Why Did The NFL And NBC Ban A Marriage Equality Ad From Running During The Super Bowl?
Why Did The NFL And NBC Ban A Marriage Equality Ad From Running During The Super Bowl?
The group GetToKnowUsFirst.org has been running 30-second public service announcements around the state of California to get the word out about marriage equality in the wake of the passage of Prop. 8. The ads typically feature a gay or lesbian couple and their children, emphasizing the commonalities between gay and straight families.
Yesterday, however, GetToKnowUsFirst.org’s ad did not run on Los Angeles NBC affiliate KNBC. GetToKnowUsFirst.org attempted to purchase a slot for one of its ads during the Super Bowl. On Friday, KNBC informed GetToKnowUsFirst.org that the the NFL legal department had rejected the ad because they were banning all “advocacy” ads during the entire day of programming — from Road to the Super Bowl at 9:00 a.m. through the end of the game.
Watch the rejected GetToKnowUsFirst.org ad, which features two married African-American men, Xavier and Michael, who are raising five children:
The problem with this situation is that the NFL and NBC did allow “advocacy” ads to air on KNBC yesterday. At approximately 9:09 a.m. (and again at 3:05 p.m.), an anti-steroids ad by the group DontBeAnAsterisk.org ran. An anti-smoking ad by TobaccoFreeCA.org ran around 1:30 p.m. Watch these ads, which also both clearly fit into the “advocacy” category:
John Ireland, GetToKnowUsFirst.org’s Project Organizer, responded:
We bought ads before, during and after the Super Bowl in ten markets across California. We planned this buy weeks in advance and heard late Friday that the NFL rejected our ads because they violate the NFL’s ‘no advocacy’ policy. I was truly stunned while watching the programming, to see that they had selectively blocked our ads, while allowing other advocacy ads to air.
GetToKnowUsFirst.org also booked ads in Bakersfield, Fresno-Visalia, Chico-Redding, Yuma-El Centro, Medford-Kalmath Falls, Reno, Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto, San Diego, and Gilroy, CA. The group never received any objections from those stations and Ireland told ThinkProgress that he isn’t sure whether they ever ran the ad by the NFL.
ThinkProgress e-mailed Greg Aiello, a spokesman for the NFL, who replied, “I don’t know anything about this and suggest you contact NBC, which sells the advertising for the Super Bowl telecast.” When we asked whether the NFL legal department refused to approve this ad, he said that there are “certain restrictions in our network television contracts” but again told us to contact NBC. Repeated inquiries to KNBC went unreturned.
Unfortunately, this was not the first time that one of GetToKnowUsFirst.org’s ads was rejected. Los Angeles ABC affiliate KABC refused to air the PSA featuring Xavier and Michael because the content was “too controversial [because] many families will be watching.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
you can’t kiss a member of the same sex on TV
but you can kiss a monkey though.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:09 pmwell, i do take consolation they denied the catholic advocacy group ad space. i hardly think these types of politcal ads are on the same par as anti-smoking ads. it’s like comparing apples to oranges.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:10 pmWell, at least it was consistent with not airing that ludicrous pro-life Ad.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:11 pmAnyone else notice the announcers at the superbowl didn’t mention the name of the late Pat Tillman a former Arizona Cardinal once during the game or during the pregame festivities? GE must have given them the word.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:12 pmUtterly shocking.
NO to marriage discrimination. It’s a shameful blemish on our society.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:12 pmI did notice that Uncle Fester.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:19 pmstand by for ruptured rectum:
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:21 pmLook! Over there!
2 gay men kissing as they burn the American flag!
EEEEEKKKKKKK!
The end is near.
sarc ON
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:21 pmoooh, i know …. it’s because all those tough-guy wannabes think it’s icky when two same sex couples couple. uh, unless it’s two hot lesbians….
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:23 pmUncle Fester Lurks Says:
Anyone else notice…
Actually, earlier in the day, NBC did a fairly tasteful tribute to Tillman as the most notable “missing Cardinal”. But you are right – nothing after that and certainly not during the game.
