PF over in hell passed on a link to me of this blog article called "Gay Agenda: IL School Redefines Family."
First off, I peruse lots of different blogs. Of the fucktillions of blogs that exist, I have noticed entertaining trends among conservative-leaning ones. I'm pretty sure that studies have shown that 82% of such blogs have some sort of hokey red, white, and blue ultra-patriotic theme going on and/or include a Bad Ass photo of the blogger wearing badass shades, a baseball cap, and possibly proudly holding a firearm. Welcome to Real America, folks.
Anyway, I don't believe I had ever visited the above-linked particular blog before, so let me tell you, I noticed the formatting right away. Generally, as a blogger, I give readers credit to be able to figure out how to click on any embedded links within a particular sentence. These bloggers, however, perhaps just to make super-duper sure that everyone Gets It, include capitalized, bold-face lettering shouting at readers to CLICK HERE if they want to travel to other realms of the world wide web.
Then, erring in the other direction, the blog provides verbatim statements from the linked-to articles without encapsulating the quotations in quotation marks. How bizarre. It ends up being quite confusing, mostly because it's difficult to ascertain which statements are the blogger's and which are not. I figured it out the best I could by dividing the statements into two categories, Pro-Gay and Anti-Gay, and then inferring that the Anti-Gay statements were those of the blogger's. It was a lot of work, actually, that turned out to be not totally worth it in the end.
But those observations are rather petty. Entertaining and confusing, but petty. In the grand scheme of things, I am okay with anti-gay folks being poor communicators. It makes my job Advancing the Gay Agenda that much easier. A more substantive critique is that I also noticed that the two resident bloggers who seem to write quite a bit about really heated and controversial political issues don't even allow comments. Though to be fair, I suppose, there really is no need to hear what others have to say when one already knows everything.
When one knows everything, assemblages of histrionic conclusions without supporting arguments generally suffice, because everything is just so self-evidently true.
And what's the truthy truth? Well, I learned that this particular blogger, Gabriel Mephibosheth, does not at all like that Shannon Sullivan of the Illinois Safe Schools Network has been trying to make schools safer for LGBT kids. Which, as Gabriel puts it, means Sullivan is really trying to advance "the offensive claim that families led by homosexuals are morally equivalent to those led by guardians, disabled parents, racial minorities, or heterosexuals."
Now here, I was like, "Yeah, so what?" But then I remembered that in AntiGayLand, it is pretty much a given, a statement of Objective Moral Truth, that homosexuality is morally inferior to heterosexuality and, as such, it requires no further elaboration actually explaining why it would be offensive to equate gay families with Real Families.
At this point, I will link to the evidence that demonstrates that the kids of same-sex couples do just fine but, of course, such evidence doesn't matter to people who already know deep down in their guts the Objective Truthy Truth that Homosexuality Is Wrong, Bad, and Dangerous.
Observe, Gabriel telling it like it is:
"'Family Diversity' is a term that obscures the politically incorrect truth that not all family structures are worthy of appreciation or respect."
Families headed by same-sex couples are not "worthy of appreciation or respect"?
Oh really? Why is that, Gabriel?
"The forms of diversity of which Ms. Sullivan is enamored are, in the view of many people, profoundly wrong; and public schools have no right to use school hours, school resources, and public money to affirm Ms. Sullivan's unproven, divisive theories to children."
So, families headed by same-sex couples are not worthy of appreciation or respect because many people believe homosexuality is "profoundly wrong." That is a conclusion, not an argument. All it tells us is that same-sex parenting duos are bad because many people think same-sex couples are bad. It doesn't tell us anything about the merits or demerits of same-sex couples or parenting other than that a bunch of people aren't okay with it.
Now, at this juncture, it is worth mentioning that one of the arguments marriage equality advocates are making in the current Prop 8 trial is that it is unconstitutional for states to exclude same-sex couples from marriage because doing so sends the message that same-sex couples are inferior to heterosexual couples. As attorney Ted Olson noted in his opening argument:
"...Proposition 8 singled out gay men and lesbians as a class, swept away their right to marry, pronounced them unequal, and declared their relationships inferior and less-deserving of respect and dignity."
That same-sex couples are inferior to heterosexual couples is not exactly a point of contention among many "marriage defenders" and anti-gay folks. That is just a statement of fact that is accepted as a given, as it is to Gabriel here. Obviously, to them, same-sex relationships are not worthy of respect. They certainly aren't worthy of the same respect that Real Families are.
It is highly interesting to see the Prop 8 supporters and NOM now backpedaling and insisting that Prop 8 was not motivated by anti-gay animus, in light of the observable fact that anti-gay sentiments such as Gabriel's, above, are hardly unusual.
The message is very clear. We hear it all the time from folks like Gabriel.
We don't count. Our families aren't real like how heterosexual nuclear families are real. That isn't even up for debate, not on blogs or in courtrooms, because lots and lots of people believe that.
Oh, but Gabriel continues, not giving readers enough credit he states his conclusions as fact and offers us no arguments:
"The administration has no right to impose these unproven, divisive, and often religious beliefs, on teachers through Institute Day presentations or any other professional development workshops that focus on 'anti-bullying' or 'diversity.' And administrators have no right to expect or compel teachers to share Sullivan's subversive ideas with young children, many of whose parents have political, philosophical, moral, or religious beliefs that conflict with them."
While I appreciate this extra-special glimpse into what Gabriel believes administrators have "no right" to do, some argumentation to back up such claims would be helpful for us to, you know, follow along and come to a conclusion ourselves.
But that's not really what anti-gay "argumentation" is about, is it?
As we see over and over again, these Weapons of Mass Projection constantly accuse equality advocates of being touchy-feely and preying on people's emotions. In reality, it's a statement of observable fact that their hysterical, flaccid "arguments" are little more than appeals to fear, appeals to the Christian Persecution Complex, appeals to populist rage, and appeals to the higher power whose will they conveniently have the exclusive right to interpret.