America Forever Anti-Gay Advertisment

[thebassoonist]

Here is an advertisement that appeared in Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News and an article about the controversy. A spokesperson for America Forever claimed that the group is not about hate. It's hard for me to see anything but hate in this ad. (Oops, I apologize for the misspelling in the title of this thread.)

Walsh Article (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11717192)

[Aea]

That's because their definition of christian "love" and "compassion" is nothing more then claiming that and acting the polar opposite.

But I'm be straight forward here, I have nothing but resentment for groups like these.

[NT1440]

WTF does the "Homosexuals are not a race" line have to do with anything??

[leekohler]

O...M...G...that is unbelievable...I'm at a loss...:eek::mad:

The Homosexual Delaration of War? WTF are these people on?

[chilipie]

What an utter bunch of arseholes.

[chrmjenkins]

Actually, the picture shown speaks for itself. You can ignore all the words and get the message from that picture.

Even though freedom of speech is protected, I'm surprised this was printed.

[schizoidwoman]

O...M...G...that is unbelievable...I'm at a loss...:eek::mad:


That pretty much sums up my opinion too... this is absolutely appalling, I can't believe it's been published.

[NT1440]

Ten bucks the mixed race couple is deliberate.....:rolleyes:

[Rt&Dzine]

The Homosexual Declaration of War got me curious, so I found out that it is paraphrasing a 1987 satire written by Michael Swift. The satire is prefaced by this:

"This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."

[dukebound85]

this is absolutely appalling, I can't believe it's been published.

freedom of speech

[iJohnHenry]

O...M...G...that is unbelievable...I'm at a loss...:eek::mad:

The Homosexual Delaration of War? WTF are these people on?

What an utter bunch of arseholes.

Hey, it's Utah, home of the terminally backward. :rolleyes:

A little respect for the short-bus, please. :(

[Jaffa Cake]

The Homosexual Declaration of War got me curious, so I found out that it is paraphrasing a 1987 satire written by Michael Swift...Ah, but since when do facts or context stand in the way of a spot of bigoted vitriol?

[joelovesapple]

What complete utter ****. :mad:

[rdowns]

Gotta love the irony of a bunch of homophobes with sticks up their arses.

[Rt&Dzine]

Ten bucks the mixed race couple is deliberate.....:rolleyes:

That was my first thought also. How many black people are in Utah?

[Dont Hurt Me]

We must fear something, this is a threat to the American way of life, Apple pie and Baseball. We need new laws!

And with that said we have the 1 millionth gay thread here at rumors:D

[dmr727]

I love how they call Homosexuals intolerant in the bottom right corner.

[Macaddicttt]

When I see this ad, part of me wants to laugh, part of me wants to cry.

[EricNau]

freedom of speech
Oh, really?

JANUARY 21, 2009: Los Angeles Affiliate KABC-TV refuses to air ad with gay families during Inauguration: “Too controversial, families will be watching.”

FEBRUARY 1, 2009: SUPER BOWL AD FEATURING GAY FAMILY REJECTED BY KNBC: Broadcaster claims the National Football League (NFL) excluded PSA as “advocacy,” yet other advocacy ads air.

http://www.gettoknowusfirst.org/


Just Sayin.

[dukebound85]

Oh, really?

JANUARY 21, 2009: Los Angeles Affiliate KABC-TV refuses to air ad with gay families during Inauguration: “Too controversial, families will be watching.”

FEBRUARY 1, 2009: SUPER BOWL AD FEATURING GAY FAMILY REJECTED BY KNBC: Broadcaster claims the National Football League (NFL) excluded PSA as “advocacy,” yet other advocacy ads air.

http://www.gettoknowusfirst.org/


Just Sayin.

yes really


a private company can dictate what it airs...its up to them and varies from company to company. however, there are regulations that tv and radio stations must adhere to as well since they are broadcasting over nationally owned frequencies i believe.

not saying i agree that it was a good move, just saying this is protected under freedom of speech , which is why i quoted the part i did in my first post in this thread

[Sesshi]

What an utter bunch of arseholes.

Extremely puckered ones, I believe.

[joelovesapple]

Well, cut all their heads off and harm their cats I say.... :rolleyes:

It really is wrong though, I can't believe stuff like this goes on still.

[Phat_Pat]

unbelievably offensive.

i understand the freedom of press/speech but jesus. :eek:

[marbles]

Everyone is entitled to there opinion, even if it is a bunch of arse but I gotta say that everyone does seem to be losing there freedom the world over, Ok thinks me if some folks don't want to employ homosexuals or whoever, they should have the right to choose , no? ( as long as no physical harm is caused to another body sorta thing)

[EricNau]

yes really

a private company can dictate what it airs...its up to them and varies from company to company. however, there are regulations that tv and radio stations must adhere to as well since they are broadcasting over nationally owned frequencies i believe.

not saying i agree that it was a good move, just saying this is protected under freedom of speech , which is why i quoted the part i did in my first post in this thread
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech; as you illuminated, media outlets are free to select their advertisers. This, instead, is about a double standard.