I’m perplexed – some of the other markets listed trend much more conervative that a lot of LA, but the ads still apparently ran there. I wish these stations would give the average American more credit than they do – to paraphrase Rastaman @ #1, I’d have a harder time explaining to kids why a man is canoodling with a monkey than another man…just saying.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:28 pmWonder how Steve Young views the apparent anti-gay NFL? If, that is, the NFL had anything to do with the ads not airing.
PEACE
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:32 pmLos Angeles ABC affiliate KABC refused to air the PSA featuring Xavier and Michael because the content was “too controversial [because] many families will be watching.”
I thought that was the whole idea of advertising — reach people with your message.
Did I get that wrong?
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:34 pmTillman was turned into a martyr for chimpys war. Facts be damned.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:34 pmlinda Says:
“because all those tough-guy wannabes think it’s icky when two same sex couples couple. uh, unless it’s two hot lesbians….”
who don’t seem to realise two hot lesbians don’t want nothin to do with their broke-down beer bellied azzes
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:35 pmCan someone page Daryll? I’m a little worried. he’s usually here by now in these gay-themed threads.
not that there’s anything wrong with it.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:36 pm“Los Angeles ABC affiliate KABC refused to air the PSA featuring Xavier and Michael because the content was ‘too controversial [because] many families will be watching.’”
So, I must have missed the part where the PSA turned into a full-frontal gay porno flick.
Is it really “controversial” to show a real family led by a same-sex couple who are married? What about all those families who are also headed by a same-sex couple? Some of those have children too. Are heterosexuals’ children more precious?
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:36 pmHow many beer commercials were aired?
How many commercials for “feminine hygine” products?
How many commercials for hemorrhoid cream?
How many commercials for condoms? Or penis-enlargement pills?
How many commercials for movies with scantily-clad women being flashed across the screen?
SERIOUSLY!
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:39 pmI don’t see any bias here as they did reject a pro life advert.
look, it’s the superbowl, can’t we leave politics out of it?
By law the only adverts allowed should be for beer or big screen TV sales.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:42 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Can someone page Daryll? I’m a little worried. he’s usually here by now in these gay-themed threads.
He’s too busy signing autographs. Darryl’s the dude on the right in the commercial.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:42 pmI think it was tit for tat. Apparently, They wouldn’t show a Pro-life ad with Obama as a fetus (???) or something. But it is still strange how some people are so intolerant of gays. It boggles my mind.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:44 pmWell, let’s just hope Daryll’s not “shaking the devil off’. He’s got work to do, dammit!
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:44 pmwow!
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:46 pm45 minutes after this thread was posted and STILL NO ruptured rectum
Gotta be a record.
“Why Did The NFL And NBC Ban A Marriage Equality Ad From Running During The Super Bowl?”
– - Pfffft. Why didn’t the NFL review the last damn play of the game on Warner’s “fumble”?
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:46 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Can someone page Daryll? I’m a little worried. he’s usually here by now in these gay-themed threads.
I think he’s the nice gentleman on the left.
Why Did The NFL And NBC Ban A Marriage Equality Ad From Running During The Super Bowl?
Well, you didn’t want a bunch of drunken Neanderthal men questioning their manhood, did ya? Geez, there would be brawls all over the country as certain “inadequate” men stubbornly try to prove how “manly” and “hetero” they are.
Sheesh.
All joking aside, this commercial was done tastefully, and brings up a great point. Get to know “them” before you judge “them”. Excellent!
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:47 pmIt should have been aired. Period!
Sorry to disagree with everyone here, but the Super Bowl is not the time. I don’t want to have to have a discussion with my 6 and 7 year olds about marriage equality during a football game.
Make your case that there shouldn’t be any advocacy ads and I am on board with that, although anti-steroid ads would seem to have a place in the game. But I’m not going to complain about not seeing this.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:51 pmI call shenanigans on this post. The SuperBowl is for everybody to enjoy without politics intruding in.
Abortionists, anti-choicers, homophobes, and the pink mafia set aside their differences for a few hours and watch sports and/or goofy commercials.
The two ‘advocacy’ ads cited are things pretty much everyone agrees on at this point: 1. don’t do steroids. 2. Smoking is the worst possible thing you can possibly do to you.
Im a social pariah smoker and just laugh those off at this point, but the other two ads are MUCH more controversial.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:51 pmSeriously… I mean, Im no physics scholar, but if the ball is moving forward in a spiral than that ball was ‘thrown’, not ‘fumbled’.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:55 pmDynamoron gives us another of his patented stupidity explosions. What an ignorant loaf you are and a bigot too. The wingnut daily double
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:56 pmdamn-yer-slow,
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:57 pmsorry to take the spotlight off of your marginalized party you’re trying to promote BUT, no one other than you, has mentioned the word repukelican on this thread. don’t you ever get tired of being an assclown?
Dynammut the racist Says:
Damn now the NFL is Republican! What a conspiratorial plot against the circus freaks.
Actually, the NFL has always been conservative. What with millions upon millions being brought in each week.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:58 pmBut of course, I don’t expect you to stick around to refute this.
Mucking foron!
I get your point, Ed, but I don’t recall ever getting much of a response from my dad on anything in the middle of a ballgame.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:05 pmTotally agree. Replays clearly showed the ball in Warner’s grip even after he was hit, thus his arm was moving forward when the ball was released. No fumble.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:07 pmDynamut,
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:09 pmFlagged for Utter Stupidity!!!
Bozo, I’m betting Dynosaur has gotten used to it by this time. After all, it’s all he’s ever known.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:09 pm“too much friction with a sphincter makes AIDS grow!”
then looks like i should stop arguing with you, arsehole.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:12 pmHey Dynosaur, make yourself useful and go grab Daryll outta the men’s room. Tell him there’s a gay thread STAT.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:13 pmOUCH!
I don’t think he’s gettin’ up from that one.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:14 pmwell, ralph, when i came back to this page and saw his azzwipe comment, i thought, “self, it’s time to take off the kid gloves”.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:18 pmDynamo and the Brokeback Mountaineers present their latest hit song, “Too Much Friction”.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:18 pmEd in NJ Says:
Sorry to disagree with everyone here, but the Super Bowl is not the time. I don’t want to have to have a discussion with my 6 and 7 year olds about marriage equality during a football game.
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:51 pm
____________
That’s true. You should have had that discussion with them long before it comes up in an advertisement.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:26 pmWhile I find TP an invaluable source of information, I do find it, on occasion, reaches for a topic. The title of this post is, “Why Did The NFL And NBC Ban A Marriage Equality Ad From Running During The Super Bowl?” And it is a simple answer, no advocacy ads (left or right). I feel it is understandable for a network to protect itself from political ads that may cause controversy among an audience of 100 million. I know my fiance would have been very angry to see a pro-life ad during the game. For TP to try to blur the difference between advocacy ads and public service announcements (anti-smoking, steiroids) is disappointing.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:29 pmHeh. I guess tarty women waggling ginormous boobs is perfectly acceptable material for the children to view, eh?
Puh-lease.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:31 pmWhy yes, trading homophobic insults is a great way to demonstrate your ideological and rhetorical superiority! Flaggy flaggy.
.
nigel Says:
I don’t see any bias here as they did reject a pro life advert.
look, it’s the superbowl, can’t we leave politics out of it?
“Pro-life” =/= “anti gay.” Those issues are irrelevant to one another.
The point at top is that they did allow certain advocacy adds.
.
P.D. Says:
Apparently, They wouldn’t show a Pro-life ad with Obama as a fetus (???) or something.
That would be awesome I wanna see that.
.
Badmoodman Says:
- – Pfffft. Why didn’t the NFL review the last damn play of the game on Warner’s “fumble”?
I think they were out of challenges. But it was totally a fumble. He didn’t have control of the ball when his arm went forward. The ball was out of his grip while his arm was cocked back, and it ended up getting pushed forward with his wrist. That’s not a throw.
.
