California Pageant: The Legacy

The Left has been saying beauty pageants are irrelevant for two decades. Suddenly they represent progressive ideals?

Watch below as this guy goes off, informing us of how the Miss California pageant stands for, among other things, the business community and progressive ideas! He wants it to be the pageant's legacy. Heck, I thought it was about a bunch of good looking young women, more and more of whom have boob jobs every year. Where did the feminist outrage over these pageants go, anyway?

Openly gay director of the Miss California pageant, Keith Lewis, held a presser today and shamed the heck out of traditional marriage supporters; mark that 7 times. This is obviously a pretext to their de-crowning her Miss California; today's will be called the "venting press conference," the next one will be labeled the "terminating press conference." Also known as "Palinized."

Comments

[Calypso Jones]

oh my. an indignant flamer. How.....typical. Now just who exactly is tearing down miss california?? It's not the right. The left has kept this in the news by using one upmanship. I fully expect her to become more and more popular and i fully expect the miss USA pageant to expire...an unholy, ungodly, corrupt, perverted mess that it has become under the misdirected politically motivated guidance of homos.

[SacTownMan]

What's really funny is something that was intended as a vehicle to admire beautiful women is run by a bunch of militant rump rangers!

It's not like they really care!!

Now if this was a gerbil judging contest maybe they would feel more at home!!

[Lala]

Gay men like to be around beautiful women because they get excited seeing straight men get excited?

[JustOneMan]

The pagent is now about diversity???? Hmmmmm of what Cup Size!

[AJ Lynch]

Almost anything Donald Trump touches turns into crap. The pageant is no exception. But I am surprised there are so many gay men involved in a women's beauty contest. WTF!

[BlackRedneck]

I'm curious. Why are gay men running, judging, and a significant audience for womens beauty contest? I sort of get why gay men are fashion designers but I don't get the beauty contest thing. Any insights?

[runescape gold]

Just wanted to say HI. I found your blog a few days ago and have been reading it over the past few days.

[joeb]

I understand the beauty pageant paid for her breast implants. Is having breast implants for a beauty pageant the same as performance enhancing steroids for baseball and football?

[G Norman]

You said homo on a blog. Better watch out, next thing you know, you'll be reassigned to the right thinking summer camp.

The communists in Hollywood have been attacking American institutions for decades. In the 30's they were openly communist. In the 40's and 50's they gave away our nuclear secrets to the Russians. There was some pretty strong 50's backlash so they went back underground and successfully recast McCarthy as a witch hunter. Brokeback Mountain was an assault on the icon of the American Cowboy. One of my favorites is the complete liberal indictment of the American Family (American Beauty). It is one of the greatest movies made yet it takes an axe to the American Family like nothing else. The only happy well adjusted people in the movie?, you could guess, but I don't want to ruin it for you.

They have an agenda and it's the poisoning of everything that made America great. They won't be happy till they tear it down.

[Lala]

Just had to throw this in

"The Boston-area transit authority trolley driver who allegedly slammed into another train while text-messaging his girlfriend Friday was hired as a minority because of his transgendered "female-to-male" status and had three speeding tickets on his driving record in recent years, ABC News has learned."

[templar knight]

I wish someone would answer BlackRedneck's question. Hell, I can't think of any reason homos would be interested in beauty contests, either. Well, maybe lesbians, but why would the rump rangers be so interested?

I just know nishna or LOL will enlighten us soon. Ah, the anticipation!

[seekeronos]

Heh. More Liberal hypocrisy.

A few years back, they'd be all vinegar-tongued about how pageants exploited women and was an artifact of the Patriarchal blah-blabbity-blah of repression.

But now the gay-wing of Hollywierd (which is to say, most of Hollywierd) can now twist it about and use what in years past would have been an homage to misogyny, and make it into "an Alamo for the marriage of the homo".

The motto for these folks and their Agenda™ should be "By all means necessary" to destroy this republic, and more importantly, the faith of our fathers.

