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 439
    More: Sad, Christmas Parade, Alabama Christmas, dance group, University of South Alabama, dance team, parades  
•       •       •

25676 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Dec 2013 at 9:14 AM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
2013-12-22 08:23:01 PM
Misleading headline submitted at 3am, get to wake up and reap the rewards.

/subby
 
2013-12-22 08:25:22 PM

Oblio13: A bowel movement is nothing to be ashamed of. It's a completely natural and necessary bodily function. And I sincerely enjoy a leisurely, healthy one. It's just me being me. And yet, there are times and places where it's more appropriate than others.


And yet you posted it on Fark for all to see anyway.
 
2013-12-22 08:26:15 PM

Warlordtrooper: AverageAmericanGuy: If this is what gays think of as "gay culture", perhaps I can see how some straight people might be put off by it.

This has less to do with gay culture and more about how men are subjected to double standards when it comes to gender equality.


I am definitely ok with this double standard .
 
2013-12-22 08:39:32 PM

MJMaloney187: Nobody curbed these Marys' freedoms of expression, Pearl Clutcher. What if they showed up like this at you mom's funeral?


That depends.  Are tips mandatory?
 
2013-12-22 08:43:07 PM

cameroncrazy1984: BullBearMS: cameroncrazy1984: 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

The Duck Dynasty guys can say whatever they want. If these guys' employer find a problem with this, fine. But this is a public parade, not the A&E network. Not surprising that you have no idea what the First Amendment is or how it works.

So nobody rose up in protest over these guys exercising their right to free speech at all?

This has nothing to do with their being "suspended".

If you think the gay guys have a right to march in the parade but don't think the fundies have a right to be fundies, the problem is you.

No, nobody rose up in protest over these guys exercising their right to free speech at all. A&E suspended the guy before the GQ interview really made it public. Go through every one of the Fark threads and you won't see ANYONE saying that Duck Dynasty doesn't have the right to say whatever stupid sh*t they want. Can you find an article online saying they don't either? I bet you can't. Your entire argument is one big strawman.


Damnit.  I'm starting to think I should look up "Duck Dynasty" on Wikipedia or something so I'll know what all this hubbub is about.  I have a sinking suspicion that this is gonna prove one of those "ignorance is bliss" things.
 
2013-12-22 08:45:39 PM
I don't care for the homosexual lifestyle, personally, I think it is a sin.
That being said....
What's the difference between what they did, and if a pro football team
had their "cheerleaders" prancing around 3/4 in the nude?  Same friggin
thing if you ask me.
If they want to do that, doesn't bother me in the least.  If I saw them coming
and was offended, hell, JUST TURN AROUND til they pass?  What's the
flippin' deal?
 
2013-12-22 09:18:08 PM

cameroncrazy1984: hasty ambush: Nothing gets people to treat you with dignity  like acting undignified.

Yeah, marching in a parade is so undignified! They should just stay in the closet where they're not enticing you with their gayness.



Yup, all they were doing was "marching"
 
2013-12-22 09:27:25 PM

Mr. Right: cameroncrazy1984: Mr. Right: Bit'O'Gristle: Time and place for everything boys, and a Christmas parade is not the time to flaunt your gayness in everyones face, and you knew that.

/Nice trolling though.

Yes.  And when one recalls the responses to Miley Cyrus' twerking, which is not substantively different from the kind of routine these guys did, he would be hard-pressed to verify that the complaints are necessarily gay-bashing.  Is it too much to ask for decency in the public square?

I'm sorry that gays existing offends your delicate sensibilities. You can be a shut-in and avoid reality altogether.

The fact that you would make a comment like that identifies you as the type of gay rights activist who does not want tolerance of gays or equal rights for gays.  You obviously believe that everyone should be gay and that gays, because they are somehow more noble than heterosexuals, deserve more rights and special rights.


*points and laughs at the stupid*
 
2013-12-22 09:58:54 PM
"At least one woman demanded an apology, saying she had "never been so insulted" in her life."

Oh, boo-hoo, you feel insulted? Why? Because now you have to face people who don't fit into the neat little boxes in your head? Fark off.

/If you're gonna let women do that, men get to do it too
//and no, I don't approve of either--dance appropriately, for fark sake--but you might as well give the little girls fap material as well as the little boys.
 
2013-12-22 09:59:28 PM

Popular Opinion: someday, it will be perfectly fine to shove fruit up your ass in public. We just need to see it more until we learn to accept it.


Keep on fighting the good fight and maybe someday I'll come watch that performance you've been itching to do for years.
 
2013-12-22 10:09:41 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Popular Opinion: cameroncrazy1984: Popular Opinion: Breaking News!

This just in...some people still uncomfortable with openly ghey expression.

but they gheys will shove it in their faces until they learn to quietly accept it.

someday, it will be perfectly fine to shove fruit up your ass in public. We just need to see it more until we learn to accept it.

Hooray for slippery slope arguments!

i suspected you were secretly bigoted against those that like to put fruit in their butts in public.
suspicions confirmed.

*yawn*

You're boring.


Don't be too hard on Popular Opinion.  He just REALLY likes to think about sticking things into men's butts.
 
2013-12-22 10:20:16 PM
My favorite thing is when a Fark greenlight completely skews the statistics for a news site. There are probably editors. looking at google analytics data. screaming at their writers to pump out more articles on the Santa Claus dancers. We need 24 hour coverage on this, we are finally making our ad numbers!

i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-22 10:51:48 PM

stonelotus: they were allowed to march, not required to.


I'm sure you were trying to make a point here, but damned if I can find it.  Care to elaborate?
 
2013-12-22 10:53:28 PM

serial_crusher: 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?


Is he?
 
2013-12-22 11:26:12 PM
wiki.urbandead.com

/ Seriously? 400+ posts, and no one?
 
2013-12-23 02:31:25 AM

mooseyfate: stonelotus: they were allowed to march, not required to.

I'm sure you were trying to make a point here, but damned if I can find it.  Care to elaborate?


I think your confusion might have to do with the fact that you failed to keep my comment attached to the quote that gave it context.
 
2013-12-23 12:00:29 PM

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

THIS 100%!!!!!

When you say "Gay man" it should not conjure up these dudes as a typical stereotype.  The what I am calling "establishment gay-rights movement" is fighting VERY hard in shedding itself of this stereotypical "look" and these guys are not helping.

Personally I see this as a setback, and nothing more than attention whoring at its worst.


Please both of you tell the LBGT community what they should do more.
I am sure they appreciate your thoughtful suggestions.

/and I am sure it has nothing to do with your own discomfort
 
2013-12-23 01:41:29 PM

stonelotus: mooseyfate: stonelotus: they were allowed to march, not required to.

I'm sure you were trying to make a point here, but damned if I can find it.  Care to elaborate?

I think your confusion might have to do with the fact that you failed to keep my comment attached to the quote that gave it context.


So you WERE trying to imply that they should have backed out of an event they were invited to march in? What sense does that make? Or was that not what you were trying to say? Again; please elaborate.
 
2013-12-23 02:22:23 PM

Warlordtrooper: AverageAmericanGuy: If this is what gays think of as "gay culture", perhaps I can see how some straight people might be put off by it.

This has less to do with gay culture and more about how men are subjected to double standards when it comes to gender equality.


If they had done a tap number, or other type of dance my guess is nobody would have minded, but thrusting in shorty shorts probably would be considered appropriate for either gender in that type of event.
 
2013-12-23 02:31:35 PM

SquiggsIN: To paraphrase the comments of the offended : "I don't want to explain to my kids that people have differences that I don't want them to embrace so I'll just keep demanding that society shield my children from reality for me"

These are the same parents that let their kids have unsupervised TV/internet/friend access and then complain when they learn about something they didn't think their precious snowflakes could handle yet.

Remember, censorship : it's for the kids



It isn't about not wanting to explain it to kids, it is that small kids mimic to get attention. I would say that a child, of any gender shouldn't be wanting to dress up like that and thrust their hips around in sexually suggestive ways. They don't understand what is going on there, they don't understand the implications, and at a young age they simply don't care. They know that doing X gets attention, and there is no such thing as negative attention to a child.


As people get older, and they want to do those things because they understand what they are doing, then it is different. But a three year old, isn't going to understand it, they don't particularly care that they crap their pants, so long as they can keep playing
 
2013-12-23 04:09:19 PM

mooseyfate: stonelotus: mooseyfate: stonelotus: they were allowed to march, not required to.

I'm sure you were trying to make a point here, but damned if I can find it.  Care to elaborate?

I think your confusion might have to do with the fact that you failed to keep my comment attached to the quote that gave it context.

So you WERE trying to imply that they should have backed out of an event they were invited to march in? What sense does that make? Or was that not what you were trying to say? Again; please elaborate.


I don't have any kids so I'm not sure I can explain this to a 3 year old, but here's trying...

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.

The dancers made a conscious decision to perform.  They were not contracted to perform or legally or morally obligated to perform in any way. Therefore, they are not absolved of any responsibility for they reactions they received.  I unquestionably support their right to have been allowed to performed, just as I support the rights of the audience to enjoy or be disgusted by the performance and to make their pleasure or displeasure known. whether or not they were invited has nothing to do with it.
 
2013-12-23 05:09:40 PM

stonelotus: mooseyfate: stonelotus: mooseyfate: stonelotus: they were allowed to march, not required to.

I'm sure you were trying to make a point here, but damned if I can find it.  Care to elaborate?

I think your confusion might have to do with the fact that you failed to keep my comment attached to the quote that gave it context.

So you WERE trying to imply that they should have backed out of an event they were invited to march in? What sense does that make? Or was that not what you were trying to say? Again; please elaborate.

I don't have any kids so I'm not sure I can explain this to a 3 year old, but here's trying...

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.

The dancers made a conscious decision to perform.  They were not contracted to perform or legally or morally obligated to perform in any way. Therefore, they are not absolved of any responsibility for they reactions they received.  I unquestionably support their right to have been allowed to performed, just as I support the rights of the audience to enjoy or be disgusted by the performance and to make their pleasure or displeasure known. whether or not they were invited has nothing to do with it.


No outrage was directed towards them until well after their performance, though. If an organizer had approached them and said "Those outfits are inappropriate, you can't march" and they made a scene until they WERE allowed to march, you would be on to something. However they were not only invited (which means an organizer contacted them, not the other way around), no one saw anything particularly wrong with the way they were dressed, so the burden of "responsibility" is on no one but the organizer. If someone invites you to perform and you agree, there's no reason to arrive and then decide not to perform. That would, infact, be far more rude and offensive than the dance routine they actually performed. So again, people can be outraged and shocked all they want, but the performers did nothing except what they are sought after for. The fact that it may have been "inappropriate" for the audience is irrelevant. It was the organizer's job to atleast look into what they do and what they're famous for. This is like if someone invited Gallagher to do a set at a white linen social and they got pissed because now they have assorted fruits splattered all over them. You got what the organizers wanted, it's not Gallagher's fault they failed to consider the audience.
 
2013-12-23 05:12:24 PM

stonelotus: mooseyfate: stonelotus: mooseyfate: stonelotus: they were allowed to march, not required to.

I'm sure you were trying to make a point here, but damned if I can find it.  Care to elaborate?

I think your confusion might have to do with the fact that you failed to keep my comment attached to the quote that gave it context.

So you WERE trying to imply that they should have backed out of an event they were invited to march in? What sense does that make? Or was that not what you were trying to say? Again; please elaborate.

I don't have any kids so I'm not sure I can explain this to a 3 year old, but here's trying...

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.

The dancers made a conscious decision to perform.  They were not contracted to perform or legally or morally obligated to perform in any way. Therefore, they are not absolved of any responsibility for they reactions they received.  I unquestionably support their right to have been allowed to performed, just as I support the rights of the audience to enjoy or be disgusted by the performance and to make their pleasure or displeasure known. whether or not they were invited has nothing to do with it.


Also, don't be a dick because I'm trying to understand what you so vaguely hinted at. Your post could have had more than a few intended messages and I wanted to make sure I understood which one you were actually trying to put across before I debated it.
 
2013-12-23 07:49:36 PM
A handfull of prudes complained about a slightly questionable performance in some podunk town. According to some of the posts in this thread, this is worse than the Third Reich.
 
Displayed 39 of 439 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