A Shitstorm Of Intolerance (VIDEO)

The only "Storm Gathering" as far as we can tell is a shitstorm of intolerance gathered by the latest fearmongers over at The National Organization for Marriage.

They are running a multi-million dollar ad to warn people about the dangers of gay marriage.
In this response to their claims, we spent about 150 bucks on a green screen, some lights, a honey baked ham and some beer.

Comments

[snapshot1940]

Fantastic, and right on the money!

[Skyhawk]

Damn funny.

[campfreddy]

The anti-gay marriage people seem to think the world is populated by pretty people all leaping through marriage like couples in adverts, that no one divorces and that there is only one type of family set up - a man and a woman and children.

I'm a single parent. I have a male lodger living with us. My son has my friends as his aunties and uncles because I have no family. My relationship with my ex is good and we work together for our son but it is not a normal 'family' set up, it is more organic that that. My son is very happy and relaxed and doing well at school.

All I can say is that if gay marriage should be banned, then straight marriage between red necks (or anyone who has been on the jerry springer show) should also be banned!!! lol!!!

[llisa]

Good stuff!

[cannape]

As far as I can tell, too much heterosexuality is way more of a threat to traditional marriage than homosexuality. Let's criminalize adultery!

Think about how many marriages you know that have been broken up by too much heterosexuality. How many have been broken up by too much homosexuality? There you have it-- your solution to preserving marriage.

The only marriages in danger from homosexuality are those where homosexuality is an issue.

Criminalize adultery.

[devans00]

Brava Winstead and friends. Hilarious.

[bosunj]

We're not going to tolerate this kind of intolerance!!!!!

[biotechwoman]

This ad is hilarious!! Honestly...I laughed out loud. This must be satire, no? Seriously...can any person with an IQ above 10 take this ad as legitimate?

[superstition]

It all comes down to two things: the US Constitution, and 1956.

In 1956, Dr. Evelyn Hooker published the results of her study -- the first to specifically study gay men who had no history of treatment for mental illness. She found that homosexuality is not a disorder and that the actual social problem is homophobia. The APA eventually recognized the science, despite the bigotry of many of its members and removed homosexuality from its list of disorders in the 70s.

The 1st and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution clearly say that religion cannot determine our law, and that gay Americans have the same rights. There is no wiggle room here. The 14th Amendment even clearly states that no state can take away rights from gay Americans, which makes state constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

That's it, folks. It comes down to these two things. Given #1, there is no rational basis for heterosexism. Given #2, there is no legal basis, either.

Oh, and by the way... Marriage is a secular legal institution right now. If an atheist and a Jew go to a courthouse, they aren't going to be denied a marriage license on the basis of religion.

[Ganapati]

If it is that simple (and I am not arguing with you on the basis) then why the #(*%Y!@)* is the amendment upholding?

[superstition]

Why aren't those two amendments being fully recognized? Bigotry, in the form of heterosexi­sm/homopho­bia and/or political opportunism.

Since the majority of the public doesn't know about Dr. Hooker's work and don't look carefully at the wording of the Constitution, politicians, judges like Scalia, and others have been able to get away with not recognizing the full citizenship of gay Americans.

[cylindar]

Good points as far as they go but the fact is that marriage never has been defined as anything else than a contract between a man and a woman. The law relies heavily on precedent. IE: my educated guess is that the Supreme Court would have to throw it back into the laps of Federal legislatures to change the definition of marriage before any ban on homosexual marriage could be considered a human rights violation. Presently this would mean among other things that the congress would have to repeal the defense of marriage act. After that was done then they would have to restate what they consider marriage to be and who could contract. After all it is the federal acceptance that is important to the homosexual community. There are also other problems that legislators do not want to deal with. Approving homosexual marriage would definitely open up the Pandoras box of group marriages, Polyandry, polygamy and so on. Nothing wrong with this but they will not be able to handle it.

[superstition]

"Approving homosexual marriage would definitely open up the Pandoras box of group marriages, Polyandry, polygamy and so on. Nothing wrong with this but they will not be able to handle it."

Polygamy/polyandry is irrelevant because there is no sexual orientation for either one. Homosexuals and heterosexuals can have multiple spouses. So, no, legal recognition for same-sex pair bonds does not cause a slippery slope that will lead to multiple partners, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, or any of the other things (none of which are sexual orientations) people have claimed it will lead to.

