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.

(AL.com)   Four gay black guys dress up in revealing Santa outfits and performed in an Alabama Christmas parade, thrusting their hips at spectators. Go on, guess what happened   (blog.al.com) divider line 424
    More: Sad, Christmas Parade, Alabama Christmas, dance group, University of South Alabama, dance team, parades  
•       •       •

25694 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Dec 2013 at 9:14 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-22 01:32:51 PM  

Endive Wombat: I am all for you being as fabulous as you can, whenever, and wherever...that being said...

You need to know your audience, and there is a time a place for everything.  Christmas parades are for two demographics, old people and children.  If they are calling this event a "Children's Parade" then these guys were out of line in my opinion.  Highly unacceptable.


But women doing the same thing are acceptable to children, according to you.

Make an effort to think about what you said
 
2013-12-22 01:35:38 PM  

Protricity: Endive Wombat: I am all for you being as fabulous as you can, whenever, and wherever...that being said...

You need to know your audience, and there is a time a place for everything.  Christmas parades are for two demographics, old people and children.  If they are calling this event a "Children's Parade" then these guys were out of line in my opinion.  Highly unacceptable.

But women doing the same thing are acceptable to children, according to you.

Make an effort to think about what you said


No where in this thread did I say that.  Go look, I'll wait.

If you actually look at my posts, you will find me complaining about how hypersexualized our society is.
 
2013-12-22 01:35:42 PM  

rohar: Richard Roma: cameroncrazy1984:

Bigotry deserves no tolerance.

That's some good satire of the brainless reactionary you've got there!  It is satire... right?

Why would you think so? Do you disagree? Should we allow bigotry to go unchecked?

What the hell does bigotry have to do with my initial post?  I don't like the idea of sexually suggestive dancing in a Christmas day parade.  Period.

You know, I need these occasional encounters with people like you to remind me that the Teahadist right doesn't have a monopoly on Pants-on-head retardation.

So the famous Rockettes should be removed from the Christmas season?


I haven't watched the Rockettes in years, but the last time I saw them they weren't doing booty dances so much as synchronized dancing.

I always thought that was the point, to show 40 (or more) dancers that had superb timing and choreography.

/sort of like the Silent Drill team at Eight and I.
 
2013-12-22 01:35:51 PM  
My guess was a beating by an angry mob. Kind of relieved, kind of disappointed.

This seems like a bad idea. It's just attention whoring. What good can come of it? I'm not seeing an upside here.
 
2013-12-22 01:37:18 PM  

brax33: Because women would never want to see attractive men, closeted people never lie, non-scientific studeis are always right, and bisexual men never count? Is that what you're saying here?

Even still, assuming your 5% number is correct, (I assure you it's not.) this is like saying "ban Hawaiians from dancing in parades, they're only 1% of the world population! Gross! No one else wants to see it!"


Now I never said anything like that.  I said that statistically it makes sense that flamboyantly gay entertainers are not commonly represented in main street events because they don't represent a statistically significant portion of the population.  That is a simple numerical fact.  I never said anything about banning them, you made that leap.  I personally don't care.

brax33: I've put up with softcore straight porn being blasted at me for 27 years through cheerleaders, tv, movies, etc because it's "normal" and "what's expected" or "what most people want/expect" and quite frankly even though I don't find these femenine guys attractive, I think it's about time it happened.
#1 Because straight white males aren't the only people in the world.
#2 and more importantly though, payback's a biach. Feel the burn


And then you added this which says that you don't particularly care for it either but fark us guys because you have an ax to grind.  Kinda renders any other point you had moot since it appears you have an agenda.
 
2013-12-22 01:38:40 PM  

kendelrio: rohar: Richard Roma: cameroncrazy1984:

Bigotry deserves no tolerance.

That's some good satire of the brainless reactionary you've got there!  It is satire... right?

Why would you think so? Do you disagree? Should we allow bigotry to go unchecked?

