Doug Giles gives it to the gays.

Oh Doug Giles, you are too funny:

Can you imagine if a group of Christians got together and made a photograph advertising their upcoming rally, and in that photo they deliberately went out of their way to tick off homosexuals?

What do you think would happen? Do you think the mainstream media would cover it? Do you think Katie Couric, Chris Matthews, Swill Maher and the other liberal curmudgeons would wade in and condemn the Christians and call ‘em haters…meanies…or…or…something?

Huh. Can you imagine the crazy topsy-turvy world in which Christians would deliberately try to tick of homosexuals? I’m pretty sure Pam writes about it every single day, but because Doug seems to need some extra help, here are but a few examples. And those are just from the past week.

You and I both know these darling duplicitous Christophobic thugs would be on their TV shows screaming anathemas at Christians louder than Yoko Ono would yell if she accidentally knelt on her own breast. They would be on the church like a dog on a June bug. Like Rosie on a case of Twinkies. Like Bill Clinton on Hustler’s 2007 Chunky Intern Issue. We would never hear the end of it.

Wow, Doug Giles is a master of comedy. Yoko Ono has saggy tits! (That is what that joke means, right?). Rosie O’Donnell is fat! Hey, Monica Lewinsky is fat too! Don’t worry folks, he’s here all night.

However, what does the Main Stream Media do when the tables are turned and the queer crowd spits on the Christian community by showing a bunch of S&M/B&D mooks as Christ and his disciples in an advertisement for the foul end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it Folsom Street Fair this weekend? Probably nothing.

And here I thought the radical Christians totally got off on domination and submission.

You remember Da Vinci’s painting of Christ, The Last Supper, don’t cha? Well the Wizards of Odd, yes the marketing crew at Freaks-R-Us, decided it would be cool to market their “Street Fair” by replacing Jesus with some black/gay/S&M dude and then…then…swap the disciples out for a bunch of randy bondage boys and…and…(they weren’t finished)…switch the bread and wine—which represents Christ’s sacrificial body and blood given as a ransom for man’s sin—with a bunch of rubber-fisted dildos, together with a broad selection of other fetish crap made only for the fetid critter.

Fascinating that “black” is as offensive to Doug as “gay” and “S&M.”

As stated, I seriously doubt anti-Christian MSM and their squawking heads will hold the queer nation’s fingers to flame for this. Why, you ask? They love it. Look, anything that will whiz on Christ, goof on God and barf on Christians is completely cool with them.

I just had a mental image of a Very Special Report on CNN, complete with video footage introduced by a Very Serious Anchowoman featuring a gay dude barfing on a Christian. And I’ll admit, I laughed.

Now, I think it’s silly and mean-spirited to attack people for their Christian faith (or any faith). But as Doug is foaming at the mouth about The Last Dildo Supper, he’s crying freedom of speech when cartoonists portray Muslims as terrorists and disrespect their religion. Further, he seems to think that making fun of a really old painting is way worse than denying an entire community of people equal rights.

In other news, Doug Giles hosts talks all over the U.S., called “Doug Giles ProvacaTour Seminars.” The tagline is “Bold. Raw. Outrageous.”

The jokes write themselves sometimes, but I’ll refrain from the gutter-humor.

Similar Posts (automatically generated):

18 comments for “Doug Giles gives it to the gays.

  1. October 1, 2007 at 10:38 am

    So I know that this totally is not the point, but I am SO SICK of people talking shit about Yoko Ono. NOT COOL.

  2. Hector B.
    October 1, 2007 at 11:49 am

    The Catholic League furor over the Folsom Street Fair (and I thought the poster was merely fair (ha) warning to straights of the drag queens and leather daddies to be seen there) really exercised Dan “Savage Love” Savage. So he posted countless renditions of the Last Supper, about which no one had ever complained, here, here and here.

  3. Hawise
    October 1, 2007 at 12:16 pm

    What ever happened to not making idols to bow down to? He’s getting pissed off because someone takes a da Vinci painting in vain. Since the da Vinci Last Supper wouldn’t have looked like the real one, I can hardly see how you can get in a sweat over its misuse unless you think da Vinci still has a copyright on it.

  4. Peanutcat
    October 1, 2007 at 12:33 pm

    I’m in Bizzaro-land, aren’t I? Please tell me I’m in Bizzaro-land . . . . .

  5. October 1, 2007 at 12:38 pm

    I always liked this Last Supper.

    Oh, and Doug Giles strikes me as one of those rabid homophobes who will be later found with a male prostitute smoking meth or propositioning policemen in bathrooms or something.

  6. janie
    October 1, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    not to mention the last supper on the state where louie comes and tries to dip his balls in things…
    i also particularly love eddie izzard’s standup about the last supper where jesus argues with the other apostles about how many of them should get to do “big arms”

  7. micheyd
    October 1, 2007 at 1:33 pm

    The thing that bothers me the most is that Donohue, Giles, et al. have decided that The Last Supper *belongs* to them. It’s a piece of artwork! God forbid (literally) that there be any parody or reinterpretation of something that has historical/cultural meaning to lots of people, non-Christians included.

  8. October 1, 2007 at 2:04 pm

    Wow, Doug Giles is a master of comedy. Yoko Ono has saggy tits! (That is what that joke means, right?).

    Historic note: They’ve been saying this about Yoko since the infamous (naked) album cover “Two Virgins”–everyone was SO shocked that the most famous man in the world (more famous than Jesus, as he quite accurately reminded everybody), would pick, you know, an ordinary-looking woman with ordinary postpartum breasts. They hollered and screamed over her boobs. It was a *scandal* that a Beatle chose a real woman over a centerfold, when he might have had any woman in the world.

    Can’t believe they are still talking about Yoko’s titties. I mean, come on, how old is she now???? Is there NO TIME in a woman’s life we finally get a break?

    (And BTW, now you know why we all loved John so much, among so many other reasons.)

  9. meggygurl
    October 1, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    Shh… no one tell him that Da Vinci was a BIG OL’ FAGGOT. He might cry from the gays protraying Jesus.

    Does he realize that it’s just a paiting, it’s not like, a picture of the actual last supper. I really doubt that all 13 dudes really sat on the same side of the table anyway. Even me and my girlfriend don’t do that when we go out to eat. You can’t talk that way. :D

  10. ElleBeMe
    October 1, 2007 at 3:02 pm

    Did anyone else catch this wee gem of hillarity?

    Y’know…even in my drunkest and drugged-out partying pre-Christ days when I was a very bad guy, I was always afraid, as messed up as I was, of personally attacking God, Christ and sincere Christians. But that was just me. Hardcore blasphemy doesn’t seem to bother this gay bunch much. But I digress.

    So since he was “a very bad guy” in his youth, he’s upset now that these people are getting away with what it appears he was too cowardly to do?

    Anyone else hear a whine of “It’s not FAIR!!!!!!!!!”?

    And even funnier is how he tries to impress upon his readers that although he was a “very bad guy” he was never really that much of a bad guy for wanting to be expressive like the patrons of this parade?

    I swear – I never know when gay pride parades take place until the next day when the XRWNJ media covers them….they seem to patronize them quite often.

  11. SunlessNick
    October 1, 2007 at 3:14 pm

    They also look a bit white to have been the real Jesus and entourage.

  12. CBrachyrhynchos
    October 1, 2007 at 3:54 pm

    There are even more than a few conspiracy theories which state that not only was Leonardo gay, but he was a bit of a freethinking heretic who inserted a bunch of coded anti-Catholic jokes into his works.

  13. Mme. Termagant
    October 1, 2007 at 4:26 pm

    What in hell is the league so pissed off about? The whole fricking history of Christian Painting is defined by iconic images fetishizing Holy Naked Man Flesh.

    And guess what? This stuff was created by big ass Renaissance art stars who were gay gay gay; for their like-minded patrons: gay popes and princes.

    Want some nice BDSM porn? Just ring up your local artist and ask for a nice painted order of scantily clad St. Sebastian, tied up and pierced by arrows. Gotta go even higher up to the man himself? Christ on the cross, of course. Check out those piercings!

    Or how about some steamy old testament scenes on the ceiling of the biggest gay bathhouse in Europe, il Vaticano. Ever gotten a load of the Ignudi? Those handsome 18-year old painted sprites writhing and twisting around holding up the architecture?

    Christians (and Catholics in particular) have gotten off on this stuff for half a millennium , all the while passing it off as chaste and devotional. Right.

  14. piny
    October 1, 2007 at 4:36 pm

    You know what irritates me about this? I mean, among many many other things? Most famous European paintings are full of religious iconography, because hello theocracy! Saying that we can´t riff on Catholic artwork–the Last Supper, the Sistine Chapel ceiling–is like saying that we can´t reference most of the art we´re familiar with.

  15. October 1, 2007 at 5:59 pm

    On behalf of guys named Doug everywhere, I apologize for Doug Giles. Seriously, after Flutie, Williams, MacArthur and E. Fresh, we thought we were doing pretty well there, but I guess we got cocky and accidentally let a total dillwipe into the ranks. Just so you know, he didn’t get the idea for his Dennis-Miller-if-he-were-a-right-wing-fundie schtick from us; we’re currently petitioning the High Council for excommunication and a name change to “Dick” or “Bruce.”

    Thank you for your patience and understanding.

  16. Johnny
    October 1, 2007 at 8:21 pm

    Doug Giles always creeps me out, but I find a creepy similarity between his arguments and the arguments against publishing certain cartoons “mocking” Mohammad a while back across the “pond”. Although he is wording it differently, if someone believed that the those editorial cartoons were inappropriate, shouldn’t the Folsom ad be wrong too?

    I found myself disagreeing with conventional progressive reasoning then, and this dust up just seems to confirm what I believed then.

    Freedom to mock always trumps freedom to not be mocked for me. I was amused by the ad, but I was amused by the cartoons too.

    But it puts me in a difficult position, being forced to lump some of my fav folks in the same boat as Mr. Giles. But there it is, freedom of expression has to flow all ways for me. Which I guess is the reason I knew after the “cartoon” issue, I would never make a good progressive, and would have to stick to just being a liberal.

  17. Alana
    October 2, 2007 at 5:50 am

    What disturbs me most is that I just finished reading your USC NiceGuy’s essay, and Doug Giles’ piece is just as badly over-written. Is this dude also a college sophomore?

    And please, for the sake of my bleeding eyes, can’t you find some literate assholes to mock, Jill?

    (Oh, and I totally thought he was being tongue-in-cheek until I read past the first block quote. A Christian rally with anti-gay posters? Can you imagine?!)

Comments are closed.