CBS Rejects Gay add.

[figtree]

Well, since children watch the super bowl and since you know this, I must assume that you think that people have no right at all to protect their children from certain images.

So, simply by following your logic, all children should be exposed to gay sex regardless of the beliefs of the parents. After all, to shield your child from this only teaches them to discriminate. Isn't that ultimately your argument?

From what you are saying, you clearly would like for all of society to see homosexuality as being as normal and acceptable as heterosexuality. And of course in your mind people have no right to a contrary opinion because that is just a form of bigotry.

Agreed. dont stuff your gayness down our throats. we dont stuff our non gayness down your throats right?

Also, as americans we have the right/choice to turn the channel if we dont like what we see or hear. but we dont like to use that right/choice, we would rather dump on someone for it. its easier that way?

 

[RickWhite]

This thread has all the specious reasoning of similar smoking ban threads I have read.

It's not about people having a right to go to a restaurant and breath air that is free of toxins. It is about smokers having a right to pollute the air that other people must breath.

See how the logic is the same?

All the same arguments are interchangeable. If you don't like the smoke, go someplace else. If you don't want your kids watching Gays (or anyone else) making out, change the channel (don't own a TV). You have no right to tell people they can't smoke in public, or air gay sex just because you don't like it.

See, it has to be one way or the other. Regardless of which side you choose one group is not getting their way.

Now you might argue that smoking harms others while exposure to gay sex doesn't. Well, you may be right but this is also true of necrophilia, bestiality, incest, child porn if it is simulated, etc. What if people want to pee in a public pool - urine is sterile you know.

See, I have no problem with Gays. I have gay relatives and gay friends. But, I believe in standards of decency for public conduct. Why? look at a piece of paper held up by a refrigerator magnet. What happens when you remove the magnet? The paper falls on the floor. The magnet is the standard that holds up our notions of decency.

I myself engage in conduct that I do not believe meets, or should be assumed to meet the standards of public decency. But, I am able to compartmentalize and therefor know what to be discrete about, when is the right time and where is the right place for my debauchery. That is what is different about how some people see things. They can not compartmentalize. They can not look at a given conduct (perhaps even their own) and see that while it may be OK to in some respects, it should not be confused with always being acceptable.

For instance, if I want to go out with the boys to a tittie bar and bone some dancer in VIP, it is no big deal IMO. But I certainly am not going to make a video and stick it in the box with the videos of our last vacation to play at our next family reunion.

So, do I personally think homosexuality is bad, no. Do I think it by it self isolated in a bubble is particularly dangerous - not really. But when looked at in terms of the bigger picture, can fully accepting homosexuality as main stream set up a slippery slope - i would have to say yes. I say yes because like pulling the magnet off the fridge, there will be necessary consequences.

 

[mexiblunt]

Postit notes!

 

[PadawanBater]

Homosexuals shouldn't have to hide being homosexual any more than heterosexuals hide being heterosexual.

Do you feel it necessary to be "discreet" about being heterosexual?

Why should they?

 

[ruderalis88]

would cbs have rejected the same ad if it had a man and a woman making out, advertising a hetero dating site?

if the ONLY reason it was rejected was the homosexuality displayed then yes, that amounts to discrimination.

would they have aired it if it had been two women making out? i daresay a large proportion of the superbowl's audience would not be particularly opposed to seeing a couple of chicks at it.

a kiss is just a kiss; but 'making out', as i define it, isn't something i'd want children to be watching on tv anyway, gay, straight, bestial or anything else.

if it's ok to air a certain amount of hetero action before watershed then, if homosexuals are to be considered genuinely equal, it must also be ok to show the same amount of homo action before watershed.

if you think gay is wrong and you don't want your kids to think otherwise then it's your responsibility as a parent to educate them to that end.
same as if you think drugs are wrong, or a particular religion (or lack thereof), or sex-when-you're-too-young, or any of the rest of it.

it's my opinion that television stations should not carry the entire burden of responsibility for what the youth of today are exposed to. Parents need to be parents before they earn the right to complain about how something/someone else affects their child.

just my two cents

 