Right now, opposite-sex pair bonds are legally recognized. By your reasoning, that already creates the slippery slope. The "we have a long tradition" stuff doesn't hold water because we had traditions of slavery, women not voting, and so forth. The 14th Amendment clearly states that gay Americans have the same rights. While people who want to have multiple partners are welcome to make their separate argument, the bottom line is that pair bonding is what we're talking about because marriage, as it currently exists, refers to pair-bonding.

DOMA is unconstitutional.

[SonofLiberty1]

No rational basis for heteorsexism?

If there wasn't, then why are you here?

Fact is that there have been a lot of studies since the 1970's that are beginning to show that
homosexuality is more a problem with the difficulty of the over exposure or under exposure to hormones and structural changes within the brain.

Of course then there is the fact that there are only two chromsomal types...Male XY and Female XX

There is not "Gay" or third gender chromosome.

[J G H]

What would Jesus do? He let the woman taken in adultery (death by stoning) go free. I doubt that he meant to approve adultery, but he did demonstarte that sexual transgressions are not the worst sins. I think Bernie Madoff and the AIG drivatives traders are in more danger of hell than a homosexual in a committed relationship. In general, I think the far right evangelicals have the same relationship to Christianity that the Taliban and al Qaeda have to Islam, a twisted perversion of the religion. They claim to follow Christ, but justify most of their positions by reference to the Old Testament, with some attention to the angry Book of Revelation, a book which was a controversial choice when the New Testament canon was formed and which does not fit well with the gospels. They like to push the What would Jesus do? message, but few of them seem to have really modified their behavior to match. In fact, I just had a vision -- Jesus driving the money changers out of Wall Street. Hallelujah, come Lord Jesus! By the way, I come from a long line of ministers. I have had a good religious upbringing and will not bow to the claims of the evangelical right.

[paixa3]

I do not know what Jesus would do, but, I have found no words that are portrayed as his against gays.

[redplanet]

What would Santa Claus do?

[uglicoyote]

What would the Great Spaghetti Monster Do?

[HotheadPaisen]

Seperate the haters with his noodley appendages?

[DubiousVoter]

One fact that everyone misses in this cultural battle is that the world population is spinning out of control. We live in a "closed system" on planet Earth with a finite amount of resources. There are more people alive today, than the sum of all who have lived and died in human history; 6.2 billion and counting!!

When populations become to large to be sustained there are a limited number of mechanisms to reduce its size: violence, disease, famine... or, a conscience effort to regulate expansion of the next generation.

Keep in mind that even animal populations form same-sex pairings when they out-grow their environment. (e.g., 7% of seagulls in California live in same-sex pairings)

Homosexuality is a normal function of the natural world.

[JumpDownTurnAround]

So my entire life as a GAY man I've been doing my share to help the enviornment and didn't even know it?

AWESOME!

[GreenRain]

That's right, as a Lesbian, I am Nature's population control.

I always laughed at the fact that the original NOM ad said "Rainbow" Coalition. I suppose, like the word "Teabag," a lot of Uber-Conservatives didn't realize the alternate meanings...

[Garioch]

Correct and in addition helping those with personality issues like me to find a partner by possibly increasing the female/ male ratio.
You are a good person!

[PocketWatch]

Fact: Current world population = about 6.7 Billion
Fact: State of Texas area = about 268,000 sq. miles
Fact: Each person in the world (man, woman & child) could fit into the state of Texas, each having about 1/4 acre of space.

Now, I agree we are using resources at an enormous clip, and that we need to do something about that. I agree we are fouling our own nest. I agree that the human race has to come to grips with wise management of resources. But we have to know what the realities are when we talk about overpopulation. Only tiny areas of the globe are overpopulated.

[libwingoflibwing]

Have you heard of bottlenecks? The idea is that in any system the limiting factor is the most limiting component. Thus your description of realities of overpopulation being that all the world's population could have a fourth of an acre in Texas is fallacious. Land is not the limiting component in this system. The other factors you mentioned and agreed are problems, over use of resources and pollution of the environment, are the limiting factor.

I would say quality of life and equality of lifestyle should also be limiting factors. In other words if the resources of the earth can support a population of X where we all are hungry, sick and poor and a population of .75X can support a population where 95% are hungry, sick and poor but 5% are wealthy and a population of .20X can support a population where 100% are wealthy then we should consider anything over .20X as overpopulation.