Why is it that this ad was published in both of Salt Lake City's newspapers, whereas the aforementioned tv ads, which violated no FCC regulations and were extremely tame based on today's standards, were refused airtime?

[Schtumple]

Ten bucks the mixed race couple is deliberate.....:rolleyes:

But of course, if you can't strike the homophobic chord, strike the racism one, sure fire bet to succeed at hate mongering.

[NT1440]

But of course, if you can't strike the homophobic chord, strike the racism one, sure fire bet to succeed at hate mongering.

Put um together and you have an awesome combination of fear AND hate!

The perfect ad!:eek:

[kainjow]

There's not much that can be said about this. It's like reading about a suicide bombing. Just reminds you that there are still plenty of idiots out there.

[mknawabi]

WTF does the "Homosexuals are not a race" line have to do with anything??

They're trying not to align themselves with Hitler or the KKK

[NT1440]

They're trying not to align themselves with Hitler or the KKK

I think they are trying to discredit the fact its a civil rights issue, because they are dumb enough to beleive civil rights only deals with races.

[dukebound85]

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech; as you illuminated, media outlets are free to select their advertisers. This, instead, is about a double standard.

Why is it that this ad was published in both of Salt Lake City's newspapers, whereas the aforementioned tv ads, which violated no FCC regulations and were extremely tame based on today's standards, were refused airtime?

so different private media companies screen what they put out differently? no way!


i think you are confusing freedom of speech and how private companies can filter what they want

for instance, if the group behind the ad had their own media company, they could publish it and no one could stop them......freedom of speech

however, they dont own the tv station or the newspaper and those companies are free to run or decline whatever they want

so the fact that the newspaper ran it while the tv station did not is not a double standard. its merely one company approving it and the other not. however, if they approved it and the government said it couldnt be ran, thats against freedom of speech

hope that makes sense

[EricNau]

so different private media companies screen what they put out differently? no way!


i think you are confusing freedom of speech and how private companies can filter what they want

for instance, if the group behind the ad had their own media company, they could publish it and no one could stop them......freedom of speech

however, they dont own the tv station or the newspaper and those companies are free to run or decline whatever they want

so the fact that the newspaper ran it while the tv station did not is not a double standard. its merely one company approving it and the other not. however, if they approved it and the government said it couldnt be ran, thats against freedom of speech

hope that makes sense
Exactly, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. That's what I've been saying this entire time.

[dukebound85]

That pretty much sums up my opinion too... this is absolutely appalling, I can't believe it's been published.

Exactly, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. That's what I've been saying this entire time.

and as ive said, i only posted "freedom of speech" in response to the first quoted post...the part ive bolded above:rolleyes:..........you know, the fact that the newspaper has the freedom to print whatever they want

[EricNau]

and as ive said, i only posted "freedom of speech" in response to the first quoted post...the part ive bolded above:rolleyes:..........you know, the fact that the newspaper has the freedom to print whatever they want
They are not, however, obligated to. That was my point.

[dukebound85]

They are not, however, obligated to. That was my point.

i know hence my first response defending why it was ran. i think we are saying the same thing from different angles.

to the poster saying they shouldnt have published it, the paper isnt censored by the govt and hence free to print whatever they want to run

[FrankieTDouglas]

That ad is horrible from a graphical point of view. Isn't there at least one bigot with an understanding of layout?

[EricNau]

i know. i think we are saying the same thing from different angles.

to the poster saying they shouldnt have published it, the paper isnt censored by the govt and hence free to print whatever they want to run
It probably a misunderstanding on my part. I interpreted your comment as claiming the paper had no choice but to publish the ad (thus exempting the paper of responsibility).

The paper is equally to blame in this case.

[SLC Flyfishing]

This is garbage, and it will only help polarize the people here against these sorts of groups. It wasn't long ago that this sort of thing was the accepted norm against the dominant religious group here. Utahn's in general will be just as appalled as any of you are.

Most people here aren't going to vote to approve gay marriage, but from what I can tell, most people I speak with as well as myself are happy to see the common ground initiative go forward.

I've said it before, our governor seems to be a very level headed guy. He's immensely popular and hopefully he'll be see as a model for what we as Utahns would like to see in our public officials in the future.

SLC

[leekohler]

freedom of speech

Duke- substitute the word "homosexual" with any other minority and tell me that would get printed.

[SLC Flyfishing]

The paper is equally to blame in this case.

