Ridiculous Anti–Gay-Marriage Ad
 

~~~~~

lame. that's the only word that comes to mind.

This is the result of a successful anti-homosexual campaign in California for Prop 8. If it works here in liberal California, they think it can work anywhere.

It's not enough to make fun of the videos online. We need to counter this hate-filled garbage. I'm sick of the homophobes controlling the conversation.

Religion: stifling human progress since some supernatural deity voice-activated the universe.

I am a Maryland lawyer, cackling at the prospect of this issue generating hundreds of billable hours.

I've got an idea for an ad.

Something about how you said that makes me really happy. I wanna hear about it on TFP a couple of years from now. And it's not just because you're a lawyer that can drive a carbine well, but because it'll be a case of the law telling religious types to relax.

OK, I'm stumped...why would someone have to choose between their faith and their job if someone they don't know gets married?

Man, this is really stupid......it's sad people actually think this way. Sadder still that they had to hire actors.

Yeah, the hired actors thing could be used to answer an age old question: How much money does it take to turn somebody into a douchebag?

...

Ugh, that and the whole "STORM IS COMING" thing reminds me of the bit at the end of the first Terminator movie.

Perhaps homosexuals are actually cybernetic organisms: living human tissue over sunshinerainbowfabulousdirtyfamilyvaluescorruption.

:P

Yeah, this is bullshit. One of those things I'll never have an opinion about, never ever think about ever again. Now, how to teach my kids to be how to ignore stupid shit like this.

Ohh god, not only was this so excellent, I would have loved to be the one who said this!!!

KirStang you lucky bastard!!!

when someone comes up with an answer for this, we immediately need to set a cap on politicians salaries.

My position on gay marriage is this:

Any church has the right to decide it's moral position. If a church chooses not to offer itself as open to certain people they have an absolute right to do that in my opinion. For example, the catholic church SHOULD be allowed to discriminate against women, and the Christian and Muslim churches in general SHOULD be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals - but only insofar as the rightful sphere of religious influence and within the law of the state.

The state has NO right to discriminate against its citizens on the basis of gender, race or sexuality. If a legal status if afforded to the "marriage" of a heterosexual the same right must be according a homosexual. Any other position is a violation of human rights. In the world we have to deal with all kinds of states, but we need to strongly consider if rougue states do wish to abuse the human rights of their homosexual citizens, whether they can be allowed to be members of things like G20, The UN Security Council, etc.

So basically I couldnt get care less if these people dont want to let a certain individual into their church, but there is no possbility that their irrational prejudice can be allowed to influance the policy of the state.

"The storm is coming....DUN DUN DUN DUN!"

yeah, and?

very sad, ignorant people.

Now I watched the thing it is quite amusing.

"My freedom will be taken away..." haha

like the man said, "there is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action..."

1990s -- "They're taking our JORBS!"

Today -- "They're destroying MARRUDGE!"

* * * * *

People fear change. The morally reprehensible react in ways that appall the rest of us. From hate/fear campaigns to genocide, we mustn't let it get in the way of our continuing to learn and understand who we really are and how we should live.

"We come together in love...."

Bullshit.

Jesus is rolling in his grave.

So did my two bisexual wives and I, last time we all had sex together. :thumbsup:

At least you're being honest about it. :)

Actually, I'm lying. We all came separately. Imagine a three-way simultaneous orgasm, though! Something to practice toward, to be sure.

...so that was the storm that was a-comin'.

There definitely is something wrong with me ... whenever I read rat's posts, I can't help but think, "they must have a big-ass bed"!!!!

King-size, baby.

You rat bastard!

Actually I don't know whether to be jealous or feel sorry for you.

Seriously from the sounds of it you're all very happy and jealously never got me any where but down. So I'll settle for being happy for the three of you.

I am tempted to send one dollar to "2M4M" and ask for a list of available guys in my area. But I'd hate to give these douches even a buck.

IIRC, he did refer to marriage in strictly heterosexual terms. And he said he came to fulfill scripture.

"So we aren't supposed to eat shellfish?"

