Tuesday, August 11, 2015




Australian cable network lashed for anti-gay marriage ads

They put up ads both for and against but balance is not good enough!

FOXTEL is facing a backlash from some subscribers after it decided to screen advertisements opposing same-sex marriage.  THE ads, created by anti-gay marriage group Marriage Alliance, were knocked back by the Seven and Ten networks but have been screened by the pay TV provider.

People took to Facebook to vent their anger, with many saying they would cancel their Foxtel subscription. "Just cancelled my account - Netflix is much less homophobic, and better value," Brendan Terry wrote.  "What's new on Foxtel this week? Bigotry, hatred and lies," wrote Bradles McBell.

Some question Foxtel for airing advertisements for I Am Cait, the new reality show about Caitlyn Jenner's transition, alongside the anti-equality message in the ads. "I love how you can promote this and then also put up anti-marriage equality ads up too, haha self contradicting much?" Joel Hubbard said.

Marriage Alliance's campaign, which uses the line "It's not as simple as you think", says legislating to allow same-sex marriage may affect people's rights across the entire community.

Foxtel replied to concerns, saying it was aware its decision to air the ad "has caused hurt and distress to some customers".

"We believe this debate should be won by the force of the argument in favour of reform, not by refusing to engage in debate or allow contrary opinion to be put," a spokesman said.

The company says it is a strong supporter of marriage equality and that it is screening a series of celebrity-backed ads calling for marriage equality.

SOURCE



29 comments:

Use the Name, Luke said...

"Marriage equality"? That's a nice sounding sound byte. Just one small problem… They are. not. equal.

I started realizing that boys and girls had significant differences somewhere around 7 years old. Those differences are obvious and beautiful. As the French say, "vive la differance".

Because of those differences, it is not possible for M+M or F+F to be the exact same as M+F.

Anonymous said...

Luke is the master of fallacious arguments! He might as well say blacks shouldn't marry whites because they aren't the same race - or jews shouldn't marry christians because they are not the same religion, etc., etc. I guess Luke must follow the Orwellian maxim when it come to "marriage equality" - some are more equal than others!

Stan B said...

Anon 2:13 AM - When M+M and F+F unions can produce offspring (short of Frankenstein like intervention) I will grant you the argument that they will have equal "marriages." Until then, I suggest you take a biology course, and then a "history of marriage" course, and figure out that without the potential for children, marriage is just two people living together for tax purposes.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Stan B is exactly right.

As for fallacious arguments, claiming that skin color differences are exactly the same as gender differences is right up there!

Bird of Paradise said...

The rainbow brownshirts the usial bunch of the gay Rights Gestapo the same ones that force christian bakeries to make cakes for gay weddings

Anonymous said...

Luke and Stan: A strawman argument - I didn't say skin color differences are exactly the same as gender differences. The point was about "differences". Luke claimed that "marriage equality" was inapplicable because there wasn't equality in gender type. That is defining "marriage". Marriage equality does not depend on the partners being "equal" in all respects, whether gender, race, religion, etc. as far as the current law is concerned. The law decides whether or not inequality (that prevented a legal marriage at one time) can be changed, as indeed has happened now in the US as well as other countries as far as inequality in gender, and neither does the law require an ability to procreate or an intention to procreate. Stan may think it should but the law doesn't. He is of course welcome to campaign for a change in the law in that respect (which would no doubt bar women over a certain age from marrying, or persons with certain medical conditions). Stan's other remarks about my needing a course in biology and in the history of marriage are as puerile as they are gratuitously rude.)

Anonymous said...

Some people seem to have lost the basic concept that you do not have to support an idea to allow it to be discussed.
Well done Foxtel - never thought I'd say that.

Anonymous said...

2:13, Luke said nothing of the sort. You are using a typical liberal argument. "Agree with me. Or you're wrong and I will try to get everyone to shame you into silence." Regardless of where you stand on the debate, both sides need to be allowed to voice their thoughts.

Use the Name, Luke said...

I didn't say skin color differences are exactly the same as gender differences.

Not explicitly, Your argument just requires such equality to be a valid argument.

That is defining "marriage".

The law decides…

Both are definitions of marriage. One is based on observable physical reality. One is not. Proclaiming "equality" by fiat does not produce actual equality. If the law said "blue" and "red" are the same color, they still would not be equal.

… neither does the law require an ability to procreate or an intention to procreate.

No it doesn't. On the other hand, when it comes to the future of humanity…

Law cannot override reality. Period. If it could, laws forbidding earthquakes in California could be passed and earthquakes would actually stop there.

Anonymous said...

Luke, you are just spitting in the wind if you think your opinions and your definitions of "reality" (whether about "marriage" or anything else) are better than the current law of the land, unless you can mount a campaign (or join one) to have the law changed to suit your own views or your own prejudices. Of course you're entitled to have opinions about any issue and argue about them (as you do!) but claiming they are superior to other people's is pointless and unrealistic.
I quite agree that of course the Law is defining marriage, and it can and does change the definition over time. You or anyone else is free to have a private view of what marriage means (as can religious institutions), but they have no legal standing necessarily. I can't see how you can argue otherwise!
As for "equality" in marriage - that can refer to various aspects of equality, not just the gender of the couple, such as they are both consenting adults (ie. regardless of gender or being heterosexual or homosexual - which is why the law was changed). And your idea of the future of humanity and how it depends on your view of marriage is of course a personal view though unspecified.

Anonymous said...

Luke's comment about laws against earthquakes happening is clearly fatuous. Maybe he was thinking about King Canute.

Anonymous said...

The only way for politicians to settle it without losing their seats it to organise a plebiscite. I believe that Australia will hold one soon. Once the people have had their say it will be a brave/stupid politician to rail against the public view. Given that pro-gay advocates believe that 80% of Australians hold their view I think that they are in for a shock that will set them back at least 10 yrs when the public votes.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Luke's comment about laws against earthquakes happening is clearly fatuous.

Yet that is PRECISELY what is being done with marriage. Instead of it being based on the biological reality of what humans are, marriage is being defined based on what people want.

Sorry, but you're clearly the one spitting into the wind.

…but claiming they are superior to other people's is pointless and unrealistic.

Then why are you doing that? At least I am pointing at objective reality. You're simply arguing from your desires, pretty much as 2 year olds do.

And your idea of the future of humanity and how it depends on your view of marriage is of course a personal view though unspecified.

It's very simple. No children=no future.

Alpha Skua said...

Turns gays over to muslims and watch as they get thrown off the tops of tall buildings and go SPLAT

Anonymous said...

3:26 am

So when are you going to put forward a proposal supporting polygamy using the same BS arguments? Then support for paedophiles to marry kids like NAMBA wants or decriminalise bestiality? After all knock down one wall to satisfy one minority you have to keep going and appease all comers. Tell the Muslims that they can't have polygamy and see how far you get. If you can do one you can do all unless we leave it at the status quo. Same sex couples have common law rights as do de facto partnerships. If that is not enough then move to country that offers more. The is none more intolerant than those that demand equality but refuse to allow others to be equal with a right to their own opinion.

Anonymous said...

"Then why are you doing that? At least I am pointing at objective reality. You're simply arguing from your desires, pretty much as 2 year olds do."

Wow Luke you are so full of yourself thinking your "desires" and prejudices are "objective reality". Talk about projection and pontificating (and much like the Pope you think you are infallible in your opinions, but of course you are more like King Canute, but the waves like actual reality don't obey you.

Anonymous said...

How does M+M or F+F marriages affect you? I am in a M+F marriage and I don't give a rat's ass about "marriage equality". It does not affect me whatsoever. Again, how does it affect you? Why cannot the right wing get off the backs of freedom loving people?

Use the Name, Luke said...

2:40, if you think observing the world around you and making decisions based on those observations is mere "personal desires", then you need to stop being a hypocrite and actually live like that. Refuse to make such observations in your daily life, like looking both ways before crossing the street or reading labels before consuming the contents of various containers.

The point is that reality has a way of bruising those who refuse to acknowledge it. You know that. You live it out daily. To then turn around and pretend that doing so is mere personal preference just so you can defend your own wishful thinking is pure hypocrisy.

Use the Name, Luke said...

How does M+M or F+F marriages affect you?

You mean beyond the obvious "we demand you violate your conscience or we will destroy you" affect of the activists, effectively destroying the First Amendment? How about the more blatant "shut up or we will destroy you" attacks that are growing?

Stable marriages and families are absolutely critical to a stable society and economy. When there is wide spread instability, everyone suffers.

Child law has to change from a "biological parent" basis to an "assigned guardian" basis. It goes from a basis in inherent human rights to a "majority rules" basis in law which is often incredibly fickle and abusive.

We are also seeing this "transgender" idea leading to problems with public restrooms. Are my wife and daughters now safe in a woman's bathroom? Not if there is a guy in there dressed as a woman just so he can be a sexual predator. This is explicitly protected by law in Houston, Texas. (The activists specifically removed protections against such behavior from the law before passing it.)

Then there's the historical record that shows no society surviving such changes for very long.

Anonymous said...

Luke can't distinguish between his own subjective observations of the World and what is external reality. He thinks his decisions about "reality" should be everyone else's. Some of his comments even sound worryingly paranoid.

Use the Name, Luke said...

So biology is "all in my head"? I must've been dreaming when I learned about things like XX and XY chromosomes, that babies are produced by the union of one man and one woman, that men and women have psychological differences, and even that there is such a thing as men and women. Therefore, I should bow to your "superior" insight.

Riiiiiiiigggggghhhhhtttt. Tell us another tall tale. Will it be about unicorns? Leprechauns? Fairies?

Anonymous said...

Riiiiiiiigggggghhhhhtttt. Tell us another tall tale. Will it be about unicorns? Leprechauns? Fairies?

and God.

Anonymous said...

1. If the anti-marriage equality folks stopped being assholes, then the activists will quiet down. Clearly this is an eye for an eye mentality. One must expect that activists will be vocal when they are being repressed.

2. Prove that "Stable marriages and families" are unstable with marriage equality. Your belief does not make it so.

3. "transgender" is not part of this discussion. Quit adding unrelated items in a specific conversation.


Anonymous said...

Luke is incapable of understanding what other people are suggesting to him and thinks the discussion is entirely about his own take on the issue; in this case that biological differences are the only matter to consider. It is also suggested to him that his whole manner is dogmatic and narrow-minded, but of course he is incapable to appreciating that too.

Anonymous said...

9:17 - Some here try to muddy the waters, though some of them are just muddled in their thinking through ignorance and prejudice.

Use the Name, Luke said...

1) Riiiiiggghhht. Just like there will be peace if the police stop shooting back at criminals. The activists started this fight. It is unreasonable to say there should not be a defensive response or that those who acted to start the fight will stop fighting.

2) The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous

Since same-sex couples are already less stable than even the far too unstable heterosexual marriages, why would any reasonable person conclude that they would magically become more stable?!?

3) Disconnecting biological gender from social interactions is the foundation of the same sex marriage reasoning.

And we're right back where we started, at my original point. They are not equal. Therefore asserting "marriage equality" is irrational. The circle is complete. I'm done wasting time on someone who replaces thinking with slogans.

Anonymous said...

So the Lord Luke has spoken with his usual pontifical authority! And to quote his Lukely eminence :- "Riiiiiggghhht"!"

Anonymous said...

Why do people like Luke get obsessed with gay sex? Freudian much?!!!

Anonymous said...

Luke ejaculated, "I'm done wasting time on someone who replaces thinking with slogans."

Jesus told me that He is done with you.