The Obama administration has recently teamed up with a campaign called #Out2Enroll, the brainchild of the Sellers Dorsey Foundation, a 501(c)(3) that focuses on “improving the health of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community,” according to their website.

The video, which features homosexual men licking candy canes, seems to promote risky sexual behavior and promiscuity.

In September, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius held a meeting with the foundation at the White House to prepare for Obamacare’s launch.

The Obama administration and the foundation discussed strategies to get the gay and lesbian community to enroll. The above video is a result of such collaboration.

Reality Check: Donald Trump May Be RIGHT on Birthright Citizenship!

Enter to win $500 of Gold or Silver from Anthem Vault!

Enter below or CLICK HERE for more details.

"Like" Ben Swann on Facebook
  • Clay Caldwell


  • michael

    WOW! I guess this is what we’ve come down to as a nation ‘Under God’. Those who gave their lives to found this country are surely rolling over right now. We should all be ashamed, I know I am..

    • Al Wolf

      please keep your deity out of this. also please look up when “under god” was added. this is not a nation of bible thumpers.

      • LibertyMonger

        Yes it is and is going to be even more. We know that worshipping government is the true imaginary God you bend to.

        • Al Wolf

          i bend to myself and no one else. i will not be the govs slave nor your deitys slave.

          Consenting sentient entities have the natural freedom & rights to do with their property, bodies and minds what they will, without private or public intervention.

          The Moral Argument

          The consenting/voluntary principle assures us that while we may have the possibility of choosing the worst, we also have the possibility of choosing the best. It provides us the opportunity to make things better, though it doesn’t guarantee results. While it dictates that we do not force our idea of “better” on someone else, it protects us from having someone else’s idea of “better” imposed on us by force. The use of coercion to compel virtue eliminates its possibility, for to be moral, an act must be uncoerced. If a person is compelled to act in a certain way (or threatened with government sanctions), there is nothing virtuous about his or her behavior. Freedom of choice is a necessary ingredient for the achievement of virtue. Whenever there is a chance for the good life, the risk of a bad one must also be accepted.


        When under God was added isn’t relevant, what is relevant is this country was founded by religious Christians, and on Christian principles, yes many enlightenment ideals made their way into the constitution as well, and many of the founding fathers were Mason’s, members of the cult of the Supreme Being, but most were Christians, this has always been a predominantly Christian country and all those trying to say it’s not are the ones with the problem. Whether you like it or not all the violence and sickness that goes on in the world is because people don’t keep God’s laws, if everyone just kept the 10 commandments things would be 100x better than they are now. And don’t go all nuts with stupid crap like, well then I guess we should stone gay people and adulterers because thats what the bible says to do. That’s bs, thats OT stuff, Christ died for our sins so we dont have too making most OT laws regarding sin irrelevant. If people loved their neighbors as themselves, kept the 10 commandments and God’s Holy Days 90% if not more of the worlds problems would be solved, and that’s a fact Jack!

        • cyberczar

          No, this country’s founding was in defiance of “Christian principles” The founding fathers were almost all deists, especially the most influential ones: Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Washington, Franklin. And yes, they were pretty much all Masons, which is pretty much a deist organization (Belief in one God, forbidden to talk about or push any particular religion). So, America was founded with the belief in God, and the rejection of religion. So, I think we should continue to honor that legacy.

        • rich

          The Ten Commandments are “OT stuff” as you call it. You cant just pick and choose what conveniently fits your illogical argument.

          • jrd

            Actually it is OT stuff and just as Greek and Hebrew is a dead language and so is the OT customs. The father of lies has corrputed many today and soon many will see God’s great glory and all will see, by then, it will be too late for most of this world. Very sad times.

        • Al Wolf

          “The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” treaty Tripoli

          you may want to read some facts about what the people did or did not think that founded america. and some quotes are as follows….

          “Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man”

          “The Christian God is a being of terrific character- cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust”

          The Bible is not my Book and Christianity is not my religion.


          • jrd

            pick up a history book please…this IS a Christian nation that was FOUNDED on its morality and ethics

          • Al Wolf

            you show a special ignorance that comes from being a bible thumper.

          • jrd

            i dont result to name calling like the rest of this world does. i think people need to grow up. Calling names is a bit third grade dont you think?

          • Al Wolf

            you show a special lack of comprehension and ignorance. i have come to associate this with christians. you are doing a stellar job of keeping this opinion in place.