Mark my words: if the homosexualists have their way, it will be a HATE CRIME to even read the Bible in a church, much less speak out against sexual sin of any stripe.

These militant homosexualists are the very agents of Satan and the Antichrist.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- The Left has been saying beauty pageants are irrelevant for two decades. Suddenly they represent progressive ideals? --"

Say what? It's one dude, Dan. And not only is it just one man, it's the Miss California pageant director. Are you complaining that the pageant director isn't a staunch conservative or are you claiming that "The Left" suddenly all became gainfully employed by Donald Trump in a fit of hypocrisy.

Go down to pandagon.com and ask what anyone thinks of beauty pageants. Hell, swing through DKos and take a quick poll of opinions. "The Left" doesn't have a political plank based on beauty pageants and opinions on it run the entire spectrum from entertained to disgusted.

Please try to reign in the knee-jerk desire to paint every New York socialite, Detroit union worker, Alabama NAACP member, and Austin college hippie with the same brush stroke.

"-- Mark my words: if the homosexualists have their way, it will be a HATE CRIME to even read the Bible in a church, much less speak out against sexual sin of any stripe. --"

Haha. Oh, seek. You so crazy. Wait... listen? Is that the sound of helicopters? Quick! Into the safe room! They're comin' for yer guns!

[seekeronos]

"--- Crazy... ---"

Not really. Statist liberals are salivating at the prospects of locking down the country under their "utopian" vision of undoing all moral barriers and killing off those who serve the True God: for those who speak the True Gospel are an abomination to them, for God's Word convicts them of sin, and reveals our unrighteousness before a Holy and Just God.

[Bob]

There were people on both sides of this issue -- Perez Hilton and Maggie Gallagher being the most noteworthy -- who wrongly turned Carrie Prejean (aka Miss California) into an ideological punching bag. While Hilton made an ass out of himself with his hateful ranting and name-calling, partisans on the right showed a similar disregard for dignity and decency as they enlisted Prejean to be a warrior for their side when her official duties called for her to represent ALL Californians. As usual, the right wingers who've piled onto this story have in no way shown themselves to be any better than those on the other side. It's a sorry state of affairs all the way around.

And lo and behold, those supposedly intolerant pageant officials whom several of you posters went out of your way to insult with the usual set of homophobic comments, were able to see past the partisan firestorm and the not-so-naughty topless picture of this beautiful young woman. Showing the sort of maturity and tolerance that many of you posters seem to lack, they decided to let her keep her title.

Where will you now go for your daily dose of partisan outrage? It must be so disappointing to you when your pretext to exercise your own intolerance gets taken away from you like that. Maybe you can hope that Miss California gets pushed into some other controversy so you can all vicariously get your partisan rocks off over it.

[seekeronos]

Here Llama... yet another example of the radical homosexualist Agenda™ to silence all opposition to their way of life:

http://onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=517288

It'd be one thing if they were speaking only to their right to be left alone. But to *force* their Agenda™ down the throats of the 97% of the rest of the population who chose not to participate in this "lifestyle" is wrong.

[Lala]

Donald Trump decided she would keep her title. No one else.

[Bob]

Seekeronos, as far as I can tell from reading the article, the only actual incident was that a speaker at some kind of diversity training event at a school said that people who believe that homosexuality is abnormal have "issues." That's all there was to it, apparently. The supposed "victim" was suspended because he walked out of mandatory diversity training, as anyone who walked out of any other kind of mandatory training -- let's say for fire or eathquake safety -- would be.

The article tries really hard to make this seem like an intolerable violation of someone's rights by using loaded terms like "promote homosexuality" (such training is designed to promote tolerance, not homosexuality per se), "aggressive" (we're supposed to take it on faith that it was aggressive only because it's characterized that way in the article without any factual support) and "indoctrination" (would a presentation on not using school computers to download pornography also be considered "indoctrination"?).
It's asserted that "the general public is under attack" by homosexual activists. But nobody is being indoctrinated or attacked, all they're doing is insisting that homosexuals not be discriminated against or treated with intolerance. What they are asking specifically is for people to leave homosexuals alone. Nobody is being trained on how to have gay sex, nobody is being forced to make friends with gays or promote the gay lifestyle. But to justify their own prejudice and hatred, homophobes have to pretend that THEY'RE actually the ones who are under assault, when it's actually the other way around.

