What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee's singing debut.
238 Comments
- anawnymoose, on 05/13/2009, -9/+97NOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO MARRY DUCKS AND TREES AND OUR CHILDREN WILL BE SO CONFUSED BECAUSE GOD IS ANGRY AND IT'S ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE!!!
Seriously though, this is fantastic. The sad thing is that just like interracial marriage, when every state finally legalizes gay marriage there will still be a few people standing around yelling "This is an outrage!"
And just like with interracial marriage, the next generation will know them as the creepy bigoted uncle/grandmother/whatever clinging to old fashioned ways. - macmcraeart, on 05/13/2009, -3/+42that bill is sooooo gay.
(finger-snaps) - TheUngod, on 05/13/2009, -4/+42You should be. Otherwise nobody could ***** a Jackass like you.
- Konrad9, on 05/13/2009, -5/+40Don't worry, they won't pass a bill declaring it illegal to be a bigot.
- mywhitenoise, on 05/13/2009, -3/+33Funny how everyone thinks California is progressive, yet gay marriage is still banned here.
- tofagerl, on 05/13/2009, -2/+29Re-banned. They were progressive there for a little bit, but then they regressed :)
- tgjerusalem, on 05/13/2009, -12/+37On to the senate!
Come on, New York. If New Jersey beats us to this, we'll never live it down. - cc132, on 05/13/2009, -8/+30Theology should not be public policy.
Let's hope this goes through the Senate. - SketchaMPM, on 05/13/2009, -14/+35This is great news!
(In before scary fundamentalist Christian conservatives) - Coven, on 05/13/2009, -0/+20.../s?
- Diefree, on 05/13/2009, -15/+35Come on New York you should be on the leading edge of equal rights for all!
- Dreeon, on 05/13/2009, -0/+19You're adorable!
- SketchaMPM, on 05/13/2009, -0/+19This is brilliant satire, thank you SoldierOfChrist!
- ZimbuTheMonkey, on 05/13/2009, -3/+20I was convinced that this was satire until I saw this dude's history...
- mksmothers, on 05/13/2009, -3/+20I'm for gay and plural marriage. As long as everyone is an adult you can marry whomever you want.
- skintigh, on 05/13/2009, -4/+21You forgot to compare gays to horrible criminals like child rapists or animal rapists like all the good Christians do.
- amoirae, on 05/13/2009, -4/+21Well, you get consent from your bear. Good luck with that, Grizzly Adams.
- inactive, on 05/13/2009, -2/+18Well, the campaign against gay marriage here flat out lied to pass.
- MooreWV, on 05/13/2009, -1/+16You may. May I suggest that you secede from Earth?
- Maxwell1234, on 05/13/2009, -4/+19Because people who are gay didn't up and decide to be gay. They are what they are, and deserve the same rights as the rest of us. Polygamists on the other hand marry multiple women as a choice.
- apetrie, on 05/13/2009, -1/+16Because people should never be subjected to the tyranny of the majority when it comes to issues of basic rights and equality. Its the governments job to ensure those rights and protect ALL of its citizens.
- GlassAgate, on 05/13/2009, -0/+14I've said it before, and I'll say it again: animals can't give consent.
- TheNik, on 05/13/2009, -1/+15Because people that move from a state recognizing gay marriage to a state that doesn't recognize it is a federal issue.
- apetrie, on 05/13/2009, -1/+15Why? How? Explain further please, otherwise you are just eloquently stating a very vague justification for your bigotry.
It makes me sad to see intelligent people acting in such a pathetic, oppressive and immoral manner. Equal rights for all. - Thebruce88, on 05/13/2009, -3/+16A better question, is this: Why do you give a ***** if two gay people can get married?
And to prove I'm not dodging your question, I see no reason for polygamy to be illegal either, though I don't why you would be a polygamist. - pingveno, on 05/13/2009, -4/+17I wonder if National Organization for Marriage will make a sequel to "Gathering Storm".
*crosses fingers* - stevealford, on 05/13/2009, -0/+13Soldier, I REALLY hope that was satire...
Sketch wasn't bashing christians by saying that they're scary when they're fundamentalists. As far as the "In before" part, well... it's kind of a foregone conclusion that the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" crowd will be here for any story on gay marriage. Let the "fags" marry each other if they want to, I say. They aren't harming me, let them find their own happiness where they can. - GQCarrick, on 05/13/2009, -0/+12If NY can find a way to put a tax on it you know it will pass and be signed into law.
- MooreWV, on 05/13/2009, -0/+12Yeah! Those stupid idiots that want to be equal to everyone else! What ARE they thinking?!
You are FILLED with Christ's love! *You throw a Bible at them* - bowens44, on 05/13/2009, -4/+16keep waiting idiot...why don't you hold your breath while you do it?
- OaklandNative, on 05/13/2009, -5/+16For anyone against same sex marriage, can you seriously answer these questions?
If same-sex marriage and homosexuality is wrong, then what does society and/or the church do in the following situations:
• Would it be legal and/or moral for a transgender female to marry a normal male? Or, transgender male to marry a normal female?
• Would two hermaphrodites be allowed to marry? And, if so, would they "declare their sex" prior to getting married, and stay that way throughout the union? Who will monitor this? What does God think about these people and their rights?
• Would a hermaphrodite be allowed to marry a normal male? A normal female? Would a hermaphrodite have more marriage rights, legal or religious, than a non-hermaphrodite?
Is "a man" and "a woman" defined by external genitalia? Maybe all couples should provide a genetic test for his/her sex. Genetic males have an X chromosome, and at least one Y chromosome; genetic females have at least two X chromosomes. All males start out as females, and in fetal development, the genes on the Y chromosome determine "maleness."
• Would it be legal and/or moral for a genetically determined XY male with testicular feminization syndrome (no male sex organs; looks completely female externally) to marry a female? A male?
• Would it be legal and/or moral for a genetically determined XX female with pseudo-hermaphrodism (has male sex organs) to marry a female? A male?
The development of the human body does not abide by local, state or federal laws; neither does it abide by religious doctrine. Chromosomes and the resultant expression of inherited genes determines humanity, and our society has granted individuals rights based upon constitutional principles. About 1/2000 people CANNOT be defined as a man or woman. Before society determines who shall and shall not get married, thus limiting these constitutional rights, maybe, it should first define "a man" and "a woman." Better yet, why not just let people be who they are and marry and love whoever they want?I - stubear, on 05/13/2009, -3/+14Can one of you anti-gay marriage people explain to me why it's so important for Government to keep two individuals from entering into a legal contract (because from the Government's stand point that is all marriage is)? I can understand if you don't want gay marriages performed at your church because it's the right of religion to be as bigoted and hypocritical as they wish to be but why force Government to play by these rules as well? With divorce and domestic abuse still a problem plaguing "Christian" couples today, is marriage really a sanctity? I'm honestly curious as to why you want these bills stopped so badly.
- apetrie, on 05/13/2009, -1/+12I'm straight, but on behalf of all the sane, fair-minded, logical people out there: ***** you cristinamk, I hope there is a hell so you can go there.
- Greyscale88, on 05/13/2009, -5/+16It's an issue because there are laws pertaining to Marriage which benefit married couples, and the Constitution guarantees Equal Protection under the laws. Not letting homosexuals get married is directly unconstitutional.
- inactive, on 05/13/2009, -1/+11They are. Starring Ms. California. I can't wait.
- mikelieman, on 05/13/2009, -0/+10"Recognizing the legal union of gay and lesbian couples would represent a profound change in the meaning and definition of marriage"
Given that in NYS, "Marriage" is defined as a Civil Contract, you're wrong. Especially since, in NYS, Civil Contracts are EXPRESSLY to be constructed and interpreted without regard to gender.
QED, *****. - lydecker, on 05/13/2009, -1/+11There's conclusive evidence that shows heterosexual marriage is a choice. That abstinence is a choice. That going to church is a choice. That watching tv is a choice.
Choices are sins. Not having free will is the only way to not sin!
There's no conclusive evidence that anything is a sin, because sin is not a scientific or logical term in which evidence leads to things falling into that category. - Oldsmoboi, on 05/13/2009, -0/+10There is evidence of something being a sin? Prove it.
