RECENT  POSTS:  » 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 » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something. » NOM's new plan? To beat up its org-crushing loss until it becomes a win.  

« 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