The Washington Times' pro-buggery bias

RECENT	POSTS:	» TownHall columnist: 'It's high time for…heterosexual America to stand up' » John Stemberger attacks Canadian scouts: 'A joke' ; 'a group of hippies' » 'Ex-gay' junk science group tells Boy Scouts to keep discriminating; so score one for our side » NOM's summer speaker, Rob Gagnon, calls me 'an abrasive homosexual activist'; my outfit welcomes this badge of honor! » Scout's Dishonor: Gay BSA employee shares pain, hope » Matt Barber accuses distraught New Yorkers of 'politicizing' gay man's murder » 'Heather Has [A New Book Shunning Her] Two Mommies' » Report: IL has votes to free itself from marital discrimination's slipping grips » David Barton: AIDS, meningitis are gay people's 'due penalties' » Are gay boys not boys? A look at the cruelty the equal Scouting opponents engender

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

08/12/2010

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