There is evidence of homosexuality being a choice? Why would someone choose to be a member of the most universally hated minority in the world.
Hardline Christians, Jews, and Muslims may bomb each other out of existence, but one thing they'll drop the weapons and agree on is the extermination of gays.
Sign me up! - ohplease, on 05/13/2009, -3/+13Hey, if inbreeds like your parents are allowed to wed, then consenting adults should be too.
- mikelieman, on 05/13/2009, -1/+10"There's conclusive evidence that shows homosexuality is a sin "
Bring it Christ-Monkey. I welcome a chance to examine your peer-reviewed research supporting your hypothesis. - Oldsmoboi, on 05/13/2009, -0/+9Yes, because only the states that agree with you, personally, should be part of the U.S.
- NYCowboy, on 05/13/2009, -0/+9Your right I think we should also keep those Catholics from getting married to. I mean it is a holy union of two people and we can't have it being preformed by a bunch of alter boy rapist. I mean, and the Jewish as well these guys are stuck so far in the past I think we need to cut them off till the catch up with the 21st century. Next we should stop the Muslims from marrying as well, if a few radicals could attack America I think we need to stop them from getting married and having kids too. Lets also not forget the Scientologist and all those other fringe religions they need to also be bared from marriage. Next we need to remove all the people who can't take the time of day to read all of leviticus and have ever shared seat where a women once sat while on their period, or have ever eaten shell fish, lets face it if your not following every word in the bible to a T then your a hypocrite and should not be allowed to get married. I think all that leaves is a dude in Idaho named Jim and a guy in Georgia named Paul. Well that is inconvenient.
- labuzan, on 05/13/2009, -1/+10I follow all of your logic except for the incest part. I think society must not allow incestuous relationships because of the potentially catastrophic health issues that are introduced when genetic materials are mixed within the same family. You can end up with offspring who have serious issues that society must then deal with.
- lovek, on 05/13/2009, -0/+9This calls for a thread of proposed titles.
I suggest "A Glistening in the Heat" - Oldsmoboi, on 05/13/2009, -0/+9When the Church of New York State, as elected by the citizens of New York State, votes to legalize gay marriage, get back to us.
Until then, this is a secular issue. - fotomatt, on 05/13/2009, -0/+9Yeah, good idea. I suppose we should've used that strategy in the South in efforts to end overt racial discrimination, too... just wait for the White folks to finally vote out all their Jim Crow laws.
Or perhaps, when we're dealing with fundamental rights and liberties, we should insist upon safeguarding those rights through the law, NOW, rather than waiting around for a few more decades (if ever).
Some people will never change their minds, but many others will, once marriage equality becomes the norm. In fact, many people will hardly remember that "they" were ever opposed to it. - frobozz0, on 05/13/2009, -0/+8No, it is not. You don't understand your history at all.
For literally thousands of years, marriage was a property rights issue. It didn't have anything to do with romantic love as we describe it now. People would arrange marriages to strengthen their property rights, financial status, or social status. That was all. By your reasoning, even this definition would be a terrible redefinition. Except it is the actual foundation of what we call marriage now. In other words, Marriage always has evolved to mean different things for the society at the time.
Did you also know that the ring, as it is exchanged now, is actually just a refinement of gift giving done between the two individuals? It used to be that gifts were exchanged between the two families being married-- could have been nearly anything.
You must also be aware that the CURRENT definition of marriage is essentially the same issue of property rights and succession, yes? It is only within the confines of religion, which is WHOLLY SEPARATE from the legal definition of marriage, that one could argue against same sex marriage. People ALWAYS get married in the legal sense, but only occasionally get married in a religious sense. Since the religious marriage has not legal ramifications, it has no place in this argument.
It's time to shed your bias and stop the hate. - MargotCross, on 05/13/2009, -16/+24amazing! its about time..
- thesonofdarwin, on 05/13/2009, -1/+9Thankfully and not surprisingly, the generations are pretty much the same. It's not the younger generation that is vehemently against homosexual marriage, it's the same generations that were against interracial marriages.
- Tyrghast, on 05/13/2009, -6/+14Yay civil rights!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 244 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is