Short Nerd Chief

Posts Tagged ‘homosexuality’

Google adds rainbow for Gay Pride

Posted by Fred on June 19, 2008

If you search for the word “gay” on Google, the search results and Sponsored Links will be separated by a rainbow, rather than the usual thin blue line. It’s a wonder the AFA hasn’t sent out one of their Action Alerts trumpeting another attempt by The Gays to advance their Agenda.  It’s only a matter of time; can’t allow gay people to search for stuff on the internet, after all.

On the plus side, the search provides another opportunity to find the almost-certainly-fake but still funny Gay Bands List.  There appear to be new parentheticals since the last time I looked at it – my favorite is “George Michael (texan).”


Posted in internet, Politics | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

AFA: We hate gay people so much we won’t even use the word gay

Posted by Fred on May 7, 2008

It’s no secret that the Tupelo Troglodytes at the American “Family” Association hate homosexuals. They call for boycotts of any corporation that tries to sell things to gays and lesbians, or who acknowledge that homosexuality exists, or who fail to promote Christianity as the one true faith. But now, apparently, they have some sort of vendetta against vowels:

Following its support for the h-mos-xual agenda, Procter & Gamble established a toll-free number for people to register their opinions for or against P&G’s promotion of the g-y agenda, including open mouth kissing between g-ys. It gave a toll-free number which was heavily promoted on g-y Web sites for a week to give those favoring the promotion of h-mos-xuality an opportunity to call. Monday, after AFA had put out the word that P&G wanted to hear from AFA supporters, P&G abruptly ended it.

AFA is encouraging supporters to call P&G and ask the company why it is promoting the g-y lifestyle and why it quit using the toll-free number to receive opinions only after AFA notified AFA supporters about it. We urge you to spend a few cents to register your complaint with P&G. Here is P&G’s corporate number to call: 513-983-1100. (Please get others to call P&G at this number!)

P&G has added h-mos-xual lovers to its soap opera “As the World Turns.” The soap opera now includes scenes of h-mos-xuals with passionate open mouth kissing. The motive behind P&G’s push is to desensitize viewers, especially younger viewers, to the h-mos-xual lifestyle. The ultimate goal of h-mos-xual activists is h-mos-xual marriage.

That’s amazing – they’re so offended by homosexuality that they can’t even write the word.  For what it’s worth, that particular soap introduced the first gay character twenty years ago. They were the first daytime drama to include a homosexual kiss, and the P&G action the AFA is up in arms about resulted from a movement among fans to get the show to include more kissing from the two gay characters (the producers cut back on such scenes almost completely, in the hopes of appeasing people like the AFA, who almost certainly never watch the show). Because the AFA protests things that they don’t actually watch, they miss the sorts of content that could be legitimately troublesome:

Webber and Newcomb said they’ve been more bothered by other things they have seen on the soap, like when a 14-year-old boy shot a man who was attacking his mother. One character is so desperate for a baby that she slept with her ex-brother-in-law, and was nearly caught having sex in an elevator. Another woman led her children and ex-husband into believing she had a brain tumor, just to get him back.

Apparently that’s all OK; just don’t acknowledge that homosexuals exist.

Posted in Politics, TV | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

AFA says KY not keeping gay people properly underfoot

Posted by Fred on March 4, 2008

I no longer live in Kentucky, but if I did, I’d find the American “Family” Association’s latest attempt to browbeat the state legislature incredibly aggravating.  Here’s how they describe their latest favored pro-families-that-look-like-us legislation:

Senate Bill 40 – An Omnibus Pro-Life Bill: This bill: 1) mandates that an abortion-seeking woman be given the opportunity to see the abortionist’s ultrasound image of the unborn child, 2) bans partial-birth abortion, and 3) requires face-to-face consultation with the physician (rather than a taped recording). It has already passed its Senate committee and the full Senate (32-4). It only has to pass its House committee and the full House to become law. Kentucky is currently ranked 11th in the nation regarding good pro-life legislation. This would move the Commonwealth into the top five. More importantly, this will save the lives of unborn children! And, it will protect women from unbearable pain in later life. (As many as 50% of women who see their unborn child in an ultrasound choose life!)

There’s nothing particularly novel here, just the usual sort of “ban abortion through the back door by making it a pain in the ass” rigmarole.  It’s not clear, however, why the legislation is necessary. Are their really physicians who refuse to show a patient an ultrasound of their own body upon request?  After all, an ultrasound image is first and foremost an image of the woman’s body, not an illustration of the fetus and its temporary living quarters.  The US Congress has already acted to ban intact dilation and extraction, so passing a state-level ban is mere piling on, a bone to throw to the ravenous pro-life lobby.  Finally, while an argument can be made that physicians should consult with patients face-to-face rather than by recording, shouldn’t this requirement apply equally to all consultations, and not just pre-abortion consultation?  Writing the statute this way makes its true intent transparent — throw roadblocks in the way of a practice that, like it or not, is legal.  These sorts of statutes appear harmless on their face even to those who favor abortion rights, in that a woman who should not or does not want to carry a child to term can still terminate the pregnancy, but they’re not.  They’re not harmless for the same reason that incremental restriction on smoking (for example) is not harmless.  These types of laws restrict liberty and are designed for the sole purpose of eventually banning a legal act. If the AFA wants to ban abortion, if the AHA wants to ban smoking, if MADD wants to ban drinking, they should have the cojones to do so directly.

Senate Bill 112 – Legislation Barring the Creation of “Partner” Benefits: This bill bans state universities and state agencies from creating “domestic partner” benefits and it has passed its Senate committee and the full Senate (34-3). This is the “carry-over” issue from last year’s General Assembly and now it only has to pass its House committee and the full House to become law. UK and U of L continue to defy the 2004 Marriage Protection Amendment and to discriminate against family members of employees while covering live-in lovers and roommates.

This is one of the AFA’s favorite dead horses to beat.  The AFA sent out an “Action Alert” in February 2007 warning that UofL was “re-defin[ing] marriage by granting marriage benefits to unmarried, live-in partners.”  They sent out another one in March 2007 urging members to flood the legislature with calls and messages to get their “legislator to fulfill his oath of office by granting him the opportunity to vote to ‘support the constitution’.” Apparently there are no women in the Kentucky legislature.   The AFA followed these “alerts” with more of the same in May, July and August 2007, and again on February 1 of this year.  It’s always the same — those liberal universities in Louisville and Lexington are subverting the constitution and the will of the people by giving health benefits to unmarried partners of employees, and “discriminating” against families.  Neither is true.

First, while the AFA clearly wishes it were so, it’s not at all clear that the state constitution bans health benefits to unmarried individuals.  Here’s what it says:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

Only the state can create a legal status “identical or substantially similar” to marriage.  Neither UofL nor UK, though state institutions, can create any sort of legal status for unmarried individuals.  Furthermore, granting health benefits to live-in partners hardly creates a legal status similar to marriage.  Such individuals can’t inherit property via intestate succession, they don’t have hospital visitation rights, they can’t sue for spousal or child support, they can’t seek custody of children, and they can’t file a joint tax return. Spouses can do all of those things.  Arguing that this legislation is needed to protect the 2004 constitutional amendment puts the lie to the argument that the 2004 vote was about protecting marriage. It was about punishing gay people, as the AFA admits in encouraging Kentuckians to tell the legislature that “[w]e stated in the 2004 Marriage Amendment that we do not want relationships other than marriage elevated.”  The AFA probably hopes that denying medical care to homosexuals will lead to a few early deaths.

The legislation is also not needed to prevent discrimination (a subject the AFA is rarely heard on when it’s discrimination against anyone other than white, heterosexual Protestants).  There are probably some UK employees taking care of adult children or aged parents or alcoholic siblings, who are not able to extend their health benefits to such people.  It is not clear, however, that this is a sizable group. The universities should be able to define their health plans to cover whomever they deem appropriate, and the AFA’s proposition that they must either restrict coverage to married heterosexuals or else cover everyone is nonsense.

Finally, the AFA can’t resist a final plea that the legislature mandate a society based on their particular view of morality, economic freedom be damned:

And while you’re on the line, deliver another blow to casinos by saying: “And stop casinos – Focus on families, not casinos.”

That is, however, a subject for another day.

Posted in Politics, religion | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

AFA condemns P&G, Verizon for sponsoring TV shows that people like to watch

Posted by Fred on February 21, 2008

The Stoning of Saint Stephen by Rembrandt (1635)

The American “Family” Association is continuing its Sisyphean struggle to drag society to a place where gay people aren’t allowed to buy stuff and corporations aren’t allowed to sell them stuff (assuming, of course, that they don’t convince us to kill, deport or convert the homosexuals first).  Today, it’s a list of the top “pro-homosexual” advertisers, led by Proctor & Gamble, Verizon and Target.  What, precisely, makes these companies so suspect?  They advertised on one or more of the following programs:

What’s a red-blooded, America-loving, gay-hating troglodyte to do?  Apparently, watch game shows and reality TV.

