CBS Rejects Gay add.

[Sustainable420]

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.

Who gets offended by that? I mean, they're not sodomizing for fuck's sake. Even a subtle commerical promoting atheism would make the american public shit their pants, especially during the SB.

 

[PadawanBater]

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.

I didn't actually see it, but I've heard about it, so I could be wrong about this, but wasn't it essentially sort of telling the story of Tebow's mom and how she went to the Philippines when she was pregnant with Tim, then she had some kind of complications and the dr.s there advised her to abort, and she chose not to, and so Tim was born, only to grow up to be this really great quarterback? Wasn't that the outline of the ad?

 

[PadawanBater]

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

What? I didnt' say anything about going to a bar, homosexual people kissing about a bar... none of that.. lol, you must be smokin' some good stuff mah man... lol

arent you doing the same thing with your opinion?

I don't believe equality should be anyones opinion.

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.

lol, I couldn't tell you man, I didn't watch the Super Bowl...

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.

Well, since you brought it up... have you ever considered that this type of censorship is the wrong way to go? Have you ever considered the implications of censoring things, or have you always just thought it was the right thing to do because someone said it was the right thing to do? I don't believe in any censorship Rick. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It's your responsibility to protect your kids from the things you think they need to be protected from, not anyone elses, via censorship.

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.

Sir, of course animals need to consent to a marriage to a human. Why else would it be illegal... because the animal is not capable of consent, it's not logical... one would think it would go without saying... but I guess not, they had to make a law... Absolutely, all of that should be allowed. Refer back to my take on responsibility.

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?

Absolutely. If the two people consented to it, why should anyone else have anything to say about it at all? A public seal of approval? Which is what exactly, what we place on the heterosexual marriages in this country that have a 50% chance of failing within the first 5 years?

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

I believe there are benefits to committing to a single partner. Though I don't believe any kind of partnership between people should be any of the federal governments concern, that goes for homosexual/heterosexual marriages, or polygamy.

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

Unfortunately for you, freedom and equality of the individual take priority over that of "greater society", as the polls consistently show.

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.

Like I said, the federal government shouldn't have anything to do with a partnership between consenting adults. Explain to me why you think it should.

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 believe the best thing for a society is to strive for freedom for all, because it ensures future generations, our offspring, our genes, will continue to progress. An essential mechanism of freedom in a society is equality. If I am free to do something another citizen of the same country is not, then we are not equal, and that is not freedom, and anyone with such privelidges or rights are obligated to stand in defense of those without, or bow their heads in shame as forever traitors to freedom.

You cast your vote in opposition to freedom. Your forefathers would be proud.

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.

That's a lie.

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.

Trust me man, I hear you. I consider every angle when I formulate opinions.

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.

Dude, that can't be your argument... "it's been this way for thousands of years, it's stood the test of time, therefore it's right!" - are you serious? You spent 3 whole paragraphs to get to that?

So because homosexuality - something someone cannot choose - has been outlawed, by threat of DEATH, for 99% of human history, and we haven't developed a working model during that 1% of time it's been somewhat socially acceptable, to use on a GLOBAL SCALE, it's wrong?

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.

Why would you automatically equate gay marriage with "increasingly lackadaisical (whoa, big word, I'm gonna have to go check the dictionary for that one!) attitudes toward family values"? That's a little interesting... says quite a bit.

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.

You deserve another facepalm picture for that remark.

 

[Rob Roy]

CBS should decide what they air, the viewer should decide whether or not to watch it.

CBS is a "for profit" business, not a PUBLIC OWNED station, their decisions and marketing strategies are based on which actions help them meet their goals, PROFIT, not the goals of somebody else.

 

[RickWhite]

What? I didnt' say anything about going to a bar, homosexual people kissing about a bar... none of that.. lol, you must be smokin' some good stuff mah man... lol

I don't believe equality should be anyones opinion.



lol, I couldn't tell you man, I didn't watch the Super Bowl...



Well, since you brought it up... have you ever considered that this type of censorship is the wrong way to go? Have you ever considered the implications of censoring things, or have you always just thought it was the right thing to do because someone said it was the right thing to do? I don't believe in any censorship Rick. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It's your responsibility to protect your kids from the things you think they need to be protected from, not anyone elses, via censorship.



Sir, of course animals need to consent to a marriage to a human. Why else would it be illegal... because the animal is not capable of consent, it's not logical... one would think it would go without saying... but I guess not, they had to make a law... Absolutely, all of that should be allowed. Refer back to my take on responsibility.



Absolutely. If the two people consented to it, why should anyone else have anything to say about it at all? A public seal of approval? Which is what exactly, what we place on the heterosexual marriages in this country that have a 50% chance of failing within the first 5 years?



