Gay Bean-Counters Give Networks Cookies for Airtime
Note to TV networks: Don't even think about downsizing the disproportionate airtime you give gay characters and issues. The bean-counters at GLAAD are watching.
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), in its fifth annual "Network Responsibility Index," recently ranked 15 networks based on their inclusion of LGBT characters on original primetime shows that aired nationally.
The report showed that nine networks (NBC, CBS, ABC Family, A&E, FX, HBO, Showtime, TBS, and USA) increased their coverage of LGBT issues from the previous year, while four networks (CW, Fox, ABC, and TNT) slightly decreased coverage of LGBT issues.
Of the 10 ranked cable networks, the inaptly named ABC Family was the most pro-homosexual, with 55 percent of its programming hours featuring inclusion of LGBT issues. Showtime (37 percent), TNT (33 percent), HBO (31 percent), AMC, (29 percent), and Syfy (22 percent) were ranked as 'good' by GLAAD.
Handing out the pats on the head,GLAAD's Herndon Graddick applauded this trend, declaring that "Viewers expect to see television environments that accurately reflect what it's like to be a young adult, and today that includes young adults who happen to be gay."
The increase in homosexuality in cable programming has not gone unnoticed by insiders in the entertainment industry. Entertainment Weekly's James Hibberd noted that "Overall, networks have dramatically increased the number of gay portrayals in recent years." The Culture and Media's analysis of homosexuality's portrayal in television over the years confirms this statement.
But the near-ubiquity of homosexual characters on television flies in the face of demographic reality. Current studies indicate that the homosexual population in the United States is around 2 to 4 percent. The Williams Institute's (which the Huffington Post called the "Brookings Institution" of the gay rights movement) demographer-in-residence Gary Gates estimated that about 4 percent of the US population is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender (he estimates that 1.7 percent of the U.S. population is gay or lesbian, 1.8 percent are bisexual, and .3 percent are transgender).
But GLAAD has good reason to reward TV's distortion of reality. GLAAD's own report states that "Of the 19% who reported that their feelings toward gay and lesbian people have become more favorable over the past 5 years, 34% cited 'seeing gay or lesbian characters on television' as a contributing factor." GLAAD's acting president, Mike Thompson, crowed that, "As television audiences get to know our community and the common ground that we all share on the screen and in their own lives, acceptance is growing."
And also, the mistaken notion that homosexuality is widespread in America is growing. An April Gallup poll revealed that more than half of Americans believed that the homosexual population in America is over 20 percent. The poll cited entertainment as a possible factor, declaring that "This [poll] suggests Americans have had even more exposure to gays and lesbians, be it in their personal lives or through entertainment or other means."
So if it seems that you can't flip through the channels today without running across gay characters or story lines, you're right. You can't. And GLAAD's there to make sure of it.
- Paul Wilson's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
ABC Family network?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 11:44am.
Is that a joke?
Glamorize queer sex on family TV. Good recruitment tool. Gotta replace the ones who died so gotta recruit.
I have written them a letter........
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 5:59pm.
of complaint. I told them that they have excessively programed their channel to the Gay agenda and that since only 4-5% of the nations population are in fact GLBT they should IMMEDIATELY reduce the amount of GAY themed programming by 50% What do you want to bet I get no reply!
ABC Family pushes the envelope
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 9:08pm.
Some stupid girl on one of their stupid shows talked about how it would push the envelope of the network. What's the point of "pushing the envelope" of a family channel? There are other channels that are clearly not family.
I knew when Pat Robertson sold the network it would turn into the "alternative family channel".
GLAAD has an 'acting president'?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 11:47am.
LOL.
Surprised?
Submitted by GeneralAl on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 11:47am.
I remember when we used to roll queers for their money [I never took part, I just heard guys tell of it!]! Now they roll us for not providing them enough TV exposure. Why don't they just start their own major network?
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
Isn't the OWN network
Submitted by Bhaal on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 5:37pm.
Isn't the OWN network basically LGBT oriented?
Gay Channels
Submitted by Joe W. on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 11:57am.
I have DIRECT TV, and they even have their own channels: LOGO is MTV's gay agenda channel and FSTV, a channel for "under-represented communities"...ie. Transgender, gay, pedophile, etc. They are like Muslims, folks. Spreading their vile ideology like a venereal disease.
Gays are good and Christians are bad
Submitted by expatriot on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:05pm.
Gays = no morality, high rates of STD's, high rates of drug and alcohol usage, and difficult life.
Christians = moral grounding, lower STD rates and happy lives.
Too bad the left does not get it. And no I am not homophobic. I am a Christian who believes that homosexuality is an abomination and am tired of my first amendment rights being violated by these people.
Bingo!
Submitted by Joe W. on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 1:11pm.
I'm with you, Expat, however, according to the left wing moon bats, we are homophobic, bigoted haters of the highest order. Oh...and intolerant, to boot.
Homo agenda is part of the Communist 1950s agenda
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 3:54pm.
Maybe that is why... Communist plans from the 1950s & later are now in place. 6 min. video is a pretty good summary of some of the agenda and how fast things change: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQf_QfitmKE
Would you say they have done a good job of weakening & shredding our unified society?
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Ruled by fools
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:21pm.
Once again, the minority dictates to the majority. 'Dictates' is the key word. As in 'dictatorship'.
Speaking of gays
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:24pm.
Sao Palo may be on to something.
Notice the consternation it is causing the gay zealots.
Tail wagging dog?
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:45pm.
Don't even go there!
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
30000 programs on every day
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:47pm.
And you have to complain about 5 or so that have gay characters. The HUMANITY!!! I hope the children don't see it. They might think there are gay people in the world who are normal, decent people. Keep up the hate, it's doing good things for America.
Normal? Sure...right..
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:56pm.
Sexual deviants, yes. Normal, no.
Oh how sweet
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:58pm.
Someone who has a picture of an adulterer and a promiscuous Hollywood starlet is here to tell us how wrong we are.
I'd say show that have gay characters far outnumber those that don't. And the portrayal of gay characters is always positive. Never highlights the physical abuse in lesbian relationships or the physical problems of gay men due to anal sex, or the promiscuity rampant in the gay lifestyle. Nope, gayness is all sanitized and pretty when seen on t.v.
Dude
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 1:09pm.
What the hell do you care what my photo is? Now list 10 current shows with gay characters. I'll list the 29,990 that don't. Or we can debate anal sex and the women and men who participate.
What is this a quiz?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 1:14pm.
There shouldn't be any queers on family TV.
BTW, Meathead, anal sex is bad for everyone.
Your "Picture"
Submitted by Joe W. on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 1:16pm.
Well, you DO realize that idolizing two people with the morals of alley cats does not give most folks a real positive impression of YOUR character, do you not, pal?
JFK was the best president America has ever had
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 1:56pm.
And Marilyn Monroe was the most beautiful human being in existence, until her own existence ceased to be. Hell man--tomorrow is the anniversary of her murder. A little respect is due.
JFK was never officially charged, you know.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 2:03pm.
.
That's one theory
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 2:07pm.
But why would Jack kill the most beautiful woman the world would ever know?
Respect??
Submitted by Joe W. on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 3:57pm.
MM was a whore and JFK was a philanderer. I have no respect for either one of them.
Liberal values
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 5:07pm.
She may have been beautiful on the outside, but on the inside she was one sorry twisted mess. Typical lib, glorifying a woman on superficial values. I doubt strong moral women earn your respect.
Good evening
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 5:10pm.
I also glorify her for her acting abilities. While I'm at it I'd like to give Grace Kelly an honorable mention.
Nephew
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 2:10pm.
You do know that when something doesn't make sense..it's most likely sarcasm. And besides everyone knows the the greatest president the US ever had was Jimmy Carter.
Weak, if you actually read
Submitted by Reaver on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 1:16pm.
Weak, if you actually read the article you would see that no program was criticized. The criticism was of GLAAD and their bean counting of agenda airtime. To borrow someone else’s line, we need a better class of troll.
It was only a matter of time
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 1:17pm.
It was only a matter of time before someone came in and suggested that people must be bigots for caring about this.
You're claiming only 5/30000 programs have gay characters, but I guess you didn't read the article. "ABC Family ... with 55 percent of its programming hours featuring inclusion of LGBT issues. Showtime (37 percent), TNT (33 percent), HBO (31 percent), AMC, (29 percent), and Syfy (22 percent)."
There are generally two reasons gay characters are included in TV shows :
1. Comic relief, like in Will & Grace. Gay rights supporters shouldn't be happy about this.
2. To make a political argument. Usually this is paired by making religious Christians into evil, bad people, like in Glee: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/11/19/fox-tv-mocks-fox-news... . Apparently, religious people shouldn't be offended by this. If they point it out, they're bigots. But if they don't, they still deserve being portrayed as bigots, because they are bigots. Right?
Christians have nothing to do with it
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 2:05pm.
Christian law is as enforceable as Islamic law in the US. We require real human beings to make laws, not 2000 year old deities. And Will and Grace has been off the air for years. Do you think kids will make the decision to go gay after watching an episode of 90210? How does that work?
What on earth are you talking
Submitted by redfish on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 6:01pm.
What on earth are you talking about? You aren't responding to anything I said, you're just being very patronizing.
I said you should expect Christians (or social conservatives) to get upset when they're portrayed on TV as bigots. What does that have to do with theocracy or seeing a gay person turning someone gay?
Hate??
Submitted by Joe W. on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 1:23pm.
I don't hate you queers, Zippy. I just hate the sin that y'all engage in. But carry on, if you wish. Just quit rubbing my nose in it and quit preaching it to my grand children. Play safe, too. AIDS is a very unpleasant result of your gayness.
It's hardly sin when you're in love
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 2:00pm.
And AIDS is a result of unprotected sex, not gay sex, not anal sex, not hermaphroditic, not animal. But if you continue to be so naughty I will rub your face in it, much like a master rubs his dog's nose in a yucky mess in the wrong place.
Oops
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 2:15pm.
Two people (male and female) who practice abstinence until they get married and stay loyal to each other will never, NEVER get AIDS from unprotected sex with each other.
Two gay men who go through numerous partners every year, probably will.
Uh, eternal flamer-
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 2:22pm.
Wow, that's a big number. There must be a learning deficiency within the gay community, I guess.
But wait, there's more:
Hold on there sweetie, we're not done:
Ow. And then:
Even the gay community has noticed:
Then again, maybe you're right; it could be that gays just haven't heard of condoms and once they do, AIDS in the gay community will be eradicated.
You're joking, right?
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 2:47pm.
I lay here wondering why you didn't use links from the CDC. Who am I fooling? I know why-----because your stats are crap. The one link you included sends me to some ultra-conservative family site, and their statistical links send me to-------they send me to the same site. They quote themselves, they quote studies without naming the studies, and no links to the studies. Give me real links with real data. While you're thinking it over mabey you can ponder this--------less than .7% of homosexuals are infected with AIDS each year. Which means the overwhelming majority of homosexuals are practicing safe sex.
I lay here wondering..
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 2:55pm.
Why are you laying down? shouldn't you be sitting up? How can you type laying down..I can't.
That's awful personal
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 3:01pm.
But I'm coming off knee surgery with a bleak mobility outlook.
Sorry 'bout that
Submitted by mandrake on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 3:08pm.
But I've been there. Had my left leg crushed in a car accident..spent 5 months in rehab, but I did learn to walk again. It can be done..so keep an optimistic outlook..that's the key..Again, sorry about that.
Thanks
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 3:16pm.
And wow---------your accident sounds much worse, but great to hear you made a fine return. A torn meniscus was the culprit in my case so I'm off my feet for a while. Getting old sucks.
Apparently- eternal flamer-
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 3:28pm.
you suffer from a similar learning deficiency. The links are the little highlighted words or phrases; in the case of the story I linked to, it's the "blue ones". The second one in from the LifeSiteNews article takes you here. (← that is a "link") Sometimes, a website will link to stories they've done in the past (I'm typing slow, but if you miss any of this, you can have someone read it for you) and it is within those stories that the data links are posted. For example, with just two clicks I was taken here (another link, by the way) where the CDC details the syphilis results. And yet another link took me here. (Yes, that's a link too, also from the CDC. You might note the link to Table 1 contained therein which it notes that 44% of HIV cases from 2001-2004 in 33 states were among homosexual males, even though they make up at best 4% of the male population.)
My stats are crap? Oh no, nancy, if the stats are crap, it's the CDC's stats that are crap.
I also wasn't aware of the politics behid the LifeSiteNews publication; I simply Googled "HIV rate among homosexuals". You've heard of Google, right?
You must forgive him bk, he
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 3:30pm.
You must forgive him bk, he is laying down right now as he is typing. Maybe he is laying face down in the pillow, it's kinda hard to see the screen in that position.
Then again libturds are not exactly know for being all that smart.
Agree to disagree
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 3:56pm.
What are your thoughts on that less than .7% number I noted? Could it be that not all homosexshools are as promiscuous as you believe? Let us compare the promiscuity of homosexuals and incidents of HIV infection with teenage pregnancy statistics just to find out who's sleeping around more---------gays or teenagers.
Teenagers are children.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 4:00pm.
To compare their decision-making to grown men is ridiculous.
But kudos for coming up with a brand new angle. If I were you, I'd email a tip to GLAAD ASAP.
No gays under 18?
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 4:13pm.
I didn't know there was an age restriction. The point is you should worry much more about your teenager getting knocked up than being gay. The numbers are staggering.
That's not what I meant and you know it.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 4:18pm.
But keep trying to convince us how responsible gay men are.
Oops, I meant white gay men. Because HIV was up 50% 2006-2009 among younger black gays.
Well, my teenage son
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 4:51pm.
can't get pregnant. But thankfully he's not gay because his chances of acquiring HIV would be nearly 500% greater.
Promiscuity in general, gay or not is Communist 1950s agend
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 4:15pm.
Promiscuity is not good for the individual or society. Your comparison is useless anyway. A majority of mating couples are "fertile" so of course pregnancy numbers are going to be higher than aids infection rates. This is because much fewer people have aids than are fertile... duh. Thank liberals for the spread of ALL STDs via the promoting the wonders of following your lusts and literally making fun of restraint. Good job in corrupting society. Way to go.
Posted above too but this is part of the Communist plans from the 1950s & later. They are now in place. 6 min. video is a pretty good summary of some of the agenda and how fast things change: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQf_QfitmKE
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Agree to disagree what?
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 4:48pm.
You disagree with the CDC? You're not getting off the hook that easily- you called the stats crap. Now, for the record, do you disagree that the incidents of HIV are far more prevalent among homosexuals than heterosexuals, or not? The CDC says 50 times more likely. That's what we were talking about. I also never said anything about promiscuity- that's your hangup. And granted this is SanFran from a decade ago, but even the SFGate recognized the problem:
The CDC, only a year ago, reported HIV among gay men 44 times more prevalent than straight men, and gay men were 46 times more likely to get syphilis. How does this jive with your less than 1% figure?
Here's a hint- if you're going to use statistics that aren't commonly known, you'll need to back them up with something. My thoughts on your .7% number are that they mean nothing to me based on your say-so alone. You wanted links from me- you got 'em. Where are yours?
You want me to link you back to your own link?
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 4:55pm.
And here I thought you actually read what you posted. ""According to Dr. Lansky, then, based on the 4 percent figure, the CDC estimates that in 2007 there were 692.2 new HIV cases per 100,000 homosexual men""
692.2 of 100,000 is less than .7%. Agreed? And how do you do those cool hyperlinks?
Comprehension issues?
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 5:08pm.
The data, presented at CDC's 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.
The issue isn't percentage of gay men acquiring HIV, it's percentage of gay men acquiring HIV as compared to the number of straight men acquiring HIV. You said: "And AIDS is a result of unprotected sex, not gay sex, not anal sex, not hermaphroditic, not animal." [Emphasis added.] I addressed that and you called the stats from the CDC crap. Are they crap or not?
(Click the orange letters above- it's the second paragraph down so you don't have to put out much effort.)
[Edit- I admit I missed your point on the .7% figure, but only because it had no relation to the discussion; hense my asking where the number came from. I was never looking at the numbers individually and apart from the topic of discussion.]
bkeyser
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 5:15pm.
I brought it up to scale things back to less scary territory. Numbers like 53% and 44% give the impression that a majority of gay men are infected with HIV when it's clearly not true. All of your statistics still relate to less than 1% of the male homosexual population, meaning 99% are living safe, healthy lives. I don't like what the 1% is doing either, but those 1% do not speak for all gay men, and they do not represent all gay men. What they do is scare people into thinking you might catch something if you get close to a homosexual.
Well, I wouldn't bet my life on a rubber.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 5:27pm.
99%: LOL. I bet you avoid gay bars like the plague, right?
Why would I go to a gay bar?
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 6:32pm.
What are you getting at?
"Companionship"?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:12am.
.
One might also surmise
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 5:55pm.
that you brought it up to deflect from the true nature of what those numbers represent. The .7% of new cases per year does not address growth so it does not categorically infer that 99% of homosexuals live free of HIV. Additionally, from the same CDC report:
Now, Merriam Webster defines epidemic as:
You can decide for yourself if the CDC feels the HIV situation among the homosexual community is either contained and largely overblown or if the reasons are simply bad luck or some other sexual-preference-devoid basis; I think there may be more to it, however. I'm no fan of the homosexual lifestyle, but in reality, it has little effect on me personally. Regardless, the numbers are real, the trends are real, and simply denying that promiscuity (often a result of excessive drug use) doesn't exist and isn't debilitating within the community is probably why the community continues to suffer such a tragic outcome.
My deduction
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 6:34pm.
As new patients are infected a similar number die. Balances everything out.
Wow
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 8:28pm.
locking that baby in.
LOVE??
Submitted by Joe W. on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 4:01pm.
What the hell does "love" got to do with it, Thweetie?? I love my dog Sparky...but I don't have sex with him.
AIDS (if that's what you
Submitted by winston smith on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 5:08pm.
AIDS (if that's what you prefer to call it), is a result of unprotected anal sex. Usually with multiple partners. You do remember all the gay men that were dying from diseases back in th 80s don't you? I don't recall a heterosexual "AIDS" epidemic like the one that decimated the gay population (altho' the CDC and other organizations were telling us there was surely going to be one). Why do you think this is? Gay men learned about the dangerous consequences of unprotected anal sex -- the hard way back in the 70s & 80s. Regular anal sex, protected or unprotected is pretty much a game of Russian roulette. There are many nasty little creatures that hide out in the anal areas, bowel pathogens, viruses, fecal matter, and zootics that gay men constantly expose themselves to. This plus the gross practice of 'rimming' put gay men at a much higher risk for contacting very nasty, unforgiving diseases than heterosexuals who don't engage in these practices. Now, hetersexuals who engage in these sexual practices -- especially with high frequency will also contact disease as the level of promiscuity and unprotected risky sex increases. But anal sex and rimming seem to be the favored activities of choice for gay men in high frequency and the special diseases and sicknesses that go along with them.
Then be normal, decent people
Submitted by johnsonl on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 3:46pm.
and shut the hell up about how gay you are. Nobody cares. Really.
Cut the cord, starve the beast
Submitted by DefCon3 on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 1:03pm.
Makes me glad (glaad?) we just cancelled our satellite service. I never liked having LOGO right next to History and History International. I could lock the channel but NOT the *Guide* description of the channel. Amazon and Netflix more than cover our needs saving us some $840 a year. So I get to save money, deny the liberal agenda, and "harm" the economy by not spending - the savings are going to debt payment. Triple win.
Huh.
Submitted by ljacone on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 1:53pm.
I watch ABC Family a lot, and have never gotten a homosexual vibe off of the channel. Of course the only show I watch on it the goofy/cutesy sitcom Melissa and Joey, and then the many family movies they show, including the Harry Potter series, plus personal favorite Sky High.
Ljacone give a read to the Homomsexual's blueprint for
Submitted by lrgon on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 2:43pm.
STRAIGHT AMERICA >>>http://hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2071/The-Overhauling-of-Straight-America.aspx
They are few but well organized and they are making inroads into the culture- a culture that once prided itself as the Bible-based heritage of Judeo Christianity. The churchs are welcoming in homosexuals pastors and the Catholic church's seminaries discontinued for all intents and purposes asking about semarians' sexual proclivities. How can you keep out pedophiles when seminaries have a don't ask don't tell policy just like the US Army used to have?
Even rerun shows like the popular Frazier and Golden Girls had writers creating positive images of the homosexual characters. Lesbianism on Golden Girls was treated just like a page out of Overhauling of Straight America. http://hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/Articl...
Television land is now owned by queerland.
http://hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/Articl...
Credit George Soros and his
Submitted by winston smith on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 3:38pm.
Credit George Soros and his OSI for funding much of the radical Gay agenda in the US over the last 20 years or so. Most of these radical leftwing LGBT groups would never be heard from or even known about if not for Soros and the billions at his disposal to wage a culture war on the family, religion and traditional heterosexual marriage.
My god! Now even beans are
Submitted by Barack Must Go on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 3:46pm.
My god! Now even beans are gay and somebody's got enough of a ' NO LIFE ', they're counting them?
balance
Submitted by Samshile on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 5:37pm.
What about the balance of SNIDE WHITE LIBERAL to CLASSY BLACK CONSERVATIVE?
So is Brent a family values
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 7:17pm.
So is Brent a family values bean counter?