We got Tom Brokaw at ABC and we can get you.

January 31, 2005 5:27 AM

"You have the audacity to call me intelligent.” We covered Spongebob promotes the gay here. Now comes an amusing coda: a catfight between the Dobson forces, who started an anti-media email campaign, and Keith Olbermann, who printed and ridiculed said email. Dobson's people claim victory because Olbermann spent so much time on them, and Olbermann, a trifle defensive about the secular media, makes more fun.
posted by CunningLinguist (85 comments total)

My favorite part of the second Olbermann piece:

some of these people are going to wake up to find that the great secular assault they see on their children was, in fact, a bogeyman created to hide their own bad parenting. If they can’t convince their own kids of the appropriateness of their religion and values, then the religion, the values, or the convincing, must not have been very good.

That's an observation that should be repeated more. I did my best to not pay attention to this whole "crazy fundamentalist denounces cartoons, homos" story, but this was a rewarding read. Thanks, helcat.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:00 AM on January 31, 2005

"I believe in God, I pray daily, and if I’ve ever gotten any direct instructions from my maker, they were that I’ll be judged by whether I tried to help other people, or hurt them. Also, that true belief should not be worn like a policeman’s club, nor used like one."

This is the state of religious debate now? "I'm more religious than you"?
posted by spazzm at 6:11 AM on January 31, 2005

spazzm: If he doesn't qualify it (in his estimation at least) then the yellow-ribbon-magnet-on-minivan set won't think him qualified to level such charges. As we all know, they are 50.1% of the nation.
posted by basicchannel at 6:23 AM on January 31, 2005

Part of me wishes he'd kind of been less of a smarm, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. I rarely see a companion opinion expressing the idea that religion need not be worn blatantly on one's sleeve. The most religion casual observers see out of me is "no, I can't eat the bacon" or "I need Yom Kippur off."

Keeping the rest to one's self unless asked is divine.

However, the fact that he responded in part on the religious issue (as spazm pointed out) detracts somewhat from the piece. It's like acknowledging the creationist viewpoint in a public discourse on teaching science (something I think is a no-no). They got their foot in Olberman's door.

Unfortunately, that's the major catch in the discursive environment today. The form in which opinions are parlayed in this environment means that simple discourse on the subject gives legitimacy to opinions in an arena where they do not belong. It's an easy bear trap in which to put a foot and terribly difficult to avoid.
posted by Captaintripps at 6:37 AM on January 31, 2005

totally, but they need to be countered, Captain. Us Jews know not to make this a Jewish nation--Christians need to learn that too.
posted by amberglow at 6:44 AM on January 31, 2005

But how do they need to be countered? I think that's the crux (woo) of making sure they have religious freedom and we do, too.

Giving creationism legitimacy in the scientific realm by debating it scientifically (as happened recently in a panel on Intelligent Design) merely encourages and legitimizes that idea as scientific however wrongheaded that may be.

Accepting the Bible, Talmud or Koran into the equation as a legalistic exercise when deconstructing the implications and intentions of the Bill of Rights (while perhaps historical) merely gets those things into the equation.

Damn, this is sounding seriously anti-religious, which I do not intend it to be. It's just that I think it's dangerous to accept these things in the governmental realm. That's not to say we erase religion from government, but it shouldn't be a decisive element in forming legal interpretations. It already helped provide the framework.

(Really having problems digging myself out of the hole here.)
posted by Captaintripps at 6:51 AM on January 31, 2005

This is the state of religious debate now? "I'm more religious than you"?

What is that stupposed to mean, spazzm? He's simply explaining where he's coming from. If he is a Christian, why should he not point that out when somebody else is asking others to pray for his hell-bound soul?
posted by jnthnjng at 6:53 AM on January 31, 2005

Why are you talking about creationism, etc.? This is a story about homosexuality. What Dobson is pointing out is not that he is better than gay people or anything like that. I think Christians get frustrated because we can't even say Christmas break anymore (which is true-my kids are in public schools and they get a winter break), but we are supposed to lay down and accept the gay rights agenda. The reason cartoon characters get mentioned is that everyone knows that if you can teach a child an idiom from toddlerhood, that he will probably believe it through adulthood. When I was a child, I was indoctrinated (rightly so, might I add) that we are all the same, regardless of our color. I live in the Deep South and a lot of the past generation's prejudices are gone from this generation. That is cause for celebration. Now people want to teach that it is okay to have two mommies or two daddies and many people find that morally wrong. I think most of them don't mind if people want to live that way. They just don't want it crammed down their children's throat. Christians are told to check their beliefs at the schoolhouse door. They are just asking in return for others to check their sexuality at the same said door.
posted by davenportmom at 7:19 AM on January 31, 2005

It's not that it's ok to have 2 mommies or 2 daddies, but that kids already are living in that situation, just as some live with single parents, and others live with grandparents, and others are adopted or in foster homes, etc. It's a reality, and being a reality, doesn't need moral approval--what it does need is not to be demonized or for those parents to lose their kids or for legislation to be made outlawing them.
posted by amberglow at 7:27 AM on January 31, 2005

and no straight person checks their sexuality at any door, so there's no reason us gay person has to either. if kids have one parent, two parents, red parents, blue parents...all of that will enter the schoolhouse door, and it rightly should. reality is like that.
posted by amberglow at 7:28 AM on January 31, 2005

us gay people : >
posted by amberglow at 7:29 AM on January 31, 2005

This is the state of religious debate now? "I'm more religious than you"?

I don't think Olbermann was trying to get into a religious pecker contest, but rather highlighting the fact that Dobson and his minions automatically assume that anybody who doesn't toe the screeching fundamentalist Christian line must perforce be heathen, or at best apostate.

I know lots of Christians who think Dobson is a nut and that tolerance and diversity are virtues and not vices, and I alternate between anger and sour amusement that these kind, decent, and thoughtful folks have idiots like Dobson and Fred Phelps claiming to speak in their name. Honestly, I wish more moderate Christians would speak out and denounce the nutballs.
posted by RylandDotNet at 7:34 AM on January 31, 2005

You don't sound anti-religious to me Captaintripps, just thoughtful.
posted by sciurus at 7:38 AM on January 31, 2005

I think most of them don't mind if people want to live that way. They just don't want it crammed down their children's throat.

