Miss California is a bigot
April 23, 2009 5:06 pm
It’s a shame physically beautiful people can be rotten on the inside, but then again, is it really that surprising? The Miss USA pageant had Perez Hilton, the openly gay celebrity, asked Carrie Prejean what she thought about gay marriage. Here response did not impress the judges:
“I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other,” Prejean responded. “But in my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”
She admits that her response may have caused her to lose, but she stands by her bigotry with pride. I’m sure this attitude will make her a big success at the next “Miss Homophobe” pageant, but otherwise no one will touch her with a ten foot poll.
(via unreasonable faith)
Spread the outrage
87 Comments
-
April 23, 2009
I agree with her. Marriage is something between a man and woman. I think this “new civil rights movement” is disgusting. I couldn’t care less about what defective people do for sexual gratification (as long as no children are harmed), but how dare they try to redefine marriage to include something so unnatural and sickening.
Why is that question even being asked in a beauty pageant? What’s the point of asking such a question when there is, apparently, only one correct answer? Even when she’s honest about her opinion and respectful, there are asswipes slamming her for being a bigot. We should be more worried about that parasitic faggot, Perez Hilton, who feels it’s his responsibility to speculate about the sexuality of celebrities and “out” them. I think people like him are a better indication of our society’s decadence. Fuck him.
Stick to the atheist topics.
-
April 23, 2009
Zeke, although it appears you’re as bigoted as she is you’re right about one thing: she should have never been asked that question. I don’t think it’s right for Perez to bring up such a hot political issue in a beauty pageant.
But then again Miss USA isn’t simply the winner of a beauty pageant she’s sort of supposed to represent an upstanding citizen (sort of…), so I guess it’s fair game.
-
April 23, 2009
I’m just sick of gay rights being shoved down our throats. I’m incredibly tolerant of gays and I really hate to be labeled a bigot, but when she says something as mild as this:
“I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other,” Prejean responded. “But in my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”
it really shocks me to see people so incredibly outraged and indignant. I don’t think the gays strife for equal rights is comparable to any modern civil rights movement. It’s a universal law. Nobody can get married to a person of the same gender. That’s all. Heck, atheist rights are a more pressing issue!
It pisses me off that fellow atheists are up in arms over this just because there is a mild religious undertone to her answer.
-
April 23, 2009
I think homosexual couples mainly want the rights that come along with marriage: hospital visitation, burial rights, medical decisions, taxes etc…
If they make the rules the same for both hetero & homosexuals then they are legally identical, so why call them something different? They aren’t asking for the government to force churches to wed same sex couples. I find that the “definition/sanctity of marriage” people are using that as an excuse to deny them those rights. “how dare they try to redefine marriage to include something so unnatural and sickening.” By your standard the sexual acts define what a marriage is? What about married people who are into BDSM, watersports, scat, and whatever else that you find sickening; should their marriages be struck void? Of course this almost makes sense since you “couldn’t care less about what defective people do for sexual gratification”. I think you need to clarify your exact argument on this issue. Her answer would have been fine after the first point saying I think it’s great people can choose. The rest is just saying “I think there is something wrong with them”. Which means she does care about what those people do behind closed doors and she feels she needs to tell everybody how bad it is. Try this for a second, say it was black people, and she said “I think its great we all have equal rights to education etc.. but where I’m from, they ride a seperate bus and we are superior to them, no offence, but that is just how I was raised. In either case, is there a legitimate reason for such a viewpoint?
-
April 23, 2009
Zeke,
What I really don’t understand is why you care so much what other people do. Does it affect you at all?
Zeke, I suggest you take a good hard look at your own post here. For example, you mention you are tolerant towards gays but go on to describe them as “defective”, you make reference to Perez Hilton as a “faggot” and describe them as “unnatural”.
It it for this I label you a bigot.
Fundamentally the argument from the homosexual community is that they should be allowed to live their lives the way they see fit. As I understand it, this is also the argument from the atheist community. We are all striving toward some form of freedom from social norms.
BTW: Homosexual acts are seen in nature, just watch a group of chimps for any length of time and tell me what you see.
-
April 23, 2009
^^^^^^^^^
It’s saddening that you’d liken the gay community’s plight for marriage rights to racial discrimination. They’re really not comparable at all. Homosexuals are not a visible minority, nor are they denied the much more basic rights that other were. They want to be allowed to get married for the legal privileges that come along with it. The most basic purpose of marriage is to start a family. What you fail to realize, is that those rights that you listed are awarded to married couples because its assumed that they have a family and because families are the backbone of any society, they hold a special importance. Gay couples cannot start a family so their marriages are practically meaningless. Marriage, to me, means far more than just making vows to another person and I certainly don’t oppose gay marriage because of that “sanctity of marriage” hogwash. It’s because it’s biologically wrong and defies logic.
-
April 23, 2009
LB
Do you deny that homosexuals are defective? Do you think homosexuality is normal human behavior? Because it obviously isn’t.
If the fundamental argument from the homosexual community is as you put it, then it’s laughable. IF EVERYBODY WAS ALLOWED TO LIVE THEIR LIVES AS THEY SAW FIT, THEN OUR SOCIETY WOULD COLLAPSE or at the very least, deteriorate. I’ll use the seemingly innocuous example of sex workers. If a person is willing to offer their body for sex and another person is willing to pay for their services, why can’t they go forward with their transaction? Seems harmless, no? Well if a society were to condone that, then it would compromise it’s moral integrity. Homosexuality is very much the same.
-
April 23, 2009
@Zeke: “The most basic purpose of marriage is to start a family. What you fail to realize, is that those rights that you listed are awarded to married couples because its assumed that they have a family and because families are the backbone of any society, they hold a special importance.”
Perhaps this is true, but my objection to it is if it were true then would married couples who cannot have a child or don’t want to have a child also be “defective?” These couples are still able to adopt a child and start a family together.
Your argument that marriage = procreation simply isn’t true, because many couples have children before they are married, or have children while they are married and put them up for adoption, or are married and adopt a child.
There’s no reason why a gay person cannot marry another gay person and adopt a child so that they can raise a family.
-
April 23, 2009
Zeke,
Not only do you seem incensed, but greatly misinformed as well.