It's anybody's own personal business if they don't approve of homosexuality. But articles like this one are completely dishonest. It's an attempt to manipulate the anger of people who hate gays. Gays are asking to be left alone and treated like anyone else, and that's specifically what the right wing homophobes refuse to do. They want to justify further hatred and discrimination.

[Lala]

The article in the Guardian is more informative

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1173579/What-makes-think-natural-heterosexual--Christian-teacher-suspended-gay-rights-promotion-row.html

[Bob]

Lala: Again, the teacher was not suspended because he had religious issues with homosexuality, but because he voluntarily walked out of a mandatory training session. He was not required to promote or even condone homosexuality. All the speaker apparently did was question assumptions about what makes a person's sexuality normal or abnormal. The teacher who walked out said he was doing it specifically because of his religion, but he was not being asked to violate his religious beliefs, only to listen to a presentation on diversity.

Could it be that anti-gay political forces are seizing upon -- and perhaps even provoking -- incidents like this to advance their own political agenda? They do so, and then act like the other side is being aggressive when all the other side is doing is asking for gays to be treated like anyone else -- no more and no less. It seems clear which side is going out of its way to cause trouble.

[Lala]

He was not suspended for walking out. The question the moderator put to the group was childish and demeaning to any adult.

[Bob]

Lala, this is why I feel it's necessary to focus in on the specific facts. It seems to me that anti-gay extremists are being disingenuous in their arguments. The teacher was not being suspended because of his beliefs, but because he walked out of compulsory training (what does "compulsory" mean if anyone who decides can walk out?) and because he sent letters that were alleged to have been "harassing" to other staff members. As the head teacher said, "An allegation of intimidation and harassment is currently being investigated." Presumably this means that he may only be suspended temporarily, pending a determination of whether or not his behavior was intimidating or harassing. It seems like school authorities would be in a much better position to investigate this case than outside spectators who know nothing about the contents of his letters or other facts that are germane to the case.

The anti-gay side has to go thousands of miles outside of our own country just to take a tempest-in-a-teapot like this and use it to drum up resentment against "aggressive" homosexuals. It seems like people should just take a step back, take a deep breath and let this personnel issue work itself out through the proper channels.

[seekeronos]

If it were merely as simple as a presentation, and penalization for walking out on a presentation, then that would be one thing; however, the context is important.

Promoting the idea of homosexuality as a "normal lifestyle" implies that there is a significant segment of the population that views this sort of activity as something outside the spectrum of what is "normal".

"--- Could it be that anti-gay political forces are seizing upon -- and perhaps even provoking -- incidents like this to advance their own political agenda? ---"

Perhaps so. But then again, both sides of the Culture War can and will use whatever means and tools are available to advance their respective causes.

However, if this presentation is "mandated", then there does seem to be an agenda at work here, when Ms. Sanders (the "School's Out" presenter who advocated the "normalization" of the LGBT lifestyle in schools) pushes her argument.

If indeed her concern is about bullying of LGBT students, she should rather address that, instead of attacking people for being homophobes, or even worse, suggesting that people who do not ascribe to *her* worldview are somehow deficient or "have issues".

Now, why should such a presentation even need to hire a presenter from an activist organization specific to LGBT issues? Does everything need to be so heavily politicized?

Why not simply address the more libertarian idea of "keeping one's hands to themselves" instead of turning into a gay rights issue?

[Lala]

If I were the teacher I would ask if the moderator thought that, because I am a black man, I am too ignorant to know that there are homosexuals in this world.

The discussion was supposed to be about preventing the bullying of homosexual students, nothing more.