Ed in NJ Says:
Sorry to disagree with everyone here, but the Super Bowl is not the time. I don’t want to have to have a discussion with my 6 and 7 year olds about marriage equality during a football game.
Make your case that there shouldn’t be any advocacy ads and I am on board with that…
So you admit it’s hypocritical of them to run some advocacy ads and not others?
And what is it with people always whining about not wanting to tell their children about things? Look, either keep your kids ignorant or don’t, but quit blaming the rest of the world for it. You might as well have us block out the sky so you don’t have to tell your kid why it’s blue.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:32 pmCan we flag the hateful, racist, troll now?
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:32 pmI don’t know why, probably the same reason they didn’t run the anti abortion ad, it’s a hot button issue while anti-steroid and anti-smoking aren’t quite the lightning rod issues that abortion and gay marriage are.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:34 pmAnd I’m sure Mr. Dynamo sat his one year old down and explained that all those mammary glands during the commercials were not for dinner.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:43 pmI excerpt this comment only because i find it a useful demonstration of the utter bankruptcy of troll ideas and values.
Note that Mr. Dynosaur Troll not only seems to find it ridiculous that HTH advocates education and communication with children in regards to sensitive yet real-world subjects like sex and marriage,he seems to feel that in order to make his point, he must make the ridiculed comment seem as absurd as possible, so he stretches far beyond his ability to keep his balance, and pretends that HTH said anything about discussing these issues with a one-year-old.
As any student of human social development knows, a one-year-old typically is capable of an ‘emerging expressive vocabulary of one to three words” and “babbleing in response to human voice”.
This makes the typical one-year-old child very similar in development to Mr. Dynosaur Troll.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:47 pmdamn yer slow
where do you intend to find a one year old who’s concerned with something other than the poo in their diaper or what’s for lunch.
proving once again you’re a nitwit with nothing to say.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:47 pmI understand the anti-steroids commercial being played, since it played to the audience. But NBC should have done something on Tillman, since at the Olympics the Dummy in Chief had plenty of face time and did a face to face interview at the NBC studio in Beijing.
Then again, God was represented there by Kurt Warner. Just saying.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:51 pmEd in NJ Says
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Sorry to disagree with everyone here, but the Super Bowl is not the time. I don’t want to have to have a discussion with my 6 and 7 year olds about marriage equality during a football game.
__________________________________________________________
You have a point — talking about marriage equality can hardly compete with a 100-yard interception touchdown run. However, treating it like it’s no big thing would go a long way toward the kids probably not even paying attention to it.
How do your kids react to the Go-Daddy large busted woman, the snowglobe in the crotch, vending machine thievery, removing a woman’s clothing with the crunch of a Dorito, turning an authority figure into a monkey the same way, and a woman getting flowers that tell her, “no one wants to see you naked”? What about the parade of violence — getting run over by a bus, getting conked in the head a variety of ways, and an out of control skier destroying everything in his path in what looks like a painful manner?
I find it hard to believe that two men raising five children is more dangerous to your children than any of that.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:52 pmMHM,
Bravo, Ditto.
Crazy as it sounds (I know not really) These people see no problems with the things you pointed out. I was apalled (sic?) at some of the advertising shinanigans.
Then they make these claims.
Sheez, must make them dizzy.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:57 pmDayum. Leave it to missmolly to nail a subject to the wall with concise, intelligent analysis.
Especially the part about the woman’s clothing being torn off with the crunch of a Dorito. Nice cultural values we’re expressing there.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:58 pmDamn! Still no Daryll.
He must be in the hospital, in intensive care.
What other reason would there be for his absence from this thread?
Otherwise, he’d be all over this.
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:59 pmDynaMORON Says:
You are disgusting. You are stupid. You are a bigot and a fool. The free clown show isnt funny anymore because you are so pathetic it is pitiful. We get enough feeling sorry for you punks because you are so stupid. If you had an ounce of self respect you would off yourself to avoid further humiliating yourself. You are stupid and disgusting so you cant help but show just how stupid you are and how you have no decency. Do the world a favor and go contemplate your navel in a cave in Outer Mongolia. Even the bats in the cave will know how stupid you are but they wont tell anyone
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:09 pmGiven that I watched none of the Super Bowl (not having a television, or any interest) I can’t help but draw a parallel to the Roman Empire, with it’s bread and circus’ for the starving populace.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:09 pmRitualized combat glorifying physical strength above intelligence, the wash of ads celebrating sex, gluttony, ridicule of others, drunken debauchery… let the citizens get all pumped up Sunday night before they go back to their grindstone on Monday. If they are fortunate enough to have one to flatten their noses upon.
Where’s the FCC?
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:12 pmDynamo Says:
My child isnt an ignorant brainwashed bigot like you are. So explaining there are gay people in the world really isnt a problem. Only the truly stupid bigots like YOU would think thre is such a problem. You do know you are simply pathetic dont you?
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:12 pmBut ya gotta admit seeing Springsteen back with Clarence was great!
MissMolly, you said it right! I was amazed at how many edges were being pushed with some of those commercials, especially when they were interspersed with “grab your 3D glasses – this is great!” kiddie-targeting!
PEACE
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:13 pmralph the wonder llama Says
February 2nd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Especially the part about the woman’s clothing being torn off with the crunch of a Dorito. Nice cultural values we’re expressing there.
___________________________________________________________
Yes, the powers that be probably thought this ad would make heterosexuality look bad. After all, look at the scoreboard:
GAYS — committed couple
STRAIGHTS — males ogling females and treating them as nothing more than sex objects
GAYS — focusing on raising children with love and moral values
STRAIGHTS — focusing on looting, vandalism, and assorted violence
GAYS — showing their lives aren’t like the horrifying myths perpetuated by straights
STRAIGHTS — perpetuating myths about gays by suggesting that diet cola isn’t “manly”.
And the list goes on. You just CAN’T have the gays looking like the good guys, according to the homophobes. Wonder how much of the decision to ban the ad was influenced by this factor?
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:14 pmNevar; it was ONLY a diversion. For many of us, we here DO care about issues(if we didn’t, we wouldn’t be regulars at TP, would we?)
I DO go to demonstrations locally and road trips to protest. Against a local theater that originally banned Michael Moore’s Sicko, chimpy’s veto of SCHIP, and a lot of antiwar demonstrations. Port Huron, Detroit, Ferndale, Chicago, & DC on multiple occasions. I even held a one-man vigil in front of my local military recruiting office in a Grim Reaper costume to protest the war-last January.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:17 pmSure, but because impotent men like you think the most important issue on the planet is erectile dysfunction every little girl has to hear about your pathetic sexual problems about 10 times a day. STFU.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:19 pmTabliabue, Friend to the Gays?
NFL=REPUBLICAN=HYPOCRITES
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:21 pmUncle Ho Says:
Thank you, sir, for your activism, and for your contributions.
I never pass up a chance to demand accountability from merchants and service providers. I myself enjoy notoriety as someone who tolerates little in the way of incompetence or chicanery.
I was out yesterday in the mountains, making certain the pinon jays weren’t beating up on the towhees, and that they got their fair share of pine nuts.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:26 pmDaryll must be on a mission in the Dominican Republic, trying to save the souls of young boy prostitutes.
Otherwise, he’d be here.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:39 pmBecause big media is all controlled by Righties.
That’s why.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:47 pmCounteracting prejudice and ignorance is hardly advocay. It’s education. Refusing those ads is, essentially, anti-education, Hmmm… that’s consistent.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:10 pmWingnuts’ children must not be allowed to find out that gay people exist. It is incumbent on all of us to keep this a massive secret worldwide so they can keep their children ignorant of this fact…
.
Dynamo Says:
And I’m sure Mr. toaster face sat down with his 1 year old and explained how perfectly natural 2 men getting married and raising a kid is. And then went on and explained how this behavior is justified by comparing dysfunctional straight couples.
One year olds don’t ask questions about the content of Super Bowl advertising. If you think you’re having sensitive discussions with infants about controversial issues, then you are hallucinating, and should not be caring for children to begin with.
