Mirth

Surprise, surprise.  A “pro-family” organization in Florida (a state I will always associate with one of the last century’s finest singers and humanitarians) doesn’t like the current iteration of the Degrassi franchise.  Why?  There are queers afoot.

Heaven help me, I found the following quote wonderfully hilarious:

“How many high schools have a gay first-string quarterback who becomes lovers with someone else on the team? This relationship is extremely unlikely and they shouldn’t open this to dialogue,” Canton — once applauded by American Family Association president Don Wildmon as the “quarterback” of the pro-family movement — said. “And I think that it is statistically improbable that you will have a female-to-male transgender who is in love with a lesbian or bisexual in a school setting.”

This just makes me laugh and laugh and laugh.  Gays — we’re not just deviant and immoral, we’re statistically improbable! One wonders if Canton, who for consistency’s sake must hate sorcerers with the same passion as homosexuals, stands outside of movie theaters protesting the scientific implausibility of Harry Potter movies.

I don’t really know how many female-to-male transsexuals in love with women there are out there, but I’m willing to wager that there are a few of them.  (Some of them may not even be related to Cher, who is otherwise responsible for everything wrong with today’s American family.)  Probably enough that the storyline is no more crazy than, say, an unwed teenage mother standing on the stage at the Republican National Convention with her boyfriend, who will later go on to model for Playgirl.  (Who could make that up?)  And while there probably aren’t a whole pile of gay first-string high school quarterbacks out there, it’s not as though no gay person has ever made a decent football player.  It could happen, right?

Anyway, I look forward to this becoming the new tactic in the fight against LGBT equality.  Gays — the math doesn’t add up!

Russell Saunders

Russell Saunders is the ridiculously flimsy pseudonym of a pediatrician in New England. He has a husband, three sons, daughter, cat and dog, though not in that order. He enjoys reading, running and cooking. He can be contacted at blindeddoc using his Gmail account. Twitter types can follow him @russellsaunder1.

36 Comments

  1. I have reached the point in my life where, when I read one of these stories, I expect the protagonist to have a second, hidden, lifestyle exposed.

    Any day now…

  2. Gays — we’re not just deviant and immoral, we’re statistically improbable!

    On the other hand, heterosexual teenage boys who really are just “saving themselves for marriage” are completely within the realm of statistical probability.

  3. If they’re going to start insisting children should not be shown implausible plots, I’m not sure what we’re going to do about Sesame Street.

    • Well, the first thing we need to do is make it so that the adults can also see Snuffleupagus. Children should never feel like adults don’t believe them.

      We should also modify the Cookie Monster to make him more of a fan of healthy fruits and vegetables and have him publically acknowledge that cookies are special treats and not to be eaten as if one has a food disorder.

      Oscar the Grouch needs a makeover and a mood enhancement. A garbage can? Really? Do we want children getting hepatitis? Do we want them to think that bad moods are okay?

      Additionally, when cast members get too old, we should just have them move and be taken off of the show rather than put children through the trauma similar to that which they experienced when Mr. Hooper died.

      There are more but we can start there.

      • Well, as far as your suggestions for Sesame Street are concerned, I believe that the first two have already happened. Adults can now see Snuffy, and Cookie Monster does acknowledge that cookies are a “sometimes” food these days.

        Not sure about Oscar’s digs or mood, and I think Maria (at least) is still on.

        None of this matters nearly so much to me as having them revive some of the short films they showed during the late 70s/early 80s, when I watched with religious devotion. When I’ve caught snippets of recent episodes, it was all far too glossy and well-produced. Also, too much Elmo and woefully insufficient amount of Grover face time.

        • Dr. Saunders, thank you so much for the reply–I am honored.

          Now, Judge Walker based almost his entire decision on “love”. Love hurts. You just know, there are a lot of freaks and very sincere people who are dying to test this decision. Why should the “love” test not be applicable to brothers, sisters, parents, primates, polar bears, grizzly bears, etc.–I’m officially recalling the reptile menage a trois–not really into such rough skin and those teeth do not particularly lend one to fantasize about certain sexual acts–however, how about a muskrat? Now you’re talking. There’s even a love song written for this wonderful rodent, “Muskrat Love”.

