« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
12/11/2008
Glibly weighing in on an annoying graphic
Will someone please teach Focus on the Family to be more respectable about weight issues? Because seriously, this graphic that they keep running on their site is simply offensive to those with body issues:
Look, we know gay men are known for their fit, trim physiques. We also know that bridal stress can lead to overeating, and that Oprah's latest tribulations have put girthy matters in the news. But come on, Dobsonites: Stop telling these brides-to-be that they are fat! It's just plain rude! You're gonna give these white dress-bound lasses a complex.
The only thing that might be a little more off-base would be if they were implying that male-female unions are inherently better than male-male ones. But surely FOF would never be so cruel to say something like that! That would just be plain inhumane!!
Another State Moves Toward Same-Sex 'Marriage' [CitizenLink]
Your thoughts
Jeeze, talk about straight supremacy.
Posted by: Steve | Dec 11, 2008 2:44:46 PM
I still think that that broad (bride) on that scale must be knocked-up!
But, the traditional (shotgun) wedding to avoid statutory-rape charges (typified by the liquored-up, one-night-stand hookup that precipitates the Bristol Palin sort of "engagement") is sooooo much more comforting to the bigots than the celebration of compatible, long-term (life-long), loving relationships typified by same-sex marriages.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Dec 11, 2008 2:58:44 PM
Yeah, that chick in the white dress is totally Bristol Palin-ized.
So, here's my argument, set as a simple math problem that even Tony Perkins could understand:
X = Woman
Y = Man
X + Y = Z (Married Couple)
If men and women are legally equal (as under the equal protection clauses of constitutions in this country) then:
X = Y
Therefore,
X + X = Z and Y + Y = Z
This stops their polygamist argument (X + Y + Y ≠ Z, etc). This stops their 'people will be marrying their hamster' argument (H ≠ Y, therefore X + H ≠ Z).
If they don't agree that X + X = Z and Y + Y = Z, then by extension, they MUST believe that men and women are inherently unequal and by extension can be treated unequally under the law.
This is why this becomes an argument about the sexes and not just gays and marriage, and perhaps this is why courts have used equal treatment of the sexes as the basis for their decisions on marriage equality.
We've got to make this simple for people like Mike Huckabee and others who just don't get it. They like to look at the world in simple, black and white terms, and this simple argument is one that should be as simple to grasp as 1 + 1 = 2.
Posted by: Chris | Dec 11, 2008 4:16:41 PM
Speaking of Bristol Palin, she should be pooting out that little bastard out some time this month by my calculations? That is, of course, if the "pregnancy" and "engagement" weren't just a ruse to deflect attention from the fact that the Down's Syndrome baby really was Bristol's. What a tangled web . . .
When's the big "weddin'" happenin'? Can't wait to see those baby pics! Special times a-comin', you betcha! (wink, wink)
Posted by: Dick Mills | Dec 11, 2008 4:38:01 PM
Maybe it's the DRESS that's heavy.
Posted by: Bill S | Dec 11, 2008 8:36:42 PM
One thing that just struck me from the 'CitizenLink' article was their claim that NJ may be the first state legislature to legalize marriage equality. Wrong. The California Legislature has TWICE voted in favor of marriage equality. As I recall, the first time they did, the senate quashed it. The second time, it was the governor who did.
Posted by: Chris | Dec 12, 2008 3:08:56 PM
comments powered by Disqus