And being particularly familiar with the Salt Lake Tribune, the editor is probably just hoping to create a stir. He should have picked another way to do it!

SLC

[dukebound85]

Duke- substitute the word "homosexual" with any other minority and tell me that would get printed.

i dont recall defending the publication. just stating that the paper has the right to print what they want and also to feel the consequences that goes along with such an ad in terms of PR

[leekohler]

i dont recall defending the publication. just stating that the paper has the right to print what they want and also to feel the consequences that goes along with such an ad in terms of PR

That isn't what I asked you. ;) I asked you to substitute the word "homosexual" with any other minority group and tell me if you think it would get printed.

Well?

[chrmjenkins]

Duke- substitute the word "homosexual" with any other minority and tell me that would get printed.

For some, there's the assumption that there's choice. Obviously, Mexicans don't choose to be born that way, but gay people are making the choice. In their eyes, that choice is being made, and therefore separates them from others.

[dukebound85]

That isn't what I asked you. ;) I asked you to substitute the word "homosexual" with any other minority group and tell me if you think it would get printed.

Well?

of course not today. at some point in the past it might have been acceptable
today, people are sensitive to race, not as much to sexuality

[leekohler]

For some, there's the assumption that there's choice. Obviously, Mexicans don't choose to be born that way, but gay people are making the choice. In their eyes, that choice is being made, and therefore separates them from others.

Why people insist on speaking about subjects of which they have no knowledge will always baffle me.

of course not today. at some point in the past of course

today, people are sensitive to race, not as much to sexuality

Apparently. Thanks for answering. :)

[SLC Flyfishing]

That isn't what I asked you. ;) I asked you to substitute the word "homosexual" with any other minority group and tell me if you think it would get printed.

Well?

Yes but that"s sort of irrelevant isn't it? The ad has already run!

SLC

[leekohler]

Yes but that"s sort of irrelevant isn't it? The ad has already run!

SLC

Indeed it has. How unfortunate for all of you in SLC.

[EricNau]

Yes but that"s sort of irrelevant isn't it? The ad has already run!

SLC
Wouldn't that make virtually every discussion on MacRumor's essentially irrelevant?

[SLC Flyfishing]

Indeed it has. How unfortunate for all of you in SLC.

Oh I agree!

I'm just glad that I don't pay for a subscription to either of these local papers.

I now know I never will.

SLC

[chrmjenkins]

Why people insist on speaking about subjects of which they have no knowledge will always baffle me.


Are you referring to me or agreeing with my analysis of why people do this (in essence, who I'm referring to)?

If it's the latter, it's simple, people fear what they don't understand, particularly if they think it threatens their belief system. If it's the former, I'm sorry you misunderstood me, I don't mean for it to be taken that these are my own personal thought processes.

[.Andy]

For some, there's the assumption that there's choice.
It's not an assumption. It's a misconception. They're wrong either through choice or being purposely misinformed.

[leekohler]

Oh I agree!

I'm just glad that I don't pay for a subscription to either of these local papers.

I now know I never will.

SLC

Let's at least hope something is learned form the stir this is obviously going to cause.

[SLC Flyfishing]

Let's at least hope something is learned form the stir this is obviously going to cause.

I don't think much of a stir will be raised. It's just not how things go down here. The Trib is hoping to create some controversy, but people know better than that by now!

[chrmjenkins]

It's not an assumption. It's a misconception. They're wrong either through choice or being purposely misinformed.

I use assumption because assumptions are usually made without prior knowledge. To me, at least, misconception carries a connotation that some prior thought has been dedicated to the matter with an errant conclusion. In either event, I'm inclined to agree with your latter interpretation of the situation.

[SLC Flyfishing]

http://www.sltrib.com/Opinion/ci_11733533

While you're there take a moment to notice our Neurotic State Senator Mr. Chris Buttars.

He's a turd if there ever was one!

SLC

[That-Is-Bull]

WTF does the "Homosexuals are not a race" line have to do with anything??

Think they're saying that homosexuality is a choice, rather than something you're born with like race.

Because, you know, I, as a straight male, could tomorrow randomly choose to enjoy gay sex. Either that or all gay people don't actually enjoy being gay and just fake it to be rebels.

And other people being gay totally affects me. It's like totally gross omg eww!!1

[thebassoonist]

And being particularly familiar with the Salt Lake Tribune, the editor is probably just hoping to create a stir. He should have picked another way to do it!

SLC

I think that might have been part of it. And with the economy the way it is, $15000 may be nothing to turn down.

But it is awful. The fact that they would say that ad wasn't based on hate blows my mind. And... they knew exactly what they were doing when they chose that picture.

