Some confused parents in Rhode Island think their children cannot digest the film version of Rent, based on Daddy Dobson’s assertion that the film is the work of the Homosexual Agenda.
The trip has not been canceled, since the principal, Joseph P. Maruszczak, says it will encourage classroom discussions about diversity and tolerance. Besides, I agree with one of committee members — don’t sign the permission slip if you don’t want your child to attend.
A group of parents is calling a high school field trip a “promotion of homosexuality”. The parents are threatening to pull their teenage children from a Ponaganset High School trip to see the movie “Rent” at a local theater.
“Rent”, the film version of the long running Pulitzer and Tony-winning drama, is about a group of young New Yorkers coming to grips with poverty and AIDS features two gay couples. Although rated PG-13, the parents say the movie is too controversial and adult for the grade 9 students.
“The lifestyles depicted in this movie are not the majority, not the lifestyles of 99.9 percent of the kids that live in these two towns,” School Committee cochair Donna Mansolillo told a meeting of the committee this week.
Mansolillo then handed out a review of the film by the conservative group Focus on the Family that calls the movie “an in-your-face glorification of homosexuality and lesbianism.”
I really think Dobson should change his organization’s name to Focus on the Anus. I was joking in earlier references to it on the Blend, but it’s clear that he has decided to redefine the word for himself and others, based on some new information that he might want to pass on to dictionary publishers…
ho mo sex u al i ty n.
1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
ho mo sex u al i ty
Inflected Form: plural -ties
1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex
Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary
Are women not included in this definition? Oh wait, maybe it’s that we aren’t “persons” in Dobson’s world. That has to be the explanation. Thanks for the update, doc. If only I had the energy to rant further on this one. You all take it over in the comments…