Someone at the Washington Post thinks taking money from gay-bashers is A-OK.
Behind the above unassuming cover lies pages and pages of gay-bashing and base homophobia with generous portions of junk science to “back up” the positions. Where can you find such disgusting filth? The Washington Post.
It would not be surprising for something like this to run in the right-wing Washington Times, but the WPost?
John Aravosis over at one of my regular haunts, Americablog is mounting a call to arms to flood the email box and voicemail of the WPost ombudsman to politely, but firmly get your opinion across:
UPDATE: AmericaBlogger Rogue Misanthrope is serving up the files as well to share the load:
John went on a real tear about this, and I couldn’t have said it any better, so I’m reprinting a big juicy hunk:
In it you learn things like the fact that sexual orientation isn’t genetic. Why? Because if it were genetic it would have to be passed by gay parents who don’t have kids! Putting aside a number of holes in that theory, there’s the more general scientific point about recessive genes. My point is that this filth isn’t even scientifically correct, and the Post is publishing it. I didn’t realize the Post had no problems publishing junk science targeting minority groups. Huh.
What’s more, the entire publication is based on race-baiting. It is CLEARLY written for the black community in an effort to piss them off against the gays. Funny, but you’d think the Post would have a problem with a scientifically invalid publication whose sole intent was to enrage one minority community against another. But no.
Oh, and it gets better. The publication informs you that gays die at the age of 41. Yep, all of us. What they don’t tell you is that this little “study” was conducted by Dr. Paul Cameron, an anti-gay nutjob who has even been disowned by the religious right (let alone he was thrown out of various medical associations). But does the Post have a problem publishing junk science that suggests that certain minority groups are inferior to others? Not at all!
Oh, it goes on and on. Then concludes by invoking Martin Luther King’s memory to attack us. Which is again an outright lie since Coretta Scott King has already said that the gay rights movement is part of the larger civil rights movement her husband embraced.
Where the hell is the Washington Post on all of this? Pay them the right price and they’ll publish any crap, no matter how outrageous, no matter how wrong, no matter how hateful and obviously race-baiting (note that the fags in the publication are all white).
This is so beyond the pale. You have got to see this. And we have got to respond. On its face this is publishing junk science meant to attack minorities, and is race-baiting, among other things. I wonder if the Washington Post would publish a magazine insert that, oh, specifically targeted the white community, alerting them to studies suggesting that blacks are genetically inferior to whites, more prone to disease and early death than whites, and that blacks therefore don’t deserve affirmative action and other civil rights protections because, you know, they’re not as worthy as Jewish people? Also, I hear that if they use the right cream, blacks can become white.
I’m serious about this. If the Post refused to run such an ad we could sue their asses off under the DC civil rights ordinance. We need to get the Post on the record explaining the differences between the two ads because there is NO WAY they can defend the science in this ad, on that I’m an expert. This science is the same crap that says blacks are inferior to whites. And if the Post wouldn’t run bigoted race-baiting Aryan science studies about blacks – and they wouldn’t – then they’d better treat gays with the same journalistic standard.