The Canadian Television Network (CTV) has pulled a commercial after activists on Facebook claimed it was a violation of the channel’s own ethical policy.
The 30-second advertisement, from Ontario-based Life Productions, contained the following message:
You hear a lot about gay rights, gay marriage and the gay lifestyle being taught in our public schools for children, but what many people don’t realize, and seldom hear, is that many homosexuals don’t want to be homosexual. What many who are struggling with homosexuality don’t realize, and seldom hear, is that they can change. I should know – for 13 years, I used to be one.
No clue is given where homosexuals might find this help, or what form this help might take. Life Productions appears to be independently producing and promoting evangelical Christian resources, and there is no indication on the website of an affiliation with a specific ex-gay ministry.
In familiar fashion, the commercial capitalizes on the ambiguity of the word “change,” rightly offending those who know that no substantial scientific evidence has ever been produced to show that ex-gay therapy or ministry can actually change a person’s sexual orientation. The most reliable research to date is capable of yielding only negligible conclusions at best.
A visit to Life Productions’ website reveals even bolder claims than those contained in the relatively mild advertisement, stretching the truth beyond recognition to proclaim:
“And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” … Homosexuality can be cured!
A Facebook group set up on Monday, following the broadcast, had by Friday attracted 838 members. CTV responded with the following message to the group’s founder:
I wanted to advise you that after reviewing, CTV has deemed the commercial inappropriate and it has been pulled off the air.
In a later message, a spokesperson for CTV added:
I assure you that had CTV known the content of the ad, it would not have gone to air. It is our corporate policy not to air advocacy ads of this nature. Moreover, CTV television stations do not condone, promote or engage in discrimination against anyone based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability. We have a proud history of promoting diversity and building bridges of understanding between cultures both within our company and the communities in which we operate.
A modest victory, not merely for gays and for those wounded by the exaggerated promises of the ex-gay movement, but for science, reason and common sense.
Ironically, CTV is the major media sponsor for Pride Toronto.
http://ctvmedia.ca/ctv/releases/release.asp?id=8802&num=6&yyyy=2006
http://www.pridetoronto.com/sponsors
In Canada, we do not tolerate homophobia. If these Bible belters want to preach their anti-gay propaganda, they’d better stay in Amerika where they belong!
Kieran:
They don’t belong here either.
It’s very inept for a major television network to not screen commercials..
The network does screen Nathan, ads go through Telecaster and are usually checked again by continuity or sales. Yes, it was inept, you are hearing about it because mistakes are rare.
Now if we could only get CBC to stop airing the World Trade Centre minted coins commercial.
This commercial wound up on a regional affiliate – MCTV out of Sudbury – which serves the Sault. Ste. Marie region where Jason Johns of Life Productions.ca is listed. Having worked my share of regional affiliates which are always understaffed, I can attest goofs happen.:^)
I wrote MCTV Sudbury/Soo and Life Productions and went into the Wayback Machine. Johns has had his site running since 2004, there have been a couple of site upgrades, he’s stuck to the same content. I google mapped his address, it looks like an apartment building which is consistent with the Whois info.
If I hear back, I’ll let you know.
Cry me a river — What the hell happened to free speech?
Seriously,
A better question would be: What the hell does this have to do with free speech?
Free speech doesn’t mean you have the right to say whatever you like wherever you like. If I came into your living room saying something that offended you, would you be violating my right to free speech by throwing me out? Of course not.
Likewise, CTV have the right to allow or disallow what they like on their own network. In this case, an organization making blatantly unscientific claims that can wreak havoc in vulnerable people’s lives has tried to preach its message on CTV. CTV have rightly told them to shut up.
“Free speech” doesn’t guarantee anyone the right to use CTV as a platform. If they want to exercise their free speech, they are perfectly within their rights to do so – using their own platform.
Free speech = red herring.
T said:
Well, there is this:
In addition to which, Canada does not have US style free speech guarantees, but even if they did this would not be an issue for a private entity with their own ethical standards. US networks make these decisions every day. There is no legal barrier, in the US anyway, to anyone creating their own media outlet to say these things. Countless religious stations do it here every day. But no one can force a private entity to broadcast something against their own standards.
Your points complemented my own very nicely, David.
Uh free speech does not mean that anyone, anywhere is REQUIRED to give you a forum in which to express whatever thoughts or beliefs you have, no matter how ignorant and “deeply held” they might be.
Freedom of Speech simply means the government, and or someone acting as an agent of the government doesn’t get to muzzle you without due cause.
Even then, there are limits, for example you can’t yell FIRE in a crowded building or threaten the life of the president without being prosecuted.
Wow —
“What does this have to do with free speech?” – “Canada does not have US style free speech guarantees”, “Uh free speech does not mean that anyone, anywhere is REQUIRED to give you a forum …”
Tens of Thousands have sacrificed themselves to defend this right of yours — They’d be spitting in your faces if you had said that to them.
Well, why can’t a person use a TV network as a platform to exorcise their opinion? The gay community certainly does to one degree or another from time to time, infact you’re using one right now to push your agenda aren’t you? … And what then about facebook??
The media is supposed to be unbiased – A difficult undertaking but a noble one nonetheless – Infact I’d say that the gay community has got their message through (To a more than fair degree) loud and clear over the years, what with parade-coverage annually, activism, etc etc
The point is – Why do “You” get to get your point out but not “Someone else” ? Sure it’s a petty _Age Old Agenda from the Evangelists_ But it’s still an opinion
(Talk about your red herrings) :Rolls eyes:
T, you present a very confused argument. Your view of free speech appears to be that everyone has an equal entitlement to speak from any and every private platform. That simply is not what free speech is about.
If your reasoning is right, no one (no website, no newspaper, no TV network, no radio station, no church, not even you as an individual) has any right whatsoever to refuse anyone the right to use their platform to voice their views. Your argument amounts to this: If you were to turn up at CTV today demanding that they give air time to your views, and they refused, they’d be violating your right to free speech. Can you not see how absurd that is?
This is an outrageous bit of hyperbole. Sure, many more than mere tens of thousands have died to preserve our freedom of speech in the western world, and for that we can all be grateful. But freedom of speech has never meant freedom to say anything anywhere.
I repeat: Freedom of Speech = Herring (of the Red variety).
So using T’s logic, because CTV sponsors the Canadian Cancer Society’s Relay for Life they should also be required to run ads from tobacco companies insisting cigarettes don’t cause cancer.
And since they air promos for Black History Month, they need to sell advertising to the Ku KLux Klan, right?
T. is suffering from some kind of delusion that gay rights are up for debate among decent, moral people. They are not. No more than the rights of any other minority group.
T, I am a firm believer in free speech. But not when it is used to intrude people’s personal space. That I believe is called invasion of privacy. I am sure you would not appreciate it when someone who claims to know you goes on and sensationalize what private stuff you do in the a bathroom or bedroom on national TV, and claims everything is true even though he may add tons of spices of lies, all on the basis that he had ‘been there’. Your friend may even claim you slept with the neighbour’s wife. Would you then also agree to condone his right to free speech?
Actually Yuki, that absolutely would be free speech in the US (though the bit about sleeping with the neighbors wife might get into slander), but it still doesn’t have anything to do with this issue. That’s the point of a Red Herring, to draw attention away from the real issue, and direct it toward another, usually dramatic, subject which most will agree with. In that we are now talking about free speech, T has succeeded.
“So using T’s logic, because CTV sponsors the Canadian Cancer Society’s Relay for Life they should also be required to run ads from tobacco companies insisting cigarettes don’t cause cancer.”
Indeed …
How much research can YOU honestly agree to? Now ask yourself why you do — Sure you’ll say “Well the State says “Yadda Yadda” but you should do the research yourself because it actually boils-down to genetics… Mind blower I know
“T, I am a firm believer in free speech. But not when it is used to intrude people’s personal space.”
Who’s personal space? Yours – Mine? No not really, but who cares? There’s no military stating you can’t hump is there?
People have done far worse things than talk about the objection / possible
“FREE SPEECH MUST REIGN – POWER TO THE MASSES”
Enough said
For perhaps the 5th time, this issue has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with free speech. T has, however, provided an excellent example of how to effectively use a Red Herring fallacy to totally muddle the issue under debate.
Ironically, it is just that kind of tactic which, if the rest of us are not very careful, can reduce free speech to mindless chatter. Somehow I doubt T actually came here to fairly debate the issue anyway, but rather to argue for arguments sake.
Back to reality, it does seem that CTV responded rather quickly when alerted to the fact that they were violating their own ethical policy. I personally commend them for that.
I’ve read this paragraph about 10 times, very slowly, and I still have absolutely no idea what it means.
Me either.
Hmmm. Well if T is right about any opinion stated anywhere is “free speech”, I intend on showing up at the local conservative chuch with a message planned for this Sunday.
I have as much right to take over their Sunday service as homophobes have on taking over CTV’s advertising criteria.
LOL, I had a great mental image of that, Timothy 😉
In this country you have the right to express your views. You don’t have the right not to be offended.
These men and women who were born gay but are in denial need our support. Attacking them and their faith isn’t being the better person.
David said: In addition to which, Canada does not have US style free speech guarantees, but even if they did this would not be an issue for a private entity with their own ethical standards. US networks make these decisions every day.
Actually Canada’s free speech guarantees are found in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms article 2b
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;”
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the equivalent to the Bill of Rights in the US.
Canada has hate speech laws that affect the public airwaves – radio, TV, billboards, newspapers, mass distribution of pamphets, etc – but they function in a similar way as obscenity laws function in the US. You can say what you want privately in both countries, but you cannot use any method you want to deliver that content to others.
In any case, a TV or radio station has the freedom to accept and reject whichever commercials it chooses. The freedom not to broadcast something is part of freedom of speech as well.
toujoursdan,
I didn’t say that Canada did not provide a right of free speech, I said that it was not in the style of the US. I don’t pretend to be a scholar on the rights of Canadians, but as I understand it, laws can be passed there to regulate what may and may not be said in public. This includes speech which expresses ideas, not simply obscenities.
From the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
And under the freedoms is listed:
Correct me if I am wrong, but this would allow your government to, if it saw fit or a majority of people saw fit, regulate what can be said in public by citizens. That is anathema to our First Amendment:
My comments weren’t meant as a criticism of the Canadian Charter, just a recognition of a valid difference. This is also why, no matter what restrictions Canada may place on speech they consider hateful to homosexuals (or anyone else), people in the US cannot rightfully use this as a warning for us – it would never pass Constitutional scrutiny.
It is also worth noting that to the founders, people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The Constitution does not provide these rights, it simply recognizes and guarantees them. That may seem a bit nuanced, but I think it is a very important distinction. It should also be noted that “Creator” there is understood to be a generic term, open for each person to interpret according to their understanding.
That said, I continue to point out that this particular incident has nothing to do with free speech – we are on a Red Herring ride.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this would allow your government to, if it saw fit or a majority of people saw fit, regulate what can be said in public by citizens.
Yes and no. Canadians (and other commonwealth nations) and Americans take different approaches to Government powers.
In the American context, it is believed that if you give government an inch it will take a mile. So limitations on government are explicitly spelt out in your documents, like the US Constitution.
In the Canadian context, there are all kinds of powers that are reserved to Government and Monarchy but are never used. Technically, the Queen, through the Governor General, can dismiss Parliament at any time, call elections and then ignore the results and appoint any government she chooses. She can also override the appointments of the Prime Minister and substitute her own appointments and veto (with no chance of overriding) any law passed by Parliament as the last stage in the passage of Parliament bills is called “royal assent”. These and other powers are technically legal, but are never exercised and would be political suicide if tried.
Citing what is written is a bit pointless, because context and custom dictates how these powers and rights work. It’s a bit like the Fundamentalist vs. the Eastern Orthodox approach to interpreting and applying Scripture, in fact.
So while that sentence exists in the Charter, the provincial courts and Supreme Court of Canada have always used the Charter as the basis for inalienable rights, including putting checks on Government when they have tried to skirt them. Government has and will never pass anything that limits the ability for individuals to express any idea they want without out threatening a court decision against it. (Another reserved but unused power: Technically the Government can use the Notwithstanding clause to override a Supreme Court decision – something conservatives like Robert Bork want in the US – but it has never been done federally and is also considered political suicide if tried.)
Canadians merely cannot use the public airwaves to express hate towards others. The limitation isn’t on the content itself, which is covered by the Charter, but on the method of delivery. Hate speech to Canadians has no more value in advancing ideas than obscenity does for Americans. Perhaps that is a cultural difference. In any case, I have yet to see someone make a case that hate speech expresses an idea that has more value in the public arena, than public nudity or use of the “F” word to make a point, would.
Given that Americans in their post 9/11 frenzy, can and have been thrown in jail for expressing a desire to kill the President (for example), it seems to be that on a defacto level, there are limitations on free speech that go against the text of the First Amendment in American law and it doesn’t seem all that hard to imagine limitations on hate speech if Americans found that politically acceptable.
But again, citing what is on a document doesn’t really clarify the argument, because the assumptions Americans and Canadians bring into our documents are quite different.
I can’t really add much in this context. You’ve illustrated my point about the differences in US vs Canadian approaches to free speech quite well. Our founding fathers, and many still today, had a healthy respect for the tyranny most governments up to the time of our revolution had expressed at one time or another over there citizens. That is reflected in the strong language of the texts.
When one reads the drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, one can gain an understanding for how carefully those words were chosen. In this case, they do mean a great deal. Of course I have a sense of pride in my own country and it’s history, as I imagine you do of yours. They are similar in many ways, but not all.
