The Ultimate Anti-Gay Marriage Ad

Submitted by: chalket 4 years ago in Funny

So THAT"S what all the uproar is about...
There are 49 comments:
Male 38,468

I don`t do sammiches.
I like to bake.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@5Cats

"Fear not! The "femme" gay guy will"

Bollocks will they! I`m the butch one and I literally make the sandwiches, because he controls the doe-eyed look.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@5cats: Come on, we`ve had legal same sex marriage up here for many years now. Please point out an instance where a church was forced to marry a gay couple. Go on, I`ll wait.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] But a Justice of the Peace or other Civil Servant cannot make a moral judgement.[/quote]

True, but they signed up for the position so they waived their right to object.
0
Reply
Male 38,468
[quote]"No; you, like Crakr, are 100% wrong. You are also being 100% facetious. If ANYONE for any reason is unwilling to perform such a ceremony they have no obligation to do so." [/quote]
Not totally correct. No private holy man/woman would be required to. But a Justice of the Peace or other Civil Servant cannot make a moral judgement. They would be required to perform the service for anyone who legally qualifies. If the county judge doesn`t like mixed race marriages he cannot legally deny them the right. The same would hold true for same-gender marriage. But that only applies to government clerks, not private ministers.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]@CrakrJak is 100% correct. Until Muslims are FORCED to accept "gay marriage" too? It`s 100% hypocricy...[/quote]

No; you, like Crakr, are 100% wrong. You are also being 100% facetious. If ANYONE for any reason is unwilling to perform such a ceremony they have no obligation to do so.
0
Reply
Male 38,468

@ 5cats - no, I`m not in favor of any religion and I`ve never said I was. Bigomy does not require a god.
0
Reply
Male 37,764
[quote]But who will make da sammiches!!!!![/quote]
@MacGovern: Fear not! The "femme" gay guy will, or the "femenine" gay woman! Strangely, both male and female "dominant" types are called "butch"... what`s up with dat?

[quote]It is a contract that requires consent.[/quote]
So @Gerry1: You`re ALL FOR ISLAM which allows one male to marry 4 females? How nice of you! Of COURSE it`s consentual! Allah wills it! To disagree is blasphamy!
I`m serious here. Not a joke.

[quote]This is about forcing churches to accept homosexual couples.[/quote]
@CrakrJak is 100% correct. Until Muslims are FORCED to accept "gay marriage" too? It`s 100% hypocricy...
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"When people are allowed to "marry" whatever they want and as many as they want, Don`t tell me we didn`t warn all of you. "

For fun, let`s go down that slippery slope (that has never happened in any situation it`s ever been threatened btw). Say a guy marries his dog. How about a woman marries a tree and adopts several saplings. How does that affect your own marriage? How does that affect how other people feel about your marriage, if you care how they feel about it? Why do you care about other stranger`s lives and why would a stranger`s actions diminish how you feel about your own marriage? Do other people`s divorces affect your marriage? How about those quicky Vegas marriages that end a couple days later? Is marriage that fragile?
0
Reply
Male 38,468

Crakr, Let`s assume your stats about gays being MORE likely to divorce are accurate. If you would limit the right to marry based on likelyhood of divorce, then you have to limit it according to education level, race/ethnicity, and rape. Yep - rape. Women who have been raped are 4 times more likely to get divorced. So, statistically, they would be more likely than gays to get divorced. Based on your thinking we will have to deny them the right to marry.

Also, blacks are more likely to divorce. Followed by whites, then hispanics and finally asians who top the board by staying together. So Black and Whites should not be allowed to marry...too risky.
0
Reply
Male 38,468

CrakrJak, your stats are scewed because straights stopped getting married. They just have the baby then break up later with no government record. As for gays, You have to give us more than 3 years of marriage history before you can come up with a statistic. I`ve been with my hubby for 20 years. My brother has been with his husband for 21 years. {The guys a jerk but my brother likes him.} That`s longer than my other brother has been with his wife. But their relationship is "real" and mine is not just because of our wabbly-bits, not because of the commitment level or dedication to our partners. WTH?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Gerry: The magazine statistics like, "Half of all marriages end in divorce", have been proven to be overblown. Actually the divorce rate for heterosexuals is less than a 30%, but the divorce rate for homosexuals is much much higher.

"In Norway, male same-sex marriages are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and female same-sex marriages are an astonishing 167 percent more likely to be dissolved. In Sweden, the divorce risk for male-male partnerships is 50 percent higher than for heterosexual marriages, and the divorce risk for female partnerships is nearly double that for men." - UCLA Williams Institute
0
Reply
Male 38,468

Divorce ruins the sanctity of marriage.
BAN DIVORCE!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] When people are allowed to "marry" whatever they want and as many as they want, Don`t tell me we didn`t warn all of you.

