Billy Graham: It’s the End Times All Over Again »« Why Coming Out Matters

MO Bigot Throws Fit Over GSA T-Shirt

Nixa, Missouri, a suburb of Springfield, where Skepticon is held each year, is home to state Rep. Kevin Elmer. Kevin Elmer is a bigoted jerk. Seeing a high school student wearing a Gay-Straight Alliance t-shirt at a school book fair, he decided to snap a picture, fire up the Twitter and make an ass of himself.

Rep. Kevin Elmer, R-Nixa, expressed dismay Thursday that students were wearing Gay-Straight Alliance T-shirts at a school event.

Thursday afternoon, Elmer tweeted: “Nixa Schools failure. HS students working elementary school book fair in gay t-shirts.”

ZOMG! Gay t-shirts! Did you see two men’s shirts holding hands? Two women’s shirts making out? Worse, a bunch of uni-sex shirts having an orgy? Well, no. It was just a student in a shirt that showed a bunch of male and female stick figures holding hands with the word “Harmony” beneath them. Egads, what will we tell the children?

Elmer told the News-Leader he was at a book fair after attending a parent-teacher conference for his third-grade child where he saw two high school students wearing the shirts.

“I just think it’s inappropriate to be promoting any sexual relationship in an elementary school, whether it’s heterosexual or homosexual,” Elmer said.

Riiiiight. And I’m sure if he saw someone wearing a shirt with a bride and groom on it that said “Marriage is between a man and a woman” he would have done the exact same thing because it’s “inappropriate to be promoting any sexual relationship.”

The lawmaker said the shirts interfere with his ability to parent and decide when he should discuss certain topics with his children.

“It’s not a gay rights issue, it’s a parental issue,” Elmer said.

I know, right? And that’s why we should prohibit any student from wearing a Christian-themed t-shirt. It’s not a religious freedom issue, it’s a parental issue. Those shirts interfere with the right of parents to decide what religions to discuss.

Elmer said it has become difficult to discuss the issue of homosexuality openly.

“The homosexual, gay issue in today’s society is so hypersensitive, you can’t talk about anything without them jumping on you and being totally negative,” Elmer said.

Exactly! Like if you wear a t-shirt with your religious views, some asshole state legislator will take a picture of it, put it on Twitter and be “totally negative” about it. It’s political correctness run amok, I tell ya!

Comments

  1. lldayo says

    Riiiiight. And I’m sure if he saw someone wearing a shirt with a bride and groom on it that said “Marriage is between a man and a woman” he would have done the exact same thing because it’s “inappropriate to be promoting any sexual relationship.”

    This seems like a good idea for an experiment. Have a student wear a shirt like this at the next school function he attends and take a picture with the student and him next to each other. If he doesn’t tweet about it being inappropriate call him out on it.

  2. Brain Hertz says

    Elmer said it has become difficult to discuss the issue of homosexuality openly.

    I think he means that he wants it to be difficult to discuss the issue openly.

  3. smhll says

    It’s amazing how any message of tolerance flips some people out. The reaction seems so exaggerated.

  4. says

    People, please have pity on poor Rep. Elmer. He tries but he isn’t the sharpest pencil in the box. He thinks that hold hands is how women get pregnant. He once as a book entitled, “Storks of the World.” and denounced it as porn.

  5. raven says

    “The homosexual, gay issue in today’s society is so hypersensitive, you can’t talk about anything without them jumping on you and being totally negative,” Elmer said.

    If you translate that from Fundiespeak to English, it means that people are losing interest in and patience with our mindless hate of gay people.

    The fundies really have to find another small group to hate. Most people thought they would go back to hating atheists and Moslems.

    Instead they decided to pick on a very large group. As we’ve seen from recent events in Washington DC, they decided to…hate the USA.

    Got to give them credit here, 317 million people covering half a continent is a really large target group. They will be able to drag this out for decades.

  6. eric says

    it’s inappropriate to be promoting any sexual relationship in an elementary school, whether it’s heterosexual or homosexual

    Its not promoting any sexual relationship; its promoting gay students and straight students working together on common interests. Heck, in theory there could be people in the GSA who don’t agree with anyone having a gay lifestyle (in the vein of; I disagree with what you say but will join with you to defend your right to say it)

    Now I can sort of understand the broader complaint. Somebody’s 7-year-old could see that picture and ask what “gay” means. Some parents may object to a t-shirt at an elementary school function pushing them into a birds and bees discussion before they want to give it. Yes, the wider world probably already introduced the subject, but (as an analogy) just because the local teen curses at your child doesn’t mean its appropriate for people manning a school book fair to do it.

    Still, that’s really bending over backwards to take offense. And Elmer’s jsut plain wrong in characterizing it as a ‘gay t-shirt.’

  7. says

    @ Eric

    This particular shirt doesn’t even say “gay.” It’s just a set of pairs of stick figures with the word “Harmony.” If a young child did ask about the shirt, assuming that someone is too much of a coward to tell the truth, a simple answer would be “people can be friends with boys or girls.”

    Frankly, any sort of “think of the children” argument bugs the crud out of me. Young kids are quite capable of dealing with the idea that two people, regardless of gender, can be in love. It’s just the adults around them who project their own insecurities onto the kids. There’s no need to go into “Some people like to put tab P into slot A and others like to put tab P into slot V.”

  8. gshelley says

    “I just think it’s inappropriate to be promoting any sexual relationship in an elementary school, whether it’s heterosexual or homoback, sexual,” Elmer said.

    Was there something more on the because I didn’t see anything sexual.
    Though I imagine in his mind, the gay is all about the buttsex

  9. says

    gshelley “Was there something more on the because I didn’t see anything sexual.”
    The stick figures are like paintings whose eyes follow you, except for “eyes” it’s “crotch” and except for “follow you” it’s “have gay sex in your imagination”.

  10. oranje says

    Also, if the figures on that shirt are a sexual relationship, then every restroom sign anywhere is depicting masturbation.

  11. longstreet63 says

    In many places now, if some embarrassed parent has to ‘explain’ gayness, the child is likely to respond with “oh, you mean like Uncle Frank!” or something like that, and wonder what your their parents’ problem is.
    Possibly, one day, even Missouri may be like this.
    (Although, there is the ‘let’s not bring it up to Dad; he’ll make a big scene” factor to consider.)

  12. John Pieret says

    The lawmaker said the shirts interfere with his ability to parent and decide when he should discuss certain topics with his children.

    The proper follow-up question would have been “Do you really think you have the right to censor the entire world just to make it easier for you to parent a child?”

  13. caseloweraz says

    Did anyone else read this headline as referring to “Girl Scouts of America”?

    When I saw it, I thought, “First the cookies, now the T-shirts?”

  14. iknklast says

    Since when does any parent get to decide when he should discuss certain topics with his children? It’s always on the child’s time schedule, not the parents, and almost always before the parent is ready. I know. I have offspring. And my son was nearly always a couple of years ahead of when I thought I would be ready to discuss any subject. Should I have kept my sister from getting pregnant until I was ready to discuss the birds and the bees with my child? I think I know what she would have (justifiably) said about that!

    In the end, after I figured out how to explain pregnancy to a child not yet eight, I felt glad that I had an opportunity to explain this to him before he got wrong information from somewhere else (as a biologist, I did feel a bit more qualified to explain that than having him get it from one of the kids in his class). He should be glad for this opportunity for his child to learn, but unfortunately, what they would probably learn from him would be inaccurate and bigoted.

  15. Moggie says

    Elmer told the News-Leader he was at a book fair after attending a parent-teacher conference for his third-grade child where he saw two high school students wearing the shirts.

    “I just think it’s inappropriate to be promoting any sexual relationship in an elementary school, whether it’s heterosexual or homosexual,” Elmer said.

    In that case, a parent-teacher conference should be a furtive event, where the parents enter separately and pretend not to know each other. Also, pictures of storks carrying bundles might help.

  16. says

    Hell, if you actually did depict a sexual relationship on a t-shirt in the style of this shirt, using stick figures, you could fool any inquisitive child by just telling him/her it’s two people playing leapfrog.

  17. Chiroptera says

    “The homosexual, gay issue in today’s society is so hypersensitive, you can’t talk about anything without them jumping on you and being totally negative,” Elmer said.

    ‘Cause conservative evangelicals are almost never negative when they discuss homosexuality.

  18. Chiroptera says

    PS. I just realized how that last sentence I quoted is deserving of a nomination for Ed’s Bryan Fischer Award! (I mean — Christ! — just who is being hypersensitive here over a T-shirt!)

  19. zmidponk says

    You know, if he wasn’t such a hypersensitive, bigoted dickwad, he would have seen a very simple way of explaining this to his child:

    “You know how your mom and I love each other? Sometimes men love other men and women love other women in the same way.”

    Boom. Job done, and he doesn’t even have to come close to anything about that icky ‘sex’ business.

  20. John Pieret says

    Boom. Job done, and he doesn’t even have to come close to anything about that icky ‘sex’ business.

    Because you can be sure this hypersensitive, bigoted dickwad has not yet explained to his kids “how your mom and I love each other,” so he doesn’t have to go into sex at all. And given his being elected, it’s not likely that the local schools are giving the kids much in the way of sex education, so his kids will just have to learn it on the street, like he no doubt did.

  21. exdrone says

    You’re missing the point. “Harmony” is the name of Elmer’s Congressional aide, and his kids have been catching on.

  22. says

    It is often asserted that children are “too young” to learn certain things about biology. Why? What is the actual harm of telling a young child about how biology works? Including human biology and sexual orientation. This is not about the child at all but rather it’s about the squeamishness and fear that resides in the parent likely as a result of his own stilted upbringing.

  23. eric says

    ArtK @10 – thanks for the correction. Yeah, there’s basically no rational reason at all to object to stick figures holding hands with the word ‘hamony’ below it.

Leave a Reply