Not A Pisstake By The Onion


No really.

It’s a genuine screengrab from a Fox Nation news story today on Obama’s support of gay marriage – since changed to read: “Obama flip flops on gay marriage.”

Too late. thestranger

43 thoughts on “Not A Pisstake By The Onion

  1. Clampers Outside

    Equal rights for gay couples I have no qualms about :)

    But to have photoshopped the image(s) together just for a Broadsheet post to get attention?

    Ah here, come on BS, you are pushing the ‘image with the story’ bullsh*t as much as Fox does in order to get a story noticed at this point… please stop, it’s obvious what you are at.

    I also have no problem with the people that say the use of the word ‘marriage’ can be used in definition terms as a relationship between a man and a woman and another word can be used to describe a relationship of equal legal status of that between a man and another man or woman and a woman. Sure definitions are there so that we can differentiate things no matter how small or insignificant those things are.

    It will be up to the people and their use of the words / vernacular to decide which and how the world progresses together on that matter.

    Give people the language and let them decide, but make sure you give legal meanings equally to each.

    Problem solved for all the pedants out there.

    1. I really should be working

      Actually posted on FB last night by an American friend with a photo straight from his TV! Also with the disclaimer that he was just flicking through the stations and came across Fox News :)

      With you on the Marriage thing it is only a word replace it in legislation with Marriage/Civil partnership and the rights problem is solved!

      Drama queens are going to be Drama Queens

      1. realPolithick

        I think you have a lack of understanding of how things operate on the civil level in the U.S. Currently there are only a handful of states that allow civil partnerhips between same sex couples. There are far more states that have banned such partnerships. So if a same sex couple marries in say, Massachusetts and receives all the rights and privileges that go along with this, the marriage is only recognized as legal in a handful of states. Also the marriage is not recognized at all on the federal level. So people who marry in these circumstances have rights in a very small section of the country. Obviously this is inherently unfair and it is tremendous news that President Obama has (finally) made clear his views in favor of same sex marriage.

          1. I really should be working

            I think you will find that I am quite clear on how the USA works and the relationship between the Federal Gov and the individual states as laid out in the constitution and the laws & how they can be applied by either the state of the federal government and the requirements to amend that.

            What Obama said is no news to anyone, we all suspected or knew his views form some time but he just has not come out and said it.

            My point is simple IF in the morning the Gov passed a bill that created a thing called Civil Union lets say and extended all the same rights to Gay couples but did not call it marriage do you think this issue would cease? Nope there would still be people out there campaigning to have it called marriage.

            If your relationship is that weak that you need it acknowledged by your GOV or your Religion you have bigger problems

          2. Dave, Dublin

            I don’t understand why you’d grant gay couples all the rights of marriage and then deny them the use of the term? If marriage is just a word, and has no real power, why protect it with a law?

            “Separate but equal” is a terrible idea. It allows bigots to continue to hold some misguided token of superiority over people they despise, and it prevents a group of who deserve the same rights as everyone from being able to see themselves as part of a wider community.

          3. Clampers Outside


            Your first bit does not make sense, there are plenty of words that are in any language that have no place in law. That’s fine, this one just happens to have a place.

            So, why not just leave the old one as it is by definition; have a new word for the new law under the new definition. End of problem.

            Do you even know what ‘seperate but equal’ was about? Ans: segregation.
            Under no circumstance have I declared that that is my point. So raising some hick antiquated law from the Southern US that stood as a guise and cover for racism has nothing to do with what I said and is completely moronic to bring into this argument in the first place… ya twat!

            …I do love ya tho :) …the ‘twat’ bit was out of exasperation!

          4. I really should be working

            @ David to illustrate the point that some people like a good whinge and to are not happy unless they feel like they are being discriminated against. A large number of Gay couples get on with life and do not let this bother them.

            I have no opinion either way on gay marriage, does not effect me, will effeect a few of my friends and their partners if they choose to go down that road.

          5. Dave, Dublin

            Clampers, gay and straight people get married for the same reasons, asking them to call their marriages by different terms for no reason other than the gender of the person they marry is nonsense.

            Gay people don’t want a special name for their marriages, they just want to be married. They want to be able to introduce the person they marry as their wife or husband. And they don’t want to have to wrap those words in quotation marks, or give it a pseudonym.

          6. Dave, Dublin

            Clampers, working, you’re both just clutching at straws.

            Both of you are just raising nonsensical situations. I’d recommend just getting over the fact that a small subset of people are gay, and a smaller subset of those people might like to get married someday. It’ll cheer you both up.

          7. realPolithick

            @ Clampers Outside: Straight prople call them “gay relationships”. Gay people do not. They call them “relationships”.

        1. Gav D

          You’d swear marriage is a concept that DOESNT predate organized religion. Nutters.

          1. realPolithick

            @ I really should be working: perhaps I am not understanding what you are saying. Are you saying that it is fine for same sex couples to have all the rights and priviledges that go along with marriage. It should just not be called “marriage’.

        2. I really should be working

          You can introduce you partner as husband or wife without getting married who is to know?

          It’s a word! What I am saying is that if a civil partnership had all the rights of marriage people would be campaigning for more even though the current argument (REALITY) is that a civil union does not quite match up in terms of rights to a civil wedding.

          @ realPolithick; what I am saying is that some people like a good moa regardless of the situation, think “The only gay in the village” they like to feel that they are being oppressed. (In this case they are) The institution of marriage is a strange one that I do not quite understand. I am married myself and my wife paid strangers to come to the registry office and witness our union, we are the only people that know.

          1. realPolithick

            I agree that you will always get a few people who are never satisfied, it’s human nature. The gay people I know are not looking for any special rights, they simply want the same rights that “straight” people enjoy. No more, no less.

          2. Wally

            I said this before but the only reason I can think different names would exist for the same thing is another attempt to ‘otherise’ people in same sex partnerships, make them seem different and needing special status.

            It’s less about status in law and more about status in society. Gay people will always be treated differently as long as they are perceived as ‘different’.

    2. VinLieger

      You obviously have little experience or knowledge of FOX news and their “fair and balanced” reporting style to think that its a photoshop.

    3. Clampers Outside

      If you think the image was a singular image taken off of someone’s TV I’d like to know what dimensions are on that TV and why they are disproportionate to either the standard old 4×6 TV dimensions or standard current widescreen.

      Click the second link in the BS post to see what I mean you two. Your humble pie awaits, eat my shorts and get a grip!

      1. I really should be working

        Clampers I dont know what BS have done but I have seen the image as a photo on FB over the last 12 hours by a number of my American friends.

        1. Clampers Outside

          Did you click the link to the original image from ABC TV?

          If yes, you can see that the lettering has been superimposed atop of it from a Fox news article.

          That is all I wanted to say about the image.

          Whether BS new it was a doctored version or not I dunno. My point is, they used it as it looked good for these very purposes – us talking sh*te about it :)

          We’ve been hood winked.

  2. Rapscallion

    Perhaps it’s a grammatical error? Should read: Obama, flip-flops on. Gay marriage!

      1. woesinger

        If god didn’t want us to eat babies, why did he make them so tasty, tender and the perfect size to fit in both fridge and microwave?

  3. well

    “Blog: Mr. Biden, are you ‘Absolutely Comfortable’ with intentionally depriving a child of a mother or father?:

    Didn’t take long, davquinn has already started.

    1. Paul Moloney

      A gay couple with child have invited David Quinn to actually, you know, interact with such a family unit and perhaps find they are not totally terrible after all:

      “Open invite to my house to see if I can make you Absolutely Comfortable (like Biden was) with a married SS couple raising kids @DavQuinn”

      It would be great if Broadsheet could encourage Quinn to try this….


      1. Pedanto, The Hilarity Man

        A married SS couple? Isn’t that David Quinn’s core constituency?

  4. Listrade

    In fairness it’s about time we had a war on marriage. Those people keeping giving birth to all the gays and terroists and we given them tax breaks to do so. Stop ’em at source I say and stop the terrosit factories that are married couples.

    1. paul m

      i thought the gay terrorist factories where being supplied by fornication, not married couples.

Comments are closed.