[Content Note: Homophobia.]
"In fact, this President intends to get as many American children into the funnel of the sexual revolution as possible and make sure there's no possible escape—none whatsoever. He intends to close off every avenue from parents committed to biblical morality. We cannot stand by and allow the President to force his radical sexual agenda on our children."—Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, in a fundraising letter to his fans, caterwauling the usual despicable nonsense in response to President Obama's stated opposition to "conversion" or "reparative" or "ex-gay" therapy for queer kids.
Mocking the dipshits of the Family Research Council is low-hanging fruit, I know, but I'm not posting this to mock Perkins for being a ridiculous shitlord whose retofuck beliefs are so antiquated they whiff of dinosaur scat and so rotten they belong at the bottom of a filthy dumpster even rats refuse to patronize.
I'm posting this to make two serious points:
1. The idea that legalized same-sex marriage was the end-all be-all of gay rights is dangerously naive and wrong. Here's a perfect example: There are still kids across this country who need the state to intervene on their behalf just so they can be allowed to be queer without being subjected to "therapies" that are nothing more than rank abuse.
2. This is also a perfect example of conservative projection: Perkins accuses President Obama (and, by extension, anyone who advocates against these heinous "therapies") of "forc[ing] his radical sexual agenda" on children and trying to "make sure there's no possible escape—none whatsoever" from the "sexual revolution."
But who is it, exactly, who is trying to force a radical sexual agenda on children and provide them no escape whatsoever from their rigid definitions of sexuality? It is really the guy who says stop subjecting queer kids to abusive mistreatment under the auspices of "curing" them, or is it the guy who says stop queer kids from existing?
That is, of course, rhetorical.