The societal consequences of this are just going to further destroy the sanctity of marriage and the family structure. [/quote]



NEXT!!!!
0
Reply
Male 3,436
dude should look into investing in some quality audio recording equipment. and getting some one with a better voice to do the voice over work.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
`sanctity of marriage`

Sanctification is not a necessary condition of marriage outside of some specific church dogmas. If yours is sanctified it stays sanctified. I`m sure gay marriage can be be sanctified by some churches but it`s more of an optional extra.
0
Reply
Male 38,468

CrakrJak [quote]"The societal consequences of this are just going to further destroy the sanctity of marriage and the family structure." [/quote]
Now THIS I can understand, Crakr. I don`t agree. Over half of Differant Sex marriages end in divorce and I cannot name a single child in my neighborhood who lives with both of it`s parents. All this without the help of gay people. Face it, straights have screwed it up so bad why not let gays marry, we can`t make the statistics any worse. Not even if we fail as bad as straights.

But I do agree with the sentiment, about family and how it has been forgotten in society. Men just make babies and walk away like tom cats and the acceptance of "baby daddies".. no two siblings having the same one... just makes a fellow shake his head.
0
Reply
Male 4,395
The only threat marriage equality will bring to a straight bigot`s marriage is paranoid delusions.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
When people are allowed to "marry" whatever they want and as many as they want, Don`t tell me we didn`t warn all of you.

The societal consequences of this are just going to further destroy the sanctity of marriage and the family structure.
0
Reply
Male 4,395
@Crakrjak, "Oh and that "Consenting Adult" argument doesn`t work either, because then the FLDS church would sue to make bigamy legal, claiming that their multiple marriages are "consensual" as well."

As usual the slippery snake has omitted a key word so that he doesn`t ever have to admit he is wrong. If you are quoting me please use the whole phrase, "TWO consenting adults."
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

"Once the door is opened to gays, you`ll not be able to shut it on others"

Yeah, just like when interracial marriage were made legal!

Oh wait, the opposite of that: just like what DIDN`T happen when interracial marriage were made legal!

*slaps forehead* silly me, getting that mixed up. A-doy!
0
Reply
Male 38,468

@ CrakrJak - you are officially of my wedding invitation list now!... oh, wait, I still want the gift so, okay I forgive you, you`re invited. We`re registered at GayMart.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
It`s against god`s explicit wishes.
It`s a long held taboo and socially divisive.
It`s a slippery slope that will lead to inter-species marriage.

Are there any anti-gay marriage arguments that weren`t used againt mixed-race marriages? Let`s remember, only fully legal in 1967.
0
Reply
Male 38,468

@ Crakr continued

[quote]"homosexuals have been able to have "civil unions" in many states for awhile now" [/quote] Which are not the same as marriage. They do not have all the same rights and responsibilities and they are not recognized by the Federal Government. "Separate But Equal" never is, even if the back of the bus does go to the same place as the front.

Crakr, the only reason you have is because your faith doesn`t allow it. I`m okay with that. But you know it`s wrong to force others to live according to YOUR faith. My religious belief is okay with it.
0
Reply
Male 38,468

@ Crakr continued
[quote]"because then the FLDS church would sue to make bigamy legal" [/quote]
So? First, what someone else does cannot be used as an excuse to limit my civil rights. Hold THEM accountable for their behavior and me for mine. You do that and I promise not to blame you for what the KKK do, `cause I know you have nothing to do with them.

Also, Bigamy has been practice much longer in history than monogamy. Your own bible supports the idea. Are you saying God is wrong for sanctioning it? And as long as they are consenting adults it`s none of our business.

to be continued
0
Reply
Male 38,468

@ Crakr - Yes, it is about civil rights. Just because we`ve never been allowed to marry doesn`t mean we don`t have a right to it, just as you do. It means we have been denied the right. Just as blacks were denied the right to freedom until that mistake was corrected.

Crakr, [quote]"No one should have the "civil right" to tell a church, you must marry us." [/quote] And no one is. That`s a propoganda lie told by the opposition because they don`t have a single "real" reason. It is legal for a jew and a christian to marry. But no one is forcing any church to perform a mixed-faith marriage if they do not believe it is correct. Same Sex marriage would only force the government to perform the civil service.

to be continued
0
Reply
Female 7,866
No one is forcing churches to accept anything- and given what Catholic priests ( and others) have been getting up to I think it obvious that religion has two sets of rules- one that goes for members who pay, one for the rest of the world! BUT- If marriage is a religious thing- than it should NOT be recognised in law- you do it in a church a synagogue or a mosque and it does not count- it ONLY counts legally if you do it at - a registry office ?? Or for the UK- we would ONLY recognise CofE marriages. Point being- the government wWNTS my partner and I to count as a couple when they get to hand out money- but NOT when I give them money. I don`t get what the problem is- some twats here are whining about it- tough.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
The role of the state in this matter is supposed to be a referee. Not the enforcer of what one faction considers "decent".
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] This is about forcing churches to accept homosexual couples.[/quote]

If a church is unwilling to perform such a ceremony under said circumstances they are not obligated to do so.

[quote] Oh and that "Consenting Adult" argument doesn`t work either, because then the FLDS church would sue to make bigamy legal, claiming that their multiple marriages are "consensual" as well.[/quote]

Well considering that the state has no legitimate interest in the matter anyways it`s nobody`s problem. Interestingly enough you`re against the state telling the churches what to do except when the relationship (or ceremony for that matter) doesn`t conform to an arbitrary format.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Gerry: "You cannot take away one persons civil rights just because soneone else would try to mis-use it."

Homosexuals have never had the "civil right" to marry before now. It is a rite that has been reserved for men and women for thousands of years.

This isn`t about "civil rights" anyways, homosexuals have been able to have "civil unions" in many states for awhile now. This is about forcing churches to accept homosexual couples.

No one should have the "civil right" to tell a church, you must marry us. Hijacking the word "marriage" was but one step in the goal.

Oh and that "Consenting Adult" argument doesn`t work either, because then the FLDS church would sue to make bigamy legal, claiming that their multiple marriages are "consensual" as well.
0
Reply
Male 38,468

@ CrakrJak, I would also like to add that the arguement against Gay Marriage will lead to people marrying their dogs is insulting. Gays are not into beastiality. If you search for information on this topic you will learn that 97% of "Beastaphiles" are heterosexual. {physician heal thyself.}

But if we go with your reasoning then....

We can`t let people worship Jehova. If we do the next thing you know they`ll be worshiping Humping Dogs! Also people worhshiping Jehova undermines my faith! Those christians should not get special privileges . Only my kind of people have normal rights to worship in a normal way
0
Reply
Male 500
+100000 points to Gerry1of1. much respects
0
Reply
Male 38,468

[quote]"if "Marriage" is no longer defined as 1 woman = 1 man, then it can`t legally be defined."
"there are people already campaigning to marry their pets, cars and love dolls"
"Once the door is opened to gays, you`ll not be able to shut it on others, " [/quote]
Frankly, that arguement is stupid and beneith you. You`re smarater than that, Crakr. YES you can define marriage. It is a contract that requires consent. As neither animals, love dolls nor children can enter into a contract there`s not problem with those people marrying their dogs. But we should stop straight people from marrying their cousins.

Crakr, you know better than this. You cannot take away one persons civil rights just because soneone else would try to mis-use it. That`s the arguement for gun control, which I think you are against.
0
Reply
Male 14,332
But who will make da sammiches!!!!!
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Once the door is opened to gays, you`ll not be able to shut it on others, as that would legally be just as prejudicial as you believe it is limiting it to 1 man and 1 woman.[/quote]
False. You are insulting homosexuals by lumping them in with pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and zoophiles. The reasonable argument for homosexuality being ok and the others not being ok is simple public opinion. A country`s laws generally reflect the will of the people.
0
Reply
Male 395
[quote]Hurray! The old, I`m too stupid to understand two consenting adults, argument.[/quote]

you mean like any other legally binding contract? that`s crazy talk...next you`ll say it doesn`t count if you`re not of sound mind or intoxicated
0
Reply
Male 1,582
I liked the idea, but the acting was just terrible. I realize they were trying to over-act it for the satire, but that was just really poorly done. Funny writing though.
0
Reply
Male 4,395
"I guess you haven`t realized that if "Marriage" is no longer defined as 1 woman = 1 man, then it can`t legally be defined. Yes, there are people already campaigning to marry their pets, cars and love dolls. Including those perverts wanting to marry children."

Hurray! The old, I`m too stupid to understand two consenting adults, argument. I love the oldies. Forced ignorance never fails to entertain.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
carmium: I guess you haven`t realized that if "Marriage" is no longer defined as 1 woman = 1 man, then it can`t legally be defined.

Yes, there are people already campaigning to marry their pets, cars and love dolls. Including those perverts wanting to marry children.

Once the door is opened to gays, you`ll not be able to shut it on others, as that would legally be just as prejudicial as you believe it is limiting it to 1 man and 1 woman.
0
Reply
Female 6,381
Funny, I haven`t the old "next thing people will marry animals" argument lately. One could have fun mocking that...
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Not so much about equal treatment per se, but it`s state power vs individual liberty. But I agree with everything else it`s plain neocon nonsense.
0
Reply
Male 4,395
"It`s GAY DAY at I-A-B !"

What`s up with that? Is it June? Lately it`s been all Guns & Roses on IAB - I mean Guns & Pansies.
0
Reply
Male 500
Ha!
0
Reply
Male 38,468

It`s GAY DAY at I-A-B !
0
Reply
Male 2,390
Someone hasn`t seen the new Kindle commercial have they?
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Kinda is serious, panth753. Sadly, it kinda is.
0
Reply
Female 136
lol the looks on the kids face after xD even the kid is all like "wtf?"

That was deffinatly weird x3
0
Reply
Female 9,475
I thought it was going to be something serious for a second.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
Link: The Ultimate Anti-Gay Marriage Ad [Rate Link] - So THAT`S what all the uproar is about...
0
Reply