I said I don;t care what you want to call it ages ago
I got told to call it a disorder or a genetic defect :/
And it is so tempting to nuke you now
But MR white would have me burned I feel
Beans Advert Pulled.
- Thread starter bennyboy2606
- Start date
I said I don;t care what you want to call it ages ago
I got told to call it a disorder or a genetic defect :/
And it is so tempting to nuke you now
But MR white would have me burned I feel
You should know better go read the damn artical, its obviously just a publicity stunt, they weren't even investigated.
Thing is, some people will go "Showing it will give kids the idea that being gay is ok!"
A) It is ok to be gay, you don't really have a choice.
B) As you don't have a choice, the ad cannot make kids gay, they already have the genetic make up dictating that.
C) People are morons.
4) Will anyone actually buy the product as a result of this stunt?
Addendum: I need to pee
A) It is ok to be gay, you don't really have a choice.
B) As you don't have a choice, the ad cannot make kids gay, they already have the genetic make up dictating that.
C) People are morons.
4) Will anyone actually buy the product as a result of this stunt?
Addendum: I need to pee
I didn't even read semi-pros post until now, i'm just passing time whilst waiting for a download to finish by adding to the nonsense in this thread
As my first post in this thread said, that advert has nothing to do with gay people...
Extra good point.
Hell, I've puckered up with some male mates just as a joke. Italians kiss eachother all the time.
Wasn't there even an episode of Friends where Joey kisses Ross?
I didn't even read semi-pros post until now, i'm just passing time whilst waiting for a download to finish by adding to the nonsense in this thread
As my first post in this thread said, that advert has nothing to do with gay people...
it also wasn't pulled for complaints, the ASA hadn't even taken notice of the complaints, Heinz probably didn't even know the number when they pulled it.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Thank you, I can already read, I think I might even be at primary three level, my mum is so proud of me.
However just for a change I didn't feel like reading two and a bit pages of the same circular arguments about homosexuality and its status in society that I've read before. I'm aware the ASA haven't investigated Heinz (yet) and that doesn't impact on my opinion at all, the advert shouldn't have been pulled, it wasn't necessary to do so and appeasing people for a kneejerk reaction of complaining doesn't make me any happier.
Why exactly?
Tefal said:
Now I'm no expert in this so if you have some reason to think that animals who display homosexual behaviour please explain.
My understanding is that if an animal is gay they'll go off and have sex with others of the same sex. But if they want children they could just sleep with someone of the opposite sex! Being gay doesn't remove the desire to reproduce, and if an animal wants to reproduce they know how to do it.
Tefal said:
To have a child...
Tefal said:
So you're saying that if a human is homosexual, but because of his sentience he chooses to mate with someone of the opposite sex they cease to be ill since their 'condition' did not affect their ability to have children and pass on their genes.
Also the desire to reproduce is not something that requires sentience, i'd describe it as an instinct. If you've got some experience/source that shows that homosexuals lack this instinct/will not mate with the opposite sex for the purpose of reproduction then please go on.
Tefal said:
I don't believe it does. But as I've said before the example was to illustrate how different people would refer to different traits as an illness so stop trying to take it out of context.
I meant read the artical not the thread, the thread is crap.
But the ad was almost certainly made and pulled for the controversy of it's pulling
o oo err)and the massive free publicity, not the tiny amounts of complaints.I'll reply to the rest later but this is the only part i can be arsed with at the mo.
Unless you can prove that religious beliefs are hindering a organisms biological functions then it cannot be called an illness i can;t even begin to imagine how you think anyone could even argue that :/
I wouldn't agree with that. I was under the impression that it had been shown that in order for everyone to succeed as a group/species then everyone should act in a way to benefit the group. Whilst many of the qualities listed would probably benefit the individual they probably wouldn't benefit the group.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,426
- Location
- The Orion Spur
Like a brain defect for example, one that would maybe explain why people are gay, (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/scientists-link.html) as apposed to an external genetic defeat like an abnormality on the body, also although I do believe that there are some genetic disorders that could be classed as an illness I think that 'said' genetic disorder would have to be causing an impairment upon that person before it could be classified as an illness, other wise it would just be a disorder, a genetic disorder.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 6,674
- Location
- East Sussex
"about 200 complaints"
cowards... i'd have stuck it out to 300
Surely it's just ignorance to pretend that men cannot physically kiss other men? I'll also point out that there is no "gay" in the ad, the "mum" is quite clearly a humourous representation of a female mother by a strong stereotypical "new york deli" personality... nobody in the ad is intended to be construed as gay, some drama-queens are clearly just looking for something to whine about.
Stupid to pull it, pathetic to be offended by it.
cowards... i'd have stuck it out to 300
Surely it's just ignorance to pretend that men cannot physically kiss other men? I'll also point out that there is no "gay" in the ad, the "mum" is quite clearly a humourous representation of a female mother by a strong stereotypical "new york deli" personality... nobody in the ad is intended to be construed as gay, some drama-queens are clearly just looking for something to whine about.
Stupid to pull it, pathetic to be offended by it.
Aside from theft they pretty much all benifft the group too.
Assuming that there is a genetic cause for being homosexual, could you prove that it hinders an organisms biological functions? They are after all still fully capable of reproducing naturally so it's just a matter of if they have the desire to do so. I believe this desire to be separate from a preference to who
someone chooses to spend their time with.
For evidence of this it's not hard to find, e.g. men who have had a family but then realise/decide they are gay and go off with men, lesbian couples who accept sperm from a donor/friend, gay men who've found a donor egg&surrogate mother. In the animal would it could be the animal is gay but wants to reproduce so knows it needs to mate with the opposite sex so it does so. It's instinct.
Anyway, the point that is that I don't believe there is evidence enough to prove that being gay will mean an inability/hindrance to reproduce and that the desires for which are something separate. Therefore I don't agree that it should be called an illness.
In reference to the Christian bit, I wouldn't argue it and I don't believe it to be true!!!! The point I was making was that everyone will have a different interpretation of what is normal/beneficial to someone's survival and thus everyone will be described as having an illness by someone else. The example was supposed to demonstrate that there are people out there who would say in order to function properly you need to accept Jesus etc. By your definition these people would refer to non-believers as being ill. The example was supposed to be a demonstration of how the term 'illness' is not a good choice of words.
I'm not trying to argue that their point of view would be correct, quite the contrary in fact.
