Ad Company Rejects Billboard Questioning Homosexuality

Cybercast News Service ^ | 02/13/07 | Payton Hoegh

[Hildy]

Freepers are very hypocritical on this issue of what private business should promote and what it shouldn't promote. No matter what they do, they're going to piss people off.

[bvw]

"Rightly decided"?

Not just decided, but rightly, eh! Your own pathological bias shines through. And I'm speaking quietly and softly. Sweetly. To you.

Grow up. Homosexuality is a dead end, for a person and for a society.

[Alouette]

I don't believe a billboard is going to do anything constructive.

Do you think there is an overweight person or a smoker who has never heard of weight-loss and stop smoking programs? And yet they are allowed to advertise on billboards without the fast-food franchises or the tobacco industry getting into a lather. Why is an advertisement for a sexual addiction program any different?

[jude24]

Your own pathological bias shines through.

Pathological, eh? Wow. I'm biased because I respect a private corporation's right to refuse ad content that would offend gays, sympathizers, and most "tolerant" Americans? Golly, gee.

Grow up.

I have. That's why I've stopped caring what consenting adults do in private. It's none of my business.

Homosexuality is a dead end, for a person and for a society.

That may be true, but that doesn't mean that a homosexual person shouldn't be able to do what he will with consenting adults behind closed doors. Nor does it mean that an advertising company must carry advertisements that a significant portion of the population finds offensive.

[Riverman94610]

Homosexuals can be cured?
Oh,maybe so,darling,but why would anyone WANT to be cured??

Just joking there,Vaduz.
Seriously,I truly think they were born that way.I don't care how much gay propagandizing is done in the schools or media.A straight guy isn't going to Bend Over for Billy unless he was leaning that way from the beginning.

[bvw]

Pathological is right, jude24. You didn't say just that it was Clear Channel's decision to make, which it was -- you said it was their "rightful" decision. You further went on to mock opposition to homosexuality as rants and raves.

Your response wasn't into what was right, rightful or about the free market -- it was all about mocking and celebrating the shutting down of those who speak up to oppose homosexuality.

So what is pathological about your on-line persona here, jude baby? It's your pathological lying.

[jude24]

So what is pathological about your on-line persona here, jude baby? It's your pathological lying.

I'm not going to stand for these ad hominem attacks. Go take a flying leap.

[ArGee]

"Both of those, we feel, perpetuates stereotypes, bias, and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual people," Kobeta added.

OK, Let me get this straight (no pun intended). If someone is born homosexual change is not an option, but if they are born a male changing that is acceptable?

AM I ON CANDID CAMERA?

Shalom.

[bvw]

So by extension of that same wickedly idiotic logic, all murderers were born that way too. And all wife-beaters, and all thieves. So why do we prosecute them? After all they only are doing what comes naturally.

[scripter]

You might find the following article of interest: How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together

And from a completely different perspective: The New Gay Teenager, and a followup article: Gay Seminar Upsets Parents: Governor's School's seminar called 'The New Gay Teenager'

[Froufrou]

This is important in light of TX. Rep. Mike Villarreal's proposed legislation HB 900, which I would post except I don't know if that's against the forum rules.

He proposes that 'anyone' cannot refuse to buy or sell with a 'anyone' even suspected of being homo or bi -sexual.

[ArGee]

Just a few short years ago, when this was a free country, most folks would have simply lived and let live.

The times they are a-changin. Just a few short years ago there was no place in the civilized world where it was considered a hate crime to say "homosexuality is a sin." Just a few short years ago there was no place where someone would have been forced, against their will, to accept a homosexual "marriage."

I chalk it all up to the rise of the nanny-staters who want to control every aspect of their neighbors' lives -- a bit like Sharia Law.

So true. It's a good thing those who believe homosexuality is wrong are fighting back.

Shalom.

[scripter]

OK, Let me get this straight (no pun intended). If someone is born homosexual change is not an option, but if they are born a male changing that is acceptable?

What!? You want people to think? Or how about this... a person can lead a heterosexual lifestyle and turn homosexual, but not the other way around? Of course not and I should know better to ask such questions. </sarcasm>

Seriously, people really need to get educated on the complex issues surrounding homosexuality. People Can Change

[Froufrou]

I think I see what you're saying, but once again there is as yet no proof that a 'gay gene' exists, so nobody is
born gay [that we know of, as of yet.]

[GSWarrior]

And that's exactly what they want, don't kid youself.

Also useful for fundraising, pledge drives....

[Alouette]

If someone is born homosexual change is not an option, but if they are born a male changing that is acceptable?

I once asked this question to a pro-gay claiming "homos are born the way they are! they can't change!" After sputtering, he said, "we have nothing to do with transsexuals! That is completely different from being gay!"

I asked, "so what does the T stand for in GLBT? Tomato?"

Then he called me a homophobic bigot.

[ArGee]

Picking a side on this issue could only alienate a significant number of consumers - far more than just refusing the ad could alienate.

It's a fine line. There are many more issues than simple freedom of speech and freedom of business dealings alone can address. Let me take a different example.

Some time ago the FCC decided that cigeratte manufacturers could not advertise on TV. Why? Was the product illegal? Were they advertising something untrue (is that even an issue anymore)? No, it was just an unpopular product.

Rather than debate the legality of the product in the public arena, a bureaucrat decided to deny a legitimate business concern the opportunity to hawk its wares, an opportunity other legitimate concerns have.

Do we want a nation where people who agree to publish advertisements suddenly find themselves in the position to decide what is valid and what is not valid for us to see?

I'm not talking about obvious venue issues, like sex phone numbers, but legitimate businesses.

For heaven's sake, I saw a billboard advertising condoms the other day. It had a topless woman on it with her arms crossed over her breasts. How controversial can the Focus message be?

Shalom.

[bvw]

Oh the nuances of it all!

[ArGee]

That may be true, but that doesn't mean that a homosexual person shouldn't be able to do what he will with consenting adults behind closed doors.

The current debate isn't about what they do behind closed doors. The current debate is about what they demand society do to validate them.

This thread is about neither. It is about an inoffensive ad which a company decided not to display because this nation has become intolerant of those who believe homosexuality can be changed.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Seriously, people really need to get educated on the complex issues surrounding homosexuality.

Way too much effort involved. Give me Brittney flashing without underwear. Give me Anna Nichole Smith's life, death, and daughter. But don't ask me to learn about anything substantive. I might miss "Desperate Housewives."

Shalom.