If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything. This is apparently the premise upon which the media’s morality marketing campaign is founded. Television (TV) programs like Glee, Modern Family, Will and Grace, etc., are designed to market homosexuality as a normal lifestyle.
National statistics reflecting deficient critical thinking skills of young Americans portend a high susceptibility of that group to this method of indoctrination; the efficacy of which is reflected in many opinion polls. This group would also account for the increase in the number of registered “Independent” voters. However, they are not independent in the sense that they think for themselves but rather they reject convention and align with popular causes which usually have no rational foundation. They tend to have a myopic view which precludes their appreciation of the symbiotic implications of a proposition.
Films such as “The Sergeant ” with Rod Steiger, “Cruising” with Al Pacino, “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil” with Kevin Spacey, and so on, provide a less comedic depiction, of people who opt for a homosexual lifestyle, than do today’s TV contrivances.
Although most fiction has some factual basis, it is undeniably intended to convey a particular view and offer a certain perspective. Reality, however, can be found on police blotters bearing the names of public restroom skulkers like George Michael, or Larry Craig who when considered with former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey and Mary Cheney, daughter of former US Vice President Dick Cheney, are testament to the fact that people with homosexual proclivities are capable of functioning in a manner consistent with normal human behavior (same gender sodomy is not normal human behavior).
Whether Cheney succumbed to some maternal instinct or was attempting to make some philosophical statement can only be speculated. However, Craig and McGreevey’s behavior suggests homosexuals are driven by compulsion, not unlike that of sexual predators, which makes the APA’s refusal to fully explore the psychological aspect of the behavior, before removing it from the DSM, at least irresponsible if not malfeasance.
Moreover, the conundrum in which Craig and McGreevey placed their children; empathetic with their mothers, ambivalent about their fathers and confused as to the import of their fathers’ behavior relative to themselves, should figure prominently in any discussion on same gender couple adoptions. Obviously the compulsion to engage in aberrant sexual behavior superseded any consideration of the possible harm to their own biological progeny.
Even President Obama demonstrated his poor parenting skills when he endorsed same gender matrimony (ssm) despite the fact that it is antithetical to the tenets of Christianity; while he purports himself to be a christian, and it is against federal law. The implication to his daughters would then be that you embrace Christianity when you need it to be elected but not when courting the sexually perverted constituency you need for reelection (particularly when they make substantial contributions to your campaign). And, if you disagree with the law, like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or the immigration laws, and you cannot get them changed, just ignore them. Perhaps some of our prison inmates had parents with similar philosophies.
Couching sexual deviancy in sitcoms is not unlike someone slipping GHB into your drink; you may not realize the danger until after you have ingested it. The sitcom is the delivery system; sexual perversion is the embedded IED designed to destroy all rational, logical, moral and ethical reasoning abilities.
Beware of “Gay TV”.