The Worst Representations of Gay Men on TV in 2012

...And now for the worst. This was a truly terrible year, one completely cluttered up with just awful portrayals that combined bad TV with bad stereotypes. Watching many of these shows was just a painful exercise. They were self-indulgent messes, replete with awkward and horrifying characterization. They aren't complex, they aren't interesting, they aren't praise worthy. They're just bad. The worst part being that the shows could so easily have been good, but just consistently chose not to be. In fact, this year was so bad, I had to expand my normal half-list of five into a full list of ten just to cover everything that was horribly, horribly wrong.

Let the pain begin...

The Ten Worst Representations of Gay Men in 2012

10. T.J. Hammond, Political Animals

Political Animals was a show that I generally liked. I actually quite often liked T.J. the slutty, drug addict son. But most of the time he was just alternating between sleeping with just about anyone and doing copious amounts of drugs. There was nothing particularly complex or interesting about him, he was just poorly written and came off incredibly awkwardly. Inevitably the best episodes of the series were the ones that marginalized him as much as possible.

9. Oscar Martinez, The Office

"Gay Witch Hunt" is one of my favorite episodes of TV. Which really marks the stark deterioration of both Oscar and The Office over the course of its history. He used to be, like everyone else who worked in the office, a fairly normal guy, but one who happened to be gay and a little pompous. Now he's devolved, again like everyone else in the office, into his worst traits. He is an arrogant jerk and his plot-line for this season has been that Angela's boyfriend the state senator is cheating on her with him. How sad for a character that used to be on the Best list.

8. Smash... just Smash

NBC decided to rip off Glee and do it as a Broadway show. The result was, quite predictably, terrible, with more than one "what were you thinking?" moments per episode. It's almost impossible to nail down what was actively offensive as opposed to simply offensively bad. Nor is it possible to single out any one character in a show this aggressively  in-your-face bad. So, I'm just saying the entire show, and placing it on the low end since it was good enough, at least, to spread the misery around. The lowlights include the dance crew whose sole personality traits were "gay," the entire Tom dates a Republican arc, and pretty much anything involving Ellis.

7. David Murray, The New Normal

The New Normal is pretty much all around terrible. A screechy, self-indulgent, moralizing mess that is simply an excuse for Ryan Murphy to climb up on his soap box and pelt us with sermons. It is sloppy, inconsistent, and will be actively offensive one scene and then follow it with angry tirade about how we should not be offensive. David is, mostly, the straight man, but he is the exact same screechy moralizing jerk that everyone else on the show is, as well as generally being an arrogant dick. Mostly he is there to make Bryan look like someone a person could actually fall in love with.


6. Cameron Tucker, Modern Family

Oh Cam....this has not been your year, has it? Cam usually manages to just skate by based on farm stories. Having that one quality in addition to being gay normally saves him, in my opinion, from the truly terrible gay characters. But man, they really went over-the-top with his theatrics and neediness this season.

5. Patrick, Anger Management

Anger Management is a sitcom that could be, and should be, better than it is. And Patrick is a character that could be, and should be, better than he is. He's a gay guy with anger control issues. That could be something interesting. An angry character instead of a bitchy one. But he is a bitchy character. Just a stereotypically effete, bitchy guy. Setting a show in a therapy session should make delving into deep, complex characters easy, but no, everything about the show is incredibly superficial, including Patrick.

4. Kurt Hummel, Glee

Kurt has to be excited that this year features so many terrible characters, because it really makes him look better by comparison. Glee was a show that distracted its audience with bright colors and catchy songs, causing them not to realize just how awful a show it is. Kurt gets continuously saddled with horrible plots, often just to make a point. Which is something special in a show as utterly incoherent as Glee is.

3. Mitchell Pritchett, Modern Family

The former winner of worst gay guy on TV, has now fallen to third place! Mitchell is gay and... and... there's no "and" there. He's just gay. The worst part being that he's gay and in a completely sexless relationship. I always say that Modern Family is best viewed as a group of people who died and are now in Hell together, and that's no more evident than with Mitchell and Cam's relationship. They are just two awful people making each other miserable.

2. Louis, Partners

Partners was just awful. It would have been dated in 1990, an unfunny collection of stereotypes with jokes that would have been rejected from Will & Grace scripts. Louis was the worst aspect of the show, being a completely self-absorbed, narcissistic asshole utterly unattached to reality. And yet was supposed to be lovable. He would be terrible for the entire episode, and then we were asked to think he was adorable.

1. Bryan Collins, The New Normal

I could almost cut and paste my criticisms of Louis and put it here. It is amazing that a TV season would feature two such odious gay characters who are terrible in the exact same way. But Bryan was just so much worse as a transparent Mary-Sue of Ryan Murphy (so transparent that Murphy just stuck a "b" in front of his own first name). He's screechy and moralizing, and yet a complete jerk. He's completely untethered from reality, and yet treats everyone terribly. He's every bad gay stereotype without any attempt at creating an interesting character. He is a character with literally no redeeming qualities. Just an oil slick of awfulness. The New Normal is just Ryan Murphy's self-indulgent fantasy lie, and Bryan is who Murphy thinks he is. Murphy seems to think that he is charming and adorable, but he really is just an awful, awful human being.

The Best Representations of Gay Men on TV in 2012

This was quite the year for gay male representation on TV. We saw some of the most complex, innovative and daring portrayals in the medium's history.... but that was juxtaposed against some absolutely painful, awkward and stereotypical portrayals. In fact, there were so much in the way of awful representation, I had to expand my annual list of the five most odious characters to ten.

Just as a note, this is more of a list of non-heterosexual male characters, as "gay" does not accurately fit several people I am listing.


These are the best. The characters I enjoyed watching the most. They're interesting, innovative, exciting and complicated. They all have well-rounded lives. They are both gay (or rather, non-heterosexual) and interesting characters, with neither overshadowing the other, but instead having all aspects integrated into a fascinating whole.


The 10 Best Representations of Gay Men on TV in 2012

10. Mr. Wolfe, Suburgatory (Rex Lee)

When Suburgatory first started airing, Mr. Wolfe was just another aspect of its satire of suburbia as a place that prides itself on friendliness, but is really oppressive, repressive and demands secrecy. About half way through the season, Mr. Wolfe perfunctorily came out of the closet, and since then has become the rarest of TV creatures, a gay man who has a large number of stereotypical qualities, but is not offensive. He's well rounded, well developed, in an relationship that is fairly nuanced.

9. Ian Gallagher, Shameless (Cameron Monaghan)

Shameless is a show that is ambiguous at best. There are many, often confusing and contradictory, ways to interpret it. Depending upon which lens you utilize, it is either brilliant or terrible. The same could be said for how to interpret middle child Ian. I choose to look at him as an economically and socially marginalized figure who has an incredibly limited pool of potential romantic partners, and so makes due with what is available. Which just happens to be mostly older men. But I don't deny that there is a creepy subtext to it all.

