Leave Carrie Alone!!

[BeachGirlFLA]

I think the real issue with the whole gay marriage debate is that neither side is willing to really sit down and work something out. I personally believe any consenting adult should be able to marry any other consenting adult regardless of whether they sit or stand to pee. I don't consider my point of view superior to those that oppose though, it is just different.

I think if a marriage equivalent was made that gave same sex couples the same legal protections and benefits as marriage there would be a lot less resistance from the religious establishment. In the end isn't the important thing the rights instead of the word? I completely understand that symbolism involved with being "married" but maybe sacraficing the ideal for the rights is the way to go. In the end I feel it is a state issue. There will be states that allow same sex marriage, there will be states that allow an equivelant not called marriage, and there will be states that allow only opposite sex marriages by any name. While I don't personally agree with it I do think the states have the right to do what they want based on their constituents. This way people can live in the state that matches their ideology and we can all get along.

I'm hoping that this isn't shut down merely because we are talking about something political. My understanding of the new rules is that it is supposed to keep people from ridiculing or demeaning someone for their political beliefs. I don't look at either side as being right or wrong, just different and it we all agree to meet a little closer to the middle most of our differences would be worked out.

That's one of the major reasons that I support civil unions rather than using the actual word "marriage." I think that civil unions should include the same civil rights that a marriage does. However, to me "marriage" has a religious connotation and since many religions do not support homosexual unions, I think it would be a lot more acceptable to leave the religious connotation that comes along with "marriage" out of the picture and I think there would be a lot more people in support of the idea.

 

[Henna's_Mom]

If it wasn't clarified on the first page I would have no idea who this woman is. That being said and from reading this thread she has the right to her own opinion and if you don't like it too bad. It's her opinion not yours and you don't have to agree with her.

 

[Mickeyistheman]

I agree with some others that this should be a state to state issue.

Carrie was being judged on how she answered this question and if you had seen Perez Hilton I think on Larry King or even his own site he states that if she would have answered it more clearly he could have respected her view.

She did not and she stated something that was not true. That is why she lost and it could be for other things as well. Not just this question.

She said she lives in a country were ALL people have THE CHOICE. She is 1000% wrong. That shows that she does not know what she was talking about. Nervous or not she should have answered it better.

IF she would have won, she would have gone around on speaking tours and things like that. If she can't speak well or think on her feet when answering a question well that would bring down her points and she wouldn't have won.

It is not just about beauty you do need to have some brains too.

Don't forget that after this was done she went out and allegedly joined or started a group for "HETEROsexual Marriage" Why would you do something like that? Heteros can get married with no issues whatso ever. I was confused on why she did that or was even pushed by others to do that.

She is looking for fame that she didn't get and I think she is just a really sore loser.

 

[OK!]

If it wasn't clarified on the first page I would have no idea who this woman is. That being said and from reading this thread she has the right to her own opinion and if you don't like it too bad. It's her opinion not yours and you don't have to agree with her.

This. I can think of few things in the world about which I care less than someone else's opinion.

 

[bookgirl]

From what I heard the pictures were taken as a teen with her friends, and that someone had leaked them onto the internet. Was it right that she took those pictures? No, but we all make mistakes, she apolagized for the pictures. If we all weren't allowed to participate in competitions for past mistakes, then no one would be able to enter one.

They were professional shots for a portfolio and she stated that she had no photos like that, it was in her contract. She lied and broke the rules. End of story.

 

[okeydokey]

She broke the terms of her contract on several occasions so the contract was terminated. That really should be the end of it.

 

[BeachGirlFLA]

She broke the terms of her contract on several occasions so the contract was terminated. That really should be the end of it.

Actually, her claim is that she didn't miss any of the required events and that they're citing the fact that she refused to appear in Playboy as one of the "required events" that she missed. She also feels that she was fired due to religious discrimination. I don't know which side is telling the truth. That's up to a jury or judge to decide. I do, however, feel that if I were in her shoes and a pageant had treated me the way she claims they treated her, I wouldn't really have any great desire to represent them and would just move on with my life. I also don't think they had a negative effect on her reputation. If anything, the things that happened with the pageant earned her a better reputation with conservative groups and networks (in other words, groups that agree with her and that she would be better off representing than a pageant group that she obviously disagrees with) than she would have had if she had won the title. That's why I disagree with her lawsuit.

 

[luvmy3]

There was a time where interracial marriage was opposed by the majority.
There was a time when racial segregation was supported by the majority.
There was a time when slavery was supported by the majority.

It doesn't make it right to suppress the rights of a minority based on the opinions or beliefs of the majority.

Exactly, we are talking about people here, regardless of their sexual preference, color of their skin, and even their religion they are still just people, and ALL people should have ALL the same rights.

 

[daisax]

That's one of the major reasons that I support civil unions rather than using the actual word "marriage." I think that civil unions should include the same civil rights that a marriage does. However, to me "marriage" has a religious connotation and since many religions do not support homosexual unions, I think it would be a lot more acceptable to leave the religious connotation that comes along with "marriage" out of the picture and I think there would be a lot more people in support of the idea.

So anybody not married in a church would be considered part of a civil union and not a marriage? That's the only way that would be fair (and I imagine you'd get a lot of objection from civilly married folks, even those who don't want gay people to get married).

You might be on to something if you switch gears and consider "matrimony" the religious form of marriage, and leave "marriage" as a civil term. Except there ARE churches that would join gay people in matrimony. So maybe it's just best to accept that two gay people married in a church (or civil) ceremony are every bit as married as two game show contestants who get married on the finale of their dating show. And probably more.

 

[BeachGirlFLA]

So anybody not married in a church would be considered part of a civil union and not a marriage? That's the only way that would be fair (and I imagine you'd get a lot of objection from civilly married folks, even those who don't want gay people to get married).

You might be on to something if you switch gears and consider "matrimony" the religious form of marriage, and leave "marriage" as a civil term. Except there ARE churches that would join gay people in matrimony. So maybe it's just best to accept that two gay people married in a church (or civil) ceremony are every bit as married as two game show contestants who get married on the finale of their dating show. And probably more.

Actually, and I'm not trying to turn this into a religious debate, the church I was raised in (the Catholic Church) doesn't consider people that weren't married in a religious ceremony to be truly "married" in the eyes of God or the Church. So, while the government does recognize the marriage, those Catholics who get married outside the Church (and don't have a later religious ceremony - since in France they have traditionally had two ceremonies, one of which is civil and one which is religious) are sort of walking a thin line between a "marriage" and a civil union.

 

[FireDancer]

Daisax and BeachGirlFLA, I think you guys are getting into semantics. I can see both of your points and don't think either is really right or wrong but when I talk about sitting down and finding a common middle in this issue I think looking at your conversation is a perfect example.

Marriage is, rightly or wrongly, a religious symbol to many people of many religions. While I do understand the symbolism for a gay couple to have the same right at marriage as a straight couple I think the more pressing issue is the rights that go along with marriage. If that means if has a different word but the same legal protections and tax benefits I think that is a reasonable compromise. I am not gay so I admit I may be able to look at it with less emotion than someone involved but I do have gay friends and have had this conversation with them on multiple occasions. In the end, forgoing the word and the symbol for the rights seems to be a logical compromise that lets everyone have their rights.

There will never be a perfect solution when such opposing points of view exist but I think that if we all put the emotional arguments away for a second, on both sides of the argument, then some logical compromises can be reached. If the rights are being held up because of the use of a word I think no one wins.

 

[Laura]

Actually, and I'm not trying to turn this into a religious debate, the church I was raised in (the Catholic Church) doesn't consider people that weren't married in a religious ceremony to be truly "married" in the eyes of God or the Church. So, while the government does recognize the marriage, those Catholics who get married outside the Church (and don't have a later religious ceremony - since in France they have traditionally had two ceremonies, one of which is civil and one which is religious) are sort of walking a thin line between a "marriage" and a civil union.

There are a lot of Christian people who were married in a civil ceremony, and their religions recognize their marriages. Likewise, there are churches that would perform (and have performed) gay wedding ceremonies and recognize them as valid, legal or not. What kind of wedding the Catholic Church (or any church) would recognize is entirely irrelevant to a discussion of legal marriage. It has no more bearing than the Vatican's opinion on the legality of divorce--which, of course, the Catholic Church also does not recognize but is still legal.

 

[Kath2003]

This is the issue though: it's just a word. Words evolve over time.

We have 'civil unions' for gay couples in the UK. It grants them the same rights as a straight couple who 'marry'.

If it's down to the wording, fine, call it a 'civil union' but every gay 'civil union-ed' couple I know says that they are married. Some even found churches willing to perform a short ceremony before they went to the registry office for their 'civil union'.

 

[BeachGirlFLA]

I guess I'm looking for a compromise that most people would support so that neither the religious conservatives who feel that a marriage is a covenant with God and therefore a marriage between homosexuals should not be recognized because in their eyes homosexuality is a sin (and they do have the right to their own opinion on that...it doesn't necessarily mean that someone is bigoted just because their religion teaches certain values that not everyone agrees with) nor homosexuals who want the same rights as a married couple feel that their rights have been trampled on. Because I have friends who come from many different groups (and I even have one side of my family - my mom's side - that is full of Democrats while the other - my dad's side - is 100% Republican Christian conservatives), I try to find some sort of common ground that people can come together on. Maybe there isn't one on this issue.

 

[daisax]

I guess I'm looking for a compromise that most people would support so that neither the religious conservatives who feel that a marriage is a covenant with God and therefore a marriage between homosexuals should not be recognized because in their eyes homosexuality is a sin

Except those same people don't care if heterosexual atheists call themselves married. And they want to stop religious gay people (who belong to churches that perform gay marriages) from being married. So it seems to be more about the gay factor than the God factor to me.

For what it's worth, I'm not gay -- I just don't see the logic in prohibiting consenting adults from marrying. Or the legality, for that matter.

 

[PinkRhombus]

I don't think she's being "picked on". She's being held accountable for expressing a belief a lot of people find wrong.

Thing is...a LOT of people agree with her. It is not against the law to disagree with some agenda, whatever it is. It's NOT.

Personally, I have no problems with gay couples having a civil union because it's the lifestyle they feel they have to live, and they do need legal rights. But I really disagree with it being called marriage because it is NOT something my church supports.

Marriage is religion based. In the Catholic church, it's one of the sacred rites. "Unions" are not religion based, so let them be whatever one wants them to be. You cannot force people that are against "marriage" on religious reasons to be happy about "marriage" being hijacked by a group that is complaining that they're bigots just because they don't agree.

 

[daisax]

Personally, I have no problems with gay couples having a civil union because it's the lifestyle they feel they have to live, and they do need legal rights. But I really disagree with it being called marriage because it is NOT something my church supports.

So your church is on board with celebrity marriages that last 48 hours? Is somebody married for the third, fourth, fifth time entitled to call themselves married? Because I'm sure your church wouldn't support that, either, and yet those people are legally married in all states, and entitled to all benefits of marriage.

 

[BeachGirlFLA]

Thing is...a LOT of people agree with her. It is not against the law to disagree with some agenda, whatever it is. It's NOT.

Personally, I have no problems with gay couples having a civil union because it's the lifestyle they feel they have to live, and they do need legal rights. But I really disagree with it being called marriage because it is NOT something my church supports.

Marriage is religion based. In the Catholic church, it's one of the sacred rites. "Unions" are not religion based, so let them be whatever one wants them to be. You cannot force people that are against "marriage" on religious reasons to be happy about "marriage" being hijacked by a group that is complaining that they're bigots just because they don't agree.

That's exactly what I was trying to say, except in my case it's not specifically because my church doesn't support it (I grew up Catholic, but would now consider myself to be a Christian who prefers to worship on her own), but because there are SO MANY churches that don't support it and I do think that the people that belong to those churches deserve rights as well.

 

[PinkRhombus]

So your church is on board with celebrity marriages that last 48 hours? Is somebody married for the third, fourth, fifth time entitled to call themselves married? Because I'm sure your church wouldn't support that, either, and yet those people are legally married in all states, and entitled to all benefits of marriage.

If you receive the sacrament of marriage, it's a contract with God. And unless you get an annullment, the church's view is that you are still married to that person, whether or not you have a divorce from your local goverment. So any additional marriage(s) would count as adultury. In the church's eyes. People can go do what they want at that point, but if one can't agree with that, then maybe the Catholic church is not for them. There have been major splits within various religions due to various reasons throughout history.

I'm not a bible thumper or anything, but I do take my life, family, marriage and religion seriously. Everyone should have the option to do the same. It just might not be within the Catholic church.

 

[emma'smom]

Umm....that's not "christian" that's bigot/hate. There are lots of Christians who disagree with this woman's perspective.

Always nice to be accused a bigot when voicing a Christian opinion.