Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Media in Bed with Gays
Accuracy in Media ^ | 12.10.03 | Cliff Kincaid

Posted on 12/10/2003 6:18:25 PM PST by Coleus

The Washington Post said it didn’t want to generate "a truckload of indignant letters," but it nevertheless tried to compare opposition to homosexual marriage to old laws against blacks getting married to whites. For the Post, opposing the gay agenda is tantamount to racism. The New York Times endorsed homosexual marriage as well, saying any attempt to amend the constitution to prohibit the practice would be an effort to deny "minority rights."

(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aids; aim; antifamily; antimarriage; barbarians; bias; gaythoughtpolice; gaze; homosexualagenda; legislatingsin; liars; liberalmedia; marriage; media; mediabias; militantgays; militanthomosexuals; press
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
Media Behind Push for "Gay Marriage"

The Education Establishment And The Homosexual Agenda

Homosexuals Pursuing Stealth Agenda

Our Own Worst Enemies: How the Culture Shapes Our Thinking

Sex Pig and the Lies of Diversity.

Radical Homosexuals Publish Guide Encouraging Homosexuality in the Young

Gay dads want their son to grow up straight

Homosexual Advocacy Groups Admit 10% Fallacy

The Health Risks of the Gay Lifestyle. CDC reports, etc...

Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues

Is there a Gay Agenda

 Gay Group Admits AIDS Culpability

HIV/AIDS increases in US, but failed US approach still exported to Africa

Sorting out the facts on AIDS

U.S. Syphilis Rates Climbs for Second Consecutive Year with Massive Surge Among Homosexual Men

The Perverted State Of America

Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Revision 1.1)

Syphilis increase sparks AIDS concerns 

1 posted on 12/10/2003 6:18:25 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Being that I have done some work in Media, I can tell you that a good reason for this (my gay associates even admit it) is that a large number of gays gravitate to the entertainment industry.
2 posted on 12/10/2003 6:27:57 PM PST by Clemenza (East side, West side, all around the town. Tripping the light fantastic on the sidewalks of New York)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
These "determined people" are in the media. Writing in Chronicles of Culture magazine, R. Cort Kirkwood got it right when he noted that so-called "sexual liberation," including homosexual rights, has succeeded "partly because the entertainment industry and news media have portrayed activities once considered abhorrent and deviant as normal. Television and movies depict raw sexuality, glamorize promiscuity and suggest homosexuality is ordinary…Newspapers publish ‘marriage’ notices about homosexuals and glowing reports about ‘transgendered’ people."

Yes.

The Gay Agenda has been an example of the Radical Left succeeding despite most of America not wanting nor caring for their agenda. Media elites, law elites, and brilliant use of moral table-turning (anyone who dares think that homosexual anal intercourse is repulsive is put in the same class as a racial bigot) have won them a change in cultural norms that is, frankly, 'fin de siecle' for me... The Barbarians are Not only At the Gates, they are demanding we dress better!

3 posted on 12/10/2003 6:48:51 PM PST by WOSG (The only thing that will defeat us is defeatism itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
The New York Times endorsed homosexual marriage as well, saying any attempt to amend the constitution to prohibit the practice would be an effort to deny "minority rights."

The Star-Ledger follows the New York Times religiously.

4 posted on 12/10/2003 6:56:36 PM PST by Bars4Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
It wants homosexuals presented as normal people and warns the media against running film clips of outrageous "gay pride" parades or "footage shot inside gay bars and clubs"

One of the best things that C-SPAN ever did was to cover a gay pride event in Washington, DC. They took the non-editorial approach and simply put a camera on the parade root and let it roll live. They got calls for weeks talking about the full frontal nudity in public.

5 posted on 12/10/2003 7:10:17 PM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; All
Here's a little site you might not have seen (supposedly a "journalism" school):

http://www.maynardije.org/news/diversityheadlines/
6 posted on 12/10/2003 7:13:07 PM PST by JoJo Gunn (Help control the Leftist population - have them spayed or neutered. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoJo Gunn
Maybe I am more liberal on this, but wouldn't a stance on limited government mean that the federal government has no constitutional authority to limit who can and cannot benefit from marriage on the basis of sex? I am a lifelong republican and a married heterosexual at that, but I can't see where there would be constitutional authority to say that gays cannot file taxes together or get health insurance for their partners while heterosexuals can. I thought the role of our government was NOT to allow one group to use its influence to dominate and control the actions of a smaller group. That's why we don't have a democracy. We have a republic so that there is a defining set of rules for how democracy can and can't be used. Maybe it's that jesus thing. Maybe the fact that Jesus loved people makes me want to also. Who knows.
Republican conservative DOES NOT EQUAL homophobe.
7 posted on 12/10/2003 7:21:07 PM PST by AdequateMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
You're right about that. They seem to be attracted to fashion, design and art careers too.
8 posted on 12/10/2003 7:23:59 PM PST by Coleus (God is Pro-Life & Straight & gave us an innate predisposition for protection and self preservation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
...And certain religious orders, unfortunately.
9 posted on 12/10/2003 7:25:00 PM PST by Clemenza (East side, West side, all around the town. Tripping the light fantastic on the sidewalks of New York)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
"The Barbarians are Not only At the Gates, they are demanding we dress better!"

THAT'S IT! Now they've gone too far.

10 posted on 12/10/2003 7:27:46 PM PST by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
See, they were "exposed" so to speak, literally and figuratively, I wonder if C span will do that again. Now the world knows how gross and pugnacious the homos are.
11 posted on 12/10/2003 7:29:35 PM PST by Coleus (God is Pro-Life & Straight & gave us an innate predisposition for protection and self preservation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
I am sure that not all homosexuals are of this tasteless, inappropriate public behavior set, just as not all heteros grope one another in public. Some do. I wouldn't have any problem with what they do in their own homes, but when they parade in open-assed leather pants chanting "we're just like you!" it rings a bit hollow.
We need to keep in mind though, that they're not all of the same cloth. Some of them wear denim.
12 posted on 12/10/2003 7:33:46 PM PST by AdequateMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AdequateMan
limit who can and cannot benefit from marriage on the basis of sex?

