My sojurn in Citrus County, Florida is coming to an end.

I’ve seen about a dozen manatees, a 8-foot alligator, and more retirees than you can shake a fist at. One of my favorite things down here is the “Eternity in hell is a long time!” billboard, which never fails to inspire a silent reverie in me, in the context of a holiday visit to my parents.

I’ll be returning to Chicago tomorrow, and not a moment too soon. From a balmy to me, but chilly for Florida, 56 today, it’s supposed to drop down into the 40s here tomorrow. I’m sure they’ll have to declare martial law here, as sweater riots are certain to break out among the snowbirds.

So the American Family Association is always good for a laugh. Here’s something I came across yesterday that I found pretty risibile:

The AFA Journal had an article in November/December about the movie Shark Tale, one of those “let’s see how many celebrity voices we can cram into an animated movie” movies. You know it’s a great flick when both Ziggy Marley and Peter Falk contribute voice work.

Anyway, some relevant quotes from the AFA review, headlined ‘Something’s Swishy About Shark Tale‘ . First the lede:

It is an axiom for many parents that, when it comes to teaching kids what they need to know, “It’s never too young to start.”

What happens when Hollywood applies the same axiom to teaching young people — even children — to accept homosexuality?

“What,” you’re saying? “This movie is about GAY FISH?” No, but it has “an undercurrent of approval for homosexuality.”

While it is difficult to prove intent when a film does not explicitly make a character “gay,” the story and dialogue demonstrate an implicit approval of homosexuality.

This we CANNOT HAVE!

Of course, when it comes to kids, this is tricky stuff. The film does not come right out and say that we should all accept homosexuality. And, naturally, children should be taught to be accepting of others.

But as Plugged In’s Steven Isaac notes, “Had this movie been released 20 years ago, nobody would have been calling attention to this subject.” Two decades ago, accepting differences meant accepting a person who might have a different skin color, or be from a different ethnic background.

Such differences are immutable characteristics, however, and not sexual choices. In this respect, Shark Tale comes far too close to taking a bite out of traditional moral and spiritual beliefs.

And that’s probably swimming a bit too close to shore for many parents.

So yeah, pretty awesome, huh! I know my day is brighter!

First GLOGG TIME starts at Simon’s, now the announcement we’ve all been waiting for: Hot Doug’s to re-open in January, 2005!

Your bible-fearing Christian likes to throw around Leviticus when they are trying to fill in the blank in “God hates ________”. For instance, Leviticus 11:10 tells us that God hates shrimp.

Chapter 18 is particularly good, because it reads like a really unimaginative purity test. Verses 1-5 are just some preface material, “I am the LORD“, etc, etc. Verse 6, God says not to bone any close relatives, then in verses 7-16, he goes on to helpfully list all of these relationships: your mother, your sisters and half-sisters, any granddaughters you might have, your sisters again, any aunts on your dad’s side, your aunts on your mom’s side, your father’s sisters-in-law, your daughter-in-law, and finally, your own sisters-in-law. Whew!

What did this leave out? Umm. Everything, I guess, if you’re a girl. Nieces and cousins, too. God does have some other special Springer-esque additions, too, in verses 17 and 18: don’t shag both a woman and her daughter, or any of her grandkids. Also, don’t marry your wife’s sister and have sex with her while your wife is still alive. To review that last one, it’s okay to marry two sisters at once, but you can only screw one of them, at least until the first one dies.

Okay, now that we’ve got all this tricky family stuff out of the way, we’re on to the easy stuff. Verses 19 and 20: “Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period. Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.” Here’s where God starts to lose me. How the heck do you mention banging your wife during her monthly visit from Aunt Flo in the same breath as child sacrifice? Maybe God’s just speaking off the top of his head here — he did mention sisters twice in the list up above.

Anyway, after all of this, he finally gets to gays: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” I’m told on good authority that though one could read this verse as only applying to three-way sex, it’s actually about dudes getting it on with dudes. Verse 23 rules out bestiality, and explicitly mentions that women shouldn’t do it either. Does this mean the other rules God’s been listing off don’t apply to women? Guess so.

I bring this all up because I wanted to make a point about how knocking boots with ladies who were on the rag got our country into this mess, but now I’m just not sure how to make that point anymore. Reading the Bible has made me all confused and woozy.

Have you heard of the latest outrage perpetrated by the electricity special-interests? They’re promoting these “electric lamps” — can you believe it? Everyone knows that a lamp involves burning a wick to produce light. But next on the radical electrical agenda is getting America to accept non-burning elements in our lamps.

This is just not in line with over 10,000 years of tradition. How can we accept something without a wick as a lamp? It’s preposterous! Nothing in our constitution says anything about wickless lamps. Our Founding Fathers never considered electric lamps. Nothing in the Bible supports calling a non-burning device a lamp. Electric lamps fly in the face of everything we as Americans hold near and dear.

Some will point out that until recently, we didn’t have gas lamps, and that gas lamps don’t have wicks. To these nit-pickers I say, gas lamps are obviously lamps because they use good old-fashioned combustion to produce light. Combustion was good enough for my grandparents, and it’s good enough for my children. What will my impressionable youngsters think if they see someone using one of these new “incandescent” lamps? Why, I just wouldn’t know what to tell them. How could I explain it to them?

I hope you’ll write your congressman soon and support me in my drive to amend our Constitution to forbid these wickless, smokeless, horrifyingly flame-free lamps. Some states may want to enact “lighting device” legislation, but it’s clear that if we don’t stop this radical movement now, we may soon end up with streets full of fluorescent lamps and a sickening neon glow on every corner. I can’t imagine anything more disgusting.