I started a new blog today (Not matter what your opinion is on homosexuality, this is reality. The argument is that (1) some tax payers think that it is not right to imply that homosexuality is acceptable and that (2)we often restrict what we show children to save them from reality. As for the first argument, as a tax payer some people don’t think that a white mouse (the cartoon character involved) and a brown mouse shouldn’t play together or even a jewish mouse and a christian mouse. (note that one is designated by birth and the other by choice-both are social constructs as well-thus taking into account the two most popular beliefs on the “cause” of homosexuality). As for the second argument, we mostly restrict what children on tv see if it is too violent, or sexually explicit. Is seeing two mommies together sexually explicit or in some strange way too violent? I don’t think so. There is more sexual content in those randy telatubbies! Unfortunately, if you accept the first argument, then my counter-argument will likely fall on deaf ears. As I’ve heard said before, wiping gay images from TV should be rather low on the priority list for the Department of Education. There are a lot more pressing issues in education. Now, I don’t want this new blog to be a Spellings bashing site, though it will likely turn into that. She’s been in the news a lot lately and the only sites with a good spin are on the government sites 🙂 ) after hearing about the Spellings fiasco with PBS. She’s up in arms over the fact that publically supported PBS was going to air a children’s program that showed a lesbian couple raising children.