RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Ad for blemish remover/ tourist spot for our new, bettered America » Whether justified or Kim Davis-ed, individualistic rage rarely outplays broader truths » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall' » And now NOM is literally pleading with its (theoretical) supporters  

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


Video: 'Factor' Fiction

by Jeremy Hooper

Bill "I'm an independent even though I'm SO not" O'Reilly is now carrying water for the far-right and their "pedophilia is a sexual orientation" claims:

Yes, Bill, and here is a list of other things that Rep. Baldwin didn't want included in the bill:

Sex with school buses

Popsicle sucking

Pregnant virgins

People with a fetish for f***ing up the truth by injecting baseless, disingenuous lies into the discourse

Those who claim to not spin, but in reality are more dizzying fashion than a merry-go-round

And why didn't Rep Baldwin want these things (and many others) included in the measure? BECAUSE. THEY. HAVE. NOTHING. TO. DO. WITH. ACTUAL. SCIENTIFICALLY. DEFINED. SEXUAL. ORIENTATIONS. OR. GENDER. IDENTITIES!!!!!!!!!!!!! Putting this politically-motivate non-orientation into the bill would be like putting the mortgage of a new Focus on the Family headquarters into a financial stimulus package!

Though we do hope for our socially conservative opposition that extended noses are next up in the sought-after hate crimes protections. With the Pinocchio-like way that they are addressing this "fight," they just might need it.

'Reilly characterizes Rep. Baldwin's statement that amendment is "unnecessary" and "inflammatory" as not wanting "the law to automatically eliminate pedophile protection" [Media Matters]

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

Your thoughts

I hope he remembers moments like this the next time he wonders why he got the pink brick.

Posted by: | May 6, 2009 9:56:48 AM

Did Bill's list include...loofahs or a falafel? If I were him, I'd be very careful talking about what's considered an orientation and what isn't. Considering the list of his predilections that came up in his sexual harassment lawsuit.

Posted by: Taylor | May 6, 2009 1:11:33 PM

Anyone who would use Steve King (R, Idiot) Iowa as the spokesman for their argument has already lost.

Posted by: Owen | May 7, 2009 4:31:02 AM

One can have it as a SO (not a mental disorder) or being disabled (it is a mental disorder), either way, it is covered.



Posted by: Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield | May 8, 2009 8:41:48 AM




Posted by: Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield | May 8, 2009 8:42:49 AM

Just stop it, Mr. Oldfield. Seriously. You are spinning for your own self-satisfaction. And your bio (which I won't repeat, but that anyone can Google if they wish) speaks for itself.

Posted by: G-A-Y | May 8, 2009 8:53:48 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails