On Saturday, Tea Party Nation emailed readers a TPN blog post, “The Gay Food Nazis,” which argues that progressives are “hypocrites” for supporting portion control and gay rights. Timothy Birdnow, who blamed the Sandy Hook shooting on teachers and called for school to hire George Zimmerman, attacked Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon for his decision to recognize married same-sex couples for tax purposes.

“If controlling the kinds of food and portion sizes that children are allowed is a state-sanctioned function, than shouldn’t controlling homosexual imagery and experience be likewise?” Birdnow asks, using an argument also floated by David Barton. “Shouldn’t we be trying to put homosexuality back into the closet to prevent children with genetic tendencies from suffering temptation?”

He writes that “two men or two women can no more be married than can a man and his goldfish,” warning that “the current ‘gay fad’” is part of “the advancement of socialism” and leads to “greater government control.”

Birdnow’s article is nothing new from TPN, which regularly pushes out virulently anti-gay commentaries.

This sort of dissembling is endemic of the “gay marriage” debate (which is itself a term rank with dishonesty; two men or two women can no more be married than can a man and his goldfish, the two being biologically incapable of reproducing in either case. The promotion of homosexual behavior by the Progressives in our society is now reaching a crescendo and the first casualty in this titanic struggle for the right to fornicate in an largely painful and unhygienic fashion and receive societal approval has been the truth.

…

So Jay Nixon has attempted to backdoor gay marriage (no pun intended) in the State of Missouri.

…

Homosexuality is but one leg in the dream world of the Left, a world where breeding is not considered a right but a very special privilege. The Left seeks to divorce sex from reproduction, to make sex a simple physical act, a feeding of a hunger. That is why Sandra Fluke can demand free contraception without batting an eye; sex has little to do with creating families or binding yourself permanently to one person, the person who will ultimately help you raise your children. Homosexuality is the ultimate rebellion against this “Bourgeois morality”. The Progressives have a powerful incentive to promote being gay.

…

The Left, seeking a “new man”, one freed from the restraints imposed by Christian morality and Nature’s God, have risen in rebellion against the entire order of society, against Natural Law, against Divine Revelation. Sex is the bayonet of that revolution.

That last is important because what the current “gay fad” is intended to do is to break this passing along of received wisdom from our forbearers. The Left wants to make a “New Man” and to do that the chain of “contagion” of old ideas and beliefs must be broken. Children must be raised by the State or at least have the State be the primary influence over their intellectual and moral development. Common Core is one of the tools now being implemented to accomplish this, and that is being promoted in both the public schools (the original source for Leftist indoctrination) and the private ones as well.

…

Strange how aggressive this government – led by committed leftists – is toward dietary problems while at the same time promoting homosexuality. And they HAVE promoted it; they have regularized it in the military, have refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court, etc.

If there is a societal interest in reducing obesity, is there not an equal societal interest in reducing homosexuality?

…

If controlling the kinds of food and portion sizes that children are allowed is a state-sanctioned function, than shouldn’t controlling homosexual imagery and experience be likewise? Shouldn’t we be trying to put homosexuality back into the closet to prevent children with genetic tendencies from suffering temptation? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The difference in approach is astonishing.

…

So both obesity and homosexuality may have a biological component and both are bad for the public health. So why are we treating these two behavioral issues differently? If society must discourage obesity, should it not equally discourage homosexuality?

That is the opposite of what is happening. We are celebrating being gay while condemning being overweight. The left’s hypocrisy is astonishing.

But that is because the two both serve real purposes to the advancement of socialism. In the case of food the prevention of obesity allows government to grow obese itself, to metastasize as it tells the individual and the family what they can or cannot eat while there would be no similar benefit from the prohibition of homosexuality. The promotion of homosexuality offers many benefits that the Left finds attractive. It damages the family, opening the door to greater government control. It promotes a platform to assault traditional values and particularly Christianity. It creates a solid voting block that favors Democrats.