Video: The obligatory “Heinz’s gay ad” clip
posted at 9:00 pm on June 26, 2008 by Allahpundit
I’ve given up trying to predict what will offend people. I hadn’t seen this until today but from the bits and pieces of news stories I’d read and the fact that they got hundreds of complaints about it in Britain, I figured it was explicit. As it is, not only didn’t it air during kids’ shows, it barely qualifies as “gay”: The guy in the hat is supposed to be a woman whose magical Heinz-powered sandwich-making kung fu has transformed her spiritually into a burly New York deli owner. It’s about as racy as an episode of Three’s Company. But the fear of protests demanded that it be yanked, and yanked it was — which triggered a counterprotest with support all the way up to the halls of Parliament. What’s a condiment company to do? No word yet, but the UK being the UK, it’s bound to end up as a hate crime either way.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
How dare people be offended at what has been offensive for the entirety of society. Everyone who is offended must be imprisoned. Aren’t ‘civil rights’ wonderful?
ThackerAgency on June 26, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Eventually it will be a hate crime just for people not being gay. If you aren’t gay, you must be imprisoned for a hate crime.
ThackerAgency on June 26, 2008 at 9:09 PM
The BBC shows I watch always seem to have guys necking. Well, not Top Gear, but Dr. Who and Torchwood sure do. It’s kind of annoying.
forest on June 26, 2008 at 9:12 PM
That isn’t even in the same galaxy as an explicit ad. The intent and joke was quite clear.
amerpundit on June 26, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Interesting in the article linked from Britain that it’s against the law to run advertisements for food “high in fat, sugar, or salt” during kid shows? So naturally one thinks of mayonaisse! Have to admit I was in London this summer and didn’t see too many kids running around with Heinz or Helmanns jars so it must be working.
Marcus on June 26, 2008 at 9:14 PM
It barely qualifies as Teh Ghey………….. but just to be sure, I won’t be buying any Heinz products anytime soon.
Seven Percent Solution on June 26, 2008 at 9:14 PM
And Dr who marketed to Kids as young as 4.
This isn’t as gay as much as an exercise in absurdity. That maybe why it’s drawing fire because they are making gaydom seem unusual and out of the norm. Plus he’s a burly American.
I mean the American on Dr Who/Torchwood is the gay guy!
- The Cat
MirCat on June 26, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Clue: Homosexuality offends Christians.
Far more offensive was tonight’s Question Time on the BBC a few hours ago. Some idiot artist (a Turner Prize winner) was outfitted in a small girl’s dress and everyone carried on as if normal. QT was the most serious political forum on television in the world (bar none) but like every institution in British society it is now a farce.
Traitors. Or perhaps now that they’ve surrendered power to Brussels, Quislings.
aengus on June 26, 2008 at 9:16 PM
That part was about the Ad. I don’t see Captain Jack as burly
MirCat on June 26, 2008 at 9:16 PM
That wasn’t made clear. But what do I know, I haven’t watched TV in so many years, I have no idea how far the envelope has been pushed in soap operas, commercials, etc.
I didn’t find the ad offensive, it was mildly funny. Will Heinz get more than its money’s worth from this controversy? Sure. Isn’t that really the point?
RushBaby on June 26, 2008 at 9:17 PM
The deli outfit and the fact that the little boy addresses him as “mum” doesn’t suggest we’re seeing something different than they are?
Allahpundit on June 26, 2008 at 9:20 PM
I avoid buying Heinz products just to keep the money away from Francoise Heinz-Kerry…
Frozen Tex on June 26, 2008 at 9:20 PM
I know if I want any info on gay issues, AP will be sure to find them and inform the HA audience, so this and Drudge is the place to go, I am just saying.
WoosterOh on June 26, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Allah: are you really obligated?
carbon_footprint on June 26, 2008 at 9:24 PM
As much as I’m obligated to post anything people are buzzing about. O’Reilly did a segment on the Factor about this ad last week, if it’s any comfort.
Allahpundit on June 26, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Personally as a Christian I’m offended, but then again, I stopped using anything the with the Heinz label about four years ago.
Vntnrse on June 26, 2008 at 9:27 PM
It suggested difference but it didn’t suggest any sort of “spiritual transformation from woman to a burly New York deli owner.”
baldilocks on June 26, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Yeah, O’Reilly was outraged by this a couple of weeks ago, and I believe there was some sort of follow-up tonight, but I missed it (will have to catch the later airing). Anyway, O’Reilly is usually pretty decent, but sometimes his outrage is completely misplaced. In this case, for the exact reason Allah explained.
I wanted to scream at the TV when Bill failed to grasp what was really happening in the ad, and his guest lacked the ability to explain it to him.
RightWinged on June 26, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Something more is required for the tip off than the word “mum.”
baldilocks on June 26, 2008 at 9:29 PM
Yeah, I’ve drifted away from BO as of late. Between his perpetual outrage of anything and everything to his calls for the regulation of the internet, I can’t stand it.
amerpundit on June 26, 2008 at 9:30 PM
antidote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoUAI6v0cwY
RBMN on June 26, 2008 at 9:31 PM
baldilocks:
The punchline was “Mayo with a New York Deli flavor”
That makes things pretty clear, doesn’t it?
apollyonbob on June 26, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Still, two guys kissing is gross and offensive. On the other hand, two hot girls kissing is not. Why is that?
Andy in Agoura Hills on June 26, 2008 at 9:33 PM
I’m a purebred Southerner. My family only uses Hunt’s ketchup…or Piggly Wiggly brand if money is tight that week.
SouthernGent on June 26, 2008 at 9:34 PM
ish.
Chakra Hammer on June 26, 2008 at 9:34 PM
I think it would be less offensive if they actually SHOWED the mother “transforming” into the burly deli guy as she picked up the Heinz. Maybe even a short pause as she/he looked him/herself over for a sec, and then continued making sandwiches.
That and leave off the guy/guy kiss and it becomes non-offensive and funny.
wearyman on June 26, 2008 at 9:36 PM
The nation of Islam called and would like their hat returned.
Would you like fries with that?
pc on June 26, 2008 at 9:38 PM
I seriously have no clue how anyone could be offended by something as innocent as this.
muyoso on June 26, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Next up Quantum Leap banned in the UK.
MirCat on June 26, 2008 at 9:39 PM
FTFY
Andy in Agoura Hills on June 26, 2008 at 9:39 PM
I had to visit a federal government agency in DC this week, and in the reception lobby there was a video monitor serving as a bulletin board. The big event this week? Some guy giving a talk to agency employees as part of the agency’s gay pride week.
flipflop on June 26, 2008 at 9:41 PM
Okay. Still it’s poorly conceived if it has to be explained to enough people. Did only the easterners get it right off the bat.
baldilocks on June 26, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Oh, forgot to add…
NTTAWWT
flipflop on June 26, 2008 at 9:43 PM
?
baldilocks on June 26, 2008 at 9:44 PM
The very fact that anyone could be offended by that ad makes me fear for the future of humanity.
Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 9:46 PM
Here’s a link to help with a little non-religious reasoning why the government and society shouldn’t be promoting male gay sex AT ALL UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. . .
HIV resurges in men who have sex with men
From the article it says that HIV has climbed 12% among BOYS AND MEN FROM AGES 13 to 24
But just to make sure that homosexuals specifically aren’t singled out here (you know ‘hate crime’ and all) it says this in the article:
So being gay has nothing to do with it. . . nothing at all. It’s men who have sex with men. . . not gay men. We still need to teach societal acceptance IN PUBLIC SCHOOL TO TEENAGERS about this public health hazard of a lifestyle.
ThackerAgency on June 26, 2008 at 9:49 PM
I really got to find a different brand of Ketchup to buy.
Maxx on June 26, 2008 at 9:51 PM
teaching teenagers them how to smoke would be healthier and less offensive. But is it a ‘hate crime’ for me to state these facts?
ThackerAgency on June 26, 2008 at 9:51 PM
The future of humanity depends on procreation.
“Go forth and sodomise” isn’t practical even if it does represent the pinnacle of human existence so far.
But then again, a lot of things scare you.
aengus on June 26, 2008 at 9:52 PM
So THAT’S why I wanted to kiss the mailman after I ate that BLT.
Heinz, It’s gay but it’s good.
GoodBoy on June 26, 2008 at 9:52 PM
It didn’t creep me out so much that he kissed a guy, as much as he kissed someone from New York.
Ugggghhhh…
Rhinoboy on June 26, 2008 at 9:54 PM
Given overpopulation I’d prefer less baby making. The entire premise of your post relies on a worldview that it is the goal of human beings to “procreate,” which in itself is a very religious outlook on the purpose of living. The idea that you want to transfer this stupid ideology to every single human being alive doesn’t say much about your ability to judge morality and human purpose.
Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Because it’s obviously wrong, by religious or natural standards, in both cases. But male sex drive is much higher than womens, and it’s as simple as “2 is better than 1″. But note that you said “two hot girls”. The rule doesn’t apply to the average/real lesbian, who looks like a dude.
BTW, most people here know my views on gays, but here’s another thing that struck me as funny recently, and it’s a bit of an expansion on what I just said… Ever notice that most of the “real” lesbians (not porn stars and girls gone wild) you see out there are look so much like guys. The hair, the way they dress, even how they talk often. They manufacture themselves to look like that, beyond just being ugly. Now here’s the question… If they’re truly attracted to women, why do they go after the manliest looking women they can find? It’s like, you see 2 ugly and manly looking women, almost indistinguishable from men holding hands in the grocery store, and you have to look and wonder “Okay, if each of them is attracted to women… why are they with eachother… they both look like dudes!” To a lesser exptreme, the same goes for gay guys who have lisps and nance around, making it abundantly clear they’re sissies.
RightWinged on June 26, 2008 at 10:00 PM
BTW, before HA’s pro-gay crowd comes out to excoriate me… Leave the ad that is the subject of this post out of it. Scroll up and see that I don’t find the ad offensive, because I get the joke, and I think O’Reilly and others who don’t “get it” are retarded.
RightWinged on June 26, 2008 at 10:02 PM
I just watched the ad…and I think it turned me teh ghey.
malan89 on June 26, 2008 at 10:02 PM
I’m sorry are you say religious people have a stupid ideology. You are one arrogant prick. Get of your fricking high horse with your I’m more “tolerant” than therefore I’m better than you. If wasn’t for religious folk we probably be all illiterate fools.
terryannonline on June 26, 2008 at 10:03 PM
I don’t know if I was supposed to laugh…but I did.
malan89 on June 26, 2008 at 10:04 PM
I haven’t bought any Heinz products since Mr Heinz (John Kerry) ran for president four years ago.
jgapinoy on June 26, 2008 at 10:05 PM
That looked tooo much like Robert De Niro.
That is realllly spooky. You talkin to me ! !
Texyank on June 26, 2008 at 10:07 PM
LOL!!!! There are so many lies and assumptions in there I don’t know where to start. But how about this:
1. How do you know the world is overpopulated? You know exactly what the correct population should be?
2. I know of no religious outlook that says it is the goal of human beings to “procreate”. You starting your own secular bullsh!t religion? Or purposely misinterpreting others?
3. Judging morality is pretty easy. Only a secular doofus has a problem with it.
Andy in Agoura Hills on June 26, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Stupid idea and even a worse ad on how to sell one’s product.
Hog Wild on June 26, 2008 at 10:09 PM
4. I bet you won’t respond because you don’t have the courage of your convictions. Prove me wrong.
Andy in Agoura Hills on June 26, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Ha. This type of thinking was popularized in the 1950s; I didn’t think anyone still thought it was true.
I thought I was very clear in my previous post. If you believe that the purpose of human beings is to procreate and thus gay couples (who can still procreate mind you) violate the principles of humanity, then yes, you hold a stupid ideology. This does not apply to all religious people’s, and I used the word “religious” in my post not to single out a certain religion, but a way of looking at the world.
If you believe in that stupid ideology I am better than you, sorry.
Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Well said about gay women liking women who look like men. . . makes you wonder and all. But the point is when I was growing up, it used to ALL be a joke. You would only see gay people on Saturday Night Live or something like that, and you were supposed to laugh. It was so rare and out of the norm, that it was a joke. Now they are militant.
I’m not saying that gay people should be locked up and it should be illegal. But public policy on the issue should lean more toward public health and healthy family units rather than any implied ‘civil right’. But being gay is and always will be offensive to some people. The HIV issue is reason enough to deny military service to gays.
Personally, I don’t understand how a single word can be offensive – the ‘n-word’. I understand slavery, segregation, racism is offensive. But the ‘n-word’ by itself without any slavery, segregation, or racism has become more taboo than ‘gd’, ‘f’, ‘s’, ‘mf’, etc etc.
ThackerAgency on June 26, 2008 at 10:11 PM
The Western world is facing a staggering crisis of underpopulation.
Yes overpopulation is a problem in parts of Africa but that is not relevant to our discussion.
It is a very religious outlook (unless you count the Shakers) but it is also the outlook of any functioning society that wishes to survive and replenish itself. It is the most natural thing in the world.
You must be very far gone in your liberalism if you regard having children for the sake of society as a stupid ideology.
