Drive Thru” is the appropriate name of Focus on the Family’s new blog. Focus does not want readers to pause and think critically; it wants them to drive by, consuming junk as they go.

FOTF DriveThru Focus on the Familys New Blog: Dont Think Too HardAuthored mostly by Focus staffers with no academic or professional background in their assigned topics, the blog seems to be intended not to educate, but to give readers a passing glance at pre-digested political sound bites from an organization that is notorious for distorting the work of legitimate and respected researchers.

Consistent with Focus on the Family’s amoral disregard for legitimate ethical concerns such as poverty, war, justice, ethical business practices, and stewardship of the earth, Focus says its blog’s assigned topics consist solely of sex (opposition to homosexual orientation); gender (opposition to masculine women, feminine men, and transgender biology); abortion (Focus favors abstinence-only education which leads to pregnancy and abortion); bioethics; and gambling.

The blog’s first posts include ludicrous strawman arguments about bisexual penguins. Focus staffer Caleb Price writes:

What a blow this [bisexual penguins] must be for pro-gay advocates who often attempt to justify what they see as the innate naturalness and morality of human homosexual behavior by pointing to examples of “homosexuality” in the animal kingdom — and then interpreting these behaviors through the lens of human experience, perceptions and desire.

Price’s conclusion is dumb enough to make any college-educated reader blush at Price’s inability to reason:

…If gay advocates insist on deriving lessons about human traits from animal behavior, then let’ do it. And let’ use our penguin brothers as examples that human homosexuals can and do change their sexual orientation. After all, Silo and Harry have walked away from their homosexuality. And so can we.

“We”? Are Price and his entire team homosexual? How does Price know that the penguins were formerly gay — did he engage in a quack-quack conversation with them? And finally, why does Price equate sexual identity with sexual orientation, without warning his audience that he has redefined both? Is Price too ignorant regarding his subject matter to even know what he has done?