Thursday, January 20, 2005

SpongeBob, Corrupter of Youth

You can tell that things are going well for the right-wing fringe when they start targeting fictional cartoon characters the scourge of our youth. Yes, the fine folks at Focus on the Family are training their sites on SpongeBob SquarePants. Apparently they're concerned that SpongeBob may be pushing a homosexual agenda on America's unsuspecting youngsters. Aren't sponges asexual in the first place? Maybe Focus on the Family should be concerned that SpongeBob might encourage kids to start budding.

UPDATE: I just saw the video in question on Keith Olberman's MSNBC show. It is a music-video type thing featuring lots of kids TV characters singing "We Are Family." Having seen it, I fully join Focus on the Family in its protest. It is unconscionable that our children are going to be exposed to disco at such an impressionable age. It will surely warp them for years to come.

4 comments:

Dima said...

Sponges are asexual, but maybe those right-wingers would be happy if Sponge Bob was married to Spongette and she cooked and cleaned barefoot in the kitchen while he went out to earn seaweed for the family. What's so bad about a cartoon character with homosexual agenda? Hey, maybe we'll have some kids growing up to be tolerant adults and who worry about the real problems in the World.

Anonymous said...

Have sponges evolved to cooking and cleaning, much less barefoot? Have they even evolved feet?!? Of course, evolving, that's a whole other kettle of . . . sponges.

As Olberman warned before he showed the video: be warned that you, or your children, or your furniture could, by watching this video, become gay. Or tolerant. Whichever.

JDB said...

Don't know why I was anonymous on that last comment.

Dima said...

If sponges can wear square pants, why can't they be barefoot. If you wear pants, that means you have legs, if you have legs you have some type of a foot-like object at the end of the leg, said object may or may not be covered, in the case it's not covered, the result is barefootness. Logical deduction leads to proving that my statement was correct :)