One is from a right-wing group called America's Survival. America's Survival is led by Cliff Kincaid, head of the right-wing group Accuracy In Media. Kincaid and AIM has a long history of smearing the gay community.
Earlier this year, AIM was forced to retract a story on its web page which inaccurately accused Obama appointee Kevin Jennings of being a pedophile.
And Kincaid is probably one of the only few people in this country who openly defends Uganda's anti-gay bill including the part about the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality."
Now listen to the testimony of Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, who was the first American to be wounded in war in Iraq. On March 21, 2003 Alva stepped on a landmine, sustaining heavy injuries to his leg:
In regards to the DADT repeal, whose corner should we be in? People like Alva, an openly gay man who sacrificed his body for this country . . . or people like Kincaid who has no problem stooping to the lowest common denominator, i.e. lies and fear stories?
The answer should be clear, but it never ceases to amaze me as to how so many folks tend to complicate a simple issue.
Related posts:
Family Research Council pushes bogus report supporting DADT
Cliff Kincaid's International Gay-Bashing
Cliff Kincaid: Outcry against Ugandan bill a conspiracy to save Kevin Jennings
2 comments:
Wow. Just...wow. I'm surprised they didn't bring up gerbil-stuffing. They might as well have. And seriously-KLINGER? They actually brought up someone who was A.) fictional, and B.)Heterosexual and C.) trying to get kicked OUT of the army. Are they implying that if they lift the ban on Gays in the military, people won't be able to AVOID military service by claiming to be gay? Because that's the only thing bringing up the character could imply. (Oh, and he was a corporal, not a sergeant.)
And the stuff on HIV is incredibly misleading, in that it's not only implied that all gay men are infected, and implied that ONLY gay men are infected-it's even more absurd, in that they're saying OPENLY gay men will increase the risk of exposure to HIV. Isn't it more likely that CLOSETED gay men pose a greater risk?
And, if I've done the math correctly, the story reported about a gay marine who knowingly infected a teenager-this happened 14 years ago, right? Isn't that what they said IN THIS VIDEO-that it hsppened in 1996?
One more thing: the level of bigotry and paranoia in this is so extreme that, taken its logical conclusion, we'd have to assume they believe that if you encounter any male with an open wound, you should simply refuse to offer assistance, or else risk death yourself.
Post a Comment