I believe there are benefits to committing to a single partner. Though I don't believe any kind of partnership between people should be any of the federal governments concern, that goes for homosexual/heterosexual marriages, or polygamy.



Unfortunately for you, freedom and equality of the individual take priority over that of "greater society", as the polls consistently show.



Like I said, the federal government shouldn't have anything to do with a partnership between consenting adults. Explain to me why you think it should.



I believe the best thing for a society is to strive for freedom for all, because it ensures future generations, our offspring, our genes, will continue to progress. An essential mechanism of freedom in a society is equality. If I am free to do something another citizen of the same country is not, then we are not equal, and that is not freedom, and anyone with such privelidges or rights are obligated to stand in defense of those without, or bow their heads in shame as forever traitors to freedom.

You cast your vote in opposition to freedom. Your forefathers would be proud.



That's a lie.



Trust me man, I hear you. I consider every angle when I formulate opinions.



Dude, that can't be your argument... "it's been this way for thousands of years, it's stood the test of time, therefore it's right!" - are you serious? You spent 3 whole paragraphs to get to that?

So because homosexuality - something someone cannot choose - has been outlawed, by threat of DEATH, for 99% of human history, and we haven't developed a working model during that 1% of time it's been somewhat socially acceptable, to use on a GLOBAL SCALE, it's wrong?

Why would you automatically equate gay marriage with "increasingly lackadaisical (whoa, big word, I'm gonna have to go check the dictionary for that one!) attitudes toward family values"? That's a little interesting... says quite a bit.



You deserve another facepalm picture for that remark.

Is that really the best you can do?

My final thoughts were not about Gays, they were about humanity in general but I am not surprised you failed to understand that.

Basically, all your responses indicated that you think there should be no rules what so ever when it comes to issues of marriage. You think Polygamy should be allowed, incest is OK if precautions are taken, etc. The one thing you feel shouldn't be legal is to fuck animals because the animals can't consent - WTF?

Basically, you think that as long as there is no obvious direct harm to another person everything should be allowed and the overall impact on greater society is unimportant.

I must say at this point that it is clear that you simply have no aptitude for anything remotely philosophical and are woefully lacking in common sense.

How does one continue dialog with someone who finds nothing wrong with incest save for possible reproductive problems?

Just do the rest of us a favor and never breed.

 

[PadawanBater]

So you can't counter any of the points I made in that post...? Just decided to reply with something new...? OK, whatever I guess..

Basically, all your responses indicated that you think there should be no rules what so ever when it comes to issues of marriage. You think Polygamy should be allowed, incest is OK if precautions are taken, etc. The one thing you feel shouldn't be legal is to fuck animals because the animals can't consent - WTF?

Talk about ruining credibility, not that you had much to begin with, but now you're actually making claims about the things I've been saying that are complete lies. Well done.

The one and only rule I think there should be regarding marriage is equality. If I can do it, any citizen of this country should be legally allowed to do it too. So again, bow your head in shame for your opposition to freedom and equality.

I'll pretend I didn't notice how you support the government and all the rules they impose when it suits your agenda regarding marriages (something they shouldn't have anything to do with at all), but at any other instance, all it is is socialism. Get bent hypocrite.

Basically, you think that as long as there is no obvious direct harm to another person everything should be allowed and the overall impact on greater society is unimportant.

It's not the individuals responsibility to do anything concerning "greater society", asshat. That's what you don't get. It's your responsibility to do what you want with yourself, your kids, your family and your possessions. That's what freedom is. When you impose your opinions upon other people who do not share those same opinions via government authority, you are taking freedom away from other people.

I must say at this point that it is clear that you simply have no aptitude for anything remotely philosophical and are woefully lacking in common sense.

Coming from a guy who doesn't understand the basic tenets of freedom...

How does one continue dialog with someone who finds nothing wrong with incest save for possible reproductive problems?

When did I say I didn't think there is anything wrong with incest? I said consenting adults should be free to do what they want, far cry from "there's nothing wrong with incest", asshole.

Keep makin' shit up though, you're pretty good at that I guess...

 

[Rob Roy]

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

How do you feel about public displays of violence? Cop shows? Football games? Bombs dropping in foreign lands to "bring freedom", video games , news about torture, etc.? Is that shoving it down throats?

We have a society that has institutionally approved violence, it's all over the media and permeates society... Yet somehow we are afraid society will decay if people of the same sex attempt to be accepted by displaying affection.

I'm not gay. However, I did grew up in a time when anybody that was gay, if they were lucky, they were ostracized, if they weren't lucky they got beaten. Anothern example of the indoctrinated testosteronification of society.

