Something that is getting old really quick is the treatment of Miss California by the Gay Community. I seriously wonder how they can continue to be taken seriously on their issues when they slander anyone who holds the opposite viewpoint. Usually, I would not have given Perez Hilton a moment of time but he seems to have acquired a rapture of validation in the homosexual ranks. By now, we all know what had happened and to whom at the pageant. It is a whole other argument to have as to why Hilton was there little lone an unbiased judge in a pageant show. That is not the current issue. It was what transpired following the event. Hilton slamming her on his website and on various talk shows just because she OPENLY stated that marriage was between a man and a woman. She did so eloquently without being harsh in her personal tenets. Did Hilton return the same courtesy? NO! He viciously attacked her.
You would think that it would calm down and just disappear and be categorized under Talentless Hack loses cool and gets proverbial panties in a wad! However, it just spiraled down into more mindless drones coming out of the wood work and putting in their two cents. The crowned queen, who defeated Hilton’s nemesis, Miss North Carolina stated after-the-fact that she absolutely supported gay marriage. Well, isn’t that just superb…Automaton! Easy to jump on the band wagon isn’t it Miss North Carolina. California took the hits and still walks tall, yet, I wonder what would happen if YOU were attacked with such impunity. But I digress…
The latest in this cat fight comes from a supposed Conservative Libertarian British MP. That is right, regardless of view of homosexuality, some homosexuals are CONSERVATIVES, even to the amazement of their alternative lifestyle counterparts. Anyway, this Tory member of Parliament stated in an interview that if Miss California ended up dead…He Did It! *Silence* *Crickets Chirping*
Yeah, not that funny is it?
So, even joking about killing another with an opposite opinion is just a disgrace, especially in context of the matter. Homosexuals have fought to move about without threats and intimidation and now, one of their own ( yes the MP is openly gay) is threatening the life of another , whether kidding or not. What if a conservative US Senator or Representative said that about Perez Hilton? He would have had to resign effective the next day cause of the outcry of the gay lobby and community and possibly even charged with a hate crime. Yet, the “Lame stream” Media stays silent about such things (probably because most of them agree with Hilton and the MP).
We are going to see more of this in the next few years. It is really sad that in a country that values free speech and a good debate, we are now relegated to this stuff. My personal view is that if gays want to get married, that is fine with me. However, it should remain in the eyes of the state as only a civil union. If gays can find a church that accepts such practices and is willing to marry, then albeit the more power to you. I believe the state has no business in the marriage arena…period. Whether a hetero or homosexual marriage , the nomenclature of MARRIAGE should remain in the religious sector, not the state. That is my only gripe with the homosexual lobby. Why try to redefine marriage when all you need to do is get the government out of it completely. Gays and Lesbians, get familiar with the Fair Tax and learn it well. Consumption taxes and elimination of the estate tax will secure you and your partner. When you invoke the Government, it never ends in your favor no matter how it looks.
Finally, if you want to be taken more seriously, stop being hostile to those who disagree. I thought homosexuals were the poster models for TOLERANCE. The problem with Tolerance is that , in reality, it is not just a one-way street. You may have to ACCEPT or at least TOLERATE the fact that someone might disagree with you not just on product but on principle. You do not insult them , you just move on. Then you find a way of winning in the market of ideas by NOT having any person(s) or institutions coerced by Government.