Quantcast

Oreo's Gay Pride Cookie: Progressive or Inappropriate?

Living 2012/06/27 14:22:40
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Here's a new way to celebrate Gay Pride Month -- eat an Oreo cookie. Kraft Foods posted a rainbow-colored, gay pride-themed picture of an Oreo cookie on Facebook on Monday, with the text: "June 25 | Pride" and "Proudly support love!" And while 217,816 Facebook users had "liked" the post as of Wednesday morning, others are calling for a boycott, Reuters reports.




Among the 35,535 comments, one person wrote: "By (sic) Oreo. I'll do my business elsewhere!" Another commenter said: "thought Oreos were a family cookie." But fans wrote things like, "Very glad to support a company like Oreo that joins the campaign for civil rights!"

Basil Maglaris, Kraft's associate director of corporate affairs, told Reuters: "As a company, Kraft Foods has a proud history of celebrating diversity and inclusiveness. We feel the Oreo ad is a fun reflection of our values." But you can't buy this Oreo at your local grocery store. The fine print under the picture reads: "Made with creme colors that do not exist."
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • itscourtney8 2012/06/27 15:58:14 (edited)
    Progressive
    itscourtney8
    +31
    I really do applaud Oreos, I really don't get why people are getting upset. Those who are gay have fought as much as other minorities and still getting bad-mouthed and treated unequally. The idea is brilliant, yet sadly, I wish I could eat one :3 Also even though Oreo's is a family treat, I think the knowledge of diverse people such as the lgbt that are in the world is great for everyone of age in the family to know cause we are all one and equal. Homosexuals are just as sexual as straights, so everyone needs to stop being ignorant.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Daryl dustin.... 2012/06/30 03:02:33
    Daryl
    +1
    Your comment is breathtakingly-ignorant:

    "Now, what are you talking about lawsuits for? the only time I've heard of any suit against anyone involving a same sex couple is when the couple was threatening to sue a hotel for kicking them out just for being a gay couple."
  • dustin.... Daryl 2012/06/30 03:07:40
    dustin.oubre
    How is that ignorant? That was part of an article I read a while back. The hotel did not have any sign in the hotel, or any indication on the website that they did not cater to homosexuals. Therefore, I understand why the couple was threatening to sue. I don't condone the lawsuit, as they could have just went to another hotel. Again, I am simply retelling a story. How does mentioning a story make me ignorant?
  • Daryl dustin.... 2012/07/01 19:40:06
    Daryl
    +1
    This is tedious sir.

    If you think there is no design to sue then you are either cosmically uninformed or not being honest.
  • dustin.... Daryl 2012/07/01 19:59:45
    dustin.oubre
    I really don't understand why you are insulting me. All I said was they were threatening to sue, and that I only wish they were not. Besides, if I was in that situation, I would not sue. I'd be upset, yes, but I'd just leave the hotel and stay in another one. I am not uniformed, as I explained why they were suing, nor am I being dishonest, as I truly believe they should not sue.

    It seems you just comment now to insult me and claim I know nothing about things I explained fairly clearly.
  • dustin.... Daryl 2012/06/28 21:54:09
    dustin.oubre
    Also, your idea of the legal definition of marriage has not been the same in all countries. Some have always allowed same sex marriage. Just pointing that out.
  • Daryl dustin.... 2012/06/28 23:44:32
    Daryl
    +3
    Wrong.

    Until the last 20 years, no civilization that was stable has EVER elevated homosexuality to the same level of real marriage.

    Nobody.
  • smitty Daryl 2012/06/29 13:57:55
    smitty
    +1
    Unfortunately history has become irrelevant lately.
  • Daryl smitty 2012/06/29 14:32:11
    Daryl
    +2
    Correct.

    No matter how many times civilization fails, liberals keep steering us toward collapse.
  • Simmeri... Daryl 2012/06/29 04:47:43
    Simmering Frog
    +2
    This conversation would make a lot more sense if dustin would take one position on whether or not he is changing the legal definition. He's playing both sides because if he didn't, he'd lose the argument.
  • dustin.... Simmeri... 2012/06/29 05:03:49
    dustin.oubre
    I'm playing both sides for the sake of the argument. I couldn't care less if we are changing the definition or not. I'm just saying there's no reason to deny the lgbt community civil marriage. You can keep the religious side all you want.
  • Simmeri... dustin.... 2012/06/29 05:17:32
    Simmering Frog
    +1
    Dude, grow a pair of balls will you and pick a side?
  • dustin.... Simmeri... 2012/06/29 05:21:18
    dustin.oubre
    I have picked my side. Again, what I was doing earlier was simply for the sake of the argument, since Art wasn't going to shut up about it. I still stand firm on my beliefs, but again, for the sake of furthering our conversation, I half-heatedly agreed with Art.
  • Daryl Simmeri... 2012/06/29 14:33:20
    Daryl
    +2
    He said 'no' at first then changed his position.

    I give him credit for realizing that it's all about changing the definition of marriage but I too would like to see him stick to one position.

