When a "news source" includes an article entitled "Fat Lesbians on Crack," that's a pretty good initial clue that you probably aren't going to find accurate, legit, or honest information within the article. Thus, there are two, and only two things worth noting about an article with that very headline written by conservative commentator (and Professor at University of North Carolina-Wilmington) Mike S. Adams, who seems to be pining for some sort of Ann-Coulter-Asinine-for-Attention Award.
One, the actual topic of his article has nothing to do with "fat lesbians on crack." The good professor briefly mentions obesity and then crack cocaine, but the real topic is a rant about how gay people are so intolerant for not tolerating intolerance of themselves in a health care setting. Perhaps Adams thinks he is being clever or funny. And hey, maybe this sort of schoolyard "humor" does pass for "wit" among the anti-gay crowd. In my opinion, though, the professor is acting more like a bratty child who calls people names on the internets just because he can get away with it. Yes, technically, writers can use whatever headlines they want on their articles. But it's generally accepted in the world of journalism that a headline indicates the nature of the article below it. That's not a law, of course. So maybe Adams breaks with standard practice just because he can. Heck, maybe this "creative" man is pioneering a new conservative avant-garde movement or something.
That brings me to point two about his "article." When it comes to journalism and ethics, OneNewsNow has a tendency to make up its own rules. The purpose of this "news source" is not to inform, but to sensationalize and distort truth in order to promote its Christianist anti-gay agenda. OneNewsNow is sort of a hellmouth of rightwing propaganda whose very "journalists" automatically discredit themselves solely by virtue of the fact that they post there. What credible news source would condone the use of such an utterly irrelevant headline?
G-A-Y wonders if the headline "is intentionally over-the-top in hopes that it'll prove provocative." Perhaps. It's clear that after reading the provocative headline and being drawn into the story you see that it is essentially more of the same ol' Christian Persecution Complex schtick we can expect from this crowd. Maybe they believe that if they can draw enough people in, more will start agreeing with their old-hat arguments. Like, if we hear the "gays are going to get us" scare-argument a couple more times, we just might start believing it! A lie told often enough, after all, becomes truth, right?
Or, perhaps this is all a bit more benign. Maybe OneNewsNow and Mike S. Adams just don't know that headlines are typically used to indicate the content of the related article. Honestly, I don't know which is worse. An intentionally dishonest writer or a bleeting, ignorant man who has a platform.