.
Oski2005 Says:
…probably the same reason they didn’t run the anti abortion ad, it’s a hot button issue while anti-steroid and anti-smoking aren’t quite the lightning rod issues that abortion and gay marriage are.
True. Wouldn’t be as big a deal if they had just said that. They’d still catch a little heat, but not as much. However, they said they were refusing all advocacy ads, and then did not; they lied instead. So now we don’t know if they were trying to avoid controversy or were making editorial decisions because their program director thinks we’re in the End Times.
.
Shayne Says:
Sure, but because impotent men like you think the most important issue on the planet is erectile dysfunction every little girl has to hear about your pathetic sexual problems about 10 times a day.
These conversations are really easy.
KID: “Dad, what’s that blue pill for?”
DAD: “It gives people boners.”
KID: “Hahahahaaa! Boners!”
Ditto for teh gays.
KID: “Dad, those men said they’re married, is that true?”
DAD: “Yep, those guys like to marry guys instead of girls.”
KID: “Hahahahaaa! That’s weird!”
It’s really just that easy.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:47 pmWhy? Because the MSM are a bunch of a$$wipes like faux news.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:48 pmNot much more one can add to this. Except maybe a Batman “POW!” graphic and quick musical stinger.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:49 pmI miss bit
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:04 pmSay what? Wanna raise the middle school bar a little and defend this statement?
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:03 pmSome men fall in love with a man, and women fall in love with a woman, the way your daddy and I are in love.
That was devastatingly difficult wasn’t it? If they choke on the last part, who’s fall is that?
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:37 pmfault
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:56 pmWiley,
You are assuming it can actually be uttered by them.
But your right. It’s really not rocket science.
February 2nd, 2009 at 10:28 pmJust about everyone agrees smoking isn’t good for you.
Not everyone feels the same about gay marriage.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:36 pmI look forward to the day when my even existing is no longer considered “controversial”. We’re still such a sad, backward child species.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:38 pmThe NFL/NBC, whoever…. They didn’t allow the gay marriage bit, and they also didn’t allow the pro-life bit. That’s about as “fair” as they can be, methinks.
The super bowl commercials are meant to be mindless fun (see the puching a koala one…). Let’s just leave politics out of this one, I say. Anti-smoking ads are more public health issues than political one.
Just my take…
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:42 pmI think there are still a few hold-outs among Tobacco Institute scientists.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:42 pm80 – cd Says:
——————————————————–
“Just about everyone agrees smoking isn’t good for you.
Not everyone feels the same about gay marriage.”
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:36 pm
50 years ago, it was illegal for black & white people to marry.
30 years ago, smoking was allowed everyhere.
As time progresses, perspectives change. In 10 years, just about everyone will ask “How could anyone support excluding gay people from marriage? I’m voting for American values and to give equal rights to all.”
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:09 am______
misshusseinmolly Says:
And the list goes on. You just CAN’T have the gays looking like the good guys, according to the homophobes. Wonder how much of the decision to ban the ad was influenced by this factor?
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
______
To be honest, wouldn’t you have to admit that you know the reason, even if you don’t agree with it, and that it has nothing to do with whether gay people are nice or not? ;)
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:34 amEvery SINGLE AD run was “advocating” that you BUY SOMETHING! Liberal media, indeed.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:37 pmI wonder, though, as football is seen as the exmplar of man-bonding and they use a communal shower and slap each other’s posterior, and hug each other a lot, if there may be a deep psychological reason to defend themselves against gay behavior.
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:14 pmFebruary 3rd, 2009 at 8:09 am
Writing in bold doesn’t make you right.
And your logic could go the other way.
It could be that 20 years from now the APA recognizes many homosexuals as suffering from a disorder and 40 years from now people will be wondering “what were we thinking when we claimed it was normal?”
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:37 pmdrive by troll Says:
Stupidity is not cool and showing the world what an ignorant bigot you are would embarass a normal human being. Get help…FAST.
February 4th, 2009 at 8:13 amI feel sorry for anyone who spends Christmas day alone.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:28 am