Anyway, my biggest point was that this issue doesn’t have anything to do with free speech. That’s another horse we have done away with on this thread, lol.
Our founding fathers, and many still today, had a healthy respect for the tyranny most governments up to the time of our revolution had expressed at one time or another over there citizens. .
But if we are really in a true democracy, Government is the collective will of all of us. If it becomes tyrannical, it can be overturned and a new one elected that will restore the balance.
That is reflected in the strong language of the texts. When one reads the drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, one can gain an understanding for how carefully those words were chosen. In this case, they do mean a great deal.
But we both know that those slave-owning Founding Fathers had a very different definition of “inalienable rights” than you do today. Those rights were not originally intended to apply to all people in all situations. Your government, with the connivance of your courts, curbed those rights well into the 20th Century. Only within my lifetime, due of the rise of social egalitarianism, did the government extend them to everyone. One may think one can rely on those carefully chosen words to protect you should social values move away from our egalitarian outlook (as they seem to be doing), but history does not bear that out. It’s not really enough to read about rights and powers on paper and make comparisons between how one country expresses it on paper and how another does. The question is how they are lived out in community.
This is why I feel like debating Americans on democratic values is a bit like debating a Christian fundamentalist on what the Bible says. What’s on paper is only a small part of the story. In any case I hope it doesn’t look like I am picking on you or bashing America. I do find it a bit annoying when people, who have a rather superficial understanding of Canada and our society, make comparisons with a romanticized view of America. I am not saying you are guilty of this, but it does creep up from time to time.
Ok, well I’m done now.
Sure. We can agree to disagree. That’s very Canadian.
I do want to take issue with that statement you made again:
Correct me if I am wrong, but this would allow your government to, if it saw fit or a majority of people saw fit, regulate what can be said in public by citizens.
This can be done by your Government too. There is nothing in your Constitution that prevents your Government from passing a Constitutional Amendment that modifies or repeals another Constitutional Amendment, including the first 10 – the Bill of Rights. It’s more difficult than passing a regular law, but possible.
I don’t think your Government would ever actually repeal the First Amendment, but your politicians have floated proposals to modify free speech rights through banning acts like burning the US flag in protest. I know this is political posturing for the religious right, but it is legally possible.
And there are serious proposals on the left to repeal the Second Amendment, which is also part of the Bill of Rights.
So the rights in the Bill of Rights itself are no more sacrosanct than the Charter. If the political will is there, both our governments can alter or cancel our rights legally.
Why are we still talking about Free Speech – are we finally getting back on topic now?
Tousjourdan says:
I found a very interesting youtube video about a random interview in canada. It went sumthing like, “do you support gay ppl? “. People answered along the lines, “If it makes them happy”, “They can do what they want in the privacy of their home like all of us”. Now the interview gains its momentum with the question, “What about bestiality or peadophilia?, It makes them happy and they could do it in the privacy of their home”. Many just replied with… “because its wrong”. or “I dont know”. ANd it continued…anyways, you get my point hopefully… Its all alot more convincing if you actually watch it. Ill look for the name if any1’s interested. Even though this interview barely stays on the theme of the topic, i understand why this quote made me think of this. Why is the interview relevant? because what this TV broadcasting network did is (when takin it and multiplying it by all the TV braodcasting networks) add up to the peoples reply when asked about bestiality or peadophilia because of their ignorance to different points of view. And if you notice close enuf… that reply toward bestiality or peadophilia sounds better in the mouth of biggots.
The way I view freedom of speech is more in line with T… I dont see how you being offended should limit your right to express ur opinion, hateful or not. Isnt that how everyone at ex-gay watch managed to counter anti-gay rhetoric? Wasnt it by hearing the other side even though you didnt like it and may have gotten offended by it? IMHO, the broadcast does more good airing this than not. Leave the indoctrination(channeled in one point of view and taken as absolute) to the religious right, plz. They might despise this commercial, but in hindsight it might just get ppl informed about the whole religious right, and primarily what this site seems so keen in projecting, the gay, ex-gay dilemma, all this thirst for knowledge triggered by something that made them tick, hate speech trying to pass on as an absolute truth.
Everything i said is because it bothers me that ex-gay watch actually took sides with the censuring of the commercial.
Joel,
A few thoughts:
First, no one is interested in some TV show you watched that compared same-sex relationships to pedophilia or bestiality. We all know that these things are not equal or comparable. I don’t know what your point was, but that the average heterosexual person confronted on the street with this bait and switch argument did not immediately know how to address it does not indicate anything at all.
Secondly, I think you misunderstand freedom (and you share that with most anti-gay activists).
Freedom is not the right to do what you like with no regard to the rights of others. For example, you are not free to build your house on property you do not own. You are not free to publish and sell books that you did not write or contract. You are not free to determine the price of computers that you did not build.
And you are not free to determine what will be played on stations that you did not invest in. That is the right of the ownership and management of CTV.
Now you may disagree with their decision. And that’s fine to argue. I will argue the other side of that position.
But don’t cry “censorship” when a private entity makes a decision not to air anti-gay propaganda and insist that it must be shown. You simply don’t have that right.
Finally, to address the logic of providing air time for bigotry: some ideas do not deserve to considered as reasonable.
Those positions that seek to demean others do not deserve an airing. It only gives them credibility. Some folks believe what they hear, especially if it confirms their own biases. And very seldom does it benefit anyone to treat bigotry as though it is just another valid opinion.
A rare exception would be Sally Kern. Her rantings were so extreme that she served a purpose – an illustration of the ugliness of homophobia. But had she not hit hyperbole without even slowing down, had she only said her opinion about Scripture without all the “worse than terrorism” stuff, I certainly wouldn’t participate in the distribution of her ideas. And her words were distributed in a context, not as an uncontroverted argument in the form of an ad.
I completely support every individual’s right to express their opinion, including Sally Kern and Life Productions. But I don’t have to make it easier for them. Nor does CTV.
“First, no one is interested in some TV show you watched that compared same-sex relationships to pedophilia or bestiality. ” I know theres sum1 somewhere that might find that interesting(even though he/she may not find it important)… so plz spare me the ‘no one’.
I totally understand that freedom in its absolute does not exist. My last sentence says the WHY of the post.
“It only gives them credibility. Some folks believe what they hear” That is the double edged sword i was referring to. IMO it CAN go both ways… In one edge Maybe they(the ppl that were being interviewed) just couldnt answer it right there and then, but maybe they really couldnt answer it at all because of the lack of education somewhat upheld by censorship. On the other edge- gays(specialy christian) are censored from gay education because ‘very seldom does it benefit anyone to treat [the gay agenda] as though it is just another valid [position].’ Note: I come from a pretty conservative/religious background so maybe thats why you cant put ur hands around what im trying to say.
