Posted on 07/09/2010 1:48:40 PM PDT by Borges
After a meeting with gay and lesbian activists on Thursday, NBC's "Today" show said it is changing the rules for its annual wedding contest to allow same-sex couples to apply for a ceremony conducted on morning TV.
NBC extended the deadline for applications until Monday. Already thousands of couples have expressed interest in the on-air wedding, which the top-rated morning show has sponsored for a decade, a spokeswoman said.
"We're thrilled that `Today' show's `Modern Wedding Contest' now recognizes what most fair-minded Americans have already concluded — a wedding celebrates love and commitment, whether the spouses are straight or gay," said Jarrett Barrios, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
(Excerpt) Read more at tv.yahoo.com ...
So peddling depravity for a buck is ok? I'm thinking no. Our form of government depends on morality to work. Check out some quotes from the old white dudes.
By idocracy standards that means in 2505, we'll have "ow my balls" and stroke programming on 24-7. And you can go to Starbucks for a full body "latte".
I thought the same. I can only conclude that they will do this to try to portray it as "normal".
The founders of every national network 80 years ago would be APPAULED to see what has become of their corporations.
Can Chris Matthews and Anderson Cooper marry or are their network backgrounds incompatible?
Hmmm, did you by any chance copyright or trademark that phrase???...BTW, what time zone are you in?
Silence is acquiescence to deviancy.
Bill Ayers wrote in his autobiography that when he engaged in male-male relationships and swapping within the Weather Underground, it was to “smash monogamy”.
The agenda is naked for those who dare see it.
That phrase was in the movie “Idiocracy” about the continual dumbing down of this nation. As the corporations go to expand their bottom lines at any cost, it’s what we can expect to see.
In England, they discovered that a big budget porno film had been shot in an empty wing of a public hospital.
They say that it was a good money maker.
I suggested that they hire out the nurses as prostitutes and really watch the money come in.
After all, what do good do standards and practices serve anyway?
I’m in CST
dumb...
I thought it was a funny phrase, and I have not seen Idiocracy (since we’re living it now). I was thinking how Pat O’Reilly trede-marked “three-peat”, and figured a race to the TM office would ensue...
Thanks for the Info.
“You may now kiss the ?” What ever it’s called, my guess is a lot of channel changing will be taking place just at that moment.
I don't have a problem with this ,if there is a hanging afterwards
I don't have a problem with this ,if there is a hanging afterwards
This is the same Today show that’s filmed in New York? (Not Massachusetts or Vermont?)
It's not that I disagree with you but first, seriously, you do the conservative cause no great deal with that kind of spelling. We all make spelling mistakes but you got yours capitalized all big and bold and I can't believe you didn't see how odd it looked.
However, what the hell is your point? Do you really think like the FCC should PROHIBIT NBC from giving a wedding to same sex couples?
Which makes me first qualify that I really am unfamiliar with what this is all about so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think NBC has the authority to make a marriage between same sex couples official or anything.
NBC does what...provides weddings stuff/puts on a wedding, for engaged folks? Same sex couples, so far as I know, are allowed to have a wedding all day, any day of the week. They just don't have a marriage license is all. The NBC thing is about the pomp and circumstance of it all, not what went on down at city hall.
So you really think what...the FCC should not allow a wedding ceremony between same sex couples to be shown on TV?
You really think that? You think that's some kind of winning strategy?
My original contention was, and still is, that if NBC shows such a thing, the public will either tune in or tune out. Experience has it, based on my anecdotal evidence, that same sex marriages/love type of events, really aren't all that well-received by the public because....well I'll go out on a limb and state it's probably cause most of the planet is heterosexual and homosexuality is repugnant to most. I know the homos don't like this but they can lead every damn one of us to water but they can't make us drink.
But what's wrong with my concept that the public will either buy it, or they won't? I'm thinking NBC might have one same sex wedding, the public will watch out of curiousity and that will likely be the end of it.
But no, I don't want the FCC to make showing such a thing on TV illegal.
Conservatives don't normally want the FCC running the show like that.
Based on below —— The answer is “No”!
Among the Germanic Goths of northern Europe in 200 A.D., a man usually married a woman from within his own community. However, when there were fewer women, the prospective bridegroom would capture his bride from a neighboring village.
After the bridegroom captured his bride, he placed her on his left to protect her, thus freeing his right hand or sword hand against sudden attack. “To tie the knot” finds it origins here.
To protect the virtue of this very young bride from the other lustful men, often times soldiers, the best man and future groom, would strip the poor girl and put upon her body layers and layers of clothing, types of corsets, tied with knots and only upon the day of consummation, would the groom then “free” his new wife and legally make her his property.
It was a part of the ceremony, that as soon as the priest or lawyer, pronounced them married, it was not fully legal, until they consummated the marriage, which would be done immediately after the ceremony, sometimes in front of the guests.
It is from this, horrible documentary, that the garter originates. You see, in order to untie all those knots, the groom would then have to rip off her clothing, and sometimes, those guests would join in.
To take some of her clothes, was considered good luck for those other young lads, who so wanted a wife. Less they even become a servant to the groom. So, to fight off this rambunctious crowd, the groom would throw pieces of her clothing at them.
Soooo, don't think this would work for Queers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.