Steven -- I don't disagree with you the way you present it.
But it appears from the article (if the article is to be believed) that Barbie and Ken dolls (or dolls of that type) were placed into the scene lying with each other in an embrace. That is simply irresponsible. It gives a sexual connotation to the nativity scene, which is really not what a nativity represents.
The inclusion of gay people in a respectful way would not bother me. Had we placed two shepherds standing next to each other adoring the Christ Child, or two milkmaids or whatever, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with that. And actually, there are always shepherds or townspeople or whatever that could represent gay people in a nativity. What they did was put the dolls in what could be construed as a sexual pose - probably to identify the dolls as "homosexual". It seems this was deliberately inflammatory, with no attempt to present it in a way that might actually further the picture of creation as you present it.
This seems purposefully done to create a negative reaction. Maybe there's another side to the story, maybe this article is written with a slant, I don't know. All I know is it struck me as completely at odds with the goals of GLBT equality. Perhaps I should have researched this story a bit more before pounding out a post, but it sooooo set me off!
Oy.
Susan
|