Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Ms America

According to one outspoken judge, Miss California was disqualified because she gave the “wrong” answer to a question about sodomite marriage.

Of course, in the make-believe world of the liberal establishment, it’s a criminal offense to state the obvious, but consider the setting. The Miss America contest is a babe-a-thon. A heterosexual institution, albeit cheesy and decadent.

I haven’t bothered to study the demographics, but at the risk of going way out on a limb, I have a sneaky suspicion that the primary viewership for beauty pageants are normal boys and men–from adolescence up. The whole show is an elaborate pretext for men to ogle gorgeous women. And I seriously doubt that homosexual men are the market niche.

If the organizers of the event were truly concerned with being all-inclusive, then contestants would include drag-queens, circus ladies, and dominatrices. Nothing is more elitist than a beauty pageant.


  1. I agree with your point...but I wonder if a more important point is being missed? Here are some of my thoughts:

  2. There's more than one important point. There is also the point of trying to censure the public expression of Christian ethics.

    Now, I agree with you that we can also discuss the priority of having a Christian Miss American in the first place.

    But there is also a question of timing. I don't think now is the best time for Miss California to be taking flak from both sides.

    And, of course, I didn't say anything to defend her.

  3. I didn't mean to imply anything about you or your post, Steve.

    I intended to discuss something I hadn't heard anyone say. The Miss America Pageant is not a venue for articulating Christian ethics...and Miss California was not "persecuted".

    She simply failed to complete her catechism correctly.

  4. Craig French said...

    "The Miss America Pageant is not a venue for articulating Christian ethics."

    That's a valid issue. However, once she was asked the question, it became a de facto venue for articulating Christian or non-Christian ethics (depending on the answer).

    "And Miss California was not 'persecuted'."

    According to the judge, she was disqualified because she gave a politically incorrect answer. So, yes, that's a form of religious persecution.

    Granted, it's very trivial in this setting.

  5. Was your calling of Gay marraige "Somdomite marraige" an attempt at humour or a genuine decision that that is the best way to describe it?

  6. It's the best way to describe it.

  7. reaallly...a highly subjective decision there but none the less one that reveals the massive amount of condescension that drips from your writings.

  8. "a highly subjective decision there but none the less one that reveals the massive amount of condescension that drips from your writings"

    And Mickey's is 'a very ignorant portrayal of Steve's writings that reveals a massive amount of suppression of the obvious.'

    What's next? Men marrying trees? Pedophile marriage? Necrophile marriage?

    Where will it end? When you allow a degenerate behavior that is obviously the result of a psychological disorder free reign, then taking that to its logical conclusion to other behaviors will inevitably follow.

  9. I actually agree with your point. My point however isnt to argue for gay marraige but rather that calmly calling it sodomite marraige is indicative of what i see alot of in his writings. which is that he is usually spot on and very good at spotting the weaknesses in his opponents arguments but his a bit of an as*hole.

  10. Ahemm .. sorry for that. Its not good for building you up steve. I should rather say that i dont get a sense of humilty from your writings. I think im right to say that so maybe it would be good for you to ask the Lord to show you if im right or not.

    Again sorry for calling you an As*hole. Thats too heavy.

  11. Wait a second, what I don't get is why the 'gay' (why did they butcher that word?) marriage advocates don't embrace the term 'sodomite marriage.' It's tying the idea to historicity, of an actual event and how it has socially been understood. Gay has absolutely nothing to do with being homosex. That's butchering a language to enforce what they want: prohibition of questions.

    Why should *I* and the rest of us that give a darn about what terms mean, have to be forced into *acknowledging* a term for what it isn't? etymology of the term gay has not thing to do with homosex. I mean its just another Gnosticism of giving "old terms new meaning."

    If sodomitism is a good by the homosexual, then why not just embrace the term. At least it gives the term a causal referent.

  12. We were told in the 60's that what two adults do in private is no-one else's business, as a pretext for legalising sodomy. Perhaps that was fair.

    Somehow I don't think we had this sort of "no criticism will be tolerated" business in mind, tho.