'Bill O'Reilly wants to have sexuality with you'

My friend Ryan Freebern has an amusing entry entitled 'Bill O'Reilly wants to have sexuality with you.'

O'Reilly sounded off at the Postcards With Buster flap. The PBS show of that name did an episode where the animated bunny visited a family with a child and two mothers.

This provoked quite a controversy. So-called 'family groups' denounced the program for "promoting homosexuality to pre-schoolers."

Education Secretary Margaret Spelling lashed out, "Many parents would not want their young children exposed to the lifestyles portrayed in this episode."

Now given the furor, you might think the show portrayed the mommies kissing, engaging in hot lesbian sex or something of that nature. After all, that's pretty much the only thing in the lesbian 'lifestyle' that's necessarily different from the heterosexual one.

In fact, everyone was engaged in the subversive activity of... making maple syrup.

Quick: cover your child's eyes!!

Anyways, O'Reilly fumes that introducing homosexuality into the little kid culture angers many Americans who believe sex in general is an inappropriate topic for small children.

As Ryan Freebern notes: O'Reilly ignorantly conflates sexuality with sex. Sexuality is psychological, an ingrained preference for the company of certain other members of the species over others. It’s not the act of intercourse.

O'Reilly asks: I don’t want to be offensive here, but who in their right mind wants to explain Norma and Barbara’s lifestyle to their 4-year-old?

Ryan responds: I do, Bill. How’s this? “Hey, 4-year-old child of mine. See Norma and Barbara? They love each other, just like your mother and I do.” That’s it. Explaining a homosexual relationship is as simple as that.

I'd go one step further than Ryan

In reality, most four year olds would look at the two women and see... two women. Only adults might see two lesbians. Only perverts would see two women and a girl (and a cartoon character) making maple syrup and derive anything sexual out of that situation.

I dare say you wouldn’t have to explain the women's lifestyle (whatever that means) simply because an unprompted four year old wouldn’t have any reason to think the women’s 'lifestyle' is any different from that of his or her parents. Or parent.

These loud critics do not simply object to the homosexual lifestyle (whatever that means). Their agenda is much broader.

They don't want ANY acknowledgement of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as human beings who are decent and idiotic in roughly the same proportions as heterosexuals. They don't want gays, lesbians and bisexuals judged as individuals; the mere fact of their non-heterosexuality excludes them from being decent. Acknowledging them implies that they are decent.

To mention the existence of gays, except to say they're going to burn in Hell, that's unacceptable. To the Theocracy Brigade, that's tantamount to 'promoting the homosexual lifestyle.'