          • jrd

            You are still resulting to name calling. More people can have a conversation/debate without resulting to name calling. I would love to debate it with you without name calling. PEACE

          • Al Wolf

            christianity has nothing to do with peace, but yes peace.

          • jrd

            It isnt God who makes the world corrupt, it is the sin in people and if you dont believe in sin you are blinded from the truth and will never be set free if you continue in your own ignorance that you are calling everyone else. What you reep is what you sew.

          • Al Wolf

            “god” is all knowing correct? then he knew sin would come into being and had no need to test anyone. sin was a part of his plan. sort of throws everything else out with that simple concept. he made sin killed himself to forgive you for his own actions and then if you do not accept him and be his slave wants you to suffer for eternity…

        • jrd

          people today are blinded because they decided to be ignorant about His laws instead of finding out for themselves so their hearts grow even more disturbing.

        • Keg

          Many of the “Founding Fathers” were deists.


          • Tom223

            bottom line is they believed in a creator. From the Declaration of Independence, ” that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” They didn’t agree with the idea of establishing a church.

      • Tom223

        The founders indicated the existence of a creator. They clearly intended with the second amendment to keep congress from defining what a citizen was supposed to believe about that. This nation was founded on the belief that a person had the right to believe what they personally believed. The second amendment doesn’t separate church and state it only requires that congress cannot pass a law that establishes religion or restricts the free practice of religion. In the Declaration of Independence they stated, “… that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” There is no question that they believed in a creator.

        • Al Wolf

          i agree also hence why this is NOT christian nation or else it would say so there and not just creator. they gave freedom of religion so no one or another would be placed as more important, this is in contradiction to christian faith as the one and only true faith, also another point as to why this is not a christian nation.

        • Draken

          You are thinking of the 1st amendment, not the 2nd.

        • Al Wolf

          for some reason it seems my reply never posted.

          i agree they did. also they did not claim the christian deity was this creator in any way, this is as they wanted all faiths to be held equal, this also is against christian faith another reason why the usa was not founded as such and is not a christian nation.

  • Trapper

    Pretty sure that’s a butthole on the gingerbread house.
    All I see in this , is Gay men = so it isn’t a disorder of sexual deviance?
    Lesbians = So I guess they are all fully clothed feminists.

  • Brenda Canavas

    this is a disgusting waste of taxpayer money

    • TheStreisandEffect

      Of course the the tax-funded resources that you benefit from are the legitimate ones right?

    • Kristin LaMoure

      but how do we know that tax dollars went to pay for this? It wasn’t produced by government, but by a non profit corp. Come on Ben. Please answer the question. We need the whole story here.

  • Yup

    at :48 seconds into the video……WTH is that?!

  • Al Wolf

    of course unable to rate or comment on the video

  • Kristin LaMoure

    All I want to know is, does this non profit company get any funds from the taxpayer?

    • Al Wolf

      of course it was paid with your stolen funds

      • Kristin LaMoure

        but how do we know? I mean if it was produced by a non profit corp, how do we know that a dime of our tax dollars went to produce it? I don’t like the ad, but my outrage would only be if they received tax dollars for it. Otherwise, I guess they are gonna do what they are gonna do.

        • Qari

          Why would they do it for free? Non-profits make profits (look at Planned Parenthood.) And they can make losses. It would be really strange for anyone to serve the govt for free.

  • Albert

    “…seems to promote risky sexual behavior and promiscuity.”

    That’s an interesting leap in logic. Have a look at any commercial or advertisement that sells women’s clothing and see if they are more wholesome in content. I’m sure the Kate Upton Easter video featuring designer brand undergarments’ purpose was to promote abstinence until marriage.

    It’s fine asking whether this is questionable to feature those guys in a commercial like that, but to make these nonsensical claims is really beneath what I thought Ben Swann is trying to do with new media and journalism. This bit sounds more like Fox News.

    • Al Wolf

      its one of the staffers posts. ive noticed non ben posts seem to be.. more biased. still your stolen funds did pay for that

    • Troof

      So shirtless, in-shape men (or women) licking/sucking candy canes is promoting friendship and handholding rather than sex. Got it.

      • Albert

        I don’t think you’ve got the mental hardware to have a genuine conversation about this topic, and you apparently ignored my example about the Kate Upton video. I don’t recall the outcry about “promot[ing] risky sexual behavior” when Kate Upton was shaking her behind or huge breasts in skimpy undergarments that could barely contain her in that Easter video. Apparently “the gay” makes it super dangerous and totally different in the (simple) minds of some.