But are there intelligent parents who honestly believe watching an episode of Spongebob Squarepants is equivalent to have the insidious GRA (Gay Rights Agenda) "crammed down their throat"?


Crammed?


Seriously?


If the Spongebob animators & marketeers somehow found a way to project their cartoon into the dreams of children at night while they slept, broadcasting scene after scene of a leathered-up Spongebob brutally rogering a gay seahorse against a beer stained pool table or something, then yeah, it would be tantamount to cramming. Otherwise, I can't believe any child out there would ever make the "gay rights agenda" connection.
posted by dhoyt at 7:44 AM on January 31, 2005

Somehow I can't picture happy, skipping, SpongeBob as a leather daddy.
posted by djfiander at 7:54 AM on January 31, 2005

Now people want to teach that it is okay to have two mommies or two daddies and many people find that morally wrong

Clearly, it would be much better from a Christian perspective to teach that these children have sinned in choosing to have two same-sex parents.
posted by adamrice at 8:02 AM on January 31, 2005

Now people want to teach that it is okay to have two mommies or two daddies and many people find that morally wrong. I think most of them don't mind if people want to live that way. They just don't want it crammed down their children's throat.

But you said just prior to that:

When I was a child, I was indoctrinated (rightly so, might I add) that we are all the same, regardless of our color. I live in the Deep South and a lot of the past generation's prejudices are gone from this generation. That is cause for celebration.

So how do you justify one but not the other? You "celebrate" the "cramm[ing]" that ended one predujice, but won't accept another? And I'm not picking on you, I swear, but trying only to grasp others views on this. I see this as nothing more latest in bigotry and have a hard time accepting, is all.
posted by LouReedsSon at 8:04 AM on January 31, 2005

Dhoyt,
That's not what I said. I personally love SpongeBob. For anyone of you who have not watched it, it is the best writing on TV today. It is hilarious. SpongeBob is asexual like Bert and Ernie were asexual in our day. Dobson was not even talking about those cartoons. He was talking about a We are Family video that included SpongeBob. I think he just mentioned his name is all.
Amberglow, you make a very salient point.
Let me just say for all Christians, (that's a pretty bold statement, isn't it?), I'm sorry Christianity has been reduced to this. This is not Jesus' teachings. In fact, His anger was mostly directed to the self-righteous, which I unfortunately can be at times. Please forgive me. Just remember, we are all fallen and are screwed up. If you read the Gospels, you will see what Jesus stands for, which is what we should base Christianity on, not on some few issues.
As the great campfire song goes, "They will know we are Christians by our issues, by our issues."
Again, I am sorry
posted by davenportmom at 8:10 AM on January 31, 2005

The reason cartoon characters get mentioned is that everyone knows that if you can teach a child an idiom from toddlerhood, that he will probably believe it through adulthood.

Of course. This is why I still wait up for Santa every year and think that that Superman will come save the day.

Sentient beings usually acquire the ability to think for themselves.
posted by jonmc at 8:15 AM on January 31, 2005

I think most of them don't mind if people want to live that way. They just don't want it crammed down their children's throat.

Crammed? Are you serious? This is a harmless cartoon that's being vilified by a scumbag who profits from induced outrage.

If you really want your children to hate fags, I'm sure you can instill that value in them at home.
posted by mosch at 8:18 AM on January 31, 2005

I'm sorry davenportmom, I'm not trying to pile on, but I really have to ask this question:

When I was a child, I was indoctrinated (rightly so, might I add) that we are all the same, regardless of our color. I live in the Deep South and a lot of the past generation's prejudices are gone from this generation. That is cause for celebration.

Can you remember that there were parents one or two generations before you, who were as incensed as you are now by the indoctrination you are now glad you underwent? Their concerns then were the same as yours now; that outsiders were telling you what you can find acceptable, and that your children will think something you hate is okay. It's the same thing.

The biblical quotes supporting racism and slavery are not much quoted these days, but they exist, and were sure quoted back in the day. The stuff I'm hearing today to condemn homosexuality is the the next verse of the same song.

What I don't get is how it looks different to you. I really don't understand. It's not that I doubt the sincerity of your beliefs, I just want to understand how you can see a difference between your indoctrination and the one you fear your children will undergo.
posted by Pliskie at 8:26 AM on January 31, 2005

... but we are supposed to lay down and accept the gay rights agenda.

What is the gay rights' agenda?
posted by odinsdream at 8:40 AM on January 31, 2005

I think most of them don't mind if people want to live that way. They just don't want it crammed down their children's throat.

If parents don't want Tee Vee teaching their children values to which they don't ascribe, then perhaps they should push that "off" button which comes on all Tee Vees. Otherwise, they should stop berating others for their own parental shortcomings.
posted by terrapin at 8:42 AM on January 31, 2005

terrapin: that's pretty much what Olbermann was saying:

"More importantly, at some point, some of these people are going to wake up to find that the great secular assault they see on their children was, in fact, a bogeyman created to hide their own bad parenting. If they can’t convince their own kids of the appropriateness of their religion and values, then the religion, the values, or the convincing, must not have been very good."
posted by dhoyt at 8:56 AM on January 31, 2005

Odinsdream: The Gay Rights Agenda is that people who are gay want equal rights. Kinda like that guy Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Agenda.
posted by Freen at 9:03 AM on January 31, 2005

Wow, I just wanted to snark off on Dobson supporters who can't even spell Christian and instead you guys went and started a thoughtful discussion. Metafilter is going to hell in a handbasket.
Don't all jump on davenportmom. We need more people like her willing to explain the other side, instead of all the demonizing and ignoring that both sides engage in. Talking civilly about each other's socio-political concerns should not be an old fashioned notion.
(No snark intended in the plea for tolerance.)
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:06 AM on January 31, 2005

What is the gay rights' agenda?

