RECENT  POSTS:  » No, you really don't seem to know what tyranny is, Jerry Cox » Vatican's #Humanum event meant to paint gay families as 'evil' and 'obscene,' admits invited guest » Read: Federal judge calls MS's marriage ban what it is: discriminatory » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years  

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

03/17/2009

Wherein we continue to flip the scales on an FOF graphic

by Jeremy Hooper

If Focus on the Family insists on continually running this image....

FOF-bride-image

...then we're gonna have to keep asking: Why are they so damn insensitive to bridal weight issues? I mean, geez, we know gay men are typically slim portraits of physical perfection, and we appreciate their visual commentary regarding our community's commitment to staying trim. But we just can't get behind their insistence on telling all of the man-marrying brides of the world that they could stand to lose a few. It just seems dangerous!

Seriously, FOF: With all the stresses that come with wedding planning, modern brides can already be prone to stress eating. Do you all really want to keep telling these bachelorettes that they could never be as fit as their gay bachelor counterparts? Many of them watch the "Biggest Loser" -- they know what it means to be the one who weighs down the scale. You all are seriously gonna give them a complex!

We say quit it. If you all were making some sort of offensive commentary about us, like, say, conveying the idea that gay unions could never hope to be as good as opposite-sex ones, then we would certainly be annoyed. But since you are human beings who understand decent treatment, you would of course never do something like that. Right? So why, then, are you giving in to the unfair social convention that says all women must be a size 2? Why are you lashing out against Queen Latifah's "size healthy" agenda? Why are you working so hard to "protect the sanctity of a man's ability to carry his bride over the threshold without getting a hernia"? You're being so short-sighted and discriminatory, FOF!

IMG: Commentary: Preserving Marriage in Substance, Not Just Name [FOF Citizenlink]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Hmmmmmm...does the bride in this illustration look pregnant to anyone else? That could account for the weight gain. I'm thinking there may have been a little pre-marital hanky-panky going on before the "Big Day".

Posted by: Taylor | Mar 17, 2009 10:15:31 AM

Ooh, that's another poss., Taylor!

So maybe rather than telling us that brides are heavier than gay men in general, maybe they are instead trying to tell us that that premarital sex and out-of-wedlock conceptions hold greater weight? :-)

Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 17, 2009 10:21:15 AM

You crack me up!

Posted by: Bonnie_Half-Elven | Mar 17, 2009 12:18:12 PM

You know, if you weren't tongue in cheek so much of the time, I might really take you to task over this phrase: "I mean, geez, we know gay men are typically slim portraits of physical perfection."

What world is that in? Perhaps stereotypically instead of just typically.

Posted by: PSUdain | Mar 18, 2009 1:15:46 PM

PSU: And brides aren't really all diet-conscious, and FOF isn't really making visual commentary on weight. The entirety of the post is tongue-and-cheek.

So yes, please don't take me to task :-)

Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 18, 2009 1:44:37 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails