I'm afraid the organisation responsible for the advert has a case. The advert was cleared by the ASA and LT and should have been allowed as this is the law pertaining to advertisements. Boris has abused his powers and will need to apologise. It doesn't matter if the claims of curing are incorrect, it only matters that the adverts were accepted by the ASA and LT.
You'd have a point if they'd been banned. They haven't- they're just not going on the buses anymore.
It promotes "Post-gay, ex-gay and proud" as a state of being which is equal (if not superior) to the "Gay and proud" stated in the identically-designed Stonewall ad it so shamelessly plagiarises.
Seeing as there's no credible scientific evidence that homosexuality can be 'cured' by therapy, the ad stigmatises homosexuality as a shameful state of being which needs to be repressed. This is unacceptable.
Imagine if a bunch of charlatan faith healers advertised "Not disabled. Post-invalid, ex-crippled and proud!" as a state which people with permanent disabilities can achieve.
I think a better analogy might be "post black and proud". Although I think people who claim to be ex-gay deserve more sympathy than anything, I do think their very existence is seen as a threat and insult by gays and liberals.
I see no reason why "ex-gays" shouldn't be proud of who they are.
No, what Wallster wrote is that he would prefer to be gay given the choice. Not that being straight or gay is equally good (or bad) but that being gay was preferable.
If the same had been said about being straight then a dozen or so gay posters would have jumped in and labelled the person a homophobe.
A persons sexuality IS preferable to them, because it's already their preference. This isn't complex. The person wasn't commenting on their choice being objectively better or better for anyone else as you're stating here. You don't need to make things up.
I've heard countless straight and gay people answer this "what if" and no-one ever jumps down anyone's throat about it. We don't need to project onto people what they are offended about, especially when they're not. For a person to say that they prefer their sexual preference and that would be their choice given one, is very obviously something that is not going to offend the majority of people , gay or straight. We don't need to create these imaginary conflicts.
If someone said given a choice they'd rather be straight than gay, would you have given them the same interrogation you gave here? Maybe you need to think about your own perspective as the great irony is that you appear to be the only person here annoyed that someone would choose the sexual preference they already have. People are attracted to who they're attracted to. Given a blank slate and a choice, they would clearly mostly make the same choice because they are speaking from their own experience.
I wouldn't call it plagiarism, but obviously it's mimicking the earlier campaign for effect.
I don't believe the bit in bold has been proven in the slightest, you are making the mistake of adding this in because you know some of the aims of the people behind this ad. What you fail to do is show how the ad itself does what you says it does.
The ad itself promotes a state of being (post-gay/ex-gay) which cannot be achieved using the 'services' offered by the organisation named at the bottom of the ad. While I have no problem with churches and religious groups making untestable claims about the afterlife, I do very much object to the promotion of a perfectly testable 'conversion' which has never been proven to work.
All this group has to do is produce one person who says that they believed they were gay and now believe they are not gay to prove their point, I have a feeling they'll be able to point to some who have gone through their "programme", so I don't think your point will stack up, but perhaps this will come out in the court case and we will know for sure.
As for your last paragraph, I guess you've never heard of Lourdes or the many cures and miracles claimed by the Church. There are plenty of people who believe that faith has cured them of illness and disability.
Confirmation bias tends to kick-in when anyone feels the slightest improvement after a visit to Lourdes. There is no credible evidence that Lourdes itself has ever miraculously cured anyone.
A lot of people believe in psychics, mediums, astrologers, homeopathic medicine and all sorts of rubbish. That doesn't alter the fact that none of the above has been proven. Ever.
Anecdotal evidence is of no value. The only proof I would accept of the 'cure' for homosexuality working would be a series of peer-reviewed and replicable lab experiments on how test subjects react to sexual stimuli before and after the 'cure'.
I'm talking about measurable reversal, rather than conditioned aversion. Making people repress their natural preference wouldn't be a 'cure' at all.
I think a better analogy might be "post black and proud". Although I think people who claim to be ex-gay deserve more sympathy than anything, I do think their very existence is seen as a threat and insult by gays and liberals.
I see no reason why "ex-gays" shouldn't be proud of who they are.
