Gay marketing: Cultural indicator or cheap grab?
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=190352
Printed Date: 16 September 2025 at 1:34am Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Gay marketing: Cultural indicator or cheap grab?
Posted By: agentwhale007
Subject: Gay marketing: Cultural indicator or cheap grab?
Date Posted: 26 June 2012 at 10:13pm
So, Oreo's official Facebook page posted the following image yesterday evening, causing a bit of a ruckus:
As you can imagine, there was the normal hullabaloo about it. Some claiming they'll never buy another Nabisco product again, some saying they'll rush out and buy a million cases of Oreos tonight. But the fact they thought it was OK to take the risk was interesting.
Last week, JC Penney caused a similar hullabaloo when they used the following advert for part of a Fathers Day sale:
Liz Claiborne has done similar adverts recently.
Despite some calls for boycott, JC Penney and Kraft/Nabisco respectively have stood behind the advertisements, essentially telling those who disagree to go pound sand. In return, they've gotten a big push in word-of-mouth promotion from younger audiences and heavy social networking users.
So my question to you all for discussion is this: What do you think about large companies, through their marketing and PR firms, getting behind social justice campaigns (Or, the gay train, if you will)?
Is it indicative that society has changed to the point that it's no longer a net negative to risk using homosexuals in advertisements (Especially considering demographic information indicating that gays have more surplus income) and therefore showcasing a good thing?
Or do you think it "cheapens" the seriousness of the situation to have it used as an endgame to sell more slacks and cookies? Or is that even an either/or?
Just something that ran through my head tonight.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 26 June 2012 at 10:43pm
agentwhale007 wrote:
Or do you think it "cheapens" the seriousness of the situation to have it used as an endgame to sell more slacks and cookies? |
I'm not sure this is the sort of thing that can be trivialized in such a way. I think that in order for the situation to be cheapened, the executives of the company would have to disingenuously promote homosexual rights (which I think this should be more commonly classified as a human rights thing, since the concept of homosexual rights too narrowly defines the goals that one side of the debate is working toward, but meh) while simultaneously not achieving anything for the homosexual community (or worse denigrating their efforts and being counterproductive) and profiting from their actions.
Obviously these companies believe they can benefit from their PR/ad campaigns (I'm clinging to the axiom that corporations are in it to make money and that they would not actively pursue options that they believe are bad for them), but I think as more and more of these businesses and corporations begin to show support for the homosexual community, there can only be a net gain for homosexuals.
Thus, regardless of the profit motive, I think the seriousness of something like human rights is not mitigated.
Regarding a more general look at what these companies are doing, I'll find it interesting to see how staunchly anti-homosexual consumers decide to act, and whether or not they'll not only follow through on their boycott, but have the presence of mind to stop buying all products from these companies, their parent companies, or the copmanies affiliated with them that contribute to their revenue in some way.
-------------
|
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 26 June 2012 at 10:55pm
I get both your point and TBH I think that it is fine.
People can advertise their shizelle (pardon my French) however they want, but I kinda don't see the relevance in trying to punt biscuits. What I do see is the normalisation of same sex couples (which I have no problem with) and hopefully this is as innocent as "Well why not?" rather than "Hey look at us we are so daring with our advertising" or that this is an attempt to just get the poofs onside.
The latter as you said kind of cheapens the idea of the same sex relationship but then again it doesn't do it any more than the stereotype nuclear family image of the 50's, in the same way that dishwashers and wife-to-kitchen chains were marketed at woman and men respectively. Things change, people change and with that the stuff we buy changes along with the reasons we buy it.
But it could be said that there really isn't a message of equality/tolerance but rather that we have a new "token black guy"
*DISCLAIMER*I have the day off tomorrow so this might not make a lot of sense.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 26 June 2012 at 10:57pm
scotchyscotch wrote:
The latter as you said kind of cheapens the idea of the same sex relationship but then again it doesn't do it any more than the stereotype nuclear family image of the 50's, in the same way that dishwashers and wife-to-kitchen chains were marketed at woman and men respectively. Things change, people change and with that the stuff we buy changes along with the reasons we buy it. |
Despite understanding very little of your first paragraph, this is legit interesting. I didn't think about it from that perspective.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 26 June 2012 at 11:08pm
Gatyr wrote:
Thus, regardless of the profit motive, I think the seriousness of something like human rights is not mitigated.
|
I suppose cheapen was a bad verb.
I guess my question is improvement vs. the null. Do these marketing campaigns help the gay community? Or is it a clean even?
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 26 June 2012 at 11:09pm
Man, Oreos are at the bottom of the cookie food chain. Call me when chocolate chip picks up the mantle.
------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
|
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 26 June 2012 at 11:26pm
People have been bashing gay rights as long as anyone can be arsed to remember so I'm not surprised this will cause some uproar from numpties.
With regards to cheapening the issue I think it all comes down to motive. If this is a cynical attempt at stirring up a PR buzz then it does seem like the cause is being "used" and I would have to object.
If these campaigns have been started people genuinely striving for gay rights then I think this would be a tremendous show of support from the companies as a whole.
The problem lies in that all we have is a picture with a caption associated with a brand with no real idea of why they took the decision to post it. There is right and wrong with 49 shades of a kind of black/white hybrid in between.
|
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 26 June 2012 at 11:53pm
I think these companies realize that it it the 21st century and that the closet door is opening. I dont think at the companies are looking to exploit a new consumer base but rather embracing the chang taking place in society. I am willing to bet that over the years thousands of homosexuals worked in advertising and were never able to truely express themselves to a more accepting society.
I am proud to know that the change is occurring in my lifetime.
|
Posted By: RoboCop
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 1:16am
I really hope that cookie comes out. I'll buy a box. So much frosting/creme!!!
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 2:30am
Seeing the president of JCPenney left the company only a week after their "controversial" ad, says something. Either the ad was a bad idea, or the company was doomed long before hand. And was trying to pull a hail mary.
But what does it matter what companies PR goal is. Some people will like it, some won't. If you don't, don't spend your money.
This has nothing to do about gay rights.
|
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 5:41am
RoboCop wrote:
I really hope that cookie comes out. I'll buy a box. So much frosting/creme!!! |
The "creme" is the worst part of an Oreo. Double Stuf Oreos are nasty. They got the proportions just right on the regular ones. Don't go futzing with them...
As for them dern homma-sectuls, well, I suppose it's a positive step regardless of motive*. As has been said, change is definitely taking place in modern society. It's shameful that America has taken so long to do so, really.
* I default to the "nothing corporations do is for the good of it" mentality, so this is as nice as I can muster...
------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 6:10am
Gays and lesbians spent too long fighting for equal rights. This is that. Welcome to the world of spam.
Suck it up.
PS a 7 tier Oreo? I'm there like a bear.
PPS by bear I do not mean overly hairy gay male.
PPPS I do not mean to sound like I am passing judgement on people with lots of body hair.
PPPPS They left out Violet? WTH?
KBK
------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 6:17am
impulse418 wrote:
Seeing the president of JCPenney left the company only a week after their "controversial" ad, says something.Either the ad was a bad idea, or the company was doomed long before hand. And was trying to pull a hail mary.
|
I doubt that. Ellen DeGeneres is the JC Penney spokesperson and has been openly gay since 1997. I honestly think they are just tapping into a fairly under tapped resource.
Gays and lesbians have money, right? Why not take it from them?
KBK
------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 6:37am
I can't see this being done as a profit grab. The inevitable boycotts and controversy will do nothing good, and Oreos are a pre-established brand that practically advertise themselves. It's not like they needed to get their name on the news.
Assuming it was a move strictly to forward a gay rights agenda I give them props. We vote with our wallets and it's nice to a company take a chance for a cause regardless of where you stand on the issue. Anyone can support animal conservation or education funds, but it takes some guts to endorse heated political issues.
-------------
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 6:40am
Also, I saw the cookie ad on George Takei's Facebook today with an interesting twist. If you don't follow his page you're missing out, he's hilarious.
-------------
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 7:17am
While some may disagree with homosexuality for spiritual reasons, Christians shouldn't judge. Time would be better spent looking in the mirror for faults and sins. Open and continual commentary of others issues is a convenient tactic that people use as a distraction from addressing their own issues.
I consider this a huge problem with society. Lying to ones self.
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 7:37am

these are sooooo good....
------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!!
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 8:38am
Kayback wrote:
Gays and lesbians spent too long fighting for equal rights. This is that. Welcome to the world of spam.
Suck it up.
PS a 7 tier Oreo? I'm there like a bear.
PPS by bear I do not mean overly hairy gay male.
PPPS I do not mean to sound like I am passing judgement on people with lots of body hair.
PPPPS They left out Violet? WTH?
KBK |
Your PPS and your PPPPS seem to be in conflict.
------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 1:02pm
The idea that large corporate entities do anything for reasons beyond profit is absurd, it's free publicity from the vocal minority of bigots.
stratoaxe wrote:
Also, I saw the cookie ad on George Takei's Facebook today with an interesting twist. If you don't follow his page you're missing out, he's hilarious. | Thanks, grandma.
|
Posted By: kc1253
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 1:43pm
I remember when they started featuring blacks in national ad campaigns. I remember ground-breaking TV icons like Diahann Carroll in Julia. Were these African-American "insertions" promoting the "black agenda?" Well, if the agenda was equality, then yes. So today, is "gay marketing" a cultural indicator? Is it just another way to make money? Yes and Yes. Many national companies have had ads like these for years. They just weren't seen by the general public, but ran in gay-affirming sites and magazines. I think it's just part of the natural progression of an oppressed group gaining acceptance and equality.
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 2:05pm
I'm for it.
1) I love seeing people get their panties in a bunch about things that don't affect them. 2) This will help push it into the mainstream. If they push it long enough, it will become accepted. Eventually the uproar will die down and people will just go about their lives like they should have from the start.
-------------
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 3:53pm
evillepaintball wrote:
I'm for it.
1) I love seeing people get their panties in a bunch about things that don't affect them. 2) This will help push it into the mainstream. If they push it long enough, it will become accepted. Eventually the uproar will die down and people will just go about their lives like they should have from the start. | This.
I don't really see it as a marketing trick - at least not a very smart one. Anytime you as a company make a decision that will most likely offend some of your customers, you're probably not doing it to boost sales. I'm sure they'll make some (though, not really that many) new customers because of this, but there are much more effective ways to spend your advertisement money if sales is all you are after.
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl
Forum Vice President
RIP T&O Forum
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 5:10pm
RoboCop wrote:
I really hope that cookie comes out. |

------------- ?
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 5:27pm
Lightningbolt wrote:
While some may disagree with homosexuality for spiritual reasons, Christians shouldn't judge. Time would be better spent looking in the mirror for faults and sins. Open and continual commentary of others issues is a convenient tactic that people use as a distraction from addressing their own issues.
I consider this a huge problem with society. Lying to ones self.
|
It's an interesting point to bring up. Some of the most depraved porn you can imagine is totally legal and I don't see anyone losing sleep over that. But same sex marriage would incur the wrath of God. Interesting.
-------------
|
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 9:57pm
Jesus scotchy is impossible to understand after a few drinks. eesh.
Anyway, I dont care about the ads. Doesn't offend/bother me so they can be as fabulous as they want to be.
As for the whole marketing scheme, I suppose that homosexuality is going to be the next "equal representation" fad. Nowadays, a good number of commercials contain a minatory representative or two if possible. I suppose that in ten years from now a lot of commercials will have five heterosexual white people, two lesbians, and one black guy.
I'm rambling a bit, I know. One thing that I do find annoying is that Marvel is making the Green Lantern come out of the closet in order to jump on (as Whale put it) "the Gay Train". I dont care an awful lot for the Green Lantern, but I find it annoying that it is commonplace to force representation of all groups of people everywhere. Why change for a fad?
-------------
|
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 11:00pm
They should have went with Robin as being homosexual.
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 11:30pm
SSOK wrote:
I suppose that homosexuality is going to be the next "equal representation" fad. Nowadays, a good number of commercials contain a minatory representative or two if possible. |
It's not as much a fad as it is the result of advertising and market research. There has been quite a bit of work in this area, and "equal representation" in advertisements works better in representing the brand across demographics, and it's more cost effective than having different ads for different demographics. Consumers react positively.
I'm rambling a bit, I know. One thing that I do find annoying is that Marvel is making the Green Lantern come out of the closet in order to jump on (as Whale put it) "the Gay Train". I dont care an awful lot for the Green Lantern, but I find it annoying that it is commonplace to force representation of all groups of people everywhere. Why change for a fad? |
That was more of DC Comics being DC Comics. Marvel announced that they were having Northstar get married to his partner after New York legalized gay marriage. I believe Northstar had been out shortly before that point.
And, you know, because the writers for X-Men (And Marvel in general) are pretty good at character development, they address the controversy of gay marriage. Some of the X-Men don't approve, and won't go to the wedding, among other issues. And because the X-Men have always been about the struggle of coming to terms with what/who you are, it makes sense to have a gay character (A lot of people have speculated Kitty Pryde was lesbian).
DC, being DC, essentially heard about Northstar and went "Hey we can be hip and cool too. Who do we have? Green Lantern? Sure, he needs a reboot anyway, just make him gay now."
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 11:39pm
kc1253 wrote:
Many national companies have had ads like these for years. They just weren't seen by the general public, but ran in gay-affirming sites and magazines. |
Coors Light has been a big one, if I recall. They've had a gay-specific ad campaign going in gay-issue publications for a while now.
Kayback wrote:
impulse418 wrote:
Seeing the president of JCPenney left the company only a week after their "controversial" ad, says something.Either the ad was a bad idea, or the company was doomed long before hand. And was trying to pull a hail mary.
|
I doubt that.
|
Yes and no. JCPenney did have a slump in sales and a corporate restructuring that took place after the gay Fathers Day ad, but it also happened after a massive rebranding of the whole company, including a new logo, new sales structure (No crazy sales and coupons), new in-store marketing, etc. It'd be hard to claim the slump was directly caused by the gay ad vs. the company generally trying to remarket to a younger audience holistically.
BARREL BREAK wrote:
The idea that large corporate entities do anything for reasons beyond profit is absurd, |
Understood, so I suppose I should rephrase my original discussion proposal: Is jumping onto the gay-rights train through open marketing (A quasi-PR/ad hybrid strategy) a good thing for gay rights, or a bad thing, or just a thing?
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 27 June 2012 at 11:56pm
Like I said, either the ad caused it, which I doubt. But maybe the company got desperate and put out a "controversial" ad.
Either way it got the company in the news.
Guerrilla advertising is the best.
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 28 June 2012 at 4:41am
We have a fast food company that more or less relies on guerilla advertising. Look up Nando's on youtube. Some of the comedy is South Africa specific, but they rely on running an ad for a short time and then outraged busy boddies talking about it for a long time.
Is always entertaining.
Honestly don't care about gays, lesbians, transgender or whatever. What happens between two or more people, consentully isn't anyone else's problem. I'm pretty sure what my wife and I get up to in the bedroom will offend some people some where, does that mean we shouldn't be married????
Something about eyes, logs and splinters springs to mind.
------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 28 June 2012 at 10:06am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/rainbow-colored-oreo-a-harbinger-of-more-gay-advertising/2012/06/27/gJQAGkmn6V_story.html" rel="nofollow - An interesting read on it.
the article wrote:
The rainbow-colored Oreo graphic unveiled for LGBT Pride Month proves at least one thing: Gays are just as susceptible to clever marketing as straights. At long last! Equality under commercialization. |
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 28 June 2012 at 10:23am
usafpilot07 wrote:
Man, Oreos are at the bottom of the cookie food chain. Call me when chocolate chip picks up the mantle. |
You are behind the times . . . haven't you seen those cookies made with fake M&Ms?
-------------
|
Posted By: pntbl freak
Date Posted: 28 June 2012 at 10:36am
scotchyscotch wrote:
...but I kinda don't see the relevance in trying to punt biscuits. |
RoboCop wrote:
I really hope that cookie comes out. |
These both made me laugh.
-------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 28 June 2012 at 8:35pm
I get the Oreo thing, but honestly just looking at the JCPenny picture I wouldnt have picked up right away that it was showing a homosexual couple. Is there something in the small print? Looks like two dads playing with their respective kids.
------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
|
Posted By: Snipa69
Date Posted: 28 June 2012 at 11:16pm
I think it is all a bit ridiculous. Why? Because equal rights means equal, and I don't feel that is how anything is portrayed regarding gay/lesbians. Am I against gays/lesbians? Not at all, a few relatives of mine are exactly that and I still love them. What I don't like is the need for a parade every year, and for the need to get upset based on how a company advertises. If you want equal anything, then give me the right to have a strait parade. Give me something that isn't a religious thing to shove in the face of people who just really don't give a crud. My state will be sending to vote the right for gays to marry. I will vote that they should, because if two people love each other then they should be able to call it a marriage and not a "civil union." The benefits aren't much different and it wont effect me either way. I am sure I talk to quite a few gay people daily and don't even know it (or it is blatantly obvious, either way) and it doesn't make my life better or worse because to me I am talking to a person and not sexual orientation.
I will never understand why gay guys talk in the stereotypical lispy voice though. I don't know why you have to do that if you are gay. I know I know, not all of them do. But C'mon, you get what I mean. It seems forced to me.
------------- http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/857/sig9ac6cs1mj.jpg -
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 29 June 2012 at 12:55am
Snipa69 wrote:
I think it is all a bit ridiculous. Why? Because equal rights means equal, and I don't feel that is how anything is portrayed regarding gay/lesbians. Am I against gays/lesbians? Not at all, a few relatives of mine are exactly that and I still love them. What I don't like is the need for a parade every year, and for the need to get upset based on how a company advertises. If you want equal anything, then give me the right to have a strait parade. |
I think this is getting to the real meat (no pun) of the gay rights discussion. Part of the trouble with the gay and lesbian agenda is that alot of people are really confused as to what kind of rights we're talking about here-homosexuals are afforded the same Constitutional protections as anyone else. That's kind of where I jump off the bandwagon-we're not talking about being pushed to the back of a bus, or being told you can't drink out of the same fountain. We're not being pushed a sexual superiority agenda from the government down, and frankly I find comparisons to the civil rights movement for women and minorities a little insensitive both. We're talking about some legalities, marriage in specific, that homosexual Americans don't share with everyone else. Is there a valid argument here? Absolutely. I'd vote in favor for gay marriage right now. But the victimization is part of the problem-the way some people make out that gay and lesbian Americans are suffering cruel injusticies at the hands of an oppressive government is silly, in my opinion. It's like the faux outrage back in the 90's that was caused by people complaining that TV shows didn't have enough minorities-it did more harm than good. Obviously this is more severe my a long shot, but you all see my point. Sometimes you can paint the picture so grim you lose touch with the reality of the situation. I know of quite a few very successful homosexuals, men and women alike. Do homosexuals face discriminatory elements the rest of us don't? Absolutely. But guess what-so do unattractive people. So do overweight people. So do religious minorities. Unless you fit the bill for the smiling, attractive man or woman a company wants you'll find yourself fighting alot harder than TV makes it seem like you should. I'm not trying to downplay the discussion at hand-well, I guess I am to a certain extent-I'm just saying that it's much easier to fight the battles you face with realism instead of exaggeration. That's why I applaud companies like JC Penney for advertising such as those in this thread. It's like they threw their hands in the air, said screw the "controversy," and just did what the activists should have done all along-forced the public to accept that there are gays out there and move on with their lives. Of course, just because the problem is solved doesn't mean that the activism stops. For every civil rights pursuit in history there's still someone claiming that their group is sorely misrepresented and being oppressed because, let's face it, dead causes don't pay checks and what other job will you find after being an activist for twenty years? I'm rambling now...my point is that I think alot of Americans share your frustration. It's like society expects you to empathize with every cause to the point of becoming an activist yourself, when you just simply don't care. I think that if more groups looked at issues through clear glasses they'd see that the easiest way to fight for your equality is to make yourself equal-it's what Rosa Parks did, it's what MLK did, and it's what advertisements like these do for all of us. I think that homosexuals face another unsual obstacle that separates them from African Americans and women-they make more people uncomfortable. You can change alot of things by force, but you can't force people to accept you. While a black man could walk his way into a group of white men and fit right in, there are just lots of straight guys who feel a disconnect from the gay lifestyle. I don't know that I'd call it homophobia, but it's the same reason jocks don't hang out with goths, hoods don't hang out with preps, and raging macho men don't pal around with gay dudes. This is alot harder social boundary to break than other groups deal with. I think that this is where the big flamboyant gay pride displays do little to help the cause-it simply separates a minority group out as being even more far from mainstream. Does that mean they should stop? Absolutely not. Be what you want to be. I'm straight, but I definitely don't pal around with the local redneck macho men. I'd get my arse beat within ten seconds. I'm a loud mouthed person who loves to argue, and I work in careers / educational pursuits that allow this. I think to some degree everyone has to be what they want to be and bend their life around that, not try to bend society around what they are. As far as the "straight parades"-this goes back to the old "BET" argument-why isn't there a white history month, or straight parades? Because nobody, including the vast majority of straight dudes / white people I know, would pay or care to participate. If you want a dose of straight culture, go to any local restaurant, bar, casino, resort, advertising agency, TV station, radio station, magazine rack, etc and infinite. You'll have scantily clad girls and muscled up ladies' men rubbed in your face as long as you want. Gay people tend to be much more scattered and fewer between, and going without socializing with your own group is something that the majority will never deal with. I'd imagine what they consider a vacation or display we consider just existing in normal culture.
-------------
|
Posted By: Snipa69
Date Posted: 29 June 2012 at 3:19am
Snipa69 wrote:
I think it is all a bit ridiculous. Why? Because equal rights means equal, and I don't feel that is how anything is portrayed regarding gay/lesbians. Am I against gays/lesbians? Not at all, a few relatives of mine are exactly that and I still love them. What I don't like is the need for a parade every year, and for the need to get upset based on how a company advertises. If you want equal anything, then give me the right to have a strait parade. Give me something that isn't a religious thing to shove in the face of people who just really don't give a crud. My state will be sending to vote the right for gays to marry. I will vote that they should, because if two people love each other then they should be able to call it a marriage and not a "civil union." The benefits aren't much different and it wont effect me either way. I am sure I talk to quite a few gay people daily and don't even know it (or it is blatantly obvious, either way) and it doesn't make my life better or worse because to me I am talking to a person and not sexual orientation.
I will never understand why gay guys talk in the stereotypical lispy voice though. I don't know why you have to do that if you are gay. I know I know, not all of them do. But C'mon, you get what I mean. It seems forced to me. |
You certainly nailed it right on the head good sir. What I tried to say in fewer words, you said in many more but it was all spot on. While I made the point of give me a strait parade, you are absolutely correct in that I wouldn't go to it let alone participate. Mostly because I think parades in general of any kind are pretty boring. Also, it just boils down to the fact that I don't care. You could drop me in a group of gay guys and I wont tell you I feel like I am surrounded by minorities, I would tell you I felt like one. Maybe some of those guys would like some of the same music, or enjoy some of the same activities I do as a strait guy and that would be something to converse about. But I would still feel like there is a strong disconnect because you can't have that true guy-to-guy conversation if a pretty girl walks by. Sure a few of my relatives who are gay will admit when a girl is cute but there isn't the same thought process about it.
I see all of my friends that are strait going to the gay pride parade that just happened here last week and I think "Way to perpetuate the stereotypes." The old slogan of "We're here, we're **edited**, get used to it." made it's point and has now gone on to a whole different level. To me, when I see the crazy get-ups the kids wear to that type of stuff I think it's Mardi Gras or Carnival. It is so outlandish and I'm thinking "If you want "rights" like mine, and to be seen as equal in whatever context, then don't do that. I'm not doing that, the vast majority isn't doing that, so why would you think it is the right way to get equality?" I feel like it is just an excuse these days to have a public party to see how many people you can creep out or whatever your goal might be as an individual. It's a block party, night an equal rights event like it was supposed to be.
Let them get married, it doesn't effect my life at all because again, I DO NOT CARE. I will vote that they should be able to get married and live whatever life they want, but I am frustrated that their are groups out there who make it their problem to make me have to vote on this stuff. It actually frustrates me more that society acts the way it does towards these things. Pro-group this vs Anti-group that over things that simply do not matter.
