RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

10/24/2007

Video: Wherein Dan Abrams can't even fake objectivity

by Jeremy Hooper

As the conservatives continue their war on Dumbledore's sexuality and J.K Rowling continues to get a schooling on just how unhinged America's evangelical extremists can be, Dan Abrams last night engaged in one of our favorite past times: Pointing out Robert Knight's anti-gay ridiculousness with a tongue planted firmly in cheek. Check it out:

The absurdity of anti-gay rhetoric: The world is finally starting to catch on.

VIDEO: Right wing media watchdog on disclosure that Dumbledore is gay [P1Q]

**Oh, and everyone: It's pronounced "rolling."

***

**UPDATE, 2010: The video is now long gone.  So here's the transcript instead:

ROBERT KNIGHT, DIRECTOR OF THE CULTURE AND MEDIA INSTITUTE, MEDIA

RESEARCH CENTER:  Well, I think it is bad for kids because they see Dumbledore as a moral authority, as have very grandfatherly figure, someone that they look up to.  And then here is J.K. Rowling after she’s made her $450 million, announcing that he is gay, gratuitously. 

You know, it’s not good for kids because it forces the subject of homosexuality into an area where a lot of parents aren’t comfortable with.  The reason she waited until now is she already made her millions with her books.  You notice she didn’t do it in the outset. 

ABRAMS:  But -

KNIGHT:  And that there is a good reason for that.  Most parents don’t want this. 

ABRAMS:  I assume most parents don’t want to take to kids about sex either and relationships between young people, and yet, that is in the books as well. 

KNIGHT:  I didn’t say everything in the book is wholesome and wonderful.  After all, it’s about witchcraft.

ABRAMS:  What I’m saying - you’re saying that J.K. Rowling is forcing parents to talk about something they don’t want to talk about, as if this is some great American horror. 

KNIGHT:  I think you are exaggerating, Dan.  All we are saying is it’s

probably not good for kids, and it seems gratuitous.  I think game plan

here is to inject homosexuality into kids’ books, school curricula, every

possible part of the conversation -

ABRAMS:  So she’s part of the vast left-wing conspiracy that is looking to insert the gay agenda as opposed to the possibility that maybe when she was writing the book in her own head, she thought he was gay.

KNIGHT:  The game plan is to inject homosexuality into everything and

if somebody says well maybe that is not a good idea then you are called

prejudicial, bigoted, made fun of.  You know, this whole idea that

everybody has to accept it or they will be branded as someone -

ABRAMS:  But this is -

KNIGHT:  Prejudice is -

ABRAMS:  I don’t really think -

KNIGHT:  You can see it unfolding, and it is ridiculous. 

ABRAMS:  Joan, go ahead. 

JOAN WALSH, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, “SALON.COM”:  You know, Dan, she did not announce this.  She did not make a big deal out of it.  She was in a question and answer session with her fans, and a young woman asked a question about whether Dumbledore ever found love, and she revealed it.  It was actually kind of moving, if you saw it directly. 

This is not a publicity stunt.  She will still make millions from these books, and perhaps parents like Robert will not be buying the books anymore, so she still has something at risk. 

(CROSS TALK)

ABRAMS:  Robert, there is rumors as well about Peppermint Patty, C3PO, Bugs Bunny, Bert and Ernie.  Are these others that you are concerned about? 

KNIGHT:  Dan, here is the problem.  Homosexuality is being injected into everything.  And then if somebody says maybe that is not such a good idea, there is this incredible campaign to say, “Oh, you are a bigot. 

You’re prejudiced.”  You’re trying to silence people who might have a

problem with it -

ABRAMS:  Are you angry that Ernie and Bert live in the same room? 

KNIGHT:  Who think it’s wrong for two men to have sex together. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  Does it bother you that Ernie and Bert live together?  I’m kidding around a little bit.  I mean, come on, I’m having a little bit of fun.

KNIGHT:  Yes, you are.  And the whole idea is to ridicule people who

have an honest objection to this kind of -

(CROSS TALK)

ABRAMS:  Well, it is kind of, but you know what?  She writes books. 

WALSH:  It’s her novel. 

ABRAMS:  It’s her position that he’s gay.  So what? 

KNIGHT:  It may not mean much to you, but to have sexually confused boys look at this and say, “Gee, maybe I should try it, because after all this authority figure is into it. 

ABRAMS:  Yes. 

KNIGHT:  You’re are not going to be around, Dan, when they come down with STDs and have all sorts of emotional (UNINTELLIGIBLE).  This is not a happy lifestyle. 

ABRAMS:  But at least they won’t have to have abortions, right? 

KNIGHT:  The problem is you are pushing something - you’re making fun of parents’ genuine concerns and I think that’s wrong. 

ABRAMS:  All right.  Robert Knight and Joan Walsh.  Thanks. 

KNIGHT:  Thank you, Dan. 

ABRAMS:  Poor Dumbledore.  Up next, more hocus pocus.  Will tonight’s big winner or loser be a man who magically levitated in front of the White House?  Stupid crooks who were caught, thanks to the magic of television?  Or illusionist David Cooperfield whose secret tricks to pick up woman at his shows has now reportedly been revealed.  We’ll look at it may presto change-o his reputation, and possibly affect the investigation.  Next in a magical edition of “Winners and Losers.” 

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I've always wondered. Considering he as followed by Matt Barber, it doesn't seem that they wanted to go the more grounded route.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 24, 2007 4:18:05 PM

Did you notice that Knight didn't really respond when Abrams questioned his implication that J.K. Rowling is part of a vast, left-wing, homosexual agenda/conspiracy.

He just tried to explain the "tactics" of the agenda without explaining how Rowling got roped into it.

Posted by: GayMormonBoy | Oct 24, 2007 4:54:25 PM

Dear God I loves me some Dan Abrams, on SO many levels here!

Clearly and easily, Dan shows exactly how ridiculous Robert Knight's concerns are. Seriously folks, we're talking about fictional characters and his comment about wondering about all the other cartoon characters and Bert and Ernie are classic.

We need more Dan Abrams on tv and less FAUX news types.

Cheers

Posted by: Jim-n-Alpharetta | Oct 24, 2007 6:03:04 PM

Robert Knight is major piece of work.

For him to sit there and pretend to be for morals and values when he has not only consistently but intentionally lied to defame lgbts (i.e. by using the discredited studies of Paul Cameron and distorting credible research) is beyond the pale.

He was lucky lightning didn't strike him down.

Posted by: a. mcewen | Oct 24, 2007 7:55:31 PM

Keep in mind this is the same man that wrote, back in 2001 while with Concerned Women of America:

"To say that kids won’t immediately become witches after reading or viewing Harry Potter does not mean that many children won’t take an unhealthy interest in witchcraft and the occult. It just might not materialize instantly, with the wave of a wand."

Posted by: Jon-Marc | Oct 24, 2007 8:59:04 PM

This was kind of wonderful to watch. It's like he's visibly restraining himself from rolling his eyes. Also, is prejudicial even a word? It doesn't seem likely.

Posted by: Claire | Dec 15, 2008 11:42:37 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails