I guess THAT'S why they're falsely proud.
But to censor and shut down a Christian radio station for pointing out that these people are getting away with this... is INTOLERANT. Never would they ever dare censor a gay radio station for complaining that a Christian got to break the law.
And violates the Christian's human rights.
Forbidding gays from being naked in public will not violate their rights. So why not treat them like everyone else, which is what they CLAIM to want? Arrest them whenever they display their genitalia in public.
Do YOU want to be walking on the street and suddenly come face-to-face with a cluster of ugly, wrinkly, mottled, gravity-ravaged old urinary-reproductive junk swaying in the wind?
Tell me, now... is THIS "progressive"? HOW the bloody hell can it possibly have anything to do with "progress", unless we radically distort and twist the meaning of the word "progress"?
1 comment:
The "metro-sexual" Jonathan Kay fails to be offended. Scandalized by the inequity of freedom of speech, his published photos are from the rear.
Not what the child saw.
He knows public nudity is offensive yet excuses it because of the nature of the parade; clearly supporting one double standard while rejecting another as it is convenient.
The child, cringing, guided by the hand of an adult.
The Horror
We think we know but...
What ghastly image does he see?
Did it just drip?
Is it smeared with excrement...
Festering with emergent fly larva?
The Horror
Would that be unacceptable...at a parade... for Mr. K? Would his face then contort like an innocent five year old? Perhaps not.
While I can applaud his defense and careful contextualization of McVety's statements, I find it interesting he redundantly noted that McVety's ministry was evangelical, and took measure to maintain that he was not offended by the public nudity, in its context, a Gay parade.
Metro-sexual, translation: effed-up.
Post a Comment