NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/30/23127/037

Wow, can't believe this wasnt posted yet. They can show viagra commercials multiple times a day, or those swiftboat liars, yet an ad advocating tolerance is "too controversial"?!?!

Wow. What's really scary is CBS's reason:

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations," reads an explanation from CBS, "and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks."

Wow.

Welcome to Crazy World.

Yeah, this is just insane. After all the crap of the last election, now they won't show anything divisive? Bullsh-t.

Not as bad as other civil rights infringements, but blatantly ignorant nontheless.

*seethes in anger*

goddamn small-minded parochial McDonald's-swilling monkey-spanking knuckle-walking PINHEADS!

*r-r-r-r-r-r-r-rrRAWR*

Okay see if they banned any and all material they found offensive... I could sympathize with the network...

However when they air t.v. shows filled from start to finish with sex, drugs, alcohol and violence and ads for viagra and worse, then they have no right to ban something on moral grounds.

I watched the commercial though, I may disagree with their message, but I don't really see how it's very offensive. It does imply acceptance of homosexuality (even though that's blatantly against Christianity), but still it's not like it directly says it or something.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/30/23127/037

Wow, can't believe this wasnt posted yet. They can show viagra commercials multiple times a day, or those swiftboat liars, yet an ad advocating tolerance is "too controversial"?!?!

Wow. What's really scary is CBS's reason:



Wow.It's hard to get people around here worked up about this kind of stuff. Believe me, I've tried.

Makes me wonder--we've got people supposedly getting worked up about the Monday Night Football skit from a couple of weeks ago, starring Nicolette Sheridan from "Desperate Housewives," but the company owned by conservative Republican Senate candidate from Colorado, Pete Coors, runs ads featuring scantily clad women and seeming to advocate three-way incestuous sex (the twins), and yet nary a peep from the religious right. What hypocrisy.

CBS?!

Isn't that the same station that allowed a blatant hoax and direct attack on Bush to get on the air?

Okay see if they banned any and all material they found offensive... I could sympathize with the network...

However when they air t.v. shows filled from start to finish with sex, drugs, alcohol and violence and ads for viagra and worse, then they have no right to ban something on moral grounds.

I watched the commercial though, I may disagree with their message, but I don't really see how it's very offensive. It does imply acceptance of homosexuality (even though that's blatantly against Christianity), but still it's not like it directly says it or something.

Uh, this was put out by a Christian sect...in fact, it directly cites the teachings of Jesus. So no, it's not "blatantly against Christianity."

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations," reads an explanation from CBS, "and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks."

That's just rediculous. UPN and CBS have crap for tv programs anyways.

Does anyone know of churches that have turned away racial minorities directly? And I want documented cases here.

*Sigh* And all "christian sects" MUST mean it's proper Christianity?

Actually most Christian sects pick and choose from the bible and just pick out the parts that support their agenda, and ignore the parts that don't. So actually most denominations aren't really following the teachings of their own religion properly.

The old testament is clearly anti-homosexual, and since Christian religion believes in the old and new testament (except for the parts of the old testament directly contradicted by the new testament, the parts on homosexuality are not contradicted in the new testament, example of something that was: restrictions on what you can eat), and thus it's ridiculous for them to pick one part of the bible to accept and then just ignore another.

So no, really, homosexuality IS blatantly against Christian religion.

I'm speaking from a neutral perspective here.... looking at the Christian religion as a whole.

The variations of Christian denominations are absurd... seriously... with how broadly they define Christian religion nowadays, you could probably start up something, say you believe Jesus was your savior (hence Christian), then go around advocating violence and premaritial sex and crap, and just go "well... Jesus accepts everyone". So BS and hypocritical.

hell, the ikea commercial with a gay couple shopping for a dining room table was pulled in the states because people threatened to bomb their stores...

that wasn't even advocating tolerance, that was just a gay couple casually shopping for furniture like any other couple and it was part of a series they did on non-traditional families.

the u.s. is one fucked up country.

*Sigh* And all "christian sects" MUST mean it's proper Christianity?

Actually most Christian sects pick and choose from the bible and just pick out the parts that support their agenda, and ignore the parts that don't. So actually most denominations aren't really following the teachings of their own religion properly.

The old testament is clearly anti-homosexual, and since Christian religion believes in the old and new testament (except for the parts of the old testament directly contradicted by the new testament, the parts on homosexuality are not contradicted in the new testament, example of something that was: restrictions on what you can eat), and thus it's ridiculous for them to pick one part of the bible to accept and then just ignore another.

So no, really, homosexuality IS blatantly against Christian religion.

I'm speaking from a neutral perspective here.... looking at the Christian religion as a whole.

The variations of Christian denominations are absurd... seriously... with how broadly they define Christian religion nowadays, you could probably start up something, say you believe Jesus was your savior (hence Christian), then go around advocating violence and premaritial sex and crap, and just go "well... Jesus accepts everyone". So BS and hypocritical.
then why were jesus and john in love?

i think it was john... one of his disciples at any rate, is always referred to as "the one jesus loved" and the greek translation doesn't use the selfless "god is love" kind of love... they use the romantic one...

There was an Ikea commercial with a gay couple in it? It didn't register with me...I probably just assumed they were friends - !

LOL

silly me.

*Sigh* And all "christian sects" MUST mean it's proper Christianity?

Actually most Christian sects pick and choose from the bible and just pick out the parts that support their agenda, and ignore the parts that don't. So actually most denominations aren't really following the teachings of their own religion properly.

The old testament is clearly anti-homosexual, and since Christian religion believes in the old and new testament (except for the parts of the old testament directly contradicted by the new testament, the parts on homosexuality are not contradicted in the new testament, example of something that was: restrictions on what you can eat), and thus it's ridiculous for them to pick one part of the bible to accept and then just ignore another.

