AdCouncil's "Love Has No Labels"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Midwest88
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NeedsMercy said:
That is not what I meant by intolerance and you know it.

This discussion is not about same sex marriage, it is about an ad campaign, but since you brought the subject up, show us your data that same sex marriages are not “beneficial to society”. Please provide the link to any research study.

And, fyi, there are many “lifelong marriages, childhood friendships and [sibling relationships]” that the world would be better off without.
Click to expand...
This entire discussion has been about same sex marriage. The entire premise of the thread has been about this ad promoting same sex marriage. Every single post you’ve posted has been centered around your support of homosexuality and same sex marriage. How can you say the discussion is not about same sex marriage?

And yes, I did suspect that your charge of intolerance only applies to those who disagree with you. That doesn’t mean that is the definition of the word though.

Sin is always detrimental to society. No one lives in a bubble. You don’t need data to see th at. Besides, any evidence I showed you, you would not believe, and you would change the subject again.

That fact that some people’s marriages, friendships, and sibling relationships are unhealthy does not make those kinds of relationships bad. Sexual relationships between people of the same sex are intrinsically unhealthy, just as all sexual relationships outside of marraige are unhealthy.
 
Allegra said:
This entire discussion has been about same sex marriage. The entire premise of the thread has been about this ad promoting same sex marriage. Every single post you’ve posted has been centered around your support of homosexuality and same sex marriage. How can you say the discussion is not about same sex marriage?
Click to expand...
No, it has not. The ad never mentioned same sex marriage. I never once mentioned same sex marriage. To say that I did would be bearing false witness.
Allegra said:
And yes, I did suspect that your charge of intolerance only applies to those who disagree with you. That doesn’t mean that is the definition of the word though.
Click to expand...
I used it in this sense: “unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own” (words from the Oxford English Dictionary). You used it in the sense of being against something which is “wrong, untrue, immoral” (your own words). Your “definition” is therefore incorrect. You also used the word “intolerable” in your post which means “unable to be endured”. I suspect that you got the two words mixed up.

oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/intolerance

oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/intolerable
Allegra said:
Sin is always detrimental to society. No one lives in a bubble. You don’t need data to see th at. Besides, any evidence I showed you, you would not believe, and you would change the subject again.
Click to expand...
When did I change the subject? :confused: You can’t use arguments against a social issue with fantasy data. If your statement was factual, there would be data to back it up. Since you don’t present it, I can only believe that it does not exist. And you don’t know me, so don’t make stuff up about whether or not I would have believed actual data that you might have presented. That would be pre-judging me, which is what this ad campaign is really about.
Allegra said:
That fact that some people’s marriages, friendships, and sibling relationships are unhealthy does not make those kinds of relationships bad. Sexual relationships between people of the same sex are intrinsically unhealthy, just as all sexual relationships outside of marraige are unhealthy.
Click to expand...
No, you are correct, it doesn’t make all such relationships “bad”. But did you know that gays have relationships with non-gay people, and non-sexual relationships with other gays? And that they do more than just have sex 24/7? They have real lives, just like yours and mine. They’re real flesh and blood people, with feelings. They are not some abstract constructs that can be used as targets for opprobrium. That is what this ad campaign is really about.
 
Mr_Clean said:
Based solely on what is in the ad there is nothing morally wrong with it. We are commanded to love each other as our Lord has loved us. I personally see it as implying more than what is shown. We are all entitled to our opinions. I believe we should treat each other with love and respect. This is what the Church teaches.

m.newnownext.com/skeleton-kiss/03/2015/

Bias quiz:

lovehasnolabels.com/about-bias
Click to expand...
Okay, so there are** two** issues being discussed here and I think it’s important to clarify what they are so we aren’t talking past each other.

The first issue is welcoming gay people and treating them like anyone else. Part of loving people is welcoming them and letting them know that you will their best interest. I don’t think anyone disputes this. Some posters seem to think it’s being disputed (I think it’s because they’re mixing it up with the second issue.)

The second issue is morality. Society is telling gay people there’s nothing wrong with living out their homosexual desires. This is not only false, it’s putting their souls in danger. Another part of loving people is speaking up when you know they are being dangerously mislead. Otherwise that talk of welcoming them and letting them know you have their best interest was completely hollow.

So when an ad comes along where a lesbian couple kisses and canoodles and people cheer and clap for them, it’s important to speak up and both affirm their worth as children of God and decry the sin that is being encouraged.

Does that make sense?
 
Makes sense to me. I agree with you 100%. I’m not sure everyone here agrees the ad is trying to promote the acceptance of homosexuals living out their desires - I think it is.
 
Mr_Clean said:
Makes sense to me. I agree with you 100%. I’m not sure everyone here agrees the ad is trying to promote the acceptance of homosexuals living out their desires - I think it is.
Click to expand...
Even if that’s not the expressed intention, it has the effect.

If it had shown a man with a harem of young, submissive women, I’m positive a lot of people would have booed. But in the unlikely instance that there were a particularly misogynistic audience, and people had clapped and cheered, there would be uproar from women’s groups. Regardless of the intent of the video’s creators.
 
NeedsMercy said:
No, it has not. The ad never mentioned same sex marriage. I never once mentioned same sex marriage. To say that I did would be bearing false witness.

I used it in this sense: “unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own” (words from the Oxford English Dictionary). You used it in the sense of being against something which is “wrong, untrue, immoral” (your own words). Your “definition” is therefore incorrect. You also used the word “intolerable” in your post which means “unable to be endured”. I suspect that you got the two words mixed up.

oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/intolerance

oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/intolerable

When did I change the subject? :confused: You can’t use arguments against a social issue with fantasy data. If your statement was factual, there would be data to back it up. Since you don’t present it, I can only believe that it does not exist. And you don’t know me, so don’t make stuff up about whether or not I would have believed actual data that you might have presented. That would be pre-judging me, which is what this ad campaign is really about.

No, you are correct, it doesn’t make all such relationships “bad”. But did you know that gays have relationships with non-gay people, and non-sexual relationships with other gays? And that they do more than just have sex 24/7? They have real lives, just like yours and mine. They’re real flesh and blood people, with feelings. They are not some abstract constructs that can be used as targets for opprobrium. That is what this ad campaign is really about.
Click to expand...
I get the feeling you’re talking past me. The fact that the words “gay marriage” don’t appear in the ad doesn’t mean that isn’t what the ad is promoting. The text in the ad is “Love has No Label”, not “respect our differences”, “don’t prejudge”, “bullying is wrong”, or even “gay people have feelings”. The clear message is that gay sexual relationships are as good and normal as any other relationship. You have written several posts endorsing homosexuality as normal and healthy, but you are correct that you did not specifically mention gay marriage.

As for the definition of “intolerance”, I think I used it correctly. You simply fail to acknowledge your own double standard. No one was speaking of stoning gay people and their midguided advocates, ostricising them from society, declaring them second-class citizens, or anything like that. All anyone has said is that they are wrong about the morality about homosexual relationships. You can’t say that one person is “intolerant” when they say that someone else’s choices or beliefs are wrong, and not apply the same charge to yourself and others you agree with when they say that someone else’s beliefs are wrong. The door swings both ways.

I’m not sure what your point is regarding homosexual people’s ability to have normal relationships. The issue is that homosexual relationships are disordered, not that homosexual people are incapable of having any normal relationship at all. Yes, I am aware that gay people are real people with feelings. I’m not sure why you would think otherwise. Believe it or not, most people have at least one person they care about who is gay.
 
NeedsMercy said:
You are correct. The APA did make a “choice not based on scientific research”. It was made in 1952, when the DSM was first published and included homosexuality as a mental illness. This was retained in the DSM and justified by **one **study whose results were later shown to be irreproducible. Using the research of Evelyn Hooker, the study was repudiated in 1973-4 by a revision to the DSM. These are facts that even Dr. Bayer can’t deny.
Click to expand...
You seem mightily determined and well-verse to debunk that same-sex attraction is not a mental illness. You bring in ‘this study’ and ‘that study’ and name drop and mention DSM yet with no links. You say the original diagnosis was wrong from no scientific research, tried to be repeated but failed, then later redacted based on no scientific research … therefore same-sex attraction is not a mental illness.

Funny enough I just borrowed a copy of Bayer’s book. As I flipped through it there are little margin notes done by someone who came before me on some interesting paragraphs.
 
Midwest88 said:
youtube.com/watch?v=PnDgZuGIhHs

The “coexist” plea. The “love is love” plea.

Note who is the first couple and the song that is played. That’s the main reason for this add.

youtube.com/watch?v=NhqH-r7Xj0E. It’s done in conjunction with rapper Macklemore’s “Same Love” song, which, for those that don’t know, a song about gay “rights.”
Click to expand...
I knew it. It was all over my Facebook wall, and I knew something fishy is going on…

“Same Love”… heh…:rolleyes:
 
NeedsMercy said:
Intolerance is intolerance is intolerance. A corpse flower by any other name…
Click to expand...
Huh… Most of the people I know who cry out “intolerant” are themselves intolerant.

Intolerance is the attitude wherein a person assumes that the person one is talking to is intolerant. You just contradicted yourself.
 
Did they show two married people involved in an affair as labelless love? Or a romantically involved father and daughter? A pervert and his favorite inanimate object? Or a hungry man who loves hamburgers? Or did they not want this thing to endure the tiniest bit of scrutiny?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top