RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« 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