So no, really, homosexuality IS blatantly against Christian religion.

I'm speaking from a neutral perspective here.... looking at the Christian religion as a whole.

The variations of Christian denominations are absurd... seriously... with how broadly they define Christian religion nowadays, you could probably start up something, say you believe Jesus was your savior (hence Christian), then go around advocating violence and premaritial sex and crap, and just go "well... Jesus accepts everyone". So BS and hypocritical.


Actually, my point was that you're the one using the generalization incorrectly. Your claim here further refutes your point nicely - since different sects do different things, you cannot claim anything is universally "Christian." Homosexuality is one of those things. Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ, and Christ said nothing about homosexuality (hence, not anti-Christian). One of the disciples does, and that's about it. You say that the sections on homosexuality were not contradicted, but fail to point out that neither were they supported by anything Christ did or said. It's funy how oyu're willing to broadly sweep away all those other prohibitions, yet by god, that one stays!

Your condescending attitude towards any Christian denomination that does not support your paradigm of what is Christian is remarkably telling.

Umm, I thought CBS is supposedly overwhelmingly liberal? Go figure.

There was an Ikea commercial with a gay couple in it? It didn't register with me...I probably just assumed they were friends - !

LOL

silly me.

it aired like twice in the states (late at night, for the sake of the children) before it got yanked due to the threats of boycott and bombing stores.

i think the website is www.commercialcloset.com or something... they've got a lot of descriptions of commercials featuring gay people and it says whether the portrayl was positive or negative et c. it's interesting...

Umm, I thought CBS is supposedly overwhelmingly liberal? Go figure.
Once again, you confuse liberal with DEMOCRAT. Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig difference.

its sad that people think that discrimination is simply a political position.

im a right-wing guy and i am not homophobic (and no im not gay, or a closet gay, or a bisexual, or whatever else you want to throw at me). Im also not "pro-gay" i believe in equality, not pushing one group more than another. I think its interesting that its the Christians who are most anti-gay (any Aussie here will know about the infamous Family First (a christian party) supporter's declaration that lesbians should be burnt at the stake). In 100 years, society will regard us as bigots for this and laugh at us, just like we laugh at the Spanish Inquisition and witch burning.

those swiftboat liars
Given that you read Kos I'm really not surprised by this statement. It's interesting to note, however, that Kerry never brought forth solid proof that they were liars. Now, if he didn't have access to materials that would easily prove that they were liars this would be obviously excusable. This is/was not the case. All he would have to do would be to sign a SINGLE form, and the exact nature of these incidents would become crystal clear. Not even that, he could have only released the actual medical reports from the incident. He did not. As such, given that he was running for the position of president, a position of power and responsibility, this strongly raises the credibility of the swifties accusations.

Having seen the ad for myself with that link, I really don't see any reason to not air it.

I haven't actually heard of people being turned away, but I think the ad was exaggerating the public anti-gay positions of other churches for effect. It's called hyperbole. Fairly common advertising device.

It's interesting to note, however, that Kerry never brought forth solid proof that they were liars.

Uhm, I remember the citations he got when he recieved his medals and some of his other swift boat comrades speaking against the SBVTs. Isn't that good enough? I think he was trying to reduce their credibility by not responding. Backfired, as it turns out. But that really shouldn't have had any impact on his campaign, after all, whatever happened, it was decades ago and during a war. Which is a pity because there were so many ways he could've hit back on that topic. Everyone knows Bush didn't even GO to Vietnam. The Democrats failed America and the world by their lack of balls.

-Well... I think the middleage "moral majority" won. :headbang:

-Accept defeat and move Europe or Canada... :cool:

-Let them rot in their own personal hell (The moral majority) :)

-I am not gay. But I think this shows how bad things has become in the US. How is this acceptable in a modern and progressive society? :confused:

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

The old testament is clearly anti-homosexual, and since Christian religion believes in the old and new testament (except for the parts of the old testament directly contradicted by the new testament, the parts on homosexuality are not contradicted in the new testament, example of something that was: restrictions on what you can eat), and thus it's ridiculous for them to pick one part of the bible to accept and then just ignore another.


There's a couple of common misconceptions in here. The Old Testament is not, as a whole, anti-homosexual, parts of the Mosaic laws are (well, one idenitcal decree mentioned in Leviticus and Deuteronomy). The Mosaic laws are clearly not relevant to Christians, as a large number of passages in the New Testament make clear:

But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter.

Note in the above law means the Torah, i.e. the mosaic laws.
See also Romans 6:4 and Galatians 4:21, 5:1 and 5:13 (in fact pretty much the whole of Galatians revolves around this question)

It's clear from these that, contrary to your claim that the OT is relevant unless contradicted by the NT, the Mosaic laws are irrelevant unless directly supported by the NT. In which case you have to look at the three passages in the NT relevant to the issue of homosexuality. Do some research into them and you'll discover that they are not at all as straightforward as some like to claim. So divergent beliefs are perfectly acceptable, even if one takes the Bible as sacrosanct.

Does anyone know of churches that have turned away racial minorities directly? And I want documented cases here.

Dude, the advert isn't saying "all those other churches throw gays and racial minorities in the gutter". It's using a metaphor to show that it's political views are all inclusive. No church turns racial minorities, but many churches condemn gay people, single mothers, etc. What the advert means is that they adhere to Jesus's message - "Judge not lest you be judged", "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone".

EDIT: Just want to make my point clear. Do you remember the campaign advert that the Bush campaign released just before election day? It showed wolves in a forest, with a voiceover saying that George Bush will protect America, or something along those lines. Now, did the advert literally mean "you will be mauled by a pack of wolves if you don't vote Bush"? Of course it didn't.