The false dichotomy of gay rights

Last spring when Star Wars, Episode III hit theaters, many conservatives were up in arms because the percieved that Anakin's turning to the dark side was reminiscant of the current state of affiars in the US (dispite the outline for the script being written more than 25 years ago).

One of the more poignant lines of Anakin's that seemed to rattle conservative nerves ("Must have hit pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up like that, huh kid?") was Anakin's statement that, "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy."

This black and white world view of false dichotomies is one that is frequently held by the reiglious right.

Currently in CA, Senate Bill 1437 has been submitted which would seek to require schools to acknowledge gays throughout history in much the same way that they now regonize women, blacks, and various religious groups. Furthermore, it would prevent schools from disparaging gays.

Nowhere does this ammendment seek to actually promote homosexuality, or praise people for the sole reason that they were gay.

But that's not what conservative groups want to think. In their black and white world, if they're not allowed to slander gays and hide them from the public square, then it's promoting of the gay agenda.

The March 28 amendments to SB 1437 openly REQUIRE that California public schools teach children to accept and embrace transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality.

Note the deceptive emphasis on REQUIRE to draw attention away from the real key words of "accept" and "embrace". The bill does neither of these but only seeks to make children "acknowledge" that *GASP* homosexuals have been around for well over 2000 years and the world hasn't ended! In fact, many famous people throughtout history have been gay.

But those aren't the only underhanded literary devices opponents to this bill are wanting to try. Instead of appealing to logic and sound reasoning, they blatantly work for the pathos (appeal to emotion) by claiming the bill is a "bomb dressed up as a child-caring Easter egg." No logic behind it unless you're counting logical fallacies and bifurcations. Just sick twisted appeals to gut reactions.

Yet for all their whining about agendas, they don't seem to be shy in hiding their Christian agenda when claiming that there is "a natural family -- a father, a mother, and their children."

Their argument goes on to complain about how the language is too vague in that it calls for age-appropriate teachings but doesn't state who decides this. Amazing that the law already enacted requiring age-appropriate teachings regarding "women, black Americans, American Indians, Mexicans, Asians, Pacific Island people, and other ethnic groups" doesn't specify either. But I don't see them getting their panties in a knot over that.

They claim that it will lead to indoctrination. Yet what are these good Christian parents forcing upon their children since they day they are born? Stories of eternal damnation and men getting nailed to crosses. And that somehow doesn't qualify as indoctrination? I'm seeing a double standard here.

However, if a parent wants to do that to a child, that's perfectly fine. If they want to hide their children from the reality that gays don't exist though, well, that's their right too, but they'd better keep them indoors forever because whether or not they like it "they're queer and they're here." Recongizing that fact isn't the same thing as promoting it. False dichomoties excluded of course.