        To put it in simpler terms so even you can grasp it (maybe), attractiveness and sexually suggestive content is influential and effective in advertising. Or, sex sells. I don’t know how I could simplify it any further.

        • Sully

          I don’t believe federal taxpayer dollars went to making that Kate Upton video, Playboy produced that. If you’re saying that there’s nothing wrong with the Federal Government being on the same level as Playboy in terms of what they put out, maybe we should be questioning YOUR mental hardware.

          • Albert

            How predictably you immediately pivot to a different point (taxes) when you know you lost on the previous one.

            And if you’d bothered to read my comments, I said that this:

            “It’s fine asking whether this is questionable to feature those guys in a commercial like that…”

            I have no problem with someone bringing this topic up and questioning it on legitimate points. I very specifically mentioned the claim about promoting risky sexual behavior and promiscuity, and I don’t know how I could have been more clear about this given I quoted it. You tried to challenge that point, you lost, and when you realized that you pivoted to try to create a straw man that this conversation or any of my points related to taxes. You lost this debate. Just do yourself a favor and move on.

          • TheStreisandEffect

            The federal government has been funding sex education in various forms since at least the 50s. The difference is now we have YouTube and newer technology that makes it accessible to everyone. The true reason for the “outrage” here is that this ad targets gay people. The government didn’t produce this video. Funds were used to make it. Yea it’s cheesy, whatever. There’s a lot more waste to be concerned about than the way one YouTube video was produced. The priorities around here are baffling.

        • mgmu

          Or you were not listening then because it did not include any slant on homosexuality.

    • Sully

      That’s foolish logic. The writer never claimed Kate Upton or Victoria’s Secret ads DIDN’T promote risky sexual behavior, just that this commercial did.

      • Albert

        What do YOU mean by “risky sexual behavior.” I don’t recall anything in any of the content I mentioned discourage the use of condoms, being unfaithful, sleeping around while intoxicated, or attacking monogamy. Perhaps you have a much broader definition of “risky sexual behavior” than most.

        • blowjobs4jezus

          i think they might be looking at it through their bible goggles. anything other than what they do in their own personal sex lives is “risky sexual behavior” because clearly anything that gays do is designed to overthrow the world and turn all the breeders. (note sarcasm)

          • jrd

            well my friend got fired from her job because some lesbian asked her her opinion about gay marriage and she said she believed that the bible teaches that God does not like it and she got fired. YOur gay community will win it all because this is satans land and not Christians. You are your fathers own and you only know his lies and refuse your foolish heart into believing this fed lie. BTW – I was once in a les relationship..God saved me!

          • Albert

            “YOur gay community…”

            I’m straight.

            BTW – I was once a Christian..reason saved me!

          • jrd

            reason can only take you so far..you need theology, philosophy, science, metaphysics, and many more studies before you can simply arrive at one conclusion. The theory that God does not exist is up to debate as it has been throughout history, and still remains. Reason is man’s attempt at being his own god and worshiping his own self/idols. Don’t believe it? YOu will when you find out in that day my friend. I was once a reasoner now im a Christian. Reasoning can only get you so many answers.

          • blowjobs4jezus

            i don’t need to be saved, because i’m not in any danger. i don’t need fables to tell me right from wrong, i was born with the ability to think for myself.

  • faceshaker

    I can’t help but wonder why Conservatives are so outraged over anal sex. Isn’t that the definition of the “rump politics” the Tea Party practices? Maybe we should have gotten the always-so-classy Foster Friess (what a name!) to tell the U.S. LGBT community, “Stick an aspirin up your anus and you won’t get penetrated by anyone, especially Jebus!”

    Would that work? Would an aspirin, spelled “niripsa” backwards, the way Conservatives like it, cure us all from being forced to choose whether to be Christian or use Christianity as a bludgeon to beat people many so-called Christians don’t understand?

    As for Donald Duck boy, even if he’s a cracker, it was clear he couldn’t steer a punt through a swamp without hitting, well, the mangroves. Totally a wetland all by his bad self.

    Mud. It’s called mud, Duck boy.

    • kusokurae

      What the hell are you talking about?

      • faceshaker


        Is Team Jesus for sports fans only? Keep it up sport. I know a doom glutton when I read posts like yours.

    • Larrystudavid

      You must be on some good drugs cuz that doesn’t make sense.

      • faceshaker

        What? You mean I’m not getting a 12-pack from Santa this year? Oh, yeah. I forgot. I don’t drink. But still.