PS: Anonymous suggested, Read online “My Genes made me do it-a scientific look at sexual orientation” these researchers reviewed 10,000 papers on this subject. Havent read it but i think ex-gay might want to have a look at it. Ive talked with anonymous before and he has a very affirming attitude of KNOWING what gay is and why its… to say the least, wrong.
I salute Kieran for admitting that she (and Canada) are intolerant of views with which they disagree.
Gary, tolerance begets tolerance. Intolerance begets intolerance.
Which is to say, tolerance only works if everyone participates. It’s a lot like a party. Most people go to a party with the idea of getting along with the other guests, if only for the host’s sake. The host has every right to eject guests who choose to be intolerant of each other.
It is not hypocrisy for a tolerant person to object to, or disagree with an intolerant attitude or speech: it is self-defense.
You get what you give. If you approach a place of tolerance with an intolerant attitude, you cannot expect to be let in.
Jason, if someone shows up at your party and holds a diverse view from yours as a matter of deeply held religious conviction, a different standard of right and wrong behavior, or from concern about the public health implications of a certain behavior…
…and you respond by demonizing that person as comparable to a Nazi, a Klansman, or a bigot, then you’re the one who’s practicing intolerance.
Yes, it is hypocrisy. You don’t get to write the rules so that your intolerance is OK, but intolerance you disagree with is unwelcome.
No blacks allowed. No Mexicans allowed. No gays allowed. No ex-gays allowed. No one who believes homosexual behavior is anything but heaven-inspired allowed. Put any of those signs up on the door to your party. It’s all the same thing. You either consistently respect diversity of opinion or you don’t.
If you welcome only those who agree with you, that’s your prerogative. Just don’t hypocritically claim you’re practicing “tolerance” (for all views except those you disagree with).
Gary, I’m not going to respond to your post at length, because I’m not going to defend myself when someone chooses to put words in my mouth.
I did not say tolerance means everyone has to have the same viewpoint. That’s not tolerance, that’s consensus. People can disagree and still be tolerant. I did say that tolerance begets tolerance. You reap what you sow. People who do not agree can tolerate each other. Live and Let Live. If you are being tolerant, if you are living and let live, you deserve tolerance.
I have tolerated many a crying child. By this, I mean, I have neither enjoyed nor appreciated the screaming baby, but I have also not done anything to try to stop the baby. I haven’t tried to have the baby muffled, or have babies outlawed in that setting. I have tolerated the baby to the point of exhaustion, then you know what I always do? I leave the situation. That’s tolerance.
Believing someone’s choices are wrong is not intolerance.
If, however, you try to enact laws to keep others from living their lives how they choose, if you try to keep certain folks from getting married, adopting children, being legally responsible to their partners, holding certain jobs, living in certain areas — if you go about spreading lies and misinformation about an entire class of people, if you want to suppress accurate portrayals and scientifically accurate information about a class of people —- that is not tolerance, nor does it deserve tolerance in return.
Live and let live. It’s very simple.
Well, no. You don’t.
Not all “beliefs” are equal.
If little Joey believes that all the children should play peacefully together and little Freddie believes that he should beat up all the children who don’t give him their lunch money, those two beliefs are mutually exclusive. And it is both ludicrous and foolish to say that both Joey and Freddie can act upon their beliefs at my party.
Yet that is what you would have us do, respect both the person who believes in equality for all and the person who believes in reducing or restricting the rights of others.
And only a fool or a deluded idealogue would argue that both beliefs are due equal respect. The sad thing is that so many believe that the abusive and restrictive attitude is morally superior to the inclusive and the expansive attitude.
You may believe whatever you like, be it about gays or blacks or women or red-headed podiatrists. I will not only tolerate your right to your opinion but would fight for it. What I will not tolerate is you enacting discrimination against any of those persons. Nor will I respect your bigotry.
“Not all ‘beliefs’ are equal.”
Tim, I salute you for admitting that you discriminate between good beliefs and bad beliefs, and thus admit that in some cases, discrimination is justified.
Well, it is ok to discriminate against discrimination, which makes about as much sense as this silly game you are playing. And stop saluting, we aren’t a branch of the military.
Read it again, Gary. The purpose of discourse is not to try for “gotcha” statements. If you have some point to make, make it.
My point is as I made it. Those who reserve for themselves the unquestioned right to declare others guilty of “discrimination” most often insist that they themselves oppose ALL discrimination without exception, that ALL “discrimination” is bad. Thus, an admission that discrimination between good and bad is not only appropriate but that they themselves practice this laudable discrimination is certainly noteworthy. As was the earlier admission that someone who deems herself worthy enough to accuse others of “intolerance” is herself intolerant of that with which she disagrees. Typically, the argument from the tolerance and diversity crowd is that ALL opinions are of equal value, with no opinion of any greater worth, or due any greater respect, than another. That what’s right or wrong for some may not be right for all, thus we should not only tolerate but value, even “celebrate” the diversity of opinion. It’s certainly a progressive sign that no one here argues such drivel and in fact concedes the exact opposite — precisely, that those who agree with the TV station for censoring a viewpoint diverse from their own admit that they are not only intolerant of views with which they disagree, but also admit to practicing discrimination, without which they’d be unable to discern any distinction between their views and those they oppose. All worthy of yet another salute, whether David likes it or not. (How insensitive of me…)
Well that was a lovely bit of mental masturbation. I salute you for beating the stuffing out of that straw man all by yourself. Interesting how someone stating something is transformed into an “admission” – subtle.
If you are done, perhaps you could share something a bit more germane. Do you, or do you not not think CTV has the right to enforce their own policies concerning what they air?
Gary,
Other than ranting and spewing you said nothing.
You create some fictional “tolerance and diversity crowd”, ascribe them attributes, and them attact the fictional crowd and their non-existant attributes.
This probably plays very well at sites where rhetoric is king and thought is a stranger, but at XGW we deal in reality.
For example, we all know that “the argument from the tolerance and diversity crowd is that ALL opinions are of equal value” is just plain nuts. I’ve never met a person who argued that.
Further, no one here thinks having airtime standards is the same thing as “practicing discrimination”.
I know it feels good to think that you have “scored a point”. And a lot of websites live for just this type of ranting and gotcha writing. Not here.
If you cannot distinguish between discriminatory practices that attack a party and those practices that stop a party from being attacked, then I think you may have a significant flaw in your moral compass. Conversations with those who see violence and animosity as being equal to the cessation of violence and animosity are pointless.
If you fit that category, there’s little point in talking with you.
Oh the hypocrisy of it all. So who made everyone God to decide what is and isn’t free speach. I have enjoyed friendships with gays but they actually respect the fact that I hate their lifestyle. Why? Because they are at least striving to understand where I’m coming from. To get respect you have to give it. We can still love people while hating stuff about them that we feel is harmful to them and society. Which is more loving…. a parent who corrects and admonishes their children or one which ignores their mistakes. Prohomosexuallity is just as intrusive to my family and many othes as anti-gay is to many people. But there is not an equitable justice being served because in recent times the media has become much more liberal biased. Lets face facts:
Teens engaging in homosexual behavior are participating in a lifestyle that:
• reduces life expectancy at age twenty by at least 8 to 20 years
• increases by at least 500% the risk of contracting AIDS
• increases the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease by nearly 900%
• increases by 4,000% the risk of developing anal cancer
• substantially increases the likelihood of smoking, having mental health disorders, being the victim of domestic violence, and being involved in alcohol and drug abuse.
• substantially increases the likelihood of contracting hepatitis and other gastrointestinal infections
• substantially increases the risk of contracting bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer
• has high levels of participation in sadomasochism, coprophilia, fisting, and other dangerous, deviant sex practices
By posing as a part of the civil rights movement, gays have succeeded in attaching their message to the message of “human rights” and “tolerance” already incorporated into countless lessons in a typical curriculum, e.g., in social studies and literature classes. Gay advocacy often takes the idea of being kind and civil and perverts it. Homosexuals, bisexuals and cross-gender practitioners are falsely alleged to be illegitimately discriminated against, even “oppressed” by the majority. A “safe school” becomes one that doesn’t threaten the “homosexual” student with disapproval–so all students and staff are forced to stifle any objections to homosexual behavior or be villified as “homophobes” and potential threats. Propagandistic claims that gay students are at higher risk of suicide and are often the targets of bullies, cow school boards into accepting homosexual clubs, “anti-harassment” policies and tolerance programs. The truth is that many students are targets of bullies and not all of them demand a totalitarian regime of mental re-programming of their classmates to stop this. The reality is that the behaviors involved in homosexuality are the real risk to these children. There are thousands of ex-homosexuals whose lives attest to the ability of humans to overcome homosexual desires and practices. This is a choice which should be open to all young people without criticism, prejudice, attempts to withhold this information, or attempts to discredit the life stories of those formerly involved in these lifestyles.
Les, plz provide your source. Although it might be futile cause im pretty sure your bullets have been ‘debunked’ here before.
The one about anal cancer is the only one that still has some kind of relevance, imho. Yet, correct me if im wrong, ive read(source) that anal cancer increase is due to the human papiloma virus and theres a vaccine for it already.
Joel, six years ago I challenged a friend to do his research and give me the worst case scenario of the physical effects of being involved in a gay relationship so that we could have a discussion. I suggested NARTH (The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. He has since become HIV+, experiences regular bouts of depression and alcohol abuse, has been through three relationships, two of which involved physical abuse.
Les, there needs to be at least an air of reality in your statements for the discussion to have any meaning. The things you attribute to the “homosexual lifestyle” are not supported by any facts. Your short story about a friend is hardly going to change that – it is anecdotal at best and speaks of no one but your friend. Most of this likely has it’s source in the discredited research of Paul Cameron. Either way, you need to support your claims with reasonable, authoritative information if you wish anyone here to take what you say seriously.
I AM a gay man and I can tell you that it’s UNPROTECTED sex that causes HIV. I’ve used a condom, every time, and I’m still negative. I do admit I’m lucky that I’ve never had a condom break, but I also talk about sex before I have sex with someone. That is, back when I was single, and most of the gay men I met did the same. I’ve been with the same partner for 2 years now, we’re monogamous, and we don’t beat each other. Hell, we both agreed that calling each other names (stupid, bitch, idiot) would be dealbreakers.
Trying to scare us with BS is useless. Hell, I didn’t read anything beyond the “8 to 20 years” lie, because I read about it at boxturtlebulletin.com. Gay men do not experience a significantly different lifespan. Regardless, lifespans are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Les:
It is true God gave us FREE WILL which would include free speech, but he also gave us INTELLECT and REASON. He also commands us to SPEAK THE TRUTH and to not BARE FALSE WITNESS. He also gave us the gift and the commandment to INSTRUCT THE IGNORANT. Nobody is playing God when they detect something that is giving out false information and defaming a group of people. They are doing what they are responsible to do.
Perhaps your gay friends, instead of trying to understand where you are coming from, are just practicing charity toward you. And while we can love people and hate what they do (the old “love sinner hate the sin” routine), it will be your actions that truely demonstrate whether you truely love or not.
Both. Sometimes parents have to ignore the mistakes made in order to allow their child to learn for themselves. Sometimes they need to correct them, sometimes not. It is not a black and white issue. There is a gray area. Any parent can tell you that. You can’t correct every mistake your child makes. Sometimes you have to step back and let them make mistakes. It’s not ignorning the mistake as much as it is allowing the child the freedom to discern and learn from the mistakes they make.
.
Yes Les, a safe school is needed so that students don’t shoot other students just because they are different, like what happened in So California last month. A safe school means a place where all students can get an education without being hurt or killed. Is that too much to ask for?
Where are these “thousands” of ex-homosexuals? Did they all move to the moon or something? Most ex-homosexuals are either ex-ex gays or working for exodus. And I doubt exodus has thousand upon thousands of people working for them.
Les:
As for the “homosexual lifstyle,” which one are you referring to: (GL = gay lifestyle) (HL = heterosexual lifestyle)
GL / HL 1. single, no partner, not dating, no sexual activity, no children
GL / HL 2. single, no partner, occasionally dating, no sexual activity, no children
GL / HL 3. single, no partner, frequent dating, no sexual activity, no children
GL / HL 4. single, no partner, not dating, no sexual activity, children
GL / HL 5. single, no partner, occasionally dating, no sexual activity, children
GL / HL 6. single, no partner, frequent dating, no sexual activity, children
GL / HL 7. single, no partner, not dating, sexual activity, no children
GL / HL 8. single, no partner, occasionally dating, sexual activity, no children
GL / HL 9. single, no partner, frequent dating, sexual activity, no children
GL / HL 10. single, no partner, not dating, sexual activity, children
GL / HL 11. single, no partner, occasionally dating, sexual activity, children
GL / HL 12. single, no partner, frequent dating, sexual activity, children
GL / HL 13. in a committed relationship with one partner, no sexual activity, no children
GL / HL 14. in a committed relationship with one partner, sexual activity, no children
GL / HL 15. in a committed relationship with one partner, sexual activity, children
GL / HL 16. Having any combination of 13 – 15 but having sexual encounters with other persons besides the one with whom they are committed to without that person’s knowledge (otherwise known as “cheating.”)
GL / HL 17. Having any combination of 13 – 15 but both partners in the committed relationship having sexual relations with other people with the knowledge and/or consent of the other partner.
PERSONAL HABITS – GAY LIFESTYLES (GL); HETEROSEXUAL LIFESTYLES (HL)
Combined the following with the list above.
GL / HL 1. non-smoker (tobacco)
GL / HL 2. smoker (tobacco)
GL / HL 3. non-alcoholic drinker
GL / HL 4. alcoholic drinker (occasional or social)
GL / HL 5. alcoholic
GL / HL 6. no use of illegal drugs
GL / HL 7. use of illegal drugs (occasional or social)
GL / HL 8. illegal drug addict
GL / HL 9. no use of prescription drugs
GL / HL 10. use of prescription drugs (used according to purpose)
GL / HL 11. prescription drug addict
SOCIAL HABITS – GAY LIFESTYLES (GL); HETEROSEXUAL LIFESTYLES (HL)
Combined the following with the lists above.
GL / HL 1. does not go to clubs and discoteques
GL / HL 2. occasional goes to clubs and discoteques
GL / HL 3. frequents clubs and discoteques
GL / HL 4. loner
GL / HL 5. semi-social
GL / HL 6. high profile socializer
PERSONAL PHYSICAL HABITS – GAY LIFESTYLES (GL); HETEROSEXUAL LIFESTYLES (HL)
Combined the following with the lists above.
GL / HL 1. physically fit, frequents a gym or has a defined exercise routine
GL / HL 2. somewhat physically fit, occassionally attends a gym or has a semi-defined exercise routine
GL / HL 3. physically unfit, rarely or never attends a gym and has no exercise routine
PERSONAL APPEARANCE HABITS – GAY LIFESTYLES (GL); HETEROSEXUAL LIFESTYLES (HL)
Combined the following with the lists above.
GL / HL 1. well-dressed in the latest fashions, always has a “glamorous” appearance
GL / HL 2. well dressed, always has a “neat” appearance
GL / HL 3. over-dressed, excessive
GL / HL 4. casual dressed but with a “neat” appearance
GL / HL 5. sloppily dressed
GL / HL 6. a combination of 1 -5 depending on occassion
GL / HL 7. dressing and having the appearance of the opposite sex (cross-dressing)
Please specify.
Alan, rather lengthy but you get your point across.
I always find that absurd when people talk about “the gay lifestyle”. There isn’t one.
My “lifestyle” involves going to work, going to the gym, cooking dinner with my partner, vegging out on the couch, and playing with our cat. i’m an actor, so I do have to go to rehearsal, and do shows from time to time. My partner and I happen to be monogamous, we play video games, and love making each other laugh. We’re not crawling with diseases, we’re not drug addicts. I don’t even drink! We’re not into bars or any of that.
I by no means suggest that we are typical or ideal. But those who rail against “the gay lifestyle” seem to not understand there isn’t a singular experience.
We do know couples and friends who aren’t monogamous, some are celibate (despite their best efforts) and some wait until the 3rd or 4th date to bother.
Sure, when I was younger, I went out to the bars, I drank, I did have a few sexual escapades — but I don’t know any straight people who didn’t do pretty much the same thing.
Jason:
Sorry for the length of the entry but I am tired of the “gay lifestyle” label crap as well. But that is what hate and prejudice is all about … if you can minimize a group of people and define them by a set of qualities that most people find offensive, then it is easier to justify one’s prejudice and hate. Hitler was no dummy to that technique nor were the KKK in their hayday.
And there is so much more to add to that list, like what you mentioned about playing video games, etc. My partner and I (when we are together – we are a binational couple) we go out to eat, tour museums, go shopping, bowl (horribly) … not really a Movie of the Week type relationship.
Maybe when I finally move so we can live together we might have a dramatic moment … but I think people would get more excitement by watching a plant grow than observe my partner and I in our daily routines. 🙂
Whereas I have never attempted to hurt or ridicule the individual homosexual or lesbian, I do find myself in sharp disagreement with the more radical elements of the movement. The effort to redefine the family, qualify for adoption, promote the homosexual lifestyle in the schools, etc., are objectives with which I disagree. And I will oppose them when the issues are raised. Does that make me a hatemonger? I think not. How would you and your homosexual companions feel if I began lobbying for special, protected legal status? How would you react if I asserted that I should be given a job and shielded from termination just because I’m me? I can predict that you would fight such ordinances tooth and nail. Why? Because when one person wins in these kinds of struggles, someone else loses. Thus, we must be very careful before creating new “minorities” based on behavior or beliefs — as opposed to those who have been discriminated against historically based on their race. That raises the question: Have homosexuals faced this kind of uphill battle? Perhaps in the past, but there is no evidence of which I’m aware that they are disadvantaged now. The average homosexual earns $55,000 per year, compared with $32,000 for heterosexuals. Gays also have a much higher percentage of college degrees than the straight population. And when it comes to political clout, how can they claim to be shortchanged? Dozens of objectives of the gay and lesbian community are being achieved today. Look at the issue of funding for AIDS research and treatment. Most people know someone who’s had a heart attack, and I am very concerned about support for research on coronary artery disease. After all, heart attacks and strokes kill more people than AIDS, cancer, TB, and several other diseases combined. But the federal government in the U.S.A. for example spent 39 times as much on AIDS last year as it did on heart disease. Why? Because of the clout of homosexuals who turned their powerful guns on Congress and the White House. My point is not to decry money being spent on the horrible AIDS epidemic. I’m simply making the point that the homosexual community is hardly an oppressed, powerless minority seeking protection under the law. They have Hollywood, the press, the media, the universities, the publishers, the professionals and the judiciary enforcing their “politically correct” way of life.
Les, we didn’t create ourselves as a minority group. We finally have been recognized as a minority group.
“The family” you ar describing has been redifined since the beginning of time. Which family are you referring to: King Solomon’s ideal family? 600 wives and as many concubines? One wife but with the possiblity of procreating with the help like Abraham did? Marry a virgin and abstain from sex with her like Joseph and Mary? A “family” where the man and wife are set in an arranged marriage, not knowing each other beforehand? Marriage for political gain or social gain? Family with or without children? Family created out of a shotgun wedding?Be specific.
Oh, and for adoption, I guess for you it is better that kids live in foster care and get dragged around from family to family and grow up in an orphanage than a loving homosexual home. Orphan and abandoned kids in foreign countries should just be happy that they made it to their 5th birthday with no hope of a 6th.
Promoting homosexuality in schools? Or is it really teaching kids to be tolerant of others and to learn to live in a diverse society respecting others who are different? Gee, I remember Jesus having a little problem with the divorced Samaritan woman. His apostles weren’t too tolerant of her for being a Samaritan. Had they known she was a divorcee (as they well might have) hell might have broken loose.
Yes, how fortunate for me that my partner is in another country and can’t come here because the immigration laws descriminate against gay couples. Oh, wait according to you they don’t. Oh, it must be a figure of my imagination that they have denied him a visa for two years in a row. I must be imagining me preparing to move there. I’m not oppressed! I’m not powerless. Thank you letting me in on that little secret Les.