What the hell does bigotry have to do with my initial post?  I don't like the idea of sexually suggestive dancing in a Christmas day parade.  Period.

You know, I need these occasional encounters with people like you to remind me that the Teahadist right doesn't have a monopoly on Pants-on-head retardation.

So the famous Rockettes should be removed from the Christmas season?

I haven't watched the Rockettes in years, but the last time I saw them they weren't doing booty dances so much as synchronized dancing.

I always thought that was the point, to show 40 (or more) dancers that had superb timing and choreography.

/sort of like the Silent Drill team at Eight and I.


Yeah, I don't think that person has ever actually seen the Rockettes. They aren't twerking in people's faces. Not that there's anything wrong with twerking in people's faces, but comparing this to the Rockettes is just stupid.
 
2013-12-22 01:40:41 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Yeah, I don't think that person has ever actually seen the Rockettes. They aren't twerking in people's faces. Not that there's anything wrong with twerking in people's faces, but comparing this to the Rockettes is just stupid.


I guess if you're prone to objectifying women, the Rockettes would seem highly sexual.
 
2013-12-22 01:43:05 PM  

brax33: Frank N Stein: This type of stunt hurts the gay rights movement more than it helps

Uh... Not to nitpick here, Frank, but where exactly did they say they were campaigning for gay rights? Does everything you do as a straight man (I assume from this silly comment) reflect on heterosexual rights? Because damn, by that standard all the dead beat dads, wife beaters, child killing parents of the world have damn sure made sure your straight rights and married rights should all be taken away.

These guys are just being who they are, not trying to campaign for or get additional recognition except as anything other than their dance group. I assure you if a straight guy wanted to do the performance and dress the way they do he'd be more than welcome.

As for the "no one wants to see that" guy.... I don't want to see slutty ass cheerleaders acting like whores every time I watch football, but I don't biatch about it and start screaming about "OMG THE CHILDREN, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

Which also brings up my last point. All of this bullshiat about it being a "Childrens Parade" - this parade is a parade for the town, NOT a "Children's Parade" a google search shows just as many if not more adults than children at the parade over the years - and a closer look shows some pretty slutty elf outfits. On white women.

I've put up with softcore straight porn being blasted at me for 27 years through cheerleaders, tv, movies, etc because it's "normal" and "what's expected" or "what most people want/expect" and quite frankly even though I don't find these femenine guys attractive, I think it's about time it happened.
#1 Because straight white males aren't the only people in the world.
#2 and more importantly though, payback's a biach. Feel the burn.


this.
 
2013-12-22 01:44:51 PM  
 
2013-12-22 01:50:31 PM  

Endive Wombat: if you think for one second that a group of 4 gay, black men prancing around...


You've made a lot of posts in this thread so perhaps you can help me out here.  I'm trying to find where the article says they were gay.  I've done ctrl-F and looked for "gay" and "homosexual" and can find neither.  I figure since you've referred to them as gay multiple times, but haven't referenced any article other than the linked one, you must've seen it somewhere that my in-page search isn't finding.
 
2013-12-22 01:51:27 PM  

BullBearMS: So no. You aren't going to post a real defense of free speech from a Duck Dynasty thread because you didn't make one.

Lying hypocrite


You have a short memory, don't you. I've done so, and other people have even quoted it in case you didn't see it. You're just mad that you thought you could catch me, and you can't admit you were wrong.

Not to mention you still have no idea that there's a difference between the word "consequence" and "punishment"
 
2013-12-22 01:53:36 PM  
Sexualised women at such events is seen as normal and cute, sexualised men are scary and vulgar. And they're gay so now it's super scary and disturbing for some people. And they're black. And it's in Alabama. I'm surprised someone didn't die of a heart attack.

One of those strange things, if a man and a woman are in a room and the man is the naked one, he's considered the sexual predator. If a man and a woman are in a room and the woman is the naked one, he's still the predator.

Women can wear any colour they choose without having their sexuality called into question. Men seem to have a long list of things they can't wear because it might look gay or wrong or something.

