This piece is the first thing I've ever read by Rebecca Hagelin—a "writer" for the Moonie-owned, right-wing welfare program known as the Washington Times—and I don't know where to start. How about the headline:

Protect kids from 'gay propaganda'

My goodness! Gay propaganda! Like this? Or this? Or this? No, the propaganda that Hagelin is worried about is... gay families. Not propaganda about gay families. No, gay families. In the twisted pair of panties that passes for Hagelin's brain, gay families are propaganda. We're not mothers and fathers, our children aren't children. We're propaganda. Same-sex couples aren't starting families for all the same reasons that straight people are. (Well, almost all the same reasons—however hard we try, two men can't start a family by accident.) Same-sex couples with children don't really care about our kids. We're only having kids to advance the eeeeeeeeeevil gay agenda:

A recent survey suggests that Americans are more accepting than ever of homosexual "families." Although only about one-third of Americans consider homosexual couples with no children to be a family, 68 percent say homosexual couples with children do indeed make a "family."

Does growing acceptance make it right?

The more accustomed Americans become to the image of homosexual couples with children, the more likely we are to affirm them, mistakenly, as the same as families composed of one mom and one dad who are married to each other.

Not surprisingly, "gay families" have exploded into public view—thanks to the media and the entertainment industry—even though they represent only a small minority of homosexual couples. Not so long ago, "gay" characters were an uncomfortable novelty. Now they're a mainstay of popular media. But the themes are less about the effeminate, promiscuous homosexual male (whose lifestyle doesn't resonate with most Americans) and more about the cuddly, domestic "gay" couple with cute kids (inviting empathy for their parenting adventure). The popular show 'Modern Family,' for example, features two homosexual men raising an adopted child—just another lovable equivalent to the traditional family. A bit dysfunctional, perhaps, but aren't we all?

The media myth says that "gay families" are everywhere and just as beneficial for raising children as the traditional family. Some Americans steeped in these messages on a daily basis are likely to believe them. Others mistakenly "accept" gay families out of misplaced compassion. It's crucial to recognize the deliberate strategy under way: homosexual couples with children are the perfect vehicle to drive acceptance for same-sex marriage.

There are so many lies packed into Hagelin's screed that I don't know where to begin—the exhaustive, comprehensive, scientifically-sound studies that have demonstrated that gay families are "just as beneficial for raising children as the traditional family"? that "gay propaganda" can save the lives of despairing gay teenagers unlucky enough to have parents who agree with Hagelin? the placing of scare quotes around "gay families"?—so I'll just tackle one of this woman's "arguments":

Not surprisingly, "gay families" have exploded into public view—thanks to the media and the entertainment industry—even though they represent only a small minority of homosexual couples.

We actually have good, solid Census data on the percentage of gay couples that were raising children in 2000:

More than 39% of same-sex couples in the United States aged 22-55 are raising children; they are raising more than 250,000 children under age 18.

Forty percent does not represent a "small minority." If that "minority" gets much bigger it's going to be the "majority" (of gays and lesbians between 22-55). And that data is ten years old. The 2010 Census will doubtless find that there are a lot more gay and lesbian couples raising children today than there were in 2000. [UPDATE: Math is hard! As has been pointed out in comments, 40% of gay couples between the ages of 22-55 are raising children. Since not all gay people are coupled up—and not all gay people want to be coupled up—even if the 2010 Census finds that the number is now over 50%, that won't mean a majority of gays and lesbians between the ages of 22-55 are parents, just a majority of gay couples between the ages of 22-55. La la la. Math is hard and stats is harder. But my point stands: this Hagelin cunt—Slog polls are legally binding so now I have to call her a cunt—claimed that only a small minority of gay couples are raising children. Forty percent of gay couples ≠ "small minority of homosexual couples." It's nearly half. Lying cunt!]

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Now "cunt" isn't a word I use often or toss around lightly. I think the last person I called a "cunt" in print was my grandmother—and, hey, I was quoting my mother. But fuck me, man, I really, really, really want to call this Hagelin person a "cunt." Is that wrong? I mean, isn't this "gay propaganda" column the goddamn cuntiest thing you've ever read?

Okay. I'm upset. And I tend to fly off the handle when I'm upset. And sometimes I say/type/post/print things I regret. So I figured I would check in with Slog's reliably calm and measured readership before I called this Hagelin person a "cunt." Can I call this person a "cunt"? Please advise:

Is it okay to call this woman a "cunt"?