Wednesday, October 03, 2012

Expedia Does The Right Thing

Here's a surprisingly pleasant example of a major corporation coming out explicitly for equality, in this case travel-booking outfit Expedia.

Good on them.

And now, before you start having too nice of a day, here's Breitbart stooge and repellant excuse for a human being (check the DATE he published that headline) Ben Shapiro taking issue with the ad for featuring attractive gay women, which he seems to consider suspect.


Anonymous said...

And so it begins.

The great shitstorm of our age.

Taylor said...

White, black, Christian, Muslim, Straight, Gay, we're all part of the same community: marketing demographics.

Thank you capitalism.

Sam said...

Will be laughing at Taylor's comment until sometime next week. See you all then.

KevinCV said...

As someone who had the pleasure of attending the wedding of a female friend to another woman earlier this year, it warms my heart to see Expedia show their support in this way. I can't think of anything else to say other than Taylor's comment was pretty funny, too.

Baconchest said...

The comments on the Breitbart piece made my brain hurt. Just....sigh.

biomechanical923 said...

All jokes aside, there was something about this video that made me want to cry. It was very reminiscent of those tragic Thai Life Insurance commercials that are contain beautiful slices of the Human Experience.

Ralphael said...

Hey, Bob.

Serious two-part question.. why do you support gay marriage, and why do you think gay marriage is more popular than polygamy.

Thanks for reading my comment.

Daniel R said...

That was- Well damn, that was kinda beautiful. I mean, I was expecting a nice ad, I wasn't expecting to get kinda teary near the end.

Re, Taylors comment;

Ok, now THAT really brought some tears to my eyes, thanks :D


I don't know about Bob, but I myself support it for two reasons:

I was raised Catholic, I sort-of still am actually. One time, out of the many times our family went to Church on Sunday, I heard a few words that would stay with me forever. Now, I've never been to Church outside of my country so I honestly don't know if they have this ritual anywhere else or if your familiar with it. But during communion, the father calls for "The Peace" whereupon everybody stands up and basically just move about for a few seconds, shaking hands, kissing cheeks, and repeating the phrase "Peace be with you."
I was around seven but I still remember that day, the father stopped right before calling for it and said this, "I understand most people just stand around and give handshakes to their family members at this part before waiting for the service to continue. But this time, I urge you to look around the room and really spread out. There is no higher commandment in Christ's teachings then that of loving one another. Loving strangers and friends alike. Only through love can we really find Christ"
Now, I don't know if what that man of the cloth had to say extended in his mind to Gay people, but I do know that to this day its my most prized and strongly held belief. Thats why I support gay marriage.

Well, that and I would also like to get married myself some day. :P

Re, Shapiro's comment:

"It’s doubtful that conservatives will treat Expedia with the same brutality with which liberals treated Chick-Fil-A."

Oh look, you only have to scroll down about 6 comments to find one calling homosexuality abnormal, and 11 to one comparing it to pedophilia and bestiality.

(Yes, I realize this last addendum may have made me look like a big fat hypocrite, given right before this I was all lovey-dovey but hey, sometimes love hurts.) ;)

Ralphael said...

@ Daniel R

I agree it is always best to show others love, but I still don't see the connection between loving people and being against gay marriage. Call me "hateful," (trust me, you wouldn't be the first,) but I like to think of myself as someone who is against gay marriage, but for equal rights... if that make sense.... allow me to explain.

It is to my understanding that the gay community is split on the actual word "Marriage" and more concerned about equal rights.

Those who are not satisfied with equal rights, tend to express their points by spouting the "separate but equal is not equal" phrase over and over until they get that magical word "Marriage"

So I have to ask, do you think the word "Marriage" holds any real significance? Or would you be satisfied with it being called a "Civil Union" while still having all of the legal benefits of Marriage?


Shoumik Hassin said...

@ Ralphael

Because of the many social associations of the word "marriage", I don't think civil unions can ever be truly considered perfectly "equal". And if LGBT people want to get married with all the stuff that entails, I think its the duty of a secular government to legalize that.

Anonymous said...

I loved your post on avengers costumes. It was an eye opener and it did make me see things in a different way. That post on avengers costumes is what anyone looking for information would want to read.

David (The Pants) said...

I'm with Shoumik Hassin. I think I get what Raphael is saying, but I think gays have all the same rights as others (except maybe job-based discrimination but hey minorities face that too still) but the only legal thing they cannot do is marry. I suppose that's why the argument is more for marriage than for equal rights. But again, I don't know for sure.

I support gay marriage because it's the right thing to do. They can't do it, we can do it; they should do it.

Anonymous said...

This is completely bias, seeing as I work for Expedia and support gay marriage. but I gotta say this is pretty awesome.

biomechanical923 said...


Dude, are you really trying to pull a "butt buddies" card from South Park???

If you're gonna oppose gay marriage, at least have the balls to have a better excuse than "THEY TOOK OUR WERD"

Anonymous said...

Kudos for that post on avengers costumes It was quite detailed and had all the necessary information that one may require. It gave me a chance to view things in a much different and better way.

Anonymous said...


If Civil Unions were made 100% equal to marriage in every possible way shape and form except the name, then why not just go all the way and call it marriage? If it's literally made equal in every other way, why NOT call it marriage?

Not all religions oppose homosexuality. Not all people subscribing to a religion that supposedly does oppose it actually have a problem with it. Religion itself does not actually hold a copyright on the term marriage, and it is in fact possible to get married without involving church or religion at all, via the courts.

So if it's alright to give gay people all the same rights as marriage, then it's clear that the only issue with the actual term marriage becomes a religious one, but if religion does not actually own the term marriage, why not let them use it, especially if you're already giving them the rights anyways?

That plus, you guys are kinda falling behind. Other countries already have gay marriage, and it certainly hasn't destroyed them. Don't see any valid reason not to have it.

Anonymous said...

ok.... 1st: a couple comments on a blog is NOT the same as organizing national protests and actively harassing people who are just trying to do a job and make a paycheck due to who writes said check (like this douchebag... ). I do not believe you will see someone being this kind of dick to people working on Expedia. Sorry, just how it is.

2nd: I actually back a different name... but a different divide then one for gay and one for straight. What I advocate is changing the legal term of "Marriage" entirely to "civil union" for everyone. And the reasons are relatively simple:

1) Equal rights. If everyone is defined legally as the same thing, then they should have the same rights, regardless of the term used. Period.

2) By separating the legal term from being the same word as the religious one, you also preserve the rights of religions to follow their own beliefs and values. You can agree or disagree with these as you desire, but you are not forced to be a member of these groups, and they are only actively restricting themselves at that point to their own internal rules as is their right.

Does this make sense to everyone? Or can you tell me how this isn't equal? Or are we really never going to get to an agreement because we really are just bickering over a word?

- Megabyte

Ralphael said...


I agree 100%.

and thanks for typing out that comment, its very refreshing to see someone come up with a reasonable solution.

@2:30 Anon
because for other people, marriage is a word that means more than just legal rights.


Daniel R said...


But see thats the thing. Marriage is not exclusively straight. If I ever do meet a guy I want to spend the rest of my life with, I honestly want to MARRY them. I don't just want some paper from the government, I'm still catholic, and marriage is still something important to me. I've heard of some of the more liberal churches kinda go against the church and perform same sex ceremonies anyway. I want that.

A lot of people just want to marry their loved ones, disregarding the possibility of a civil union.

The word 'marriage' means something to people. Some of them just happen to be gay.

Anonymous said...

@Daniel R: If that is what you want, then it's time to find one. It's not time to force any current church that does not do it to.

Seriously, if you find a church who wants to do gay marriages, then do it. Anyone who is just being reasonable will be happy as hell for you. (Self included.) But my point is it's just as wrong to force a church that doesn't want to do it due to their beliefs (and why they are there in the first place) as it is to legally deny the right to marry.

Incidently, the separation of the words is only necessary because people are retarded. We live in a world where I have read stories about people being punished for using words that "sound racist, so they must be" regardless of what they actually mean and if some group believes it's offensive, it is regardless of if it really is.

My personal favorite was a college campus where a group tried to have a traditional "pic-nic" when the black community on campus decided that that was the word used for a group going to lynch a black man in the south... it wasn't true... it was PROVABLE it wasn't true... but they didn't care... they BELIEVED it was so it was. So the group had to give it a new name and tried "outing" and you know how that worked out.

In this environment, people are retarded enough to say "well if they have the same name, they are the same thing" and believe it and cause all kinds of retarded problems ultimately violating rights on one side or another as a result.

Separating the names is just nipping the a religious rights issue in the bud, while at the same time taking care of what I agree, really is human rights issue that needs to be addressed.... because people have already proven stupid enough to turn the term "pic-nic" for eating outside into a racist term... so there is no way people aren't stupid enough to do this too.


Shoumik Hassin said...

@Megabyte, Ralphael

The "make all marriages Civil Unions in a legal sense" would work in an idealized situation, but I think there's a problem there. In that situation I think there will still be an element of "separate but equal" going on. A "straight" couple could still get married and be referred to as "husband" and "wife". Any non-straight couple could only get "married" if they found a congregation (or whatever other religions call it) willing to perform the ceremony.

I also think, on a cultural and social level, there might be a push to refer to non-heterosexual couples in civil unions as "partners". Which is fine if they don't mind it, but even if one couple would like, socially and culturally, to be referred to using the terms "husband" or "wife", I think society needs to refer to them in that way.

But as "marriages" are currently a legal term anyway, why not just extend marriage to all couples (by which I mean any combination of heterosexual, LGBT and genderqueer individuals in a committed relationship?

However I do agree that no religious institution should be forced, legally or through government force, to marry or endorse the marriage of an LGBT or genderqueer couple.

Megabyte said...

Actually, Shoumik Hassin, it's your last point that I make my stand about separating terms because of. We have already seen people are idiotic enough to make the leap of logic and assume since marriage is a legal term, if it's a homosexual's right to get "married" then it's a church's duty to do it, whether or not it goes against their beliefs. These people will inevitably find (or be found by) lawyers with either an axe to grind or dollar signs in their eyes... and suddenly we are in a whole other "rights" issue we can simply avoid by giving the legal term a different name in the first place.

Really, that is the reason I stand where I do... cause otherwise, I think we see completely eye-to-eye on this... well, almost.

Cause I agree culture will want to call married homosexual couples partners... and honestly, I can kinda see where it comes from. When you see a married heterosexual couple, it's pretty easy to see who is the wife and who is the husband (in most cases). Since a married homosexual couple, the reverse is kinda true... Most might choose partner to keep it neutral and avoid offending... at least that's how I see it.

Daniel R said...

@Megabyte & Anonymous

But they really don't need to be called 'partners."

What's so hard about saying Husband or Wife?

Would it be too much to ask to be able to say this;
"Hey, have you met Karen's wife Jen?"
"Hey, did Adam pass by here? his husband Steve is looking for him."
or maybe
"Hey, where's Daniel? He's gonna miss second period again, is he making out with that 10th grader Alex?"
...Allright that last one might just be a completely unrelated fantasy of mine.

My point is, marriage is what we make it to be. Its not set in stone.

Yes, churches should not be forced to marry people who don't uphold their rules. But Gay people should be allowed to find congregations that do allow them to marry and be able to legally call themselves married.

Most people just say that the fight for Gay marriage should end at civil union because "a rose by another name blah blah blah"

Lets just cut the crap, even if gay people were afforded the same exact rights as straight people in regards to marriage but weren't allowed to be explicitly referred to as "married" then its still not over. A concept like "marriage" is what we say it is and nothing else.

A lot of Gay people value marriage either on an ethical, moral, or religious level. They should be allowed to get in a church/synagogue/mosque/temple/etc. and get married. As long as the church/synagogue/you-get-the-idea in question is ok and willing to go through it.

Megabyte said...

And that, Daniel is my point... the main thing I am insisting on the legal word change for is to stop idiots I see coming down the line all too easily who WOULD force it by lawsuit. As I said, we have a popular culture who thinks words that SOUND like something mean what they sound like (look at people getting fired for using the word niggardly). Do you really think that same idiot will be able to mentally separate legal are religious marriage? How long do you think it would be without a name change till someone sued one of these places to be married in it regardless of their beliefs?

Cause it WOULD happen... there are people dumb enough to not get the difference and lawyers who either hate religion X, Y, or Z, or just plain see a way to make $$$ off the stupid.

Better to switch the legal term and let those liberal churches take root, so everyone is served as needed.

As for what to call people, you are right... it's not too hard, but it will take a while for people to figure it out (dummies come in all flavors).. and that's where I was going. "Partner" would most likely not be said out of malice, but out of caution. It's new and they wont want to insult by assuming... well, most won't want to insult... but now we are getting past idiots when we say that.. and I agree is the guy doing that for "less kind" reasons is kinda vile.

Megabyte said...

Separate legal and religious marriage, not legal are religious... sorry about that... it's early in the morning.