        Sorry, Larry, if you haven’t comprehended that, indeed, sometimes people outside the “common nests of utter senselessness”, get to laughing over the obvious outrage over a freaking YouTube video targeted to a specific market-tested but somewhat socially-ghettoized for the convenience of Christmas Christians group of people who also deserve healthcare if they cannot otherwise afford it.

        Love is for adults. Adults who cannot even stoop to even come close to accepting Jesus’s admonition to his followers to exercise “charity” to those currently catching fire and flak by single-issue groups manipulating the ignorant with fear tactics and bigotry need to try turning some pages while learning to practice what they preach.

        Snap. Crackle. Pop. Rice crispies of America, we can only hope, will get some of that common sense The Three Stooges demonstrate far more effectively.

  • Kellie Sonnier St Clair

    Don’t you love what you and I work to pay for?? Meanwhile, our military’s benefits are cut …. priorities priorities

    • Al Wolf

      neither the troops nor the video are important. sorry

  • Tony Baker

    Dear God, were Doomed.

    • TheStreisandEffect

      Due to bad grammar and illiteracy?

  • tarandfeatherthecrooks

    Were any of these actors enrolled? Probably not.

  • Kellie Sonnier St Clair

    And it’s “hate-speech” to say that half naked men parading around in underwear, dressed up in deer antlers and Rudolph noses, elf and Santa hats, fawning all over one another acting like fools is deviant behavior. I’m ashamed that I work to help fund this crap.

  • TheStreisandEffect

    “Seems to promote risky sexual behavior and promiscuity.”

    Uhm where? “When you finally meet Mr Right” she sings as they show a picture of a family. Seems to be promoting the opposite actually. Why not post a Victoria’s Secret ad if you’re so concerned about people of the same sex frolicking in their underwear… oh right, cause it’s women and that’s hot amirite guys? As cheesy at it is, this commercial will probably save more lives than the last bomb we dropped will. Take your sense of false outrage somewhere else.

    • John62

      What are you watching? Two GUYS embrace at “when you finally meet Mr. right”

      • TheStreisandEffect

        Right after that when she says, “to gather your happy home” they show a family in their gingerbread house. As silly as the commercial is, I don’t see how it “promotes…promiscuity”.

        • John62

          Oh the happy home with the highlighted sphincter on it, right.

          • TheStreisandEffect

            Exactly. Nice find btw. Believe it or not, some married couples, (gay or straight) engage in anal sex! Are you saying parents of a happy family can’t engage in anal sex? Obviously this is a PSA geared towards sexual health. The only reason people are upset about it is because they made the Yuletide gay.

          • Tom223

            How does Obamacare do anything for the sexual health of homosexuals that they can’t do better for themselves. The last time I was at a city council meeting in San Francisco one of the council members who was bi-sexual and had contracted AIDS spent her time explaining how society should spend more money on her health care needs now that she got AIDS. Handing out meds does nothing to promote sexual health. It is behavior that ensures or diminishes sexual health – regardless of whether someone is gay or straight.

          • blowjobs4jezus

            the two men that embraced are a real couple. they are together, they work together as models. they live together.

            btw, straight people have anal sex. did you know that women have sphincters too? come on now, clearly you are intelligent enough to log on to the internet, why don’t you do some research.

          • jrd

            you are sick

          • blowjobs4jezus

            care to elaborate?

          • just sayin

            blowjob4jezus…..oooooh my you are so cutting edge!

          • blowjobs4jezus

            i don’t ask for, nor do i need your approval. just sayin

          • John62

            If you don’t have the intelligence, much less intellectual honesty, to discern that an anus on a home of what is depicted as a family formed by natural reproduction is an obvious anti-family message then what is your definition of intelligence?

          • Logic

            You have a very narrow view of the concept of “family”

          • John62

            And you missed the point, “Logic”. Was responding to what was described as a family in front of a gingerbread house which was portrayed by whoever did the vid

          • Logic

            Your point was that there is an anus on the gingerbread house but really the only message we can get from that is how gay you secretly are.

          • John62

            …and therefore your screen name

          • Logic

            No, that wasn’t a logical statement. It was an emotionally charged one aimed at your most personal insecurities.

            You think the gingerbread house has some subliminal butthole on it to promote some sort of anti-family agenda. My respect for your train of thought ended right where it began, I’m not really concerned about “logic” here dude because you certainly arent.