8.  Dean Craig Pelton, Community (Jim Rash)

Dean Pelton is a happy, pansexual imp. Nothing is really known about his sexuality, other than it is strange. But he is a remarkably well developed character, a rare minor character that is able to hold up entire episodes. And the joke is never that he is behaving in a stereotypically gay way. The joke about his affinity for cross-dressing is the weird tangential connections between his outfits and the news he is trying to convey. That and the fact that he does such elaborate pageantry just to deliver news to seven very specific people.

7. Danny Mahealani, Teen Wolf (Keahu Kahuanui)

I unapologetically and unironically love Teen Wolf. It is such a wonderful show that almost feels like it is tailor made to appeal specifically to me. And one of the great elements of Teen Wolf is my beloved Danny. He's part of the popular clique, but also friends with everyone. He's a jock, but also a total nerd. He's the only person that resident jerk Jackson can muster up any human compassion for. And he's got a rich life that the show drops all sorts of hints about. Every season I get up my hopes he will be bumped up from fan-favorite minor character to the main cast... let's hope it happens this next season.

6. Sonny Kiriakis, Days of Our Lives (Freddie Smith)

It's always rather difficult to review soap operas. They have a byzantine complexity, with massive casts, and glacial pacing that inevitably ensures stories will fall into good, bad, and impossible to understand, and sometimes all three. Nevertheless Sonny is just a great character. A small business owner who is just all around nice and his slowly built romance with main character Will Horton has been enjoyable to watch unfold daily.

5. Nasir, Spartacus (Pana Hema Taylor)

A former sex slave that Spartacus freed during a brief stop over at a mansion, Nasir has evolved into one of the most interesting characters on the show. At first a traitor, attempting to asassinate Spartacus, he was enfolded into the slave rebellion. At first weak, he sought out someone more powerful to protect him, but eventually was trained into a strong warrior in his own right. Always independent  he stands up for what he believes is right. And he is in what is inarguably the best gay romance this year.


4. Ray Gillette, Archer (Adam Reed)

Gillette really started off as a one-off joke about a gay secret agent in the spy spoof Archer. But Adam Reed enjoyed doing the voice, and so they kept bringing him back until he was as essential to the cast as any other character. He's often the straight man to Archer's insane antics, and is one of the few Isis employees who actually has some degree of competence. There's a world weary exhaustion to Gillette and a frustration that he has to deal with endless antics of working at the worst spy agency anyone ever created.

3. Nolan Ross, Revenge (Gabriel Mann)

A year ago, I considered Nolan the best non-heterosexual male character on the TV. Sadly, a season of underuse and listless plots have pushed him a bit father down. Nolan, the campy, quippy bisexul right-hand man to sociopathic vengence-machine Emily Thorne was possibly the best element in the surprisingly delightful and addictive Revenge. Everything about him was just fun. His hilarious jokes, his magical ability to hack into any computer on the planet and get it to do anything, his affinity for disguises, the fact that he banged a psychopathic male prostitute. There's just nothing not to like about him (other than a romance with the dullest character Revenge has ever had...)

2. Max Blum, Happy Endings (Adam Pally)

Max is fat, poor, a slob and also hilarious. A combination that's pretty much every gay guy I know in real life, but unlike anything you will ever see on TV. Max is incredibly well developed, having an acerbic, con-artist personality that floats from odd job to odd job. In the second season of Happy Endings he was the only character that was given a romantic arc. Max's sexuality is completely integrated into a character where it is never marginalized, but also never centralized. Brilliant.

1. Agron, Spartacus (Dan Feuerriegel)

There really aren't enough good things to say about Agron on Spartacus. He's tough as nails, completely loyal to Spartacus and the slave rebellion's cause, and depending upon the day either the second or third in charge. He's complex and fascinating, and even when he is acting in a less than noble fashion, Spartacus always makes sure he has excellent and well justified reasons for doing what he does. On top of just being generally bad-ass, he had the only really excellent romantic relationship on the show. The slowly built love between Agron and Nasir was one of the highlights of the second season, and an excellent juxtaposition between their mutual love and the rest of the show's use of sex as a representation of power dynamics. Frell, now I am going to have to go rewatch Spartacus: Vengeance.




Well, those were the best... coming up next, the worst...

Take the Scorn

Timothy Dalrymple gives an almost perfect example of the tone argument in this post. For those of you not familiar with the tone argument, it is a logical fallacy of arguing over how something is said, rather than its actual content. Dalrymple relies incredibly heavily on the tone argument throughout his posting, mainly because he argues in blog post after blog post that conservative Christians have been made in "caricatures," but he does not actually disagree with any part of that caricature. In fact, the caricatures he rails against almost perfectly define him, something that he inevitably has to admit in most posts. So he's left complaining about the way people message, because he can't really argue with the content of it.

If You’re Selling Scorn for Conservative Christians, the Market is Hot

Right at the start of all this, Dalrymple is making the exact type of disingenuous and uncharitable statement that he will rail against in the upcoming post. He's literally claiming that the "scorn" conservative Christians receive is some sort of money making scheme, rather than an opinion that is honestly arrived at. Of course, he won't ever admit that vastly larger sums of money are vastly easier to acquire by appealing to those conservative Christians, rather than appealing against them.

But by accepting the caricatures coming mostly from secular critics, legitimating and perpetuating them, they themselves — acting out of concern for the damage done to the church and its witness — are doing great harm to the church and its witness. If we truly care for the public witness of the church, then we (liberal and conservative) need to stop slandering and caricaturing the other half of the church. Don’t throw your Christian brothers and sisters under the bus. Even if you disagree with them, you can provide a coherent, charitable explanation for what “those other evangelicals” believe.

Again, Dalrymple is being disingenuous. The "caricatures" are not coming mostly from "secular critics," but rather people with first hand experience, some of it extensive. Also again, the caricature Dalrymple is complaining about is something that accurately defines him. He's actually going to launch into just how accurate those caricatures are in this post, and his only complaint is that the "secular critics" state it in harsh, unflattering terms.

If that was all they wanted to say, however, they could have rented a billboard with the boards, “Our hearts are with you.” Given their beliefs on homosexuality and marriage, that would have been a fine thing to do. Yet that’s not what they did. Instead they called their fellow believers, who feel differently from them on this issue, ”narrow-minded, judgmental, deceptive, [and] manipulative.”

Of course, Dalrymple fails to mention their fellow believers, who feel differently from them on this issue, were, in fact, narrow-minded, judgmental, deceptive, and manipulative. Anyone who has followed the issue of marriage equality with any degree of closeness knows this is the case. It does not matter if you look at Protect Marriage, the National Organization for Marriage, or the American Family Association (or any others), they are all narrow-minded, judgmental, deceptive, and manipulative. This is just a matter of public fact. If we are to be extremely charitable towards them, their supporters (both supporting the organizations and co-supporting their causes), then those supporters are, at best, complacent in being narrow-minded, judgmental  deceptive, and manipulative.