No, "gay" is not a gender. People who call themselves "gay" are either male or female.

They are currently welcome to marry members of the opposite sex, whether they are men or women.

They just don't want to.

Men and women are both allowed to marry, no descrimination on the basis of sex.

13 posted on 12/10/2003 7:44:01 PM PST by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza; Coleus; All
As an aside, does anyone know if Katherine Graham and Meg Greenfield were more than friends, business associates and traveling companions?

It would explain a lot.

14 posted on 12/10/2003 7:44:10 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
One of the best things that C-SPAN ever did was to cover a gay pride event in Washington, DC. They took the non-editorial approach and simply put a camera on the parade root and let it roll live.

Too bad we can't link to The Onion any more. Their "Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years" was a classic.

15 posted on 12/10/2003 8:01:41 PM PST by GATOR NAVY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AdequateMan
Yes Jesus loved people but his very first miracle was when he attended a marriage between a man and a woman. When God created 'man' in his own image, the power he shared was the ability to bring new life into the world. It does not diminish His love for all us, including our gay bretheren, that He made marriage SPECIAL.

Similarly, hundreds and thousands of years of government (both limited and tolitarian) has recognized the marriage bond as SPECIAL.

Wanting limited government does not mean ignoring the long established behavior of government. Frankly, so far most government responses to this controversy has been (what else) to expand by offering benefits to a new class of beneficiaries. As far as the constitutional authority and taxes paid by couples, the writers of our constitution didn't want anybody paying taxes our limited government was to be paid for by tariffs. Our forefathers could not have imagined that this would even be a controversy, that's why they gave us the ammendment power.

And we have to face the fact that marriage in the year 2003 is a troubled institution. Do we really want to treat an institution that has been so vital to civilization so cavalierly? We don't have to guess on this. In Europe where gay marriage has been legalized, the progression is to marriage of convenience to secure benefits.
16 posted on 12/10/2003 8:11:29 PM PST by gogipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AdequateMan
>>wouldn't a stance on limited government mean that the federal government has no constitutional authority to limit who can and cannot benefit from marriage on the basis of sex? <<

On what basis could it be limited then? None at all?
17 posted on 12/11/2003 12:20:15 AM PST by Jeff Chandler (Chilling Effect-1, Global Warming-0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GATOR NAVY
Why can't we link to The Onion anymore?
18 posted on 12/11/2003 9:15:47 AM PST by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Media In Bed With Gays - Cliff Kincaid

The Washington Post said it didn’t want to generate "a truckload of indignant letters," but it nevertheless tried to compare opposition to homosexual marriage to old laws against blacks getting married to whites. For the Post, opposing the gay agenda is tantamount to racism. The New York Times endorsed homosexual marriage as well, saying any attempt to amend the constitution to prohibit the practice would be an effort to deny "minority rights."

On the same day these editorials appeared, the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, revealed that the syphilis rate in the United States rose in 2002 for the second consecutive year, following a decade-long decline that led to an all-time low in 2000. It said the increase "was due in large part to increases in reported syphilis cases among men, particularly gay and bisexual men…" Syphilis can cause serious heart abnormalities, mental disorders, blindness, other neurological problems, and death.

Last July the CDC reported that data from 25 states with longstanding HIV reporting show the number of new HIV diagnoses among homosexual and bisexual men increased by 7.1 percent, from 2001 to 2002. The CDC said this indicated that homosexuals remain "at high, and perhaps increasing, risk for HIV infection." It said that, "HIV diagnoses for gay and bisexual men have increased by 17.7 percent since the lowest point in 1999" but that new HIV cases in other vulnerable groups have remained stable since 2001.

In order to keep the media from focusing on that kind of information, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, GLAAD, has produced a "resource kit" for the media. It wants homosexuals presented as normal people and warns the media against running film clips of outrageous "gay pride" parades or "footage shot inside gay bars and clubs..." In making the case for homosexual marriage, GLAAD suggests looking at how newspapers are increasingly accepting announcements for same-sex weddings or unions.

The Post and the Times, two of those papers, were undoubtedly among the media referred to by Timothy Dailey of the Family Research Council when he wrote about how "Hollywood and the media relentlessly propagate the image of the fit, healthy, and well-adjusted homosexual." Dailey said that the "Homosexual activists attempt to portray their lifestyle as normal and healthy, and insist that homosexual relationships are the equivalent in every way to their heterosexual counterparts."

But the reality is quite different. Citing government studies and reports in "gay" papers themselves, Dailey writes that, "Instability and promiscuity typically characterize homosexual relationships. These two factors increase the incidence of serious and incurable STDs." Commenting on Dailey’s research and study, Robert Knight of the Culture and Family Institute said that, "Nobody could think about homosexuality as something normal and healthy after reviewing this." Of course, the major media will do their best to ignore it. GLAAD will make sure of that.

___________________________________

A very timely article deserving of a full post...

- ConservativeStLouisGuy
19 posted on 12/11/2003 6:35:35 PM PST by ConservativeStLouisGuy (transplanted St Louisan living in Canada, eh!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeStLouisGuy
Thanks, FR mandated the article be excerpted--it wouldn't post unless it was exerpted. I guess it's a copyright issue with certain newspapers and groups.
20 posted on 12/11/2003 6:51:41 PM PST by Coleus (God is Pro-Life & Straight & gave us an innate predisposition for protection and self preservation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson