Anti-gay London bus advertising campaign pulled by TfL

1356725

Comments

  • NosegayNosegay Posts: 520
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    'Some people are phobic. Get over it'.
    I agree, there should be a moratorium on these dumb ads.
    Until the next time when these 'ideas' occur.
  • ThePhotographerThePhotographer Posts: 3,112
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I fully agree with Judge Mental.

    Only on this issue though :D

    I think if people want to be gay then that's a matter for them, and such advertising of this 'antigay' thing is wrong and stupid.
  • NosegayNosegay Posts: 520
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm not campaigning against the christian religion - I'm campaigning about any religion having a role in public life or public policy.

    I'm in favour of free speech - but suggesting that gay people can choose to be gay is more than offensive, it has no basis in fact. Advertisements are supposed to be truthful.

    Come on! When have advertisements been truthful? You are using the 'I'm not racist BUT' that liberals accuse right-wingers of. Consistency would be nice.
  • designer84designer84 Posts: 12,087
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Personally I found the Ad disgusting. I didn't choose to be gay, it's just the way God made me and God isn't meant to make mistakes. I find it very sad that some people can't accept gay people. We are no different to anyone else. The original Stonewall Ad I like because it's not taunting, it's making a point. Its trying to get society to include us rather than exclude. In theory we are all meant to be equal in this world. Sadly we are not. The Ad should not have gotten to the stage it did. I am glad it's been axed now
  • zx50zx50 Posts: 91,227
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MartinP wrote: »
    'I disagree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to ban it' - Judge Mental.

    I find the cheering on of censorship because some people might be a bit offended to be much more offensive and in most cases counter-productive to the debate. I also feel that this is also down to the OPs ongoing campaign against the Christian religion.

    I agree with the following comment on the link:

    Censorship should be used as rarely as possible. Aside from trampling on the principal of free speech even for speech you don't agree with, censoring often empowers the very words its meant to undermine.

    In my opinion, censorship should be used for anything that can cause/result in hatred developing. Freedom of speech isn't always good.
  • zx50zx50 Posts: 91,227
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I fully agree with Judge Mental.

    Only on this issue though :D

    I think if people want to be gay then that's a matter for them, and such advertising of this 'antigay' thing is wrong and stupid.

    What makes you think all gay people want to be attracted to the same sex? I'm sure quite a few of them would probably prefer to be straight.
  • MartinPMartinP Posts: 31,358
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    zx50 wrote: »
    In my opinion, censorship should be used for anything that can cause/result in hatred developing. Freedom of speech isn't always good.

    "can" means you caste a very wide net. I don't think you can ban things based on their potential for causing hatred - when in this instance I really don't think they would do. They are mainly a play on words on the earlier stonewall campaign that was put on London buses a few years back.

    I think Boris has overstepped the mark here.
  • ThePhotographerThePhotographer Posts: 3,112
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    zx50 wrote: »
    What makes you think all gay people want to be attracted to the same sex? I'm sure quite a few of them would probably prefer to be straight.

    Are you saying being gay is not a choice?
  • jesayajesaya Posts: 35,597
    Forum Member
    zx50 wrote: »
    What makes you think all gay people want to be attracted to the same sex? I'm sure quite a few of them would probably prefer to be straight.

    I think a number of gay people, especially older ones like myself, would have found it easier to have been straight... and some who acted straight because of it (myself included). But I have never met anyone who said they would prefer to be straight... just prefer people didn't treat them differently because they were not.
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jesaya wrote: »
    I think a number of gay people, especially older ones like myself, would have found it easier to have been straight... and some who acted straight because of it (myself included). But I have never met anyone who said they would prefer to be straight... just prefer people didn't treat them differently because they were not.
    people probably wouldn't say it to you because it might upset you. Being called a self hater is an insult in the gay world.
  • stoatiestoatie Posts: 78,106
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Are you saying being gay is not a choice?

    I would imagine so, yes, what with being gay not being a choice an' all.
  • Judge MentalJudge Mental Posts: 18,593
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    12Fenwick wrote: »
    Core aren't anti-gay.

    http://www.core-issues.org/

    Yeah right! Methinks the lady doth protest too much. The founder is clearly someone who has struggled with the clash between his religion and his homosexual tendencies.
  • -Sid--Sid- Posts: 29,365
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I find the 'whole get over it' thing, a bit like 'in your face', with hand gesture. I don't have a issue with people that are gay, however I wish they would stop telling me to get over it, like its an order. If I did have a problem, so what its a free country.

    As for the bus, it is an advertising space and the bus company should think long and hard before censoring for non commercial reasons. If the are privatised, what's it got to do with Boris?

    Hand on heart can you say you'd be of the same opinion if it had been an Islamic group behind these adverts?
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's probably not even being taken down because it's hateful anyway. It's clearly just false advertising as "ex-gay" therapy isn't supported by the medical boards.

    and to Opinion, it's not aimed at you to get over it, but there is a lot of people who really should, don't you think?
  • Judge MentalJudge Mental Posts: 18,593
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Nosegay wrote: »
    Come on! When have advertisements been truthful? You are using the 'I'm not racist BUT' that liberals accuse right-wingers of. Consistency would be nice.

    rubbish - I'm tolerant of religious beliefs as long as they are not touted as fact. In my opinion religion is a private matter - and not something that trumps the rights of minorities that have been persecuted by the religious for thousands of years.
  • jesayajesaya Posts: 35,597
    Forum Member
    Glowbot wrote: »
    people probably wouldn't say it to you because it might upset you. Being called a self hater is an insult in the gay world.

    I spent many years on gay switchboards and in gay groups. I have heard people say they didn't want to be gay, but when you discuss it with them the real reason is that they don't want the adverse impacts that can come with being gay because of the prejudice (or perceived prejudice) of others.

    I must be in a different gay world, because I have never used the expression 'self-hater' :)
  • Judge MentalJudge Mental Posts: 18,593
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    zx50 wrote: »
    In my opinion, censorship should be used for anything that can cause/result in hatred developing. Freedom of speech isn't always good.

    This is not about censorship - it's about whether any organisation should be allowed to advertise something without any factual basis. Where is their evidence that homosexuality is a choice that can be altered by therapy? They are touting a treatment for a non existent disorder.

    Would it be censorship if they were advertising herbal pills that claimed to cure cancer which had no possibility of a cure?
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jesaya wrote: »
    I spent many years on gay switchboards and in gay groups. I have heard people say they didn't want to be gay, but when you discuss it with them the real reason is that they don't want the adverse impacts that can come with being gay because of the prejudice (or perceived prejudice) of others.

    I must be in a different gay world, because I have never used the expression 'self-hater' :)
    Well I have heard lots of people saying they don't want to be for that reason, not the opinions of others. And then they get called self-hating.
    you maybe didn't hear from the ones that kill themselves or go to these therapy classes.
  • doom&gloomdoom&gloom Posts: 9,051
    Forum Member
    People are not all the same, some gay people were not born gay, some gay people were made that way because they were abused as children, for some (particularly lesbians) it was a choice.
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    doom&gloom wrote: »
    People are not all the same, some gay people were not born gay, some gay people were made that way because they were abused as children, for some (particularly lesbians) it was a choice.
    all I heard was "troll troll troll, troll troll lesbians, troll troll troll."
  • jesayajesaya Posts: 35,597
    Forum Member
    Glowbot wrote: »
    Well I have heard lots of people saying they don't want to be for that reason, not the opinions of others. And then they get called self-hating.
    you maybe didn't hear from the ones that kill themselves or go to these therapy classes.

    Possibly, I can only speak from my experience. Evidently there are people who go to these therapy groups but again the reason is (imo of course) an external one... the religious ones who think they are sinners because their church tells them so and so want to 'change'.

    What is important is that there is no evidence whatsoever that such therapies work... and in my opinion if there was not the external forces of prejudice then no-one (or a vanishingly small number) would want to change their sexuality.
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jesaya wrote: »
    Possibly, I can only speak from my experience. Evidently there are people who go to these therapy groups but again the reason is (imo of course) an external one... the religious ones who think they are sinners because their church tells them so and so want to 'change'.

    What is important is that there is no evidence whatsoever that such therapies work... and in my opinion if there was not the external forces of prejudice then no-one (or a vanishingly small number) would want to change their sexuality.

    would you count the bible as an external force? or their own interpretation of it?

    I would but if you think about it anyway, there are a lot of reasons other than prejudice someone would want to be straight rather than gay.
  • tour de forcetour de force Posts: 4,029
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm not campaigning against the christian religion - I'm campaigning about any religion having a role in public life or public policy.

    i'm in favour of free speech - but suggesting that gay people can choose to be gay is more than offensive, it has no basis in fact. Advertisements are supposed to be truthful.


    BIB
    Patently not.

    If some people identify as being 'previously gay' then that is their business and their experience. How arrogant to assume you know their lives and thoughts and emotions better than they do themselves. If they believe their newly-learned ' straightness ' is genuine and has brought them a level of happiness/contentment , who are you to tell them their right to advertise their experience/belief is invalid or not ' truthful ' ? Who are you to tell them they have no right to advertise their story on the side of a bus ? Who cares if you are offended ? Who cares if most people find the notion of actively changing from gay to straight strange and wrongheaded ? I find it strange and wrongheaded, but then I also find members of the SWP strange and wrongheaded without demanding they cease and desist advertising their beliefs. All sorts of people find all sorts of notions strange and wrongheaded, they might even find them ' offensive ' ( gulp ), but unless you are being physically threatened then you should learn to.....deal with it.

    Are we all such sensitive, whining children who cannot bear to be confronted with potentially outlandish ideas which do not correspond with our own ? And religious people have as much right to publicise their ( non violent ) beliefs as any other group. The fact that the religious have protection under the law not afforded to every other group is a huge mistake imo, however it would be just as discriminatory to deny the religious any role in public life as you so blythely advocate.

    I sincerely hope I am grown up enough to know that in a free
    democratic society there are going to be others who subscribe to beliefs which make me want to hit my head against a brick wall. In fact you may be one of those people who makes my head ache, but I still don't believe you have no right to propagate your ideas in the public square.
  • MiddleotroadMiddleotroad Posts: 1,283
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jesaya wrote: »
    I think a number of gay people, especially older ones like myself, would have found it easier to have been straight... and some who acted straight because of it (myself included). But I have never met anyone who said they would prefer to be straight... just prefer people didn't treat them differently because they were not.

    I have, they didn't talk about it, but were very distressed. Problems were eventually solved via struggling through/ NHS counciling.

    Does anyone know if Stonewall offers help in this matter; because if they have no policies on it, there's a potential gap in the market, so to speak, for Christian groups like this one to try to fill.
  • doom&gloomdoom&gloom Posts: 9,051
    Forum Member
    Glowbot wrote: »
    all I heard was "troll troll troll, troll troll lesbians, troll troll troll."

    Then I suggest you get a hearing test.
Sign In or Register to comment.