          • blowjobs4jezus

            my definition of intelligence is thinking critically about situations and distinguishing myth from reality.

          • Tom223

            As an advocate for gay behavior, why do you expect anyone to respect your viewpoint when you are disrespectful of Christians with your post name? Christianity is about the spiritual hopes of man not about chugging down bodily fluid. Your name is repugnant and obtuse – congratulations.

          • blowjobs4jezus

            ahhh… because only gay people swallow. and my post name has nothing to do with my comment. I didn’t mention religion. besides, christianity today is about forcing people to believe as they do… oops, it’s always been that way; kill the non conformists. seems like something i totally want to devote my life to, right? no thanks.

  • Eddie Jorge

    Ben, this is a joke. Get back to real news, please.
    And cut it out with the cut & paste.

  • bigmama

    Why can’t I get a straight commercial like that? I don’t enjoy seeing gorgeous guys I can never have…

  • Scott

    I am not a ACA fan, at all…. but this post comes across as a bit homophobic. As a gay man, I see this as Very flirtatious, and not as promoting risky behavior or promiscuity. I have seen “straight” ads that were more suggestive than this.

    • TheStreisandEffect

      I’m also not an ACA fan and I’m not gay but the post is most certainly homophobic. If it were Victoria Secret models in skimpy Christmas outfits (there’s a commercial like that), you wouldn’t be hearing a peep about it promoting risky behavior or promiscuity, but since it’s gay guys they “obviously” want to all have sex with each other.

      • Jason

        Yeah, isn’t that the point of identifying yourself first and foremost by your sexual behavior?

        • TheStreisandEffect

          Isn’t what the point? A gay man felt this ad was homophobic. I was simply saying that as someone who’s not gay I also found it homophobic. Not sure if I follow you.

      • Dawn

        I’ve seen several articles discussing the ads that DO promote straight promiscuity, and the outrage over them is equal.

    • Tom223

      “Homophobic” is an inaccurate psychobabble term. It states “people fear what they don’t understand” this is a false. Actually people feel antagonized by what they don’t understand. Example: When students have difficulty understanding Math you don’t hear them say “I’m afraid of math” they say “I hate math”. This is the natural human response to not understanding something – antagonism not fear. Homophobia is nothing more than an attempt to put a mental-disorder label on a person and diminish the validity of a differing opinion. Remember that about 30 years ago the psychiatric establishment considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder. Psychiatry is not a science and it is inaccurate to use their term in describing someone who believes that homosexual behavior is unnatural.
      And before you decide to put a label on me you should know that I couldn’t care less what two (or more) homosexual men do in the bedroom. I simply object to vilifying those who don’t agree with the gay lifestyle. When you do that you are doing the very thing you are complaining about regarding others who think sodomy is an unnatural act. Or scientifically/biologically the most risky act besides comingling blood that one could engage in. Coming in contact with another’s feces is not a healthy practice no matter what your sexual orientation is.
      And besides according to Bill Clinton it’s not sex.

  • great googamooga

    Yayyyy for 2 terms…..can you sense the sarcasm

  • Leanna

    I’m not offended that they’re gay. I’m offended that my government would put out a commercial like this. It would be equally as offensive if it was naked girls all over each other. Then again I would be equally offended if it was Obama fully clothed telling me about the plan. Is this real?!

    • cyberczar

      Neither the gays above or the naked girls you describe would offend me in the least. Spending any of my taxpayer dollars to promote a broken product that wastes more of my taxpayer dollars IS offensive to me, however.

    • Kristin LaMoure

      But we don’t know that the government put it out. This article says that the non profit corp put it out. I’m still waiting for Ben to clear this up. Everyone on here is asking the wrong question. We need the whole story.

  • Kyle Kendall

    As some have said the gay men does not bother me, its the same as beer commercials….do ALL women walk around a parking lot in bikini’s? Do all gay men have out in tight undies and nothing else?! I know a few gay men and I am pretty sure this is not their holiday tradition! If you want to be taken seriously, on any side, act serious and not like a clown!

    • Vicki

      I think I would be offended if I were a gay man. It’s as demeaning to them as these stupid pajama gram commercials are to me as a straight woman!

    • gadsdengurl

      I am offended by having to see their dicks hanging out while they consort… it’s just offensive.

  • Cooperwa

    The voice talent was wearing a very expensive fur. Someone please call PETA. On an unrelated topic the Federal Government should not advertise anything. The government needs to stop being agenda driven. If Obamacare was the solution it would not have to be mandated by law or marketed to various interest groups. We are all Americans. We need to resist the governments efforts to divide and distract us. Merry Christmas to all!

    • K

      Why don’t you call PETA? Expect others to enforce your beliefs?

      • jrd

        Yeah dont you know we dont have free speech anymore?? geez (sarcasm)

      • seriously

        Expecting others to enforce their beliefs is exactly how liberals do it.

      • Tom223

        It looks to be a joke about PETA.

  • conspiracymedia

    Obama has no ex girlfriends

    • Al Wolf

      but he has a life time membership to the chicago bath house

      • gadsdengurl

        He has two boyfriends, one is Reggie Love, the other is called PajamaBoy that I have yet to see.

  • jrd

    sick sick sick sick!!!

    • gay

      mr insightfull. Hey people, instead of blaming others like your doing now… maybe ask yourself what have you done to make your own life any better?

  • David Jordan

    That is so sick. Nasty………

  • Monald RcDonald

    Dumb question maybe, but is it taxpayer funded?

    • Kristin LaMoure

      It’s not a dumb question. I have been asking the same thing. The article says it was produced by a lobbying group, so who knows? It would be GREAT if your staff could clear this up Ben!

    • Dawn

      Yes, it is.

      • coolhand

        wrong. It was privately made. no taxpayer funding.

        • Mark Wharton

          You can bet those “private funds” are from individuals living off of the government to begin with.

  • Lori Sedlak

    …and taxpayers pay for this???

    • coolhand

      No. they don’t. This was made by a “charitable organization” funded by private donations. There is nothing to indicate the federal government had anything to do with it whatsoever.

      • Tom223

        Nothing to do with it except for the meeting at the White House which the tax payers pay for and the staff who the tax payers pay for. There is no other indication of tax expenditure.

      • Qari

        No one works for free.

  • jkort

    All I can say is, love you Phil Robertson!

  • MScott

    “Did you know that gay used to mean ‘happy?’ When I was growing up, it
    meant ‘lame.’ And now, it means a man who makes love to other men. We’re
    all homos. Homo sapiens.” – Michael Scott.

  • Hope101

    Assuming funding is private, this is a good example of free speech. Saying it, “seems to promote risky sexual behavior” is biased unless you criticize nearly everything on TV, straight or gay, on the same basis.

    • gadsdengurl

      It’s in appropriate sexual content, no matter what type of liaisons it’s pushing.

      • gay

        grow up, the funny thing is people like you make the world as it is not some secret governments whatnot.

  • YourUglygod .

    I rather deal with the penalties (shared responsibility fees) than enroll in this obamination….

  • Dwightmannn

    Typical of Øbama, not decent enough for kids that is for sure. I do not want to be any part of this gay agenda. This country just allows these freaks to exist. We should send them to IRAN, where they are really tough on their kind. They would be back in the closets where they belong. They are the downfall of our great society, and while I am not perfect, I c an not stand for th is kind of perversion. . .

    • alabubba

      Homophobe much? or were you turned on by it?

      • Tom223

        “Homophobe” is an unscientific term. It is psychobabble. People who don’t like gay behavior or the gay agenda aren’t afraid of gays, they are antagonized, disgusted or angered by gays. Look at what they write and not at your preconceived and misguided notions of them. As a life form projecting itself into the future it is biologically natural that for thousands of years gays have been shunned. Gay behavior has for most of the past history of man been a threat to the survival of mankind. It isn’t until the advent of the condom and as an example medication to treat HIV & AIDS that the biological threat of homosexual behavior to the human race has been able to be mitigated. Prior to that the potential spread of disease was sufficient to make it a societal taboo. We are looking at a couple decades of relative acceptance of the gay community versus thousands of years of disapproval. It has only been through indoctrination in schools and gay political activism that attitudes have recently changed on this issue.
        Also suggesting that Dwightmannn was turned on by it is also a ridiculous remark.

        • alabubba

          Nice try, but you didn’t address the fact that he is probably a Homophobe, and more likely that your both turned on by it.Simply labeling my remark as “Ridiculous” does not make it untrue.

          • Tom223

            Again, “Homophobe” is a non scientific term. It is made up propaganda to malign anyone who doesn’t agree with homosexual behavior. Also, there is no evidence whatever that the man was turned on by what he saw. Your remark is pure conjecture and ridiculous. Maybe in your fantasy world everyone is fixated on sex, sex, sex but that is not the case. Sex has its place in life and is primarily for the continuation of the race and nature has made it pleasurable to that end. That does not mean that it is the be all and end all of existence.

          • gay

            ther is no such thing as to agree or disagree. That your not gay doesnt mean you must can force your character on other people.. like if your not black doesnt mean you dont agree ther being black people, you dont decide. And Yes homophobes fear gays becaus their homo themself yet cant articulate what makes you gay.

          • GotReason?

            LOL… By that logic, anyone who “hates blacks” deep down really wants to be black, but can’t face that knowledge. Taking the principle of “projection” a bit far, don’t you think?

      • Dwightmannnisgay

        He was definitely turned on by it.

  • Ricky Ross

    That is not a normal window in that Gingerbread house!

  • gadsdengurl

    And yet, Duck Dynasty guy was offensive for saying he likes women? This is the most offensive and disgusting CRAP I have ever seen. Obama needs to resign over this…

  • Fascist Slayer

    I’m Gay, I’m proud and I’m appalled. I’ll bet that even Paul Joseph Goebbels the
    Reich Minister of Propaganda in Fascist Germany is turning in his grave.

  • alabubba

    Please, Please tell me my tax dollars were not spent making this.

  • Angeloracle

    Please everyone shut up, this is irrelevant. Get to important issues, you all are strange.

    • Tom223

      The important issues are on a different page.

  • Tom223

    This commercial portrays gay men as ridiculous. Grown men, gay or straight, don’t prance around and hug like a bunch of 5 year-olds in kindergarten. And the white frosting circling the “sphincter” window in the house is a disgusting image. The fact that this commercial is what an activist group came up with serves to indicate that there is, at least for a percentage, a portion of the gay community that is really outside the norm of society and do have a perverted view of normal human behavior. (normal as in what is the usual for the group called mankind.)

    • kellie

      these “gay” men are portraying the honesty of their deviance. It’s producer is gay, the organization is for LGBT legitimization. I get so sick of people thinking that this ISN’t how it is in the LGBT community when it’s exactly how it is.

      • Logic

        I know gay people, a few in my family, you’re just taking you’re warped stereotypes and applying it to entire groups of people.

        It defies all rational.

  • Daniel Joseph

    this is rediculous.. honestly I almost threw up in my mouth watching that.. wtf are our grassroots campaigns!!?? we need these dbags out of office

  • Spike Morden

    Hey, the short guy on the left, is he uncut? Just curious…

  • http://kustomdesigner.com/ michael h

    I dont even know what to say anymore. I dont know if I should hide my family in a cave or find an island noone knows about. When will the madness end?

    • kasha77

      When Jesus Comes to judge the Earth!

      • chris katko

        Why even wait?

    • chris katko

      Lock and load!!!!

  • john_hogan

    Gas chambers for the DC crowd.

  • nctenther

    I just can’t believe it…this presidency is just so awful

    • Sindy Brazee

      Are you insane. The president did not produce this commercial. If you believe everything you see on the internet then I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

  • Nick Nadhob
  • sharkync

    Can’t we end this nightmare…

  • Softballumpire

    I have no issues with it the women his hot good job obama :)

  • Kit Newton

    Only a warped mind could see this commercial as promoting risky or promiscuous behavior. If you have issues with Obamacare, deal with them. Don’t snipe at lesbians and gays. Any private health insurance company worth its salt would target specific demographics, including queer people. It’s called marketing.

    • john_hogan

      Moron, this is sexual imagery. Men who define themselves, quite specifically, by their sexual preference for men, displaying their genitals and physical attributes, i.e., their value as gay sex partners.

      By your logic, a commercial that sought to promote federal programs with big titted bimbos in lingerie frolicking with young studs in bikini briefs would not be controversial.

      Of course, a commercial like this would require the federal government to officially distance itself from the implied, degenerate, anti-family message.

      But, I know, I know, it’s different for those magical innocent gays. They sodomize each other wholesome rainbow love. You gotta be some repressed Nazi not to dig it.

    • Haha

      They are starring right up each others azzez you naive fool.

  • Draken

    I have MAJOR issues with this report.

    First off this is posted under the name “Ben Swann Staff” that tells me even the author doesn’t want to have their name on it.

    Second off, the Sellers Dorsey Foundation never attending a “meeting” at the White House. The so called meeting was actually a briefing held on Sept 12th 2013. The difference between a meeting and a briefing is monumental in politics.

    The author is trying to imply that the Obama administration was working with the Out2Enroll organization to create this video. No. The Out2Enroll group attending the equivalent of a panel discussion on the topic of LGBT issues under Obamacare and then acted on their own to develop the video posted above. This entire article is intellectually dishonest.

    Here is a link to the opening of the briefing from the White House’s YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG5RoWm2rSE

    If you want to hate Obamacare that’s fine, but attack the President and the ACA, not some 3rd party.

    • john_hogan

      I think people are noting the overlap between, and common agenda of, the unapologetic Marxists running the country and the grown up pedophilia victims in the video.

      The finer points of who initiated what in this particular ad campaign doesn’t negate the fact that liberal imbeciles and the gender-identity-challenged community despise traditional values and are in a de facto alliance to undermine them.

      • Logic

        “I think people are noting the overlap between, and common agenda of, the unapologetic Marxists running the country and the grown up pedophilia victims in the video.

        Words can not describe the grandiose of you’re delusion.

        • neecnrs

          The delusional vs the blind. Oh great!

    • Logic

      This site is tabloid trash, and it’s is a shame because Ben was a promising investigative journalist during the presidential campaign. Now he’s a joke capitalizing on all the conservative fringe nuts that discovered him there.

  • Jason Boyd

    As far as I can tell by following the links, this is not paid for by the federal government but a private non-profit coalition. This coalition specifically markets to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.


    A list of partner organizations are provided and none of them are a government agency.

    I don’t see anything more sexual about this than lots of other ads geared specifically to YouTube. I’m guessing Ben Swann’s site focuses on an older audience but I see other ads that are way more risque than this. If it were just straight couples, I really do have a hard time believing that the article would suggest that this promotes “risky sexual behavior and promiscuity”. They are in undies sucking on candy canes, cute but kind of passe. I couldn’t tell you how many commercials and other videos that I’ve seen full of women doing this sort of thing. Also, have you seen any condom commercial ever?

    I’m part of the generation that grew up with internet porn, so maybe all of us are just desensitized to this sort of thing.

    • Michael J. KicklighterSr.

      Im late on this post I realize but I just have to say that a commercial like that just plain sucks. I wouldnt want to see this garbage anytime or anywhere. You really cant compare a bunch of fags dancing around and feeling on one another to a group of women dancing together. As any heterosexual would know women are different in ways of doing things together than men and thats just how it is.I wouldnt give a crap what else is available on the internet, one has to click on to things in order to view them. To put a commercial like that on regular t.v. is absurd. I know times have changed but that is still somewhat gross to a normal person. Very few people would want to see that crap.Of course to a gay person I can see why it wouldnt be offensive.

  • Heath Bettag

    these faggots and their agendas are getting tiring, bout time to get rid of them or banish them to CA anyway. Just yesterday they caught 8 queers in a city park not too far from my house all 9 were charged, you know I’ve never heard of 6-8 straight people getting arrested having sex at a city park where kids play, only acceptable behavior if your gay

    • mkaney

      You’re a moron. How did 9 people get charged if 8 were arrested? You HAVE heard of straight people getting arrested for sex in a city park, only when it happens it’s generally non consensual and it’s called RAPE.

    • Craig Jackson

      Jackass maybe you should be sent to another country , flying your arrogant flag upside down ! I am a gay man and would no more have sex in a park as you would becoming intelligent !

  • Heath Bettag
  • Heath Bettag
  • Cozyrn

    This is the most disgusting ad ever. More reason to stay as far away from obamacare as possible.

    • toldya

      And a good reason to stay away from the Sodomites.

      • Lord Fyr

        “sodomites”? Really? That’s so B.C. At least call them gay.

        • neecnrs

          A rose, is a rose, is a rose.

  • Haha

    I thought this was a spoof.
    I can’t believe this…

  • Dianna DeWitt

    The president had nothing to do with this commercial, why would he even consider stooping this low. His ratings are at an all time high, thousands are enrolling in his healthcare plan. His name isnt attached to this at all. Just like its not attached to Benghazi, NSA, IRS scandal, Fast and Furious. Come on he dont even know whats going on. Cant you see hes just here for the vacations. Give the poor guy a break he suffers from jet lag.

    • neecnrs


    • Michael J. KicklighterSr.

      You must also be at an all time high.DUMBASS

  • ungaree

    This is so disgusting! Democrats are perverted just think about the adds they have put out. Nothing about family and the good this could do. No its all about Democratic Values, Gays, Abortion Condoms for All.

    Dems are sick