What's up with the Washington Post featuring gay people in front page news stories almost every day! Today's it's about a 45 year old hair dresser "competeing" in an adult figure skating competition. Are you kidding me? They are obviously out of story idea and have hit rock bottom. What's next... a story on a gay guy who decided to cut his toe nails?

I'm no homophobe, I'm not a conservative, evangenlical etc. My annoyance isn't about the gay angle as much as it is about the post seemingly making up news just so they can feature gay people. (BTW, the front page of style section today has another story about drag queens in a play that no one will see).

I have noticed that almost everyday they do a story that features gay couples involved in unnewswporthy things. Are they just trying to attract gay readers?

You tell us, what was it that attracted you to reading it?

The Washington Post editorial staff is obcessed with gays and illegal immigrants.
Read the Washington Times instead.

"They are obviously out of story idea"

Most people are dropping the local newspapers. You get more well-rounded view and detailed information if you read foreign newspapers and magazines, alternative news publications, newswires (most of what's written in the major newspapers anyways), blogs, etc. Business news and foreign affairs are heavily affected by what Wall Street and the government wants you to see.

GoodMorning Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Washington Post editorial staff is obcessed
> with gays and illegal immigrants.
> Read the Washington Times instead.

^^ This ^^

The Wash Post is a hardcore-liberal newspaper so their obsession with gays and illegal immigrants is not surprising.

Du Pont Circle and Adams Morgan are full of affluent gays. They are appealing to their market.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Du Pont Circle and Adams Morgan are full of
> affluent gays. They are appealing to their market.

I think the WP's distribution area is just a tad wider than that.

Washington Post and Times both have great articles, dont spend all your time on one site. Skip past the human interest stories which as you point out are agenda driven and move onto another news source.

A really liberal newspaper,horrible editorial staff.

I have nothing against people whom are gay. Yet I think the Post is simply doing what a lot of liberal folks feel must be done, and that is putting out as much pro-gay material as possible. (Look at television, all of the shows). Its just the Hollywood type of thing to do, and they are copycatting however that's spelled, what broadcast TV and cable have done, along with publications such as Newsweek and Time.

It's infotainment. 'News' is the very last thing something like WaPo can print, because 'news' isn't in-your-face-razzle-dazzle-zing-zow-bingo-bongo-bang-zip-zam-flim-flam-kapow-swoosh-woosh-ding-dong-non-stop-whammy-blammy-pajamie action.

NRA 75 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have nothing against people whom are gay. Yet I
> think the Post is simply doing what a lot of
> liberal folks feel must be done, and that is
> putting out as much pro-gay material as possible.
> (Look at television, all of the shows). Its just
> the Hollywood type of thing to do, and they are
> copycatting however that's spelled, what broadcast
> TV and cable have done, along with publications
> such as Newsweek and Time.

^^ This

Its all about normalizing deviant behavior. If you beat Americans over the head with something long enough they can get used to almost anything.

Desensitization Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NRA 75 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I have nothing against people whom are gay. Yet
> I
> > think the Post is simply doing what a lot of
> > liberal folks feel must be done, and that is
> > putting out as much pro-gay material as
> possible.
> > (Look at television, all of the shows). Its
> just
> > the Hollywood type of thing to do, and they are
> > copycatting however that's spelled, what
> broadcast
> > TV and cable have done, along with publications
> > such as Newsweek and Time.
>
> ^^ This
>
> Its all about normalizing deviant behavior. If
> you beat Americans over the head with something
> long enough they can get used to almost anything.


I dont know about deviant behavior. Do I agree with the lifestyle? Nope. But there are over 5,000 other species that exhibit a gay love, life, whatever it is to be called. I think we need to keep an open mind. I personally dont like it, but to each their own. Who am I to judge?

Yes, classical conditioning is part of it though, that we do agree on. Yet at the same times, sometimes that can be a good thing, with examples of recent anti-bullying campaigns showing promise, and a lot of these are non-govt funded too. That alone rocks :)

Those 5,000 other species also shit in the woods. That isn't a basis for human beings to shit in the woods, though I don't care if you do. It's just not a good basis for comparison. Hell, Darwin called homosexuality an evolutionary dead end.

In addition, this pro-homosexual political lobby/organization pushing to make gay lifestyle as something normal and healthy is ridiculous. They further try to normalize transgender, and other sodomite spin-offs, in health insurance coverage for sex change operations being equated to some kind of right that every insurance payer must support.

This is an extension that started with The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removing homosexuality from its official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973. They try to normalize something that is deviant.

Pages of the Wash Post will clearly show its bias in support of the gay agenda when it comes to their coverage of such events as gay marriage. The ties of the liberal politics and gay agenda are very prominent in articles on that topic.

