Funny Response To Stupid Ad

For those who may not have seen it, there is an ad out there which once again tries to portray the fight over same sex marriage as ‘the gays are gonna steal your kids’. It is quite disgusting.

YouTube Preview Image

Well there is a very funny response, which I think shows a light response to a nasty ad

YouTube Preview Image

Author: PATRICK EDABURN, Assistant Editor

8 Comments

  1. Your right, Patrick. That first ad is disgusting.

    It's one thing for people to oppose gay marriage. But to hear people argue against gay marriage on the basis that it will infringe upon their own freedom is unbelievable. Sadly, I have friends and family members who while, not anti-gay, voted in favor of California's Proposition 8 after they bought into the lies that were propogated by supporters of Proposition 8.

  2. You're half right, Patrick. The first ad IS disgusting but you seem to have overlooked Stephen Colbert's “Anti-Gay Marriage Ad

    Could it be that Colbert's was better at showing the hatred, lies and un-christian attitudes displayed in the obscene original?

  3. I'm no doubt going to get slammed for this comment, but here goes anyway…

    I'd neither heard of this group nor seen this hyper-dramatic ad until now, and my eyebrows shot right up through my hairline at what I thought they were saying.

    What I heard: “They” are going to make me / my children gay, and/or take away the rights of families / parents to educate their children.

    Bizarre! Ridiculous! Insane!

    So much so, in fact, that I had to go check my assumptions at their website, and read the background on their issues. The most clarifying thing I found there was a link to a Washington Post article from a couple of weeks ago, detailing the various court cases lost by people attempting to do business in accordance with their personal religious convictions.

    The parodies of the gathering storm ad are funny (very!), but they're skipping right past a very real conflict between equally fundamental (imho) rights.

    There were quite a number of examples in the WaPo article, and while I don't think all of them are equally problematic, generally, some struck me as potentially violating 1st Amendment rights to religious freedom. A church group cannot limit the use of its pavilion to hetero couples' ceremonies? A psychologist who objects to gay marriage is required to counsel a lesbian couple? Seriously?

    From a purely constitutional perspective, there may be a cataclysmic clash coming between various guaranteed rights, and while these folks made a truly parody-begging ad, I'm not sure kicking their concerns under the bus serves a good purpose.

  4. Try putting up a 'Whites Only' sign on your pavilion and see how well that goes over. Religion is not an excuse to discriminate against gays either.

    Or to take another approach in the church pavilion case, they weren't required to let the gays use it, they just lost their tax exemption – terribly sorry but such people should not be subsidized by taxpayers.

  5. “Try putting up a 'Whites Only' sign on your pavilion and see how well that goes over. Religion is not an excuse to discriminate against gays either.”

    That's the obvious rejoinder to the argument, and I certainly went through it mentally before commenting (and posting, in fact, at my own blog).

    And at first blush, the separate but equal and racial discrimination battles appear very similar. But racial prejudice and bigotry are not rooted in religious texts (to my knowledge). Perhaps someone can point me to some verse or biblical interpretation that was widely cited at the time?

    The reactions from some of the more religious people do, however, seem to stem directly from their religion. Simply disagreeing with their position (as I do) does not mean they must ipso facto toss their beliefs out.

    I'm more inclined to agree with lost tax exemption status. And in the case of private businesses, I'd vastly prefer to see people react with their $, rather than subragating one fundamental right to another.

  6. Polimom, anti-gay arguments aren't really rooted in religious texts. Everyone involved was pretty clear how they felt about homosexuals long before the picked up the Bible, and curiously everyone seems able to interpret what's written there in a way that backs their views. Have you checked out the near-gay-marriage between David and Jonathan in the Book of Samuel? http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_

    Distinguishing between a racist belief and a homophobic belief on the basis of why people believe them is a business the government ought to stay out of. People believe what they believe for all manner of complex reasons, some religious, some cultural (if there's a difference), some emotional.

    But where it seems we're heading is no, you *don't* have a right to believe any fool thing you want, to act on that belief, and to pass it on to your kids.

  7. Polimom, anti-gay arguments aren't really rooted in religious texts.

    Saying this does not make it true. For a non-religious person to make a sweeping statement like this, which apparently applies to all religions, including those the speaker knows nothing about, is to replace argument based on fact with argument based on assertion. Even if the person is deeply religious, it is unlikely that he or she is as familiar with the textual or doctrinal aspects of other religions as with his or her own. So, again, it is an assertion, rather than a fact.

    Distinguishing between a racist belief and a homophobic belief on the basis of why people believe them is a business the government ought to stay out of.

    Sounds good, but before we all nod our heads and move on . . . . . just who gets to decide which beliefs are racist or homophobic (and therefore presumably should be suppressed, regardless of the source of the belief)? Isn't the suppression of “fool beliefs” by government the essence of thought control?

    But where it seems we're heading is no, you *don't* have a right to believe any fool thing you want, to act on that belief, and to pass it on to your kids.

    Thereby in a single sentence neatly (though perhaps unintentionally) stating the point that the first video is (clumsily) trying to make. If your religion includes beliefs that are “unacceptable” to the politically correct majority, then you have no right to believe them, or to pass them on to your children. Only the beliefs of the politically correct are fit to pass on to your children.

    Many long and bloody wars have been fought between those who knew what the correct beliefs were, and those who did not want to have these 'correct beliefs' imposed on them. Religiously derived beliefs can not be dismissed as mere prejudice and bigotry without risking major blowback.

    If this is indeed where we're heading, then there are large numbers of people who simply will not go there.

  8. The_Master, beliefs based on supposedly-immutable religious texts evolve just like other beliefs. A great deal of the Bible's barbaric morality has been quietly retired over the centuries. And every change has doubtless been pioneered by radicals and resisted by traditionalists appalled that anyone would dare challenge their sacred beliefs. In other words, there's nothing new to see here.

    Of course, not every change is good, and the traditionalists often carry the day. So the real question of whether gay marriage is a good idea or a bad one. We should debate the idea on its merits, not the FUD underlying the first ad, nor the mockery of its lampoons.

Submit a Comment