Not as a threat and an insult but a tragedy, they have fallen for the lie that sexuality can be changed, that they are evil and all the usual homophobic lies!
ex-gay is a lie as many are gay but they go about having sex in secret instead of accepting themselves
Not as a threat and an insult but a tragedy, they have fallen for the lie that sexuality can be changed, that they are evil and all the usual homophobic lies!
ex-gay is a lie as many are gay but they go about having sex in secret instead of accepting themselves
Not all of them, for some just not having sex and staying away from temptations is enough to be considered ex.
The idea is that you can be homosexual, but you aren't a practicing gay.
I agree that the basis is that being gay is wrong in the first place, is crap.
Not all of them, for some just not having sex and staying away from temptations is enough to be considered ex.
The idea is that you can be homosexual, but you aren't a practicing gay.
I agree that the basis is that being gay is wrong in the first place, is crap.
Repression isn't a cure. Unless this wonderful 'treatment' can somehow transform a homosexual into a heterosexual, we're just talking about stigmatising practicing homosexuals.
Repression isn't a cure. Unless this wonderful 'treatment' can somehow transform a homosexual into a heterosexual, we're just talking about stigmatising practicing homosexuals.
They didn't claim it was a cure on the poster?
There was no claim that they had turned them in to a heterosexual either.
I think that the clam that it's stigmatising homosexuals is debatable. No more so than weight watchers stigmatises fat people.
Personally, I think it's ridiculous that advertising space on buses is used to push political/social agendas. If I catch a bus I want to get where I 'm going; I don't want to be 'educated' about the rights and wrongs of homosexuality.
Bring back the days of Oxo or Johnny Walker adverts on buses. Or better still, no adverts whatsoever.
Not all of them, for some just not having sex and staying away from temptations is enough to be considered ex.
The idea is that you can be homosexual, but you aren't a practicing gay.
I agree that the basis is that being gay is wrong in the first place, is crap.
A person is gay based on their sexual attraction. Not engaging in sexual activity doesn't make a person ex-gay. You say that the idea that being gay is wrong is crap, but that's clearly the motivation and belief behind people depriving themselves of interactions with those they are actually attracted to. We're going around in circles and not very logical ones.
A person is gay based on their sexual attraction. Not engaging in sexual activity doesn't make a person ex-gay. You say that the idea that being gay is wrong is crap, but that's clearly the motivation and belief behind people depriving themselves of interactions with those they are actually attracted to. We're going around in circles and not very logical ones.
I read this on the Core Issues site... it made me smile...
"non-gay homosexual
:
many people think homosexual and gay are synonymous, but to be homsexual doesn't mean that a person is gay.
The non-gay homosexual, often found in churches (although they are not necessarily limited to churches) have same-sex attractions and feelings, and they may even engage in same-sex behavior, but they do not identify with the gay sociopolitical identity. Some may see themselves as having heterosexual values and want to live a heterosexual life; others are reconciled to their homosexual tendencies and do not seek to be heterosexual."
Well, being overweight is a massive health risk, so reducing body fat to a 'normal' level is desirable.
How can terms like ex-gay and post-gay not be stigmatic? They explicitly portray sexuality as a moral choice, rather than a biological fact.
ok yeah.
but it is a choice to be practicing gay, gay is a lifestyle associated with homosexuality in their eyes.
It might vaguely suggest that there's something wrong with the gay lifestyle more than straight, but only for some. Celibate and proud is more PC but it's specificly for gay attractions and has methods of avoidance geared around that.
but it is a choice to be practicing gay, gay is a lifestyle associated with homosexuality in their eyes.
It might vaguely suggest that there's something wrong with the gay lifestyle more than straight, but only for some. Celibate and proud is more PC but it's specificly for gay attractions and has methods of avoidance geared around that.
The implication is that being gay is so wrong that you should avoid gay activities, temptation etc. Do you not think it's quite a significant undertaking for a person to dedicate to time to something that is only "vaguely" wrong?
From your post it seems to me that you're probably trying to rationalise all of this to yourself, rather than anyone else. If you are personally going over these issues in your own life I would suggest going to a therapist rather than a church. And you'll be searching for a long time before a therapist tells you that you can magic away your attractions or that it's possible to do so. Your comments in this thread have been really damaging. I'm sure it's not your intent but that's the reality of it.