On your first point, I do accept homosexuality as natural part of human nature. If we are all part of a natural world it’s very existence is evidence of its natural origins. I would suggest you read up on some of the history of psychoanalysis and human behavior. The works of Freud and Charcot exposed us all as flawed beings with our own idiosyncrasies. Also, the idea that some people are defective and some are inherently superior led to some of the greatest horrors in history.
Bottom line: we’re all pretty fucked up in our own ways, weather we like it or not.
On your second point, you fail to recognize the reality of the world around you. Firstly, the idea that if we all pursued our own ends society would somehow collapse is ludicrous. It is the sum of individual actions that form the social narrative (see Marx’s societal musings). Your thinking is similar to that of Sayed Kotb (luminary to the modern islamist movement) and Leo Strauss (luminary of the neo-conservative movement). Both of these men believed that the destruction of the grand societal narrative would lead to chaos. Ironically, the forced application of their visions has yielded that result.
Finally, moral integrity (whatever the hell that means?). Morality is in the eye of the beholder, and fundamentally impossible to measure or quantify. (Kotb and Strauss also spent a good deal of time trying to grasp morality, with disastrous results). Even your example of prostitution is flawed. Let me point out two great examples of western hedonism: Nevada and the Netherlands. Both have legalized prostitution (and in the case of The Netherlands legalized drugs as well) and I fail to see any evidence of “moral decay” or “societal disintegration” in either location. Your hypothesis does not hold up when applied to the real world.
Bottom Line: You can’t impose a moral view on society, society defines its own morality and it changes all the time.
Zeke, I suggest you get out a little more. All this worrying about things outside your control isn’t healthy. It’s the kind of thing that drives people batty.
(Jacob, if this turns into a flame war I’m very sorry in advance)
-
April 23, 2009
Married couples that don’t have any interest in starting a family are the exception and not the rule. Granted, I’m using broad strokes here but you get my point.
And the child adoption thing is an entirely different issue and possibly even more disturbing. Gay people should not be allowed to adopt a child out of consideration for adoptable children. It would be cruel to allow a child to be put in a position where they could never lead a normal life and have proper emotional development. Even an optimistic idealist has to recognize the amount of ridicule that adopted children with gay parents would be subjected to. IT WOULD BE A CRIME TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.
-
April 23, 2009
I AGREE 100% WITH ZEKE!
-
April 23, 2009
I am not going to get involved in the endless debate over same sex marriage, but let’s get the meaning of words right!
“Bigot” in the Second College Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary is defined as: “A person who is rigidly devoted to his own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”
Ms. Prejean’s statement indicated that she was tolerant of those who differ. Just because she stuck to her convictions does not indicate intolerance.
Language should not be distorted or manipulated to suit one’s own, often intolerant, purposes.
-
April 23, 2009
@Zeke:
1. I’d like to know exactly what study/psychologist/sociologist you learned that a child raised by gay parents “could never lead a normal life and have proper emotional development”2. “Even an optimistic idealist has to recognize the amount of ridicule that adopted children with gay parents would be subjected to” that is not an independent inherent condition of a child of gay parents but dependent on the people that child encounters. It is entirely possible that such a child could live in a society where they are not ridiculed at all. Perhaps a child living in today’s North America would, but this is not necessarily true for any conceivable society.
-
April 23, 2009
LB
You’re so full of BS. I’ll admit that you’re probably more knowledgeable than myself and have put more thought into this topic but I still disagree with a lot of what you’re saying.
Congratulations, you’ve made the point that we’re all human with some of the most sophistic crap that I’ve seen in a REALLY long time. We’re all flawed…… uh, yeah….. and? You don’t think being exclusively attracted to your own gender isn’t a particularly big flaw? It’s a real defect. Even if you do observe it in nature, animals that are homosexuals are failing at their most basic purpose, which is to procreate. They’re most likely just horny and get jiggy with females as well. lol Homosexuality, in the traditional sense, is not normal behavior and there is no way that you can argue that.
I agree that morality is opinion, so let’s leave it at that. I’ll also admit that I didn’t know what the hell I was talking about with regards to my whole society argument but you can’t deny that homosexuality is “exceptional” behavior.
P.S. You don’t know me any better than I know you, so I’d appreciate it if you didn’t resort to insulting me. Mmkay?
-
April 23, 2009
Miss California would have sounded much nicer and coherent if she’d stopped after she said that it was great that we had the freedom to choose. After all, no one asked her what she “thinks she believes”. Her second silly bigoted comment negated her first comment.
She all for “choice” so long as people choose what she’d choose??!
I consider her statement as bigoted as if she said she doesn’t believe atheists should have the same rights as others or if she said,“I think that I believe that marriage should be between people of the same race. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”
I wish bigots would stay in the closet the way they wish those they are bigoted against would. It would be a much more civil world if they did. I find Miss California’s commentary as well as the bigoted comments of Zeke more indicative of social ills than a desire to marry someone. I wouldn’t want either people representing me.
-
April 23, 2009
Aaron,
If you think it’s emotionally healthy and fine for a child to be raised by a gay couple then I really don’t know what to say…
Do I really have to cite a study to reach my common sense conclusion? Besides, I doubt if any papers or studies do exist on the topic, the findings and conclusions would be obvious.
-
April 23, 2009
This issue is a religious issue. Miss California believes what she believes because of her religion, which teaches intolerance or homosexuality. I don’t normally feel the need to justify what I post, but this is an opportunity to talk about bigotry.
Zeke, you may not feel that her statements are bigoted at all, and there lies the tricky thing about bigotry; we often mask it behind what seem to us at lest as justified intolerance. Sure, you can pretend that you don’t care what these people do, but in reality you have judged them based on a sexual activity you find repulsive. This same attitude is the hallmark of bigotry.
It’s not like I’m calling her evil. She has an obvious character flaw, and I believe her comments will not age well. Everyone has that racist grandparent they have to put up with. But it’s never too late to see one’s own prejudices and it’s never to late to change.
-
April 23, 2009
You should have just kept your thoughts to yourself. You’ve added absolutely nothing to the discussion except prove the point that the “victims” of intolerance and their supporters are just as intolerant as those that they insult.
-
April 23, 2009
^^^^^
I was responding to Articulett. Sorry for the confusion!
-
April 23, 2009
I usually don’t get involved in such wildly ridiculous debates, but I’ll make an exception here. While I was able to roll my eyes at the pageant thing (I’m pretty ethically opposed to pageants, anyway, from a feminist standpoint), the comments from Zeke leave me sad. Initially, I felt angry and then I realized that Zeke’s information seems to primarily stem from popular belief, misinformation and a lack of real evidence.
As an atheist, I find evidence (or lack thereof) an important part of who I am and what I do and do not believe. As a lesbian, I find that there is a total lack of VALID evidence to support those who would argue that homosexuality is unnatural, immoral, or that LGBTQ folks don’t deserve the same rights and privileges as their heterosexual counterparts. I pay the same taxes as heterosexuals. I abide by the same laws. I have the same range of human emotions and potential for experiences that, presumably, all of my heterosexual friends have. I firmly believe that I should also have the same civil rights. Not special rights. Not additional rights. The SAME rights.
I think someone mentioned in a post (paraphrasing here) that the reason that same-sex marriage is a pertinent topic in an atheist forum is because religion/religious law is the most often cited reason for denying same-sex couples basic human rights. As atheists, I firmly believe it’s important to take a stand on any sociopolitical issue that brings the separation of church and state and the importance of CRITICAL thinking and the validity of an argument/belief to center stage.
-
April 23, 2009
You do have the same rights. If you want to marry a man, nobody is denying you.
-
April 23, 2009
Kim,
I just have to ask you this. Do you believe that the gay marriage rights issue is at all comparable to the civil rights movement?
-
April 23, 2009
Jeez, this is the most activity in the comments section I’ve seen in a long time.
I guess we have gone off on a few tangents, but I view this as a reasonable forum for debate.
Zeke, I guess we’re really just trying to understand your reasoning (See my early comments). I find it difficult to reconcile your conclusions with the fact you’re an atheist.
“Do I really have to cite a study to reach my common sense conclusion? Besides, I doubt if any papers or studies do exist on the topic, the findings and conclusions would be obvious.”
Such papers do exist at nauseum in anti-gay and gay-reversal movements. But they all seem to approach the issue from a religious (moral) point of view, either directly or indirectly. Really I guess my question is how do you reconcile being an atheist, and presumably accepting all the trappings of that belief (ie. This is our only life, we are just existing within nature, morality is relative etc..) with the limitation of what is essentially a legal contract between adults.
I can understand the argument from a religious point of view, but I find your conclusions to be quite perplexing and non-obvious.
(oh and one more thing, telling the admin of this site (Jacob Fortin) to shut his trap is just not a good idea)
This will be my last post on the matter. Maybe that will quell this fire.
-
April 23, 2009
LB,
First of all, my comment about the studies and papers was about gay adoptions and not homosexuality in general.
I don’t understand why me being an atheist who opposes gay marriage seems so strange. Like I said, I’m tolerant of gays. I obviously hold opinions regarding gays, but I believe that people should have the right to have a relationship with whomever they please. Legalizing gay marriage, however, represents something that, deep down, I simply cannot get behind. It represents a concession that a gay relationship is equal to a heterosexual one, which is something that I strongly disagree with. I can imagine how “ignorant” this might sound to some, but it’s a genuine belief that I have and one that I find to be fairly reasonable. I don’t think gay people are inferior, as I’m sure there are countless gays who are more intelligent and talented than I can hope to be. But I sincerely believe that homosexuality is a defect.
It also annoys me tremendously that people who don’t support gay marriage rights are immediately branded as bigots but that’s nothing more than a pet peeve.
-
April 24, 2009
Has the definition of bigotry changed? In the dictionary a bigot is someone that is deemed to be racist. I did not know the gay community had established themselves as a separate race
-
April 24, 2009
“It represents a concession that a gay relationship is equal to a heterosexual one, which is something that I strongly disagree with.
Exactly why do you feel that a homosexual is inferior to a heterosexual relationship?
-
April 24, 2009
Wow. When I read Zeke’s post I assumed he was joking.
There’s an episode of “30 Days” that has a woman with Zeke’s mental disorder (if gays are defective, so are you) living with a male gay couple and their children who are quite happy and it shows that even when provided with the first hand experience (evidence) that gay people can be loving, adequate parents that can raise children to the best of their ability, the persons mind is still not changed in the slightest because of an illogical, dogmatic belief system.
I think the worst part of your ‘argument’ is that it seems to stem from the idea that heterosexual people are somehow magically great parents or better suited to child rearing simply because they can reproduce without aid when it is plain to see the evidence through studies, personal observation, statistics, etc. that this simply is not true.
Your perception of gays is obviously a hateful one on some level but I have to applaud your ability to ‘tolerate’ them as you so eloquently phrased. How fortunate for the gays that you’ve stayed your hand for this long.
You say, “Even if you do observe it in nature, animals that are homosexuals are failing at their most basic purpose, which is to procreate.” I have to ask if your bigotry extends to life forms that reproduce through mitosis? Hermaphrodites like worms? Male sea horses that carry the fertilized eggs? You see where I am going with this I hope.
“I don’t understand why me being an atheist who opposes gay marriage seems so strange.”
The problem is that you’re proposing an unfounded personal belief to justify your claim. Remind you of anyone?
-
April 24, 2009
This wasn’t a thread or a question about child rearing… though I most certainly think a loving pair of adults is preferable to single parenting or being raised by bigots. But then, again, I think threatening kids with hell is abusive. And gay kids raised in religious households are far more likely to commit suicide.
Yes, I think it’s time our country evolves and gives equal civil rights to everyone–not just the people who imagine themselves more moral than everyone else.
-
April 25, 2009
I don’t know if I personally would consider Prejean’s response as “bigotry”. I’m all for equal rights and whatever but if you label this bigotry it would only be fair to label Perez Hilton’s ongoing campaing against the girl also bigotry. And personally one thing that makes me sick is homosexuals attacking heterosexuals over their lack of tolerance using insults and slurs.
-
April 25, 2009
Tom tollerance towards intollerance is a weak and pathetic position to take, you may criticise the method of attack but you cannot criticise them for attacking.
-
April 25, 2009
I don’t expect them to tolerate the intolerant, at least the vocal contingent. I just oppose to those kinds of methods and “debate” and it makes the gay rights activisits (the ones that resort to such techniques) look like huge hypocrites.
-
April 26, 2009
There is no hypocricy at all. If you choose to uplift freedom of anything unless it disrupts the freedoms of your neighbors, you will rightly attack in any way you can people who want to legislate their taste and bigotry.