Whether we have Hollywood, the press, the media, Santa Claus, and anything else on our side or not, the important thing is we have God on our side. Because God does not care if we or gay or straight. If he did, the entire Christian Tradition would have been devoted just to that issue alone.
Right now the Church is being tested to see if she truely loves her neighbor as herself. Thanks to Episcopalians, MCC, and a few other denominations she’s got a D-. But if it weren’t for those Churches, she would be a big fat “F.”
Les,
You actively campaign to deny rights to individuals. The reasons you give are based on stereotypes. You don’t care that they are stereotypes and despite evidence to the contrary you continue to believe them and to tell others that these are attributes of these people. You use these lies to try and hurt the lives and freedom of the people about whom you are lying.
You ask if this makes you a hatemonger.
I think the answer is very clear.
Les,
“The effort to redefine the family,”
Les, The family has never had a static structure or definition. It’s always been in flux. Look at just the past century. Family homes used to include Mom, Dad, Their kids, the grandkids, sometimes aunts and uncles, all under the same roof. That has changed as most people just have their immediate family.
I lived with an anthropology major. The reality is that “family” has always changed, it’s never been the same. There are single parent families, there are interracial families, there are blended families due to divorce and remarriage, there are families made of grandparents raising their grandchildren. Sometimes families are made up of a loose collection of friends who act as family in place of relatives that have either disappeared, disowned, or died. What is “family” from a social aspect rarely matches up to what we legally consider family.
“qualify for adoption, promote the homosexual lifestyle in the schools, etc., are objectives with which I disagree.”
I have a serious problem with a government that thinks no family is better than a gay family. It’s been shown that a kid raised in an institution tends to remain in institutions (mental hospital, prison) their whole life. Plus these adoption bans fly in the face of common sense. They pretty much suggest that the worst, alcoholic, drug-addicted, irresponsible, sexual and mentally abusing straight couple is still better than the nicest, most well-adjusted gay couple. Sorry, that’s just not true.
Plus a ban on co-adoption patently punishes the child for having the wrong parents. And that’s bull.
I’m sure you disagree, but what’s happening in the schools is not promotion. It’s simply pointing out reality. There are gay people, they exist, and there is nothing wrong with being gay.
“And I will oppose them when the issues are raised. Does that make me a hatemonger? I think not.” Depends on how you define it I suppose. You seek to keep law-abiding harmless American’s from enjoying the full spectrum of democracy because you don’t agree with who they love. As if that’s any of your business.
” How would you and your homosexual companions feel if I began lobbying for special, protected legal status?”
If you’re a Christian, you already have that status. And I have no problem with that.
“…Thus, we must be very careful before creating new “minorities” based on behavior or beliefs — as opposed to those who have been discriminated against historically based on their race.”
Religion is protected, and it’s based both on behavior and beliefs. Religion is not a race. People leave Christianity (as well as other religions) all the time. For all the talk of “homosexual recruitment” out there — we don’t go door to door, or send missionaries to underdeveloped nations. Nor do we have special schools built solely for indoctrination. If you wish religion (not genetic, by the way) to be protected, then you can’t squawk about gays being protected. If being gay is a choice (and the jury is still out on that one) it doesn’t matter, because so is religion –and both have as much potential for harm as they do for good.
I’m sure if I tried I could come up with some stats about the dangers of “the christian lifestyle”.
Jason,
not to quibble, but actually the jury has come back on this one and unanimously agreed that sexual orientation is not a choice.
Some – ex-gay proponants for example – claim that homosexuality is caused primarily by some event or environment. Others claim that homosexuality is the outcome of some genetic and/or other prenatal factors. The truth is that orientation is probably the result of both biological and other factors.
However, all agree that for the vast majority of gay people, same-sex attractions are not “chosen”.
Yes. Especially if you were as dishonest as the anti-gays and didn’t care whether or not they were true.
Les, you were asked to support your original claims of fact and instead you continued to make more unsubstantiated claims. No one is allowed to make sweeping claims as you have without reasonable proof. Since we can see you are no fan of special rights, I’m sure you will understand that this applies to everyone, and we can’t make an exception for you.
If you wish to post further, please either substantiate your original claims or recant them. If you do nothing, we can safely assume you do not have any proof. Either way, do not continue your discussion without addressing this.
Thank you.
Timothy,
Can you link me to anything you’ve got handy about the “its not a choice” stuff. I’ve only ever found some tagental stuff about eyeblink rates and stuff like that.
my favorite rebuttal to the whole “the gay lifestyle is so dangerous!” goes something like this.
The Christian lifestyle is definitely hazardous to your health. During the Roman Empire, Christian behavior dramatically increased the chances of being eaten by a lion!
Les, do you have an original thought? Your entire post was plagiarized from James Dobson’s Straight Answers. Your opening rant about hatemongering is from page 522. You then omit a couple of paragraphs before the rant beginning with “How would you and your homosexual companions feel …” and ending with the rant against Hollywood, which is from pages 522 through 523.
Les, you should be aware that James Dobson is not a reliable source of information.
Does it jump out at anyone else how dishonest the anti-gay crowd is? They come off as if they hold the moral high ground, yet they are terrible liars who are consistently unable to defend what they say. No wonder young people are fleeing from evangelical Christianity.
So I’m at times a lazy plagiarist. I’m not looking to win a literary award. Dr. Dobson by the way, is a reknowned psycologist who has assisted thousands of families and individuals with every issue under the sun. Alright…in my own words…
David… regarding my claims…talk to NARTH….not that stats from anywhere matter because its certainly easier to support claims that justify ones own existance. Lets face it… somebody somewhere has got something to say.
Moderator Edit: You’ve been asked to substantiated claims of fact. “talk to NARTH” is not substantiation. Please do not comment further until you have either recanted these statements or properly supported them. Further, please do not post large chunks of text from other sites as though they were your own words. If you need to refer to other’s work, link to it.
Just because Dobson is famous (renowned) does not mean he is good. Case in point is that according to Christian polling organizations (Barna, for example), evangelicals have as high, if not higher, divorce rates than non-evangelicals. In other words, the people most likely to listen to Dobson are the one’s with the highest divorce rates. Meanwhile, the lowest divorce rates is in the “liberal” state of Massachusetts, you know, the same one that has same-sex marriage. Sounds to me like people will be much better off not listening to Dobson’s “help.”
I also challenge you to use actual academic, peer-reviewed information to support your argument on children. From all the sociology and anthropology I’ve read, being raised in a same-sex household does not damage the child at all. The only “evidence” I’ve seen Dobson’s crowd use are studies that say a child does better in a two-parent home than a one-parent home.
Very well said.
There was also a well-known historical figure who radically “redefined” the family, encouraging people to leave behind spouses, children, mothers and fathers and acknowledge a new set of brothers and sisters – although admittedly his present-day followers tend to de-emphasize that aspect of his teaching!