"No, that's different."

It's certainly not clearcut, but I don't think it's a shabby argument to say that Jesus didn't mention homosexuality because the OT had already done that for him and he didn't have anything to add on that subject.

He talked about sodomy, but never homosexuality (sodomy is much more a vague blanket term). He was friggin serious about divorce, though. Crazy serious.

You seem to know a lot about sodomy.

Wow! That's amazing you know what Jesus was thinking when he decided what issues to address and not address in regards to the OT. Fascinating, simply fascinating.

---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:21 PM ----------


Doesn't everyone?

I think what they are talking about is this... In my state the government recently said that gay marriage is now legal. The problem is that that a couple years ago there was an item on the balot to legalize gay marriage. The no votes were at 80% and the government didn't like the outcome so they just went ahead and ignored the majority. What happens when the government decides that freedom of speech should be restricted too? You may say that this is comparing apples with oranges but once the government decides it can just ignore the majority whenever it doesn't like what it's saying we are really in trouble. I feel that this is happening now.

I could care less if two guys want to get married. I do care that the government feels that they can ignore what the people demand. After all this country is a country of the people for the people.

This is interesting, Dibbler. Do you not think there is also such thing as a tyranny of the majority?

What if the majority of voters didn't want to grant women suffrage? Congress granted them that privilege by passing the Nineteenth Amendment in the '20s. What if 80% of the public voters (i.e. males) voted against that? Would it have been okay today to continue to deny women the right to vote based on that?

It's completely unfascinating that someone with poor reading comprehension happened upon my post.

I didn't claim knowledge. I said that it wasn't a terrible theory.

---------- Post added at 12:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 AM ----------

You say that as if you disagree with something in my post. I don't deny that homosexuality itself wasn't a topic for Jesus. That wasn't my claim.

I guess that's what re-election is for, right? If that 80% is still around (which is unlikely, frankly--attitudes have been changing REAL fast in the last few years), then they'll be able to yank their incumbents and put people in who can better execute their will.

Thing is, I can't imagine the people currently in office haven't thought this through. Their jobs are on the line, after all. They must feel they've got the public at their back. This is why you don't get activist legislatures--the process of re-election holds them accountable to their constituencies.

WOW!!! The Old Testament existed in Jesus' time? Really????

The Old Testament is not the Torah and Tal Muhd ( I should really look up the spelling), and vice versa. There is verbage in the NT that implicates that us gentiles shouldn't apply the old law to ourselves, as that was for the Jews........

Not implying that the NT says that homosexuality is right, either, but the laws of our land shouldn't be dictated by a specific religion.

I don't get it. This ad is fairly tame. They weren't advocating a "stick'em in gas chambers approach". More just a stay out of my business sort of thing.

Hell, there wasn't really any, "Gay marriage is wrong and should be stopped" bits.

I think sodomy is still illegal in the UK, although homosexuality obviously isnt.

Gotta love scare tactics....and fallacious arguments.

Don't you think the "storm is coming" is a bit ominous? I don't think they'd want to bring gay and lesbian pairs onto their ark.

Yeah, at the end of the day hate speech is hate speech - whether you smile or howl at the moon while doing it.

That certainly wasn't hate speech. They were neither suggesting nor condoning violence against homosexuals and same-sex couples.

Now we could argue for days about whether the omnous title is bad or not. But I'd rather focus on something else about the video. One parent in the video remarks that gay marriage advocates are fighting for (or have succeede in getting) gay marriage as a positive taught in schools.

I don't care whether they have succeeded or not. What I wonder is if the wonderful TFP folks think it is okay for certain morals to be taught to our children in the public school system? Should the public school be in the business of tellng us what is right or wrong (morally)?

You think that morality has no place in education?

Should the history of slavery be taught as value neutral - a simple economic reality?

Ethics have a place in education. The social contract has a place in education. Morality can get a little gray. I believe that homosexuals and trans-gendered individuals should absolutely, positively have the same rights as anyone else. But it doesn't stop there. I think everyone that voted yes on 8 committed a hate crime. This particular viewpoint is my own and likely has no place in public schools.