(1) They’re perpetuating the worst images of conservative Christians who support traditional marriage.

Which also happens to be an image that is true. Acknowledging truth is not a bad thing, no matter how harshly worded that truth is.

(2) They’re holding themselves our as a better alternative. They are the good Christians, the more Christ-like Christians, who are not judgmental — even as they’re judging sixty percent of North Carolinians, a majority of Californians, over half of Christians in the United States and the great majority of Christians around the world.

They are, almost undoubtedly. a better alternative. And those Christians deserve to be judged for exactly what their participation was. For someone who complains about a lack of nuance, Dalrymple is ultimately using the multiple shades of "judge" for a quick, convenient point. Mission Gathering is judging people for their actions which demonstrably attack and harm others. Christians such as Dalrymple are judging people for existing in the first place. Two entirely different and mutually exclusive standards.

In other words, (3) they’re saying “our hearts are with you” in that “we feel the same anger and scorn in our hearts as you do.”

Good. Those people deserve all the anger and scorn they get. It is nothing less than a good thing to tell the victims of a rather heinous attack that you feel as righteously angry about that attack as they do.

Their intentions are honorable, but undermined by an incoherent strategy and by their deep-seated scorn for conservative Christians. They’re trying to encourage love — by being hateful (and no, I don’t think that’s too strong a word). They’re trying to encourage tolerance — but judging everyone who disagrees with them. They’re trying to improve the witness of the church — by legitimating the stereotype that the conservative half of the church is bigoted and deceitful. They hold themselves out as a better alternative — by throwing more conservative Christians under the bus.

Actually nothing is incoherent about it, and conservative Christians deserve all the scorn they get. They are trying to encourage love, by rebuking hate. There's actually nothing hateful about Mission Gathering's statement, it is just a statement of fact, one supported by a mountain of evidence. One supported by basically everything that occurred in the entire Proposition 8 trial. They're encouraging tolerance by rebuking the intolerant. Dalrymple here is just putting out the barest bones of the classic, "if you are so tolerant, why don't you tolerate my intolerance?" argument. That one is just a semantic word game that is logically false. There is nothing about that stereotype that is false. It is completely legitimate, and at no point does Dalrymple attempt to falsify that stereotype, mainly because he can't. And no one is throwing anyone under the bus, other than conservative Christians throwing themselves under the bus. Mission Gathering is simply pointing out that they did it.

And these are bumper-sticker arguments. I am for a family founded on the marriage of man and woman; I am for the defense of innocent human life even prior to birth. And I am not trying to advance the kingdom so much as I am trying to defend the innocent and defend social structures I consider sacred and valuable. The dead are not raised by politics, but the living can be protected and served by it.

Actually, Dalrymple is presenting bumper-sticking re-phrasings. Being for, "for a family founded on the marriage of man and woman" is simply being against a vast swath of alternative family structures. And it conveniently ignores actions. How does voting against marriage equality benefit or promote families founded on the marriage of a man and a woman? The truth is that it doesn't, hence why so many conservative Christians have to make the absolutely insane claims that if we allow gay people to marry, there will somehow be more single woman, who will then produce more criminals, and all of society will fall apart. Nope, actions prove that Dalrymple is just anti-gay. And, unless Dalrymple is radically different from the conservative Christian he presents himself to be, he is just anti-abortion. If we was really concerned for the "defense of innocent human life even prior to birth" then he would the contraception policy in Obamacare, as making contraception more available and cheaper would prevent abortions. He would also love Planned Parenthood, an organization that does more to prevent abortions than any other in America. He would also support universal healthcare, public housing, and a strong welfare state, as the lack of all those things contribute to why women have abortions. Most conservative Christians do not support anything to help ease the financial and social burden on pregnant women, which would reduce abortions dramatically. So we are left with the fact that they are just anti-abortion. In fact, they only care about the act of abortion, and could not possibly care less about either mother or child.

For conservative Christians, of course, there are not merely political victories. These are matters of fundamental moral and theological import, critical to the health of individuals and societies.

And that's the difference between Dalrymple and the progressive Christians. They do not view these issues as "political victories" or "matters of fundamental moral and theological import." Instead they view them as incredible hardships that directly affect specific people. When a gay couple is denied the benefits of marriage, it is not an abstract theological point. It is a specific hardship that couple has to live with their entire lives. It does real, calculable damage to them. To the progressive Christians the morality and the theology are derived from the harm to the vulnerable, they do not deduce that morality and theology demand they harm the vulnerable.

Evans never engages with how conservative Christians articulate the reasons for their actions. She never gives an explanation at all — much less a charitable one — for the things her brothers and sisters in Christ believe and do.

Which is just begging the question of if an explanation is even relevant. Certainly why people do what they do is an interesting psychological question, but really all that matters are actions. Beliefs are immaterial, easily lied about, and often forgotten. Actions are permanent and can be examined. By their actions, conservative Christians should be judged. And their actions show they deserve far more scorn than they actually receive.

I have many close relationships with gays and lesbians who do, indeed, find actions like Prop 8 and Amendment 1 hurtful. I do feel for them, and I genuinely wish for the sake of our relationships that I could agree with them on these issues.

Some of my best friends are gay! No, you actually do not feel for them. If you consider the demonstrable harm you are imposing upon them as less important than abstract theology, then you do not feel for them.

This is selling anger, not offering enlightenment.

It should be interesting how Dalrymple usurps the vocabulary of capitalism to apply to Christianity, but it really isn't.

But one would never know, from a post like Evans’, that there are loving and thoughtful and self-sacrificial people on the conservative side of the argument who are genuinely trying to do the right thing for all people.

Which begs the question, are there loving and thoughtful and self-sacrificial people on the conservative side of the argument? The answer, I think, is fairly obviously, "no." Let's start with "self-sacrificial." If their side is victorious, then they actually sacrifice nothing. They live exactly the same lives as before. You can argue that they have to deal with the justified scorn of society, but the truth is, they don't. They can simply not tell how they voted, or lie about their vote (which is exactly what they will do twenty years from now, just like the pro-segregationists did). They sacrifice nothing. Now let's look at "loving." Can you be anti-gay rights and still be loving? No, you can not. You are demonstrably harming people. You are making their lives more difficult. That is not love. So, now "thoughtful." Well, you can be thoughtful, but it is a nasty, spiteful  hostile form of thought that has no empathy for others. So, I think we can safely say there aren't loving and thoughtful and self-sacrificial people on the conservative side of the argument.