My husband watches Torchwood and likes the show but fast forwards past men kissing each other because it makes him too uncomfortable.

Lot of problems to get over. .
 
2013-12-22 01:54:18 PM  

Endive Wombat: Relatively Obscure: Endive Wombat: That being said, how about some common sense and common decency?

These are way easier to say than they are to define.

But really, if high school dance squads are okay at family events, these guys don't really surpass those in any way except penis length.

No doubt!  I've said it here in other threads, and I've said it in this thread, I do believe that we live in a hyper-sexualized society, and I find it somewhat unacceptable.


Well, that's okay, but maybe what's "common" decency, then, doesn't mesh with how you (or I) always feel.  I certainly wouldn't suggest that you can't feel a little off-put by, well, whatever.

I'm just kind of saying that these guys don't appear to me to be doing anything so beyond the pale that it would even generate notice, if they were not men.  The "type of dancing" and the "type of dress" arguments against don't really hold much water in a general sense--not to say that for some people, maybe you, they aren't true.
 
2013-12-22 01:54:56 PM  

zamboni: Here's a child being traumatized by the Prancing Elites.

And Here they are offending the genteel white folk at the Senior Bowl in Mobile. Wait till the end .. they get strung up!

And again. I think some ignorant hick racist almost spilled his beer in this one!!!

OMG! Here they are desecrating the Arthur Outlaw Convention center in Mobile!


Really, you can't see that little girl look over at those dancers then rush into someone's arms? And the white communtiy are the only ones who take a "no homo" stance? Again, sweet.
 
2013-12-22 01:56:02 PM  

lohphat: Relatively Obscure: BizarreMan: Hell last parade I went to there was a troupe of girls, maybe aged 7-16 doing it.

That's not a parade, that's a felony.

Not if Honey Boo Boo Does it.


[images.christianpost.com image 262x393]


Every picture of those hicks makes me physically ill.
 
2013-12-22 01:57:16 PM  

wellreadneck: zamboni: Here's a child being traumatized by the Prancing Elites.

And Here they are offending the genteel white folk at the Senior Bowl in Mobile. Wait till the end .. they get strung up!

And again. I think some ignorant hick racist almost spilled his beer in this one!!!

OMG! Here they are desecrating the Arthur Outlaw Convention center in Mobile!

Really, you can't see that little girl look over at those dancers then rush into someone's arms? And the white communtiy are the only ones who take a "no homo" stance? Again, sweet.


Adpopulum is your defense?  The belief of the majority should rule?  You one of them yellow liberals?
 
2013-12-22 01:57:37 PM  

FunkOut: My husband watches Torchwood and likes the show but fast forwards past men kissing each other because it makes him too uncomfortable.


It weirds me out on a gut level a little, too, sometimes.  But that's my problem, not theirs, of course.  Fast forwarding beats demanding the show be banished from existence.
 
2013-12-22 01:58:36 PM  

MrHappyRotter: I decided to be objective about this.  I spent a few minutes on Google image and video search, combining various terms and phrases with Christmas parade.  While I did not do an exhaustive and methodical scientific survey, I never the less have concluded that these guys' outfits and dance moves were absolutely no better and no worse than many of the cheerleader, dancer and sporty category of Christmas and Santa attire and dance I saw in videos and photos.  The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that it's somehow inappropriate, disgusting and insulting when men do it.

But in all fairness, I didn't exactly compare the mens' outfits and dance routines to parade participants at Semmes, Alabama.  Perhaps those folks would have been equally displeased if attractive women wore similar costumes and performed the same dancing.  Some how I doubt it though.  Maybe a few mothers would be upset, and of course the fathers might play along for show.


Normally, in Semmes, Alabama the women dress like this, so you can see why the vaginas were sandy that day.
 
2013-12-22 01:59:18 PM  

zamboni: Here's a child being traumatized by the Prancing Elites.


First actual video I've seen of them.  Looks like they really ARE no different than your basic high school dance squad in dress or dance style.
 
2013-12-22 02:00:52 PM  
I don't really find these guys interesting and am not into the latest dance moves, but if the parade asked them to participate, big whoop. If my ten-year-old son saw them, he would either find it funny or gross. I might tease him about it. I would not be too afraid of his life being ruined or anything. It really is not that big of a deal. The kid sees worse on television. I think the media has a lot to do with this manufactured outrage.
 
2013-12-22 02:09:00 PM  

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I don't really find these guys interesting and am not into the latest dance moves, but if the parade asked them to participate, big whoop. If my ten-year-old son saw them, he would either find it funny or gross. I might tease him about it. I would not be too afraid of his life being ruined or anything. It really is not that big of a deal. The kid sees worse on television. I think the media has a lot to do with this manufactured outrage.


But we need something to be outraged over. The hype over the Duck Dynasty guy is wearing off, and we need a new distraction.
 
2013-12-22 02:10:57 PM  

rohar: wellreadneck: zamboni: Here's a child being traumatized by the Prancing Elites.

And Here they are offending the genteel white folk at the Senior Bowl in Mobile. Wait till the end .. they get strung up!

And again. I think some ignorant hick racist almost spilled his beer in this one!!!

OMG! Here they are desecrating the Arthur Outlaw Convention center in Mobile!

Really, you can't see that little girl look over at those dancers then rush into someone's arms? And the white communtiy are the only ones who take a "no homo" stance? Again, sweet.

Adpopulum is your defense?  The belief of the majority should rule?  You one of them yellow liberals?


Wouldn't the citation of several examples of those not offended by this behavior be the ad populum argument? "Look, here's the majority not being bothered by this" is pretty much an appeal to authority of the many.
 
2013-12-22 02:11:13 PM  
Sounds like everyone who is outraged by this just goes by how they THINK that gays behave in public, rather than what they actually DO.
 
2013-12-22 02:13:22 PM  

wellreadneck: rohar: wellreadneck: zamboni: Here's a child being traumatized by the Prancing Elites.

And Here they are offending the genteel white folk at the Senior Bowl in Mobile. Wait till the end .. they get strung up!

And again. I think some ignorant hick racist almost spilled his beer in this one!!!

OMG! Here they are desecrating the Arthur Outlaw Convention center in Mobile!

Really, you can't see that little girl look over at those dancers then rush into someone's arms? And the white communtiy are the only ones who take a "no homo" stance? Again, sweet.

Adpopulum is your defense?  The belief of the majority should rule?  You one of them yellow liberals?

Wouldn't the citation of several examples of those not offended by this behavior be the ad populum argument? "Look, here's the majority not being bothered by this" is pretty much an appeal to authority of the many.


I would suggest that behavior is either legal or not, ignorant of current popular norms.

If this isn't the case, why all the fuss over the ACA?  The majority support it so it's a good thing right?
 
2013-12-22 02:13:30 PM  

wellreadneck: rohar: wellreadneck: zamboni: Here's a child being traumatized by the Prancing Elites.

And Here they are offending the genteel white folk at the Senior Bowl in Mobile. Wait till the end .. they get strung up!

And again. I think some ignorant hick racist almost spilled his beer in this one!!!

OMG! Here they are desecrating the Arthur Outlaw Convention center in Mobile!

Really, you can't see that little girl look over at those dancers then rush into someone's arms? And the white communtiy are the only ones who take a "no homo" stance? Again, sweet.

Adpopulum is your defense?  The belief of the majority should rule?  You one of them yellow liberals?

Wouldn't the citation of several examples of those not offended by this behavior be the ad populum argument? "Look, here's the majority not being bothered by this" is pretty much an appeal to authority of the many.


It's clear that those saying "won't you think of the children," aren't actually thinking of the children who were actually there and saw the dancing.
 
2013-12-22 02:16:00 PM  
OK, so what happened?  (Reads article)  Sounds like nothing.

