RECENT  POSTS:  » Audio: Putting discrimination on the defensive » When it comes to bias, NOM hopes its caca will be good Garden State fertilizer » Video: You don't 'understand' us? Well here, let us translate: ☮, ♥, = » WND poll: Belying an entire movement's 'we're not anti-gay' rhetoric » Papal papers: Official Catholics vs. unacknowledged Catholic front group » Was that praying or preying, Wendster? » NOM: The worst New Jersey joke ever CONcocted » Culture Warrin' (G. Harding) » Audio: Thank you for your call, now let us denigrate your faith and 'lifestyle' » Gays, Gap, and 'Whateveryouwannakah': All euphemisms for evil, say anti-gay Mainers  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

03/07/2008

Audio: Coupling of Sarah/Jessica still not for Parker

Confused about why teaching Massachusetts children about the state's currently legal practice of opposite-gender marriage is simply the moral and right thing to do, yet letting them know about the state's currently legal practice of same-sex marriage is "insidious indoctrination." Well in a new audio chat with the Concerned Women For America, anti-gay parent (and social conservative martyr) David Parker will try and explain that and more for you:


powered by ODEO

So did he convince you that employing a faith-based, heterosexist double standard is accurate public policy for a fair and free nation of tax-paying people? No? The opposite? He actually made you realize just to what lengths these folks wish to take their biased viewpoints? Well then congratulations, lover of rational thought. You've realized that open minds will be filled with tasteless fluid if they don't distance themselves from brainwashing.

Audio source: Parental Rights Case Goes to the U.S. Supreme Court [CWA]

**Oh, and it can't be stressed enough that Parker's child was simply given the option -- THE OPTION! -- of reading a pro-acceptance children's book! He was not forced to read it!

gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-AddThis Feed Button gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts


"You've realized that open minds will drown underneath the weight of too much brainwashing."

Something's wrong with the meaning. I'm guessing that it should read "...will not drown..."

Have a good weekend -

:) db

Posted by: dave b. | Mar 7, 2008 5:32:05 PM

No, Dave. It might be a little clumsy, but the meaning is that open minds will fill up if the flood of brainwashing is let in. I'll edit it.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 7, 2008 5:39:23 PM

No one should be shocked at the deceptive practices of CWFA and their illk(purposely misspelled), but if someone just glanced at the title of the article, it would appear that the Supreme Court has already reviewed the details of the case and accepted the request for an appeal.

Posted by: Jeff | Mar 7, 2008 8:42:31 PM

Sorry.

I had thought that open minds would filter out the bs by themselves and identify the truth.....and that was what you meant.

Maybe I place too much faith in open minds.

I hope not.

Posted by: dave b | Mar 7, 2008 9:34:12 PM

Talk to us






*Why are my comments not appearing? See the G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails