RECENT  POSTS:  » I'm pretty sure Maggie Gallagher just called the National Org. For Marriage ineffective » 379 companies that want their logos paired with uplifting music in inevitable marriage (in)equality documentaries » NOM affiliate group to give Roy Moore a 'Letter from Birmingham Jail Award' » Save the Date: SCOTUS to hear history-making marriage cases on April 28 » Wall Street's biggest put stock in equal bonds » Gross: Tony Perkins makes some sort of 'ugly baby' joke at Hillary Clinton's expense » Really, suddenly contrite Ben Carson? Because you were pretty cocksure before! » ADF links A-Rod's drug suspension with florist's anti-gay discrimination; huh?! » NOM: Marriage means putting choking hazards on your baby's toes » Video: Ben Carson is apparently one felony conviction away from fellating a man  

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

08/12/2010

The Washington Times' pro-buggery bias

by Jeremy Hooper

Imagine the commentary was about Blacks. Or immigrants of any nationality. Or Jews, Christians, or Muslims.

Imagine the subject was any other group of people or any other rights fight. Then ask yourself if The Washington Times' editors would still run this kind of image to highlight Robert Knight's hostile commentary:

Screen Shot 2010-08-12 At 8.27.11 Pm
[Wash. Times]

The words that form "GAY": PATHOLOGICAL, BUGGERY, UNNATURAL, SODOMY, PERVERSION, PROMISCUOUS. They can crop the photo all they want: We know those words are there, graphically punching a piece that is all about how bad and deceptive the gay community supposedly us. And we also know that it's not even close to okay for any news outlet, conservative or not, to choose this kind of editorial graphic and still maintain respect!

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


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails