« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

When protesting a measure that is all about human lives and violent attacks upon the same (no matter how much you overlook that meritorious point), it's probably best to stay away from imagery that looks very close to a portrait of a human falling back into a pool of his or her own fluids:

Because while it might be easy for you all, per your fear-mongery wont, to see someone who's slipping on the sneaky ice of liberalism, some of us can't help but see an LGBT person who's been pushed for no other reason than the dangerous, hurtful, stigmatizing messages that tell society that his or her life and the protection thereof constitute some sort of "slippery slope." What can we say? Guess we've just had one two many friends who've mysteriously "slipped." Yours in firm but fair "culture war" challenges, Good As You

Well, at least they didn't put a target on him. Nor did they show the actual fatal blow, or blood splattering. We know that they "target" this kind of imagery at people who they also mislead into believing that hate crimes legislation has nothing to do with violence. But you have to wonder if they also, subliminally maybe, expect that at least some of us who see it will take it as something of a threat. Or worse, a bad joke.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jul 17, 2009 8:32:03 PM

This is really strange. "Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy - I have absolutely no clue as to what these retards are implying here.

Posted by: Dale | Jul 19, 2009 3:25:45 PM

Is there a secret gay mole graphic designer working for the far right groups in this country? First the "call 2 fall" blowjob stickfigure and now this...

And is there any accountability by their followers, or by those of us that oppose this fraud? The Call2Fall was supposed to involve 8 million "Christians" and bring about a U.S. "revival" and somehow encourage God to intervene in our politics. Um, that was back on July 4 and as far as I know the only thing that intervened was Tony Perkins' hand in lots of people's wallets.

And this sloppy "slippery slope" argument, can we go back and do a little research on the other times it was used to try to deny us everything from the ability to have sex in private with our husband (a slippery slope to "man-on-dog"!) to not having our children taken away from us because we're gay (a slippery slope to recruiting for NAMBLA!)? This lack of historical knowledge is my pet peeve, and I think a great idea for documentary. History is blindingly clear about how wrong these statements have been and continue to be, in reference to LGBTs and other repressed groups. One of us ought to lay it out. Any takers, G-A-Y 'ers?