Every time I see one of these AFA releases, I simply say “Wow”. How dare gay people have clean teeth, talk on cell phones or buy semi-fashionable yet affordable products?  Then again, there’s little risk to your average AFA member in boycotting toothpaste, 21st century technology or Michael Graves home furnishings.

Posted in religion, TV | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

AFA says ABC loves homosexuals, hates Christians

Posted by Fred on January 25, 2008

As usual, the American “Family” Association used the recent events involving ESPN’s Dana Jacobson to make their same old tired arguments that (1) the homosexual army is on the march and (2) cultural elites hate Christians.  As usual, they get it almost completely wrong:

ABC fired an actor because of an anti-gay comment, but gave anchorwoman who told an audience ‘F—Jesus’ what amounted to a one-week vacation.

Last June, when actor Isaiah Washington, star of ABC’s show Grey’s Anatomy, made an anti-gay slur in reference to openly homosexual T.R. Knight, the network immediately fired Washington.

But when ESPN (owned by ABC) anchorwoman Dana Jacobson publicly said “F— Notre Dame,” “F— Touchdown Jesus” and finally “F— Jesus,” the network gave her a one week suspension. In essence, ABC gave Jacobson a one week vacation.

ABC has two standards, one for anti-gay comments and one for anti-Christian comments. Those who use anti-gay comments are punished. Those who use anti-Christian comments are supported.

Four paragraphs, and not one of them contains the actual truth. The AFA is at least correcting its original statement that ESPN had “refused to take any action against ESPN anchorwoman Dana Jacobson for her hateful, slurring remarks against Jesus,” which is demonstrably false.  However, only in the fantasy world of the AFA is a suspension without pay the same as a vacation.

Second, T.R. Knight may be “openly homosexual” now (and who cares if he is, except for people like Don Wildmon?), but he wasn’t before Isaiah Washington opened his big mouth.  Idiots like Washington and the AFA only make matters worse for themselves when they speak.  Furthermore, although calling Knight a “faggot” got the most press, it was hardly the only thing Washington did:

In October 2006, news reports surfaced that Washington had grabbed co-star Patrick Dempsey by the throat. It was reported that the altercation was prompted by or related to Washington’s use of a derogatory epithet toward co-star T. R. Knight and his sexuality. Shortly after the details of the argument became public, Knight publicly disclosed that he is gay. The situation seemed somewhat resolved when Washington issued a statement, apologizing for his “unfortunate use of words during the recent incident on-set.”

The controversy later resurfaced when the cast appeared at the Golden Globes in January 2007. While being interviewed on the red carpet prior to the awards, Washington joked, “I love gay. I wanted to be gay. Please let me be gay.” After the show won Best Drama, Washington, in response to press queries as to any conflicts backstage, said that he had never referred to Knight as a “faggot.” However, in an interview with Ellen DeGeneres on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, Knight said that Washington had, in fact, used that particular epithet.

Washington attacked a co-worker physically, and continued to act like an ass after being called on it. very few businesses would keep an employee like that around.  Had Jacobson tried to choke Mike Golic instead of making rude references to his alma mater, she would certainly be looking for work, too. 

Anyway, Isaiah Washington is hardly hurting for work, even after he continued to attack Knight, Dempsey and ABC (blaming racism for his firing). NBC cast him in a story arc on Bionic Woman, leading NBC co-chairman Ben Silverman to remark that working with Washington would be “like A-Rod leaving the Yankees in midseason.”

Finally, there is a clear difference between Washington and Jacobson.  Washington verbally attacked a specific individual with whom he was required to work. Jacobson insulted no specific Christian, and most of her remarks were directed to an institution, the University of Notre Dame.  Touchdown Jesus is not a person; he’s a football tradition.  Saying “f*** Jesus” in this context says nothing about how Jacobson, ESPN, ABC or the world view Christians or Christianity; it says something about how she views Notre Dame, which continues to get massive coverage for a football program that doesn’t deserve it, and hasn’t deserved it for decades, merely because of Touchdown Jesus.  The AFA really needs to get over their position that anyone who says anything that a Christian doesn’t like is biased against Christians. Blasphemy is in bad taste, but it’s only illegal in a theocracy.

Posted in Sports, TV | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »