If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   The fight is over. Now they've got God's voice on a gay marriage commercial   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 51
    More: Cool, Morgan Freeman, human dignity, The Advocate, narration, TV Ad, Kid Rock, Human Rights Campaign, Walter Cronkite  
•       •       •

5029 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 25 Nov 2012 at 7:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-25 04:05:30 PM  
"Freedom, justice and human dignity have always guided our journey toward a more perfect union," Freeman says. "Now, across our country, we are standing together for the right of gay and lesbian Americans to marry the person they love. With historic victories for marriage, we've delivered a mandate for full equality."

Damn straight!

/So to speak.

Freedom, justice and titty sprinkles for all!
 
2012-11-25 04:14:07 PM  
George Burns is dead...oh wait the OTHER Comedic God
 
2012-11-25 04:14:13 PM  
This was explained on Southpark

images2.wikia.nocookie.net 

Image is clickable to youtube (and not a rickroll today)
 
2012-11-25 05:22:34 PM  
Cas doesn't have a problem with it. 

i470.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-25 06:01:24 PM  
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-11-25 06:07:21 PM  
Teste sprinkles.
 
2012-11-25 06:44:52 PM  
Gay. Straight. Lesbian. Bisexual. Pansexual. Transgender.

i.imgur.com

Seriously. Don't you people have better things to do with your lives than try to determine who loves who?
 
2012-11-25 07:16:40 PM  

BronyMedic: Gay. Straight. Lesbian. Bisexual. Pansexual. Transgender.

[i.imgur.com image 400x331]

Seriously. Don't you people have better things to do with your lives than try to determine who loves who?


Grievously, tragically, unfortunately... No. LOTS of people, almost all of them devoutly religious, care very deeply that other people don't believe what they believe and love people of whom they don't approve (even if they've never met either person in question). Many of these people are also homosexual. As a matter of fact, the louder their anti-gay rhetoric, the more likely that they have a Big Gay Secret to hide.

In short, bigots are stupid.
 
2012-11-25 07:53:14 PM  

BronyMedic: Seriously. Don't you people have better things to do with your lives than try to determine who loves who?


You sound like someone who doesn't know what causes natural disasters.

God's anger at teh gheys and coloureds causes natural disasters.

That's why we as a nation cannot tolerate this.

Think that crazy? I bet you money that this country suffers from a natural disaster sometime in the future.

Then you'll know. Then you'll understand.

/Gotta snark, or I'd start punching these asshats
 
2012-11-25 07:58:06 PM  
"Lesbian-Americans"

Really?
 
2012-11-25 08:01:01 PM  
www.independent.co.uk

Reality is less impressive than the potential was.
 
2012-11-25 08:19:42 PM  
I think the best way to support same-sex marriage is to change the term Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender to Gay Bisexual Lesbian Transgender.

That way, instead of saying LGBT, we can say GBLT. After all, everyone likes BLT's.
 
2012-11-25 08:21:01 PM  
Weener sprinkles.
 
2012-11-25 08:21:59 PM  

jackmalice: I think the best way to support same-sex marriage is to change the term Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender to Gay Bisexual Lesbian Transgender.

That way, instead of saying LGBT, we can say GBLT. After all, everyone likes BLT's.


Brilliant. Then Chik-Fil-A comes up with the "Traditional BLT" and everyone loses their shiat. BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND NO YOU CANT ORDER CHINESE FOOD TONIGHT!
 
2012-11-25 08:50:09 PM  

jackmalice: I think the best way to support same-sex marriage is to change the term Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender to Gay Bisexual Lesbian Transgender people.


Groups that separate people tend to separate people. It shouldn't be we want "x" right for gay people, it should be that we want "x" right for ALL people, regardless of color, gender, sexual identity, etc.
 
2012-11-25 08:57:02 PM  
"Now, across our country, we are standing together for the right of gay and lesbian Americans to marry the person they love."

Even if that person is your step-granddaughter.

/runs
 
2012-11-25 09:12:41 PM  

fusillade762: "Now, across our country, we are standing together for the right of gay and lesbian Americans to marry the person they love."


I thought it was not about love but being able to access the same benefits as the married folks which of course means you should be working toward changing things to make them more equal for those who chose to remain single.
 
2012-11-25 09:19:16 PM  

BronyMedic: Gay. Straight. Lesbian. Bisexual. Pansexual. Transgender.

[i.imgur.com image 400x331]

Seriously. Don't you people have better things to do with your lives than try to determine who loves who?


Seriously; with the plethora of important issues in the world today why not expend resources and political capital on the all important one of two guys who like doing each other being able to call themselves married.
 
2012-11-25 10:01:49 PM  

hasty ambush: fusillade762: "Now, across our country, we are standing together for the right of gay and lesbian Americans to marry the person they love."

I thought it was not about love but being able to access the same benefits as the married folks which of course means you should be working toward changing things to make them more equal for those who chose to remain single.


So you want to get the government out of the marriage business altogether? I'm cool with that.
 
2012-11-25 10:21:33 PM  

hasty ambush: I thought it was not about love but being able to access the same benefits as the married folks which of course means you should be working toward changing things to make them more equal for those who chose to remain single.


It can be about the equal benefits as well as love, y'know....
 
2012-11-25 10:34:25 PM  
 
2012-11-25 10:38:58 PM  

BronyMedic: Seriously. Don't you people have better things to do with your lives than try to determine who loves who?


Nah, it's not like that. I forgot where I read it, but someone figured it out.

As he put it, paraphrased:

Gay marriage destroys "the sanctity of marriage" because some poor saps got married to the first person who tolerated them because they believe that it's their duty to God to have children, and to do that they have to get married.

Gay people can't have children, period, in the sense that the child came from both of them by natural means. Therefore, they shouldn't be allowed to get married, since the only reason THEY got married to the bag of spite they had to stare at for the past 30 years was so they could have kids that they didn't want to begin with, and now they are cranky old goats who hate the idea that other people can have something nicer than they did.
 
2012-11-25 10:51:33 PM  

Mister Peejay: BronyMedic: Seriously. Don't you people have better things to do with your lives than try to determine who loves who?

Nah, it's not like that. I forgot where I read it, but someone figured it out.

As he put it, paraphrased:

Gay marriage destroys "the sanctity of marriage" because some poor saps got married to the first person who tolerated them because they believe that it's their duty to God to have children, and to do that they have to get married.

Gay people can't have children, period, in the sense that the child came from both of them by natural means. Therefore, they shouldn't be allowed to get married, since the only reason THEY got married to the bag of spite they had to stare at for the past 30 years was so they could have kids that they didn't want to begin with, and now they are cranky old goats who hate the idea that other people can have something nicer than they did.


I just got into an argument with someone on the actual YouTube video page who was upset that he was being "forced to accept" gay people. I criticized him and called him an "enormous baby", but I'm still agitated that people like this exist.

They're literally upset because they can't bully other people.
 
2012-11-25 11:03:40 PM  

BronyMedic: Seriously. Don't you people have better things to do with your lives than try to determine who loves who?


Exactly. It's wrong to determine whether or not people love each other, which is why we need the government to issue more licenses certifying that love. I mean, what good is a relationship if you don't have a government seal of approval and some superfluous tax benefits?
 
2012-11-25 11:11:18 PM  

serial_crusher: I mean, what good is a relationship if you don't have a government seal of approval and some superfluous tax benefits?


It's not the tax benefits so much as it is things like right-to-access in a medical emergency, and what happens with one's estate after one of them dies.
 
2012-11-25 11:17:44 PM  
Everytime a gay couple gets married Morgan Freeman gets a freckle
 
2012-11-25 11:23:32 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: BronyMedic: Gay. Straight. Lesbian. Bisexual. Pansexual. Transgender.

[i.imgur.com image 400x331]

Seriously. Don't you people have better things to do with your lives than try to determine who loves who?

Grievously, tragically, unfortunately... No. LOTS of people, almost all of them devoutly religious, care very deeply that other people don't believe what they believe and love people of whom they don't approve (even if they've never met either person in question). Many of these people are also homosexual. As a matter of fact, the louder their anti-gay rhetoric, the more likely that they have a Big Gay Secret to hide.

In short, bigots are stupid.


They are going apeshiat over this commercial on Newsbusters. I've grown tired of rattling the cages over there for tonight. Perhaps someone else is up for it?
 
2012-11-25 11:43:05 PM  

MikeMc: Benevolent Misanthrope: BronyMedic: Gay. Straight. Lesbian. Bisexual. Pansexual. Transgender.

[i.imgur.com image 400x331]

Seriously. Don't you people have better things to do with your lives than try to determine who loves who?

Grievously, tragically, unfortunately... No. LOTS of people, almost all of them devoutly religious, care very deeply that other people don't believe what they believe and love people of whom they don't approve (even if they've never met either person in question). Many of these people are also homosexual. As a matter of fact, the louder their anti-gay rhetoric, the more likely that they have a Big Gay Secret to hide.

In short, bigots are stupid.

They are going apeshiat over this commercial on Newsbusters. I've grown tired of rattling the cages over there for tonight. Perhaps someone else is up for it?


Not me, thanks. I make it a point never to click on a NewsBusters link.
 
2012-11-26 12:05:47 AM  

Mister Peejay: serial_crusher: I mean, what good is a relationship if you don't have a government seal of approval and some superfluous tax benefits?

It's not the tax benefits so much as it is things like right-to-access in a medical emergency, and what happens with one's estate after one of them dies.


You mean the right to access that you could also establish by assigning a medical power of attorney?
And by "what happens" to your estate, you mean whether or not the person who inherits it has to pay inheritance taxes on it?

/ Yes, the costs involved in setting up a power of attorney are higher than they are in a marriage license. But a superfluous discount on legal fees isn't much different than a superfluous tax discount.
 
2012-11-26 12:16:27 AM  

serial_crusher: Mister Peejay: serial_crusher: I mean, what good is a relationship if you don't have a government seal of approval and some superfluous tax benefits?

It's not the tax benefits so much as it is things like right-to-access in a medical emergency, and what happens with one's estate after one of them dies.

You mean the right to access that you could also establish by assigning a medical power of attorney?
And by "what happens" to your estate, you mean whether or not the person who inherits it has to pay inheritance taxes on it?

/ Yes, the costs involved in setting up a power of attorney are higher than they are in a marriage license. But a superfluous discount on legal fees isn't much different than a superfluous tax discount.


There are 1,138 separate and specific rights and protections granted to married people, based on marital status, under Federal law. As of today, none of them apply to gay couples, because of DOMA.

The only question, really, is whether all citizens have the same rights or access to the status that confers them. More specifically, the question is whether the Church has any business telling the State who has what rights.
 
2012-11-26 01:02:45 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: There are 1,138 separate and specific rights and protections granted to married people, based on marital status, under Federal law. As of today, none of them apply to gay couples, because of DOMA.

The only question, really, is whether all citizens have the same rights or access to the status that confers them. More specifically, the question is whether the Church has any business telling the State who has what rights.


We both agree that the current situation isn't fair. The part we disagree on is whether or not it's OK to provide those privileges to even more couples while still denying them to single people

I like how your article alleges the existance of 1138 "rights", but only enumerates 10 or 11 of them. In truth, the others are trivial subsets of the ones mentioned in the article. The 1138 number is nothing more than an exaggeration.
Show me a right that doesn't belong in either the "nobody really deserves that, so we should just stop giving it to them" or "shouldn't singe people get that too?" categories.
Pretty much everything they've mentioned goes in the former category, as far as I'm concerned.
Notable exceptions are the part about child tax credits, which should be revamped to include anybody who can substantiate a claim that they financially sponsored a child; and stuff about health care, which is just another artifact of our broken healthcare system that would all be fixed with a reasonable socialized medicine plan. People shouldn't be forced to marry somebody to get the health care they need.
 
2012-11-26 01:35:40 AM  

serial_crusher: We both agree that the current situation isn't fair. The part we disagree on is whether or not it's OK to provide those privileges to even more couples while still denying them to single people


Y'know, every time you go on your little "Singles' rights" crusade, you just sound like a bitter moron who couldn't get his dick wet if he paid for it. It also manages to be an even stupider reason to be against gay rights than the usual religious dumbassery, somehow.
 
2012-11-26 01:43:43 AM  

sleeper2995: Everytime a gay couple gets married Morgan Freeman gets a freckle


Okay, that did make me laugh.
 
2012-11-26 01:46:06 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: The only question, really, is whether all citizens have the same rights or access to the status that confers them. More specifically, the question is whether the Church has any business telling the State who has what rights.


Indeed. Please- carry on- you are in fact doing it right.
 
2012-11-26 01:55:02 AM  

serial_crusher: "shouldn't singe people get that too?" categories.


