Last Night on ‘Glee’: Gay Adoption and … Herman Cain?
by Jenny EriksonThe following article contains spoilers. You’ve been warned.
Hi everyone! I’m back for Week 2 of Glee, the show we all (or at least some of us) love to hate. In case you missed it, I’ll be your guide to Glee this season, breaking down the inevitable liberal indoctrination that occurs with each new episode.
As we learned last week, (gay guy) Kurt is running for student body president. (Sexually confused and dumb as wet paint) Brittany offers to be his campaign manager with a very pink and sparkly strategy, in which she likens him to a unicorn that poops cotton candy.
Excuse me, but isn’t that a conservative thing? Only our unicorns poop skittles. I’m sure they’re totally separate species. Also, we don’t liken people to mythical, candy-pooping creatures … we only liken things like free health care to them. Neither one actually exists, you know.
The heart of this episode doesn’t belong to unicorns, candy, or homosexuals – it belongs to baby mama drama. Shelby is back to cause a raucous. Shelby was the coach of Vocal Adrenaline, the arch nemesis of New Directions (thee glee club that the show revolves around).
Shelby is the adoptive mother of Beth, the biological daughter of Quinn and Puck. If you’ll remember from last week, Quinn is the chick with the new punk attitude, and Puck is the guy that everyone has done it with. To complicate matters, Shelby is also the biological mother of Rachel, the Barbara Streisand wannabe of Glee Club.
Shelby’s reason for returning is two-fold: First, she wants her daughter Beth to know her biological parents, and second, she wants to reconnect with Rachel. Because really, aren’t we all one big happy family that should get along, and isn’t every kid better off for having a ‘diverse’ upbringing?
Actually, kids are better off being raised in a two-parent household. Statistically speaking, at least. Of course there will always be variants, and no, a woman should not stay married to a man that abuses her and/or their children, and yes, I believe gay couples should be allowed to adopt.
There’s no way around the fact that a child has the best shot at succeeding at life if an intact couple raises him or her. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that fact, while still paying homage to the multitude of amazing non-traditional parents out there that are making the absolute best of their situations.
Sorry, I get a bee in my bonnet when Hollywood tries to say that children are better served by multiple partial parents than by a stable couple. Before anyone hates on me about the gay thing, I’d like to link this post I wrote last year addressing that very issue. It seems that kids that come from households of two intact parents fare better than other kids, no matter the gender of the parents.
I keep an open mind and await further studies.
Back to Glee. Not much else of interest went on, unless of course you include Candidate Sue Sylvester briefly mentioning that her main opponent in the congressional race is a pizza magnate. Herman Cain, anyone? Godfather’s Pizza? The connection is fuzzy, but it could come into play in future episodes…
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
72 Comments
Does Glee stand for Gays and Lesbians every episode?
If I watched any of these programs I might have gotten upset.
Who watches and what induces advertisers to buy time?
I have much better things to do with my time than tuning into mindless TV.
If you'll check, most of those studies are done by pro-LGBT groups. Think about it. Do you want two gay men raising a son? What are the chances that kid will be straight versus the normal chance raised in a world where he's taught that homosexuality, while a normal occurence in the world, is not normal. He would be accepted, but not as normal. You can say what you wish, but it's a lie to raise him telling him he's normal if he's not. You can raise him and accept him and tell him that others will, but others won't, and will point out the difference, and that is their right.
LMAO
This show's a guilty pleasure for my wife, though she admits that she gets sick of there being so many musical numbers, along with all the leftist crap. I don't give her a hard time about watching it – I love me some Breaking Bad and Mad Men.
It's basically Will and Grace … but set in High School.
Before anyone hates on me about the gay thing, I…
Look, I know this is part of the modern vernacular but disagreeing with someone or pointing out where they may be wrong is not the same as "hating on" that person. There is no hate.
I might be wrong about something and if I get called on it I don't assume the person is "hating on me".
All other things being equal a normal heterosexual couple is the ideal environment to raise children. Two men or two women cannot provide the same things that a male female couple can model and provide for children, that's just common sense, not hate.
Brilliant!
Besides the music & the leftist crap, what else is there to Glee?
