Mount Sutro: An Electronic Periodical

1251Hours EDT

Attack of the Homosexual Agenda!

by Archived Article (2001–2014) Help

I find the accusations detailed in the following BBC news story unfathomably ridiculous.
US right attacks SpongeBob video
[original article]

US conservative groups are up in arms over a music video featuring children's TV heroes such as the cheerful cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants. Focus on the Family and other groups say the video - a remake of the Sister Sledge hit, We Are Family - is a vehicle for pro-gay propaganda.

The video's makers plan to mail it to US schools in the spring to promote tolerance and diversity. They say the attack is based on a misunderstanding.

The video also features children's favourites like Bob the Builder, along with characters from Sesame Street and The Muppet Show.

But James Dobson, founder of right-wing Christian group Focus on the Family, singled out SpongeBob at a black-tie dinner in Washington in the run-up to President Bush's inauguration, the New York Times said.

SpongeBob - who appears on the children's cable channel Nickelodeon - is seen as an icon for adult gay men in the US, apparently because he regularly holds hands with his sidekick Patrick. His creators deny that he is gay, but he is not the first such character to cause controversy.

In 1999 conservatives claimed handbag-carrying Teletubby Tinky Winky, an import from the UK, was a bad role-model.

'Easy lesson'

Nile Rodgers, who wrote the song and is founder of the We Are Family Foundation (WAFF) which released the new video, says it is intended to help teach children the values of co-operation and unity.

"We believe that this is the essential first step to loving thy neighbour," he said. "And the fun and exciting format makes it a lesson that's easy for children to learn."

But conservatives say it sees the video as a cunning attempt to promote homosexuality. They point to the fact that the WAFF is linked to a pledge being promoted by some liberal groups which includes a recognition of tolerance of sexual identity.

"We see the video as an insidious means by which the organisation is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids," Paul Batura, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, told the New York Times.

Mr Rodgers said the groups may have confused his foundation with an unrelated organisation with a similar name that supports gay youth.

WAFF spokesman Mark Barondeso told the newspaper that anyone who thought the video promoted homosexuality "needs to visit their doctor and get their medication increased."
I must have let my subscription to the "Convert the World" newsletter lapse, because all this agenda talk is new to me. The Focus on the Family group must have nothing better to do then come up with these absurd analyses of cartoon kids programming. So SpongeBob and Patrick hold hands, right? Hello, this is a program for children. Children hold hands with their friends. How can people so instantly jump from a simple friendly hand-hold to homosexual agenda?

The basis of the conservative view that homosexuals are promoting an agenda to gain "special" rights and brainwash the balance of the population is intrinsically flawed. The only agenda I see in action is similar to the one Doctor Martin Luther King, Junior embarked on in 1955 when he staged the city-wide boycott of Montgomery, Alabama's public transportation system in response to the Rosa Parks arrest.

Irrelevant of anyone's personal feeling on whether or not homosexuality is moral, unnatural or dirty, it was the intention of the founders of this country that every citizen had the unrestricted ability to conduct their lives as they see fit. As such, rules were established to ensure equal treatment regardless of those beliefs. While it has taken a considerable amount of time to attach these rules to minorities such as African Americans and women, it was eventually done because it was the right and equal thing to do.

I am not seeking any "special" rights. I want to be able to receive Federal tax benefits should I choose to officialize a long-term, loving relationship with another human being. I want that person to automatically receive the legal privileges as a next of kin and to have the final say in matters exclusive to the union. I do not want to have to worry about being terminated from job where I perform above and beyond all expectations because someone has a problem with who I happen to be romantically attracted to in my private, personal, non-work related life.

Someone please explain to me how those requests are "special" in any way.

I do not identify myself by my sexuality. I exist as a human being and therefore should be judged by my actions, not who I date. That is nobody's business but my own and personally not something I feel the need to advertise. I will not hide the fact, however. Why should I bother? I do not hide the fact that I have grey eyes or that my right hand is dominant. In the larger scheme of the universe, those attributes hold the same weight as sexuality: very little to none.

And even if you do not choose to accept that argument and still hold the opinion that homosexuality is something one consciously selects, why still should it matter? Does my choice to purchase a Honda vehicle over a Ford vehicle somehow make me inherently different from someone who would select the Ford over the Honda?

In closing, if you think I am going to go to hell for having committed unequivocally detestable sins against god and nature, so be it. I am not planning on finding out if you are correct in the near future, so in the meantime, I am the same as you and deserve the same rights and privileges. Period.


Related Article: Best Gay News Blog: Mount Sutro

Two Comment Bubbles twelve Comments

  • flcute76

    you know i really must say that while sometimes Dr. James Dobson can be really intelligent, he can also be just flat out FUCKING STUPID!! he really gets on my nerves sometimes.

