This reminds me of one course I took in SMU called Analytical Skills. This person seems to have flouted all the rules of argument form. I decided to take this for a walk.
The first para makes 2 sweeping statements which do not explain cause and effect.
The second para starts off with a slippery slope - A causes B causes C or D
A: Arts and Culture
B: Looser censorship
C: Immoral behavior like premarital ***** and teenage pregnancies
D: Homosexuality - which apparently is WORSE than C
Then, the "concerned parent" decides to throw us a red herring probably realising by now that her argument is as weak as a limp penis - an array of insults hurled at the artiste known as Kumar which probably only serve to express her own bitterness from her own children embracing homosexuality. It's either that, or Kumar might have hit on her husband or something. Don't take my word for it though.
Without much else to say, I guess the only way she could think of closing off her argument was with a HAIL HITLER sort of cheer.
Food is not an activity. It is a noun. Even the verb "Fooding" might be closer to an activity, except that it isn't an English word.
Saying yes to family values does not have anything to do with saying no to arts and culture - they are not mutually exhaustive (this happens to be, no surprise here, just another flaw in argument)
I didn't do that well at Analytical Skills. But it amuses me to see that this person would probably have done much worse - in life as much as in my class.