Instead of GLEE (hmmm, so close to GLAAD), I watch the Sing Off. It's actual singing groups that sing without instruments and do so beautifully and so far — so far — no sucker punches. Just good, clean, wholesome (remember that?) entertainment. Oh and whites and blacks and browns and reds and yellows and topes all sing together and no one makes any lame "rainbow" or "celebrate diversity" comments.
My biggest problem with the show is that it continues the lie that Lima, Ohio has diversity.
————————————————————————————————-
My -100 is due to a fight with the Paulistas and Palinistas. Please be nice
Geez, I can't even bear to read about this show. Actually watching would be torture.
Watch Glee or get a colonoscopy?
I'll take the latter, thank you.
"It seems that kids that come from households of two intact parents fare better than other kids, no matter the gender of the parents."
That's a load of crap. And, it's an oft repeated fallacy, which, when trickled down to the kid or kids of one parent, is no more than mean, unsubstantiated BS. Children from households of two parents (intact? meaning what, exactly?) where there're are lies, "staying together for the kids", and other various disfunctions may or may not fare better than children from a stable two parent household, or children from a stable single parent household. In other words, it's less to do with the number of parents within the household than it is to do with the way the child is raised: routine, boundaries, communication, values, morals, and ethics…
Jenny, I'm glad you're watching it so I don't have to!
get a colonoscopy
It will be a musical number and they're saving it for the season finale.
I have heard the first statistic often (not so much about same sex couples, but definitely about traditional marriages). I have even read that children do better in two parent households where the marriage may be having difficulties. I can add my anecdotal experience of a child of parents who had a volatile marriage, separated, reconciled, "stayed together for the kids" and finally (after much hard work) settled into a happy (yet still lively
) marriage that lasted over 40 years until my dad passed away. I know I personally was happier and more content when my parents were together even though they had difficulties.
Where did you find the information to the contrary? I would be interested to see it.
"one is always the butch" Yeah,you've never seen real gay folks
"500-1000 range of sex partners" Again,you just pulled it out of your ass.
" about 90% within 5 year" yet another "stat" you pulled out of nowhere.
"Statistics show…" is a preface to many statements that are not necessarily based on fact. As for how children fare into adulthood after growing up in a two parent, single parent, grandparent, step parent, foster, etc., household, I tend to believe their contentment and success correlates more with the environment and how they were raised, rather than the presence of one or two parents. I was fortunate to grow up in a stable two parent household and, though we moved quite a bit because of my father's career, it was pretty dang close to a storybook childhood.
Raising a daughter on my own in an upscale community where appearances of normalty are feathered, was tough and made tougher by some parents and teachers spouting the aforementioned "statistic". So much so that she became aware of it, and other kids echoed it. She aced highschool, completed college within four yrs, has a lucrative start in her career, a successful young engineer husband, and a new baby. Compared to many of her peers growing up in this community, some whose parents waited until the kids were in college to "finally" divorce, many whose parents still bankroll their kids repeated efforts to mature, she flourished. Quite a few of her friends speak candidly of their own experiences, and a few still think my daughter "beat the odds", which denigrates both my parenting and her achievements.
Actually I approve of the stance that the adopted child should know its biological family. Adoptees get a major mind-f* *k when they are told that they reflect all of their adopted family. Its about nature AND nurture. There is NOTHING wrong with the bio parent(s) wanting to make sure the child knows who she/they is/are.
That said: Glee = *yawn* never seen such naval gazing in my life. Oh, and my daughter hates the shaky-cam. So 90s, okay?
I agree wholeheartedly about statistics. I also know that my experience is just mine alone. But I have two siblings who share the same feelings. Of course, let me throw the caveat that I imagine a physically abusive environment (which ours was not) might be different, but there was a security and a stability and contentment when my folks were together that wasn't there in my mind when they were apart. Even though I was old enough to know that my mother was (outwardly) happier during the separation. Despite their imperfections, my parents took a longer ranged view that I couldn't understand at the time which resulted in much, much more happiness for us all in the long run. I think you can read how much I respect what they did for us (and for themselves, ultimately).
I have adoptee friends who scorn hetero adoption and some are actually politically active against adoption, but whenever the subject of gays adopting comes up, all of a sudden they are of the "unicorns pooping rainbows" variety and they can't WAIT to endorse gays adopting….and all *I* can ever think is the only reason gays want to adopt is because they want to use the child to appear normal to the rest of the world.