[jeff f]

would cbs have rejected the same ad if it had a man and a woman making out, advertising a hetero dating site?

if the ONLY reason it was rejected was the homosexuality displayed then yes, that amounts to discrimination.

would they have aired it if it had been two women making out? i daresay a large proportion of the superbowl's audience would not be particularly opposed to seeing a couple of chicks at it.

a kiss is just a kiss; but 'making out', as i define it, isn't something i'd want children to be watching on tv anyway, gay, straight, bestial or anything else.

if it's ok to air a certain amount of hetero action before watershed then, if homosexuals are to be considered genuinely equal, it must also be ok to show the same amount of homo action before watershed.

if you think gay is wrong and you don't want your kids to think otherwise then it's your responsibility as a parent to educate them to that end.
same as if you think drugs are wrong, or a particular religion (or lack thereof), or sex-when-you're-too-young, or any of the rest of it.

it's my opinion that television stations should not carry the entire burden of responsibility for what the youth of today are exposed to. Parents need to be parents before they earn the right to complain about how something/someone else affects their child.

just my two cents

havent gays ever heard of cable? its really cool and the buttons go past the number 13. is that too much to ask?

 

[RickWhite]

Homosexuals shouldn't have to hide being homosexual any more than heterosexuals hide being heterosexual.

Do you feel it necessary to be "discreet" about being heterosexual?

Why should they?

Heterosexuals do hide their sexuality from children. And yes, as a society we do have a standard that dictates being discrete with one's sexuality.

What if people who practice bestiality wanted to openly display their sexual preference? What if members of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) wanted to purchase super bowl air time?

In life, lines must be drawn and standards upheld. If we don't, we will eventually wind up in a state of chaos. If we move the line to include Gays, by the same logic we must move it for everyone else. Including but not limited to incest, polygamy, etc.

I am of the opinion that the traditional family is the most healthy situation for the individual and society. I think it has benefits that can not be measured along with those that have been. Therefore, I think that while other lifestyles should be tolerated in the name of individual liberty, only the traditional family should be held up as the ideal.

When it can be proven that this situation is not the ideal, I will consider it.

 

[Pipe Dream]

Who gives a fuck? There's enough gay shit on TV an movies these days anyway.

 

[Moldy]

Good points on both sides but my problem with CBS is that they cancelled a 30 second pro pot add that Norml had contracted with them for space on the Time Square billboard. So cannabis is illegal, abortion is legal, they show an anti-abortion spot on Super Bowl time when Norml can't even get a few seconds on a flashing bill board.

Fuck CBS and their Marijuana Nation web site. They don't mind getting hits on that site but mention legalization and they turn and run. Sorry for the hyjack.

 

[figtree]

Public displays of affection. = stuffing it down our throats no matter if its gay or straight.

 

[fdd2blk]

[youtube]IiRU8PmRFhA[/youtube]

 

[Stoney McFried]

Well, I think it's only fair that they should have pulled the focus on the family ad as well(I didn't watch the superbowl, so I don't know if it aired). Both ads are promoting a certain "lifestyle choice", in a way....one is promoting an openly gay lifestyle, while the other is promoting a pro life lifestyle.If one is deemed offensive,so too,is the other.It's only fair.

