Washington Post prints bitterly homophobic magazine supplement

The Washington Post yesterday printed a magazine ad supplement, bought by religious right groups, that is one of the most bigoted homophobic things I have ever read. I am astonished the Post would print this filth.

Read more at...
http://americablog.blogspot.com/archives/2004_11_01_americablog_archive.html#110097728685621475

You know, the 24/7 propaganda organ of the Nazi Party!

n/t

I've been saying over and over again that the left should write articles and buy advertisement space on the New York Times to define their own terms. They should be reporting BBV information on the NYT because it's obvious that the media won't do it. Printing those articles also brings attention to the lock-down.

can you paste some of it here, i'm in the mood to be pissed off.

http://www.bothsidesmag.com/ if you want to read it all (the blog has PDF images of it , so may suffer from bandwidth problems).

It certainly uses a bogus statistic:
"According to the Omega Journal, a leading publication on death and dying, the median age of death for a homosexual man without AIDS and with a longterm sexual partner is only 41 years of age."

which this webpage traces to Paul Cameron. It has been debunked as useless by a Professor of Psychology here (and this was even acknowledged as debunked by a right winger like William Bennett as long ago as 1998; the method was averaging the ages in gay newspaper obituaries).

It is an extended polemic against gay marriage. It does seem surprising for the Washington Post to come with something quite so partisan.

of the whole insert, then I say more power to them! We need all the opponents of this calibre that we can get.

I didn't see that "stat" on the pages of the insert I saw. If they are printing outright lies, not just opinion, it shouldn't be allowed.

Don't get me wrong, I disagree completely with what they are saying, but they are simply laying out THEIR brand of Christianity's beliefs on same-sex marriage. I browsed through a lot of it and didn't see any hatred or advocation of violence against gays. They have a right to express their opinion on the legalization of gay marriage, just as any gay advocacy groups do. If the WaHoPo were to REFUSE to run an ad advocating gay marriage, or ran some hate group like Phelps' with inflammatory language, etc, I would object, but that magazine represents the mainstream of what fundies believe.

I'm much more upset at the Newspapers and tv channels that refuse to run ads from groups like moveon.org or adbusters.org.

Liberalism isn't about censorship, IMO.

tired of hatred around here.

There is a big damned difference between printing ads full of lies, myth and hateful rhetoric than taking out ads stating opinions based in FACT. Lying is not just a matter of stating one's opinion.

I, too, get tired of fighting that battle even here on DU.

It's about mumbo-jumbo. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint, the constitution protects citizens' right to practice any kind of mumbo-jumbo they like, whether it be mainstream or fundy xianity, heaven's gate doomsday crap, astrology, whatever. It's all protected, so long as you don't violate the rights of others.

If they are presenting bogus stats, that's a fraud, and should be stopped.

But saying "God doesn't approve of gay marriage" is impossible to prove or disprove, so it's protected, in spite of the fact it's tripe.

Such nonsense shouldn't be allowed. But the statements of what they believe to be sinful or righteous are protected by the constitution.


If they were to slander gays in general with statements like "gays tend to be promiscuous" or whatever, that would be unacceptable as well. There is a fine line. They are entitled to their opinion on gay marriage and even gay sex, but they have no right to stereotype gays in general.

My original post on the matter was based on reading several of the pages. Some wouldn't open, so I hadn't seen the bogus stat, or I would've complained about it, too.

Restricting their freedom of speech, besides being unconstitutional, would probably feed into their Xian persecution complex and make them even more fanatical and simply reach people through mass mailings and e-mail.

That being said, the WaHoPo can have policies to not run religious ads, or political messages, but they would have to apply such rules evenly and not run moveon's ads or ads for the Unitarian church. It's their paper, I assume they have some control over the content, so if you want to complain to the paper, knock yourself out.

But that thing is no different than the crapola being spewed on the 700 Club every night of the week.

Are you burning up the lines to your cable company for broadcasting that RW hate propaganda show?

Therein lies the difference between opinion and slander. I frankly don't care if someone wants to wax poetic about the Chruch of Holy Ghost Explosions (yes, there IS a church by that name in Maryland) but when you publish hate speech backed up by bogus "research" then that DOES violate my rights, for it incites hatred and discrimination.

You said, "IF they are presenting bogus stats" and well, yes, THEY ARE, which is the very part to which I object.

There's some religion at this link, too. Is it ok for the Post to run this?

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/rassenpo.htm

I have had qualms with Mayor Newsom, and in the previous thread I agreed to give him the benefit of the doubt and wait to see how things work out.

I have no doubt that the people who produced this are sanctimonious homophobes. They claim to "hate the sin, not the sinner", which is condescending crap.

I see no reason why GLAAD or any other organization shouldn't run an insert decrying people like Dobson, and laying out the reasons why gays should be entitled to full equal rights under the law.

:grr:

Which is what they essentially did for way too long.

This kind of crap is like a hydra. Cut off one head, and there are still 10 others growing back. Attack it when you can within the law. If you and others who feel like you cancel their subscriptions, maybe the post will take notice and stop running religious or political ads. But I think they need to apply the rules fairly.

These people have learned the lesson of the civil rights movement well -- blatant hatred awakens a backlash in people, but seemingly calm and rational "discourse" allows garbage like this to pass as fair minded advocacy. I read the ad, and it is nothing but an exercise in question begging and appeals to authority figures.

It is also, and I want to stress this because it's critically important, part of the ongoing attempt by the Republicans to make inroads into the black community via religion. Gay people are (rightly) outraged by this, but Democrats of all stripes should be watching it closely, and figuring out a way, not just to counter it, but to shove it down the throats of the Republicans and their fellow travelers.

Progressives and LGBT people need to get the message out that there is nothing more wholesome and right than same-sex marriage.

My initial response to this thread was pretty knee-jerk, too, I suppose. I don't think this kind of crap should be banned by the state, but thinking about it, The Post has every right not to run it, and customers have every right to complain and cancel subscriptions in response.

I don't think I thought out my response well enough. I can be that way sometimes.

My local radio talkshow wingnut dug up this dude who is some kind of extreme Christian. But he didn't sound like the run of the mill fundie nutjob AT FIRST. After he conveyed some sincere-sounding spirituality and sounded downright ecumenical by saying he actively observes Jewish holidays-----wham, out of nowhere he came up with this:

He said that supporters of Gays often cite Leviticus as an absurdity and contrast it to Jesus's NEVER having mentioned homosexuality. This dude said that, au contraire, his SILENCE "speaks louder than words," that Herod represents homosexuality in the New Testament and that Jesus "would not even LOOK at him and would not SPEAK to him," which this dude interprets as a New Testament condemnation of homosexuality.

I e-mailed the wingnut host and referred him to Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation and Bloodlines of the Holy Grail, somewhere in there where it was said that it was IMPOSSIBLE for a Jew back then NOT to be married, much less become a public figure and preach, without becoming a spectacle or otherwise commented upon. That this could lead in different directions, like "some people say" (to use a Fauxism) that he was Gay, or, like he was married to the Magdalene and had children.

Anyway, that guest was an odd one.

as somebody posted above is somebody's opinion. My purpose in citing those books to the wingnut was to shake up his own certainty of things by presenting him with some jarring (to him) takes on things.

at the bottom of the first and last page,

"Magazine created solely by Grace Christian Church and is not a product of the Washington Post."

Dunno.

If the WP printed and distributed, with similar attribution, some of the following product, would you have the same response?

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/rassenpo.htm