[Bob]

Presumably the article -- especially the first one linked-to by seekeronos -- would have presented anything to support the idea of this having been an "aggressive" presentation that "promoted" the gay lifestyle. But all they have is one item where the speaker questioned the idea of what is normal or abnormal. Is that really such an intolerable issue to listen to that someone has to walk out?

Beyond that, we outsiders know nothing at all of the content or the tone of the presentation, of the teacher's subsequent letters, or anything else. But based on the few facts we have, I just can't see what all of these lurid accusations about aggressive homosexuals attacking the general public are really based on.

Again, this issue apparently has nothing to do with the teacher being forced to accept any "gay agenda" or violate his religious beliefs. It seems to be about his own actions to refuse to accept this mandatory training. He's still free to hold his own beliefs and express his own views. But his employer required that he attend this "compulsory" training session and he resisted. Therefore, he's now in a bit of trouble. It sounds like a personnel issue to me.

[Lala]

Again, according to the article, he was not suspended because he walked out.

"He wrote privately to the three staff members who organised the session, complaining about Ms Sanders’ ‘aggressive’ presentation. In his letter, he cited the Bible and warned that practising homosexuals risked God’s ‘wrath’.

But the staff complained to the school’s principal that they felt ‘harassed and intimidated’ by the letter and, after an investigation, Mr Peat was placed on paid leave. He is now being supported by the Christian Legal Centre."

[Lala]

Here are other instances, also don't forget the EHarmony case -

http://townhall.com/columnists/AustinNimocks/2008/10/20/finally,_straight_talk_from_the_homosexual_agenda?page=full&comments=true

[templar knight]

"Why not simply address the more libertarian idea of keeping one's hands to themselves instead of turning into a gay rights issue?"

That is an excellent question. The gay agenda, and those who would advance it, insist that everything be looked at from the gay perspective, rather than from a neutral, or perhaps any other perspective.

And yes, the gay agenda is exactly the issue here, as the situation could easily have been handled by teaching students to keep their hands to themselves, which would and could have included bullying of anyone for any reason. That's how it should have been handled, but the homos always want special priviledges and programs.

[Lala]

Why did they go after EHarmony? Because it is Christian based?

[Bob]

OK, Lala, even accepting your view for the sake of argument, the teacher was put on PAID leave while the facts of the case are sorted out. The investigation is being done not because of anything that was or wasn't said during the training, but because he sent letters of complaint that other staff characterized as harassing and threatening. Presumably, a similar investigation could be conducted because a teacher sent someone a love letter or some hate mail. In other words, the reason he was suspended had nothing to do with gay issues per se, but because of his own conduct after the fact. He's not being fired, keep in mind. This is apparently PAID leave to allow for an investigation to be done.

And templar knight, you say, "But the homos always want special priviledges and programs." Really? What "special privileges" do they want? All I see is that they just want to be treated like anyone else, and that if any special training is necessary it's only because some people insist on harassing them and violating their rights. There was a case recently where a U.S. soldier (an Arabic interpreter of asian descent) got fired for merely admitting publicly that he's gay. Under what interpretation of fairness is that acceptable? It's only because of such obvious discrimination that gays need to fight for their rights. But people like you honestly don't care if they're discriminated against, do you?

[Lala]

Obama says he is not going to interfere in any cases where gays in the military are dismissed.

[Lala]

It's not my view, Bob. According to the article it's a fact. There's a difference.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Here Llama... yet another example of the radical homosexualist Agenda™ to silence all opposition to their way of life: --"

The guy walked out of a training seminar Seek. Tell you what, next time your boss calls a mandatory orientation meeting, tell him, "Yeah Jesus said I don't have to be here, so I'm out." Then tell me whether you are suspended WITH PAY or whether your boss just fires you on the spot. The guy got paid vacation days as a reward for his childish protest. How sweet does he have it?

I've known teachers through middle and high school that were fired ON SUSPICION of being gay. Not out and proud. Not caught making out with another dude. Just fired because a bunch of parents started freaking out over a rumor started by a handful of douchebag future drop outs. Same three dudes, two different teachers, one epic bit of homophobia. No paid vacation.

So yes, go cling to your guns and your bibles. Please keep screaming like a crazy nutter. Then, perhaps next time you or one of your flunkie offspring can't get the promotion or the GPA you think you deserve, no one will take you seriously when you start squealing "FAG!" like you piggy little pricks always do.

[Bob]

"It's not my view, Bob. According to the article it's a fact. There's a difference."

What difference does it make anyway, Lala? The teacher is not being fired for his religious beliefs; he's being put on paid leave because some other staff members said he sent them harassing letters. Do you know the content of the letters? Can you say for certain that they were proper or not, or that an investigation is called for or not? It's almost as if you presume that a christian homophobe automatically deserves to be supported even when you don't know any details of the case. I think that right wing ideologues should back off and let the school sort its personnel issues out for itself. If the guy's rights are really being infringed upon, then he can take them to court.

[Lala]

I haven't said one way or another what I think about gays, gay marriage, or the teacher's actions. You are assuming an awful lot. What I do object to is that you read what you want to into the article and misrepresent it.

[Philip McDaniel]

"It's almost as if you presume that a christian homophobe..."
It's almost as if you presume he IS a Christian homophobe.

As reported in the Mail Online:
"According to Mr Peat, Ms Sanders, herself a lesbian, said that staff who did not accept that being gay was normal had ‘issues’ they had to deal with...

Mr Peat, who has spent most of his career teaching in inner-city London schools, joined Park View Academy, a large secondary comprehensive in Tottenham, three years ago. He said he was very supportive of ‘equality and diversity’ programmes."

Doesn't sound like a homophobe to me, but then I may be missing some information that you have.

I would have taken issue with Ms Sanders comment, although not walked out because of it. I also note that the report indicates more than one person walked out. It would be interesting to know what their reasons were. Just as it would be interesting to know what the tone of the letter was.

[Lala]

NARTH also rebuts some of the advocacy positions taken by homosexual proponents.

"The term 'homophobia' is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds," NARTH explains. "Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia – or irrational fear – of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled 'homophobia.'

[Bob]

Philip, yes, I suspect that the devil is in the details. But it seemed to me that -- especially in the case of the first article that seekeronos linked to, where it claimed that "the general public is under attack" by homosexual activists -- conservative activists were overly eager to make this a banner case before all of the facts were even available. Just as in the case of Carrie Prejean, I think it's wrong to take matters of personal opinion or belief and try to exploit them for the benefit of a political movement. On the other hand, it could be that the teacher is actively looking to turn himself into a test case. From the sound of it, with several other participants who were identified as christians also walking out, this could have been some kind of organized incident. Again, it's all in the details.

Lala, I've wondered about that question myself. If you look up the root "-phobia," you get the following:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/-phobia

New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing, from phobos fear, flight, from phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian bėgti to flee, Old Church Slavic běžati

1 : exaggerated fear of
2 : intolerance or aversion for

It seems to be used in both senses. Obviously all of the phobias we're familiar with, arachnophobia, acrophobia, claustrophobia, etc, refer to meaning 1. But there are other common uses that seem to refer more to meaning 2, which is where I'd put things like xenophobia (intolerance of foreigners) and homophobia (intolerance of homosexuals).

Maybe a better root would be "mis" as in "misogyny" or "misanthropy." "Mis" definitely means "to hate." But the problem is, how do you make a non-awkward word out of "mis" and "homo?" In any case, if you look up "homophobia" in Webster's, they have the following:

ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: \ˌhō-mə-ˈfō-bē-ə\
Function: noun
Date: 1969
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
— ho·mo·pho·bic \-ˈfō-bik\ adjective

They even have an audio link if you want to hear it pronounced. : )

[Lala]

"mis definitely means to hate"

You have an odd dictionary, Bob

[Bob]

Yes, Lala, Webster's is such an odd source. It makes you wonder how about 500 million junior high school essays begin with the phrase, "Webster's Dictionary defines . . ."

"Mis" is a prefix, as in mis-anthropy and mis-ogyny. Get it? HELLO? As Webster's says:

Greek misogynia, from MISEIN TO HATE + gynē woman

[Lala]

it isn't mis it's miso

[seekeronos]

Bob:

I don't see the hate (mis[o]) or necessarily the irrational fear (-phobia) in Mr. Peat's reasoned writings in the parts of his letter that have been reproduced, nor in his actions in leaving Ms. Sander's presentation.

"Hatred" would be more typical of the style and message presentated by the ilk of the "Reverend" Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church and "godhatesfags.com" infamy. Phelps does the cause of Christ very much harm with his actual hate of homosexuals, and rightly can be called a homophobe.

God hates sin - this is very true - but He does *not* hate sinners.

In fact, the whole underlying belief of Christianity is that God loves us enough to send His Son to die in our place, and receive on Himself the death penalty for our sin.

But yes, God detests sin, and sexual activity outside of marriage is sin. Homosexual activity is a particularly grievous sin, because of its very opposition to God's will for us concerning sex - designed to be a very beautiful and useful expression of a man and woman's love for each other.

Like it or not, God is opposed to this sin (along with so much other sexual sin that is a mark of our universal depravity as fallen sinners).

To the degree that Mr. Peat's letter represents "an irrational fear" of homosexuals, I do not see any hate directed at them, but a warning that their activity will bring down judgment (God's wrath) as continued sin almost always does. God is very merciful and forgiving - see how long He has endured and waited for our nation to come to repentance over the past 40 years we have seen over 40 million unborn babies ruthlessly torn to shreds inside their mother's wombs, and has thus far refrained from bringing His wrath upon us.

Christians - followers of Jesus - are called to resist sin, and to abstain from the appearance of evil. I applaud Mr. Peat for his stand, at the possible risk to his employment.

For Llama:

"--- Tell you what, next time your boss calls a mandatory orientation meeting, tell him, "Yeah Jesus said I don't have to be here, so I'm out." Then tell me whether you are suspended WITH PAY or whether your boss just fires you on the spot. ---"

Dunno, Llama. My workplace has several of these sorts of "diversity training" meetings throughout the year to appease HR and the various regulatory bodies that control HR. Although I tend to be either indifferent to, or even find some aspects of this training to be potentially morally questionable... I take it in stride, since I've come to accept that we are not likely to roll the clock back to the last century where homosexuality was certainly socially unacceptable, and besides that, we are all guilty sinners (whether that sin is by thought, word or deed, touching on any of a number of things - sins of immorality, greed, pride, callousness, etc).

Not quite unlike Mr. Peat, I do try to share God's word - His thinking on certain subjects, with others, in a manner and place consistent with discretion towards not carelessly jeopardizing my employment (which would interfere with my second priority, providing for the well-being of my family: my first priority being to keep my relationship with Jesus where it needs to be). The first provides for the second quite well, too.

But then again, my employment has little to do with framing the minds of young boys and girls who in their generations will influence the thinking of generations yet downstream from them. Were I a school teacher in Mr. Peat's particular situation, I pray that God would give me the strength and courage to stand as he did, knowing that God would provide for me especially as I took a stand for Him.

And lastly, this little nugget deserves a response:

"--- Then, perhaps next time you or one of your flunkie offspring can't get the promotion or the GPA you think you deserve, ---"

I should hope that I raise my children to take responsibility for their own shortcomings, and work toward correcting them. As for me, what do I REALLY desrve?

The only thing I DESERVE, is an eternity in Hell.

The only thing ANY of us DESERVE, is an eternity in the lake of fire.

The only thing that sets me, or any other believer apart, is that we realized that, and on bended knees before the Lord Jesus, received His forgiveness for our sins, and trust in Him by His GRACE - for our redemption.