Carrie Prejean Makes 'No Offense' Ad for NOM

With justification, homosexual marriage will soon become legal by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. This indicates that it should become a given right that cannot be denied by a majority whose sentiments run to the contrary. This, I contend, is the only sensible answer that you, I, or Ms Prejean can offer. Everything else is merely background commentary. Furthermore, I might easily imagine a law-school beauty queen to have informed our queer du jour that his question was simply “moot”. But Ms Prejean isn’t. Rather she’s a well-spoken young lady of religious conviction who seems to have consulted The Apostle Paul with regards to Christianity’s view on homosexuality: “comma” have no place within the “soma”. Freely translated from the Koinic, this would be, “Queers have no place within the congregation”—which makes Paul a ranting homophobe and, as such, a worthy opponent for our blogger cum pageant-host. Cuddle-bug Christians who claim universal love should read their own book more often. As a atheist, therefore, I could care less other than to state that, textually speaking, Ms Prejean got it right. Yet this young lady seems far more polite than our apostle; which is to say that she has more or less renounced the obvious retort to having been called a bitch by responding “dirty fag”. But this is precisely what Hilton is. Now to digress, I’d like to say that I believe that all adults have the right to sexual association with other consenting adults. I also believe that the age of consent is far too high, and being rather indifferent to animal rights, I see no reason why barnyard things cannot be the source of pleasure, as well. Sexual identity, then, is totally beside the point, and, sadly, only defines individuals who cannot find a higher path. Faggotry as a way of behaving, then, is a socio-mental disorder. Hilton is one, and Musso is another. That these types are routinely trotted out as avatars of a certain “lifestyle” in the name of a “diversity” belabors the presence of an anti-culture beyond crisis. There can be no socialism here of the type that Mother Jones envisaged. Philip Rieff was right when he said that queer identity is hatred; and so it stands to reason that no lasting movement can be built upon social mores whose behavior resembles Cage aux Folles on steroids. Gurly-gurl is disgusting. In brief, no one should be denied formal rights. But this includes the right to ridicule obnoxious social behavior—which brings me to you. Perhaps I might suggest that you find yourself another proletariat? Your trashing of Ms. Prejean was simply beyond belief, and plays into the hands of the O’Reillys who, rightfully enough, label your behavior un-American. To put it another way, your suggesting that Ms Prejean is a bimbo for having disagreed with gay rights is nothing but red fascism. With screed such as yours, small wonder Americans remain deprived of basic economic liberties. Why should anyone but the faithful give you people credibility? Most of us feel strongly positive about honestly and sincerely expressed opinion. Yours, then, is the editorial of the gulag. Bill Harris