"Sharing the World in Peace"

[Spiritof1982]

Wow. This is ignorant.

[goldbry]

Hey pocketwatch (which must be the size of something -- your knowledge on this issue, perhaps?)

Is 1/4 acre of space enough to feed that person for one year? For a lifetime?

[SonofLiberty1]

Yes you are correct...Ever hear of Demographics or The Replacement Fertility Rate?
Turns out that for much of the world right now, birth rates are lower than the Replacement Fertility rate of 2.1 and in fact European countries are scared. Why?
Well, people are aging and folks aren't getting married and having kids..read about it here...

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20061228_01/20061228_07.html

[superstition]

Homosexuals are not sterile. The only difference between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples is that same-sex couples have more control over when they have kids. Accidents don't happen.

We can try to find teleological reasons to promote or condemn heterosexism, but the bottom line is the scientific fact that homosexuality isn't a disorder. We don't need any elaborate teleology because of that simple truth.

But, I do think it's interesting to think about how homosexuals do enrich society with their difference. Some cultures have had unique roles for gay people, for instance. One example is that gay men often held positions like shaman, positions that were important to the mental health of the population because they provided a feeling of security in a pre-scientific world.

[HotheadPaisen]

Have you been to a Gay Bingo night? Drag Queens STILL give us a feeling of security!. Suzy Orman can keep my money safe. Rachael Maddow can keep my worldview safe.
Condi Rice can..oh... wait...

[DubiousVoter]

That is classic! Thanks for a great laugh...

I love the "rimjobs.com" line :-D

[ReligiousWar]

Every time i see a cross dangling from a mirror, around a neck, tattooed, on a t-shirt, on our money, on TV { constantly} perched high and lit up at night along the road where i am trying to drive safely. I think to myself . . . Hate mongers, hypocrites, persecutors. we live in gangland, lord of the flies, the crusades, or witch hunt. It might as well be a swastika instead of a cross the way our laws are changing. It is a murder weapon after all but now, to me, just a symbol of hate and persecution.

I can't believe our government supports this behavior through faith based federal funding and preferential laws for the religious. If your gang supports HATE than you should not be tax exempt.

[Pupadup4oBama]

When I see a cross I think - how morbid....the symbol that a whole religion is based on - is how the main figure of that religion died.
It doesn't make much sense to me.

[kahapeterson]

Thats right. The Apostle Paul wrote that the Cross is complete foolishness to the Greeks (Gentiles) and heresy to the Jews. But, to those who understand its true meaning, it it the power of God to transform lives.

As a Christian, I dont know whether to laugh or cry when I see a diamond studded gold cross worn as an adornment with no appreciation for its true meaning. The cross was an instrument of torture, designed to inflict the cruelest possible death. All notions of "self righteousness" were hideously exposed on the cross. We are all tragically human and need God's grace and love.

[SonofLiberty1]

It would be morbid if he had not risen in three days.

[Nyland8]

Sweet!

8

[PocketWatch]

On a more serious note, this argument is purely cultural, not a built-in human trait. In some cultures, children are given over to the community to raise, for example, and no one knows whose children they are, even the biological mothers and fathers. That works for them. In other cultures, there is no stigma over sex of any kind whatsoever, and marriage has to do with property and status. Even fidelity to one's spouse is an open question. My point is, our American version of this issue and all the issues surrounding it, are Judeo-Christian based, formed over the last several centuries. It has nothing to do with what is successful in any culture or how kids turn out. Children are amazingly adaptable. Cultures evolve over time. It has been always this way. We are lookiing at this subject as though we are at the bottom of the well and seeing only a tiny fragment of the sky.

[DubiousVoter]

As a Molecular Biologist and someone who was raised in a strict evangelical household, I respectfully disagree.

[PocketWatch]

And I respect your disagreement. Can you be more specific? I can assume that you probably disagree concerning my remarks concerning the Judeo-Christian ethic I mentioned, but do you disagree that there are many cultures in the world, both past and present, that don't embrace that ethic in any way, shape, or form, and those societies are and were completely viable? Or do you disagree that societies evelove? Just askin' I'm not trying to be confrontational in the least.

[biotechwoman]

Just curious..how can one be a molecular biologist and evangelical at the same time?