Another reason to support same sex marriage

February 22nd, 2013 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

CollegeHumor’s Favorite Funny Videos

Very funny – and probably true.

Tags:

35 Responses to “Another reason to support same sex marriage”

  1. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    Lucia, Andrei, Redbaiter….I think this is your very own thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (12,617 comments) says:

    Same-sex marriage and David Bain have become an obsession the apple of DPF’s eyes.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. SPC (4,634 comments) says:

    Why do people go to the gym and get fit – to see off competition.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. graham (2,211 comments) says:

    I find this just terrible! This is obviously nothing but a HOMOPHOBIC video reinforcing all the stereotypes about gay men.

    “We’re all ripped … we dress better … we’ll make her quiche for breakfast … we know how to make hummus … of COURSE we love art galleries … we TEACH dance class …”

    Because of course, it’s just SO terrible to reinforce stereotypes, poke fun, call your fellow MPs “queer” or “Tinkerbell”. HOMOPHOBES!!!

    And it’s going both ways, they’re poking fun at US! “We dress better than you … you spill food … you burn scrambled eggs … you can’t dance …”. How HORRIBLE of them.

    What’s that? It’s bad when we poke fun at homosexuals, but it’s okay when they do it to themselves? And it;s just fine when homosexuals poke fun at heterosexuals? Ah right, got it. Thanks for explaining that.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. bringbackdemocracy (350 comments) says:

    It is a national disgrace that the select committee looking at this, is refusing to hear thousands of submissions on this proposed law change. The argument that there is not enough time is not valid.
    Our politicians expect the public to use their own time to fill out census forms, and yet won’t hear submissions.

    What is hard to accept is that the committee took time to hear a submission from a non resident Dutchman, but is refusing to listen to New Zealand citizens who pay taxes to run the committee.
    The Dutchman like Abel Tasman before him came to New Zealand, got involved in a disagreement and then cleared off contributing nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. SPC (4,634 comments) says:

    That is the mistake made when “organisers” get people to send off a standard form submission written for them. The submission numbers get ignored and only the organisers get to appear – they only do it to declare that they speak on behalf of others.

    In any case not all those making a submission seek to appear and if it was a requirement to have everyone asking for this to appear it would simply become a way to filibuster legislative proposals.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. eszett (2,264 comments) says:

    Ah right, got it.

    Obviously, you don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. graham (2,211 comments) says:

    eszett: Obviously, neither do you.

    Here’s a hint – take a dose of humour pills, lighten the fuck up, see if you can wash out the sour taste in your mouth, and try rereading what I wrote. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Redbaiter (6,464 comments) says:

    Whale and Kiwiblog- the progressive tag team.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. nasska (9,489 comments) says:

    eszett

    From graham’s 8.0am….

    …”It’s bad when we poke fun at homosexuals, but it’s okay when they do it to themselves? And it;s just fine when homosexuals poke fun at heterosexuals?”….

    He makes a reasonable point. Why do you think two standards should apply?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. eszett (2,264 comments) says:

    bringbackdemocracy (139) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 8:10 am
    It is a national disgrace that the select committee looking at this, is refusing to hear thousands of submissions on this proposed law change. The argument that there is not enough time is not valid.
    Our politicians expect the public to use their own time to fill out census forms, and yet won’t hear submissions.

    What is hard to accept is that the committee took time to hear a submission from a non resident Dutchman, but is refusing to listen to New Zealand citizens who pay taxes to run the committee.

    Why would that not be a valid argument?
    All submissions have been put forward in writing. Many have spoken in front of the committee, most of them New Zealanders.

    Your statement that the committee is refusing to listen to New Zealanders is clearly pure nonsense.
    Probably more New Zealanders have spoken in person about this bill than most other bills.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Chuck Bird (4,402 comments) says:

    Well at least that threat is not as bad as the serious threats made in the early days of HIV by ACTUP that they would donate blood to blood banks if they did not get their own way.

    Most homosexuals are are least to some extent bisexual and a treat to public health. Allowing them the major say on sexual health is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. eszett (2,264 comments) says:

    He makes a reasonable point. Why do you think two standards should apply?

    Does he? Where is his point reasonable?
    The two standard argument is just pure nonsense, context and purpose are important, things that bbd conveniently ignores.

    Let me make an example for you.

    If your wife is at the bar and you go over to her and put your arm around her and say “Hi Honey”, that’s perfectly okay.
    If I do the same thing to your wife, it’s not.

    Are you applying two standards here?
    Or are you just taking context and purpose into consideration as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. eszett (2,264 comments) says:

    Most homosexuals are are least to some extent bisexual and a treat to public health. Allowing them the major say on sexual health is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

    Oh dear, chucky, already spewing unmitigated bullshit this early in the day?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Changeiscoming (97 comments) says:

    Another reason? Still waiting for the first reason.

    PS – The female version of this is actually quite funny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. nasska (9,489 comments) says:

    eszett

    Okay, I accept that context is important but can you think of a situation where a straight could publicly poke fun at a homosexual without the poor dears screaming “homophobe” & demanding the protection of some “human rights’ watchdog?

    Because I can’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. bringbackdemocracy (350 comments) says:

    eszett

    New Zealanders, like myself have been denied the opportunity to present in person to the select committee and that is wrong, for both supporters and opponents of the bill.
    The fact that a non-New Zealander was heard in preference to New Zealanders is also WRONG.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. eszett (2,264 comments) says:

    nasska (5,712) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 8:49 am
    eszett

    Okay, I accept that context is important but can you think of a situation where a straight could publicly poke fun at a homosexual without the poor dears screaming “homophobe” & demanding the protection of some “human rights’ watchdog?

    Because I can’t.

    Well, you need to get out more, Nasska.
    Actually it happens all the time. Just watch some TV.

    And btw, you are the one who is now stereotyping homosexuals.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. eszett (2,264 comments) says:

    bringbackdemocracy (140) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 8:52 am
    eszett

    New Zealanders, like myself have been denied the opportunity to present in person to the select committee and that is wrong, for both supporters and opponents of the bill.
    The fact that a non-New Zealander was heard in preference to New Zealanders is also WRONG.

    bbd, your statement is just plain wrong.
    Some may have been denied the opportunity to speak in front of the committee, not surprising given the amount of submission it has drawn.

    It doesn’t mean that no New Zealanders have been heard. In fact, as I said more New Zealanders have spoken on this bill than on most other bills.

    It is pretty obvious that if too many people wish to speak in front of a committee, there has to be some selection proccess.
    More importantly is that all in the sample of the people that have spoken, the views expressed in the written submission are adequately reflected. Insofar there is nothing wrong that a non New Zealander has spoken at the committee.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. bringbackdemocracy (350 comments) says:

    eszett
    Nowhere did I suggest that no NewZealanders had been heard. I did however say that a Dutchman had been heard in preference to a large number of New Zealanders which is wrong.
    The chair of the select committee said to parliament that they had received 21,533 submissions and almost 3,000 of these were UNIQUE, however only a little over 200 had been heard.
    The committee hearing submissions on the paid parental leave bill which was introduced one month before the redefinition of marriage bill and does not report back to parliament until August 2013.
    The select committee on marriage redefinition reports back at the end of February and they took a week off for Waitangi day!
    Quite obviously they need more time so the people can be heard.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. SPC (4,634 comments) says:

    How many of those who made unique submissions asked for an appearance before the committee?

    I have made some, but not asked to present what they can read for themselves. The inter-active process only allows for questions, those can be covered in footnotes to a submission. Personal appearances are best for those directly impacted by the legislation, not those with an opinion who have taken the time to make a submission.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. eszett (2,264 comments) says:

    Bbd, unique means they were not copied and pasted. It doesn’t mean that they were 3000 different opinions. There might be a dozen or so different arguments on either side, if even that many.

    200 oral sibmissions are a lot. You cant seriously expect a select committee to hear 3000 submissions. 10 a day would make that process more than a year long and would add no value whatsoever. Especially because there are not 3000 different arguments out there.

    As I said, important is that those selected represent all the major viewpoints and arguments that have been presented in the written submissions.

    Do you think that you would have said anything that hasn’t been already said multiple times?

    I think you are just completely unreasonable and are throwing a hissyfit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Lucia Maria (1,983 comments) says:

    They love going to the gym… so, who’s going to be mowing the lawns and cleaning out the gutters and painting the house?

    What about children, there gets to be a point where women want children. Who wants to be having sex with a man who’s been doing unspeakable things with other men?

    Then there’s the clothing, what woman wants her husband spending all of the clothing budget on himself?

    So they can make quiche, whoop de do. Wonder if they can fix the car and the wifi. Or is the girl going have to learn how to do that while he’s cooking up a storm in the kitchen?

    This YouTube really needs a companion video. The Epic Rap Battle guys should get onto it. The closest they’ve got is Epic Rap Battle of Manliness.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    Gay males only make an effort with their appearance so as to deflect their group image as sodomites, and only an ignorant woman would think any differant! :cool:

    And besides, what modern women that ‘knows what they want’ would waste time with gays and their wannabees – the flaccid metrosexuals?

    This video is a clear piss take of women, unless of course, gays really do have such a SHALLOW view of ‘what real women really want’ ! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. eszett (2,264 comments) says:

    I don’t think Harriet or Lucia got the joke. No surprises there either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    French Homosexuals Join Demonstration Against Gay Marriage

    NEW YORK, January 18 (C-FAM) Perhaps as many as a million people marched in Paris last Sunday and at French embassies around the world against proposed legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage in France. One of the surprises in the French campaign for traditional marriage is that homosexuals have joined pro-family leaders and activists in the effort.

    “The rights of children trump the right to children,” was the catchphrase of protesters like Jean Marc, a French mayor who is also homosexual.

    http://www.c-fam.org/fridayfax/volume-15/french-homosexuals-join-demonstration-against-gay-marriage.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Fletch (5,719 comments) says:

    Sure, it’s amusing but (if you’re wanting to get into it, which I suppose people on the thread are) I notice the idea of L-O-V-E is missing. If you love someone, you look past their defects or shortcomings. It’s not a game of one-upmanship.

    I’m sure many of the men reading can’t cook a quiche or whatever, but that’s not a basis for love and not why their spouse is married to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. SPC (4,634 comments) says:

    hinamanu, the rights of children argument implies that parents have to be a couple and raise their children together and never separate/marry another. Most children not raised by both their parents have heterosexual birth parents.

    The idea that a father or mother cannot marry the partner that lives with them (while they raise up their children while the other parent is elsewhere) is preposterous – whether heterosexual or same sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Jimmy Smits (246 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria (1,264) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 10:30 am

    They love going to the gym… so, who’s going to be mowing the lawns and cleaning out the gutters and painting the house?

    What about children, there gets to be a point where women want children. Who wants to be having sex with a man who’s been doing unspeakable things with other men?

    Then there’s the clothing, what woman wants her husband spending all of the clothing budget on himself?

    So they can make quiche, whoop de do. Wonder if they can fix the car and the wifi. Or is the girl going have to learn how to do that while he’s cooking up a storm in the kitchen?

    This YouTube really needs a companion video. The Epic Rap Battle guys should get onto it. The closest they’ve got is Epic Rap Battle of Manliness.

    Get back in the kitchen and shut the fuck up woman. Why are you not making me a sandwich? Leave the debating to men who know how to argue. Women need to keep silent and be used to pump out children, you have no place in politics and discussion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Lucia Maria (1,983 comments) says:

    I get the joke, I just don’t think it’s funny.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…Get back in the kitchen and shut the fuck up woman. Why are you not making me a sandwich? Leave the debating to men who know how to argue. Women need to keep silent and be used to pump out children, you have no place in politics and discussion…”

    Real women and prospective mothers actually look for ‘husbands and fathers’ and they are generally the strongest, and the better providers. An example for the children. The next generation of adults!

    However some women look for people like you, flaccid metrosexuals, those ‘males’ that when they are getting their ‘conjugal rights’ from the missionary position, find that their ‘women’ are looking right over their shoulders and past them. Looking for what they need: Secure men. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    What about children, there gets to be a point where women want children. Who wants to be having sex with a man who’s been doing unspeakable things with other men?

    :neutral: Not sure if you’re joking, or you really don’t understand the gay thing at all…?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Lucia Maria (1,983 comments) says:

    This video is a clear piss take of women, unless of course, gays really do have such a SHALLOW view of ‘what real women really want’ !

    Good point, Harriet. And your 1:23pm as well.

    Exactly why I don’t think it’s funny.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Lucia Maria (1,983 comments) says:

    RRM,

    I’m not joking and I do understand “the gay thing”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. eszett (2,264 comments) says:

    Lucia Maria (1,268) Says:
    February 22nd, 2013 at 1:37 pm
    This video is a clear piss take of women, unless of course, gays really do have such a SHALLOW view of ‘what real women really want’ !

    Good point, Harriet. And your 1:23pm as well.

    Exactly why I don’t think it’s funny.

    Further to my point, and despite your claim otherwise, neither of you get the joke. Which is really not surprising, given your irrational hostility towards homosexuality.

    The joke juxtapositions male homosexual and male heterosexual stereotypes. You need some truly twisted “logic” to take this as a piss take of women. Having said that, the two of you certainly aren’t making any sense when it comes to this topic.

    Yet if you’d like some balance, try this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.