The implication is that being gay is so wrong that you should avoid gay activities, temptation etc. Do you not think it's quite a significant undertaking for a person to dedicate to time to something that is only "vaguely" wrong?
From your post it seems to me that you're probably trying to rationalise all of this to yourself, rather than anyone else. If you are personally going over these issues in your own life I would suggest going to a therapist rather than a church. And you'll be searching for a long time before a therapist tells you that you can magic away your attractions or that it's possible to do so. Your comments in this thread have been really damaging. I'm sure it's not your intent but that's the reality of it.
No it's really not my intent I promise you. Who are they damaging to and what did I say?
I was only playing devils advocate and pointing out that things people are saying, aren't quite right. If we are going to damn these people, at least do it for what they are claiming accurately. They don't claim to cure attractions, just avoid.
No it's really not my intent I promise you. Who are they damaging to and what did I say?
I was only playing devils advocate and pointing out that things people are saying, aren't quite right. If we are going to damn these people, at least do it for what they are claiming accurately. They don't claim to cure attractions, just avoid.
You've said a lot in this thread to basically demonise and scrutinise homosexuality. Nothing about people who might have the same problems with their heterosexual preference, funny that. All of this talk of "cures" and comparison to people trying to rid themselves of disease.
You've claimed to speak for those wishing to change their sexuality from gay to straight, but have acknowledged that the primary reason they'd want to do this is because of how society views their sexuality. As stated, in that case, be the positive change. Help people feel comfortable with who they are, don't paint those wanting to do so as "liberals" trying to "brainwash" and those propagating these faux therapies as something to be looked up to.
There are million of gay people who struggle with acceptance, with family, and all you do is harp on about how it's sad that they can't change. You think you're helping, when really your words damage this whole group of people. If you have your own struggles in this area, see a shrink it might help, but don't talk about gay people like they're second class citizens or people who should seek to change because they don't fit in with the ideals of society.
No it's really not my intent I promise you. Who are they damaging to and what did I say?
I was only playing devils advocate and pointing out that things people are saying, aren't quite right. If we are going to damn these people, at least do it for what they are claiming accurately. They don't claim to cure attractions, just avoid.
Although you have to look-up their own bizarre definition of "ex-gay homosexual" for the ad to make any sense. The overwhelming majority of people who would see that ad would take "ex-gay" to mean "no longer homosexual".
You've said a lot in this thread to basically demonise and scrutinise homosexuality. Nothing about people who might have the same problems with heterosexaul, funny that. All of this talk of "cures" and comparison to people trying to rid themselves of disease.
You've claimed to speak for those wishing to change their sexuality from gay to straight, but have acknowledged that the primary reason they'd want to do this is because of how society views their sexuality. As stated, in that case, be the positive change. Help people feel comfortable with who they are, don't paint those wanting to do so as "liberals" trying to "brainwash" and those propagating these faux therapies as something to be looked up to.
There are million of gay people who struggle with acceptance, with family, and all you do is harp on about how it's sad that they can't change. I like how you think you're helping, when really your words damage this whole group of people. If you have your own struggles in this area, see a shrink it might help, but don't talk about gay people like they're second class citizens.
I'm not trying to excuse anything I have said but I don't think I said all of that. I will summerise my thoughts in case I have been vague, at the risk of harping on...
They aren't second class citizens...
I am not demonising homosexuality for one thing, I think it's a part of human variety. I just said that it might not be for everyone and has a lot more difficulties than heterosexuality in terms of how it works.
I have mentioned that heterosexuals could want to change too, but this thread isn't about that.
I do though, think it's sad they can't change sexualities if it brings them pain. Not only because of other people, but needs and desires for their own lives that they want ie, a nuclear family.
In a perfect world it wouldn't matter and they shouldn't want to, but they clearly do.
I have never said people with faux therapies are anything other than scumbags, whatever their intentions are. I don't think if they actually had a solution they would be in the wrong and there should be an option medically available for people who don't like their sexuality or feel it's right for them.
So sorry but that's how I see it. I'm not out to upset anyone.
So sorry but that's how I see it. I'm not out to upset anyone.
Well, it's a forum, you can say and believe what you like. I just hope no gay people struggling with acceptance read this, because they'll likely leave the thread in a much worse place than they entered it. The centering in on and pulling apart of peoples homosexuality is exactly why people seek out these therapies. It's the burdening of people with this negativity and shame, then blaming it on their sexual orientation, and telling them that they might want to change it.
Be sad that people can't change their sexuality if you like, but do something useful with that knowledge. If something can't be changed don't make post after post about how sad it is that they can't be "cured", instead try to increase acceptance by offering a positive message and also by acknowledging that who people attracted to is basically quite meaningless. That's the cure for people in vulnerable states of mind. And it's something you can do right now. It's real, not hocus pocus or something you have to wish existed.
I think it's quite funny that people are crying 'but this is censorship' as if that is such a bad thing - we censor things all the time. I can't screen SAW III in a primary school, or release footage of a sexual assault for entertainment value. Censorship if fine where it prevents a harm, it's only dangerous if we're censoring something because we disagree with it.
I do disagree with these Bus ads, but that' not why I would ban them. I agree, you have every right to believe homosexuality can be cured if you want. You also have every right to personally believe that anorexicia is a good thing and no one ever starved to death. But you can't put a pro anorexia ad on the side of a bus, particulary if you include the claim 'anorexia never killed anyone' simply because you personally believe it.
The bus ad presents a 'cure' for homosexuality as fact, in spite of overwheling scientific evidence to the contrary. They also present homosexuality as a disease with no discussion, explaination or evidence. That's as dangerous a message for impressionable teenagers as the proanorexia ad.
If the ad had said 'some people are straight! get over it!' it would have been a different matter.
Well, it's a forum, you can say and believe what you like. I just hope no gay people struggling with acceptance read this, because they'll likely leave the thread in a much worse place than they entered it. The centering in on and pulling apart of peoples homosexuality is exactly why people seek out these therapies. It's the burdening of people with this negativity and shame, then blaming it on their sexual orientation, and telling them that they might want to change it.
Be sad that people can't change their sexuality if you like, but do something useful with that knowledge. If something can't be changed don't make post after post about how sad it is that they can't be "cured", instead try to increase acceptance by acknowledging that who people attracted to is basically quite meaningless. That's the cure for people in vulnerable states of mind. And it's something you can do right now. It's real, not hocus pocus or something you have to wish existed.
Well then you can at least acknowledge that there can be legitimate reasons for them to be sad about it instead of dismissing them out of hand. I'm not going to mollycoddle people and pretend it's wonderful and easy to be gay and they don't have a right not to want to be.
Well then you can at least acknowledge that there can be legitimate reasons for them to be sad about it instead of dismissing them out of hand. I'm not going to mollycoddle people and pretend it's wonderful and easy to be gay and they don't have a right not to want to be.
I don't recall ever saying that there are no reasons for gay people to feel unhappy. I'm just informing you that outside of what society thinks there is no good or bad sexuality. There is nothing to be cured. People feel bad because of the way they are made to feel. If we want to cure people of feeling unhappy in their own skin, we might seek to not make them feel that way.
Maybe some people are sad to be a particular race. Do we seek to change their race, or instead try to strengthen them against the influences that made them feel that way?
Well then you can at least acknowledge that there can be legitimate reasons for them to be sad about it instead of dismissing them out of hand. I'm not going to mollycoddle people and pretend it's wonderful and easy to be gay and they don't have a right not to want to be.
I think it's stupid to wish to change your sexuality and I have had too much hatred against me over sexuality
I don't recall ever saying that there are no reasons for gay people to feel unhappy. I'm just informing you that outside of what society thinks there is no good or bad sexuality. There is nothing to be cured. People feel bad because of the way they are made to feel. If we want to cure people of feeling unhappy in their own skin, we might seek to not make them feel that way.
Maybe some people are sad to be a particular race. Do we seek to change their race, or instead try to strengthen them against the influences that made them feel that way?
It's bad if it's not what you want though... and there are reasons they feel like that which can't be blamed on other people, hence they can't be fixed by other people.
ie, they want natural kids.
People do change the colour of their skin and act like other races. They don't usually get the disdain people who seek to be ex-gay do.
Comments
You'd have a point if they'd been banned. They haven't- they're just not going on the buses anymore.
They have been banned. The adverts are not allowed to appear on any adboard. Boris has overstepped the mark.
I think a better analogy might be "post black and proud". Although I think people who claim to be ex-gay deserve more sympathy than anything, I do think their very existence is seen as a threat and insult by gays and liberals.
I see no reason why "ex-gays" shouldn't be proud of who they are.
A persons sexuality IS preferable to them, because it's already their preference. This isn't complex. The person wasn't commenting on their choice being objectively better or better for anyone else as you're stating here. You don't need to make things up.
I've heard countless straight and gay people answer this "what if" and no-one ever jumps down anyone's throat about it. We don't need to project onto people what they are offended about, especially when they're not. For a person to say that they prefer their sexual preference and that would be their choice given one, is very obviously something that is not going to offend the majority of people , gay or straight. We don't need to create these imaginary conflicts.
If someone said given a choice they'd rather be straight than gay, would you have given them the same interrogation you gave here? Maybe you need to think about your own perspective as the great irony is that you appear to be the only person here annoyed that someone would choose the sexual preference they already have. People are attracted to who they're attracted to. Given a blank slate and a choice, they would clearly mostly make the same choice because they are speaking from their own experience.
Confirmation bias tends to kick-in when anyone feels the slightest improvement after a visit to Lourdes. There is no credible evidence that Lourdes itself has ever miraculously cured anyone.
A lot of people believe in psychics, mediums, astrologers, homeopathic medicine and all sorts of rubbish. That doesn't alter the fact that none of the above has been proven. Ever.
Anecdotal evidence is of no value. The only proof I would accept of the 'cure' for homosexuality working would be a series of peer-reviewed and replicable lab experiments on how test subjects react to sexual stimuli before and after the 'cure'.
I'm talking about measurable reversal, rather than conditioned aversion. Making people repress their natural preference wouldn't be a 'cure' at all.
Not as a threat and an insult but a tragedy, they have fallen for the lie that sexuality can be changed, that they are evil and all the usual homophobic lies!
ex-gay is a lie as many are gay but they go about having sex in secret instead of accepting themselves
Not all of them, for some just not having sex and staying away from temptations is enough to be considered ex.
The idea is that you can be homosexual, but you aren't a practicing gay.
I agree that the basis is that being gay is wrong in the first place, is crap.
They didn't claim it was a cure on the poster?
There was no claim that they had turned them in to a heterosexual either.
I think that the clam that it's stigmatising homosexuals is debatable. No more so than weight watchers stigmatises fat people.
Bring back the days of Oxo or Johnny Walker adverts on buses. Or better still, no adverts whatsoever.
A person is gay based on their sexual attraction. Not engaging in sexual activity doesn't make a person ex-gay. You say that the idea that being gay is wrong is crap, but that's clearly the motivation and belief behind people depriving themselves of interactions with those they are actually attracted to. We're going around in circles and not very logical ones.
How can terms like ex-gay and post-gay not be stigmatic? They explicitly portray sexuality as a moral choice, rather than a biological fact.
I read this on the Core Issues site... it made me smile...
:
many people think homosexual and gay are synonymous, but to be homsexual doesn't mean that a person is gay.
The non-gay homosexual, often found in churches (although they are not necessarily limited to churches) have same-sex attractions and feelings, and they may even engage in same-sex behavior, but they do not identify with the gay sociopolitical identity. Some may see themselves as having heterosexual values and want to live a heterosexual life; others are reconciled to their homosexual tendencies and do not seek to be heterosexual."
So they are not trying to change people from being homosexual, but change them from being gay.
You couldn't make this stuff up! Except they did of course.
ok yeah.
but it is a choice to be practicing gay, gay is a lifestyle associated with homosexuality in their eyes.
It might vaguely suggest that there's something wrong with the gay lifestyle more than straight, but only for some. Celibate and proud is more PC but it's specificly for gay attractions and has methods of avoidance geared around that.
The implication is that being gay is so wrong that you should avoid gay activities, temptation etc. Do you not think it's quite a significant undertaking for a person to dedicate to time to something that is only "vaguely" wrong?
From your post it seems to me that you're probably trying to rationalise all of this to yourself, rather than anyone else. If you are personally going over these issues in your own life I would suggest going to a therapist rather than a church. And you'll be searching for a long time before a therapist tells you that you can magic away your attractions or that it's possible to do so. Your comments in this thread have been really damaging. I'm sure it's not your intent but that's the reality of it.