I'd say "society" has a weird sense of priority. Where violence is applauded and acts between consenting adults are demonized. With that said I maintain the OWNER, CBS, should decide what they air and the viewer should decide whether or not to watch it. I like football, but I don't own CBS and neither does "society".

 

[figtree]

Agreed Robroy, All im saying is, it is stuffing it down our throats if its publicly displayed. we cant walk down the street with blinders on cuz you want to display your affection towards your significant other. gay or straight. But if a straight person can PDA then so be it, a gay person can as well. without being critisized, unless we start critisizing straight for doing it too.

Also, on tv? cop shows? bombs dropping? Again you have the rights, freedoms, choices to change the channel, dont like it? change the freakin channel, dont watch it!.
in public you cant change the channel, all you can do is put on some blinders.

Oh BTW, I am for gay marriage, i think our citizens have the right, freedom, choice to mary who we want. gay or straight.
You must have seen my sarcasm and thought i dont believe in this. I am for equality no matter what. and think if one person can do it, then everyone can, and should not try to stop someone else from having the same rights, freedoms, choices to marry who they want..... gay or straight. bottom line.

 

[RickWhite]

Objective people with common sense have contemplated how and when things that are inappropriate for the general audience are aired. You can choose whether or not to watch Cops or an MMA event. You can not choose what commercials you see during the super bowl. This distinction is obvious to anyone with average intelligence.

I do not understand why it is so complicated to understand why we have one standard for things done in private and another standard for public decency. It is as if people think that what ever a person does in private must also be openly aired in public and that the two should never differ.

It's kind of like arguing that because many of us take a big steaming dump each morning we ought to have a right do it on a stage in the middle of Times Square.

A given level of heterosexual affection is an inescapable fact of life - without it we wouldn't exist. So, logic dictates that everyone must be exposed to it on some level - this isn't the case for gay affection so there is no comparison.

Most reasonable people draw the line at heterosexual hand holding, hugging or gentle kissing. And most people object to more than that regardless of sexual orientation. If a guy was massaging his wife's vag in public, they would be arrested. So, there is a standard for everyone and it is somewhat arbitrary as many standards are. Two men kissing in public is quite simply offensive to most people, just as a woman performing oral sex on a man would be. Both are restricted from certain acts in public and that is how it should be. If we didn't have such standards, people would be having sex on park benches eventually.

Really, if you can't wrap your mind around these simple concepts you ought to take up something more conducive to your abilities.

 

[dangledo]

is there like, uhh pill, that like, uhhh, gets rid of their queerness? uhhhhh they shood.

 

[PadawanBater]

Objective people with common sense have contemplated how and when things that are inappropriate for the general audience are aired. You can choose whether or not to watch Cops or an MMA event. You can not choose what commercials you see during the super bowl. This distinction is obvious to anyone with average intelligence.

OH MY GOD! You can't change the channel anymore?! When did Obama remove our remote controls?!

I do not understand why it is so complicated to understand why we have one standard for things done in private and another standard for public decency. It is as if people think that what ever a person does in private must also be openly aired in public and that the two should never differ.

Wrong. The entire thing is about equality. Why don't I see you bitching about a male and a female making out? Because to you, it's the "normal" thing to do, it's acceptable. To me, all of it is normal, and all of it is acceptable. One can't be acceptable and the other unacceptable, that's discrimination and inequality. It's as clear as day to everyone else but you.

It's kind of like arguing that because many of us take a big steaming dump each morning we ought to have a right do it on a stage in the middle of Times Square.

...facepalm.

It would be like you and me legally being allowed to shit in the middle of Times Square because we're straight, then as soon as a gay guy comes up and sits beside us, he's removed because he's gay. Your skull should be analyzed by scientists it's so thick.

A given level of heterosexual affection is an inescapable fact of life - without it we wouldn't exist. So, logic dictates that everyone must be exposed to it on some level - this isn't the case for gay affection so there is no comparison.

A given level of homosexual affection is also an inescapable fact of life - just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Logic doesn't dictate we must be exposed to anything.

Most reasonable people draw the line at heterosexual hand holding, hugging or gentle kissing. And most people object to more than that regardless of sexual orientation. If a guy was massaging his wife's vag in public, they would be arrested. So, there is a standard for everyone and it is somewhat arbitrary as many standards are. Two men kissing in public is quite simply offensive to most people, just as a woman performing oral sex on a man would be. Both are restricted from certain acts in public and that is how it should be. If we didn't have such standards, people would be having sex on park benches eventually.

...did you SERIOUSLY just attempt to compare a woman sucking a guys cock in public with two men kissing each other?

This proves you're a bigot Rick.

Really, if you can't wrap your mind around these simple concepts you ought to take up something more conducive to your abilities.

Maybe you should leave the thinking to the rest of us...