The curious notion that them queers have a right not to be incinerated. The nerve.
posted by Captain_Tenille at 9:32 AM on January 31, 2005

Honestly,
It's a situation my family (who have hugely differing view points) discusses often. I guess the thing is I don't hate gay people, I'm not mad at anyone. I don't think I am better than any one else. I don't pretend to know all the answers. Who does for that matter?
I think what you see is, for good or bad, the end of an era and it scares people. As the rules of society change, everyone has to find their way. I have a high schooler now and one of the previous posts showed a schematic about the high schoolers' sex lives. No one commented on the moral grounds of it (this is not a criticism, just a comment) just how the web appeared. Personally, however, I have seen so many peoples lives ruined by lack of rules in sexual behavior. A few years ago, we watched seven marriages end in divorce in a year's time and, to a couple, it was because the husband was having an affair.
We witnessed the pain the kids went through, not to mention the wives. It broke our hearts. Not because people didn't follow our moral laws, but because of the pain we saw inflicted in the kids. I know that has nothing to do with homosexuality and that many homosexuals are monogamous. Several of you just keep asking why people are fighting against gay rights and I'm trying to give you their train of thought. There needs to be some moral standards-Do not Murder is a moral standard. I guess the age old question is - where do you draw the line on the moral standards? I don't know, but again I will say I am sorry that these issues have defined Christianity. Jesus never fought to change the laws of the day and he lived under tyrannical Roman rule. Peter and Paul never fought to change laws either. It's a complicated subject. Honestly, I just don't think moral conservatives are evil, crazy or hate you. They just draw the line in a different place than you do.
posted by davenportmom at 9:34 AM on January 31, 2005

Here is the problem I'm faced with:
I think that it is really stupid to take things like "one nation under God" out of the pledge and such, but I have a problem with people putting the 10 commandments up in courtrooms or calling cartoon characters "gay". I think Dobson can't figure out how to properly use the web and got his sites mixed up. I don't see how you can flame a group who has stated goals of teaching understanding and tolerance.

I'm lazy and may not be the best parent, but damned if I'm going to blame TV for my failings as a parent. I can only pray that I do half a good of a job as my parents did.
posted by Numenorian at 9:38 AM on January 31, 2005

Now people want to teach that it is okay to have two mommies or two daddies
It IS okay to have two Mommies or two Daddies. Even if you have a moral objection to homosexuality, it certainly does not help a kid to tell them that their family is doomed to burn in hell. How could anyone could think this is the right thing to do? And yet people do it. To a seven year old "you and your Mom will burn in hell, because she is sick". Yeah. Great. Really productive to tell that to a young kid.

I think most of them don't mind if people want to live that way. They just don't want it crammed down their children's throat.
And gay people don't want it crammed down their children's throat that their family is wrong and sick.

They are just asking in return for others to check their sexuality at the same said door.
Heterosexuals don't check their sexuality at the school house door. The video didn't 'promote' homosexuals. It just said that there are many variations on what a loving family could be, including showing single moms, divorced and re-married parents, grandparents raising their grandkids, and gay parents. It's reflecting the reality that there are many different home-life situations.

Honestly, I just don't think moral conservatives are evil, crazy or hate you.
Well I beg to differ. Certainly they aren't all crazy & hating. But try growing up as a kid with a gay mom, and see how many people do tell you they hate you, spit on you, forbid their children to talk to you, etc etc. I wouldn't say they are entirely a rational and loving group.
posted by raedyn at 9:43 AM on January 31, 2005

I think Christians get frustrated because we can't even say Christmas break anymore (which is true-my kids are in public schools and they get a winter break), but we are supposed to lay down and accept the gay rights agenda.

Yes, you're supposed to lay down and accept the gay rights agenda. The gay rights agenda can be summarized like this: "everyone should have equal rights under the law regardless of sexual orientation." That's it. As for the video in question, the relevant portion was just about tolerance, not approval or gay rights or anything like that. For example, I tolerate Christians - some of my best friends are Christian - but that doesn't mean I approve of their beliefs.

Personally, however, I have seen so many peoples lives ruined by lack of rules in sexual behavior. A few years ago, we watched seven marriages end in divorce in a year's time and, to a couple, it was because the husband was having an affair.

Right now, because I can't get legally married to my partner, there are no societal norms controlling our relationship. In essence, we don't get the rules that straight people get. Wouldn't it therefore make sense from your perspective to allow us to constrain ourselves the same way that you can?

Also, do you think that granting gays the same rights as straights will encourage the breakdown of heterosexual marriages? If so, why?

There needs to be some moral standards-Do not Murder is a moral standard.

Well, sure it is, but some moral standards are clearer and more obvious than others. No one wants to be murdered, generally speaking.

Honestly, I just don't think moral conservatives are evil, crazy or hate you. They just draw the line in a different place than you do.

I submit that what we think of as evil has everything to do with where you draw that line.

I'm not trying to jump on you about this; you seem to be a polite and civil person, and I thank you for that. This issue is very near and dear to me, though. I've been in a monogamous relationship for the last fifteen years that is a marriage in everything but name and legal status.
posted by me & my monkey at 9:48 AM on January 31, 2005

Just as a side note, I find the assumption that every male-male friendship shown on screen or in a novel must be gay, to be almost as heterosexist as the assumption that gay people don't exist in these fictional world.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:49 AM on January 31, 2005

(raedyn - actually, the video didn't even show gay parents. They were mentioned in a supplement for teachers in a section regarding what they should say if a student *asked* about gay parents.)
posted by kyrademon at 9:54 AM on January 31, 2005

Numenorian: Was it stupid to put "under god" in the pledge? I believe it happened in 1954.

Davenportmom: The difference lies in the harm done. Therein lies the question of ethical or moral behavior. Cheating on your wife and getting a divorce, making your children suffer is unethical because your children suffer.

Getting married and raising children is perfectly ethical behavior in my book, no matter what gender the parents happen to be.
posted by Freen at 9:55 AM on January 31, 2005

Personally, however, I have seen so many peoples lives ruined by lack of rules in sexual behavior.

Nobody's trying to remove all the rules. Just change them a little bit. And for the most part, they're being pretty reasonable in their requests.
posted by jonmc at 10:02 AM on January 31, 2005

(kyrademon - I haven't seen the video, so of course I don't know for sure, but I heard an interview on the radio two days ago with a lesbian mom who said she and her partner and their kids were in the video, so that's the authority I'm going on. It's my understanding that while the video doesn't explicitly mention anything about sexuality, it does show a family that has two moms, without any value judgement.)
posted by raedyn at 10:07 AM on January 31, 2005

jonmc replies to davenportmom's post:

The reason cartoon characters get mentioned is that everyone knows that if you can teach a child an idiom from toddlerhood, that he will probably believe it through adulthood.

