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.

I find the idea that human rights should not be taught in a positive way in state schools really strange.

I thought America was founded on equality of opportunity, isnt something like that even the first statement of the constitution of the new state of America?

The obvious conclusion is that to these people, gays aren't human.

Schools have an obligation to teach ethics and critical thinking skills so that the opinions students reach are their own in addition to being well-informed and well-formed.

The ad is disgusting. They don't actually address any of what these heterosexuals claim they would lose. What would they lose, precisely? Their social standing as the accepted majority? I'm hard pressed to think of a single thing beyond that, and I don't see that as a valid reason to wish to deny someone else their basic human rights.

I think so, which is why I called it hate speech.

As I said, you dont need to howl at the moon or demand "round them all up and throw them in concentration camps" to qualify as hate speech. Instead creating the impression of something that is foul, that is other, that is against God and decency... can be equally hateful.

I personally would qualify the expression of a number of people "they are going to take away my freedom" on that video as hateful.

Whether these people like it or not, a number of kids that are going through education already will know that they are gay or bisexual, which is why it is important not to promote homosexuality as superior to heterosexualty (which no one is asking for or "advocating" for) - but to at least say that they are equally valid expressions of human experience, love, and sexuality.

So you're not claiming knowledge, just that you don't think "it's a shabby argument" what his motives or thinking was... fascinating, got it.

I agree that schools should be teaching critical thinking skills, but would it not be the job of parents to teach ethics/morality?

---------- Post added at 03:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:36 PM ----------

i'm glad you've stated that this was your own viewpoint, but I think that it's a bit extreme.

Schools (teachers) spend more time out of the home with children in social environments than parents could ever dream of. Both schools and parents should have the responsibility of teaching ethics/morality. I'd say schools have a bigger responsibility because of the time and impact they have.

This includes teaching about homosexuality in sex education.

No, if you really can't see a difference between "I know this" and "This is a viable theory", then you really haven't 'got it'.

I understand that and it's okay. It's motivated at least in some part by my emotions; it's not a wholly rational conclusion. It's not unlike the hatred and bigotry towards homosexuals from the homophobes, I suppose, only I'd never dream of removing their rights because of their beliefs, backwards as I might believe them to be.

Like I said, it's not clear-cut. I don't really understand your objection to my post.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't arguing that.

I said-

So if I changed "you don't think "it's a shabby argument" to "a viable theory" then would I have it?

No.

edit: which is to say that there's a sizable difference between those two things, also, that you're not recognizing.

There is? Ok, if you say so.

I don't see it, I think "it's a shabby argument" and "a viable theory" sound a hell of a lot a like to me.

It IS apples and oranges, and the reason the courts can find things to be unconstitutional is precisely to prevent government from becoming a dictatorship of the majority.

In fact, an apt comparison would be if a majority voted FOR the restriction of freedom of speech.

You can't deny people basic rights afforded to others without due process, even if a majority of people think you should.

What right does anyone else have to enforce their "vote" on anyone else. I vote that stupid people shouldn't be allowed to procreate, should we vote on that, too? It shouldn't even be put to a vote in the first place. I think the whole issue is a "red-herring", it's an emotional trap to keep us from focussing on the real issues- like where our tax dollars are being spent, like foreign aid, entitlements and bail-outs. Our officals think we're stupid and wouldn't understand the finer points of economic stress, so they toss this about to get us off the scent and from asking too many questions.

..the hell? Okay, I could've worded that more clearly, but you just made my point for me.

I agree there isn't much of a difference between "not a shabby argument" and "viable theory", which is why I don't think it matters that I said 'viable theory' the second time instead of 'not a shabby argument'.

What I meant by that last post: there's still a clear and obvious difference between "I know this" and "this is not a shabby argument". Do you really not see it? Is it really that fascinating a distinction?

I don't think anyone can truly claim knowledge of Jesus' mind and motives. And you were wrong to read that into my post.

So then I said-



And you said-

And now you're saying-

Sorry I don't think anyone is proving your point, certainly not you or I.

I will say when I read you're first post it sounded like you seemed to know why Jesus decided to address certain issues and not others. I now understand you to be saying it's a "viable theory" that he based that on what was already covered in the OT. Do I have it right now?

Wait so you believe that no one edited or constructed the writings of Jesus Christ during the 8 ecumenical councils and the 21 Roman Catholic Councils?

Most Christians believe that god intervened in some way, ensuring that the Bible we end up with remains loyal to the original intent. It's what I believed up until that one day I stopped believing.

Did you bother to read that part where I restated what I meant? Is it just more fun to stick with the ambiguous wording?

Neat trick on my part, to sound like that without saying anything like that.

Oh, cool, I only have to say it three times.

---------- Post added at 12:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 PM ----------

Is this addressed to me?

I don't have a strong opinion either way.

It is a neat trick on your part. You make post that are unclear then wonder why people can't understand what you're trying to say.

BTW- Exactly when do you think the OT was written?

I admitted my unclear terms in that second post, but the first had no such flaws. I never claimed knowledge. You took a clumsy leap to your own little pigeonhole.

Sometime before Jesus was born. I don't have an exact date in my mind. Does this have anything to do with anything I said? Or with something else you'd like to imagine I said?

Wow, the OP ad is almost as fun as this:

First you said "you don't think "it's a shabby argument" that Jesus didn’t address this issue because the OT already did that. You then changed it to "a viable theory" I asked for clarification because they sounded a lot alike. And you said

I'm not leaping into pigeonholes. I trying to understand what you're trying to say.



