Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 26    Average: 3/5]
49 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 8563
Rating: 3
Category: Funny
Date: 03/04/13 01:15 PM

49 Responses to The Ultimate Anti-Gay Marriage Ad

  1. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    March 4, 2013 at 1:15 pm
    Link: The Ultimate Anti-Gay Marriage Ad - So THAT`S what all the uproar is about...
  2. Profile photo of panth753
    panth753 Female 18-29
    9184 posts
    March 4, 2013 at 1:50 pm
    I thought it was going to be something serious for a second.
  3. Profile photo of Nova666
    Nova666 Female 18-29
    136 posts
    March 4, 2013 at 1:53 pm
    lol the looks on the kids face after xD even the kid is all like "wtf?"

    That was deffinatly weird x3
  4. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    March 4, 2013 at 2:18 pm
    Kinda is serious, panth753. Sadly, it kinda is.
  5. Profile photo of ForSquirel
    ForSquirel Male 30-39
    2056 posts
    March 4, 2013 at 2:39 pm
    Someone hasn`t seen the new Kindle commercial have they?
  6. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36202 posts
    March 4, 2013 at 2:54 pm

    It`s GAY DAY at I-A-B !
  7. Profile photo of eduardoleon
    eduardoleon Male 18-29
    500 posts
    March 4, 2013 at 2:56 pm
    Ha!
  8. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3876 posts
    March 4, 2013 at 3:21 pm
    "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.
  9. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 4, 2013 at 6:18 pm
    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.
  10. Profile photo of carmium
    carmium Female 50-59
    6381 posts
    March 4, 2013 at 9:33 pm
    Funny, I haven`t the old "next thing people will marry animals" argument lately. One could have fun mocking that...
  11. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 2:32 am
    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.
  12. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3876 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 4:00 am
    "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.
  13. Profile photo of Justin9235
    Justin9235 Male 18-29
    1582 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 5:35 am
    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.
  14. Profile photo of Langer
    Langer Male 18-29
    394 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 5:41 am
    Hurray! The old, I`m too stupid to understand two consenting adults, argument.

    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
  15. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 5:42 am
    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.
    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.
  16. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 6:09 am
    But who will make da sammiches!!!!!
  17. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36202 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 6:11 am

    "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, "
    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.
  18. Profile photo of eduardoleon
    eduardoleon Male 18-29
    500 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 6:46 am
    +100000 points to Gerry1of1. much respects
  19. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36202 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 6:55 am

    @ 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
  20. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 8:06 am
    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.
  21. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 8:25 am
    This is about forcing churches to accept homosexual couples.

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

    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.

    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.
  22. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 8:27 am
    The role of the state in this matter is supposed to be a referee. Not the enforcer of what one faction considers "decent".
  23. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 9:03 am
    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.
  24. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36202 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 9:21 am

    @ 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, "No one should have the "civil right" to tell a church, you must marry us." 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
  25. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36202 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 9:26 am

    @ Crakr continued
    "because then the FLDS church would sue to make bigamy legal"
    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
  26. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36202 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 9:27 am

    @ Crakr continued

    "homosexuals have been able to have "civil unions" in many states for awhile now" 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.
  27. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6665 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 9:47 am
    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.
  28. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36202 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 10:18 am

    @ 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.
  29. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 11:04 am
    @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!
  30. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3876 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 11:46 am
    @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."
  31. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 12:17 pm
    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.
  32. Profile photo of markust123
    markust123 Male 40-49
    3876 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 12:26 pm
    The only threat marriage equality will bring to a straight bigot`s marriage is paranoid delusions.
  33. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36202 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    CrakrJak "The societal consequences of this are just going to further destroy the sanctity of marriage and the family structure."
    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.
  34. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    6665 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 2:13 pm
    `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.
  35. Profile photo of robthelurker
    robthelurker Male 18-29
    2685 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 3:18 pm
    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.
  36. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 3:27 pm
    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.



    NEXT!!!!
  37. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36202 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 3:47 pm

    Divorce ruins the sanctity of marriage.
    BAN DIVORCE!
  38. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 3:52 pm
    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
  39. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36202 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 7:42 pm

    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?
  40. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36202 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 8:26 pm

    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.
  41. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 9:05 pm
    "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?
  42. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 10:58 pm
    But who will make da sammiches!!!!!
    @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?

    It is a contract that requires consent.
    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.

    This is about forcing churches to accept homosexual couples.
    @CrakrJak is 100% correct. Until Muslims are FORCED to accept "gay marriage" too? It`s 100% hypocricy...
  43. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36202 posts
    March 5, 2013 at 11:32 pm

    @ 5cats - no, I`m not in favor of any religion and I`ve never said I was. Bigomy does not require a god.
  44. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 6, 2013 at 7:25 am
    @CrakrJak is 100% correct. Until Muslims are FORCED to accept "gay marriage" too? It`s 100% hypocricy...

    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.
  45. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36202 posts
    March 6, 2013 at 8:51 am
    "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."
    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.
  46. Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10722 posts
    March 6, 2013 at 9:07 am
    But a Justice of the Peace or other Civil Servant cannot make a moral judgement.

    True, but they signed up for the position so they waived their right to object.
  47. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    March 6, 2013 at 9:25 am
    @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.
  48. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    March 6, 2013 at 9:33 am
    @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.
  49. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36202 posts
    March 6, 2013 at 10:22 am

    I don`t do sammiches.
    I like to bake.

Leave a Reply