Of course. This is why I still wait up for Santa every year and think that that Superman will come save the day.

Sentient beings usually acquire the ability to think for themselves.

I've always found it curious that little kids, who are taught that a magic invisible man brings them gifts every year to celebrate the birth of another magic invisible man, who brings them the gift of eternal life, are by their teenage years proud of their disbelief in the first invisible man but have become even more, er, confirmed in their belief in the second invisible man.
posted by orthogonality at 10:07 AM on January 31, 2005

Just try convincing some people Elvis is actually dead.
posted by Freen at 10:09 AM on January 31, 2005

I have so enjoyed this discussion and have learned quite a lot. Like I said I live in the Deep South and I work hard to learn everyone's point of view, not just one side.
Me & My Monkey, I am so sorry for your situation. It has to be frustrating.
I have to say, I have lost an entire morning of work. I don't see how all you guys can do this on a regular basis-Are you all independently wealthy? Now my family must suffer and eat Hamburger Helper tonight! :)
Seriously, thanks for the insights. I have enjoyed learning from you, but I have GOT to get some work done!
posted by davenportmom at 10:10 AM on January 31, 2005

Davenportmom, just gotta say that your responses to what must seem to be an overtly hostile crowd in here are sincerely, positively Christian. I'm not being flippant. Mefi really needs viewpoints that aren't 1) lefty echo-chamber or 2) freeper trolling. You're adding a lot of value just by speaking your mind and not stooping to the level of the worst insults being thrown your way. Please keep coming back.
posted by Pliskie at 10:11 AM on January 31, 2005

off-topic, but...

orthogonality: "I've always found it curious that little kids, who are taught that a magic invisible man brings them gifts every year to celebrate the birth of another magic invisible man, who brings them the gift of eternal life, are by their teenage years proud of their disbelief in the first invisible man but have become even more, er, confirmed in their belief in the second invisible man."

So have I. Thomas Aquinas noted that, the moment young children hear the word "God," they start asking what it means. I think it has something to do with the fact that discovering the truth about the universe, its ultimate source, is something that is deeply important to human beings; this curiousity is part of our nature. Religion offers people a way to begin satisfying that curiosity.
posted by koeselitz at 10:15 AM on January 31, 2005

(raedyn - haven't seen the video either. I was going by Olbermann's description, which said it contained "not a single reference to sexuality". Anyone here actually seen it?)
posted by kyrademon at 10:15 AM on January 31, 2005

Freen: "agenda" means a list of things you hope to do. So besides equal rights, what's on the "gay agenda" list? Must be some pretty scary stuff, since all they ever talk about is equal rights. That's the implication that people like davenportmom have been indoctrinated with, and that they promote when they use the phrase, and that odinsdream was trying to haul out into the light.

davenportmom: What do you mean when you claim that you can't say "Christmas break" any more? You're free to say it all you want, but your school board has apparently decided not to say it on school notices. Do you understand the reason for that? Do you feel threatened by your school's efforts to accommodate non-Christians? Do you understand why among people who value tolerance and consideration for others your argument is perceived as paranoid and intellectually immature and a facile cover for your theofascist impulses?

No you don't, because instead of making you ashamed of those impulses - as your forebears were shamed out of their support for racial segregation - your Republican party celebrates and supports them, as the easiest way to get you to vote against your economic interests. So maybe you can defeat the "gay-rights agenda", but you'd better get used to eating that Hamburger Helper.
posted by nicwolff at 10:16 AM on January 31, 2005

(and I tried looking on the website of the organization that created the video, but it's fairly vague about the contents of the video other than listing the children's celebrities that appear on it and saying it promotes diversity)
posted by raedyn at 10:18 AM on January 31, 2005

They just don't want it crammed down their children's throat. Christians are told to check their beliefs at the schoolhouse door. They are just asking in return for others to check their sexuality at the same said door.

Just want to make a point about Davenportmom's first comment -- not to pile on, but to edify.

It's a farce to imply that gay people aren't required to "check their sexuality at the door." There are very, very few places in this country where it's safe and comfortable for gay people to perform an act so innocent as holding hands in public. Many gay people don't tell their families about their significant other for fear of reprisal from the people who are supposed to love them unconditionally. And being "out" at work? It's a luxury, not a norm.

"Check their sexuality at the door?" Wake up.

This isn't a competition about who's more persecuted -- Christians or homosexuals. (But if it were, Christians would lose.)
posted by mudpuppie at 10:20 AM on January 31, 2005

davenportmom writes: Personally, however, I have seen so many peoples lives ruined by lack of rules in sexual behavior. A few years ago, we watched seven marriages end in divorce in a year's time and, to a couple, it was because the husband was having an affair. We witnessed the pain the kids went through, not to mention the wives. It broke our hearts. Not because people didn't follow our moral laws, but because of the pain we saw inflicted in the kids. I know that has nothing to do with homosexuality and that many homosexuals are monogamous. Several of you just keep asking why people are fighting against gay rights and I'm trying to give you their train of thought. There needs to be some moral standards....

So if we keep the "moral standard" of denying gays the right to marry, men won't cheat on their wives and therefore their children won't be hurt?

Were any of those cheating men seduced by The Evil Homo? Or did they cheat with good, church-going women?

Why must every homosexual see his opportunity for a lasting and loving marriage die for the sins of heterosexual Christians, see that opportunity crucified on a cross of hypocrisy as a sacrifice or scapegoat or object lesson for the by law exclusively heterosexual sin of breaking the vows of marriage?

Jesus agreed to drink the cup of self-sacrifice and by nailed to the cross in order to wash away your sins in His blood; but I don't recall the gays volunteering to provide the latest Lamb's blood to wash away the sins of heterosexual Christians.

What gives you right to draw your moral boundaries with the lives of homosexuals denied their chance at love?
posted by orthogonality at 10:25 AM on January 31, 2005

I think Olbermann does have some good points to make, but I wish he didn't get such glee out of remarking on the spelling errors in his critics e-mails. Saying "ooohh they can't spell" might be amusing to him, but it doesn't add anything more to the discussion than the e-mails he was ridiculing do.
posted by raedyn at 10:27 AM on January 31, 2005

Me & My Monkey, I am so sorry for your situation. It has to be frustrating.