Those fellows should just get away from Alambama and do their acts at children's parades above the Mason-Dixon line.  I'm sure they will be welcomed with open arms.
 
2013-12-22 02:19:47 PM  
Exuberant self-degradation.
 
2013-12-22 02:23:48 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: wellreadneck: rohar: wellreadneck: zamboni: Here's a child being traumatized by the Prancing Elites.

And Here they are offending the genteel white folk at the Senior Bowl in Mobile. Wait till the end .. they get strung up!

And again. I think some ignorant hick racist almost spilled his beer in this one!!!

OMG! Here they are desecrating the Arthur Outlaw Convention center in Mobile!

Really, you can't see that little girl look over at those dancers then rush into someone's arms? And the white communtiy are the only ones who take a "no homo" stance? Again, sweet.

Adpopulum is your defense?  The belief of the majority should rule?  You one of them yellow liberals?

Wouldn't the citation of several examples of those not offended by this behavior be the ad populum argument? "Look, here's the majority not being bothered by this" is pretty much an appeal to authority of the many.

It's clear that those saying "won't you think of the children," aren't actually thinking of the children who were actually there and saw the dancing.


We've seen one example of a child who saw it. She seemed less than entranced. Of course, most kids cry on Santa's lap, too.
 
2013-12-22 02:31:29 PM  

sweatybronson: This is a video of the Semmes Christmas  parade from last year.

Pretty boring...  except for the wardrobe malfunction at 4:13.

And inappropriate clothing at 4:40?  And at 10:05?  (youngTaylor Swift is from Semmes apparently...).


And 'dancers' at 12:00.

14:30.  More leg-baring, 'dancing' goodness.

Black girls with bare legs at 18:45.  Geez sisters...something in the water there must sap people of their rhythm...

Dance troup full of young girls showing leg at 21:00.

Beads at 21:45.

Old guys on tractors at 22:20


(Okay, my final observation?  A few groups had females in clothing that showed a lot of leg...  But they weren't dressed as revealingly above the waist as the gay black dudes...  no midriffs, I don't think... Also, nobody was doing anything that could possibly be called 'dancing.'  I could see them doing sexy dance moves, and that being inappropriate. [ they're black guys.  And gay.  That's +2 on the big-schlong scale.  I'm sure their hip-thrusting came along with seeing some snakey outlines].

That being said, the scantily-cladness of the young girls in this thing is kinda creepy).

Also, gay black dudes - workout more.  You're dancers.  WTF's with the belly?


Sweetie, you try looking that good after drinking 40s.
 
2013-12-22 02:46:30 PM  

BigOle8point: OH NOHS!!

Someone was offended by a gay black Santa.

Quick - assemble the rest of the gay farkers!


But, but, butt, Santa is always white!!!
 
2013-12-22 02:50:08 PM  
The video wouldn't work for me but from the pictures and description it seems you don't need to be a racist or a homophobe to think that's completely inappropriate for a Christmas parade.
 
2013-12-22 03:07:42 PM  

notatrollorami: The video wouldn't work for me but from the pictures and description it seems you don't need to be a racist or a homophobe to think that's completely inappropriate for a Christmas parade.


Racist homophobe
 
2013-12-22 03:13:45 PM  
From the pictures I saw some women obviously enjoying it and one guy who needs to burn off that bowl full of jelly. Otherwise nothing to get excited about.
 
2013-12-22 03:26:51 PM  

Endive Wombat: I am all for you being as fabulous as you can, whenever, and wherever...that being said...

You need to know your audience, and there is a time a place for everything.  Christmas parades are for two demographics, old people and children.  If they are calling this event a "Children's Parade" then these guys were out of line in my opinion.  Highly unacceptable.



If homofabulousness were normal, why would you ever have to hide it from old people and children?


Oh, because it's DISGUSTING and an ABOMINATION?


And if we don't eat shiat, it's BIGOT time!
 
2013-12-22 04:32:45 PM  

TheRealist II: There only purpose was to make the parade all about them and there agenda , I for my self and only myself do not like individuals of whatever gender they think they are whose only purpose to exist is to purposely make everything  all the time about them and there agenda in the most tasteless and classless way possible , as if I dont have to enough individuals around me doing enough of that already !


Except that it seems they were invited to be there by the parade's organizers and just did their normal routine. I think the organizers just invited a random dance troupe without checking them out first.
 
2013-12-22 04:47:30 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: They fixed the cable?


They cut the power?
 
2013-12-22 05:20:48 PM  
guess what happened ... did GOPers in the state all get weird boners?
 
2013-12-22 05:22:27 PM  

HighlanderRPI: [shechive.files.wordpress.com image 400x400]


that is truly disturbing and i hope you get banned for posting it.
 
2013-12-22 05:25:41 PM  

BullBearMS: rohar: BullBearMS: They aren't hypocrites.

Just so we're clear here, are you suggesting we shouldn't suffer hypocrites?

I'm saying that if you defended the Duck Dynasty guys right to speak their mind but think these gay guys don't have just as much of a right to prance their hearts out, you are a hypocrite, yes.

And vice versa.

[rlv.zcache.com image 512x512]


Votaire didn't say that.
 
2013-12-22 05:27:58 PM  

What_Would_Jimi_Do: [www.moviestillsdb.com image 630x420]


Whatever, back freckles!


came for this. no pun intended.
 
2013-12-22 05:48:09 PM  
You know guys, this is why the squares get up in arms about granting you that rights stuff. You were doing so well. *changes the sign to read "0 Days Since Last Incident To Set Back Gay Rights"*
 
2013-12-22 06:10:12 PM  

Terrible Old Man: You know guys, this is why the squares get up in arms about granting you that rights stuff. You were doing so well. *changes the sign to read "0 Days Since Last Incident To Set Back Gay Rights"*


Hrm. You, I think, will be held accountable for every filthy thing that falls out of Kathy Griffin's mouth. Learn to police your own sexual immorality, ya dirty breeders.
 
2013-12-22 06:15:35 PM  

GhostFish: Terrible Old Man: You know guys, this is why the squares get up in arms about granting you that rights stuff. You were doing so well. *changes the sign to read "0 Days Since Last Incident To Set Back Gay Rights"*

Hrm. You, I think, will be held accountable for every filthy thing that falls out of Kathy Griffin's mouth. Learn to police your own sexual immorality, ya dirty breeders.


Kathy griffin is heterosexual?
 
2013-12-22 06:16:00 PM  

Terrible Old Man: You know guys, this is why the squares get up in arms about granting you that rights stuff. You were doing so well. *changes the sign to read "0 Days Since Last Incident To Set Back Gay Rights"*


You guys, this is why some gay people have stopped playing by your capricious societal rules.  Gays were and are promised equality in the U.S., how'd that whole staying the in closet thing work out for them?  After a while of playing by the rules and not getting anything out of it, it's just human nature that some people are going to say forget it, I'm doing my own thing.  Then one tiny fraction of the group, doing their own thing after being invited to do it and suddenly we're discussing why gays don't have equal rights?  Changes sign to read "237 + Years of Inequality for Gays and Their Rights in the U.S.A.".
 
2013-12-22 06:23:56 PM  

Relatively Obscure: BullBearMS: cameroncrazy1984: theflatline: I do not need to see anyone gay or straight, ass out, prancing around in public.  It is much as my right to demand a sense of public decency.

No it isn't. You don't get to pick and choose which speech you find acceptable. That's not how the first amendment works.

Unless it's the Duck Dynasty guys

If it helps, I wouldn't be surprised and I wouldn't care if these guys were never invited to perform again.


And there you have it. The First amendment isn't in play in EITHER situation. The duck dude and the prancing santas both did their thing, and both will face people biatching and moaning about it. biatching and moaning is NOT being disappeared or ending up in Gitmo.
 
2013-12-22 07:03:48 PM  
Never stick your dick in a hornet's nest. Especially that Tracy Morgan-looking one in the front.