I don’t need to transfer my views to every single human being alive because its ingrained whether it be through God or evolution (your choice). However I feel the need to preach my views to people whose natural purpose has been blunted by liberalism.
aengus on June 26, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Again, I used the world “religious” as applying to someone stating that the purpose of humanity is X, not to identify one specific religion.
Which is why there are so many religious idiots doing it (and before you can get outraged over that statement I fully believe that there are religious people who aren’t idiots – only the ones judging and imposing morality upon others qualify).
I’ll probably be arguing on this thread long after you slink away. Prove me wrong.
Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 10:17 PM
“You used to only see the negroes on TV, now they’re everywhere! And so militant!”
It is so funny how stupid some of you sound. Should blacks be denied military entry because HIV is more prevalent among them too?
Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 10:20 PM
But there were no complaints about it? Hey, I got the joke.
AbaddonsReign on June 26, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Thacker said nothing about race!!! Can we please have a conversation about homosexuality without bringing sexism or racism into it? Thank you!
terryannonline on June 26, 2008 at 10:23 PM
I didn’t know that.
AFAIK anyone who is disease-free and can pass the IQ test and training is accepted.
aengus on June 26, 2008 at 10:24 PM
No.
Equality is the dominant principle of liberal society. No issue can be discussed without reference to discrimination. If 49% of non-white minorities are successful and 51% of whites are successful then it is still necessary to turn society upside down in the interest of fairness. Liberalism uber alles.
aengus on June 26, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Meaning non-religious people would not have that outlook? That’s an indictment of religion. Yet I STILL don’t know which religion you are talking about.
Answer my question about the Earth’s population. Unless you can’t.
Really? Like who?
Arm waving is easy. You haven’t proven a thing yet.
Andy in Agoura Hills on June 26, 2008 at 10:28 PM
He actually did talk about race, but I still wasn’t referring to that. I don’t want a racial discussion, I was just pointing out how Thacker sounds.
Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Please tell me how homosexuals are discriminated against in our legal system?
And if you say marriage than am I discriminated against because I’m single? Am being deprived of some human right?
terryannonline on June 26, 2008 at 10:30 PM
That was intentional. I’m not talking about any specific religion.
There’s no point. You don’t believe the world is being overpopulated and I’m sure nothing I can say will convince you, and I’d rather not spend 30 minutes proving something to you that you will disregard anyway. This isn’t about the overpopulation of the Earth, I simply stated that I’d prefer less baby making, but if you’re up for an argument with me that badly I’d suggest you keep your eye out on the next post about overpopulation and we can talk there.
Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Homosexual couples are denied the same government appointed rights as straight couples. Believe it or not this extends to our legal system. So long as rights are given to consenting couples in this country by the government in one respect and explicitly denied to other consenting couples in another situation smacks of discrimination. Period.
Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Please tell me about these “government appointed rights.”
terryannonline on June 26, 2008 at 10:38 PM
I thought the commercial was quite clever. I didn’t get any homosexual overtones from it. The intent was pretty clear.
robblefarian on June 26, 2008 at 10:40 PM
I’m sure I could engineer a study determining how lazy people become when engaging in online debates in the time it takes you to figure out how to Google “Rights denied to homosexual couples.”
Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 10:41 PM
I posted this with regard to an entirely different story in the headlines, but there may be some evidence that homosexuality is related to increased rates of procreation. The genetics make sense, and theory has already been used to make a successful prediction of other data.
Big S on June 26, 2008 at 10:41 PM
You are the one claiming discrimination, I need proof.
terryannonline on June 26, 2008 at 10:42 PM
If it isn’t about the overpopulation of the Earth (which is massively exaggerated) then what is it about?
As a liberal it would make perfect sense that you would not care that the West is facing underpopulation whilst Third World countries are reproducing at high rates. (We’re all people so what does it matter whether the US or Zimbabwae leads the world blah blah, one country is as good as another etc., etc.)
Yet you “simply stated that I’d prefer less baby making”. Fair enough but can you offer a reason why you own personal preference towards childlessness should serve as a defining model for all societies? This would be helpful.
aengus on June 26, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Is there any evidence that sodomy is related to increased rates of procreation?
aengus on June 26, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Oh and I googled what you asked me too. All that came up with is gay marriage. Again, I ask: Am I too being being denied a right because I’m single?
terryannonline on June 26, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Not “sodomy” itself, directly anyway, but yes.
Big S on June 26, 2008 at 10:49 PM
I seriously gave you the words to Google. I was making a point about laziness in debate and you go ahead and prove my point doubly so. Here’s a hint: click on the first link that pops up.
A clever ad and people complaining and claiming offense towards it.
Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 10:49 PM
You were supposed to laugh, but there were also some points there to make you go “hmmmmm”.
For the most part, you’re preaching to the choir. This is why I said earlier that most people know my opinion on this, because I didn’t want to get back in to the whole stupid debate… but I’ll just throw a few things out there, for whoever wants to go nuts…
Folks who compare blacks to gays, are retarded. You can’t decide to be black. Now, those that accept “homosexuality” (I word I hate to use because it legitimizes it) may say “it’s natural” too, but they don’t have the evidence for it. But look at a black guy, he’s black. End of story.
Now, for those who insist marriage is a right. You’re just factually wrong. If you want to argue that gays should have the right to “civil unions”, then you have an actual point to argue. However then you must open it up to polygamists, etc. too. This is the part where you all say “no, because it’s about rights for 2 consenting adults”. Why 2? Who decided 2? It used to be “1 consenting adult male and 1 consenting adult female” was considered acceptable. It has been decided that society should now accept gays (for no apparent reason), but the “2 adults” union makes no sense, if you’re a guy who says you’re born to be married to 5 different women. If you’re saying “2″ regardless of sex is more stable, then you’re arguing that we should be going for the ideal. Which is, without question, 1 male and 1 female. (pssst… 2 genders aren’t a coincidence, and their matching reproductive organs didn’t just happen by chance.)
Now, as it is, we’ve been told we have to accept gays. I do not, but given that the government, etc. does, I’m going to shock you and say that they SHOULD then be able to have civil unions. But again, so should any other fringe group. Pedophiles and girls that think they’re old enough to decide they love them, polygamists, incest people, or even relatives who only seek the union for sharing items like insurance benefits and nothing more.
Anyway, the pro-gay crowd will keep talking about just “couples” of consenting adults, and ignoring the point that the only reason it’s “couples” not “groups” is because of tradition, while at the same time denying that this is good enough reason to keep it “man and woman”. “Come on man, this is a new millennium, you’ve got to open your mind and let people live their lives”. Back atcha hippy.
But back to my original half-joking question – Why do gays (lesbians especially) make themselves resemble (both in appearance and actions, etc.) the opposite sex, and then get together with others who’ve done the same. If 2 women make themselves look like guys, why are they then attracted to each other… while claiming they are lesbians?
RightWinged on June 26, 2008 at 10:50 PM
How is this offensive? That guy might get gay on you or something. I don’t get it.
LT Nixon on June 26, 2008 at 10:51 PM
No dice. Although we both initially commented on the ad, our discussion began with your first comment about overpopulation and my response to that comment.
I find your arguments on the existence or non-existence of God are more intelligent than those of Christopher Hitchens. I bought his book in anticipation of serious arguments only to discover that hes a total lightweight.
aengus on June 26, 2008 at 10:57 PM
If someone has a beard and they and many others with beards say that they did not have a conscious choice in starting to grow a beard, but that it just happened naturally you would believe them. Someone claiming that their growing a beard isn’t natural would have the burden of proof laid upon them. The same applies to homosexuality as it does heterosexuality. You say that homosexuality is not natural, where is your proof?
Marriage is not a right, however the rights that the government appoints to marriage are.
And this is where all your credibly is lost on the subject like you do on most subjects you rant about. You just aren’t willing to rationally discuss the topics.
Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 10:57 PM
This one?
New Legal Rights For Gay
Couples Denied To Straights
misterpeasea on June 26, 2008 at 11:00 PM
You do realize that you are quoting an article from England written five years ago, right?
Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Yes. Hence my confusion. You said click on the first link. That was the first link. Maybe you could just tell us.
misterpeasea on June 26, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Marriage is a union of Holy Matrimony. If you don’t care about religion then what is your interest in extending this superstition to homosexuals? They can get tax breaks (“the rights”) under civil unions.
If as you claim thats all you care about then theres no reason to call it marriage from your super-sophisticated logical point of view. So you will you stop calling it marriage?
If not, why not?
aengus on June 26, 2008 at 11:05 PM
You either didn’t type in the words correctly or our Google searches are completely different.
Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 11:07 PM
I recommend you read the courts opinion in the recent Supreme Court case in California. They can describe it more elegantly and with better sources than I ever could.
Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 11:08 PM
So. Maybe you could post a link, or just tell us. But you’re going to have to come up with something more convincing than this:
Because a couple of men or a couple of women are different than a man and a woman.
misterpeasea on June 26, 2008 at 11:11 PM
What a dodge!
Even if the Supreme Court could provide an elegant summary of the essence of your argument that doesn’t answer the direct question I asked you.
aengus on June 26, 2008 at 11:14 PM
A dodge? I agree with the courts opinion and instead of inadequately summarizing it I suggest you read it if you really want to know my opinion on why regardless of the rights infused by the government into marriage it should still be an option afforded to homosexual couples. If you don’t want to know what I think you don’t have to read the opinion and instead can call my recommendation to you a “dodge.” I’ll give you a hint about the courts opinion: it has to do with being separate yet equal.
Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 11:18 PM
For discriminating ketchup consumers, behold, W Ketchup, the All-American
alternative lifestylealternative.RushBaby on June 26, 2008 at 11:20 PM
If someone has a beard and they and many others with beards say that they did not have a conscious choice in starting to grow a beard, but that it just happened naturally you would believe them. Someone claiming that their growing a beard isn’t natural would have the burden of proof laid upon them. The same applies to homosexuality as it does heterosexuality. You say that homosexuality is not natural, where is your proof?
Lol… WHAT!? Folks, this is why I initially wanted to stay out of this stupid debate. Of course because of all the irrational pro-gay folks around here, but I specfically saw Nonsense, oops, I mean Nonfactor, was already here.
Growing hair, including facial hair, is a natural thing. This is a scientific fact and there is no debate. But thanks for playing the predictable card liberals always do “I don’t have the proof, so YOU neo-cons must prove a negative.” Always the sign of someone who has no argument. This is like a commie I argued with recently who insisted it is the government’s duty to supply the unemployed with jobs. I told him this was not the case, and not a matter of opinion. He insisted I show him where it’s written that this isn’t the case… when in reality, the onus was on him to prove it WAS the case. He could have claimed it was the government’s duty to provide us with sex partners, and insisted I show where it is written that this isn’t the case.
Similarly, instead of proving the validity of something, Nonfactor insists I prove a negative.
You got me! I guess you win. Thanks for all of your logical arguments (i.e. insisting I prove negatives)
RightWinged on June 26, 2008 at 11:24 PM
By the way Nonfactor, how dare you trample on the rights of pedophiles to marry willing chosen child brides. Prove it isn’t natural to both parties!
Hey, do you hear that? That’s the sound of me destroying you.
RightWinged on June 26, 2008 at 11:26 PM
I asked you a pretty straightforward question:
Even if I cared about the opinion of the courts (instead of yours) I wouldn’t know where to start looking. I’m not interested in sifting through legal documents.
If you’re against religion (i.e. Christianity) then fine. Be against it and don’t be ashamed of that. But you can’t appropriate aspects of it in order to further your objective of bestowing liberal equality on minority groups. You can’t have your pie and eat it.
aengus on June 26, 2008 at 11:28 PM
You think thats bad? I’m supposed to fly out to California and trawl through the archives. Even if I find the relevant documents, I have to divine the relevant arguments through interpretation.
aengus on June 26, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Separate but equal? That’s a weak a argument. Homosexuals are no more “separate but equal” when in comes to marriage than singles, polygamists, etc. It’s a flawed logic.
terryannonline on June 26, 2008 at 11:44 PM
“The obligatory”
Kevin M on June 26, 2008 at 11:46 PM
I thought it was funny…it can be viewed as satire, not pro-gay at all.
Christine on June 26, 2008 at 11:49 PM
That’s not how court opinions work at all. And I even gave you an abbreviated sentence summarizing the courts opinion. If you really care about the subject I suggest you read the opinion. It’s that simple. You are apparently adamantly against reading these opinions and that is your problem.
The court disagrees with you, and forgive me for assuming that they have a better idea of what constitutes separate yet equal better than you do. If you cared you would read the opinion because they do in fact deal with the question you raise.
Nonfactor on June 26, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Sooo…. what’s everybody talking about? …Ketchup?
Rhinoboy on June 27, 2008 at 12:05 AM
We’ve had decades (after Brown v. Topeka Board of Ed.) of American courts that have NEVER thought it was banning gay marriage was discrimination until the Mass. and Cali. ruling. So why are you listening to the Cali. Supreme court and not all of the other historic courts we’ve had?
terryannonline on June 27, 2008 at 12:07 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »