Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
The article here includes the commercial, but the absolutely PRICELESS part of the article, is the audition tapes at the end. I have been watching them for about 10 minutes now, and am absolutely dieing. The commercial itself is ridiculous, and boy do I love internet justice
I dont know if you guys saw, But Rachel Maddow had this story two nights in a row this week on her show making fun of it . . . then the actual commercial aired during her show . . . for reals reals
Post by lordrockinhood on Apr 12, 2009 21:36:01 GMT -5
I was going to post this yesterday... how dare they abuse the NOM of the mighty Corncat! I think it's really funny that the author at "Gawker" decided to add (I assume) two more noms
"Marriage-Defending Crusaders Are 2M4M
Let's see, how could the evil anti-gay group that calls itself NOM (NOM NOM) and had its hilarious commercial audition clips leaked to YouTube become even more comical? They found a way!
The "National Organization for Marriage," the group behind the briefly infuriating "gathering storm" ad, has decided to call their anti-gay campaign "2 Million for Marriage." Or, as they themselves shortened it: "2M4M."
Come on guys, is this all an elaborate hoax?
We hear NOM's next campaign, against gay adoption, is called "Parents, Not Perverts" or "PNP."
(Also we hear NOM's totally st8 but their GF is out of town and they wanna party.)"
Post by wonderllama on Apr 12, 2009 22:00:15 GMT -5
The fucked up thing about this is that every single one of these "fears" these people listed are exactly what happens to gay people everyday - freedom taken away, having the government intrude in their personal relationships, "those" people wanting to change the way they live, and for some being gay at work won't exactly help your job security. And the Rainbow Coalition... just wow. I mean it's almost as if the writer of this commercial was some sarcastic asshole with a very ironic sense of humor seeing if he can put one over on the wingnuts who hired him for that job. The storm brewing, "I'm afraid!", the kid. If I had seen this during an episode of SNL, I would have thought it was a digital short.
I don't know whether I should be pissed off at that ad, be laughing hysterically at the complete logic fail (and the auditions), or be scared that people actually beleve that bullhit.
Post by wonderllama on Apr 13, 2009 18:50:51 GMT -5
Oh trust me, I know people believe that shit. I work alongside them everyday, and I even have a few of them in my family (despite having a very awesome gay cousin).
I actually did some digging around and found that these fears are actually based in fact. The doctor that has to choose between his faith and his profession refers to a California case where a doctor didn't want to treat a woman because she was a lesbian. The church group was punished by the New Jersey government because they owned a beachside pavilion that they rented out for public use (parties, reunions, weddings, etc.) but refused to rent the space for gay civil unions when they became legal in their state. The Massachusetts parent refers to a case where a group of parents tried to push the state to outlaw teaching family diversity in schools, which was of course denied by the courts.
This ad reminds me a lot of those anti-marijuana ads that say if you smoke weed, you're gonna run opver some girl on a bicycle pulling out of the drive-thru on your munchie run. Studies have shown that those ads did not in fact curb marijuana use among their target audience, and even suggested that they may have had the reverse effect because they were so unbelievable people questioned their validity a lot more. This will appeal to the fundamentalists, but I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of rational people will see this for what it is.
Oh, and good luck in what will be I'm sure a raging legal battle in Iowa. We've already had that "battle" here in Arkansas on both a constitutional ban on gay marriage and an adoption law. The fear and the hate won overwhelmingly in both instances.
Post by nitetimeritetime on Apr 17, 2009 13:02:08 GMT -5
We had a locally proposed amendment here recently. The city had recently included LGBT people in its non-discrimination language, and the amendment would have removed them, making it legal to fire, deny housing to, or otherwise openly deny the civil rights of people based on gender or sexual orientation. The fearmongers directly called LGBT people pedophiles in their tv ads and mailing campaign literature. Fortunately the amendment was defeated, but the vote was closer than I would have hoped.
Post by ☮ superbek ☮ on Apr 17, 2009 15:32:36 GMT -5
el oh el.
what a bunch of dummies talent!
Personally, I do not think gay marriage is okay because I don't think any marriage is okay, at least when we are speaking in terms of legality. We were founded on the separation of church and state but yet marriage certificates are legally binding? hmmm.... Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't marriage a religious ceremony/ideal? Unions are the way to go for everyone. With a union you eliminate all the gray areas that pertain to conflicting with one's religion. Civil unions allow gay partners to share benefits and Christians to get married.
But of course this is my non-god having, same sex loving opinion.
Personally, I do not think gay marriage is okay because I don't think any marriage is okay, at least when we are speaking in terms of legality. We were founded on the separation of church and state but yet marriage certificates are legally binding? hmmm.... Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't marriage a religious ceremony/ideal? Unions are the way to go for everyone. With a union you eliminate all the gray areas that pertain to conflicting with one's religion. Civil unions allow gay partners to share benefits and Christians to get married.
i totally agree. one of the biggest problems right now with legalizing gay marriage is semantics. because laws are written with the word "marriage", it would take a complete re-wording of all laws to make everyone happy, and allow civil unions the same rights as marriages.
Post by nitetimeritetime on Apr 17, 2009 16:39:49 GMT -5
I'm married, but I'd have no problem with this at all. It's not like we asked any state or deity permission to love each other and live together before we got married.
Post by GratefulHippie on Apr 17, 2009 16:49:15 GMT -5
btw...do the same people who don't want gays to get "married" because of religious reasons, also have a problem with atheists getting "married"? or agnostics getting "married"?
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't marriage a religious ceremony/ideal? Unions are the way to go for everyone. With a union you eliminate all the gray areas that pertain to conflicting with one's religion. Civil unions allow gay partners to share benefits and Christians to get married.
Actually, the way I understand it, the institution of marriage is more rooted in property laws than anything else (i.e. the wife is considered the property of the husband). It's not until fairly recent history that it became more of a religious thing in western society.
But really, I've never understood why the church thinks it owns the word "marriage." All marriage is is a legal contract between two people with associated priveleges from the state. If a church doesn't want to perform ceremonies for gay people because of their beliefs, that's their right as a private institution. But the government can't deny marriages to athiests, Muslims, etc. because of their beliefs, and homosexuals should be no different.
That's pretty much the answer I would expect from these "defenders" of marriage like Bob Barr, who authored and sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and is married -- but to his third wife. Or Newt Gingrich, who co-sponsored DOMA at the same time he was cheating on his second wife (the mistress is wife # three).
Post by pixiestix21 on Apr 22, 2009 9:11:42 GMT -5
lol thanks im a lil slow when it comes to written sarcasm sometimes! but seriously, i've never had anyone answer that question to my satisfaction and i was hoping someone could at least explain the rationale. i love how all the defenders of the "sanctity of marriage" just malign "straight" marriage (or as miss california put it "opposite marriage" which i think is hilarious) with their actions while touting marriage as some weird ideal for all of humanity. i personally think they've done enough to screw up any idea of "sanctity of marriage" that our society once had. we have like a 50% divorce rate in this country. i have the sneaking suspicion they're afraid that images of loving, married, gay couples will just make them look like philandering idiots who don't know sanctity of marriage from a hole in the ground.
lol thanks im a lil slow when it comes to written sarcasm sometimes!
No worries, I could have done the snark a little better.
i have the sneaking suspicion they're afraid that images of loving, married, gay couples will just make them look like philandering idiots who don't know sanctity of marriage from a hole in the ground.
;D
I think it's really funny that the author at "Gawker" decided to add (I assume) two more noms 