------------- http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/857/sig9ac6cs1mj.jpg -
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 29 June 2012 at 8:53am
When a company advocates for a group, they are saying they agree with the actions of that group...
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=8715908" rel="nofollow - http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=8715908
http://www.rocklandtimes.com/2012/06/28/keepin-it-classy-gays-flip-off-reagan-during-white-house-visit/" rel="nofollow - http://www.rocklandtimes.com/2012/06/28/keepin-it-classy-gays-flip-off-reagan-during-white-house-visit/
Course, anyone who has seen a gay march or gay event will realize this type of behavior it pretty typical of the "radical" members of a group... I made the mistake of going to Kings Island on "gay day" about 10 years ago... It was pretty shocking what is considered "normal" behavior for the groups of gay activists I saw that day.
I have gay friends, who have been in committed relationships for decades, and they are great people, but to pretend that all gays are that way is as silly as pretending that all gays are great people.
But, more interesting is a study was just done on the children of gay people. Besides the fact that "Sixty-nine percent of children of lesbian mothers reported that their family received public assistance, such as welfare, at some point, compared with 17 percent from intact biological families."
Which totally goes against the public perception that gays are wealthy... (seen even in this thread).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610" rel="nofollow - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
The gay movement and our politically correct culture has rainbow colored glasses that we view gay issues through, a lens that distorts the facts, to make them seem more acceptable and pure in motivation, to the point that they want to be viewed as a minority group struggling for "equal rights" when in truth, they often want "special" rights...
Just last month one of the largest studies to date on gay parents was released, the media (when they did write on it) and gay activists went crazy trying to denounce it, but it is an interesting read... And sure to dispel many myths that are accepted as fact today...
Here is the conclusion of the study.
5. ConclusionAs scholars of same-sex parenting aptly note, same-sex couples have and will continue to raise children. American courts are finding arguments against gay marriage decreasingly persuasive ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610#b0205" rel="nofollow - Rosenfeld, 2007 ). This study is intended to neither undermine nor affirm any legal rights concerning such. The tenor of the last 10 years of academic discourse about gay and lesbian parents suggests that there is little to nothing about them that might be negatively associated with child development, and a variety of things that might be uniquely positive. The results of analyzing a rare large probability sample reported herein, however, document numerous, consistent differences among young adults who reported maternal lesbian behavior (and to a lesser extent, paternal gay behavior) prior to age 18. While previous studies suggest that children in planned GLB families seem to fare comparatively well, their actual representativeness among all GLB families in the US may be more modest than research based on convenience samples has presumed. Although the findings reported herein may be explicable in part by a variety of forces uniquely problematic for child development in lesbian and gay families—including a lack of social support for parents, stress exposure resulting from persistent stigma, and modest or absent legal security for their parental and romantic relationship statuses—the empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go. While it is certainly accurate to affirm that sexual orientation or parental sexual behavior need have nothing to do with the ability to be a good, effective parent, the data evaluated herein using population-based estimates drawn from a large, nationally-representative sample of young Americans suggest that it may affect the reality of family experiences among a significant number. Do children need a married mother and father to turn out well as adults? No, if we observe the many anecdotal accounts with which all Americans are familiar. Moreover, there are many cases in the NFSS where respondents have proven resilient and prevailed as adults in spite of numerous transitions, be they death, divorce, additional or diverse romantic partners, or remarriage. But the NFSS also clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day. Insofar as the share of intact, biological mother/father families continues to shrink in the United States, as it has, this portends growing challenges within families, but also heightened dependence on public health organizations, federal and state public assistance, psychotherapeutic resources, substance use programs, and the criminal justice system.
Companies are people, so they will have ideology that they will promote or not promote based on their values of what they deem important.
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 29 June 2012 at 9:05am
It comes down to entitlement. regardless of the demographic, people would like to take the good and what suits their needs and leave the bad.
Republicans are great at pointing out that the dems use entitlement. That's great because they do the same thing. It's childish
|
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 29 June 2012 at 9:14am
Friggin forum ate my old post.
Anyway, abridged version:
I would have agreed with Strato and Snipa in the past, but I don't think its that simple.
There are still very vocal and respected parts of society who are strongly apposed to gay marriage, and who do cultivate a social stigma against homosexuality. I remember during Prop 8, my girlfriend at the time was volunteering with her church to make signs and preparations to protest against gay marriage, and the thought of an institution which is supposed to teach you love and compassion actively pushing against a group did not sit well with me.
And no, gays haven't had to sit on the back of the bus or use separate facilities, but that's probably because in many states it was practically illegal to be gay and most gays probably pretended to not be gay.Even then, you can't reduce all civil rights issues down to "Well, at least they can vote!".
Finally, I still see a need for gay pride parades. There is still a social stigma associated with being gay. One of my closest friends cant even tell her parents shes gay because she knows they will disown her, and she's by no means alone. You may not like what you see, but its not about trying to make society comfortable with gays, its about homosexuals being comfortable with themselves, regardless of society's opinion.
Anyway, just my $0.02
------------- Real Men play Tuba
[IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg">
PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 29 June 2012 at 9:56am
The phrase on the American Fugio cent of 1787 put it best.
"mind your business"
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 29 June 2012 at 10:15am
Darur wrote:
Finally, I still see a need for gay pride parades. |
I would agree with this as well. Not that "parade" is the needed thing per se, but public in-group activity helps acclimate the general public towards acceptance of an out-group.
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 29 June 2012 at 11:08am
Darur wrote:
Finally, I still see a need for gay pride parades. There is still a social stigma associated with being gay. One of my closest friends cant even tell her parents shes gay because she knows they will disown her, and she's by no means alone. You may not like what you see, but its not about trying to make society comfortable with gays, its about homosexuals being comfortable with themselves, regardless of society's opinion. |
And again, I think that if the homosexual community wants a parade, let them parade. I have no problem or concern with anyone throwing a parade for almost any reason. I just feel that homosexuality is at the core of a deep rooted clash of ideologies in America-the religious right and the secural left. This isn't going to go away anytime soon no matter how in your face the community is about it.
In the end you can't force someone to accept or be comfortable around you. I don't feel anyone should change who they are just because their loved ones don't approve, but at the same time sometimes you have to accept that disapproval and move on. Sometimes life comes down to hard choices where you choose to compromise your values in order to reach out to loved ones or choose to simply accept that their approval / disapproval doesn't govern your life.
This is how I see society's acceptance of homosexuality in general-there will be those that do and those don't. You can reach out to those who don't, but that may or may not be a fruitful exercise. The only thing we as a society owe any group is equality and nothing more.
And that's where I think the discussion comes to a needle point-equality. We have to examine the set of rights that a person enjoys and say "What do we need to do to solve this issue?" That's the simple truth as I see it-but when you create scenarios that don't exist and blow up the situation as it stands you create a whole myriad of feelings that are unnecessary to the cause. The more any group overstates its own victimization the less society can focus on fixing the problems at hand.
The parades are a double edged sword. If we're talking a group of homosexuals gathering in order to show society that they exist and who they are, great. But when things get edgier and more fringe elements come out the celebrations turn into division points. I'm not saying you shouldn't attempt to be individualistic, but if the goal is integration sometimes having a parade simply to point out how different you are can be counterproductive.
-------------
|
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 29 June 2012 at 8:27pm
Perhaps my exact point wasn't as clear as I intended. I do think in part gay pride parades tend to promote social awareness and maybe even acceptance, but they do also galvanize a crowd and can also lead to more hate against gays.
But the main reason is not for social acceptance, but personal acceptance. I would imagine it would be difficult living a lifestyle that many see as immoral and wrong. We're a social species, and we instinctively seek people like us. Marching with hundreds of other people like you would make you feel more comfortable with yourself.
------------- Real Men play Tuba
[IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg">
PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 30 June 2012 at 3:33pm
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 30 June 2012 at 6:41pm
I wonder how this thread would go if the word gays was changed to ethnic hate group.
|
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 30 June 2012 at 7:49pm
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 30 June 2012 at 9:48pm
Lightningbolt wrote:
I wonder how this thread would go if the word gays was changed to ethnic hate group. |
Sorry what's the relation/ comparison here?
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 30 June 2012 at 10:07pm
Life styles and beliefs openly exercised and displayed in public
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 30 June 2012 at 10:12pm
JCPenney felt the heat from their promotion of the gay agenda. They were boycotted by OneMillionMoms a pro family advocacy group.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/05/million-moms-rips-jcpenney-on-gay-culture-war/" rel="nofollow - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/05/million-moms-rips-jcpenney-on-gay-culture-war/
http://bruni.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/penneys-gay-wager/" rel="nofollow - http://bruni.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/penneys-gay-wager/
And that boycott clearly had a huge impact on their business... As they just fired their President for the massive drop in stock price which followed a horrific quarter which many have said (but not in the media... weird...) was based on the boycott of so many moms, who is JCPenney's targer market.
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/retail/20120618-struggling-j.c.-penney-fires-its-president.ece" rel="nofollow - http://www.dallasnews.com/business/retail/20120618-struggling-j.c.-penney-fires-its-president.ece
Companies are welcome to make their progressive social values known, so that traditional value families can decide where to spend their money...
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 30 June 2012 at 10:47pm
Personally, I feel the "traditional family" rhetoric is a bit of a cop-out. The "traditional" family is the remnants of an ideology that lasted for a few years back in the 50's. It, on it's own, was an oppressive, male-domineering lifestyle, but that's not the point of this thread.
There is no such thing as a traditional family. The man works. The woman works. The kid is raised by a baby-sitter/daycare. Everyone is still broke. What was traditional then is not traditional now. What is not traditional now can't be traditional in the future. Thus, there is no "tradition." The only thing traditional is a man is legally hitched to a woman. Hell, the fundamental religious aspect of a family unit changes as people see fit.
I just get the impression the "traditional family" argument is a fall-back term so people against gay marriage for no particular reason have some kind of flag to wave...
------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 30 June 2012 at 11:37pm
The words in the bible don't change. I won't point fingers but a particular mega denomination does like to adjust their beliefs to keep their pews full. I consider it corruption.
|
Posted By: DeTrevni
Date Posted: 30 June 2012 at 11:49pm
No, the words in the Bible don't change. And that's what's so worrisome. The ideal family 1,000+ years ago is CERTAINLY different from today's "ideals." The folks picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to follow and thump and which to ignore is, well, disheartening to say the least.
------------- Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 01 July 2012 at 12:29am
Lightningbolt wrote:
The words in the bible don't change. I won't point fingers but a particular mega denomination does like to adjust their beliefs to keep their pews full. I consider it corruption. |
Actually, they change all the time if you chose to read the various translations and codecies available, you'd know that.
Also, the words in the bible say not to wear mixed fibers, to make your wife sleep in a different building when she's on the rag, and to burn your house to the ground and re-build if you get mildew more than once in the exact same book where it talks about homosexuality.
------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 01 July 2012 at 12:39am
FreeEnterprise wrote:
JCPenney felt the heat from their promotion of the gay agenda. They were boycotted by OneMillionMoms a pro family advocacy group.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/05/million-moms-rips-jcpenney-on-gay-culture-war/" rel="nofollow - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/05/million-moms-rips-jcpenney-on-gay-culture-war/
http://bruni.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/penneys-gay-wager/" rel="nofollow - http://bruni.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/penneys-gay-wager/
And that boycott clearly had a huge impact on their business... As they just fired their President for the massive drop in stock price which followed a horrific quarter which many have said (but not in the media... weird...) was based on the boycott of so many moms, who is JCPenney's targer market.
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/retail/20120618-struggling-j.c.-penney-fires-its-president.ece" rel="nofollow - http://www.dallasnews.com/business/retail/20120618-struggling-j.c.-penney-fires-its-president.ece
Companies are welcome to make their progressive social values known, so that traditional value families can decide where to spend their money...] |
And conclusions have been jumped to; Hooray for correlation! Did you know that Obama got elected because I have a cat named Ollie? I mean, I got the cat and named him Ollie and then Obama was elected president, so it MUST be true!
JCP has been fighting a loosing battle the same as Sears, Filene's, Macy's, and every other department store chain out there. Not one single one has seen an uptake in business, and all are hemorrhaging cash like nobody's business for several years now. The reality is that brick and mortar stores are a dying breed. Even Best Buy who were crowing about the death of Circuit City just a few years ago are starting to lose stores by the dozens. It has zero to do with the One "Million" Moms organization (which is a listed hate group by the way) especially considering they also boycott: 7-Eleven Abercrombie & Fitch American Airlines American Girl Blockbuster Video Burger King Calvin Klein Carl's Jr. Clorox Comcast Crest Ford Hallmark Cards Kmart Kraft Foods S. C. Johnson & Son Movie Gallery Microsoft MTV Mary Kay NutriSystem Old Navy IKEA Sears Pampers Procter & Gamble Target Tide Walt Disney Company and PepsiCo
And... you know.... all of them have had crappy first quarters, dismal stock prices, and fired their CEO's all because of a boycott by a hate group with little to no relevance.
It's statements like the one you made FE that really make me question how much you think things trough. We agree on some things, but making that kind of correlation statement is just silly man!
------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 01 July 2012 at 3:08am
tallen702 wrote:
The reality is that brick and mortar stores are a dying breed. |
But they are TRADITIONAL! They must be saved!
Honestly? Basing any argument on the BIBLE is a losing proposition. There are too many different forms of Christianity, many with conflicting arguments, to be taken seriously. Honestly? They all claim to be right, at the peril of your mortal soul. Matthew 7:3. How about you get your own house in order before dictating to others how to run their lives.
And you are all meant to agree on things. You are all "Christians" and all follow the same book that was Devinely delivered.
Until that happens, how about you let other people carry on with what they want, so long as it is consensual.
OneMillionMoms sounds like a bunch of people with too much time on their hands and an inflated sense of self worth.
KBK
------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 01 July 2012 at 4:23am
tallen702 wrote:
FreeEnterprise wrote:
JCPenney felt the heat from their promotion of the gay agenda. They were boycotted by OneMillionMoms a pro family advocacy group.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/05/million-moms-rips-jcpenney-on-gay-culture-war/" rel="nofollow - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/05/million-moms-rips-jcpenney-on-gay-culture-war/
http://bruni.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/penneys-gay-wager/" rel="nofollow - http://bruni.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/penneys-gay-wager/
And that boycott clearly had a huge impact on their business... As they just fired their President for the massive drop in stock price which followed a horrific quarter which many have said (but not in the media... weird...) was based on the boycott of so many moms, who is JCPenney's targer market.
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/retail/20120618-struggling-j.c.-penney-fires-its-president.ece" rel="nofollow - http://www.dallasnews.com/business/retail/20120618-struggling-j.c.-penney-fires-its-president.ece
Companies are welcome to make their progressive social values known, so that traditional value families can decide where to spend their money...] |
And conclusions have been jumped to; Hooray for correlation! Did you know that Obama got elected because I have a cat named Ollie? I mean, I got the cat and named him Ollie and then Obama was elected president, so it MUST be true!
JCP has been fighting a loosing battle the same as Sears, Filene's, Macy's, and every other department store chain out there. Not one single one has seen an uptake in business, and all are hemorrhaging cash like nobody's business for several years now. The reality is that brick and mortar stores are a dying breed. Even Best Buy who were crowing about the death of Circuit City just a few years ago are starting to lose stores by the dozens. It has zero to do with the One "Million" Moms organization (which is a listed hate group by the way) especially considering they also boycott: 7-Eleven Abercrombie & Fitch American Airlines American Girl Blockbuster Video Burger King Calvin Klein Carl's Jr. Clorox Comcast Crest Ford Hallmark Cards Kmart Kraft Foods S. C. Johnson & Son Movie Gallery Microsoft MTV Mary Kay NutriSystem Old Navy IKEA Sears Pampers Procter & Gamble Target Tide Walt Disney Company and PepsiCo
And... you know.... all of them have had crappy first quarters, dismal stock prices, and fired their CEO's all because of a boycott by a hate group with little to no relevance.
It's statements like the one you made FE that really make me question how much you think things trough. We agree on some things, but making that kind of correlation statement is just silly man! |
One Million Moms is also known as a hate group, and I believe is almost entirely male run.
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 01 July 2012 at 5:22am
Ego and need to dominate are human personal traits. They're not exclusive to any religion, race, gender, or sexual preference.
Most people I come across feel that their position on every subject is determined by some universal logic that is obviously more well adapted than your own and they'll spend countless hours trying to convince you to change your ideologies to match their own.
Turn on any talk show, liberal or conservative, and listen to the host mock, ridicule, and tear down the opposing party.
It's ironic, because as much Christians are criticized for being judgemental and hateful, theres plenty of judgement and hatred leveled at them.
In the end we all believe we're right on subjects that probably don't have a right or wrong. Hence why the law should be based on a singular universal logic, flawed though it may be, and followed regardless of other logic systems. I believe we refer to this as "separation of church and state."
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 01 July 2012 at 10:39am
FreeEnterprise wrote:
As they just fired their President for the massive drop in stock price which followed a horrific quarter which many have said (but not in the media... weird...) was based on the boycott of so many moms, who is JCPenney's targer market. |
Perhaps.
Or, perhaps, it had to do with the enormous brand restructuring they did prior to the stock drop, including a new sales structure unlike the one customers were used to for 50+ years, new product direction, new marketing demographic to a younger audience to compete as a more affordable Forever 21 as opposed to another Sears, new store designs, etc.
Combine the internal cost of all that with the recession largely influencing the purchase ability of their new target demographic, and you're going to have a rough few quarters.
Or maybe it was the hate group. Who knows.
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 01 July 2012 at 10:47am
I would be interested to see just how many members there are in OneMillionMoms. Something tells me it falls well short of their name.
-------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 01 July 2012 at 12:51pm
evillepaintball wrote:
I would be interested to see just how many members there are in OneMillionMoms. Something tells me it falls well short of their name. |
Best estimates place their membership at somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 people on the high end. In reality, they're a sub-group of the AFA (another hate group) and count most of the AFA members as "members" of OMM without them actually being active members.
In short, way, way, way less than one million.
------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 01 July 2012 at 1:13pm
1 Million people who support Ellen for JC Penney 290,040 likes · 13,668 talking about this |
The Ellen/JC Penney page passed the "million mom"'s facebook page on something like it's 3rd week in existence.
“Not that there’s anyone counting, but for a group that calls themselves the Million Moms, they only have 40,000 members on their page.”J.C. Penney stood by DeGeneres, and even conservative TV host Bill O’Reilly voiced his support for the comedian. Now Facebook fans have validated the retailer for sticking to their guns.
Since yesterday, a group called 1 Million People Who Support Ellen for J.C. Penney has popped up, far surpassing the support of One Million Moms’ Facebook “Likes” (now 42,634). As of press time, 1 Million People has 80,244 members and gaining. |
Not definitive or anything, but interesting.
KBK
------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
|
Posted By: bravecoward
Date Posted: 01 July 2012 at 8:04pm

Heres another ad
-------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 02 July 2012 at 12:56am
tallen702 wrote:
evillepaintball wrote:
I would be interested to see just how many members there are in OneMillionMoms. Something tells me it falls well short of their name. |
Best estimates place their membership at somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 people on the high end. In reality, they're a sub-group of the AFA (another hate group) and count most of the AFA members as "members" of OMM without them actually being active members.
In short, way, way, way less than one million. |
Also I think it's 99% men on the board, but I can't find a figure for that. I wish I could remember where I saw that.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 02 July 2012 at 8:59am
So if you follow your religious beliefs and they are not secular beliefs you are labeled a hate group...
wow, what hypocrisy. So much for letting people believe what they want, huh... Only OK if it fits YOUR criteria for what is "right".
Are radical secular groups ever labeled hate groups?
Home depot has been waging a culture war utilizing gay pride for years now...
http://www.christianpost.com/news/over-540000-sign-home-depot-boycott-over-gay-activism-53907/" rel="nofollow - http://www.christianpost.com/news/over-540000-sign-home-depot-boycott-over-gay-activism-53907/
"In response to the AFA boycott, Steve Holmes, corporate communications & external affairs at Home Depot, said to The Christian Post in an email: “We’re committed to respecting and recognizing the diversity of all people and fostering an inclusive http://www.christianpost.com/topics/environment/" rel="nofollow - environment for all. To that end, our local store associates support and engage their local communities in a variety of ways; but it is not our intent to promote any political or social agenda.”
Except, for when they do exactly that as a corporation... Oh wait. AFA must be a HATE GROUP... So far over 700,000 people have signed the petition. People have a right to do what they want, and others have a right to not shop there if they feel they are stepping on their values...
You know... freedom and all that...
I stopped shopping at Target years ago when they stopped letting the salvation army put their kettle out front. I didn't tell anyone about it until now, but it bothered me that they would fund raise for other companies but kicked the salvation army out...
Guess that makes me a hate group. lol.
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 02 July 2012 at 10:23am
FreeEnterprise wrote:
So if you follow your religious beliefs and they are not secular beliefs you are labeled a hate group... |
If you engage in hate speech, http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/american-family-association" rel="nofollow - you will indeed be labeled a group that participates in hate speech by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Are radical secular groups ever labeled hate groups? |
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups" rel="nofollow - Yes, quite often actually.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map" rel="nofollow - Here's a handy map for locating them as well.
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 02 July 2012 at 10:33am
That is a very interesting map, Whale. I clicked on NY and found that most of the hate groups are central to a very diverse area, ( large middle eastern, jewish, asian, black community), the Queens/Brooklyn area.
------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!!
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 02 July 2012 at 3:37pm
Well, I'm SHOCKED I tell you...
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/anderson-cooper-gay-comes-154527163--finance.html" rel="nofollow - http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/anderson-cooper-gay-comes-154527163--finance.html
Oh wait...
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 03 July 2012 at 4:51am
Surely if God is omnipotent He knows what is inside my heart? If it is to be gay, then even if I resist temptation and remain both in the closet and "straight", He'll know it is an act and then I am damned anyway?
What sort of sicko makes free will available, then punishes one for choosing to act in a way that is contrary to the extremely narrow guidelines in the Bible? Especially if said sicko is omnipotent and knows how my free will will damn me anyway? "You are free to act as you will, so long as it is as I want you to act!" ?
And you think worshiping such a being is a good idea? Glad this is the Hypocrisy thread. Oh wait.
KBK
------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 03 July 2012 at 8:33am
Go and sin no more... Those were the words to the woman at the well, a woman who had been with MANY men, married to many others, and was with a man at the time, but not married to him...
Christ didn't kick her to the curb, any more than he would kick a gay person to the curb... Or a person who has multiple wives... Or a person who cheats on their taxes.
We are to do good, and turn away from our sin. And yes, we have free will to make that choice, it wasn't made for us...
WE get to choose, so our decisions are what matters. IF you decide to follow him, then that is your choice, you won't stop sinning in every area of your life at that decision. No one can, as no one is perfect, but in your heart you made a choice to follow Christ. That is what He is looking for, God realizes we will have issues, but we are to work towards the example that Christ set for us, as he was human and lived a sinless life. No one has since or before mind you...
Speaking of hypocrisy, how is it that the latter day saints group is labeled a "hate group" because they practice polygamy? And yet, people that speak out against the lifestyle of gays are called "hate groups" as well? It seems to me both are illegal, but the group making the "hate group" assignments doesn't like polygamy but has no problem with gays... By their own "standards" they should label themselves a "hate group" for bashing polygamists, as they are doing something they feel is right, and "it doesn't hurt anyone"...
Oh wait, I remember a bunch of you saying that gays rights would not lead to polygamy...
Oh wait.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/02/4604048/california-bill-would-allow-a.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/02/4604048/california-bill-would-allow-a.html
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 03 July 2012 at 8:47am
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Speaking of hypocrisy, how is it that the latter day saints group is labeled a "hate group" because they practice polygamy?
|
Probably not the polygamy so much as http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/spring/tempest-in-texas/the-prophet-speaks" rel="nofollow - this
------------- Real Men play Tuba
[IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg">
PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 03 July 2012 at 8:50am
Ah... good point!
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 03 July 2012 at 9:46am
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Speaking of hypocrisy, how is it that the latter day saints group is labeled a "hate group" because they practice polygamy? |
Because you don't read.
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 03 July 2012 at 9:56am
I'd like to point out that the bible also says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 03 July 2012 at 12:58pm
Looks like I'm up, then.
-------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 03 July 2012 at 2:51pm
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Go and sin no more... |
By following the extremely narrow guidelines printed in the Book he was talking about.
Here, free will. Now use it to follow MY instructions or burn in HELL!
Yeah, I can see how that works. No coercion there or anything.
And by the way "sin no more" does not mean try not to sin, or it does not bean lead a good life and accept Christ into your life and still fall to sin anyway, because you are human and fallible, it means sin no more.
Your God seems very tolerant of making mistakes and stumbling to sin. Yet does not accept those who stumble at accepting Him?
KBK
------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 03 July 2012 at 4:05pm
No, you are missing the point. ALL have sinned, and will continue to sin. Accepting Christ doesn't flip a switch and make you perfect, you will still mess up daily... All it does is allows you to take the blood of Christ to atone for your sins. That is the key, as alone we would have to live according to the ten commandments and that would be virtually impossible, especially if you are a gentile, like me. But, we are given grace through the blood of Christ, if we accept him, we try our best to not sin, but we will still fail. Over time in our walk with Christ, we get better, but we can still drop a sin whopper from time to time... Unlike unsaved people who will suffer the consequences of "the wages of sin is death". If you accept Christ as your Lord and savior, the consequence of "death" for your sin is wiped away.
The acceptance of the blood of Christ is the key, as it covers our sin. We still have to pay the consequences of our sin, but we can enter heaven by claiming the blood of Christ to cover our many sins, as that is the way to salvation.
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 03 July 2012 at 4:58pm
Well this thread jumped the shark.
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 03 July 2012 at 6:06pm
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 03 July 2012 at 6:06pm
No no, it is always interesting to listen to people talk about how a certain 2000 year old book is your only salvation if you do things the exact same book says is wrong.
Nothing like a self fulfilling dogma or anything.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I have no issue with God (not the moderator, the Creator). I have serious issues with the Bible.
KBK
------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 04 July 2012 at 4:08am
Kayback wrote:
No no, it is always interesting to listen to people talk about how a certain 2000 year old book is your only salvation if you do things the exact same book says is wrong.
Nothing like a self fulfilling dogma or anything.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I have no issue with God (not the moderator, the Creator). I have serious issues with the Bible.
KBK |
Thank god I dont mix textiles or eat shellfish
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 04 July 2012 at 10:36am
choopie911 wrote:
Kayback wrote:
No no, it is always interesting to listen to people talk about how a certain 2000 year old book is your only salvation if you do things the exact same book says is wrong.
Nothing like a self fulfilling dogma or anything.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I have no issue with God (not the moderator, the Creator). I have serious issues with the Bible.
KBK |
Thank god I dont mix textiles or eat shellfish |
Sheesh choop! I already covered the mixed fibers part.... lrn 2 reed gudder!
But yeah, if you're going to pick and choose passages out of context to support your worldview, you're going to be labeled the hypocrite you are.
------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 04 July 2012 at 5:56pm
I'm gonna throw this one out there:
A lot of Christians love to scream about how the New Testament is essentially a rewrite and how now we're *not* supposed to stone adulterers, or those who criticize their parents, or enslave people, or what have you. That Bible 2.0 was to Abrahamic religion what Windows 7 was to Vista- a desperately needed attempt to forget the staggeringly bad embarrassment that was the last kick at that particular cat, and to forget about all the advocation of atrocity, genocide and all that stuff. I'm assuming minor sins are covered to.
So, let's pretend for a second that we all exist that Jesus Christ, the generally believed-to-have-historically-existed-and-said-stuff-figure WAS actually the Son of God.
What did *Jesus personally* have to say about homosexuality? When he spoke on the subject - surely he must have, for how fervently Christians love to gay bash - what were his actual words as quoted in the bible? I'm genuinely curious- as of yet I've had no luck tracking this down.
Really I'm trying to figure out why homophobia isn't just another obsolete religious proscription like the mixed fibers, or pork things, or why it's not considered passé like kicking women out of church when they're menstruating.
Anyone?
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."
-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.
Yup, he actually said that.
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 04 July 2012 at 6:53pm
brihard wrote:
What did *Jesus personally* have to say about homosexuality? When he spoke on the subject - surely he must have, for how fervently Christians love to gay bash - what were his actual words as quoted in the bible? I'm genuinely curious- as of yet I've had no luck tracking this down.
Really I'm trying to figure out why homophobia isn't just another obsolete religious proscription like the mixed fibers, or pork things, or why it's not considered passé like kicking women out of church when they're menstruating.
Anyone?
|
All sins are equal in the eyes of God. There is no way around sin, Christians are sinners, every human is a sinner. Thats all there is to it.
Honestly, most Christians don't care about homosexuality. Its the loud ones that do. Those ones just have a problem with homosexuality in general because they think its gross. Then they throw the bible at the situation and think they can make it go away. You can't use the Word of God as a weapon against the flesh, only in spirit.
I can clarify things if you want. Just ask.
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 04 July 2012 at 7:18pm
Rofl_Mao wrote:
brihard wrote:
What did *Jesus personally* have to say about homosexuality? When he spoke on the subject - surely he must have, for how fervently Christians love to gay bash - what were his actual words as quoted in the bible? I'm genuinely curious- as of yet I've had no luck tracking this down.
Really I'm trying to figure out why homophobia isn't just another obsolete religious proscription like the mixed fibers, or pork things, or why it's not considered passé like kicking women out of church when they're menstruating.
Anyone?
|
I can clarify things if you want. Just ask.
|
I did. I asked for an actual quote from Jesus.
We get told, whenever Christianity is criticized, that we should basically ignore everything in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, that Jesus got himself put up on the cross for our sins, and that about that time all that really obscene atrocity in the old testament doesn't count any more.
I'm looking for something from the source to explain why homosexuality is not one of these things. The stance against homsoexuality is just as stupid and barbaric as much of the other crap that practically nobody of any denomination takes seriously anymore. I'm trying to determine if the claim that much of the old testament can be ignored holds any water, or if it's just cheap dodges for hypocrisy. Jesus *must* have had and expressed some sort of opinion on the issue?
------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."
-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.
Yup, he actually said that.
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 05 July 2012 at 12:24am
FreeEnterprise wrote:
No, you are missing the point. ALL have sinned, and will continue to sin. Accepting Christ doesn't flip a switch and make you perfect, you will still mess up daily... All it does is allows you to take the blood of Christ to atone for your sins. That is the key, as alone we would have to live according to the ten commandments and that would be virtually impossible, especially if you are a gentile, like me. But, we are given grace through the blood of Christ, if we accept him, we try our best to not sin, but we will still fail. Over time in our walk with Christ, we get better, but we can still drop a sin whopper from time to time... Unlike unsaved people who will suffer the consequences of "the wages of sin is death". If you accept Christ as your Lord and savior, the consequence of "death" for your sin is wiped away.
The acceptance of the blood of Christ is the key, as it covers our sin. We still have to pay the consequences of our sin, but we can enter heaven by claiming the blood of Christ to cover our many sins, as that is the way to salvation. |
I disagree. I think that there's a marked change in a person's life when they accept salvation.
I think that looking at religion as a fire insurance is why Christians have garnered the disrespect from the secular world that we're seeing. People bend religion around their lives instead of vice versa.
Christians continually piss and moan that the world has lost respect for them but I believe they've lost the respect for their own religion. The Bible has alot to say about dogs returning to their own vomit.
Obviously this wasn't directed at you, just a difference I feel in the nature of religion.
As far as the rest of this thread...if you don't believe in the Bible why argue for or against it? To me these threads are just an excuse to point out the ridiculousness of religion. It's always ironic to sarcastically mock a religion / ideology then throw down words like "homophobic." Not trying to step on any toes, but it really does annoy me.
There are reasons why the old testament evolved into the new. We could discuss these nuances a day but I have a feeling it would be pointless.
-------------
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 05 July 2012 at 2:36am
brihard wrote:
Rofl_Mao wrote:
brihard wrote:
What did *Jesus personally* have to say about homosexuality? When he spoke on the subject - surely he must have, for how fervently Christians love to gay bash - what were his actual words as quoted in the bible? I'm genuinely curious- as of yet I've had no luck tracking this down.
Really I'm trying to figure out why homophobia isn't just another obsolete religious proscription like the mixed fibers, or pork things, or why it's not considered passé like kicking women out of church when they're menstruating.
Anyone?
|
I can clarify things if you want. Just ask.
|
I did. I asked for an actual quote from Jesus.
We get told, whenever Christianity is criticized, that we should basically ignore everything in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, that Jesus got himself put up on the cross for our sins, and that about that time all that really obscene atrocity in the old testament doesn't count any more.
I'm looking for something from the source to explain why homosexuality is not one of these things. The stance against homsoexuality is just as stupid and barbaric as much of the other crap that practically nobody of any denomination takes seriously anymore. I'm trying to determine if the claim that much of the old testament can be ignored holds any water, or if it's just cheap dodges for hypocrisy. Jesus *must* have had and expressed some sort of opinion on the issue? | There is no quote directly from jesus on the subject but there are three passages in the new testament that may deal with homosexuality.
Here:
1 Timothy 1:8-11 King James Version (KJV) 8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. |
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 King James Version (KJV) 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. |
Romans 1:26-27 King James Version (KJV) 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. |
-------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 05 July 2012 at 7:49am
stratoaxe wrote:
I disagree. I think that there's a marked change in a person's life when they accept salvation.
|
I agree that there should be a marked change, and the bible often talks about looking at a persons "fruit" to see where they are spiritually, and in fact many of the things that you used to do before you were a Christian will become things that you will feel convicted about (now that you start learning all the different sins), which never bothered you before. My point was just that as time goes on and you draw closer to Christ in your relationship, you will find all kinds of things that you are doing wrong, that you never considered before.
Not that you don't change at all... Accepting Christ is a huge change as you are living your life for someone else instead of living it for yourself. I just didn't do a good job of explaining it. Of course you will change, things that used to be part of your life will be gone, and new things will take their place.
Sin is sin, doesn't matter what it is, be it lying, or sexual issues, or murder, all sin takes us away from God as by definition that is what sin does, it separates us from God.
That is the biggest problem non Christians have with Christians, they expect Christians to sin no more... And yet...
John 1:8 says, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us".
In our minds we pretend that we are good, and aren't really "That" bad, we can look at the murderer and say "well, I didn't MURDER anyone"... Except ALL sin separates us from God... ANY sin, so the only way to reconcile our lives is to accept the blood of Christ to cover our sins, as a sacrifice. That is the difference between Christianity and all other religions, you only have to accept the free gift of Christs blood to cover your sins, and a change in your heart. No works, no money paid, no attendance on Sunday services or gifts to the proper spiritual advisor...
So the issue isn't that Christians don't sin, but that we claim the free gift of Christs blood to atone for our sin, in a way that we can't. As we aren't sinless.
"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." 1 John 1:10.
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord". Romans 8:23
So the gay person is no different than any other unsaved person, we all have lives full of sin. And that sin will cause us separation from God when we die, and our spirits leave our flesh and go back to the one that created that spirit.
Ecclesiastes 12:7, "Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it".
Only people that have accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior will be able to avoid the consequences of their sins.
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 05 July 2012 at 3:11pm
I swear this forum is against me. When I try post something approaching a thought out argument the filter kicks it out. I'm honestly not just snide comments. I'm not a great debater by any standards but this filter isn't playing fair.
One thing that grates my pecs is arguments like gays are bad because the Bible says. As FE points out we are ALL sinners and no sinner will get into the house of God. So now some sins are worse than others? You'll get into Heaven easier if you only do some things not others.........which isn't true at all, if you folllow the teachings of the Bible.
Again with some of the haters who are almost violently anti gay, anti abortion, anti war..... verses about casting stones.
------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 05 July 2012 at 5:51pm
But with any other religious group it's inappropriate to generalize the entire population by the extremist minority.
If I got on a forum and posted that it's so annoying how Muslims blow up buildings I'd get twenty million white knight responses about not judging a group by its extreme elements. Yet it's totally okay to paint Christianity on the whole as homophobic and ignorant.
I have no problem acknowledging the lesser elements of Christianity. I do it all the time. In fact most people tend to view me as anti-religious. It just seems to me that it's always open season on Christianity and taboo on everything else.
-------------
|
Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 05 July 2012 at 6:38pm
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 05 July 2012 at 9:25pm
Until someone can celebrate being a straight, white, well-to-do male without being ridiculed, no one should have any day / week / month of celebration for whatever they were born as or decided to be. It's silly and naiive to expect and demand equality, then turn around and call someone a racist, bigot, sexist, etc etc. You can't demand equality without being equal.
Kayback wrote:
No no, it is always interesting to listen to people talk about how a certain 2000 year old book is your only salvation if you do things the exact same book says is wrong. |
There are people who have views that don't base those view on a book, even if they so happen to coincide with the views of people who DO have the views based on a book.... clumping one view point together saying they all come from the same place is wrong.
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 July 2012 at 9:35pm
Linus wrote:
Until someone can celebrate being a straight, white, well-to-do male without being ridiculed, no one should have any day / week / month of celebration for whatever they were born as or decided to be. |
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 05 July 2012 at 9:57pm
I'm sure there's supposed to be some sort of witty comeback there, but I see nothing. Not even one of your famous .gifs comparing me to Dwight.
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 05 July 2012 at 10:29pm
Pretending that privilege doesn't exist in society is frankly boring anymore.
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 06 July 2012 at 2:17am
Even if there are privileges like you said, if you stand up saying I'm white and proud of it people equate you to the KKK, which isn't fair. I can't help being born white or male.
In general any group of humans that hold something against another group because they are different makes me dispair.
Especially something as etherial as religion. Millions of lives destroyed because of something people "believe". There isn't any proof anything actually exists but they are happy to kill other people for simply believing something else.
------------- Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 06 July 2012 at 8:19am
Speak for yourself about "there isn't any proof". I've seen miracles that CAN'T be explained by nature or science...
I've watched my broken arm be healed right in front of me. I FELT that bar pass through that girls leg/jeans, and pulled her from the burning car seconds she would have burned alive.
Just because you don't believe the proof doesn't mean the proof isn't there.
We live in a highly cynical world today where people don't believe things that they can see and touch, because... if there is a God, then there is also a devil, and would the devil want you to believe that God existed? Of course not, shoot, I WAS THERE and I struggled with what I witnessed, that is why I went back and took pictures of that bar, as my mind kept saying "it probably just moved..." or something.
Only when I went back and looked at that bar, and pulled on it trying to move it, did I realize... "Whoa, that really was a miracle...".
We are so conditioned to not believe that there is a supernatural world, even though we see the effects of it, hear of people passing over to it, and coming back (book "heaven is for real"). But, the devil rules this world, so of course he will do his best to ridicule anyone who tries to talk about stuff like that... Because he wins if you don't believe in God.
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 06 July 2012 at 9:33am
The bar stabbed through her jeans. That means it had an open end. You removed it the same way it went in. Good on you, but to automatically chalk it up to miracles is the hasty answer that requires no thought.
Linus, Maybe they will stop having days/parades when they are allowed to get married.
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 06 July 2012 at 9:44am
Kayback wrote:
Even if there are privileges like you said, if you stand up saying I'm white and proud of it people equate you to the KKK, |
Privilege within society goes much deeper than just the idea of saying "I'm ____ and proud" in public and judging the reaction.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 06 July 2012 at 9:49am
You would think there would be an open end, but the seat smashed into the bar end when the car compressed in the wreck.
The bar end was embedded into the seat that smashed into the dash, there was no end to slide past. Her legs were smashed between, and I had to pull each one out as the seat was touching the dashboard.
I stuck my fingers into the seat to try and find the end of it, but it was between the metal in the seat and wedged tight. I FELT the jeans slide through the bar... I had my fingers in the holes of the jeans when it happened.
There was no way for that to just "slide past" as the end of the bar was deeply embedded into the seat with her jeans/leg pierced between.
Look at the front tire... It compressed the front of the car into the drivers seat...
Oh, and how exactly did I bend down that window frame? I'm strong, but not THAT strong...
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
|