    I swear christians need to take the stick out of their ass. it bothers me because it gives christians like me(who are relaxed and groovy) a bad name.

    i mean WTF Tinky Winky was gay because another moron (Jerry Fallwell) said that because he carried a purse?? and it wasnt even a purse its his magic bag. what is up with these morons? i tell you what it is, they dont watch these programs. they see the tinyest snippett and jump over the cliff of conclusions and automaticly think they are gay! And now SpongeBob is gay just because he holds hands with Patrick?

    ugh... sorry for rambling... i just get so damn mad at these people!!

  • JJEternal

    Let me ask you one question, then. Who do you think Dobson and his ilk are voting for and supporting financially? The same people that want to criminalize homosexuality.

  • flcute76

    JJ your question is invalid because im not talking about politics at the moment. so dont turn this into a political conversation, because thats not even where i was going with that.

    Infact JJ, why dont you get off my ass for my beliefs and go bother someone else. because i sure as hell won't miss you.

  • David July

    I think it is a valid point. While I know you were simply posting an opinion on a particular topic, in the larger scheme of things you cannot separate politics from this discussion.

    You stated that those organizations give Christians a bad name. Those same organizations would argue that you are NOT a Christian because you are homosexual. It is those same organizatons that fund ultra-conservatism in politics. In the next four years, it may very well be the case that it is those organizations who win important victories in the United States Supreme Court over civil rights.

  • Queer

    Great argument buddy. I think the whole country should be forced to watch the movie "Saved". It undeniably shows where this country is gay, be straight, who cares? Just be good to each other. That's just the way I see it.

  • SursumCorda

    It seems to me the scariest part of the article is this: "The video's makers plan to mail it to US schools in the spring to promote tolerance and diversity." Whether one agrees or disagrees with what is being promoted, propaganda is propaganda and does not belong in government-sponsored schools. It's a good thing, as well as a protected right, for adults to try to convince other adults of the rightness of their opinions. The position of an authority figure (teacher) over a minor child (student) in a situation of compulsory attendance (school) is altogether different. Whether it's politics, religion, moral values, or toothpaste, a state-sponsored school forfeits the right to proselytize. I was always appalled by the signs in our schools advertising Coke, and M&M's, and other commercial products, though shame on me, I did nothing about them.

  • David July

    I agree with that statement absolutely.

    However, I believe the difference is that teaching tolerance for other people in general is never a bad thing and, in fact, is a part of the teachings the Focus on Family group follows.

    If it was indeed pro-gay propaganda then it had no business, but if it was simply a video about practicing tolerance toward other races, religions and say, overweight people, then where is the problem?

    Without actually viewing the video itself, I suppose we will never know.

  • SursumCorda

    Where is the problem? Just the fact that the video will be used in public schools. Even if it really were pro-gay propaganda I would not have a problem with the existence of the video. It would be my right to buy it, to watch it myself, to show it to my children, even to show it in my private school -- although that's getting a bit iffy, because I'd want to be sure the values taught were known to be part of the school philosophy when the students enrolled.

    Promoting tolerance and diversity sounds like such a good thing, who could object? I'd still be concerned about such an effort, especially at the elementary school level, which is clearly the intended audience. I remember watching a set of videos when I was in school, probably junior high or early high school, promoting racial tolerance. (Showing my age here.) It was a fine and enjoyable show (better than regular class, at least!) but I distinctly remember the encouragement to feel superior to our unenlightened, prejudiced parents. This kind of pride (which needs no encouragement in teenagers!) is, in my opinion, one of the worst possible sins. Bear in mind that the values they were attempting to teach were ones with which my parents and I fully agreed -- yet I still find the potential for harm unacceptable.

    Schools that bear the name "public" really need to stay out of the business of teaching moral values. Note that I am not talking about school rules here; it is perfectly appropriate to say, "You may not fight, you may not call people names, you may not cheat on tests, etc." Nor am I talking about muzzling teachers, especially in the later grades, although here again one must be very careful, because of the authority structure and the fact that students are rarely free to choose their teachers. Still less am I trying to dictate the contents of such classes as one might expect a school to teach, e.g. history.

    A school can reasonably expect its students to behave in specific ways, and to acquire knowledge of specific facts, but any attempt to inculcate attitudes and beliefs in a captive audience of schoolchildren is beyond the pale.

    Sorry for the length of this comment. I cannot seem to write short opinions. :)

  • me 14. and a christian. i honestly dont think spongebob is gay.even tho i havent seen tha vid or w/e. but hes not a gay acting cartoon...i mean its not that big of a deal. and it kinda makes u wanna believe it when you see all these pics of him and patrick KISSSING and holding hands and holding eachother or w/e. but if you dont wanna watch and think its wrong then dont let ur kids watch it. and if you dont..go rite ahead. its all a matter of opinions..which i dont see why ppl ever argue over...its not a fact. so why argue??!!

  • me

    um.daang.this article must late. jeez im not gunna git ne response!!gosh..just noticin that.

Closed Comment Bubble Comments Closed

  • Article comments are disabled after ninety days. Alternatively, you can send feedback via email.