[Counterfit]

O...M...G...that is unbelievable...I'm at a loss...:eek::mad:
You're surprised? I would think that you, of all people, would have heard all the bat-****-crazy stuff the r-r comes up with.
Even though freedom of speech is protected, I'm surprised this was printed.
White supremacist bands still get CDs distributed. All it takes is someone in charge of a company who's a sympathizer or supporter.

[EmperorDarius]

There's nothing wrong with Anti-gay things.

[CalBoy]

Am I the only one happy to see this thing?

I mean, by having this absurd thing printed, the anti-gay bigotry just delegitimized itself to an even greater degree. They are ironically going to drive people even further away from their point of view.

That's my take on it anyways.

Everyone is entitled to there opinion, even if it is a bunch of arse but I gotta say that everyone does seem to be losing there freedom the world over, Ok thinks me if some folks don't want to employ homosexuals or whoever, they should have the right to choose , no? ( as long as no physical harm is caused to another body sorta thing)

As much as they shouldn't have to hire a woman, a black person, or a Mormon. Then we can all go back to separate but equal. :cool::rolleyes:

[thebassoonist]

Am I the only one happy to see this thing?

I mean, by having this absurd thing printed, the anti-gay bigotry just delegitimized itself to an even greater degree. They are ironically going to drive people even further away from their point of view.

That's my take on it anyways.


I can see where you're coming from, CalBoy. But I guess it just is another reminder about how I live in... Utah.

[FreeState]

That was my first thought also. How many black people are in Utah?

Not many:

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/county/crh/crhut98.txt

Total: 2,100,562
White: 1,999,509
Black: 18,613

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-42280367.html

Utah's black population has increased 61 percent from 1990 to 1999, according to figures released from the U.S. Census Bureau on Thursday, Feb. 22. The black population grew from 12,082 to 19,481, making it .9 percent of the total population.

[Lord Blackadder]

As soon as I saw the Utah/Salt lake connection I totally ceased wondering about this.

Apologies to all the normal people in Utah/Salt Lake (and I know you're out there), but the more I learn about that area the more I understand why everyone I meet in Nevada dislikes Utah...When I first arrived in Nevada I didn't understand why some of the locals constantly referred to some people as U-tards. Now I know. ;)

Again, apologies to the normal Utahans out there. I actually liked Salt Lake City, except for the time I got lost at night and ended up near the Temple, my car getting surrounded by suited Mormons crossing the street...

[CalBoy]

I can see where you're coming from, CalBoy. But I guess it just is another reminder about how I live in... Utah.

Yeah, I can appreciate that too.

I think I view this thing like Arkansas's last stand for segregated schools; everyone will see this as the beginning of the end and we'll finally see the issue come out of its taboo corner.

[iObama]

That's because their definition of christian "love" and "compassion" is nothing more then claiming that and acting the polar opposite.


That's why people like myself - a Christian - automatically have a bad name for themselves. This advertising is extreme propaganda and completely unfair, if you ask me.

[CalBoy]

and completely unfair, if you ask me.

It's hard to say that it's unfair, because it comes from a subgroup of which you are a part of.

No one has labeled all Christians to be like this, so what's unfair about it?

[Aea]

It's hard to say that it's unfair, because it comes from a subgroup of which you are a part of.

No one has labeled all Christians to be like this, so what's unfair about it?

He's referring to the Advertising and not other's view of Christianity.

[chrmjenkins]

It's hard to say that it's unfair, because it comes from a subgroup of which you are a part of.

No one has labeled all Christians to be like this, so what's unfair about it?

I don't know that all Christians would agree that Mormons are Christians.

[thebassoonist]

I don't know that all Christians would agree that Mormons are Christians.

This wasn't technically put out by the Mormons... it was put out by America Forever.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

That ad is horrible from a graphical point of view. Isn't there at least one bigot with an understanding of layout?

They should have asked a gay to help out. Often queers are pretty good with layouts and graphic design.

Just sayin'

[thebassoonist]

Here is the website for America Forever:

http://www.americaforever.com/

[chrmjenkins]

This wasn't technically put out by the Mormons... it was put out by America Forever.

I see LDS plastered all over their website, so I figured they were behind it.

[Gelfin]

I don't know that all Christians would agree that Mormons are Christians.

I don't know if you are being coy or actually don't know, but the horrible anti-Mormon propaganda film I was shown in church as a child says that no, no they do not.

[chrmjenkins]

I don't know if you are being coy or actually don't know, but the horrible anti-Mormon propaganda film I was shown in church as a child says that no, no they do not.

There are simply too many denominations for me to account for. Some are more generous in their valuations than others, so it's not fair of me to make a blanket assumption.

Personally, I see the Christian core there, but the stuff they have added is terribly misguided.

