toward the middle. I mean, that is more a "I hope you respect my religious belief that segregation is required, so if you cannot eat in the diner or ride with me in the front of the bus, realize that it comes from a genuine, sincere religious place..."

The black folks would not care so much about the motivation if the practical application is still denial of rights. And
even though I think that the racial history model is a good analogy, I realize that other's don't and are even offended by it. And I admit, that there are many good and sincere people whose only wish is to help gays find the same relationship with God as they do. It is hard for them to see that their statements of love (in their minds) can very reasonably be seen as intolerant insults and Taliban like control by religious extremists to the gay population seeking to marry the one that they love, and this includes Christian believing gays.

A hard one, to be sure.

[BUCKYLE]

I just don't understand the religious side's fervor in standing against gay marriage because of something the bible says, when there is no outcry against the many other things in the bible that are forbidden or frowned upon that are perfectly acceptable today. I'm not a Christian or even religious, and I can't really recall any of them right now, but I'm sure someone here can hook it up. Like not touching the flesh of a dead pig. I know I've heard people talk about that being in the bible. Whatever, you get the point.

[jwinslow]

I'm not a Christian or even religious, and I can't really recall any of them right now, but I'm sure someone here can hook it up. Like not touching the flesh of a dead pig.

Because those rules have been retired for 2000 years.

[BUCKYLE]

Originally Posted by jwinslow

Because those rules have been retired for 2000 years.

Ok, thanks. So this could be the first year the "marriage" rule is retired then. Sounds good to me.

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by jwinslow

Because those rules have been retired for 2000 years.

Oy! Have I got news for you!

[MililaniBuckeye]

Originally Posted by OSUsushichic

At least the New England states and Iowa have it right. It's only a matter of time.

Well, thank goodness. All this time the entire world has been wrong for centuries about marriage being between a man and a woman.

[jwinslow]

Originally Posted by BUCKYLE

Ok, thanks. So this could be the first year the "marriage" rule is retired then. Sounds good to me.

Not really, unless you have a spare jesus lying around. Then again, I'm guessing you're not looking for an actual discussion about being saved by works vs grace

[BUCKYLE]

Originally Posted by jwinslow

Not really, unless you have a spare jesus lying around. Then again, I'm guessing you're not looking for an actual discussion about being saved by works vs grace

I didn't mean any offense by my post, honest. I just....are there Christians out there that really believe gay marriage won't one day soon be a reality? I'm not gay, and to be honest, I don't really have any gay friends. But to me, it just seems like a lost cause, fighting against it. Doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for whatever it is you believe in (not YOU personally), but just seems...pointless.

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by jwinslow

Not really, unless you have a spare jesus lying around. Then again, I'm guessing you're not looking for an actual discussion about being saved by works vs grace

Fifteen pages of Antinomianism discussion to follow

[jwinslow]

Originally Posted by BUCKYLE

I didn't mean any offense by my post, honest. I just....are there Christians out there that really believe gay marriage won't one day soon be a reality? I'm not gay, and to be honest, I don't really have any gay friends. But to me, it just seems like a lost cause, fighting against it. Doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for whatever it is you believe in (not YOU personally), but just seems...pointless.

not offended, just answering your sub-topic about the strange old testament rules.

as for gay marriage, I think it's intellectually dishonest and I have more issues with the lack of balance when you remove one gender from the equation. I don't condone homosexuality, but I wouldn't fight against folks living that lifestyle. I agree it's probably a lost cause. Then again, I feel that way about most political causes.

[CookyPuss]

Brian Normoyle: Gathering Storm: Miss California Trying to Redefine Traditional Breasts for the Rest of Us

Miss California Carrie Prejean ostensibly lost the coveted first prize of the Miss USA Pageant due to an honest, but clumsily delivered, response to a question about same-sex marriage equality. Thanks, however, to the juvenile grandstanding and self-aggrandizing douchebaggery of Perez Hilton, she earned a seemingly more lustrous and lucrative crown: spokesperson for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). NOM, of course, is the political organization made infamous by the countless parodies of its "Gathering Storm" ad, in which one desperate-for-any-work actor warned America in barely perceptible English that a "storm is coming" in the form of full civil equality for gay and lesbian Americans.

Prejean, for her part, has vowed "to do whatever it takes to protect marriage" and the newly crowned Queen of "Opposite Marriage" appears in NOM's latest ad entitled, "No Offense." She also reminded the nation at a NOM-sponsored press conference this week that her contemptibly ill-informed comments at the Miss America contest was "not about being politically correct, but about being 'Biblically correct.'"

Oops! Heaven, we have a problem.

A recent revelation -- and not of the Biblical variety -- surfaced this week that the prodigal princess had breast augmentation surgery, approved and funded by the Miss California Organization, just weeks before the Miss USA pageant. One has to wonder how the beauty queen has the credibility and moral standing to speak out against "unnatural" and "un-Biblical" marriage with the same breath that is weighted down by "unnatural" and "un-Biblical" implants filtered through $10,000 worth of "unnatural" capped teeth.

Of course, Princess Prejean has a right to her religious convictions and no one should ever lose a beauty contest over speaking those beliefs in earnest. Miss California also has the right to do whatever she chooses within the privacy of her own bra, but she doesn't have the right to redefine traditional breasts for the rest of us.

For many thousands of years, across every culture and continent, women have known traditional or "natural" breasts to be those that God -- or nature -- gave them. To think otherwise flies in the face of millennia of human history and spiritual doctrine. Prejean's Bible repeatedly reminds us we are made in God's perfect image while warning us against exchanging the "natural" use of our bodies for those deemed "unnatural." And, while one could argue the rights to privacy and personal freedom are inherent in our nation's founding democratic principles and that every American has a right to his/her own life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, organizations like NOM -- for whom she's now a spokesperson -- Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council repeatedly admonish us that life in America would be better if theology and biblical doctrine were the primary determinant of civil law and personal liberties.

With someone else footing the bill, Prejean made a choice to defy her God's perfect design and creation of her and to rebel against the intended and "natural" purpose of her mammaries: namely, the nursing of babies rather than the visual attraction sufficient enough to win a vanity contest. Moreover, if her teeth aren't capped, I'm betting they were braced; and I'd also put money down on the fact that Prejean, like all of us, has at some point performed other "unnatural" acts with her organs like chewing gum, wearing eye-glasses, enjoying a Diet Coke or two or... well you get the idea.

So, Carrie, you may find full civil equality for all Americans to be "unnatural" and not "Biblically correct," but, frankly, so are your Jugs4Jesus and your Caps4Christ. "No Offense!"

[MaxBuck]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

Some think being anti-gay marriage is like being anti-mixed race marriage.

Some think that the moon landings were staged in a Houston NASA soundstage.

Some think the "Real Housewives of Orange County" have real [censored].

Some think the Michigan Wolverines made a good hire for their head coach.

No accounting for some people's beliefs.