I think gay people just want to be accepted as people first.Like any of us.I don't think they're trying to "make everyone else gay"....that's impossible,as sexual orientation is determined by several different factors in the body and brain.
As for the pro life ad, yes, pro lifers certainly have an agenda...to criminalize personal reproductive choices currently available to women,and to establish guilt in the viewers of their ad who may have had an abortion,or who believe it should be legal.If we shouldn't be "forced to see" spontaneous gay sex,then we should not be forced to see an ad promoting a religious agenda,as well...since both can be equally offensive in their way,depending on who views them.
The gay ad isn't saying "Be Gay." But the focus on the family ad is saying, "Abortion is bad,even if your health is in jeopardy-why...you could be killing a trophy winning athlete!"
Whatever the pro-lifers say, the entire pro life movement is based on a religious objection to abortion.Yes, some pro lifers may in fact not be religious, but the majority are,and the objection to abortion certainly is based on the belief that all life is sacred and bestowed upon us by some divine,omnipotent being who gets angry if we defy his wishes. Abortion has occurred in many cultures throughout the ages with no stigma attached-it was simply viewed as a woman's matter,and herbal abortions were quite normal for unwanted pregnancy.Many old midwives,aunts, mothers,etc,spoke in hushed tones about "pennyroyal tea".
As legal medical abortion became available, it became safer for the woman to get one of these, because it was a controlled environment where they were prepared to handle any complications...some of the herbs used for traditional abortions can be fatal. By making abortion illegal,you're just going to end up with more dead mothers...because a desperate woman will try to give herself one, or go to a back alley hack with no real medical training,or try one of the herbs she heard about...hopefully without getting the dosage wrong.
What is it saying,this ad,when she went against the advice of doctors and risked her own health?Sure, she got lucky and got a football star. What happens if you get a vegetable?

CBS rejected a super bowl add from a gay dating site.

"The commercial shows two men excitedly watching the game, before their hands brush as they both reach into a bowl of chips. Seconds later, the two begin making out."


Here is what the organization wishing to purchase air time had to say about this and the full story below.

“We are very disappointed that in 2010 such discrimination is happening especially given the fact that Focus on the Family is allowed to promote their way of life during the Super Bowl,” the rep said. “We're calling on every same-sex advocacy group to petition CBS and let them know this discriminatory behavior will not be tolerated.”


http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/01/29/cbs-rejects-gay-dating-sites-proposed-super-bowl-ad/


Is this about discrimination and equal rights, or about Gays attempting to force their lifestyle down the throats of others?

Is the gay organization correct in equating their add to the one produced by "Focus on the Family"? Should we all be forced to accept spontaneous gay sex streamed into our living rooms without our consent for the whole family to see?

What does this say about the true gay agenda?

 

[PadawanBater]

Heterosexuals do hide their sexuality from children. And yes, as a society we do have a standard that dictates being discrete with one's sexuality.

I see men and women kissing much more than I see women and women or men and men kissing. Given, heterosexual people aren't out there having sex in the open as it's against the law, but neither are homosexual people. What I'm saying is that anything two heterosexual people feel comfortable doing in a public place should be the same for two homosexual people. So in essence, heterosexual people are the ones setting the bar.

What if people who practice bestiality wanted to openly display their sexual preference? What if members of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) wanted to purchase super bowl air time?

Rick... animals cannot consent.. haven't we been over this? Bestiality is not a valid example. Neither can children, so neither is your NAMBLA one. Homosexuals don't harm anyone, it's just as private as any heterosexual relationship (or should be), and it's between two consenting adults, explain the harm to me.

In life, lines must be drawn and standards upheld. If we don't, we will eventually wind up in a state of chaos. If we move the line to include Gays, by the same logic we must move it for everyone else. Including but not limited to incest, polygamy, etc.

No Rick, see that's where you're wrong. What rational minded person would sit down and say "yeah, homosexual have equal rights now... let's move onto the people who practice incest and polygamy!"... A couple things wrong with that logic.. incest is known to cause birth complications a lot of times, so, to me, it seems not only practical, but acceptable to criminalize it. I don't think people should have sex while knowing they might produce a child with some kind of disability, I think it's wrong for the potential kid who might exist who would have to deal with it. See you're not just talking about two people not harming anyone, now there's a potential kid involved, a 3rd party who DID NOT consent to anything, that's why it's wrong. Basic same premise for polygamy. It hurts other people who may not have consented. Which is where the problem lies. Consent.

I am of the opinion that the traditional family is the most healthy situation for the individual and society. I think it has benefits that can not be measured along with those that have been. Therefore, I think that while other lifestyles should be tolerated in the name of individual liberty, only the traditional family should be held up as the ideal.

You also think your opinion should be pushed onto everyone else (even those who do not share the same opinion as you). Aren't you the one arguing against homosexuals "pushing their agenda" on you? Why are you sitting here trying to do the exact same thing to them?