[CalBoy]

He's referring to the Advertising and not other's view of Christianity.

Not really...he describes the whole situation as "unfair." He isn't really lamenting the advertisement, but rather what it means for the Christian label.
I don't know that all Christians would agree that Mormons are Christians.

Sadly, I think you're right on that point.

[iObama]

It's hard to say that it's unfair, because it comes from a subgroup of which you are a part of.

No one has labeled all Christians to be like this, so what's unfair about it?

Your post is quite ironic. First you say that it would be hard for me to say it's unfair since it's "from a subgroup that I am a part of," then you say "No one has labeled all Christians to be like this."

It's NOT from a subgroup that I am a part of since a) I don't believe Mormons are born-again Christians b) I don't hate gay people. I love them just as much as anyone else, and beating them over the head with hateful advertising is the exact opposite of how Christians should be dealing with homosexuality.

So, no, I am not part of that subgroup and I don't appreciate being labeled as such.

[CalBoy]

Your post is quite ironic. First you say that it would be hard for me to say it's unfair since it's "from a subgroup that I am a part of," then you say "No one has labeled all Christians to be like this."

I don't see any irony there. :confused:

You are a Christian, as are Mormons (despite the propaganda), and you're perceiving something unfair about the ad in relation to your Christianity.

beating them over the head with hateful advertising is the exact opposite of how Christians should be dealing with homosexuality.

So is the ad unfair or unChristian? They are not the same attribute.

[Jack Flash]

For some, there's the assumption that there's choice. Obviously, Mexicans don't choose to be born that way, but gay people are making the choice. In their eyes, that choice is being made, and therefore separates them from others.

At what point did you decide to be straight?

[TuffLuffJimmy]

For some, there's the assumption that there's choice. Obviously, Mexicans don't choose to be born that way, but gay people are making the choice. In their eyes, that choice is being made, and therefore separates them from others in my opinion. Note: my opinion is not supported by fact, in fact research in the subject suggests the EXACT opposite.

Fixed that for you

[floyde]

In their eyes, that choice is being made, and therefore separates them from others.

Even if it were a choice (it's ridiculously obvious that's it not; just try "going gay" for a few days, see if that is possible at all), the basis that they have for asserting that such a choice is wrong, is terribly misguided at best.

[chrmjenkins]

At what point did you decide to be straight?

Fixed that for you


Even if it were a choice (it's ridiculously obvious that's it not; just try "going gay" for a few days, see if that is possible at all), the basis that they have for asserting that such a choice is wrong, is terribly misguided at best.

Please re-read my post before you assume I'm stating my own opinion.

For some, there's the assumption that there's choice. Obviously, Mexicans don't choose to be born that way, but gay people are making the choice. In their eyes, that choice is being made, and therefore separates them from others.

For future reference, I'll just bold a huge disclaimer before my text :(

Now, is anyone unclear about the intentions of the original statement still, or is there a preference to assume I'm bigoted and ignore the fact I corrected people who misunderstood me?

[Counterfit]

There's nothing wrong with Anti-gay things.

Yes, yes there is.

[marbles]

As much as they shouldn't have to hire a woman, a black person, or a Mormon. Then we can all go back to separate but equal. :cool::rolleyes:
Maybe I'm not getting myself across to well.

Look, lets let these type of people do what they do as long as it does not physically harm someone else and eventually they will segregate themselves away from the rest of us who believe 'live and let live ', 'each to there own' and all that!.

This would be a good thing in my eyes simply because all the bigots, racists etc etc etc can go live the **** away from me n mine & those who are peaceful and have the view of each to there own and everyone is equal. get it now?

[fivepoint]

Duke- substitute the word "homosexual" with any other minority and tell me that would get printed.

The majority of these groups start with the assumption that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, and not genetic such as race. That's the justification they use to say that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights and protections.

Heck, one of the radio guys around where I live has this one guy on his show probably once a month who says that he 'used to be gay' and now is straight, found Jesus, and swears that it was his choice, that it was 'the devil',and that good people everywhere need to do whatever they can to keep the 'homosexual war mongers' from taking over our society and our children. :(

So, given that A) they think it is a choice, B) their most holy book scorns the practice, C) they see it as unnatural, it makes it easy for them to jump to conclusions and claim these things. Just a little insight into their craziness for ya.

[leekohler]

The majority of these groups start with the assumption that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, and not genetic such as race. That's the justification they use to say that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights and protections.

Heck, one of the radio guys around where I live has this one guy on his show probably once a month who says that he 'used to be gay' and now is straight, found Jesus, and swears that it was his choice, that it was 'the devil',and that good people everywhere need to do whatever they can to keep the 'homosexual war mongers' from taking over our society and our children. :(

So, given that A) they think it is a choice, B) their most holy book scorns the practice, C) they see it as unnatural, it makes it easy for them to jump to conclusions and claim these things. Just a little insight into their craziness for ya.