Like what specifically? What right does an individual receive by virtue of being married that is denied to a single person? That's a legit question that I'm confused about. All of the legal benefits of marriage that I can think of require a relationship of some sort in order for them to make any sense. Hospital visitation, inheritance rights, etc. They all relate to one person's relationship to another. It's not discriminatory to deny those rights to single people; it's just inherently not possible. You need more than one person to have such rights.
 
2012-11-26 01:58:56 AM  

penthesilea: Cas doesn't have a problem with it. 

[i470.photobucket.com image 500x600]


THIS
 
2012-11-26 02:24:28 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: In short, bigots are stupid.


Yes, yet you wave your anti-Christian bigotry proudly.
Only 36 replies in this thread, this being the 37th.
Fark must be growing up, most people could care less about religion bashing or sexual preference.
Time to take off your martyr costume.
 
2012-11-26 02:26:37 AM  
FYI, people really need to stop referring to it as "gay marriage," and start using the term, "marriage equality." When you use the term "gay marriage" it sounds like you're talking about creating a new, separate right. "Marriage equality" makes it more clear that it's just asking that the same right be extended to a segment of the population that's currently being denied that right.
 
2012-11-26 02:31:34 AM  
The old-school Xtian fundies are worried that accepting gay marriage now would mean accepting polygamy later ... and they've only recently reconciled themselves to the notion that maybe Mormons aren't space aliens.
As for the Mormons themselves, they oppose gay marriage because they WERE forced to give up polygamy, and since they don't get to enjoy an interesting variation on marriage, nobody else does, either.

At any rate, it all paves the way for ... gay polygamy!!!
 
2012-11-26 02:35:40 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Yes, yet you wave your anti-Christian bigotry proudly.


cafewitteveen.files.wordpress.com

/Also, it's "Couldn't care less," not "Could."
 
2012-11-26 02:46:38 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Yes, yet you wave your anti-Christian bigotry proudly.


scans thread, finds zero instance of "anti-Christian bigotry ", dismisses signal as noise
 
2012-11-26 02:47:40 AM  

rynthetyn: FYI, people really need to stop referring to it as "gay marriage," and start using the term, "marriage equality." When you use the term "gay marriage" it sounds like you're talking about creating a new, separate right. "Marriage equality" makes it more clear that it's just asking that the same right be extended to a segment of the population that's currently being denied that right.


Yer right. Plus one internet
 
2012-11-26 04:01:06 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Benevolent Misanthrope: In short, bigots are stupid.

Yes, yet you wave your anti-Christian bigotry proudly.


Funny, BM didn't even mention Christianity. You're the first person to even bring it up.

You just live for the chance to whine about being persecuted, don't you? Makes you hard, doesn't it?
 
2012-11-26 04:46:43 AM  

rynthetyn: FYI, people really need to stop referring to it as "gay marriage," and start using the term, "marriage equality." When you use the term "gay marriage" it sounds like you're talking about creating a new, separate right. "Marriage equality" makes it more clear that it's just asking that the same right be extended to a segment of the population that's currently being denied that right.


Somewhat ironically, you have Frank Luntz to thank for the phrase "marriage equality." If it weren't for him, odds are we wouldn't have figured out just how much the language used to describe something can shape how you feel about it. And now we have folks like George Lakoff and Drew Westen to help us liberals bring people to our side through the use of language.

/very Orwellian, huh?
 
2012-11-26 05:59:29 AM  

BronyMedic: Gay. Straight. Lesbian. Bisexual. Pansexual. Transgender.

[i.imgur.com image 400x331]

Seriously. Don't you people have better things to do with your lives than try to determine who loves who?


What's pansexual? A cookware fetish? Or do you have to have your dick removed and replaced with a spatula?
 
2012-11-26 06:00:44 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Benevolent Misanthrope: In short, bigots are stupid.

Yes, yet you wave your anti-Christian bigotry proudly.
Only 36 replies in this thread, this being the 37th.
Fark must be growing up, most people could care less about religion bashing or sexual preference.
Time to take off your martyr costume.


I think most people who use the word bigot don't actually know what it means.
 
2012-11-26 06:08:41 AM  

MrPerfectSU: Like what specifically?


I assume he means "tax benefits". But I agree, in general it doesn't make sense to define such rights in terms of individuals.

OTOH, the government could just get out of this business entirely and provide a handful of stock forms to help individuals assign things like hospital visitation, medical power of attorney, etc. to whomever they want without hiring a lawyer; many of the privileges of marriage are things you can already assign under civil law. We did the same thing with most real estate transactions decades ago -- there's a standard form that covers 99% of transactions and a requirement to use it in most cases.

I also suspect that those rights which can't be assigned under civil law, or privileges which don't exist in civil law, are privileges we shouldn't grant to married couple either. But I won't claim that I've comprehensively reviewed all such privileges, so I may be missing something.
 
2012-11-26 08:27:49 AM  

MrPerfectSU: serial_crusher: "shouldn't singe people get that too?" categories.

Like what specifically? What right does an individual receive by virtue of being married that is denied to a single person? That's a legit question that I'm confused about ... You need more than one person to have such rights



Did you conveniently ignore the two that I mentioned in the post you were replying to? Maybe I wasn't clear enough, so allow me to expound.
Technically child tax credits do require more than one person: a child and an adult. If the goal is to compensate the portion of somebody's income, why does it make any sense to discriminate based on the specifics of the providing adult's acquaintanceship with the child's biological parent? Suppose some single father from my gym is on hard times, so I let him and his kid stay at my house for a year while he gets back on his feet, and I shoulder the burden of the kid's finances. Would I not deserve a tax write off that year? If I gay married the dad, all of a sudden that would change?
So instead of artificially limiting that one to the child's family members, then quibbling over the definition of the word "family", let's just let anybody who provides for a child take that credit?

And then the right to health care... unemployed/uninsured singles are being denied that just as much as unemployed/uninsured gay life partners.
You could also look at it from the standpoint of benefits to the employed party. Getting married effectively gets you more money in the form of health insurance subsidies. Down of his luck Single Dad at the Gym sure would appreciate it if I could extend my health insurance to him and his kid during my year of charity, as would I. (again though, this is better solved if we stop looking at healthcare as a government-mandated employment perk, and start looking at it as a government-provided social service, like it should be. But, as long as the gay marriage crowd lays claim to it, so can I).

Most of the contended "rights" come in the form of completely frivolous tax benefits though, not rights that are being denied one party and extended to another (hey look, I said that earlier too!). The extension of frivolous tax incentives to one class is discriminatory against everybody outside of that class though, since it shifts their share of the tax burden to us.
 
2012-11-26 05:09:33 PM  

serial_crusher: Benevolent Misanthrope: There are 1,138 separate and specific rights and protections granted to married people, based on marital status, under Federal law. As of today, none of them apply to gay couples, because of DOMA.

The only question, really, is whether all citizens have the same rights or access to the status that confers them. More specifically, the question is whether the Church has any business telling the State who has what rights.

We both agree that the current situation isn't fair. The part we disagree on is whether or not it's OK to provide those privileges to even more couples while still denying them to single people

I like how your article alleges the existance of 1138 "rights", but only enumerates 10 or 11 of them. In truth, the others are trivial subsets of the ones mentioned in the article. The 1138 number is nothing more than an exaggeration.
Show me a right that doesn't belong in either the "nobody really deserves that, so we should just stop giving it to them" or "shouldn't singe people get that too?" categories.
Pretty much everything they've mentioned goes in the former category, as far as I'm concerned.
Notable exceptions are the part about child tax credits, which should be revamped to include anybody who can substantiate a claim that they financially sponsored a child; and stuff about health care, which is just another artifact of our broken healthcare system that would all be fixed with a reasonable socialized medicine plan. People shouldn't be forced to marry somebody to get the health care they need.


This is the asshole that, when he raises his hand in class, everybody groans and rolls their eyes. Every thread has to have one.
 
2012-11-26 09:52:17 PM  

Ed Grubermann: You just live for the chance to whine about being persecuted, don't you? Makes you hard, doesn't it?


Nah, I just tally up the conniption fits and the postings of the requisite "Oppressed" pie chart and realize there'll always be sniveling going on here about religion. And this is only the 50th post, there used to be hundreds upon hundreds of bashing in this threads. As I said, Fark has grown up, though obviously some never will.
However, Ed, you should quit asking if someone is hard, it's so gauche.
It's just like asking a lady if her nipples are hard, very rude and declasse, especially in a public place or forum.
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report