Les,
Sorry, you’ll have to do better than that. The whole point of this site is to look critically at the kinds of information you’ve offered up. Chances are, what you believe to be “facts” have already been torn apart not only by this website, but by actual scientists in the field.
For example, the study commonly used to suggest or state that we have lowered lifespans was one by Paul Cameron in which he surveyed obituaries from gay newspapers. Obituaries are worthless as scientific data, and even less so from niche media, as they will only include those aware of the media, those motivated to post an obituary, and those with the money to do so. People not included in that survey would have been closeted, did not read said newspaper, or had family members who didn’t want to post an obituary in a gay newspaper, didn’t have the money to do so, or didn’t know they could. It was also done during the AIDS crisis, things have changed significantly since then, just ask Magic Johnson.
Exactly. The only scientific data you can get from obituaries is that: out of 100 obituaries, 100 of the ones named in the obituary who it is said have passed away are clinically dead with a 0.002% margin for error.
“reknowned” to who? that is an opinion statement.
It’s boilerplate, as has been pointed out — cut and paste out of a letter Dobson himself claims to have written in a Q&A . July 1993. Still online today…
http://family.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/family.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1225&p_created=1044996780
Apart from that, Dobson was as wrong then as he is today. And as deliberately deceptive.
(eg: the “$55,000 vs $32,000” nonsense compares a survey done by the Wall Street Journal about their readership to the average wage. Gay readers of the WSJ — like all readers of the WSJ — report higher salaries than the general population. Yeah, wow.)
thank you grant, do you have a link to the WSJ readership survey? I like to have my ammo ready when I get ridiculous “evidence” thrown at me.
I’m knot going too be a grammar chequer but I couldn’t not let BARE FALSE WITNESS go uncommented. I suppose Baring False Witness is what happens when you finally meet your myspace date and you are not exactly what you say you are when you get naked?
I have problems with bare –vs- bear too. Maybe we need a new word: bere. It’s like wet –vs- whet. Or: peaked –vs- piqued.
Love ya! Alan S. Really I do.
So Les, let’s go through Dobson’s lies (the one’s you presented as your own) one by one to demonstrate why he and you are indeed hatemongers.
Same-sex families have existed throughout known history (just ask anthropologists). Nothing is being redefined.
You already have it. Christians are protected in hate crime legislation, etc based on their chosen lifestyle.
Given a job because of it? Who is arguing for that? The argument is that we should not be fired solely because of our orientation. No one is demanding jobs simply because we are gay. Furthermore, Christians can notbe fired solely because of their religion. So they are already protected. (Dobson’s original quote was about Christians, not “you” in particular.
Actually, as Dobson knows, gays did not fight against it tooth and nail.
And homosexuals haven’t been discriminated against historically? Any superficial survey of homosexuals in history will demonstrate homosexuals have been discriminated against, tortured, imprisoned, killed, etc.
Others have already demonstrated why this is false. It is simply impossible to get a representative sample, given that so many are in the closet.
Ditto
The original document had Dobson talking about his own heart attack. HIV is an infectious disease that is a severe problem in several countries around the world.
And yet, when I look at movies I rarely see a fair or accurate representation of homosexuals. It took me decades before I saw a non-flamboyent or non-“sissy” homosexual man portrayed, particularly one that wasn’t murdered at the end. Assuming 10% of the population is not heterosexual (based on a CDC report of over 100,000 Americans), if we have Hollywood, the media, etc on our side, why is it that basically 100% of love songs are heterosexual, 99.9% of hand-holding I’ve seen by tv couples are heterosexual, 99.9% of kisses I’ve seen on tv are between heterosexuals, etc.
Les, let’s face it. You’ve bought into a lie. And, as a Christian, it is apparently my duty to love you by telling you that you need to repent of your bearing false witness against a group of people. You are breaking one of the 10 Commandments and you will go to Hell for your unrepetent behavior. (Don’t you just love Christian love!).
Yeah, where am I in this poll? Considering how, as a working [gay] artist, I’m trying to claw my way up above the poverty line, I doubt i would fit in the “gay affluence” stereotype.
Oh, hmmm… i don’t buy the WSJ… or cable TV, for that matter. Um, I can’t afford it. Because I’m not wealthy.
FYI, Les is being moderated and has posted another large, mass cut and paste which is being held back. We are serious about providing support for claims of fact. Large sections of text should be linked to from the comment, not pasted in. When and if Les provides support for previous claims or withdraws them, he/she can resume posting.
Jason – no, sorry: we’ve never seen the survey itself online. It was used for marketing purposes — ie to help sell adverts to a niche market — so it’s unsurprisingly never been for public release.
(I understand “Ebony” ? magazine got a similar result when they surveyed their readership many years ago. ie the average income of their readership was well above the average income for black Americans. The conclusion: people who read journals are generally better educated, and earn more, than the overall population. Stunning conclusion, hey!)
We first encountered the distorted claim in early/mid-90’s. (eg, here is the infamous screed by Marco from 1995 — look down to ref#17). Sometimes the figures are varied a bit etc by those making the claim, but they’re generally easy to spot.
(It’s like identifying repeats of Cameron’s “dead at 42” — too easy!).
Lee Baggett has an online pub at IGLSS. Or a summary testimony here etc.
(see also Badgett, M. V. Lee. “The Wage Effects of Sexual Orientation Discrimination.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review (July 1995), 726-39.)
Grantdale, thanks. I’m a big fan of mythbusters and the urban legend debunking site snopes.com.
I’ve noticed so many parallels between the way urban legends work and the research of anti-gay advocates. It’s parodies/satires/other words taken out of context, real pictures/data merged with false/misleading descriptions, someone’s opinion repeated to the point it becomes accepted as if it were truth, and just plain outright lies.
I’ve also noticed people defend both urban legends and anti-gay propaganda with the same gusto. I don’t know how many times I’ve had to explain to people that not only do you not swallow 7 spiders (on average) in your sleep, that it would be pretty difficult to verify such a claim (not that anyone has ever done any research on this).
Yeah, Emily K… but surely you MUST be part of that OTHER stereotype? 🙂
(Perhaps you are an intersection of two stereotypes: the “staving lesbian artist” one cancelling out the “7 Jews in black coats control the World” one! What a dilemma.)
hey cowboy thanks for catching the grammatical spelling error. personally i hate english spelling but that’s a whole matter unto itself.
Nick, good responses. It always amazes me how “the other side” can quote someone like Dobson or the like and yet never be able to quote Christ in their arguments (if, in fact, they are Christian).
I’m almost thinking Les was a “plant” foisted by the editors of XGW…to stimulate activity and viewing advertisements. Oh..wait…there are no advertisements here. Scratch that idea. But was Les real? He/she certainly was a catalyst to demonstrate some valuable lessons here.