CBS Rejects Gay add.

RickWhite

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
CBS rejected a super bowl add from a gay dating site.

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


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

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


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


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

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

What does this say about the true gay agenda?
 
fitch303

fitch303

Well-Known Member
It's simple, the large majority of the population is NOT gay. Why alienate your costumer base?
Nobody has the right to demand a private company air anything without stepping on the rights of the company.
 
fitch303

fitch303

Well-Known Member
I'm not saying I would be offended, but we can all agree there is a large portion of the populace that might be.
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
it seems gays want EVERYBODY to be gay. it's like they think we need to just let go and we will all find our true gayness. pretty gay, if you ask me.

now i will be called a homophobe by the gays telling me to just be gay. lol
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
and the blacks want everyone to be black and the christians want everyone to be christian - me, I want everyone to be a pothead
 
R

redivider

Well-Known Member
this ain't politics. access Hollywood is is doing a bit on this...

anyways, the commercial isn't appropriate for a superbowl audience. two men kissing should be reserved for after 11pm....

[youtube]EjuXbYW6KmE[/youtube]

2007 - snicker's ad.


see, this is a double-standard that is just unfair. just sayin'......
 
Osoheil

Osoheil

Member
How is it shoving anything down anyone's throat? There are gay men that kiss, if they show it or not. You could even potentially see gay men kissing while walking down the street or something. Surely if it is ok for a man and woman to kiss on TV it should be alright for two men or two women.

Don't you think it is rather sensationalist to equate a kiss to "spontaneous gay sex?" I would say it is blowing it out of proportion, but it is actually just a total misnomer. A kiss is not sex in any way.


What is it with you and agendas man. Not everything is an agenda. The company wanted some air time for their ad. CBS rejected it. CBS, if anyone, had the agenda here.


I feel a blow against our country every time this kind of discrimination happens. It feels like we still have so long to go.

I think CBS has the right to air whatever they want though, discriminatory or not.



Have you ever wondered what it is like to be in a minority, and constantly be bombarded by stereotypes and the rest of the imagery that people like you and me don't even think about every day?
 
RickWhite

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
Osoheil said:
How is it shoving anything down anyone's throat? There are gay men that kiss, if they show it or not. You could even potentially see gay men kissing while walking down the street or something. Surely if it is ok for a man and woman to kiss on TV it should be alright for two men or two women.

Don't you think it is rather sensationalist to equate a kiss to "spontaneous gay sex?" I would say it is blowing it out of proportion, but it is actually just a total misnomer. A kiss is not sex in any way.


What is it with you and agendas man. Not everything is an agenda. The company wanted some air time for their ad. CBS rejected it. CBS, if anyone, had the agenda here.


I feel a blow against our country every time this kind of discrimination happens. It feels like we still have so long to go.

I think CBS has the right to air whatever they want though, discriminatory or not.



Have you ever wondered what it is like to be in a minority, and constantly be bombarded by stereotypes and the rest of the imagery that people like you and me don't even think about every day?
Click to expand...
Well, since children watch the super bowl and since you know this, I must assume that you think that people have no right at all to protect their children from certain images.

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

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

jeff f

New Member
Osoheil said:
I think CBS has the right to air whatever they want though, discriminatory or not.


?
Click to expand...
no, clearly you dont. thats why your panties are in a wad.

if i am a share holder in cbs and you deliberately do this kind of damage to my company, heads are gonna roll. plain and simple.

correct me if i am wrong, it was your side, the left, that tried to get the tebows cancelled. your side wants what your side wants period.
 
R

redivider

Well-Known Member
jeff f said:
no, clearly you dont. thats why your panties are in a wad.

if i am a share holder in cbs and you deliberately do this kind of damage to my company, heads are gonna roll. plain and simple.

correct me if i am wrong, it was your side, the left, that tried to get the tebows cancelled. your side wants what your side wants period.
Click to expand...
'the left' didn't try and do anything.

it was gays, and primarily this GAY DATING COMPANY, that wanted the ad cancelled.

corrected cuz you were wrong. :blsmoke::blsmoke:
 
mexiblunt

mexiblunt

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

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

From what you are saying, you clearly would like for all of society to see homosexuality as being as normal and acceptable as heterosexuality. And of course in your mind people have no right to a contrary opinion because that is just a form of bigotry.
Click to expand...
My husband and I have 2 kids that watched the game with us, It's something they see everyday here at home and would not think anything of it.

I'm not really gay and don't have kids but If I did that's what I would say. I don't know if my kids would be gay but if they were like dad and dad it would probably be a good thing that they know there is a dating site for them.
 
jeff f

jeff f

New Member
redivider said:
'the left' didn't try and do anything.

it was gays, and primarily this GAY DATING COMPANY, that wanted the ad cancelled.

corrected cuz you were wrong. :blsmoke::blsmoke:
Click to expand...
aaahhhhh wrong.

NEW YORK (AP)
A national coalition of women's groups called on CBS on Monday to scrap its plan to broadcast an ad during the Super Bowl featuring college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, which critics say is likely to convey an anti-abortion message.
"An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year -- an event designed to bring Americans together," said Jemhu Greene, president of the New York-based Women's Media Center.

The center was coordinating the protest with backing from the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority and other groups.

CBS said it has approved the script for the 30-second ad and has given no indication that the protest would have an impact. A network spokesman, Dana McClintock, said CBS would ensure that any issue-oriented ad was "appropriate for air."

The ad -- paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family -- is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987 with a theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim, who went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy while helping his Florida team to two BCS championships.

The controversy over the ad was raised Sunday when Tebow met with reporters in Mobile, Ala., before beginning preparations for next weekend's Senior Bowl.

"I know some people won't agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe," Tebow said. "I've always been very convicted of it (his views on abortion) because that's the reason I'm here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it."
Thirty-second commercials during the Super Bowl are selling for $2.5 million to $2.8 million. Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, said funds for the Tebow ad were donated by a few "very generous friends" and did not come from the group's general fund.

Schneeberger said he and his colleagues "were a little surprised" at the furor over the ad.

"There's nothing political and controversial about it," he said. "When the day arrives, and you sit down to watch the game on TV, those who oppose it will be quite surprised at what the ad is all about."

The protest letter from the Women's Media Center suggested that CBS should have turned down the ad in part because it was conceived by Focus on the Family.

"By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," the letter said.

However, Schneeberger said CBS officials carefully examined Focus on the Family's track record and found no basis for rejecting the ad.

"We understand that some people don't think very highly of what we do," Schneeberger said. "We're not trying to sell you a soft drink -- we're not selling anything. We're trying to celebrate families."

The idea for the ad came from an employee in Focus on the Family's film department, Schneeberger said, and the Tebows "were thrilled" when it was proposed to them. The Tebows, including Tim, have been outspoken in discussing their Christian faith and their missionary work.

All the national networks, including CBS, have policies that rule out the broadcast of certain types of contentious advocacy ads. In 2004, CBS cited such a policy in rejecting an ad by the liberal-leaning United Church of Christ highlighting the UCC's welcoming stance toward gays and others who might feel shunned by more conservative churches.

CBS was criticized for rejecting that ad -- and perhaps might have worried about comparable criticism from conservatives if it had rejected an ad featuring such a charismatic and well-known figure as Tebow.

CBS noted that it had run some advocacy ads in recent months, including spots taking conflicting sides in the debate of a national health care overhaul.

Terry O'Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women, said she had respect for the private choices made by women such as Pam Tebow but condemned the planned ad as "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning."

"That's not being respectful of other people's lives," O'Neill said. "It is offensive to hold one way out as being a superior way over everybody else's."

A national columnist for CBSSports.com, Gregg Doyel, also objected to the CBS decision to show the ad, specifically because it would air on Super Sunday.

"If you're a sports fan, and I am, that's the holiest day of the year," he wrote. "It's not a day to discuss abortion. For it, against it, I don't care what you are. On Super Sunday, I don't care what I am. Feb. 7 is simply not the day to have that discussion."


dont worry, i already accepted your apology :blsmoke:
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
The bottom line is: at least for now, those who would be offended by it have sufficient numbers to impose our will on the rest of you.
 
RickWhite

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
Illegal Smile said:
The bottom line is: at least for now, those who would be offended by it have sufficient numbers to impose our will on the rest of you.
Click to expand...
Or, at least for now, those who promote it have insufficient numbers to impose their will on the rest of us.
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
RickWhite said:
Or, at least for now, those who promote it have insufficient numbers to impose their will on the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Exactly wrong, Illegal had it right, and that's why you see every strive towards equality in the gay and lesbian community as an attempt to "impose their will on the rest of us".
 
Osoheil

Osoheil

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

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

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

I agree that parents have the right to "protect", as you say, their children from images. And I don't think that kids should have to see this type of thing if their parents don't want them to. My opinion is there is nothing wrong or harmful about this kind of imagery, but I think each parent should decide on their own. So we fully agree there.


Yes, I do believe that cutting your child off from homosexual culture and imagery would do more harm than good. Homosexuals have been a part of human civilizations for thousands of years, just as they are still part of it and they are still our kin and blood, to me just as much as my own family just as any human is to me a family member.



I don't really care that much what all of our culture believes is right or wrong. I simply hoped to convey an idea themed opposite of yours, made up mostly of my own opinions, in a hope to dissuade you of the thought that a homosexual kiss on TV is "Bad".

It is physically painful to me when I see the discrimination that still exists in our culture.


I rarely see people as how they differ from me, instead I see the similarities that we all have. In that sense, it is generally hard for me to be judgmental of anyone, even someone like you who I feel is my near polar opposite. I simply wish we could find common ground and not draw lines, though I suppose arguing with you over some points draws the ultimate line.




And those that call me a liberal, why? Just because I disagree?. I voted republican in my state and in the presidential election, I hold no party affiliation. I agree with many conservative and republican views.
 
Osoheil

Osoheil

Member
jeff f said:
no, clearly you dont. thats why your panties are in a wad.

if i am a share holder in cbs and you deliberately do this kind of damage to my company, heads are gonna roll. plain and simple.

correct me if i am wrong, it was your side, the left, that tried to get the tebows cancelled. your side wants what your side wants period.
Click to expand...

Although I disagree with their motives, I think a company should be able to do what they want with their airtime and station. Their money their business.

I don't think that is very complicated.


And what are you talking about, "my side"? Dissent = leftist? Such a polar view of the world if so.


I refuse to take sides and will only speak my mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top