It reaches further than the gay-cowboy romp "Brokeback Mountain," whose characters maintained a sense of otherness while shielding the kids from their shenanigans. In this movie, exposing kids is the entire point.
And this is how Hollywood does an end run around morality.
"Hollywood has set the stage for the gay agenda, nothing new," said Laura Bailey, Brooklyn mom of two boys. "Why do you think they did propaganda films in the 1940s? They're setting the new norm."
"The movie industry is doing its best to undermine the American family," said Patricia Whitehead, Connecticut mom of two girls. "Hollywood -- we don't care about the sick lives you lead behind closed doors. Just don't bring children into it."
This brazen attempt at trend-setting comes as national polls show Americans oppose gay marriage, half of us strongly. Support for it was at 47 percent in this year's Washington Post/ABC News poll -- but fully two-thirds favored civil unions, in which gay couples enjoy most rights of marrieds without having to stand under the chuppah.
It doesn't take a genius to glean the truth: Folks are happy with gays living together. But bringing children into the equation is a deal-breaker.
Full article here.
The only question I ask particularly is that if a child can be provided for, cared for, and loved, should the gender be relevant? The second question, if I'm allowed to ask, what's wrong with presenting a film, even one with an "nontraditional family" (a truthful aspect of American culture, even if some disagree with it) in an utterly honest, and entertaining way. I disagree with this article in every aspect, but I personally doubt she's seen the film, especially when she calls the presentation of Annette Bening and Julianne Moore's characters as "perfect," since neither at all a presented that way-- the comedy as well as the drama comes from their very imperfections, but also the honesty, effort and love that are, or should be the very foundation of family.