Americans For Truth Attack 'Shrek'

I've read this little article twice now, and I'm just seething at the conclusions that were drawn and how the LGBT community is...once again...the absolute root of all evil. In making her point...sort of, lol...the author, Fran Eaton says...

"Shrek’s not the problem. It’s the awkward inclusion of a travestite
and the uselessness of the character himself (herself?) in the story that is
troubling.
Right in the midst of a warm “traditional family”
setting, the film writers place a man dressed as a woman in with Sleeping
Beauty, Cinderella, Snow White (the good gals). The crossdressing
character simply doesn’t make sense, except as a ploy to desensitize children
and parents to transgenders."

Honestly, had she stopped there I might have shrugged my shoulders and agreed to disagree. It's what she says next that is just unbelievable...

"Homosexual activists now are careful to not only use the term “LGBTs” as a
unit, they are more boldly now declaring lesbians-gays-bisexuals-transgenders as
a unit pushing together as one for civil rights. Those confused about
their sexual roles are pushing for equal rights to be free to publicly
demonstrate their odd sexual behavior. For transgenders, appearing to be a
different sex in public is their particular turn on. We need to understand
that acceptance of this sexual behavior is just another step moving our world
toward sexual chaos."

LGBT individuals are not confused about their sexual roles, Ms. Eaton, because those roles are part of their identity. Likewise, transgendered people appear as they do in public because it is their identity. For you to stoop to the phrase, "turn on," is not only insulting, but shows your gross ignorance as well. Before I move on to the next paragraph, does anyone know what Ms. Eaton could possibly mean by the term, "sexual chaos?" Please, give me your insights on this one, 'cause I'm stumped! The last little bit of Fran's tirade reads as follows...

"It’s disturbing there’s not more outcry about this sly tactic being used
in a movie made for children. But I suppose after being
reminded recently of Jerry Falwell’s concern about the Teletubbies
characters’ sexual orientations and the post-heaven going ridicule and hatred
those who dare to question LGBTs tactics are likely to endure in the mainstream
media after their passing, some have shyed away from publicly tackling the
topic. That’s understandable.
But well-meaning parents who plan to take
their kids to see a movie that grossed $122 million in the opening weekend
should be aware . . . it’s the subtlety of the movie makers’ agenda to
desensitize that could be more harmful to your children than encouraging them to
eat sugary cereals in the morning."

Once again, I must hang my head in shame, for I missed the day in "How to be a Lesbian" school where they taught us to search for and employ "sly" tactics in children's movies. While Fran wants a pat on the back for "publicly tackling the topic," she is completely blind to the fact that we are not interested in somehow tricking her or any of God's other children into becoming lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered. Frankly, it's the constant negative and ignorant bloviating on this issue that is more harmful to children than eating sugary cereal, Ms. Eaton...but while one habit may rot your little one's teeth, the other will rot their hearts.