/Expected skimpier. Leaving disappointed.
 
2013-12-22 07:40:31 PM  

MrHappyRotter: Terrible Old Man: You know guys, this is why the squares get up in arms about granting you that rights stuff. You were doing so well. *changes the sign to read "0 Days Since Last Incident To Set Back Gay Rights"*

You guys, this is why some gay people have stopped playing by your capricious societal rules.  Gays were and are promised equality in the U.S., how'd that whole staying the in closet thing work out for them?  After a while of playing by the rules and not getting anything out of it, it's just human nature that some people are going to say forget it, I'm doing my own thing.  Then one tiny fraction of the group, doing their own thing after being invited to do it and suddenly we're discussing why gays don't have equal rights?  Changes sign to read "237 + Years of Inequality for Gays and Their Rights in the U.S.A.".


This.  Setting aside all the notions on what is and isn't considered "grossly sexual", they were invited to perform by the organizers.  They arrived, stripped down to their uniforms, and were allowed to march.  That's it.  Any "outrage", ridiculous as it is, should be directed solely at the organizers, not at the performers.  School officials wouldn't ask GWAR to perform at their Prom Dance, but if they did and people were horribly shocked/offended/disgusted, how would that make it GWAR's fault?  They just did what they were paid to do.  It's not their fault no one considered the audience until AFTER the fact.  This is not only not an outrage, it's not a "set-back" of any kind to any community.  This is the very definition of a "non-issue".
 
2013-12-22 08:08:14 PM  
They're pretty good. I'd watch them in a parade.
 
2013-12-22 08:09:06 PM  

mooseyfate: MrHappyRotter: Terrible Old Man: You know guys, this is why the squares get up in arms about granting you that rights stuff. You were doing so well. *changes the sign to read "0 Days Since Last Incident To Set Back Gay Rights"*

You guys, this is why some gay people have stopped playing by your capricious societal rules.  Gays were and are promised equality in the U.S., how'd that whole staying the in closet thing work out for them?  After a while of playing by the rules and not getting anything out of it, it's just human nature that some people are going to say forget it, I'm doing my own thing.  Then one tiny fraction of the group, doing their own thing after being invited to do it and suddenly we're discussing why gays don't have equal rights?  Changes sign to read "237 + Years of Inequality for Gays and Their Rights in the U.S.A.".

This.  Setting aside all the notions on what is and isn't considered "grossly sexual", they were invited to perform by the organizers.  They arrived, stripped down to their uniforms, and were allowed to march.  That's it.  Any "outrage", ridiculous as it is, should be directed solely at the organizers, not at the performers.  School officials wouldn't ask GWAR to perform at their Prom Dance, but if they did and people were horribly shocked/offended/disgusted, how would that make it GWAR's fault?  They just did what they were paid to do.  It's not their fault no one considered the audience until AFTER the fact.  This is not only not an outrage, it's not a "set-back" of any kind to any community.  This is the very definition of a "non-issue".


they were allowed to march, not required to.
 
2013-12-22 08:21:52 PM  
brax33As for the "no one wants to see that" guy.... I don't want to see slutty ass cheerleaders acting like whores every time I watch football, but I don't biatch about it and start screaming about "OMG THE CHILDREN, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

AngryDragon: It is estimated that gay people are only about 5% of the population. Sorry, I like you guys, but you're a fringe group despite what TV and Hollywood would like to suggest.  What you don't like to see really is "normal" or at least what the vast majority of people want to see.


It's funny how quick you are to use that argument considering that straight males are less than 50% of the word's population.  If you really are proposing that "whatever the majority wants is normal and tough cookies for everyone else" should by the way we run society, you might want to rethink how well that would actually work out for you.

However much you might not like it,  brax33 is right about one thing: straight men have been calling the shots for a long time now and that's beginning to change.  Things just aren't going to keep going your way every single time anymore.
 
Displayed 50 of 424 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report