I was only playing devils advocate and pointing out that things people are saying, aren't quite right. If we are going to damn these people, at least do it for what they are claiming accurately. They don't claim to cure attractions, just avoid.
You've said a lot in this thread to basically demonise and scrutinise homosexuality. Nothing about people who might have the same problems with their heterosexual preference, funny that. All of this talk of "cures" and comparison to people trying to rid themselves of disease.
You've claimed to speak for those wishing to change their sexuality from gay to straight, but have acknowledged that the primary reason they'd want to do this is because of how society views their sexuality. As stated, in that case, be the positive change. Help people feel comfortable with who they are, don't paint those wanting to do so as "liberals" trying to "brainwash" and those propagating these faux therapies as something to be looked up to.
There are million of gay people who struggle with acceptance, with family, and all you do is harp on about how it's sad that they can't change. You think you're helping, when really your words damage this whole group of people. If you have your own struggles in this area, see a shrink it might help, but don't talk about gay people like they're second class citizens or people who should seek to change because they don't fit in with the ideals of society.
I'm not trying to excuse anything I have said but I don't think I said all of that. I will summerise my thoughts in case I have been vague, at the risk of harping on...
They aren't second class citizens...
I am not demonising homosexuality for one thing, I think it's a part of human variety. I just said that it might not be for everyone and has a lot more difficulties than heterosexuality in terms of how it works.
I have mentioned that heterosexuals could want to change too, but this thread isn't about that.
I do though, think it's sad they can't change sexualities if it brings them pain. Not only because of other people, but needs and desires for their own lives that they want ie, a nuclear family.
In a perfect world it wouldn't matter and they shouldn't want to, but they clearly do.
I have never said people with faux therapies are anything other than scumbags, whatever their intentions are. I don't think if they actually had a solution they would be in the wrong and there should be an option medically available for people who don't like their sexuality or feel it's right for them.
So sorry but that's how I see it. I'm not out to upset anyone.
Well, it's a forum, you can say and believe what you like. I just hope no gay people struggling with acceptance read this, because they'll likely leave the thread in a much worse place than they entered it. The centering in on and pulling apart of peoples homosexuality is exactly why people seek out these therapies. It's the burdening of people with this negativity and shame, then blaming it on their sexual orientation, and telling them that they might want to change it.
Be sad that people can't change their sexuality if you like, but do something useful with that knowledge. If something can't be changed don't make post after post about how sad it is that they can't be "cured", instead try to increase acceptance by offering a positive message and also by acknowledging that who people attracted to is basically quite meaningless. That's the cure for people in vulnerable states of mind. And it's something you can do right now. It's real, not hocus pocus or something you have to wish existed.
I do disagree with these Bus ads, but that' not why I would ban them. I agree, you have every right to believe homosexuality can be cured if you want. You also have every right to personally believe that anorexicia is a good thing and no one ever starved to death. But you can't put a pro anorexia ad on the side of a bus, particulary if you include the claim 'anorexia never killed anyone' simply because you personally believe it.
The bus ad presents a 'cure' for homosexuality as fact, in spite of overwheling scientific evidence to the contrary. They also present homosexuality as a disease with no discussion, explaination or evidence. That's as dangerous a message for impressionable teenagers as the proanorexia ad.
If the ad had said 'some people are straight! get over it!' it would have been a different matter.
Well then you can at least acknowledge that there can be legitimate reasons for them to be sad about it instead of dismissing them out of hand. I'm not going to mollycoddle people and pretend it's wonderful and easy to be gay and they don't have a right not to want to be.
I don't recall ever saying that there are no reasons for gay people to feel unhappy. I'm just informing you that outside of what society thinks there is no good or bad sexuality. There is nothing to be cured. People feel bad because of the way they are made to feel. If we want to cure people of feeling unhappy in their own skin, we might seek to not make them feel that way.
Maybe some people are sad to be a particular race. Do we seek to change their race, or instead try to strengthen them against the influences that made them feel that way?
I think it's stupid to wish to change your sexuality and I have had too much hatred against me over sexuality
ie, they want natural kids.
People do change the colour of their skin and act like other races. They don't usually get the disdain people who seek to be ex-gay do.