          Dr. Saunders, the battle of attrition has been won and your side is victorious. There is simply no holding back this tsunami.

          Besides the fact that every state that has had SSM on the ballot, has lost—substantially lost. No counting of chads necessary. No Harris-like governor needed. It’s a done deal. Period. The Legislative and Judicial branches of our government have decided the Constitution gives marriage rights to homosexuals.

          Thanks again, Dr. That was a very good and thoughtful reply.

          Please tell me we don’t need to break up professional sports teams to satisfy this ruling–break up, as in having separate teams, rules, one league straight the other hetero. You pretty much know what will happen if Judge Walker has his way. A funny thought, though.

          I’m still in love with my two billy goats no matter where or how this issue is decided. Muskrat love endures!

          p.s. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBYV_7a0FQs

          • Your replies seem to bounce around a great deal, which is a fitting metaphor for your arguments. Also, you seem to have lost your way. The same-sex marriage open thread is here.

            However, I’ll touch on a couple of your points, then I’m calling it a night. Yes, a great many elections have swung against marriage equality. So, what? Is your point that we should just roll over then? From my perspective, injustice is not rendered just because it is supported by the majority of voters. Regardless, opinion is shifting with time, so we’ll see what the tides bring.

            As for your comments about muskrats or whatever, any fool knows that people are not animals. If you see no difference between two adult humans in a relationship of mutual love and the relationship between a human and the animal he chooses to rape, then really your argument is too absurd to be worth much time, no matter how much you may purple up your prose.

            That said, if you can find a goat that can affirmatively state a desire to be married to you, I will dance at your wedding.

          • Please tell me we don’t need to break up professional sports teams to satisfy this ruling–break up, as in having separate teams, rules, one league straight the other hetero. You pretty much know what will happen if Judge Walker has his way.

            Presumably that the same rules will apply to everyone. Why, again, is this a problem?

      • Do we want them to think that bad moods are okay?

        A fortiori, I seem to recall, from my youth, a song on Sesame Street that says “everybody gets mad” and it’s okay. Obviously, something that should be revisited by the children’s television workshop.

  4. It would raise a serious conflict of interest if the quarterback became lovers with one of the wide receivers. And it would be downright dangerous to play a game after you’ve had a quarrel with, say, the left tackle.

    • It would raise a serious conflict of interest if the quarterback became lovers with one of the wide receivers.

      If I were a more mature person, this would not have made me giggle for the past five minutes.

      • The honorable Medicine Man, Dr. Saunders, I can’t begin to tell you how thrilled I am at your offer to dance at my wedding! Thank you–am truly touched, sir. (Did you know that Sir Issac Newton memorized every single word of the Bible?)

        But I digress. How about best man, too? It would be a great honor, sir. As long as you wear your headlight.

        You better get those dancing shoes on. I’ve been working with Billie and she/he has the vows down perfectly–you might have to brush up on Goatology though–she speaks sign language perfectly and can even sign Shakespeare–in Icelandic! She uses her ears and hoofs like you would never believe so I would hope you see this as a serious topic of conversation. You had me laughing quite a bit with your dance offer. Thanks.

      • While I often have no real idea what you’re talking about, right now I don’t have even the faintest clue. What does Darryl Stingley have to do with anything?

        • Greetings Mike, always a pleasure when you drop by!

          With regard to my reference of Darryl Stingley–okay, the trail goes something like this: quarterback in love with fellow team mate; teammate in love with him(h?); problems erupt when said lover kicks QB out of the house. QB utterly enraged. Vows revenge. Next game, QB deliberately draws his lover/WR into a field of traffic with defenders coming in all directions–WR almost killed with so many clear shot hits on him–QB devilishly and deviously smiles that his revenge has succeeded–lesson learned: don’t have sex with your fellow teammates under any circumstances. Now you’ll have to go to various “sex clinics” to purge yourself of degenerate sexual behavior.

    • God Mike–sorry. The comments I just posted were quite similar to yours. Heaven forbid! It was entirely unintentional. Hope you’ll believe that.

      • More or less what I said about a lover’s quarrel with the left tackle, yes. But I wasn’t being serious.

  5. All I can say about this is how sick I am of developing crushes on female characters only to have them turn lesbian.

    Then again, Melissa Etheridge, Ellen DeGeneres, and Portia DiRossi were all on my radar before they came out. Maybe *I’m* the issue here…

      • Dr. Saunders, I have no idea why you would be upset that such a relationship would be characterized as, “statistically improbable.” If a first-string quarterback falling in love with one of his players isn’t statistically improbable, then nothing is. And then, when it grows to this, “And I think that it is statistically improbable that you will have a female-to-male transgender who is in love with a lesbian or bisexual in a school setting.”

        With millions of kids playing high school sports, and you come up with one instance of a “female-to-male transgender who is in love with a lesbian or bisexual in a school setting.”–if this is not statistically improbable, you better study the statistics of improbability. You’re clearly wrong on both the math and your interpretation of the math.

        I’ve been crunching numbers and I’ve come up .000584—this, as a representation of a possible relationship of such definitions as you have provided. Sorry Doctor, game over. The numbers and facts are not at all on your side. If male homosexuals represent slightly less than 2% of the population in the United States, then THAT means they are a statistical improbability. Now if you want to Quadruple that to the 7th power, what be the chances be of a first-string quarterback falling in love with one of his players? I’d say my chances of having a menage a trois with two alligators would be far more likely.

        • First of all, Heidegger, you misunderstand my response to this. I’m not at all angry. I am deeply amused, because this protest against the program in question is so blisteringly stupid.

          A great many of our entertainments rely upon implausible relationships, strained coincidences, credulity-testing changes of heart, etc. The people in whatever organization this is (I can’t be bothered to scroll back up and recheck) don’t like positive depictions of gays, full stop, and basing their objection on the statistics is just transparently silly.

          And I guess, if it’s your thing, you should keep hoping for some large reptile love. I don’t really know what the studies show, but I have had lots and lots and lots of gay teenage patients. So far no actual football players, but plenty of star athletes in other sports. It doesn’t really seem cosmically unlikely to me that one of them might have developed feelings for a teammate, or even for those feelings to have been returned. If I had to choose between your math and my own experience, I’m going to have to go with the latter.

    • You’re not the issue–you just love the unattainable. Consummation of the unattainable leaves a terrible hole in the soul-nothing can possibly compare to the longing, dreaming, hankering of unrequited love.

      Enjoy the unattainable while it lasts. That’s as good as it gets. The world would be nigh barren of the greatest works of music, painting, literature, poems if longing were supplanted attaining.

      “In every temple of delight,
      Veiled melancholy has her Sovereign shrine…”

        • No Burt–it IS in fact, poems. I am using it as a noun not an adjective. Are you really trying to say this is correct grammar? “The world would be nigh barren of the greatest works of music, painting, literature, POETIC if longing were supplanted attaining.

          A world could be barren of “poetic”. Try again, Mr. Likko–you’re just plain wrong.

          works of poetic? Just plain ugly, sir.

        • Of course it’s always possible you were using “poetic” to sarcastically comment on my comments and not as a correction to my use of “poems”. Then you’d be correct-as would I.

        • In other words:
          “That’s poetic, Heidegger. Even before you got to the actual poetry.”

          Poetic as an adjetive in the way you used it is entirely correct, sir.

        • Burt—can I bribe you to change it from poems to poetry?

          Pretty, pretty, pretty, please?? Thanks!

          • I apologize. I will never try to compliment your writing again.

        • Oh no, Burt–it was just a misunderstanding on my part.

          But thank you very much–I am very grateful for your kind and gracious words. Compliments always welcome!

    • It’s on cable and satellite. The channel that used to be The-N but now is Nick Teens or somesuch. Don’t ask me how I know this, or why I can identify the characters from the first couple seasons.

      I have no shame of having watched Radio Free Roscoe, though. That was some quality programming right there.

      • Since I moved to Canada, Degrassi is one of those things that my wife does not permit any jokes about. I can make fun of the accent, but there are some things that are not acceptable sources of comedy.

Comments are closed.