 

[jeff f]

I see men and women kissing much more than I see women and women or men and men kissing. Given, heterosexual people aren't out there having sex in the open as it's against the law, but neither are homosexual people. What I'm saying is that anything two heterosexual people feel comfortable doing in a public place should be the same for two homosexual people. So in essence, heterosexual people are the ones setting the bar. ?

since there are only a 5-10 percent of people that are gay, wouldnt that be obvious? simple math maybe

secondly, are you saying people at a gay bar dont make out? maybe they should go to a better bar? your argument is pretty weak pad

 

[jeff f]

You also think your opinion should be pushed onto everyone else (even those who do not share the same opinion as you). Aren't you the one arguing against homosexuals "pushing their agenda" on you? Why are you sitting here trying to do the exact same thing to them?

arent you doing the same thing with your opinion?

 

[ruderalis88]

havent gays ever heard of cable? its really cool and the buttons go past the number 13. is that too much to ask?

not sure why ya quoted me, being as it is that your post has virtually no relevance to mine...

nonetheless, haven't straights ever heard of cable? blah blah blah

or, haven't straights who don't wanna see gays heard of it?

either you see gays as equal, in which case they should be treated the exact same as everyone else,
or you see them as unequal, which opens up a totally separate debate.

 

[RickWhite]

I see men and women kissing much more than I see women and women or men and men kissing. Given, heterosexual people aren't out there having sex in the open as it's against the law, but neither are homosexual people. What I'm saying is that anything two heterosexual people feel comfortable doing in a public place should be the same for two homosexual people. So in essence, heterosexual people are the ones setting the bar.

Man, you have a real knack for knowing just how much you can twist the truth without people noticing. So, what other commercials aired during the super bowl that featured a couple bursting into a spontaneous make out? Not a kiss, but a make out.

No, on network TV and in public there have always been standards restricting sexuality and even nudity. You have heard of movie ratings G, PG, R and what not right? Don't twist the truth, it ruins your credibility.



Rick... animals cannot consent.. haven't we been over this? Bestiality is not a valid example. Neither can children, so neither is your NAMBLA one. Homosexuals don't harm anyone, it's just as private as any heterosexual relationship (or should be), and it's between two consenting adults, explain the harm to me.

Animals don't need to consent - it isn't relevant. And I didn't say it is OK to molest children, I said what if NAMBLA wanted to air their desires. What if someone wanted to distribute computer simulated child porn in which no actual children were involved. Would that be OK? None of this harms anyone directly. Pay attention to detail.



No Rick, see that's where you're wrong. What rational minded person would sit down and say "yeah, homosexual have equal rights now... let's move onto the people who practice incest and polygamy!"... A couple things wrong with that logic.. incest is known to cause birth complications a lot of times, so, to me, it seems not only practical, but acceptable to criminalize it. I don't think people should have sex while knowing they might produce a child with some kind of disability, I think it's wrong for the potential kid who might exist who would have to deal with it. See you're not just talking about two people not harming anyone, now there's a potential kid involved, a 3rd party who DID NOT consent to anything, that's why it's wrong. Basic same premise for polygamy. It hurts other people who may not have consented. Which is where the problem lies. Consent.

So, if a woman were to have her tubes tied it would be permissible in your eyes for her to marry her brother? And this is something we should place a public seal of approval upon?

How does polygamy harm anyone? There is no more proof that polygamy is harmful than there is that homosexuality is harmful.

There is only the question of how the practice effects greater society - just as with homosexuality.

And, you are wrong if you believe that once marriage is redefined to include Gays it will be further redefined to include polygamy. There is no rational basis to include one but not the other and Gay marriage will, without question, set legal president for polygamist marriage.


You also think your opinion should be pushed onto everyone else (even those who do not share the same opinion as you). Aren't you the one arguing against homosexuals "pushing their agenda" on you? Why are you sitting here trying to do the exact same thing to them?

I don't. I believe that the best thing for society is to uphold the ideal of the traditional family. I am not advocating anything new or requiring anything to be changed. Nor am I suggesting taking any action to prevent Gays from doing as they wish. I simply choose not to cast my vote in favor of forcing the public to accept their lifestyle.