-
April 26, 2009
Well obviously homosexual relations are completely normal in both human, and other animals, nature. We’ve had homosexuality for as long as we can look back. Look at ancient Rome: It was no biggie for a man to have sex with another man. Now this didn’t cause the fall of their society, or their empire. Greed did, I believe.
To suggest that allowing homosexual people the same rights as others would somehow be like taking a piss on the morals of a society might be true. That doesn’t say anything though, since a lot of the moral code of modern western society is stupid.
Also, the purpose of marriage is different for different people. When I get married it will be because I love the other person. Not all people get kids, and some live quite happily without children. It can be the other way around too of course. My uncle isn’t married to the mother of his children, but they live together just as a married couple. It’s ok that marriage means a certain thing to you, and that can very well be that it’s only ok for straight people. Lucky nobodys forcing anyone to marry someone of the same sex, isn’t it?
-
April 27, 2009
I don’t think that Miss California was being a bigot, she was asked a question, she didn’t iniatiate the topic, and she answered. Regardless if she did agree or disagree with the asked question, its not her battle to fight!!!!!!!
Same goes for people like me, who simply don’t give a shit for gay marriage, I don’t condemn nor condone gay marriage, but the bottom line is its not my fight, and I got better things to do.
-
May 1, 2009
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Since when is someone a bigot for having different beliefs then other people? Stop forcing gay marriage down everyone’s throats.
-
May 4, 2009
Hey Joe Blow, read “Crimes Against Logic” by Jamie Whyte for a refutation of the statement “everyone is entitled to their own opinion”.
Since when is someone a bigot for having different beliefs? Any time those beliefs preach hate and division. I hope your question was rhetorical in nature because the answer is retardedly simple.
-
May 6, 2009
I agree with Zeke. Homosexuality is a deviation of nature. It is still deviate no matter how common it turns up. No homosexual human can reproduce naturally. IMHO many homosexuals are as bad as Fred Phelps in proclaiming their worldview. I think this is his opinion as well.
Critical thinking does not preclude that an atheist has to support homosexuality.
-
May 6, 2009
El Tajin,
Homosexuality is not a deviation of nature for reasons previously given if you read the entire thread. It is naturally occurring and observable over many species of mammal. Cries of abomination, deviation, and aberration have long been the mantrum of the hopelessly pious.
Homosexual humans can reproduce naturally if they have sex with a member of the opposite sex. They have not lost the capacity. At the very least, refine and be more specific with your hatred.
Your generalizations and savage undertone are unsettling. I’ll agree that critical thinking does not preclude that an atheist has to “support” homosexuality, but critical thinking also cares nothing for your ‘honest’, personal opinion(incredibly telling choice of phrase) which is from where your talking points have obviously originated.
It should, once reflected upon, lead you to conclude that it is indeed naturally occurring regardless of whether it leads to procreation, and does not make that organism ‘lesser’ in any way, especially in the case of basic rights. You are not participating in critical thinking as I see it but merely falling into the same trap as poor Zeke which, in MY honest opinion, is not atheism but instead applying atheistic principles in a way that suits your personal beliefs.
-
May 20, 2009
I don’t think that what Miss California said was bigotted. I think that her response was better than what you could hope for in a lot of people. I think that people are just far too sensitive to people making comments about homosexuals. They perceive anything that somebody says that does not directly meet with their worldview as bigotted. And this spans across a whole range of things not just homosexuality. Really i just don’t give a shit. I have my views and other people have their views and if they want to be ignorant then that’s fine for them. What gets me is when actual harm is caused because of someone’s view. Until that point they can think whatever the hell they want. That being said while i think Zeke is an ignorant ass hole who has no idea what he’s talkng about, he’s fully entitled to his opinion just like i am fully entitled to mine. Miss California is not doing any harm by saying that she thinks it’s good that people can choose but she was raised to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman and the only harm that Zeke is causing is to his image cause everyone now thinks he’s an idiot. Therefore i think everyone should just calm down a little and realise that people are always going to disagree. It’s called human nature, that thing you’re all so fond of. And besides there’s bigger things to worry about in the world than what a beauty pageant contestent thinks, or at least i hope so cause if not then there is seriously something wrong with society today.
-
May 28, 2009
I disagree that carrie prejean’s rotten from inside though she’s narrow-minded..she was just frank about her opinion which she did express diplomatically and not like zeke calling them faggot and unnatural.It’s been proven that homosexuality’s present in your gene’s n so is not a stigma which may believe it is.It’s been present since ages or probably always but earlier wasn’t that common due to social,political n religious restrictions.It’ll affect the human population but not greatly as heterosexual’s will follow their usual pattern.Why can’t people live and let other’s live the way they want(not superstitiously/irrationally)though.
-
May 28, 2009
I disagree that carrie prejean’s rotten from inside though she’s narrow-minded..she was just frank about her opinion which she did express diplomatically and not like zeke calling them faggot and unnatural.It’s been proven that homosexuality’s present in your gene’s n so is not a stigma which may believe it is.It’s been present since ages or probably always but earlier wasn’t that common due to social,political n religious restrictions.It’ll affect the human population but not greatly as heterosexual’s will follow their usual pattern.Why can’t people live and let other’s live the way they want(not superstitiously/irrationally)though.Hope attitude towards these people changes.
-
May 28, 2009
One thing that is silly about this discussion is that many of the points, weather true or false, have no bearing on the actual subject at hand. Right now many gay people are having gay sex, living together, sharing incomes and expenses, and so on. The only thing that changes if gay people get married is the legal status and the rights that come along with it. If you argue that it defiles what a marriage is, then why was there no outcry when Britney Spears had her 72 hour marriage. What about 2 minute marriages in Vegas or any gold-digger marrying a millionaire? For those who claim gay marriage will destroy the morality of the population, please explain how. They already have as much gay sex as they want, they can live together if they want. What horrendous “extra” gets added in once they sign their marriage license? The reason the word bigot fits is because she has an irrational fear/hate towards gays. Some might say just let this go, they can have their opinion and I can have mine. This may be true to a degree but you have to keep in mind that intellectually bankrupt opinions can shape laws and constitutions if there are enough believers.
-
May 28, 2009
not all opinions are of equal merit, and one has to take a moral position that there is no fairness until we are all treated the with the same dignity. To deny someone the rights you possess is selfish. To later claim that it is based on a perceived threat that it would “hurt” some part of the practice is cowardly. Why would you uphold marriage if the union is only defined by sex, and not by commitment?
-
June 2, 2009
I generally try to avoid these things, but I would just like to say this…
Zeke… this is to you and everyone else who, like you, seem to enjoy making it hard for people like me and my boyfriend to try and have a family… Suck on some hard candy, and shut the fuck up.
Why does this even matter to you? Same sex marriage will not, in the SLIGHTEST, affect you, and don’t even lie and say it will.
We all know well enough that this is no longer about Miss California, oh no. Now, it’s about LGBT rights, period.
How is this anything like the major civil rights movements of the past? Because, it’s about a group of people who want the same rights as everyone else, and they aren’t allowed to have them. That’s a damned near dictionary definition, if you asked me.
Zeke, we all understand your motives, yay, whoopee, now go away, please. We get the point, oh no, gay bad, okay, thanks, go away now.
–Oddi
-
June 9, 2009
I was trying to that this thread serious but Zeke you argue like a 12 year.
Stop focing gay right down peoples throats? NO (seeing as we are using caps to put our point across) you stop forcing your unwarrented hate down the throats of innoccent people (gays & lesbians in this case). Zeke you want a reproductive marriage? Then have two lesbians both have children. They would be as twice effective in terms of how many kiddies they could produce. And 50 couples could make do with just one sperm donor. Do you see how bad your argument is? We don’t want more children we want fewer. This planet is already overpopulated.
Just because you think it’s disgusting doesn’t mean you can justify degrading people to second grade citizens.
They just want to be able to live life like everybody else. Try and find enough humanity to overcome your irrational hatred. When you say adopted children wouldn’t grow up in normal environment then yes I do agree with you – but only because of biggots like you Zeke
X
-
June 10, 2009
Zeke:
“I agree with her. Marriage is something between a man and woman. I think this “new civil rights movement” is disgusting. I couldn’t care less about what defective people do for sexual gratification (as long as no children are harmed), but how dare they try to redefine marriage to include something so unnatural and sickening. ”
and
“I’m incredibly tolerant of gays and I really hate to be labeled a bigot”
No, you are intolerant. And you are bigoted. Your backward thinking type need to go the way of the dinosaur, you have just as much place in today’s society.
-
June 10, 2009
More quoting of one-eyed and arrogant points:
“The most basic purpose of marriage is to start a family…Gay couples cannot start a family so their marriages are practically meaningless.”
Says whom? Says you? When did you have the right to arbitrate the motives for which people get married? I personally don’t ever want to have children, but I want to get married (to a person of the opposite gender, as it happens). I find your arrogance appalling.“Do you deny that homosexuals are defective?”
OF course, anyone reasonable denies that. To preface my coming comment, character and personality traits are more than just one gene each. It is a combination of hundreds of genes as well as environment of upbringing which will influence one’s orientation. A genetic basis for homosexuality was found last year. It is carried on the X-chromosome, and in very basic terms causes the carrier to be more sexually attracted to men. It can of course affect both men and women, and is ‘carried’ to men via their mothers, but those who contend that homosexuality is a mental illness or defect are jumping to bigoted conclusions which cannot be based on rationality or science.You are irrational and passionate, a dangerous cocktail. You need to stop, take a deep breath, put aside your irrational phobia and accept that you do not understand anywhere near as much as you think you do. If all irrational people did this, the world would be a better place. Attitudes of people like you are what causes social problems. Not homosexuality.
-
June 10, 2009
By the way, how can you POSSIBLY consider yourself tolerant of gays? Tolerance isn’t just biting your tongue and saving the spreading of your bigotry for the internet where you won’t have to insult anyone face-to-face (you used the term “parasitic faggot” in this thread). You are intolerant because you have an irrational phobia which you attempt to justify with baseless rhetoric. You might have a ‘gut feeling’ that it’s just wrong, or defective, or sickening or all these other hatemongering slurs you have posted so far, but how have you rationalised your position? Just because you are a relatively literate hatemonger does not exonerate you of guilt. Please, learn to rationalise properly. You are listening to your passions, not your intelligence.
-
June 13, 2009
Just curious about everyone who calls Miss Cali a bigot. According to the definition posted:
“Bigot” in the Second College Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary is defined as: “A person who is rigidly devoted to his own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.”
That means if you are intolerant of people who don’t support gay marriage for whatever reason, you are by definition a “BIGOT” too … Apparently the liberal left is only tolerant of those that agree with them. Everyone else is a bigot right? (or is that left??).
Just a piece for thought ..
-
June 14, 2009
Well Mike that is one way to intepret it. I use the word ‘bigot’ because i interpret Zeke’s attitude as being rigidly devoted to his own group (heterosexuals) and intolerant of those who differ (homosexuals), where as your interpretation seems to be that he is rigidly devoted to his own group (people who believe homosexuality is wrong) and intolerant of those who differ (people who believe homosexuality isn’t wrong)
It’s semantics. In the sense i intended the meaning of the word to be conveyed, i mean that he is a heterosexual (i would presume) intolerant of homosexuals.
Also, this is not an issue which should be immediately associated with right or left wing policies. It’s a standalone issue, why should it be immediately reduced into such a monochromatic view of social issues?
-
June 14, 2009
Just a quick clarification to preclude any misunderstanding. In the above i said:
“where as your interpretation seems to be that he is rigidly devoted to his own group (people who believe homosexuality is wrong) and intolerant of those who differ (people who believe homosexuality isn’t wrong)”
This should have read:
“where as your interpretation seems to be that he isn’t a bigot because while he may be rigidly devoted to his own group (people who believe homosexuality is wrong), he isn’t intolerant of those who differ (people who believe homosexuality isn’t wrong)”
-
June 14, 2009
Oh Mike i owe you an apology, I completely missed the part of your sentence where you said Miss Cali and thought you were accusing me of using the word bigot incorrectly.
As to why so many people call her a bigot, i suppose it’s just due to a common misconception of the word’s meaning. I wouldn’t call her a bigot, but i would call her biased against homosexuals.
-
June 14, 2009
That’s still some epic tap dancing around the word. The language used by people like Prejean are intentionally masked to remove the imprepriaty of their statements. You need to look beyond what they say, and realize that their position is based on the bigoted attitude that homosexuality is wrong, immoral, and corrupt. It doesn’t matter how nicely you put something; when you deny the very rights you enjoy to others, you view them as less human than you. There is no clearer sign of bigotry.
As for the accusation that calling someone a bigots somehow makes you one, that’s some pretty petty bullshit right there. I am not obliged to be tolerant of intolerance, no should I feel the need to avoid offending the feelings of people who view homosexuality as deviant and wicked behavior. There are still lots of closeted homosexuals that live in shame because of people like Prejean and her ilk. They would deny these people the same dignity as the rest of us, and to that, i say “fuck you, bigot”.
-
June 14, 2009
“You need to look beyond what they say, and realize that their position is based on the bigoted attitude that homosexuality is wrong, immoral, and corrupt.”
This would be useable for me if i had more to look beyond than one relatively innocuous expression of opinion, which i presume came from a christian upbringing. However, her view might be just that they should be allowed to ‘marry’ under a different label other than ‘marriage’. Which is trivial, but not necessarily born of a bigoted attitude. Are there any other quotes attributable to her in which she clarifies her position on homosexuals/homosexuality?
-
June 28, 2009
Whether I agree with Miss California or not she was set up from the beginning. Perez Hilton asked her what she felt about gay marriage, she answered and she was attacked by the person who asked the question for her answer. Why even ask the question if she was only allowed to give the answer he agreed with? Very illogical. Come on, people. Let’s not be illogical.
-
July 1, 2009
“Why even ask the question if she was only allowed to give the answer he agreed with?”
Apparently he was looking for a non-confrontational fence-sitting answer like ‘i think that should be a decision for each individual state, and that it’s great that each state has the ability to blah blah blah….’ that wouldn’t marginalise anybody. Supposedly that’s the point of the Q&A sessions in these things.
-
July 22, 2009
As a gay man…I have to say it really upset me how Perez handled himself here…I can understand marking her down for such an ineloquent and direct answer, but the insults and bitching? This manchild embarassment is not my voice.
Clearly homosexual behavior is statistically abnormal…but defective? Sociobiological worth has changed a lot from the times when tribes relied on maximum procreation to survive…a gay person may do many important things for society: care for the unwanted, dev new tech, etc
-
August 19, 2009
“In my country….” wait, sweetheart. Its not just your country. We all live here and you are just going to have to get over it. Us defectives shouldn’t be allowed to get married? To have children, to have a life? Ok, fine. Since I am deaf, I guess I’m defective and that should apply to me as well, right? Blow it out your asshole, zeke.
-
September 8, 2009
*Sigh*
What adults do to each other and how they decide to frame their relationship is no ones business but their own. As for railroading marriage for their own purposes, which definition of marriage are you referring to? There isn’t just one…and it hasn’t always been the same even in Western culture. Pre 12th Century marriage (i.e, pre catholic church taking it over) wasn’t anything like what we’d recognise.
Why do you feel the need to tell people what is and isn’t right when they do no harm to anyone? There’s no evidence for it being socially harmful, they’re a minority and most probably always will be…as far as we know, it’s not a choice anymore than heterosexuality.
Unless you’re religious, there’s really no justfication for opposing gay marriage.
-
September 8, 2009
It’s the price of great beauty.
All that peroxide has bleached her brain.
-
October 7, 2009
I don’t agree with her sentiments but I do agree with several others here when they say that her opinions are irrelevant as to whether she would make a good beauty queen (whatever that might be) or not.
She demonstrated that she has an opinion and is not afraid to voice it, even if that means she is at odds with the PC brigade!
That’s a positive trait in my book.
She said that she was brought up to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, so what?
Did she say that she felt that gay marriage was sinful and that they should be damned to hell for doing so? No, she most definetly did not!
I personally couldn’t give a crap who marries who but I can certainly understand that some people hold a different opinion.
I am proud to say that I’d never judge anyone who held a certain view simply because it differed from my own or was marginally less than politically correct.
Anyway, she didn’t actually say she opposed gay marriage, just that she didn’t support it, and for that she was penalised.
Penalised for her honesty and penalised for having the guts to admit it in the face of an intolerant public.
Intolerance! There’s a word you may have heard before!
Isn’t it ironic that “Intolerance” seems to be the word that fits best in the context of a woman doing her best to be honest about her sexual orientation and views and voicing them to an audience who are more than ready to vilify her because of them?!
Shame on the judges and shame on any and all supporters of those judges!
The thought police are on your tails folks and who knows who’ll be next.
It may be you, you morality fascists, with your cable porn, your private infidelities and worst of all your holier than thou attitudes with your lack of condemnation of priestly child abuse.
You know who you are!
Shame on you!
-
October 7, 2009
I might add that if she’d said at any time that her views were held simply because of scripture or religious doctrine then I’d have a persnal problem with that but I wouldn’t suggest for a moment that she be eliminated from a pageant that holds such high esteem for religious values, I’d state simply that I thought the pageant was flawed and that the judges and it’s followers were brainwashed idiots!
The fact is I do believe the latter but then, that wasn’t the question at hand, was it?
-
October 26, 2009
Holly heck in a hand basket! This quote from miss ‘you won’t remember me in 1 year’ is frustrating, but the comments some people are writing are just plain disgraceful. Now I haven’t read all the comments on this page but I only need to read a few to see that there are some people on here who really need to think before they open their mouths (or keyboards). Seriously, wtf? I encourage those who are dropping homophobic and intolerant comments about something they obviously have nothing to go off other than their preconceptions, to think about one thing: If you are an atheist, is it because you think it is cool, or do you just like to be an antagonist and happen to know some religious people? I am a proud atheist, and it is the product of critical, rational and open-minded thinking. I fail to see how some of the bigotry that is being reported on here is anything but as bad as the shit that comes out of the mouths of any sheltered, misinformed, close-minded fundamentalist. Take a good look at what you are writing and ask yourself if what you are writing is the result of the critical thinking and rationale of a good free thinker, or whether it is because of pre-conceptions, ignorance, fear, and all the classic markings of a bigot. Freedom of speech is very important, but if you are talking nonsense on a public forum, you can expect to be called out on it. I just wish I saw this article on the 23rd of April…
-
November 6, 2009
Oh geez who CARES what Miss California thinks.
-
November 16, 2009
I wouldn’t touch her with a ten foot Pole, but how about a six foot Mick? No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I evolved.
-
November 20, 2009
@Mark
You do obviously, and you seem to care what people say as well. If YOU weren’t at least curious then you wouldn’t have clicked on the topic or made a comment now would you?
You REALLY don’t think this shit through before you type do you? acually, Why do i even bother trying to inform a person who readily describes himself as a ‘sheep’ and does so with pride?
Just like the Tootsie Pop “The world will may never know” Now do us a favor and peddle your bottom of the barrel site and ass-backwards thinking somewhere else please.
-
November 27, 2009
How dare she think differently than you!
And how dare she honestly and respectfully share her opinion!
Politically correct lying is so much more popular!
This is America after all!How is it that you can condemn her as a bigot for holding a different opinion than you and not find yourself being one?
-
December 8, 2009
I am a married straight woman. My husband and I are both Atheists and got married in a garden!. We got married because,of course, we love each other, but also because of the legal protection it gives us and our children if anything were to change. I have friends who have not been married and have had terrible financial and childcare problems when breaking up or even when one of them dies because they were not ‘legally related’. I think gay people do the same and it isn’t to do with religion. It is for love and legalities. Thankfully, I am from the UK and civil partnerships have been legal here for a while. I cannot understand why people are so backward thinking. I think the ‘Miss beauty pageant’ has a right to her own opinion but also think she needs to appeal to the wider community. What is the big deal about marriage being exclusively for a man and woman?.
-
December 21, 2009
Kuddos to Brian. At the end of the day who really cares if she’s a bigot or not. I mean …really, who? And also Zecke for that matter. Is not like you guys are going to loose any sleep or something, right? I am a happily married hetero and I think people should be viwed from a different perspective or point of view than their personal sexual preference or religion. Grow up Zecke (and all alike) and think outside the box. Oh, and by the way…my gay friend is telling me than men don’t know what they are missing on. Go and have your prostate checked by a hot female doctor and you will understand what I am talking about. (some of you probably know already). Wake up mate. Be more open and have more open views. In most cases everything has something to do with do way you’ve been educated. Take the kids that are ready to sacrifice for their leader (terrorists). Since they were kids some idiot told them that it’s bad to do that and is good to do something else. Take eschimos. They will give you their wife for one night to show their respect. if you refuse them, they will have the right (in their culture) to even kill you, however they will take it as a very strong offence. So Zecke, not everything you see or think is right or wrong. Open your eyes.
-
December 30, 2009
Zeke, you and Miss California were meant for each other. While I agree that she was inappropriately treated for her opinion, and that she has every right to her beliefs- I think your views are narrow minded, fearful, outdated, and extremely negative.
It is unfortunate that you are so limited by your frame of thought. It worries me that your parasitic, black, and negative way of thinking can spread. The Internet is a public forum where anyone is free to read even a child, and hate is easy to learn.
Why should someone who is different be defective? Our own evolution is the process of millions upon millions of “defects”. Recently female sharks have been giving birth with no father. Their evolution suggests our own could follow the same route. Perhaps those who are gay are the beginning of that evolution.
Think of how wonderful the world would be if sex was no longer a part of it, at least philosophically.
Anyways, you should look at things in broader terms.
-
January 15, 2010
cody, there is a large difference between animals self breeding and human morals.
gay is wrong, do you know why? because it was wrong the moment we so called “balding apes” saw 2 male apes mating with each other. now if we really are just evolved pond scum, why would we have a preference of morals?
-
January 26, 2010
creationist, looking back on some of your previous posts actually makes you seem like a smart and decent person.
I can’t tell if this last post of yours is sarcastic or not but I have to say it’s really nice every time I experience that sensation of being punched in the gut.
Just sitting here, everything is fine and -WHAM!- Oh, look another person who does not know me at all comparing me to animals having wild sex in the woods.
It is really wonderful, thank you.
-
January 30, 2010
ok what i was saying Lee, was that since any one can remember, gay is wrong.
referring to my ape analogy, that’s what you Atheists depict us 1000000 or so years ago.
-
February 3, 2010
I’m for gay marriage, but I really didn’t find this to be bigoted. She just politely stated her opinion. She even said that she thought Americans should be able to choose. What else can you do but express your beliefs humbly and politely? Should she have lied just so she could have a more popular answer? And why is this on an atheist website? I’ve been an atheist for about seven years now, so I love that there’s a website like this, but they need to get their shit together. I’ve never seen such unnecessary hate mongering.
-
February 3, 2010
Oh, and I just saw this “preference of morals” shit from creationist. 200 years ago, society at large had a “preference of morals” for black people. We wouldn’t let them near our women, we enslaved them, we referred to them as less than people. If you lived in that time, you would be arguing that black people deserve it because we had a moral preference against them. Nowadays, you wouldn’t DARE argue that, because it’s become accepted in society that blacks and whites (and everyone else for that matter) are equal. 200 years from now, if there are Christians left, they won’t DARE to say any of the stupid shit that undoubtedly comes out of your mouth on a daily basis. Because society would reject them and their religion if they did. Remember when the church would kill (literally) anyone who said the world wasn’t flat? Try that shit today. God TOLD YOU the Earth was flat, and you’ve TOLD HIM he was wrong. Unfortunately, that won’t bother you at all. You have a sinking ship to cling to.
Christianity survives not by being true, but by being popular. And honestly, how popular are they nowadays? Religion is on the going-out.
-
February 8, 2010
Anyone against two people who want to marry one another in a free country is really really dumb.
Divorces are very easy to enact and the fact that around %50 of the population most of them supposedly god fearing Christians get divorced make the arguments against anyone getting married pretty hypocritical.
That should be no surprise as when it comes to being a hypocrite the religious win hands down, usually not even aware of their own double standards as being pretty fucking stupid goes with the territory.
-
February 12, 2010
Zeke, you are a disgusting person to the nth degree. My brother Tanner, and my deceased brother Trevor–both gay, both just want and wanted the same rights all heteroAmericans want. You are a f***tard.
-
February 18, 2010
While I do believe this woman is a bigot and a homophobe, I also don’t think her comment was particularly hateful or vitriolic. Explaining how you feel personally about a subject, especially since she has no political sway whatsoever, is not the same as oppressing the masses. She was asked a question that was designed to ruin her.
Think about it. If she’d said, “I think gay people are the same as straight people and deserve the same rights,” the Christians would have, ahem, crucified her. And what she said has got her strung up by civil rights advocates. It was a trap.
-
February 22, 2010
I HATE BIGOTS!!!
-
February 25, 2010
Although I do not share her views, I do support her ability to express her opinions without fear of redress. It’s a mighty sad day when expressing ones’ personal opinion wil cost them their career. …..Sooooo, let’s ‘protect the easily offended, BAN EVERYTHING’!
-
February 25, 2010
Intolerance will not be tolerated!
-
February 27, 2010
Wow, Zeke. You claim you’re tolerant of gays but call us defective? Ever consider the possibility that people call you a bigot because YOU ARE ONE?
Someone as ignorant as you deserves to be berated.
-
February 27, 2010
Let’s see….every major empire filled with immoral behaviour, immediately prior to its’ inevitable collapse, said things such as “Gay is OK!”. That is my favorite point to point out.
As for the rest:
For the idiots: This is not a democracy, you morons. This is a republic, please learn American history.America was built primarily by: Christian….Conservatives. And some liberals too! This is a fact, not a “want”. Get over it.
MY America is moral, and the supreme law of the land, e.g., the “Constitution” of my republic, was directly built on common law, which just so happens to contain in large part, the Christian Bible. That is fact, not a “want”. Get over it.
Every single true and moral Christian, who built this country, would automatically tell you “gay is devolution” and absolutely defective in mentality. After all, even dogs can figure out what their genitalia is used for, and to whom it would be used on. Only gays sidestep the normalty of biology, and consider that which is defective to be somehow…unique. I hereby note that mental retardation, and sickle cell anemia is also “unique”.
Above all, the reason I know we “breeders” are right….is that we simply don’t walk around constantly challenging everyone and thing to justify our abnormal existence. That should tell you something.
You polish a diamond, you don’t polish shit. Keep that in mind.
Nobody wants a country full of third-rate bench-sitters, we want the best of the best, not the most of the mediocre. I might note that all other empires at one time or the other eventually have to purge the freaks, in order to exist. You will say this is bad, of course you would, but now lets ask all the OTHER people, who are ready for it to get cleaned up. It isn’t their fault you are too stupid to follow even the most BASIC of rules (biology, bible, take your pick of any and all).I don’t hate you, that is like saying I hate retarded children. I don’t, I simply pity those too ignorant to understand…themselves. And the real world around them. A bigot hates, I simply chuckle, knowing you are not smart enough to reproduce, and that soon enough, like a rotten fart in an airlock…..you will stink like hell for a while, but will fade away, and your “uniqueness” will be forgotten. As it has been in every empire that ever existed.
As King Edward once said, “If you can’t kill them out, BREED them out.”
Game over, man, game over.
-
April 2, 2010
Oh my GAWWWWWWWWDDDDDDDDDD. Let’s all bash the gay basher. Allow me to synthesize this bullshit a little:
Poofters are awesome. They should have the right to marry and live out their lives in misery just like their straight brothers. They can start families too, and very fucking complicated and convoluted it is too, but hey, life’s messy.
Zeke is right: wtf is the point of asking such a dumb shit question of a dumb shit beauty pagent slut for? As a feminist, I can tell you that the ‘beauty pagent’ itself is a fucking lot more offensive to me then any mild (VERY mild)’bigotry’ by a lovely young thing that was careful to phrase her opinion as gently and inoffensively as possible – whilst still being totally honest. Hats off to her. Her views are not my own but I admire her politeness and panache and her personal integrity. And what a fucking shame we are living in a time when to disagree with the majority view of the token show-pony liberalism of our times is to fail in public life.
You are all insufferable morons. Go fuck each other in the arse or something. Seriously. Get over it.
Perez Hilton ABSOLUTELY is a fucking parasitic faggot, and utter disgrace, a revolting, double crossing, talentless, jobless gossip mongerer. A piece of maggot filled dog excrement frothing on a summer sidewalk. BUT… no one can say this because, somehow, because he is a card carrying gay, any criticism of him is perceived to be homophobic.
Whereas I hate him because he is the anti-christ, and the very THING that is most wrong with our celebrity-carcass-fucking ‘culture’.
I don’t care that he’s gay, am amazed that he finds any guy that would touch his decaying blob of a body, given that he has no heart or soul to compensate.
And finally… Captain Slappy??? It sounds like you are doing a lot of breeding. I congratulate you. But please remember: don’t breed with your own children.
Thank you and goodnight.
-
April 5, 2010
(sigh) first of all…
Zeke i think you are incredible closed minded your comment way back
“It’s because it’s biologically wrong and defies logic.” is very VERY wrong. this has been debated previously as i have read and i support all those against you, the monkey arguement especially because there are some spceies of chimp that use sex to resolve arguements male to male female to female and make to female (banoboes i think) my question to you is are these monkeys biologically wrong?seccond of all Emelda…
you have a good arguement but…(please keep in mind i am no shovenest *spelling)
you comment on feminism… you claim that you are a feminist… there is absoulutly no reason for feminism in this day and age because females are equally as superior to males in contemporary times. my point here is that…Carrie Prejean has every right to enter the beauty pagent she can specify if she wishes to be judged on her apperance of personallity… i just shows that she is obviously insecure the fact that she needs to enter these competitions to reasur her of her ‘beauty’ or inteligance is rediculous…besides beauty is in the eye of the beholder…
my point is she has every right to be in the pagent every right to say therefore femism especially in your arguement is irrelevantthank you and hats of to you all who support gay rights
-
May 29, 2010
How sad that what is – after all, a minority group should cause someone in the mainstream with a mainstream viewpoint to be seen as bigotted. Less that 10% of people are homosexual by inclination – let alone practice, yet it is seen as the norm.
Male/female marriage is after all, still more ‘normal’ than gay marriage and to uphold it should be accepted. Gay marriage, is still a tiny minority and can never achieve some of the elements of what most people assume marriage to be – procreation [or the potential for it], and a true mothering and fathering of the offspring, whether natural or adoptive.
I uphold this model over any other. I cannot deny that gay marriage is in very many cases, a true model of love, faithfulness and strength in society, but it does not ‘tick all the boxes’.
-
June 8, 2010
Im thankful for the article post.Much thanks again. Fantastic.
Get a Trackback link