Nice, I can't understand your post and I'm imagining things you say.

Just trying to figure out what you consider to be the OT. Are you talking about the Hebrew Bible?

Yes, that would be the post where I admitted to unclear terms. It was the first post where you couldn't seem to distinguish between "it's not a shabby argument" - what I said - and "I know this to be true" - what I did not say.

If what I said - in that FIRST post, FIRST - seemed to look like a claim of knowledge to you, then you simply weren't reading my post very carefully.

Yep.

Yep.

Audition tapes if you missed them the first time


I looked around on their website, and if I had heard one of those radio ads without knowing about this campaign, I would have assumed Rockstar was running in-game ads on realstations to promote the next GTA game again (GTA3 was promoted by ads for stuff like www.petsovernight.com)

..

Actually, they should decriminalize polygamy. As long as all parties are willing, I don't see the problem, other than that it would put certain men at a disadvantage. I think most objections to it are religious...but sucks to the moral code in that respect. I think there is a parallel of this to same-sex marriage.

What storm? Where does what stop?

I don't know what storm it is, but I believe that there are major ramifications and issues that will require legal remedy, just like the gay marriages. Wife B wants to have equal access to beneficiary, estate, medical records, etc. which currently they are persona non grata in the eyes of the state.

A good point, but this isn't anywhere near the greatest legal/contractual challenge of our time.

What storm?

It stops when people stop trying to tell other adults who they can love and marry. As long as they're not trying to marry, or have sex with, children they should be left alone.

..

To me the age of consent for marriage is 18. No, I wouldn't be ok if a state lowered it 13.

I dont understand how, in any sense, homosexuals having equal legal rights in suggests a rise in bigamy.

Very true, but as a teacher I can tell you that this is far from the case in many schools. My philosophy has always been teach them how to think, not what to think. Also empower them with information so that they can have well-informed opinions. Sadly, though, a lot of teachers/schools allow their personal prejudices or politics dictate the curriculum.

This is an hilarious appeal to emotion. What timalkin might not know is that a great number of people at the TFP aren't particularly emotional and won't be immediately swayed by this argument, in which case they'll be able to deconstruct it for the drivel that it is...

All states have to decide how old someone must be before they're competent. This is necessary for any free society that allows its citizens to make decisions for themselves. If a state actually thinks 13 year olds are competent enough then so be it. This would be an issue for some regardless of whether gay marriage was legal or not. The existence of gay marriage would not increase the number of people who'd object to this age of consent. Indeed, it's unlikely to even change which individuals objects to this law. Age of consent is just not relevant to the issue of gay marriage.

So, would you like to state what your actual objection is? Polygamy might be next and I think it's worth bringing up 'cause why couldn't consenting adults in a free society be engaged in a marriage? What's your objection to that?




Finally, I want to be known as the guy with all those YouTube links...

I feel that the government has to supply a valid and compelling reason to infring on any American's pursuit of happiness.

Liberals and conservatives both agree that they want the government to stay out of our daily lives as much as possible. Both sides also agree that if the government is to interfere then they must have solid reasons to show that if they don't interfere, than society will be harmed.

The government says that kids can't drive. I think that there is enough evidence for the government to limit kid's pursuit of happiness.

The government says that we can not steal our neighboor's stuff. I think there is merit in the government stepping in.

The government says no to gays being married. The jury is out on this one. I have not seen a compelling argument why gays being married harms society. Without the evidence of harm, then the government can not interfere.

As much as I'm not an advocate for gay marriage, I still think that video IS DOING IT WRONG.

I spotted numerous logical arguments in there that annoyed me.

Firstly the issue of freedom.

"My freedom will be taken away (if gay marriage is approved)"


Sorry, but.... HUH?

Since when did gay marriage have any effect on anyone else's freedom? Freedom to what? Live? Eat? Breathe? Have hetero sex?????

Secondly, the issue of choosing between faith and job- unless this doctor is somehow forced into accepting gay marriage and should she choose not to advocate it, her job will thus be lost, then she has a right to make that statement a valid argument against gay marriage.

But.... WHAT?!

Thirdly: "Those advocates will have to change the way I live"

I'm sorry, but WHAT THE FISH?

Just because someone else advocates gay marriage means your way of live is disturbed???

How the heck is that even possible?

oh god, if you want to spend millions of dollars on a campaign against gay marriage, at least stop the ad hominems, strawman arguments and throwing red herrings all over the video.

They make Theists look like idiots!

Every human being has one life.

They should be entitled to live it how they see fit as long as they aren't hurting anyone.

No one has the right to tell someone else how to live or who to love.

One short life is all we get. Let every person live their time in the manner they choose, being equal with all others.

This not only attacks gays for their sexual preferences, but also who they are and what they contribute to society. It is no surprise that most gay people are quite successful, and people generally have success for a reason,...because they are smart.

This anti-marriage business goes further by trying to suppress the all encompassing collective voices of gays . Successful gay people = Big threat and big change.

If all gay people were white trash living in trailer parks, do you think anyone would give one second of interest if they wanted to have same sex marriages?

Interesting, percy. This dovetails with a conversation my wife and I have been having for a few months. The playgroup for our youngest consists of about 10 kids, with 2 or 3 having same-sex parents. The gay men are considerably more upscale than the lesbians. Men in general earn more and are promoted faster. Lesbians, as a class, live on less than gay men, especially gay male couples.