Obviously this is personal for you. I appreciate that. I think you are making the very point though. Statistics do show that your daughter's success is an abberation. Again, those dreaded statistics do show that she "beat the odds". I apologize profusely if it seems in anyway that by making that statement I am denigrating your efforts or the exceptional character of your daughter. Well done!
That is the point, I think. Your daughter flourished in circumstances that statistically (sorry) often don't end as well. That is a credit to the two of you and the efforts you put forth. It doesn't change what is true for most though. And, out of respect for most, it is best to freely admit that it is not the optimal arrangement.
Point taken. I've never actually watched so I have no idea LOL. Usually when she watches it in the other room she closes the door so I hear a (hopefully) minimal amount of that show. I do feel like gagging a little at how every song they do is some crappy cover of a pop song.
Having siblings is another factor. I was the middle, between two boys, and we are all three very close to our parents and still enjoy both the memories and the relationship we have now. My daughter is my only child and was raised states away from both her father's family and my family. Literally, on our own, and we did just fine.
Yes, children do fare better in a two-patent household, with a mother and father figure. No matter how effeminate a gay man is, he's no replacement for a mother. And a butch lesbian is not a dad. That said, I have no problems with qualified gay couples adopting unwanted children, as long as qualified straight couples get priority.
Have you bean to Lima?
Jenny Ericson watches, but she only does it as a public service to Big Sites so we don't in any form get tempted. Glee's in it's what- 11th season? It seems that long. Time to move on Fox. It was a 1 season wonder (I even liked the first season) now overly stretched.
It's "cause a ruckus," not a "raucous.
There are plenty of two-parent, hetero adoptive homes and no reason to open it up to homosexuals or single parents. One of the biggest complaints of adoptive straight parents is bureaucracy standing between them and the kids, not that there is a surplus of children such that the pool of parents needed to be expanded.
Anecdotes aside, homosexual adoptions and single-parent adoption represent a Pandora's box that has needlessly been opened by shortsighted politicians under pressure from a vocal minority.
Okay, okay…then why is it that those statistics are "true for most"? If there are "anomolies", then it's not logical to conclude that it is the two parent vs single parent situation that determines the outcome of the child. Perhaps I was more attentive, being a single parent, aware, and concentrated on my job and role as a parent, than other single parents who might be more concerned with what they want rather than what they need and have.
All the thumbs down…hating on single parents, now?
Aren't glee and gay close to being synonyms?
I love it when commenters like hollywoodron are required to offer incontrovertible evidence here on things that have been widely reported like the average number of partners homosexuals have had (very high, even while in "committed" relationships), the longevity of their partnerships (very low), their lower lifespans (considerably lower), the greater incidence of partner abuse (much higher), drug abuse (higher), and so on.
But Breitbot, you're right there isn't always a butch one. Nothing's 100%; there's an anecdote to break every rule. But fem-fem isn't the predominate arrangement, because without fem-butch it isn't a simulation of what is inherently understood to be normal. So, yeah, there are some fem-fem lesbian couples, but Hollywood wants you to think it's the more common situation. Just like they want us to imagine married gays holding hands on a beach in Hawaii well into their golden years. "Why, they're actually even more devoted than those hetero marrieds that divorce every six months. And they're even better parents because they are so much more understanding," etc., ad infinatem.
So, do us all a favor: stop swallowing GLAAD's talking points and look up the actual stats yourself. I don't hate gays; I just love the truth.
I see why the show ratings are sinking…yeesh!…who wants to watch this stuff every week?
Oh, please, every time one of your ilk wants to hit at hetero marriage your "pull stats out of nowhere" too and you expect us to accept them. Turnabout is fairplay.
I think we've entered the semantical portion of the discussion
We are talking about ALL families across the board. There are other situations like yours where a single parent upbringing provided a great outcome (some of my dear friends included) and there are many examples of two parent families that aren't successful in child rearing. That is not what the discussion is about.
I don't mean to sound disrespectful and trivialize what you are saying, but, by way of analogy, before the laws became more restrictive I know several people who could have a few beers or drinks and never had any problems getting safely home, never injured anyone or even came close to an accident. I also know people who shouldn't have a single drink within 2 days of driving. Does the existence of the former mean that driving after having a few drinks is a good thing? The optimal way to drive is with no intoxicating substances at all in your system. That doesn't mean that people who have some alcohol (possible even above what is considered legal in their area) are not safe drivers. I hope that makes sense.
Your experience and those like yours does not argue, when considering all families, that a single parent family is a better choice than having two parents.
And, I should add, that doesn't diminish the value, worth or success of your family.
Wait, so we're going to get one of these posts after every episode now? Really?
Check, please!
We know that rapid homophobes like Holywoodron ,and lots of other wingnuts are repressed,closeted homosexuals.
A few examples: George Rekers, Pastor Eddie Long, Troy King,Richard Curtis, Ted Haggard, Glenn Murphy Jr, David Dreier, Bruce Barclay, Roy Ashburn, Jim West, Larry Craig, Ed Schrock ,Robert Allen ,Mark Foley ,Phillip Hinkle…. and lots others
Is Hollywood Ron secretly a World-class sprinter or NASCAR driver in his regular life?
Because it's true.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/05/...
You can do all right coming out of a single parent situation, but statistically speaking, you have a better chance if you come out of an intact family. Why endorse a situation for a kid that stacks the odds against them to begin with?
EH, the whole biological parent thing is over-rated. My husband neither knows nor desires to know his biological family. The only curiosity he has is for the genetic component so that we have a better idea what we might have to expect for he and our son down the road medically. There is no mystical blood component that calls you together.
I've been friends with lesbians before (the butch type that hate men, not the fun hot ones who just want to join you and your wife/gf… it's a shame really) and the amount of physical/emotional/verbal abuse that goes on in their community is as much, if not more, than the straight "community".
That's not to say that there aren't a couple of fruits who could raise a child to be normal… But they're not any better off than a man and a woman couple that the idiots at GLAAD claim
No.Just a fat,closeted ,guilt ridden jesus freak.
And here, in a mere 44 words, aharris says clearly what I spread over multiple posts. Can I edit all my post to that's what I meant?
Agreed, agreed. Admittedly a personal knee jerk reaction to her opinion. And, having grown up in a two parent home, with good experiences and good memories, did give me a solid foundation for the challenges of raising a child on my own. So, credit certainly goes to my parent's long running success.
I did stray off topic, do not watch Glee, or much television, at all.
That's HIS choice. Each adoptee has their own perspective. I can assure you, for a LOT of adoptees, including myself, its a BIG DEAL. And I didnt say there was a "mystical blood component" – I implied that it was important for a child to see their own genetic history reflected back to them through biological members. I find it ironic that the medical field out there has come a long way towards making sure new mothers get every opportunity to welcome their new child into the world, with tons of studies about how mothers can smell their own babies, and babies can sense who their mother is, but when it comes to adoptee babies, they are suddenly tabula rasa and have no reaction at all to being removed from their genetic branch. Its a big mind-eff.
Well, I don't "endorse a situation for a kid…" . I just think there are more factors that stack the odds against children than being raised by a single parent. I didn't go into adulthood with the intent on being a single Mom. It happened. The marriage ended and her father chose to be absent. Was it easy? By no means. I turned out all right coming from a great two parent family, with siblings. My daughter has fared even better.
What in the heck do you think single parents should do? Focus on finding a second spouse, hoping it will be better for all the second time around, or focus on raising their child or children? Those "statistics" have become both a scarlet letter for some parents, and an excuse for others (and their children) who didn't fare well, by circumstance and choice.
And if you read carefully I said you make of life what you have to (I have two cousins who came out of a single-parent household, so I am not unsympathetic to your own situation), but too often, society ignores the hard truths of single parent families and turns their sympathy into an open endorsement of the situation. Single parenthood is glamorized in the media and made to look heroic or something. It isn't, and when people like myself show up to stick up for the traditional family model, we're met with hostility for speaking the truth.
How in the heck am I getting thumbed down because I found it funny that Breitbot called Hollywood Ron a RAPID homophobe?
Ok, admittedly not that funny, but thumbs down?
Remember that scene in Old Yeller when the poor old dog was running laps around the little boy with the gun??….. Now that was a rapid dog……
Really? So my husband is all screwed up and doesn't know it. The same, btw, applies to two of my nephews who are also adopted and show no real curiousity either.
And I wonder, how do your adoptive parents feel? They've given you everything and raised you as if you were their own. But, hey, screw 'em. They aren't your genes, so no matter. It's the blood that counts and your fetal memories of blood mama's scent just make that bonding impossible.
I feel sorry for them.
No hostility from here. Believe me, I prefer the traditional family, having come from one. My comments are not an endorsement of single parenthood, but in defense of it. Perhaps I was too busy to notice, but I wasn't aware of single parenthood being glamorized or made to look heroic. Now that my parenting job is done, there's more time to read, listen to, and process the rest of society.
I didnt say he was screwed up, although with the way you love to put words and thoughts into people's heads, its no wonder he doesnt want to bother with looking. Why should he when he knows you arent going to support him. But you know what? I believe in free will and individual choice…and THAT IS HIS CHOICE.
MINE was different.
MY adoptive parents SUPPORT ME…have EVERY. STEP. OF. THE. WAY. Honey, they even MET my natural mother!
But even if they hadn't supported me, it is STILL MY CHOICE – MY life, not theirs.
I feel sorry for you – you call yourself a conservative, yet you would deny an individual their freedom to determine things for themselves.
Some people watch Glee. I hate you people. A lot.
That's SO TYPICAL of someone who has no understanding of adoptees – ha ha, like Ive never heard the accusations about how I am SOOOOO ungrateful. Guess what – its not about THEM, and it sure as hell isnt about YOU. Adoptees have their own identity as well, and it BUGS the living daylights out of people who think that the only thing an adoptee should ever think or feel or realize is gratitude.
Let me ask you something – have you lost your mother or dad? Have you lost a loved one? Are you grateful? Why not? Theyre no longer connected to you. You cant see them, hear them, talk to them, spend time with them anymore. Why should it matter? Why arent YOU grateful that you dont have to do that anymore?
Oh this crap is still on. Back to channel surfing No Fox Entertainment….there is a misnamed division. When has it been entertaining since Xfiles went sideways. ANd no Comedy Central. Why give Jon Stewart a ratings boost?
Homo promo
Why am I even on this thread? I don't even care about the friggin show…
Colonoscopy….there's a surprise ending for ya!
"We"?
More like you're resorting to a tired old slur. If someone doesn't agree with you on homosexuality they're "homophobes" and "repressed, closeted" homosexuals.
Children of homosexual couples are bully magnets.
Teatards. Awesome.
You hate "Jesus freaks" because they recognize you for the thief you are.
It is…hahahaha…it's so funny…you…hahaha….you turned it into a hahahaha…an acronym…that seems to imply…hahaha…that it's somehow wrong or unnatural…to have a show that prominently….hahahaha…feature gays and lesbians…..awesome…hahahaha….
"I’ll be your guide to Glee this season, breaking down the inevitable liberal indoctrination that occurs with each new episode."
Thanks god! Are there any other series on TV that are well past their prime that you feel like guiding us through? Like repeats of the last season of Everybody loves Raymond? Something like that?
Good thing we have Big Hollywood. How else would we be able to avoid shows that don't conform to our own narrow views. Simply not watch them? Where's the fun in that? We prefer to get irrationally angry at every form of entertainment that disagrees with us.
In short, yeah, it's the "liberal bias" that keeps all of you from enjoying that show. Yep. That's it.
I'm confused here. Am I supposed to hate Glee and not watch it because it's part of the Gay Liberal Communist Muslim Terrorist Agenda, or am I supposed to watch it and enjoy it because it's entertaining? Also: I'm fairly sure that there's been some attempts at Conservative non-commentary TV shows, and they all flopped (ie the Half Hour News Hour). Is this evidence of a Hollywood conspiracy, or does it simply mean that liberals are the only ones who can enjoy entertainment that doesn't involve cars going around in circles?
Glaad to see my observation amused you. But if I were going to make an acronym for you it would be GLUM; gay or lesbian usually morose; to reflect the dyspeptic, thin skinned nature of your comment, heretoamuse.
Have a nice day?
I always thought is stood for Gay/Lesbian Entertainment Ensemble.
People who support "gay" adoption would never put their own children in a kindergarten owned and staffed by "gays".
The pro-"gay" brainwashing is so powerful that people are afraid of their own basic instincts.
I'm going to pitch a new show called SAG. Anyone who thinks it stands for Straight American Guys would be mistaken. But the lack of lattes, show tunes or waxed bodies and concentration on football and chicks is wrong and unnatural!
You must be logged in to post a comment.