Apparently an Arizona family is being terrorized in their own home by a bunch of bigoted thugs (and have received little support or help from the local police) because the household is comprised of a gay couple and their four children. It’s fascinating to me how the “news” media has covered this story: while I suppose (or at least I hope) the reporter was well-intentioned, it’s interesting that he chose to characterize the couple as a “peaceful, well-to-do gay couple” with “four adopted children, one of whom is special needs and in a wheel chair.”  To me, the wording suggests that if the couple wasn’t peaceful or well-to-do, somehow they would deserve the harassment. And why is it that every time that the children of gay families are mentioned, they must always been qualified as either “adopted” or via “surrogacy?” I doubt “news” reporters would apply the same rule to non-gay couples. I can’t remember the last time the way that a non-gay couple had their children was relevant to a news story that was completely unrelated to adoption or surrogacy. Also, is it wrong that I’m much more interested in the “Sex for Hamburger” story in the Rundown than the “Gay Couple Targeted” story? h/t to the always interesting abaldwin360 for posting the story.

Apparently an Arizona family is being terrorized in their own home by a bunch of bigoted thugs (and have received little support or help from the local police) because the household is comprised of a gay couple and their four children. It’s fascinating to me how the “news” media has covered this story: while I suppose (or at least I hope) the reporter was well-intentioned, it’s interesting that he chose to characterize the couple as a “peaceful, well-to-do gay couple” with “four adopted children, one of whom is special needs and in a wheel chair.” 

To me, the wording suggests that if the couple wasn’t peaceful or well-to-do, somehow they would deserve the harassment. And why is it that every time that the children of gay families are mentioned, they must always been qualified as either “adopted” or via “surrogacy?” I doubt “news” reporters would apply the same rule to non-gay couples. I can’t remember the last time the way that a non-gay couple had their children was relevant to a news story that was completely unrelated to adoption or surrogacy.

Also, is it wrong that I’m much more interested in the “Sex for Hamburger” story in the Rundown than the “Gay Couple Targeted” story?

h/t to the always interesting abaldwin360 for posting the story.

  1. electradaddy said: Preach! When total strangers ask if we adopted or used surrogacy, I’ll sometimes say we each birthed one. That really confuses them as they tend to think I’m serious and that it’s some new medical technique that they haven’t heard about.
  2. prisonerofthemoment reblogged this from lazydad
  3. oxymoronicromantic reblogged this from lazydad
  4. socalcrunch reblogged this from lazydad and added:
    I feel a little bit different about the wording. As someone who’s worked with media, I know that the proper wording is...
  5. thegenesofmadmen said: As a child of gay parents in AZ, this is nothing really abnormal. 12 News is awful, along with most of our local news stations. Objective reporting has been thrown out the window and replaced by yellow journalism with a professional spin.
  6. mywildloves said: If the news wants to know how my son was conceived, you can tell them I was on top.
  7. myrappername reblogged this from lazydad
  8. punkdad said: The community should rally a neighborhood watch or they are just as guilty
  9. lazydad posted this
blog comments powered by Disqus