ARN 75 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those 5,000 other species also shit in the woods.
> That isn't a basis for human beings to shit in the
> woods, though I don't care if you do. It's just
> not a good basis for comparison. Hell, Darwin
> called homosexuality an evolutionary dead end.
>
> In addition, this pro-homosexual political
> lobby/organization pushing to make gay lifestyle
> as something normal and healthy is ridiculous.
> They further try to normalize transgender, and
> other sodomite spin-offs, in health insurance
> coverage for sex change operations being equated
> to some kind of right that every insurance payer
> must support.
>
> This is an extension that started with The
> American Psychiatric Association (APA) removing
> homosexuality from its official Diagnostic and
> Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in
> 1973. They try to normalize something that is
> deviant.
>
> Pages of the Wash Post will clearly show its bias
> in support of the gay agenda when it comes to
> their coverage of such events as gay marriage. The
> ties of the liberal politics and gay agenda are
> very prominent in articles on that topic.


Interesting, as yes I was aware that the American Psychiatric Association, was correct that this is not a mental illness, all the way back in the dark ages of 1973. Of course, the Washington Post shows a liberal bias. Are gay rights among my highest priorities? Nope. That would be the economy, ie. jobs, keeping gov't at all levels in check, and less taxes.

As for Darwin, yeah if we all were, yup. We'd be extinct. Of course. Thats pretty simple. Being gay is a genetic condition. Ask questions, do some research, there is more evidence of that, along with scientific based surveys pointing in that direction. We both agree that its not our lifestyle, but at the same time, what's your solution to it?

ARN 75 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is an extension that started with The
> American Psychiatric Association (APA) removing
> homosexuality from its official Diagnostic and
> Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in
> 1973. They try to normalize something that is
> deviant.

Yup, and the liberals are already working on normalizing Pedophilia...
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/conference-aims-to-normalize-pedophilia/

While I am very live and let live, I tire of their politics and lifestyle being shoved in my face all of the time.

Attempting to equate gay rights, including transgender freakdom-it’s always included, being the same as civil rights is utterly ridiculous. There are already laws on the books that protect homosexuals,

Overall, I really don’t give a flying fig about the marriage issue. There are just as many religious zealots out there as there are homosexuals who want to use the coercion of govt. to dictate their views as the official view. For example, X politician wants to define marriage between a man and a woman as a law. On the other hand, homosexuals want recognition of their marriage ‘rights’ as a law. Both sides are pretty adamant about what they think.

CA votes for recognition of marriage is defined being between a man and a woman, and then some ‘activist judge’ strikes down that proposition citing violation of some civil right. It’s on going, and both sides bicker, bicker, bicker.

My question is why the hell is government in the business of legislating marriage anyway? If these pro-homosexual organizations used their efforts to amend constitutions (or remove laws) to remove the governments ability to legislate, license, or define marriage, I would actually support that.

Why does the govt. need to be in the business of licensing marriage anyway? There are already means in place to supply ‘significant others’ the ability to cosign contracts, facilitate legal decisions, etc. Why does that require a marriage license? The only thing I can see is making sure a brother and sister do not marry, but exceptions and genetic testing these days can deal with that.

Besides that, all I see is homosexuals trying to legitimize their deviant lifestyle by amending it to govt. law, which is coercive in nature because it falls into the liberal issue bucket.

Not saying Republican’s shit doesn’t stink either. Santorum’s rhetoric on “if he were president, he’d declare a war on porn!” follows the same misuse of government power in legislating lifestyle by pushing his views as policy being shoved in my face-when I’d rather have a scantily clad lady shoving something in my face.

ARN 75 comes out swinging with some great points.

Basically, our government should step out of the regulation business and get back to what they are supposed to be doing; protecting my liberties and enforcing contracts, not dictating them.

Personally, I think its silly for gays to want to get 'married'. It has always been an institution between a man and a woman. If I were gay and wanted equal protection under the law, Id advocate something new but similar. Call it something different. I think Shakespeare touched on this, 'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet'

I can call a boat a ship, a schooner or a sailboat but in the end its still a floating transportation device. I wouldnt call a ship a sailboat but I expect the coast guard to protect them both.

Gays say they want to be treated like everyone else. Yet they want special laws pertaining to them and will tell anyone who listens how gay they are. Makes no sense.

.............
Attachments:

zack m Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gays say they want to be treated like everyone
> else. Yet they want special laws pertaining to
> them and will tell anyone who listens how gay they
> are. Makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense because its not actually about marriage or "rights".

Its about forced social acceptance.

You ARE going to accept their deviant lifestyle or they're going to get a law passed and MAKE you accept them.

Not that there's anything wrong with sticking your cock up another guy's poopshoot, or versey vice-a. Real life lesbenigns are rarely as good looking as the ones in porn on the internet, but at least now I know what donut bumping is. You see, they sit facing each other on the bed, legs akimbo and scoot closer and closer until they can rub their lady-businesses against each other. At least there's no poop involved.

That's the kind of article that the Post should publish.

Washington Post has turned into pile of crap

Next time, read the article moron instead of just viewing the pictures and drawing blatantly wrong conclusions. The hairdresser is married to his wife, as stated in the article.