Don't feel sorry for me! I'm an incredibly lucky and happy person. I'm very lucky to be alive at a time in which I can openly live with the person I love, without fear of oppression. If you'd told me fifteen years ago that we'd have made it as far as we have, I wouldn't have believed it. I'd just like to make things better, that's all. And people like you give me hope for the future.
posted by me & my monkey at 10:27 AM on January 31, 2005

"Check their sexuality at the door?" Wake up.

I wouldn't want to presuppose davenportmom's thoughts, but I'm guessing that was maybe a poor choice of words (and maybe one revealing some prejudice). But to give her the benefit of the doubt, I think there is a large swath of people who while they certainly aren't bigotry free (and nobody on earth is), do not have any real ill-will toward gay people, just a whole jumble of untrue beliefs and misunderstandings. And they may be more comfortable relating to people who see themselves as "people who are gay," rather than "gay people." If that makes any sense.

Now granted, it's anti-gay forces who have engineered the situation to the point where gay people have to make their sexuality the focal or defining point of their whole identity, but that dosen't mean it has to be bought into.

But it's the Dobson's of the world who are in effect forcing gay people to wear their sexuality on their sleeve. I'm fairly certain that most gay people would dearly love to be treated as just another guy. But the current situation dosen't seem to allow that.
posted by jonmc at 10:35 AM on January 31, 2005

Re: the "Gay Agenda"

Number of people who have tried to convince me to become Christian: Oh, I've lost track, there have been so many. Ok, I grew up in Colorado Springs (home of Dobson and his dobsicrous minions), which might skew this number higher, but still, it's not that unusual.

Number of the above people who have taken thier convincing to the level of annoyance or harrassment: About 30%.

Number of straight men I have been involved with who have tried to convince me I should be bisexual so that they could get a threesome: 2

Number of gay people who have ever tried to convince me I should become gay: 0
posted by Shoeburyness at 10:37 AM on January 31, 2005

Nicwolff,
You seem so angry. Is something bothering you? And you make a lot of assumptions about me. How do you know I am a Republican? How do you know I am not tolerant? Have we ever met and had a good long discussion? Or do you get this angry whenever someone feels differently from you? Wow and who's closed-minded? I think everyone here has a good point. That's why I enjoy this site.
posted by davenportmom at 10:38 AM on January 31, 2005

Davenportmom:

I think Christians get frustrated because we can't even say Christmas break anymore (which is true-my kids are in public schools and they get a winter break)

Bullshit. You and your children can say "Christmas Break" as much as you want. The only people in this situation who can't say it are staff in public schools. Stop being disingenuous and melodramatic.

we are supposed to lay down and accept the gay rights agenda.

What's the gay rights agenda? Show that one exists, and that it's not all in your mind. Show that a concerted strategy is in place that even approaches the magnitude of the Christian Right. If you can't, stop saying there is one, or else you're lying.

The reason cartoon characters get mentioned is that everyone knows that if you can teach a child an idiom from toddlerhood, that he will probably believe it through adulthood.

You just throw out assertions left and right, without any proof. Show me some sort of evidence that you aren't making this up. I assume you are.

They just don't want it crammed down their children's throat.

Who's cramming what? Where did you first hear about this immoral fag-positive video? Was it James Dobson? Was it? Well? Answer please.

SpongeBob is asexual like Bert and Ernie were asexual in our day.

Bert and Ernie still don't have cocks, as far as I know. Please cite at least one example where Bert and/or Ernie engaged in sexual activity, or else admit you're fucking pulling this out of the air.

In fact, His anger was mostly directed to the self-righteous, which I unfortunately can be at times.

The self-righteous Pharisees, and people who got divorces. He hated people who got divorces. He said so plainly. The thing about hating gays is much more interpreted than stated. If you follow Jesus, choose your battles.

As the great campfire song goes, "They will know we are Christians by our issues, by our issues."

And indeed, most Christians who don't immediately disavow jackasses like James Dobson seem to have them.
posted by Hildago at 10:41 AM on January 31, 2005

Shoeburyness, the best argument as to why you should become gay actually comes from the fundamentalist Christian Right anyway. Here's why Dr. Paul Cameron thinks homosexuality is so dangerous:

“If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get - and that is what homosexuality seems to be - then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm . . . I’m convinced that lesbians are particularly good seducers . . . It’s pure sexuality. It’s almost like pure heroin. It’s such a rush . . . [Heterosexual] sex tends toward the boring end. Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does.” (So, Cameron believes, if left unchecked, within a few generations homosexuality would be come the dominant form of sexual behavior.)

I mean, how can I top that? Tell you that if you join me in queerness, you won't have to mess around with birth control any more? That the food is better? No wonder we don't bother.
posted by kyrademon at 10:55 AM on January 31, 2005

I wouldn't want to presuppose davenportmom's thoughts, but I'm guessing that was maybe a poor choice of words

Jonmc -- point taken.

I'm fairly certain that most gay people would dearly love to be treated as just another guy. But the current situation dosen't seem to allow that.

The situation allows it just fine, I think. (Works for me, anyway.) It's all a matter of whom you choose to spend time with and whom you choose to ignore. That said, it's too tempting not to try to, as I said, "edify" people who might be receptive to it. Frankly, a lot of people aren't worth it.

Davenportmom, as others have said -- your willingness to consider opinions you don't share is refreshing.
posted by mudpuppie at 10:55 AM on January 31, 2005

He hated people who got divorces. He said so plainly.

Where?
posted by orange swan at 10:57 AM on January 31, 2005

Davenportmom: I think it's important to understand where some of the anger you are seeing in this thread comes from. In the highschool I went to, one of my good friends was constantly harassed for being gay. Consistently, and mercilessly, while the catholic teachers and administrators did precious little to hinder the persecutions, nor punish the persecutors. I had another friend try to take his own life because his parents wanted to disown him because he was gay. This is a hot button issue because it involves a large group of people who have been seriously hurt, in large part by those who claim to be moral and christian because of who they are and the choices they've made which ultimately poses no threat to those who have and continue to hurt them, as well as those who think they should not share the same rights as other citizens.

