Attn. magazine editors: Your coverage of a controversial topic automatically means you support it
Following a similar tract taken by the American Family Association last month, the Traditional Values Coalition today criticizes a recent cover story from The Advocate magazine, wherein the gay publication examined homosexuals who live in polygamous relationships. In their piece titled 'The Advocate' Lauds Polygamous Relationships, TVC implies that the magazine's coverage constitutes as endorsement of multi-partnered relationships. So, following that line of thinking, we only have to say...
...damn you Bon Appetit for so blatantly pushing this cake's agenda! Hello -- some of us are lactose intolerant and can't ingest this dairy-licious concoction! Your editorial decision to cover this topic shows that you are (a) anti-chocolate, (b) pro-berry, (c) all about mixing cake with fruit, a concept we find just plain wrong! It is obvious from you decision to run a feature on this cake that every single person at Bon Appetit and those who support it are fans of this cake, love this cake, and live their lives filled with this cake.
Moving on to Esquire...
...how dare you push your "Ooh, Tom Hanks is just sooo normal" agenda. In fact, isn't Mr. Hanks a producer of HBO's polygamy series "Big Love?" Your coverage of Mr. Hanks is proof positive that you guys link "normal" with polygamy! It shows that you ae Esquire and all of your readers define normal to be a double Oscar winner who likes to grill, DRINK BEER, and produce HBO shows about polygamy. For shame, Esquire!
Oh, and Vanity Fair...
...yea, we're Fox News viewers, so please quit pushing this CNN anchor on us. You have an agenda, Vanity Fair, and you've proven it with this cover. You and all of your subscribers are pro-CNN anchor, salt and pepper-haired-friendly, sons of Gloria Vanderbilt-supporting, agenda pushers. Your coverage is, after all, 100% testament to your support for the subject.
You get the point? Good.
Just as the AFA did last month, TVC parlays The Advocate's examination into the practice of polygamy -- which, it should be noted, is extremely nichey and limited in both homosexual and heterosexual worlds -- into a furthering of the common "pro-family" argument that gay marriage will lead to polygamous marriage. The two are, of course, extremely separate issues, but the "pro-fams" know that even more people then oppose homosexuality oppose polygamy, so they make the leap to rally their peeps. If they seriously want to limit marriage to two PEOPLE, then they're totally free to start pushing for that amendment; however, just because both involve legislating morality to some degree, they are night and day. And just because a gay publication examines the multiple partnered-world as it (limitedly) exists in the gay community -- just as they've done with meth, prostitution, or a host of other issues that are prevalent in the HUMAN community -- it does not connect the two.
Now if you'll please excuse me, your humble scribe has an errand to run. Honey, baby, sweetie, schnookums, sugar pie, cupcake -- you all coming with me?
comments powered by Disqus