Oh no- I'm all too familiar with their argument and mental disorders. My parents wanted to put me in an ex-gay program. It's some seriously scary hocus pocus garbage, man.

[fivepoint]

Oh no- I'm all too familiar with their argument and mental disorders. My parents wanted to put me in an ex-gay program. It's some seriously scary hocus pocus garbage, man.

Interesting, I'm sure that was very hard for you, Lee. I'm sorry.

That being said, I think it's also important to remember that these people aren't EVIL, just seriously misguided and ignorant of the situation. I'm sure you know this well since your parents probably fit into this group.

[leekohler]

Interesting, I'm sure that was very hard for you, Lee. I'm sorry.

That being said, I think it's also important to remember that these people aren't EVIL, just seriously misguided and ignorant of the situation. I'm sure you know this well since your parents probably fit into this group.

They've changed their ways quite significantly over the years. However, I had no patience for their ignorance, and I have even less for these people.

And I'm sorry, the people who placed this ad are indeed evil. They believe what they want, and ignore anything that is to the contrary, including science. Willful ignorance is the next worst thing to evil.

[atszyman]

The majority of these groups start with the assumption that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, and not genetic such as race. That's the justification they use to say that homosexuals do not deserve the same rights and protections.

This holds absolutely no water, and should not be used in any way to validate the ad. It would not run if it were any other minority. Just because the group starts with a flawed assumption does not give them any sort of validity.

I can come up with a bunch of ads that start with the presumption that the moon is made of cheese, and none of them would ever get run, nor should they be run. But somehow because it's anti-homosexual this one somehow gets through?

Someone should lose their job for this.

[chrmjenkins]

This holds absolutely no water, and should not be used in any way to validate the ad. It would not run if it were any other minority. Just because the group starts with a flawed assumption does not give them any sort of validity.

I can come up with a bunch of ads that start with the presumption that the moon is made of cheese, and none of them would ever get run, nor should they be run. But somehow because it's anti-homosexual this one somehow gets through?

Someone should lose their job for this.

Just because it doesn't hold water doesn't mean they won't hold the opinion.

For your example, it's not very good. It's actually very likely that ad would run because there's no negative political/social consequences (it will be seen as a joke), and you're a paying customer.

[atszyman]

Just because it doesn't hold water doesn't mean they won't hold the opinion.

For your example, it's not very good. It's actually very likely that ad would run because there's no negative political/social consequences (it will be seen as a joke), and you're a paying customer.

Why is it not good? If I start from a flawed assumption, no matter how ludicrous, why should my ad be considered valid at all when aimed at one group of people when substituting another group would result in outright rejection?

[chrmjenkins]

Why is it not good? If I start from a flawed assumption, no matter how ludicrous, why should my ad be considered valid at all when aimed at one group of people when substituting another group would result in outright rejection?

Because there are no stakes in your ad. No one's going to care. This particular ad has a controversy surrounding it, and people do care. Most argue that you either categorically deny this type of thing, or it must all be allowed. Obviously, since the same thing about blacks or Muslims would not be allowed, this shouldn't be either. All are minorities with rights.

[leekohler]

Why is it not good? If I start from a flawed assumption, no matter how ludicrous, why should my ad be considered valid at all when aimed at one group of people when substituting another group would result in outright rejection?

Exactly. I was going to respond, but you did it for me. ;)

Most argue that you either categorically deny this type of thing, or it must all be allowed.

Then which is it? Obviously, there's a double standard here, isn't there?

[atszyman]

Because there are no stakes in your ad. No one's going to care. This particular ad has a controversy surrounding it, and people do care. Most argue that you either categorically deny this type of thing, or it must all be allowed. Obviously, since the same thing about blacks or Muslims would not be allowed, this shouldn't be either. All are minorities with rights.

If I start with the presumption that African Americans are better athletes and run a series of ads that discourage interracial marriage since the flawed presumption would say that better athletes would be born to African American couples, do you think that the paper should run that ad because I'm a paying customer?

This ad ran because it's currently still somehow OK to be anti-gay. It starts with a flawed presumption and if it were any other minority it would have been rejected, someone gave the OK to this ad and let it run, they should be penalized for that action.

[chrmjenkins]

Then which is it? Obviously, there's a double standard here, isn't there?

Of course, I agree. I was saying his "moon made of cheese" argument has no analogous relevance.

If I start with the presumption that African Americans are better athletes and run a series of ads that discourage interracial marriage since the flawed presumption would say that better athletes would be born to African American couples, do you think that the paper should run that ad because I'm a paying customer?

