Who thought having a Perez Hilton, rabblerouser, gadabout, and open homosexual, would make a great judge of a beauty pageant (filled with women). He prefers men, why do I care what he thinks about women?

I'm thinking the whole thing is a setup by the pageant to make noise and sell ads in what has been and continues to be a contest that is completely irrelevant in this century.

As far as tolerance, it's just an excuse for civility. I've never understood it as having any real value, simply because most people who hold steadfastly to core beliefs are not so easily swayed simply by discussion. There is too much at stake, in the sense that if they switched sides they would have to rethink their entire system of beliefs. If they could be wrong on one issue, perhaps they are wrong on others. It's too much for most people simply because most have very poor critical thinking skills, and have an inability to see beyond their own "dog in the fight" viewpoint.

For example, how could a gblt person ever "accept" that they might have something "wrong" with them, whether mental or genetic or even in their "choice" of their lifestyle. It's like beating themselves up. Or how can a Christian ever "accept" that Islam is ALSO the religion of God? And vice-versa.

Lastly, it appears that most on the left side of things tend to forget that Christianity is made up of human beings - fallible in every respect. And therefore the actions of Christians (or any other religious proponent for that matter) are personal failings and not a reflection of the tenets of that particular faith. People of not faith whatsoever fail in the exact same ways. And the failures of religious are in spite of their religion, not because of it. There is a big difference there.

Either way, I think it was patently unfair and a bit hypocrital to all of a sudden start acting as if this young woman is some Jezebel who doesn't walk the walk because she wanted to be a model, and posed for pictures you see everyday in your mail from Victoria's Secret.

At the end of the day she believes one thing and others believe another. Thats it. If she wants to advocate against, the opposition has the right to advocate for. However, getting into the mud does not serve the GLBT with trying to reach out to the middle.

Her political views may have won her undue celebrity, but she was in a friggin beauty pageant, so she wanted the celebrity -- she got it.

If someone used the word tolerant to describe the many people who prescribe to your goal of ruining a young woman with an independent opinion they are being polite.

Just think back to after the California vote, when the GLBT's true feelings on race and civil rights came out; referring to blacks and church goers with words straight from the 50's and 60's

I think it fits quite well with the gay marriage debate. So, for instance, a traditional marriage advocate can think -- gosh, I really don't want to redefine an institution that has worked in an exclusively heterosexual context for thousands of years across various social structures and continents, but I recognize that arguments to the contrary are worthy of a public hearing. And the gay marriage advocate can say -- I really think that it's unfair that this institution limits the participation of gays but I recognize that arguments to the contrary have a basis worthy of consideration.

As a libertarian myself, I tend to have very different views on marriage policy (namely that the state shouldn't be involved). So I tend to have disagreements with both sides, but I try not to demonize either group and understand where they're coming from. Particularly since my approach is not the leading option for most parties.

A: Stoning means being executed by means of a group of people throwing rocks at you until you're dead. It's more than a tad hysterical of her to equate getting criticized online for her bigoted beliefs with being executed.

B: Stoning is prescribed in the Bible as a punishment for probably dozens of things Ms. Gallagher does on a daily basis.

But I would point out that this post is simply a critique of the language being used on both sides of the issue, it's not a critique or a promotion of gay marriage.

It doesn't seem appropriate to attack Prejean for her nude and semi-nude photoshoot. Slut shaming Prejean isn't an effective means to fight her campaign (especially since the bikini strutting is apparently okay if it's in a pageant). I know I'd rather see a Twitter war if the opposition picked a different tactic.