I will vote and have voted to allow them to enter into civil unions because I do believe that they are entitled to do as they wish in private.

See, you focus your thinking on the rights of the individual, and that is important. But, there is a whole other level of thought that is much more abstract and elusive and even more important. On this level one considers not just the rights of the individual but on how things relate to our society and culture on a grand scale. We look at changing attitudes over time and the evolution of the human condition and complex social dynamics.

When a person is pondering life on this level and the subject of marriage comes up the first thing that is noticed is that we are now talking about something of truly epic proportions. Marriage, is one of the most basic fundamental aspects humanity and it is universal. It has been with us for thousands of years and reaches every culture in every corner of the globe. To not see the significance of this and to not be humbled by it is to not understand much about life.

See, I understand everything about your arguments. But, what I see is that you, like most, are hyper-focusing on a microcosm of a much larger issue. When focusing on these microcosms, it is very easy to think that issues are concrete and obvious. But, when you see things on a larger scale, things become less clear. This is where people realize that in the face of all there is to be known, we are all idiots. It is a humbling experience.

When one begins to see the big picture, one comes to the conclusion that most of the time things are the way they are for a reason. Things are the way they are because cultural norms take a long time to evolve and are tested by time and by many people. This process isn't perfect, but it is certainly better than what most of us are able to think up on our own.

Fact is, we don't know what the long term effect of equating gay marriage with traditional marriage would have. I do know that recent attitudes toward divorce and increasingly lackadaisical attitudes toward family values have been a disaster for the overall social well being of our society.

I'm not convinced that watering down the definition of marriage is the right thing to do when we ought to be trying to reverse the harm done in the past few decades.

 

[Sustainable420]

That's pretty shitty, I suppose. Speculating, I'd say more of the "Focus on the Family" type would be watching the SB though.

 

[ViRedd]

There was nothing offensive in the Tebow ad. At the end of the ad, they referred you to a website for further information. There was nothing "anti-abortion" in the ad at all.

 

[upnorth2505]

CBS rejected a super bowl add from a gay dating site.

"The commercial shows two men excitedly watching the game, before their hands brush as they both reach into a bowl of chips. Seconds later, the two begin making out."


Here is what the organization wishing to purchase air time had to say about this and the full story below.

“We are very disappointed that in 2010 such discrimination is happening especially given the fact that Focus on the Family is allowed to promote their way of life during the Super Bowl,” the rep said. “We're calling on every same-sex advocacy group to petition CBS and let them know this discriminatory behavior will not be tolerated.”


http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/01/29/cbs-rejects-gay-dating-sites-proposed-super-bowl-ad/


Is this about discrimination and equal rights, or about Gays attempting to force their lifestyle down the throats of others?

Is the gay organization correct in equating their add to the one produced by "Focus on the Family"? Should we all be forced to accept spontaneous gay sex streamed into our living rooms without our consent for the whole family to see?

What does this say about the true gay agenda?

It says nothing about any so-called gay "agenda". I am sure that the portryal you described: "The commercial shows two men excitedly watching the game, before their hands brush as they both reach into a bowl of chips. Seconds later, the two begin making out." Is not close to accurate.

That being said, I would hope that the Superbowl, primetime, etc. would not become a forum for these Political "lifestyle" ads. Honestly, I would not want to see an ad along the lines of what was described. Later at night on a show about relationships or something, fine.

I did not have a problem with the "Focus on the Family" ad at all. It promoted values that all people (gays included) can relate to. Do not forget that gay folks are sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, etc. we are family as much as anyone else. And Focus on the Family has a reputation of treating gay folks poorly.

I am happy the "Focus" produced a tasteful ad. Maybe a tad out of place considering the programing, but no huge problem for me. Thankfully, a gay bash type of ad was not allowed, or some aweful fetus ad. I do not care for abortion, but please, this is not the place. Their ad was very subtal though.

You know that there was no plan to stream "gay sex" into your living room. That is a lie. All this being said, this is football, can't we put our politics elsewhere?