Others have been so enraged by injustice and inequality to take up arms and fight for equality against those who would oppress them. It is inconceivable that the gay rights movement will ever get to that point where we must physically fight for equality. However, this anger that you are seeing here is perhaps a result of the injustice that you seem to approve of, at least in part. That's why I get a bit pissed off about these sorts of things, and I suspect others as well.
posted by Freen at 11:00 AM on January 31, 2005

davenportmom: I have a high schooler now and one of the previous posts showed a schematic about the high schoolers' sex lives. No one commented on the moral grounds of it (this is not a criticism, just a comment) just how the web appeared.

Sure, I'll comment on it. The map does not seem to be that bad. To start with, what we are looking at is a map of romantic partners, not just sexual partners, so we can't make the assumption that each link is a sexual contact. About 126 students were mapped to monogamous diads. The long strings are entire compatible with a small number of romantic partners, serial monogamy, and taboos about dating other people's partners and ex-partners. In fact, the majority of the students on the map seem to have had one or two romantic partners during their high-school career. Hardly a case for widespread promiscuity.

I wonder how this squares with the experience of my grandmothers who came from an age where it was a good thing to have lots of boys come courting.

Oh and to echo what other's said. I've fought to many suicide attempts, both with myself and helping friends, due to anti-gay prejudice to really feel all that happy about "leaving it at the door." It's killing people.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:03 AM on January 31, 2005

I'm not angry, davenportmom, just disgusted. I vote against my economic interests, too - but when I do it, it's to support the real, modern, moral values of tolerance, compassion, and rationality, and when you do it it's because the gays want to ban Christmas.

Do you think when you write that nothing about you is made obvious? Maybe you're not a registered Republican, but if you voted for John Kerry I'll eat my cat. Now, if you will, answer the question: What do you mean when you claim that you can't say "Christmas break" any more?
posted by nicwolff at 11:06 AM on January 31, 2005

The situation allows it just fine, I think. (Works for me, anyway.) It's all a matter of whom you choose to spend time with and whom you choose to ignore.

Yeah, and even putting prejudice aside for a moment, there's always gonna be just plain assholes in the world who aren't worth being around. But when a prejudice is dividing society and poisoning our souls and social enviornment, then I do think we're obliged to engage with it. And the place where me might meet with the most success is the people I described above: those who really bear no hatred or ill-will, just a bundle of misperception, and falsehood that demagogues like Dobson can poke at and inflame to his own advantage.

To confront this requires a lot of frank talk and discomfort, I realize. And I may off-base or overly optimistic here. But that's how I see these situations.
posted by jonmc at 11:07 AM on January 31, 2005

If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get - and that is what homosexuality seems to be - then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist ... [Heterosexual] sex tends toward the boring end. Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does

Um... further evidence that a significant faction of the anti-homosexual crowd is repressing its own sexual desires?

If you to ignore gender preference in sexual relationships, you might be a bisexual. Or a moron.

If the only reason you're not having sex with your own gender is religious dogma, you might be gay.

The most physically satisfying orgasms I have are via masturbation, which seems obvious to me, but maybe not. The most emotionally satisfying orgasms I have are with my partner. The latter have varying degrees of physical excellentness, yet the former lack any emotional satisfaction.

Also, even if you "isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement," (which I do) the orgasm is still not the sole purpose of sex.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:13 AM on January 31, 2005

(And one does wonder exactly how Dr. Cameron is doing his research, there, too.)
posted by kyrademon at 11:18 AM on January 31, 2005

But when a prejudice is dividing society and poisoning our souls and social environment, then I do think we're obliged to engage with it.

Of course. I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

And the place where me might meet with the most success is the people I described above: those who really bear no hatred or ill-will, just a bundle of misperception...

Personal anecdote: I grew up in the South too -- small Texas town. Knew I was gay from a young age. Was terrified. Had lots of unnecessary teenage angst because of it (that is, in addition to the necessary teenage angst).

My folks were not known to me for their tolerance of alternative lifestyles or alternative skin colors or alternative anything. I had made the decision not to tell them until I'd reached financial independence because I fully believed I would be disowned.

Well, they found out sooner than I wanted them too. And they were great about it. It was difficult, but they learned to deal with it, and now it's a non-issue. Make no mistake -- they had to learn. (My mom cleaned out the So-Your-Daughter's-a-Lesbian section of Barnes and Noble.)

My point is that people come to an understanding about the issue through personal experience -- everyone has a gay neighbor or family member, but a lot of that gayness is a secret. Herein lies the catch-22. You and I can educate people about tolerance, and the Dobsons/Phelpses can educate people about prejudice. But it really hits home when someone has to decide whether the homo across the dining room table is or isn't an evil pervert.

(...or when a mom from the South connects with people in a civilized web community and finds out that maybe there's more common ground than she realized, and that no one but the Right is trying to cram anything down her throat...)
posted by mudpuppie at 11:30 AM on January 31, 2005

mudpuppie, while I definite appreciate your anecdote and the insights therein, what I was getting at is that it seems to me that davenportmom is one of the people i was describing in my initial comment.

You are correct that personal interaction with the other is the key. But to someone attempting to understand that other, an initial defensive reaction (however understandable) may not always be productive. I'm not asking anyone to tolerate outright hate, and I'm fully cognizant that I could be wrong here. But to counteract a media enviornment where many peoples impressions of gayfolk are guys in leather diapers in a news report of a pride parade and Carson from Queer Eye flitting around the couture section, we (meaning both gays and sypathetic hets like myself) have our work cut out for us, and there's all kinds of methods of persuasion.
posted by jonmc at 11:50 AM on January 31, 2005

From davenportmom's second comment:
This is not Jesus' teachings. In fact, His anger was mostly directed to the self-righteous...
...who are currently running this country. One of the few unprovable things I believe with absolute certainty is that all those who are trying to hate their way into Heaven, from James Dobson to Osama Bin Laden, will, in the end, be eternally disappointed.

And Keith Olbermann is God.
posted by wendell at 12:06 PM on January 31, 2005

One has to be selective when choosing which part of the Bible to adhere to. (Old Testament's "eye for an eye" vs. New Testament's "turn the other cheek")
In fact, the term "Christian" implies New Testament adherence, since that's where the "Christ" was, which preaches tolerance, with pacifist things like "love thy neighbor."
Sadly, it seems that the loudest Christians are less "Christian" than the "hellbound" homosexuals.
This is bad news for the Christians who like to eat shrimp... And I'd love to see the answer to these questions.
I did find this FAQ to be most helpful, though...

One last thing - I never understood how homosexuality could be perceived as threatening - am I the only one that it's occurred to that, if, stereotypically speaking, "all the best ones are gay or taken," then that every gay male couple effectively eliminates not one, but two of my highest-ranked competitors in the pursuit of women?
woot!
posted by hypersloth at 12:11 PM on January 31, 2005

This is not Jesus' teachings. In fact, His anger was mostly directed to the self-righteous...

I thought the point of Jesus was that he didn't get angry at anyone, regardless of their opinions or their lifestyle. And the fact that he didn't get angry makes the passages about turning over the tables in the temple even stronger.
posted by Arch Stanton at 12:22 PM on January 31, 2005

“If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get - and that is what homosexuality seems to be - then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm . . . I’m convinced that lesbians are particularly good seducers . . . It’s pure sexuality. It’s almost like pure heroin. It’s such a rush . . . [Heterosexual] sex tends toward the boring end. Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does.” (So, Cameron believes, if left unchecked, within a few generations homosexuality would be come the dominant form of sexual behavior.)

Dear GOD! You'd think gay people had superpowers or something. For awhile, I thought it was just me, but after seeing this direct quote, along with that other quote by the guy who wanted to ban "rampant lesbianism in schools," it's obvious that the leaders of this anti-gay movement really are frightened beyond belief. Moreover, it's not just a normal fear of something dangerous, like fear of fire. It's more of a fear of knowledge, a fear of the potential that there is a fire within that hasn't been exposed, and, God-willing, never will be.

That's my take on it, really. I don't think I'm going out on a limb here, either. These quotes really do indicate a level of paranoia that desperately needs analysis; deep, psychological analysis. The motivations clearly have long roots.

I've always found it curious that little kids, who are taught that a magic invisible man brings them gifts every year to celebrate the birth of another magic invisible man, who brings them the gift of eternal life, are by their teenage years proud of their disbelief in the first invisible man but have become even more, er, confirmed in their belief in the second invisible man.

This is interesting. Later in the thread, someone touched a little more on this, and I thought it was surprisingly insightful. The need to discover more about the universe explains very well what you observed - children who are exposed to both God and Santa Clause instantly begin their journey to explain these new things. When their knowledge of Santa evolves to the point where his existence is disproven, that's the end of the road. They've discovered all there is to know about Santa, and are quite proud of having done so. God, on the other hand, is continually explored, and theoretically, eventually fully explained. Of course, the kids die before they finish that journey, which some see as just another leg of it.

Finally, davenportmom, thank you for being a part of the thread. Your views are appreciated just as much as your effort to keep things civil, which is to say, very much appreciated.
posted by odinsdream at 12:23 PM on January 31, 2005

another thanks to you, davenportmom, and i hope you teach your kids to be as willing to listen and learn as you are.

There's too much pain and hurt in the world anyway--why add more?
posted by amberglow at 12:49 PM on January 31, 2005

I have always considered it very telling that very few christian conservatives want to put the beatitudes up in front of courthouses, or the sermon on the mount. Mainly it's the old and busted covenant, the one jesus was supposed to, you know, change with his new hotness covenant?

Odinsdream: If a significant portion of the population still believed in santa claus there would be more to explore. especially because Santa Claus does not in fact exist. When you have a commonly held, yet unprovable belief, particularly about what should and should not be done, it's fairly easy to extrapolate just about any type of interpretation to that belief.

I was joking with a friend of mine about how we should start a new christian church. First Apostolic Church of the Eschaton, and convince huge swaths of the religious right to stop having children because armageddon is right around the corner, and only a few hundred thousand people can go to heaven. You wouldn't want to bring a child into the world when there is a significant likelihood that that child will go to hell. We'd make up some crazy religious ritual based on the abraham and isaac sacrifice story, and pretend that the souls of your yet unborn children will meet you in heaven. It'd be great, and it would help stem the tide of fundies. I'm sure someone would fall for it, maybe lots of people like the "prosperity theology" group. Yet it would be totally and utterly immoral.
posted by Freen at 12:55 PM on January 31, 2005

I'd like to also give appreciation to you, davenportmom, for coming here with candor, thoughtfulness, and being able to admit that you don't know all the answers and aren't perfect - something many self-righteous Christians seem unable to do. It's very nice to hear you speaking from your heart and opening your ears to the response.

The only comment I'd have here is to your statement about "drawing the line" from a moral standpoint. I think it's perfectly all right for anyone to draw their moral line within their own lives.

It's when you try to enforce that moral line on everyone else, including people who believe differently, that the problems begin.

I think that most people would agree that the line should be drawn at a point that reasonably protects as many people as possible from harm. I don't think anyone would disagree with the moral lines we've drawn on theft, violent assault and murder, for instance; these are clearly and demonstrably actions that are harmful to other persons.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not any more harmful to people than heterosexuality, asexuality or celibacy - not in any clear, demonstrable way. There are certainly harmful heterosexual relationships and actions, as you show by the example of your seven local divorces.

It seems to come down to misunderstandings and differences of opinions as to what's harmful and what's not. From my point of view, how can a loving gay couple be judged more harshly than any of your local cheating husbands? Simply because they are gay? Because the Bible says so?

In high school (very small, very rural New England), I was persecuted for being gay, except I'm not. They just labeled me gay because I was smaller and not good at sports, and I got beaten mercilessly because of it - because I was just a little bit different. Gave me a taste of what it must have been like to be black in the 50s, or gay now, though only a bare taste. It was awful.

I personally don't think Jesus wants that sort of thing going on anywhere, from anyone.
posted by zoogleplex at 1:16 PM on January 31, 2005

I haven't seen the video, so of course I don't know for sure, but I heard an interview on the radio two days ago with a lesbian mom who said she and her partner and their kids were in the video, so that's the authority I'm going on. It's my understanding that while the video doesn't explicitly mention anything about sexuality, it does show a family that has two moms, without any value judgement.

raedyn - the report you heard on the radio was not regarding SpongeBob and Dobson, but was about an episode of "Postcards from Buster" (produced by WGBH, Boston's public television station). Education Secretary Margaret Spellings has "very serious concerns about [the] episode in which a little girl in Vermont introduces cartoon bunny Buster Baxter to her mother and her mother's lesbian partner. Spellings suggested that funding for future programming could be in jeopardy." (Boston Globe, CNN, USA Today).
posted by ericb at 2:10 PM on January 31, 2005

Dana Stevens (at Slate) interviews Jeanne Hopkins, communications director for WGBH in Boston, where "Postcards from Buster" is produced. Read the interview here (scroll down to Thursday, Jan. 27, 2005).
posted by ericb at 3:19 PM on January 31, 2005

He hated people who got divorces. He said so plainly.

Where?

In the middle east. Ha. :) Here is a collection of quotations. You can quibble with the word "hate", but clearly our notion of divorce is, strictly speaking, a series of sins, by Jesus' interpretation of Mosaic law.
posted by Hildago at 3:33 PM on January 31, 2005

BTW - the "We Are Family" Children's music video (filmed in November 2004; to be released in March on Disney Channel, Nickelodeon and PBS) features 100 children's characters and cameo appearances by Bill Cosby, Diana Ross and Whoopi Goldberg.

The children's music video comes from the folks who made "We Are Family. A Song to Heal a Nation" - a documentary which was filmed eleven days after the events of September 11 and debuted at the 2002 Sundance Film Festival.

The new children's video was produced by "The We Are Family Foundation" along with the Anti-Defamation League, Crown Theatres, Disney Channel, FedEx, Nickelodeon, HIT Entertainment, Nile Rodgers/Sony Publishing/The Bernard Edwards Estate/Warner Chapel, Nelvana, Scholastic, Sesame Workshop, Toni Mendez Shapiro Estate, and WGBH.
posted by ericb at 3:48 PM on January 31, 2005

Then there's the saga of James Barnett who was recently expelled from Trinity Christian Academy, a high school in Dallas, Texas, for being gay (Daily Kos).

"If that weren't enough, his principal outed him to his parents after discovering that James ran a website devoted to helping young gay teens like himself who are questioning their sexuality deal with issues that might arise. Says James, 'The site to me meant a great deal, as it had probably saved my life; it gave me people who were going through the same thing and we could talk. I could finally come out of my shell. So I created a free service that would give teens an outlet; stray away from drugs, suicide, alcoholism, etc.'" (from Towleroad)

Soon after, James mentioned in an interview the his parents were threatening to kick him out of his house due to the media fallout from the incident. "James has also had his hopes to attend college significantly crushed when his parents told him they were withholding financial assistance for him to attend college because of his sexual orientation unless he stayed in Dallas and went to the University of Texas, presumably so they could keep tabs on him."

Two weeks ago The Point Foundation, an organization dedicated to presenting scholarship opportunities to students regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, has announced they are awarding a scholarship to James, liberating him from his parents' demands that he attend college in Dallas.
posted by ericb at 4:29 PM on January 31, 2005

*gender identity, announced*
posted by ericb at 4:34 PM on January 31, 2005

Hildago, it really is more than "quibbling" with the wording if Jesus did not, as you said, say plainly that he hated divorced people. I agreed with most of what you said, but I thought if you were going to accuse other people of having made things up, you need to be careful about not making up arguments yourself.

I like something I heard about Abe Lincoln - that when he was arguing a case in court, he would sum up his opponent's side so carefully, precisely and fairly that at least one lawyer said of him, "He has stated my case better than I could do it!".

And then Lincoln would proceed to demolish the other side's case.
posted by orange swan at 6:34 PM on January 31, 2005

thank God for that foundation, ericb.
posted by amberglow at 7:28 PM on January 31, 2005

Orange Swan -- Well put. However, the reason I wanted to imply that focusing on the word "hate" was quibbling was because the "hate" part of it wasn't my point. I was using "hate" sarcastically, making fun of the "Jesus hates fags" crowd.

The actual point that I wanted to address was that what the gospels say about homosexuality being a sin is interpreted, rather than stated outright, yet it seems to bother Christians a lot more than divorce, which seems to be something Jesus repeatedly said was a sin, or entailed sin.

The unspoken conclusion of that would have been, "don't try to use Jesus to support what probably comes down to homophobia."

And I have to admit, I'm a little peeved that you seemed to have focused on exactly the part I didn't want to debate over, ignoring the substance of what I said. And now the thread's over. I suppose it's my fault, since this seems to happen quite a lot.
posted by Hildago at 11:27 AM on February 1, 2005

I think your point is a good one, and it's very true that a lot of religious right-wingers do exactly as you say - focusing on scapegoating gays and ignoring the "thou shalt not judge" commands which appear in the Bible many, many times.

But I think we need to be careful about crafting our arguments. If you have one small error in it, the people you are trying to convince will focus on it. Don't give them that chance to hijack you.
posted by orange swan at 1:03 PM on February 1, 2005

ericb - Thank you for clarifying all that. *tips hat*
posted by raedyn at 1:44 PM on February 1, 2005

raedyn - you're welcome. Geesh - in a two-week period two cartoon characters have caused so much stir!

BTW - got home this evening to find the current issue of New York Magazine with the following:

"The Harvey Milk School Has No Right to Exist. Discuss." -
New York City's gay-high-school experiment is under fire from a conservative lawsuit.

Also, the current issue of Time Magazine arrived today with the cover story: The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals In America. Of course, there's the following:
James Dobson, The Culture Warrior: James Dobson is tired of being misunderstood.
posted by ericb at 4:18 PM on February 1, 2005

"Dobson growls that SpongeBob has been hijacked for 'prohomosexual propaganda.' Spellings barks at lesbian mothers in Vermont. Bush talks about 'ideal families'. The hurricane of bigotry is gathering steam, with no certain safe harbor." (from "Safe harbor for gay bigotry"; Boston Globe | February 2, 2005)
posted by ericb at 7:13 AM on February 2, 2005

But I think we need to be careful about crafting our arguments. If you have one small error in it, the people you are trying to convince will focus on it. Don't give them that chance to hijack you.

You're completely right on that. It's something I work on, but don't do well enough.
posted by Hildago at 9:10 PM on February 2, 2005

Yabba-dabba-do, here we go again ...

Flintstones Are ‘Way Too Gay’
"Fred and Barney should be banned because they are virtually inseparable, are never seen wearing pants and live together in the suggestively-named town of Bedrock, complains a conservative activist" [Newsweek | February 8, 2005]
posted by ericb at 7:25 PM on February 8, 2005