I find the accusations detailed in the following BBC news story unfathomably ridiculous.
US right attacks SpongeBob videoI 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?
[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."
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.
UPDATE
Related Article: Best Gay News Blog: Mount Sutro