RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Man misapplies personal trauma to sexual orientation science » WND's editor fundamentally misunderstands nondiscrimination law (part 3 of 3) » Video: Why is this shockingly anti-gay (among other things) speech happening in a Connecticut public school? » Fined NY event space to host same-sex wedding receptions (*but no ceremonies for anyone) » Another day, another far-right pastor pushing Christians to civil war » Joseph Farah still clueless about nondiscrimination law » Hobby Lobby president to join extremely anti-gay activists at 'Star Spangled' event » FRC's Sprigg admits his side put up 'weak defense' in 7th Circuit » Photo: The latest totally convincing, in no way silly attempt at a meme from anti-gay Ruth Institute » AFA's Fischer: Time for Christians to 'get up in somebody's grill' like Jesus would  

« 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