There is a growing genre — call it Progressive Christian Scorn Literature — about the scorn progressive Christians have for conservative evangelicals. It seems to be celebrated on the Left as a kind of righteous comeuppance for the Christian Right, and it wins the applause of the Left for the Christian Left. But it’s wrong and it needs to be called out. It’s neither winsome, nor loving, nor constructive, nor right.

Actually it is right, and it needs to be celebrated. conservative evangelicals deserve all the scorn they get. They actually deserve much, much, much, more. In fact, this paragraph comes after the following sentence,"Sometimes the best way to wash a person’s feet is to tell him those feed are striding down a self-destructive path," which neatly sums up Dalrymple's own lack of self-awareness. According to Dalrymple himself, Progressive Christian Scorn Literature would in fact be winsome, loving, constructive, and right, if it wasn't for the fact that it is directed at his own causes. When he tells someone they are striding down a self-destructive path, it is about love, but when progressives do it, it is about scorn.

They Will Call Us Bigots

The current struggles between liberals and conservatives are distinctly and irreversibly tied to racism and sexism. The modern manifestations of them seemingly are about taxation and government intervention, but that is just the evolved coding for the same racist and sexist ideology. Allow me to quote Lee Atwater, the man who, more than any other individual crafted the Republican Party's current ideology,

"You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger,'" (Branch, Taylor (1999). Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years 1963-65. New York: Simon & Schuster.

The Republican ideology of low taxes and  ending government programs was conceived to appeal to racism, was designed to operate in a racist manner, and it accomplishes exactly that. It is immaterial if white people get hurt by the ideology, just as long as black people get hurt more. And that is exactly what it does, it preserves the white power structure and oppresses black people by making success endlessly more difficult to attain. It feeds on white resentment by propagandizing that white people are paying for black people to have these mythically fantastic benefits, and propagates the stereotype of lazy black people. As much as the distinct issues might change, the basic problems are always rooted in unchanged racism dating back to this country's founding.

Which, in a roundabout way, brings us to the subject of marriage equality. If you follow gays gettin' their marriage on closely, you will hear an endless stream of variations on the phrase "They will call us bigots." You will pretty much find some form of the phrase in any article, speech or video about marriage equality, but just to make a point of it, here's National Organization for Marriage's Brian Brown...

If we do not stand up for marriage we will be treated under the law as bigots.

 Now, anyone with an understanding of United States law will be able to see that this makes no sense. The law doesn't treat bigots any differently than anyone else. The only meaning this could have is that Brian is arguing for the right to fire, or not hire people just because they are gay. But the reality is that this pervasive, extreme concern for the Religious Right originates from the fall out of segregation.

"Jim Crow enthusiasts took a terrible psychological thumping during the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Men and women who had traditionally seen themselves as the conscience and moral heartbeat of America, suddenly found themselves denounced as bigots and haters, a loathsome cancer that should be excised from the body politic," (Alan Bean)

The overriding concern of the anti-gay lobby is to not be George Wallace while still advocating oppression.  They need, more than anything else to deligitimize the concept of bigotry. The Religious Right derives its justification and momentum from its own absolute and inerrant claim to morality. What it learned from being on the wrong side of integration was not a the cautious review oriented approach to morality that such a stupendous failure demands, but rather to ensure that none of its competition is able to claim the moral high ground on it.

Which means that racism, sexism, and homophobia can't be considered legitimate forces that shape our society, but must be rhetorical positions used to silence opposition. That's certainly a nice idea when you are advocating for those racist, sexist, and homophobic positions as it frees you from your moral culpability for supporting such objectively malignant social structures and makes the opposition sneaky rats usin' insults to shut up good folks.

And so this whole concern about being called "bigots" is directly tied to segregation. It's no small wonder that  an after-the-fact PR defense tied to segregation would show up all the way over in the marriage equality discussion. The anti-gay activists are the direct descendants (and in some cases not even descendants) of the pro-segregation movement. The talking points of the anti-gays are almost wholly lifted from the talking points of the pro-segregationists. Naturally they would respond like anyone who has been insulted and then thinks of a snappy comeback on the drive home. "Ha!" the segregationists say, "we should have said, 'they'll call us bigots!' that way we're the victims of those people mean smears!" And they waited until their first opportunity to use it...

Logic Has Left the Building...

Hey look! It's someone making an almost indistinguishable argument from the last guy. Before we get into this, I'd like to first revisit the doom and gloom scenarios that are always floated as reasons to deny gay people rights. First there was the claim that passing the Matthew Sheppard Act would result in pastors being arrested for preaching the bible, three years latter and not a single pastor has been arrested. Before the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell we were told that it would be disastrous for unit cohesion, troop retention and moral. Turns out it had absolutely no affect on any of that. So now we're being told, according to this article's subtitle,

Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children.

So he better produce some fantastic evidence to show how this incidence is somehow different from every other example. But the conversation during the last few weeks on the subject of same-sex marriage has told a different story -- one that appears to be drawing a false connection between supporting true American values like free speech and the institution of marriage, our most fundamental and important social institution. Wait... is marriage not a "true American value?" This sentence is entirely convoluted and does not mean what Birk thinks it does.

I think it is important to set the record straight about what the marriage debate is and is not about, and to clarify that not all NFL players think redefining marriage is a good thing.

Oh, thank goodness we have Birk here to be the final arbiter of what marriage is about!

The union of a man and a woman is privileged and recognized by society as "marriage" for a reason, and it's not because the government has a vested interest in celebrating the love between two people.

No, love is entirely immaterial. At no point is love required in any aspect of the legal code, as proving love would be an impossibility. However, the government has a vested interest in providing a legal framework of rights and responsibilities for people who intend to form a mutually dependent familial connection between each other.

With good reason, government recognizes marriages and gives them certain legal benefits so they can provide a stable, nurturing environment for the next generation of citizens: our kids.

That's quite simply false on its face, from four different sides. Firstly, marriage does not, nor will it ever require procreation. Marriage does not even require sex (although lack of sex can be justification for divorce). Secondly, procreation does not require marriage. Frequently, two people procreate without becoming married. Thirdly, gay people can, and do have children via adoption, surrogacy, ect. Fourthly, anyone with even brief glace and marriage law would realize that much of it involves items that have absolutely zero to do with children, which means that marriage does not exist for procreation even just based on the law.

Children have a right to a mom and a dad, and I realize that this doesn't always happen.

Birk, Birk, Birk, you contradict yourself in the same sentence! If Children have a "right" to a mom and a dad, that would mean that they would always happen. That's what a right is. The right to free speech does not only apply to 1/4th of people, if that's the way it worked, it wouldn't be a right. Children have the right to pursuit of happiness, freedom, ect. but by the definition of what a right is, no one has a right to a mom and a dad. Parents die, which is just one example of how children do not, and can not have a right to a parent.

But recognizing the efforts of these parents and the resiliency of some (not all, unfortunately) of these kids, does not then give society the right to dismiss the potential long-term effects on a child of not knowing or being loved by his or her mother or father. Each plays a vital role in the raising of a child.

There is precisely zero science supporting this. We've actually looked at the "potential long-term effects" and found none. This has been studied multiple times at this point, and, consistently, there has been no actual negative effects found for being raised by two parents of the same sex. Traditionally the way the way around this little problem is for the right to discuss studies showing the children of single parents compared to children raised by two parents. Hence why both Birk and Riley keep bringing up single parents even though they are completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed.

Marriage is in trouble right now -- admittedly, for many reasons that have little to do with same-sex unions. In the last few years, political forces and a culture of relativism have replaced "I am my brother's keeper" and "love your neighbor as yourself" with "live and let live" and "if it feels good, go ahead and do it."

Yay! Fascism! First off we have a complete failure to understand what "cultural relativity" actually is. We also have a complete failure to understand what "love your neighbor as yourself" means. Instead all this is a kind of assholely way of saying "people have too much freedom, we need less."

The effects of no-fault divorce, adultery, and the nonchalant attitude toward marriage by some have done great harm to this sacred institution.

How? People are still getting married. In fact the sheer number of people who have serial marriages shows that we have a remarkable commitment to marriage as a concept. The people who actually are criticizing marriage as a concept are incredibly fringe in our society.

How much longer do we put the desires of adults before the needs of kids?

This has nothing to do with what is being discussed, nor is it properly supported.

Why are we not doing more to lift up and strengthen the institution of marriage?

Well then, I assume you would support the things that actually would lift up and strengthen the institution of marriage? Such as a wider, stronger social safety net?

Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children -- the next generation.

How?

Ideas have consequences, and laws shape culture. Marriage redefinition will affect the broader well-being of children and the welfare of society.

How?

I am speaking out on this issue because it is far too important to remain silent.

But you haven't actually said anything. You've made some vague accusations, ones which you failed to even tie into the topic being discussed, let alone attempt to provide support for.

People who are simply acknowledging the basic reality of marriage between one man and one woman are being labeled as "bigots" and "homophobic." Aren't we past that as a society?

That does not even make sense. Objectively you are bigots and homophobes. Also, objectively, you are not acknowledging reality. Gay people are already married, which means that the basic reality of marriage is not between one man and one woman.

Don't we all have family members and friends whom we love who have same-sex attraction?

"Some of my best friends are gay..."

Attempting to silence those who may disagree with you is always un-American, but especially when it is through name-calling, it has no place in respectful conversation.

Ahh, the tone argument. When someone can't support their argument with facts, they have to go with complaining about the tone that other people use to address them. "Name-calling" is entirely irrelevant to the accuracy of someone's statements. Calling you, Birk, a mentally deficient fuckknob has nothing to do with whether I am correct in every single thing I have said before. Oh, and people who say things that are stupid, are stupid people, and should be called "stupid" so that they might make the choice to be smarter (and it is a choice, ignorance is a choice).

A defense of marriage is not meant as an offense to any person or group.

Logically false. We are discussing, specifically and particularly, excluding large number of people from thousand of rights and benefits. Which, by definition is an attack on them.

All people should be afforded their inalienable American freedoms.

Like the right to marriage? One which the supreme court has recognized as a "fundamental human right" a dozen times over the past century?

There is no opposition between providing basic human rights to everyone and preserving marriage as the sacred union of one man and one woman.

Yes, there is. What part of "fundamental human right" do you not understand, Birk?

I hope that in voicing my beliefs I encourage people on both sides to use reason and charity as they enter this debate.

Two things you have completely failed to use...

I encourage all Americans to stand up to preserve and promote a healthy, authentic promarriage culture in this upcoming election.

And the best way to be promarriage is to exclude people from marriage... wait...

Let's Talk More About Gay People Getting Married...

Here we go again. The exact same flawed premises, the exact same flawed arguments. In this case, the title of the article, "Why same-sex marriage affects my marriage," is, obviously, wrong on all counts of logic and reason. But the subtitle deserves special mention.

The goal is to move society -- in this case, away from a safe environment for children.

Really, Riley? Really? Please tell me who has that goal? Please give me specific names of people who want to use marriage equality to make unsafe environments for children. That does not even make the most basic degree of sense.

In the marriage debate, people frequently argue that how one chooses to define marriage doesn't affect other people's definitions of marriage, and because my definition is as good as yours, it should also be promoted by society.

Oh look, the Evangelical-conservative canard of "promotion." This particular phrasing only makes sense filtered through a theocratic worldview which posits that the government is the final arbiter of religious matters. It is why the religious right has a completely nonsensical and self-contradicting way of discussing religious liberty. It's why the same people who complain that the government mandating insurance companies pay for women's birth control is a violation of the religious liberty of the employees who procure the insurance policies for their employees, will also say that school-wide mandated prayer is not a violation of religious liberty. To them the state must intervene to protect and promote the religion of the citizens of that state. A state taking a neutral stance is a state violating the religious "liberty" of its citizenry, hence all the antipathy towards "secularism." It is an inherently competitive worldview, where liberty can not be extended freely, but rather it must be taken from someone else. It also explains the curious tendency to refer to secularism as a religion since this group of people, ideologically, can not even conceive of the perspective of a non-sectarian government, therefore secularism must somehow be sectarian (even if that is an unresolved paradox). Accordingly, the government does not merely distinguish between legal and illegal, but rather anything legal must be considered "promoted." If the government is supporting it, it must be right and proper. This also is the basis of claims where educating that something exists is conflated with promoting it. It's not, it never has been, it never will be.

Many times it is stated: "What I choose to do in my marriage doesn't affect your marriage." However, same-sex marriage affects all of our marriages.

Slippery rhetorical trick here. "You" can be both singular and plural, so it must be contextually determined. In this case, the "you" is singular, we are looking at one person speaking, talking to one other person about one specific marriage. That's why "marriage" is singular. However, Riley isn't going to respond to that statement. Instead he immediately contextualizes it as somehow affecting all marriages. That's because he knows, implicitly, that he can't respond in the singular. He can't actually come up with an argument about how marriage equality affected his marriage (because it didn't), so he has to jump to all marriages in order to make his case (which he still won't be able to do). It's a slippery, disgusting rhetorical trick.

This is possible largely due to the disassociation between sexual relationships and procreation.

Oh Riley, there are people living in Africa, Asia and South America who do not know there is an association between sexual relationships and procreation. Human evolution has provided us with no ability to tell when women are in estrus, with both the ability and desire to have sex outside of fertile periods. We also are one of about three species where women experience menopause which affects sexual desire precisely zero. Any reasonable person, looking at the plethora of evidence about human sexuality, would recognize that procreation is an incredibly small aspect of human sexual behavior.

In contrast, there are many who have not disassociated sex and children

This is a lie. There have been quite a few religious sects that had only sex for procreation guidelines. They've all died out.

These people have generally been trying to live up to the ideal that marriage was established millennia ago to promote the raising of children in safe environments supported by their biological parents.

Well this is an epistemological fail. The idea of "ideal" as used her is derived from Plato by way of C.S. Lewis. Plato claimed that we understand what a "tree" is because we have an idea of an ideal tree, and from that ideal we can work backwards to knowing what a tree is growing in our backyard. C.S. Lewis was philosopher, but not a theologian, so he appropriated philosophical arguments to make theological ones. And that's how we get here. The key here is that this is a system of epistemology, it is means of understanding how and why we know what we know. It is not a system of proscription, telling us what should and should not be. Anyone using this philosophical construct in this way (which C.S. Lewis never did) is utterly bastardizing it, and does not know what they are talking about. The "ideal" marriage is a way of recognizing marriages, it is nothing to live up to.

Even though some traditional families are breaking, it doesn't mean the ideal of traditional marriage is broken.

If you really want to be loose with it, "traditional" marriage dates to Ronald Reagan signing the California Family Law Act of 1969, and not a second before. And that's playing fast and loose with the idea of "traditional." If we are being strict, "traditional" marriage is probably no more than five or six years old.

Many studies show that single parents struggle to provide the safe environment provided by a two-biological-parent home. Bless the single parents who try, but there is a direct correlation between single homes and crimes of all types. If anything, the effects of broken homes indicate the importance of reestablishing the ideal of traditional marriage.

This is completely irrelevant to what is being discussed. It's only purpose here is to establish credibility for the ideological concept of "traditional marriage." It diffuses responsibility from the individual parents in question to be good parents, to all of society acting in a specific way in the vague hope that it will somehow produce better children, even though there is precisely zero evidence that if everyone was in a "traditional" marriage it would produce significantly better children.

Same-sex marriage falls short of producing safe environments for children because it, at the very least, reinforces changes to the marital definition.

Bad argument ahoy! Bad argument ahoy! Linguistically speaking, this is a complete non-starter. Word definitions change all the time, that's how you can tell a language is alive, rather than dead. Latin's definitions never change. And you would have to make some pretty strong arguments that changing a word definition produces unsafe environments.

Historically, before the sexual revolution, society's definition of marriage was focused on the raising and bearing of children.

No, it wasn't. It was focused on the exchange of goods and property. Children were a tangential produce to be worked or sold as they came into being.

Currently, as a society, we have wavered from this traditional motivation, and many, not all, view marriage as a venue for self-fulfillment.

Well first off arguing that people should accept being unfulfilled in their marriages is also a non-starter. Secondly, the idea of being marriage being a "venue for self-fulfillment" was what transformed marriage from an exchange of goods into being about love and care, the exact ideas that you were promoting earlier.

This modern view is directly culpable for the rise in broken homes and its resulting negative effects.

It is, but not for the reasons that you are implying. See, when women were no longer viewed as property, they were allowed to get out of marriages they didn't want to be in, resulting in your "broken homes."

Because same-sex marriage is made possible by this modern view of marriage, if we make same-sex marriage equivalent to traditional marriage, we only more firmly impart to future generations that marriage is about personal fulfillment.

Again with the arguing that marriage should be unfulfilling. And no, it isn't "made possible," the idea of marriage equality is several centuries old and was promoted in both Europe in the '20s and America in the '50s, quite a bit before the "sexual revolution" (which, as is typical for you, Riley, you don't understand). Your knowledge of history is horribly, horribly flawed, Riley.

The cementing of the modern view will only continue its destruction of safe environments for future generations.

Oy vey. So here's where it ends. Marriage equality is destructive because marriages should not be fulfilling. Like most homophobia, this has nothing to do with gay people, and everything to do with rampant misogyny. This argument is nothing more than that women should be kept in the kitchens. Hence why marriage should be unfulfilling, marriage is all about the kids, all that stuff about broken homes and the sexual revolution. This is all a hit piece on women, by way of the gays. There isn't a single argument in all of this about actual gay people.

For many of us who favor traditional marriage, marriage is about raising children in a healthy environment.

This isn't a statement, it is an accusation, on several different levels. The first of which is that those people who support marriage equality somehow do not support "traditional marriage." Amazingly enough in all the states and nations where marriage equality has passed, no one has acted to ban "traditional marriage." Those of us who favor allowing gay people to get married, also favor allowing straight people to as well, Riley. Secondly, there is the implication that those people who are for marriage equality want children to be raised in unhealthy environments. No one is on the other side of that particular issue, Riley. But you have not done the proper due diligence of actually showing that somehow if gay people get married, more children will magically be in these theoretical unhealthy environments. Massachusetts has had marriage equality for eight years now, that's almost half the time it takes a child to grow from conception to high school graduation. Was there an incredible upswing in children living in unhealthy environments (statistically Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, one which has gone down since marriage equality passed, so there goes the "broken homes" argument).

Thus, any change to the definition of marriage affects our marriage.

No, it doesn't. You just claimed that somehow allowing gay people to marry will cause straight people to divorce which will cause their kids to become criminals. That's crazy.

Our "traditional" marriages and the children they produce are our greatest source of happiness, and we desire that our children will live in a world that will promote their ability to make the same choices that brought us happiness.

In other words, you want your children to have cult-like obedience. God forbid that your children have a little autonomy, Riley, and make their own choices in life. Nope, you want to program them like nice, little automatons. And, darling Riley, if gay people are allowed to get married, your children will still be able to get married even if they are not gay. Amazingly enough, no one is being deprived of the choice to get opposite-sex marriage.

There are many who tout the modern definition, and we are susceptible to these influences. As we listen to these influences, we change our view of marriage and our marital relationship accordingly. Same-sex marriage will only increase these influences and make it harder to promote traditional marriage.

...yes, and? The fact that you are losing the public to your misogynistic ideology, is no one's fault but your own (and that God you are). I'd be willing to bet that you do not see much of a problem with evangelism, Riley. It's the exact same principal.

Although not all are able to participate in a traditional marriage that yields children, we all benefit by its establishment in creating strong homes for the next generation with strong direction from self-sacrificing parents. The disestablishment of this ideal affects us all.

Well Riley, you didn't answer the statement you were supposed to be answering. You provided a completely ludicrous argument that has no evidentiary support, you butchered philosophy and history. Oh, and most importantly, here, in your conclusion, you failed to acknowledge that there are more children than there are "strong homes" (by your definition) which makes the entire point moot unless you are advocating killing the excess children. Epic fail.

Question Answered

Aww, stephen77 we're buds, air buds even.

There are things I like about that Louis clip and things I didn't like. There are actually two clips, and I'm going to talk about both. My primary problem (although I have several lesser ones) with the one that appeared on Louis, was it was that Louis was the author of it, which makes it quite disingenuous. It's actually an apology for this clip, which is really, really offensive. In it, he is complaining about how his privilege as a heterosexual to say "faggot" has been revoked (or, more accurately, his privilege to say it without suffering social consequence has been revoked). The idea that he should be free to say "faggot" without actually having to think about the people who that word derogatorily insults is far, far, far more offensive than simply saying it as a derogatory insult.

When it comes to the clip that appeared on Louis, the main problem is that Louis is God as far as the clip goes. He is the writer, therefore the conversation reaches whatever predetermined conclusion he wishes. Which is, specifically, that it is okay for him to say "faggot" on stage. I don't know if this was based on actual discussions or not, but either way, it is the exact same example of entitlement and privilege as the first clip. This time he has a puppet there to explain how he uses "faggot" in the good way. (I still say the South Park episode about the word was the most offensive thing I've ever seen on TV).

A secondary problem that I have with it (and this is more of a problem for Loki who is a linguist as opposed to Loki who is gay), is that the enytmology of "f" presented in the clip is completely false. It has nothing to do with witches or burning at the stake. "Faggot" was a derogatory term for women in the 1600s. The current theory of its evolution is that over the next two centuries it became associated women's work, and in all male dorm's the young male students did "faggot work" or "fag work." We know that for a fact. We think Americans saw this, and heard the term, and thought there was a sexual component to it, and brought it back to America where the word was devoid of the context of work, and became just a derogatory term for men who have sex with men. After that, the new definition crossed back to Britain.

I loved the clip with Chang, because it is specifically making fun
people who use the word "gay" derogatorily. Chang is an immature internet troll given form, and of course he would respond to Jeff giving a heartfelt speech about respect by calling it "Gay." It's a joke about the kind of person who responds to a message board post with "gay," by having the worst person in the show scream it in the middle of Jeff attempting to give a Winger speech. It's purposefully obnoxious, irritating, and stupid and is mocking obnoxious, irritating and stupid behavior. But, of course, the people who are watching it are probably using it sincerely. Which as wonderfully dripping in irony as it is that people who sincerely using a clip that makes fun of them without realizing it, kind of pisses me off.

The reason why the word "gay" means "stupid" (and the same reason that "faggot" means "stupid" to Louis CK), is because of decades of social belief that gay people are bad. Children and teenagers just hear that "gay" means something bad, without actually understanding what that bad thing is, so they use it to refer to bad and/or stupid things. This is actually much more offensive to me than someone saying it to genuinely insult a gay person. Because it means that the person saying it does not think about the words they are saying, actual gay people and their feelings aren't even a concern to merit a moment's thought. Again, it goes back to privilege, they have the privilege to be in the majority and not even consider anyone who is not a part of that majority.

Personally, I use "gay" in an ironic way quite a lot. It's actually useful to me. For example, I say stuff like, "RuPaul's Drag Race is so gay," often. I need a handy word to mean "high degree of homosexual themes and content," but I never use it in that way around anyone who might actually think I'm using it to mean "stupid" or "lame."

You can use the words any way you like, but just think about it beforehand. And don't arrogantly assume that you are entitled to use them however you like, and no one else should criticize you for it.

I Hate Defending Things I Hate...

I hate Glee. It's a pretty show that has weak writing and poor characters. It's the perfect example of a show that pretends to be edgy and artistic, but produces nothing but thoroughly market researched, focused grouped, middle of the road, trite crap. All of which is easily ignorable (like 90% of CBS's lineup), except that it inexplicably gets undeserved massive media attention and awards recognition (like 10% of CBS's lineup).

Needless to say there are many, many, many valid criticisms of Glee. And yet somehow I stumbled across a two part series of anti-Glee posts, that managed not use a single one of them. And put me in the uncomfortable position of actually wanting to like Glee just to spite the author. For the record: Part 1, Part 2

"Glee: The Pinnacle of Cultural Marxism"

Oh, great. We are in for a treat. First off, the idea that Glee, the most overtly pro-capitalist show to air since children's shows specifically designed to sell toy lines went out of style, has anything even closely resembling Marxist criticism is ludicrous. But then again, "Cultural Marxism" is entirely a creation of conservative snake-oil salesmen and exists as nothing more than negative catchall term for anything that limits their social privilege. Considering the racist, sexist, slut-shaming, homophobic entitlement of the author is going to be on pretty open display throughout this piece (as well as his/her obsession with images), it's not particularly surprising that entirely fraudulent conservative bogyman would show up in the title of the article.

"Have any of you heard of the hit show Glee? On the surface it is a show about the trials and tribulations of the high school glee club, but if you actually are able to sit through an episode, it is much more sinister than that."

Why yes, I do think Glee is quite sinister. It makes comfortably mediocre entertainment appear nourishing, and encourages a lack of critical discernment or expectations in its audience. But I doubt that is what you are talking about.

"I have not yet been able to accomplish such a feat, jumping up from my seat and exclaiming about diversity agendas, marxism, and anti Christian rhetoric to my (recovering) Glee-tard youngest sibling and mother."

Wait a minute... those a bad things? One of those isn't even a thing in this show. Another of those things is just a matter of living in contemporary American society (something the author, apparently, hates and chooses to express by writing a blog on the internet.) The third, well there was an episode that was roundly condemned for being both anti-religious and anti-atheist all at the same time. Of course this author is going to go out of his/her way to prove that any offensively over the top behavior by Christians on the show is not offensively over the top enough to be accurate, much less satirical.

"Worst of all, it hits you like a ton of rocks. I like my subervsion subtle, at least don’t insult my intelligence whilst destroying my culture."

I have to agree that Glee is destroying the culture, but I doubt we'd agree with why.

What follows is a quick rundown of the various couples that have appeared on the show's two and a half year history. While obviously there is wonderfully implied offense that the show would actually have gay couples... on a show... about a Glee club, there's also a whole lot of offense at the inter-racial couples, inter-faith couples, and even couples where one half is skinny/muscular and the other half is fat. Then, weirdly, even a couple where one member is in a wheelchair.

What's really funny about all this is how obviously the author is getting off on everything he/she is presenting. He/She is not discussing Glee, but rather wondering around the internet looking for pictures of its gay characters making out to be "offended" by. Yeah, I really believe that. When you actually don't enjoy looking a pictures of dudes sucking face with each other, you don't make very, very long, overly detailed picture posts about it.

"'Did you bring the poppers?'

Kurt and Blaine’s first time having anal sex was lauded was 'sweet' by the media.

Someone's clearly spent way too much time researching gay sex on the internet. Whoever wrote this is clearly desperate to write homoerotic Glee fanfiction. What I love about this is there isn't even the attempt at making a case as to why any of this is is in any way wrong. I never saw the "Kurt loses his virginity" episode, but I have a feeling that whoever wrote this would still have a problem with it being called "sweet," even if it was on a bed of roses to swelling music underneath a full moon in Venice, Italy.

After this comes even more pictures of the various couples in various stages of sexual activity. I'm really starting to wonder how many jokes it is possible to make about someone claiming to be morally offended at something they are really getting off sexually on.

"Reminder: Show for young people. Prime time."

You mean like Friends?

Theme: Diversity

You’re only worthwhile if you are different. Tradition and status quo are immoral. White is bad.

Well, I am not sure how diversity could be an actual theme (but then again, I'm not sure how sex could be an actual theme, other than one of the worst episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and this blogger still labeled that a theme). This is one of those cases where the author winds up contradicting themselves with poorly thought out, illogical ideas. If "diversity" was a "theme" then that would make everyone "different" which would mean everyone is "worthwhile." Which would actually make sense within Glee, which is very much in favor of the idea, if inartful about it, that everyone is worthwhile. But, hey, this author is pretty racist and seems to be operating under the presumption that "diversity" and "white people" are diametrically opposed, rather than considering that diversity includes white people.

Also, the entire first episode was about how wonderful and lovely the tradition of the Glee club is and attempting to revive it. If anything Glee is increadibly regressive being incredibly nostalgic already heavily nostalgic productions like Grease. But in this case "tradition" and "status quo" are merely code words for "white, Christian privilege," and "white, Christian entitlement."

As far as "white is bad" is concerned. Just from the copious pictures so far in this blog, Glee has fully 12 white characters, including both romantic leads, both secondary romantic leads, and both teachers.

Let’s play ‘find the heterosexual Caucasian gentile’! (He’s the one in the wheelchair). Oh, and the Asian girl has a stutter (for good measure).

This... is just so stupid I can't even deal with it. We're about to hear the word "gentile" thrown around a lot. And I'm talking a lot. Enough to make you start to wonder about some things.

The villains of Glee represent anti-diversity.

Quinn (also Christian, more on that later)

Sue Sylvester

Both are part of the cheerleading squad (Sue is the coach). All are white blonde Gentiles.

Whoever wrote this is really big on blondes. Really big. Again, things to make you wonder. Anywho, what this particular section leaves out is that the other villains were the Hispanic lesbian and Jewish jock. Not to mention the Indian school principal. And I like how two examples gets labeled as "all."

Terri Schesuter is the bitch wife of the Glee coach and makes his life a living hell.

The author is really excited to use the word "bitch." It's a nice preview of the slut-shaming to come.

The only heterosexual white Christian gentile who is not evil is the guidance counselor. However she is a repressed virgin, has OCD, is a germaphobe, and has “ginger supremacists” parents (we all know what they’re alluding to). A very flawed individual, indeed.

So, apparently, the romantic lead and the head teacher are both evil? There's a lot of stuff in this particular paragraph that demonstrates wild hypocrisy with what's about to come. Also that the author doesn't like flawed characters, or possibly flawed individuals.

The heroine of the show is the underdog Rachel, who triumphs over the evil blondes and gets the guy. She is one the character allowed to be innocent, sweet, and a virgin (up until recently) without any underlying hints of repression or hypocrisy.

Evil blondes and evil Hispanic lesbians.

She is mocked because she is “different” and has two fathers. This family is portrayed as the most functional, fun and happy, while those that mock her have cruel heteronormative parents (more on that later too).

Really? The parents who raised the insane, perfectionist, desperate to be the center of attention Rachel were presented as fun, functional and happy? That's just an example of bad characterization.

You can only gain redemption by joining the underdogs.

You mean like The Mighty Ducks, or every other sports movie ever made? Shocking!

Santana, Brittany, and Quinn (cheerleaders), Finn and Puck (football jocks) — were evil bullies magically transformed into kind souls once they joined the Glee club and embraced diversity and “being different.”

You mean this group that includes a Hispanic lesbian and a Jewish jock weren't diverse prior to joining the Glee club? Not that I ever remember Finn being portrayed as a "bully."

Theme: Christians are assholes

I'm reasonably certain this is the entire theme of this blog.

Quinn, the only overt Christian on the show for some time, is a bitch, a cheater a hypocrite, and a slut.

And here we can start in on the slut-shaming. This author is deeply misogynistic. Quinn, at least in the episodes I've seen, only had sex with one guy (granted she was cheating on her boyfriend when it happened), which really only gets one labeled a slut if you are in highschool or on Maury Povich. Or the author of this blog who loves to label women as "bitch" and "slut."

We are constantly reminded that the bitch is the Christian, via the small cross she wears on her neck.

Sort of like how we are constantly reminded that the bitch who writes this blog is a "Christian" based on the drivel that comes out.

She’s actually such a ridiculous hypocrite that she takes (even ridiculous by Glee’s standards) “prayer breaks’ between sex sessions with her boyfriend. We are constantly reminded that the bitch is the Christian, via the small cross she wears on her neck.

Keep this in mind, because it is going to come back in just a little bit.

The Celibacy Club is also full of hypocrites, judgemental assholes, and cockteases. The motto of some of the girls is….. “Yes to teasing, no to pleasing”

Other than the "cocktease" part, that sounds pretty much like the author. And that quote sounds remarkably similar to lots of things I've heard over the years at various Christian clubs and activities I'e attended.

Lastly is the new Christian character Joe Hart. He is a “weird” (best friend is his Mom, home-schooled), judgmental, space cadet who only gains redemption when he agrees to sing a Valentine’s Day sing-o-gram to a lesbian couple, exclaiming, “Love is love, man.”

So, after complaining, and complaining, and complaining about the lack of good white Christians(while ignoring all the good white Christians), the author gets a white Christian and... is still complaining. And what's with being so offended at Christians being presented as judgmental? The very start of this post was judging gay couples, inter-racial couples, inter-faith couples, couples of different body shapes, and a couple that consisted of one member in a wheelchair. Talk about a complete lack of self-awareness.

Theme: “Loving yourself” moots all value judgement

Oy, this is going to be a chore to get through. Note how just after complaining about Christians being presented as judgmental, the author is complaining about the lack of judgement.

Lauren “owned” that she was fat and loved it, and that’s why Puck fell in love with her….citing her “bad assness”

I'm sorry, but what value judgement is going on here? Because the only one I'm finding is that the author hates fat people.

Rachel wanted to get a nose job and was convinced she was beautiful regardless

Wait... the author wants the show to tell teens to get plastic surgery?

and of course…Kurt. Everyone should “be themselves”

Some one, apparently, hasn't sat through any after school specials. "Just be yourself" is one of the oldest cliches in literature.

I can honestly say that I’d rather my children watch every episode of Jersey Shore, Toddlers and Tiara’s and Kardashians than even one episode of this thinly veiled propaganda.

After all, this person obviously wants his/her children to hate everyone, but not be judgmental, get plastic surgery, and not be themselves. I'll delve into the idiocy of part two in a little bit.