Ford: Why stop at homosexuality when you can form a Menage a trois
Did you think that boycotting Ford over their advertisement and promotion of homosexuality was a little over the top? Were you thinking, perhaps, that the boycott was simply sponsored by wild-eyed Christian homophobes? Check again:
You Will Absolutely Not Believe What Ford Has Done Now
Ford's magazine sponsorship now includes promotion of repugnant activity
When Ford responds to those who write concerning their promotion of homosexual marriage, the response they get from Ford's Customer Relationship Center says their support "is a strong commitment we intend to carry forward with no exception." For Ford, that support also includes homosexual polygamy.
To show those supporting traditional marriage they mean business, Ford sponsored the June 6 issue of the homosexual publication The Advocate. The cover reads: "Polygamy & Gay Men. Dirty laundry or sexual freedom? How gay men handle multiple partners." The article promotes homosexual polygamy.
Ford sponsored the publication with a full page back cover advertising Ford Motor company product Volvo and a full page ad for all Ford brands with the line: "Ford Motor Company. Standing strong with America's families and communities."
Ford's support for the magazine's promotion of homosexual polygamy leaves no doubt that Ford means to continue pushing the homosexual agenda, even including homosexual polygamy.
To see the front cover, the contents page and the ads for Ford and Volvo, click here. I must warn you, it will be offensive to many. The pages show the contents of the magazine which Ford helped sponsor with two full-page ads, but I felt we must include the proof. If you don't want to see it, please don't click the link.
At their stockholders meeting on May 11, Ford voted 95% of the ballots cast to continue their support of the homosexual agenda rather than be neutral in the cultural battle.
The letter posted above is an American Family Association action alert. If you feel that Ford is abandoning your values, check out www.boycottford.com
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/25 @ 04:25 PM — (Reply)
When I realized Dayna was having twins I had to get a minivan - and I found this real old couple with a garage kept afFord Winstar with low mileage... I knew better - but I bought it - and it's been the biggest peice of sh*t I've ever owned. I've spent more repairing it than I bought it for. I just hope I can trade it in before something else explodes on it. Never again. F.ound O.n R.oad D.ead. Apparently sodomites can't make cars.
Comment by Dugg— 2006/05/25 @ 07:34 PM — (Reply)
Our Ford sucks! We only keep it because we can't get anyone else to take it.
For future reference - the Honda Odyssey is exceptional.
Comment by Cate— 2006/05/25 @ 07:42 PM — (Reply)
Don't even get me started on Chrysler products.
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/05/25 @ 07:48 PM — (Reply)
Fix
Or
Repair
Daily
A Ford minivan: Plenty of space for all of your gay poligymist hubbies!
Comment by Brooke— 2006/05/26 @ 11:50 AM — (Reply)
Comment by whois— 2006/05/30 @ 03:17 PM — (Reply)
I'm sick of the word "homosexual agenda". There is no such as a "homosexual agenda", just as there's no such thing as the "heterosexual agenda". Saying that a group of people who don't exactly have the emotional capacities for opposite sex as you do have an agenda is, quite frankly, idiotic.
What agenda does someone have other than wanting equality? what agenda does someone who wants love have other than wanting the same freedoms as you yourself have? And what right do you have to regulate the freedom of what a gay man or woman does?
The fact is that in "gay marriage" there shouldn't even be a dispute. It's people refusing to believe that OHMYGOODNESS! some people might not be attracted to the same sex as you. Would you expect someone to only like blondes? Or only like brunettes? No. So why are we limiting ourselves to "sex" instead of just limiting ourselves to love? It's horrible how someone who wants to honor a lifelong commitment with a partner can't because other people don't seem to want to honor love as love. How would you feel if your loved one died, but you couldn't see them nor could you take care of them?
And by the way, the reason you don't see a lot of LGBT "families" is because it's so hard for people to adopt due to narrow minds who refuse to admit some people are different from society's cute little definitions of "normal".
And goodness, I'm sick of the "sodomites" references and the fact that people pick and choose what they want to believe instead of thoroughly reading and researching the Bible.
Comment by ugh— 2007/04/29 @ 07:38 PM — (Reply)
Quite simply. You are mistaken. There are groups with the specific agenda of promoting the normalization of homosexuality just as there are groups who promote the values of traditional families.
Activism by pro-gay groups is widely known, documented and (in Ford's case) embraced.
P.S. You need to speak to your therapist about "projection". There are no references here to sodomites or even the Bible.
Comment by Cate— 2007/04/30 @ 05:33 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/05/01 @ 05:59 PM — (Reply)
"P.S. You need to speak to your therapist about 'projection'. There are no references here to sodomites or even the Bible."
Um, Cate? There ARE references here to sodomites. On 2006/05/25 (a year ago, giving you plenty of time to know this), Dugg wrote, "Apparently sodomites can't make cars."
Does that not count?
Also, I find it interesting that part of your mission is as a "true humanitarianism...leading man away from his baser behaviors" yet you let someone leave a comment like this: "Pardon the vulgaity-----F.ags O.wn R. usty D. i_ks----sounds like a FORD to me!" without saying anything about it.
Yes, it was meant to be funny but it was still incredibly rude and vulgar (even the author admits so). But I guess some "baser behaviors" are OK to you and some aren't?
Comment by Actually...— 2007/05/07 @ 06:53 PM — (Reply)
I took your comments as a response to the post not as a response to Dugg. My mistake.
As for the other comment - consider it deleted.
But since you are keenly aware of my bio - perhaps you'll also notice that blogging is not my day job and I catch what I can but not everything and this post faded into oblivion for me a year ago. That other commenters have revived it is what brought your comment to my attention. You will notice that I abandonded the thread before the offensive comment was posted. You may want to rethink your assumption that I would condone that kind of language. The only time I've even used the "D" word is when it's followed by "and Jane" during a reading lesson.
So while I was mistaken on some counts, I'll accept your apology in advance for your error in judging my character.
Comment by Cate— 2007/05/07 @ 07:30 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/04/30 @ 05:43 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/04/30 @ 06:31 AM — (Reply)
Are you saying that in vitro fertilization is part of the "homosexual agenda"?
Comment by Michael— 2007/05/01 @ 01:51 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/05/01 @ 02:42 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/05/01 @ 02:50 PM — (Reply)
Little did I realize it was just a prelude to sleeping with farm animals.
Comment by Michael— 2007/05/02 @ 09:11 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/05/02 @ 09:14 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/05/02 @ 09:18 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/05/02 @ 04:25 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/05/02 @ 06:11 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/05/02 @ 06:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/05/02 @ 06:19 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/05/02 @ 06:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/05/02 @ 06:51 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/05/02 @ 06:52 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/05/02 @ 06:53 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/05/03 @ 12:08 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ernie Els— 2007/05/02 @ 07:14 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/05/02 @ 07:48 PM — (Reply)
What do I think of cloning aza?? I'm against it. He is unique enough- we don't need to add any more folks with his unique perspective.
Comment by Michael— 2007/05/03 @ 11:43 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/05/03 @ 11:50 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/05/02 @ 07:56 PM — (Reply)
But semi-seriously...
Cloning animals, I've got next to qualms with. We've been selectively breeding animals for centuries to improve certain qualities that are desirable, or weed out those that are undesirable. Seems to me that replicating a near duplicate copy of an animal is only a logical extension of that process.
We've been cloning plants for centuries, except noone calls it that. Every seedless navel orange sold in a grocery market is genetically identical to the original freak of nature that produced a seedless orange. Cuttings have been taken repeatedly and grafted onto rootstock and spread far and wide for decades. That's the only way seedless oranges CAN reproduce- they don't produce seeds, after all.
My only slight hesitation is in ensuring a diversity of the gene pool. A herd of genetically identical sheep are likely to be more vulnerable to some unexpected disease. If there isn't some effort to maintain a diversity, it's possible, perhaps even inevitable, that some disease would come through and wipe out entire species. Take a look at the history of bananas for an example- the specific type of banana we commonly eat (Cavendish) is sterile (like the navel oranges). Right now, that cultivar is seriously threatened by two diseases, and it's possible (though disputed) that it will be wiped out in 10-15 years. In the 60's, a cultivar of banana (Gros Michel) WAS wiped out by a disease- which is why bananas today are not the same kind of bananas your parents ate as kids.
Cloning humans is another matter entirely. I think it is the epitome of arrogance to even contemplate cloning an entire person. I can't say I think it'd be a moral wrong, provided that the child created were raised and treated just as any other child would, but I think it'd be utterly beyond unnecessary and borderline crazy. Not the first medical procedure I would hold that opinion of.
So, in a hypothetical situation- I have no more moral qualms about cloning a human than I would about in vitro fertilization. I can't see it ever being necessary or even desirable, so I wouldn't be in a rush to legalize it. If it were legal, it would be imperative that the person born from such a procedure be treated no differently than any other child would, and as an adult, would be treated without any distinctions as well.
There is an aspect of cloning that honestly I see as being more useful, and potentially more grim. That would be selective organ development for replacement. As far as I know, the technology does not exist currently, and is WAY off in the foreseeable future, but the potential of developing a kidney that could be replaced without any need for rejection drugs, or a heart or any of a number of lungs- the potential uses of that technology is, in part, what spurs stem cell research as well.
I would be adamantly opposed to cloning someone to exist simply for organ harvesting (a la "The Island"), because our society hinges on the notion of autonomy of personhood. But if, through cloning, a zygote might be affected to develop only in a certain path... only to create a liver, for example, that would be a challenge for me to judge upon. Clearly an organ is not a person, nor two or three. But at some point, a finite collection of does become a person... that's when things get really fuzzy for me.
Anyway, that's my two cents, whether it makes us a species of "GIRLIE MEN" or not.
Comment by Michael— 2007/05/03 @ 12:29 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/05/03 @ 03:18 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/05/03 @ 06:32 PM — (Reply)
Isn't every car in NASCAR roughly identical in terms of performance? Supposedly there is still drama in watching the drivers run circles despite the cars being about the same. Heck, perhaps one future of horse-racing is to have EVERY jockey riding the same cloned horse. Then you're just looking at rider skill versus rider skill, eh?
Ronde and Tiki Barber are identical twins, and while both are NFL-quality players, they haven't had identical careers. Mary-Kate and Ashley have certainly paralled each other, even those near-clones are not quite carbon copies.
There are so many intangibles to human development that I don't think you need to worry about twin jockeys.
Comment by Michael— 2007/05/07 @ 10:38 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/05/07 @ 11:12 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/05/07 @ 07:09 PM — (Reply)