This ad ran because it's currently still somehow OK to be anti-gay. It starts with a flawed presumption and if it were any other minority it would have been rejected, someone gave the OK to this ad and let it run, they should be penalized for that action.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying your moon cheese argument isn't relevant because it doesn't violate any laws banning hate speech or something of the sort.

[atszyman]

You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying your moon cheese argument isn't relevant because it doesn't violate any laws banning hate speech or something of the sort.

Don't the French love cheese? Couldn't I somehow make it a pro/anti french thing?

Of course given the Freedom Fries debacle, I doubt anyone would even flinch.

The moon cheese was to point out a completely ludicrous assumption leading to ads that should either be treated as a joke or not run at all. This ad attempts to be serious off of a flawed assumption and because of that should not have been run.

[chrmjenkins]

Don't the French love cheese? Couldn't I somehow make it a pro/anti french thing?

Of course given the Freedom Fries debacle, I doubt anyone would even flinch.

The moon cheese was to point out a completely ludicrous assumption leading to ads that should either be treated as a joke or not run at all. This ad attempts to be serious off of a flawed assumption and because of that should not have been run.

Now you're grasping at straws or trying to be funny :p

The only thing that matters is the intent to harm (in this case) or defraud. The assumption can be as wacky as they want as long as it doesn't do either of those two and the customer pays.

[fivepoint]

They've changed their ways quite significantly over the years. However, I had no patience for their ignorance, and I have even less for these people.

And I'm sorry, the people who placed this ad are indeed evil. They believe what they want, and ignore anything that is to the contrary, including science. Willful ignorance is the next worst thing to evil.

No, definitely not evil. What they're doing is evil perhaps... and maybe a few of the more educated ones are evil, but certainly not the majority of them. Based on my experience, many of them have good intentions but are quite ignorant and illinformed. They have good intentions (just like you crazeee big govt' libs have good intentions) and are far from evil. I feel stupider for having read what they wrote, and they are doing society a big disservice in my opinion, but 'evil' is a strong word... and in this case I would consider it unjustified.



This holds absolutely no water, and should not be used in any way to validate the ad. It would not run if it were any other minority. Just because the group starts with a flawed assumption does not give them any sort of validity.

I can come up with a bunch of ads that start with the presumption that the moon is made of cheese, and none of them would ever get run, nor should they be run. But somehow because it's anti-homosexual this one somehow gets through?

Someone should lose their job for this.

If you came up with a bunch of ads about the moon made of cheese, I would guess that many of them would get run. In select magazines/papers. Again, it's completely up to the private company in this case, and they'll have to deal with whatever political fallout comes from it.

I'm not trying to validate the ad at all. Did you even read what I wrote? I completely fundamentally disagree with what they're saying, in fact... I think it's absolutely abhorrent. What are you suggesting? I hardly see how better understanding your 'enemy' and having a better grasp of WHY they believe what they believe is validating their viewpoints. Seems like something GW would say.



If I start with the presumption that African Americans are better athletes and run a series of ads that discourage interracial marriage since the flawed presumption would say that better athletes would be born to African American couples, do you think that the paper should run that ad because I'm a paying customer?

That would be completely up to the paper. If it was my paper, hell no. Nice analogy by the way... jeez. :o

[atszyman]

If you came up with a bunch of ads about the moon made of cheese, I would guess that many of them would get run. In select magazines/papers. Again, it's completely up to the private company in this case, and they'll have to deal with whatever political fallout comes from it.

And I hope there is a big fallout from this, but somehow I think they'll get away relatively unscathed.

I'm not trying to validate the ad at all. Did you even read what I wrote? I completely fundamentally disagree with what they're saying, in fact... I think it's absolutely abhorrent. What are you suggesting? I hardly see how better understanding your 'enemy' and having a better grasp of WHY they believe what they believe is validating their viewpoints. Seems like something GW would say.

I never meant to imply that you were making an excuse for the ad, or any validation for it. I had seen the "they assume it's a choice" argument a couple times in this thread and a flawed basis does not make the ad any more valid or less repugnant.

That would be completely up to the paper. If it was my paper, hell no. Nice analogy by the way... jeez. :o

If any serious paper ran such an ad I'd expect heads to roll, huge outcry, and massive amounts of public apology all of it rightly so as there should be in this case as well.

In this case there might be a page 5 apology, and a slap on the wrist for someone from this and it irks me that they'll likely get away with running this crap and suffer very little for it.

[leekohler]

No, definitely not evil. What they're doing is evil perhaps... and maybe a few of the more educated ones are evil, but certainly not the majority of them. Based on my experience, many of them have good intentions but are quite ignorant and illinformed. They have good intentions (just like you crazeee big govt' libs have good intentions) and are far from evil. I feel stupider for having read what they wrote, and they are doing society a big disservice in my opinion, but 'evil' is a strong word... and in this case I would consider it unjustified.

First of all, can it with the "you crazeee big govt' libs" BS. It really hurts your argument, because it's inaccurate. Save your insults for the EIB Network.

Second of all, these people have indicated by the very ad they ran, that they willfully ignore any evidence that contradicts their viewpoint. In other words, no matter what anyone does, they will continue to keep this up no matter what. In this case, I call this absolutely evil.

[fivepoint]

First of all, can it with the "you crazeee big govt' libs" BS. It really hurts your argument, because it's inaccurate. Save your insults for the EIB Network.

Second of all, these people have indicated by the very ad they ran, that they willfully ignore any evidence that contradicts their viewpoint. In other words, no matter what anyone does, they will continue to keep this up no matter what. In this case, I call this absolutely evil.

First of all, it was a joke. A playful jab... relevant to other conversations we've had int the past. Notice the 'CRAZY' spelling of the word crazzeeeee. I should have included a winking smiley face.

At any rate, that's certainly your right to consider them evil. The reason I made a point to disagree with that statement, is that sometimes Lee I think you hurt your chances of ever making headway with anyone because you're quick to jump and call people 'evil'. When you do that, people on the opposing side usually just 'turn off' at that point and ignore every single other word you say even of those were the most eloquent well spoken intelligent words ever written. It doesn't matter, because you already defined yourself in their eyes. I make this mistake too, most of us do.

Also, I know many people personally who do not support gay marriage, some of which even think that homosexuality is 'optional', but are otherwise great people. And I mean GREAT. People who would give their lives to save a friend and who would do anything for just about anyone.

Homophobia, while I find it personally deplorable, does not equal evil. That's my point.

[leekohler]

First of all, it was a joke. A playful jab... relevant to other conversations we've had int the past. Notice the 'CRAZY' spelling of the word crazzeeeee. I should have included a winking smiley face.

At any rate, that's certainly your right to consider them evil. The reason I made a point to disagree with that statement, is that sometimes Lee I think you hurt your chances of ever making headway with anyone because you're quick to jump and call people 'evil'. When you do that, people on the opposing side usually just 'turn off' at that point and ignore every single other word you say even of those were the most eloquent well spoken intelligent words ever written. It doesn't matter, because you already defined yourself in their eyes. I make this mistake too, most of us do.

Also, I know many people personally who do not support gay marriage, some of which even think that homosexuality is 'optional', but are otherwise great people. And I mean GREAT. People who would give their lives to save a friend and who would do anything for just about anyone.

Homophobia, while I find it personally deplorable, does not equal evil. That's my point.

Be that as it may, in this particular case I think "evil" is quite justified- for the reasons I gave. I think they're evil in the same way as Fred Phelps is evil. And if you don't think that guy is evil, well then evil simply doesn't exist.

[NT1440]

Being willfully ignorant isnt an excuse for coming up with this kind of thing.

[FreeState]

It's NOT from a subgroup that I am a part of since a) I don't believe Mormons are born-again Christians

Not everyone in Utah is Mormon - in fact this group is more than likely Born Again Christians. They have been around for a while and when I was in college I had several discussions with them at gay events in SLC - and they were mostly former members of the LDS Church who are now "born again."

[Cleverboy]

Gotta love the irony of a bunch of homophobes with sticks up their arses. You can almost imagine a miscegenation ad that would have proceeded this, and the anti-abolitionist ad before that. In the miscegenation ad, "homosexuality is NOT a race" would have been replaced with "interracial unions are NOT godly", and the anti-abolitionist ad would have trumpeted "coloreds are NOT equal". I guess that's the smell of progress, when ads become hysterical.
Be that as it may, in this particular case I think "evil" is quite justified- for the reasons I gave. I think they're evil in the same way as Fred Phelps is evil. And if you don't think that guy is evil, well then evil simply doesn't exist. Of course it exists. --And what we should do about it is simple. We defeat it. All we need to do is get together a committee for universally determining the nature and meaning of evil, and we'll be well on our way.

~ CB

[mactastic]

Yes but that"s sort of irrelevant isn't it? The ad has already run!

SLC
It would have been helpful if you had pointed that out to Congressional Republicans after the "General BetryaUs" ad ran...

As I recall, there weren't a whole lot of righties out there saying "well, that's sort of irrelevant" at that time. :rolleyes:

[imac/cheese]

It would have been helpful if you had pointed that out to Congressional Republicans after the "General BetryaUs" ad ran...

As I recall, there weren't a whole lot of righties out there saying "well, that's sort of irrelevant" at that time. :rolleyes:

I thought it was irrelevant and never much talked about it.