    The problem is when liberals discuss facts they lose so they need to wiggle, obfuscate and blur the lines of reality.
  • dustin.... Daryl 2012/06/30 02:23:26
    dustin.oubre
    +1
    I'm not a liberal. Don't lump me together with them just because I'm gay and support same sex marriage. I'm independent and take points from both sides and compare them, seeing which points make more sense.
  • Daryl dustin.... 2012/06/30 02:44:26
    Daryl
    Call yourself whatever you like.

    You are a liberal.
  • dustin.... Daryl 2012/06/30 03:02:07
    dustin.oubre
    Now see, you're doing it again. Just because I like some points liberals present, does not make me a liberal. I do not agree with everything they say, nor do I agree with everything a conservative says. Again, I take the points that make the most sense to me from both sides, and use them. I am independent, not liberal, not conservative, not anything else other than independent. Lumping me with either side makes you look like you cannot read what is clearly typed out in front of you.
  • Daryl dustin.... 2012/06/30 03:02:58
    Daryl
    OK call yourself a penguin. I don't care.
  • mandyin... Daryl 2012/07/01 00:45:29
    mandyinabox
    So the legal permissibility of incest & polygamy will be any different than it is currently after legalization of gay marriage? I really don't understand your argument, unless you're trying to support incest/polygamy and feel the lesbigay community is suppressing those "minority" groups...other than that, i'm lost :/
  • Daryl mandyin... 2012/07/01 19:40:32
    Daryl
    +2
    That's my question.

    Why allow one perversion and not the others?

    Consenting adults right?
  • mandyin... Daryl 2012/07/01 22:07:56 (edited)
    mandyinabox
    Good question. Here's mine: Who appointed you to decide what is and isn't "perverted" for others?
    "Claiming that someone else's marriage should be illegal because it is against your religion is like being angry with someone for eating a donut because you are on a diet" --Julia Butterfly Hill
    gay marriage cartoon
    steps to equality
  • Daryl mandyin... 2012/07/02 19:08:37
    Daryl
    +1
    So many things wrong with your comment, I don't have time to correct them all so I will just focus on the most idiotic.

    We vote on definitions and laws, not moral standards.

    Nobody made homosexual marriages illegal so you lie.

    I don't decide perversion, God does.

    Julia Hill reads like a moron. No wonder you quote her.
  • Simmeri... dustin.... 2012/06/29 04:46:10
    Simmering Frog
    +1
    But you are redefining marriage to your own specific definition. You are discriminating yourself while accusing others of discrimination. That my friend, is hypocrisy.
  • dustin.... Simmeri... 2012/06/29 05:06:27
    dustin.oubre
    And I care, why? Look, I'm sure you'd love to argue for why we shouldn't allow lgbt people marriage, but the matter rests. There is no logical reason to deny them the civil marriage. Hell, you don't even need to call it marriage, if that's whats bothering you. We can just keep the name as civil union, but have the same legal benefits as any other marriage. End of discussion.
  • Simmeri... dustin.... 2012/06/29 05:23:15
    Simmering Frog
    +1
    Yes there is. The logical reason is marriage is a union of a man and woman. End of story.
  • dustin.... Simmeri... 2012/06/29 05:39:00
  • Simmeri... dustin.... 2012/06/29 05:56:53 (edited)
    Simmering Frog
    +1
    You need the government to legitimize your love? Cussing doesn't strengthen your argument.
  • dustin.... Simmeri... 2012/06/29 06:02:21
    dustin.oubre
    +1
    No, I don;t need the government to let me know my love is ok. What I would like is the ability to have the same benefits any other married couple has. Such as the ability to put both names on insurance forms, on adoption papers, on house notes, etc. And I'm cussing because, quite honestly, my anger is getting the best of me. I don't enjoy having to argue the same point over and over about how there's nothing wrong with allowing same sex marriage. I'm trying to calm down, but everytime I get close to being calm, I get a notic about a reply to one of my conversations, and after reading the oppositions rebuttal, my anger comes back. I realize letting my anger get the best of me is stupid, but it's a bit difficult when dealing with either religous morons, or morons in general.
  • Simmeri... dustin.... 2012/06/29 06:04:13
    Simmering Frog
    +1
    Your argument is irrelevant and largely fabricated. Why go to the government to justify your marriage? Why not go to a church?
  • dustin.... Simmeri... 2012/06/29 06:12:42
    dustin.oubre
    +1
    I never said I wanted the government to justify the love I feel for another person. You clearly did not get what I said just a minute ago. And really? A church? I'm not religious in any way, for any religion. I do not care for any ideas of religion. I do not care about churches. Look, I do not need justification for my feeling for someone, nor do I need anyone to tell me my love is ok. What I want is simply the same legal benefits as any other couple would have if I decide to marry the person I love. That's all. Could I live without those benefits? Yes. However, it would be a separate but equal clause, as allowing an opposite sex married couple the ability to file both their names for adoptions, but not allowing a same sex married couple to do the same. I'm asking you nicely. Please, just don't respond further. There is nothing either of us can say anymore to convince the other of our separate arguments. I think it's time to agree to disagree and call it a night.
  • mandyin... Simmeri... 2012/07/01 01:24:09 (edited)
    mandyinabox
    I side with dustin. If what he's doing--supporting taking a legal step for the lgbt community and stopping there--is "hypocrisy", suppose the question was asked Should we try to legalize indefinitely more forms of marriage--e.g. person & frog (sorry, your profile picture was there lol), adult & baby, windowsill flowers and the dog who sits on the windowsill, boss & his/her employees?, ALL of which i'm sure you would admit to opposing at least somewhat. However, the idea of extending the legal definition of "marriage" to one group and not EVERYONE ELSE SIMULTANEOUSLY being hypocrisy is simply absurd!
    It's akin to walking up a flight of stairs (or down, if you like) and saying "Well, since I'm not gonna jump this entire flight of stairs in one bound, I shouldn't go anywhere" even if your own personal side-door/exit to your Destination happens to be one step in front of you, and those in line with you will have THEIR chance to go to THEIR door one after yours. (If my analogy is too jumbled feel free to ask for clarification, I'll be glad to give it :)
    And, hoping you haven't skipped to the end of my comment without reading through, "redefining marriage to your own specific definition" implies dustin is trying to "reinvent the wheel," as it were, from scratch and etch it in stone ...&
    I side with dustin. If what he's doing--supporting taking a legal step for the lgbt community and stopping there--is "hypocrisy", suppose the question was asked Should we try to legalize indefinitely more forms of marriage--e.g. person & frog (sorry, your profile picture was there lol), adult & baby, windowsill flowers and the dog who sits on the windowsill, boss & his/her employees?, ALL of which i'm sure you would admit to opposing at least somewhat. However, the idea of extending the legal definition of "marriage" to one group and not EVERYONE ELSE SIMULTANEOUSLY being hypocrisy is simply absurd!
    It's akin to walking up a flight of stairs (or down, if you like) and saying "Well, since I'm not gonna jump this entire flight of stairs in one bound, I shouldn't go anywhere" even if your own personal side-door/exit to your Destination happens to be one step in front of you, and those in line with you will have THEIR chance to go to THEIR door one after yours. (If my analogy is too jumbled feel free to ask for clarification, I'll be glad to give it :)
    And, hoping you haven't skipped to the end of my comment without reading through, "redefining marriage to your own specific definition" implies dustin is trying to "reinvent the wheel," as it were, from scratch and etch it in stone forever. (Huh??) Not so. I don't know your specific sexuality, Froggie-boy, but unless you're something other than heterosexual the "redefining" aspect of this argument does not bear the same weight for you as it does for people like dustin & me.
    FURTHER, your ridicule of dustin DOES seem somewhat justified by your "calm/cool and collected" approach, in contrast to dustin's slight overreactive (and righteous) counters, as you HOP from reply to reply (aren't I just having too much fun here?), but minus the "redefinition" part of your argument, you would (again, assuming you are straight--if not, I appologize) already HAVE "your own specific definition" of marriage, thus being in no position to ridicule people less privileged for wanting the same rights, so ACCUSING THEM OF DENYING MARRIAGE TO THOSE BELOW THEM BEING BAD, WHERE DOES THAT PUT YOU? That, my amphibious friend, is hypocrisy right there ;-)
    (more)
  • mandyin... mandyin... 2012/07/01 01:25:14
    mandyinabox
    And anyway how did we even get ONTO this from a post about a GOD-FRIGGIN COOKIE??? :P
  • Simmeri... mandyin... 2012/07/01 01:52:36
    Simmering Frog
    You're way over-analyzing this.
  • Denny L... Daryl 2012/06/27 17:01:35
    Denny Lukman
    +1
    got ya homophobic one! d;
  • Daryl Denny L... 2012/06/27 17:21:02
    Daryl
    +2
    Run along child.
  • Denny L... Daryl 2012/06/28 04:53:36
    Denny Lukman
    :-? what ya mean?
  • ☥☽✪☾DAW... Denny L... 2012/06/27 17:29:43
    ☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾
    +4
    maybe someone should tell art
    art

    art

    art


    this is Traditional marriage accordingt to Arts Bible
    art traditional marriage accordingt arts bible
  • Denny L... ☥☽✪☾DAW... 2012/06/28 05:05:38
    Denny Lukman
    at this rate, just ignore the religion. we must more focused to equality right now.
  • ☥☽✪☾DAW... Denny L... 2012/06/28 12:32:02
    ☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾
    not all Religions are like the Cult of Abraham

    Paganism openly accepts homosexuality as normal part of nature and Wants marriage Equality for everyone
  • Denny L... ☥☽✪☾DAW... 2012/06/28 13:32:49
    Denny Lukman
    Lucky then, but what I want is Neutrality for all types of person(include the racists)
  • ☥☽✪☾DAW... Denny L... 2012/06/28 13:34:23
    ☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾
    then your best bet is Buddhism, Paganism, Wicca, Shintoism, Taoism

    Athiest but thats not a religion

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/09/02 09:45:05

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals