An update on the Buster in Vermont controversy I “ranted about”:http://www.globalspin.com/mt/archives/000480.html earlier: An “absolutely idiotic article”:http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2005/02/27/news/opinion/edit07.txt by Bill O’Reilly underscores the basic misconception involved. O’Reilly claims that the issue isn’t gay couples, it’s that “sex in general is an inappropriate topic for small children.”
And there you go. The first thing Bill O’Reilly thinks of when he sees two women working on a farm in Vermont is _sex_, of such a prurient nature that the mere hint of it would sear a child’s eyes for life. We might look at such a show and see a family working together to make maple syrup, but O’Reilly (and, by his deduction, the toddlers of America) see hot girl-on-girl action.
It’s all so clear now.
I get what you’re saying about him automatically assuming that a family with two female adults is automatically a sexual issue (it’s not) but I was surprised at O’Reilly’s annoyance at the conservative overreaction to it all. Still, I’m all for what he calls the subliminal “gay is okay” approach.
“It’s okay to be happy, Buster, just don’t be gay”?
I’m so very tired of this gay = sex thing. I have to say, when two women in flannel with large iron skimming spoons are stirring maple syrup under beautiful fall foliage the absolute last thing I’m likely to think about is “Hey, they have sex, heh heh, heh heh.” And I know what the word means! Sigh. Bill O’Reilly (and other folks who are up in arms about this) need to stop projecting. It’s one thing to protect children from inappropriate sexual material. It’s another to cocoon them in one quilted happy life filled with asexual stuffed animals with no signs of affection from any one grownup to any other grownup. Sexuality and affection are normal, and to totally shield children from the idea of them is to create psychological issues and intolerance later on. Or is that the point?