Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Pro Gay but not 'Ungay' ads allowed on buses? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "Do you not think that perhaps 'ex-gay and proud' suggests that there is something wrong with being gay in the first place?"

    By that reasoning " gay and proud" equally suggests there's something wrong with being straight in the first place.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by denclub)
    "Do you not think that perhaps 'ex-gay and proud' suggests that there is something wrong with being gay in the first place?"

    By that reasoning " gay and proud" equally suggests there's something wrong with being straight in the first place.
    not particularly, the point of the statement is to say they are proud of their sexuality - even though many people thing ill of it. It was a stigma to be gay and still is in many areas and to say you are proud and don't care about what people think goes against how a lot of people wanted gay people to feel about their sexuality.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I'm completely pro equality but I think if your going to allow ads promoting either side of the arguement then you should allow both sides to be presented. As long as it isn't worded in an attacking way I don't think it should be blocked as offensive. Hearing an opinion you disagree with isn't the same as an offensive attack- I don't agree that people have the right not to hear opposing views however incorrect they may be percieved. I can't see how it is at all fair to put up adds which clearly provoke disagreement and then ban people from responding.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If pro-gay ads are allowed, then "ungay" ads, so to speak, should also be allowed. That is, of course, if we really do live in a functioning democracy.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iamgreatness)
    If pro-gay ads are allowed, then "ungay" ads, so to speak, should also be allowed. That is, of course, if we really do live in a functioning democracy.
    We don't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stroma)
    We don't.
    exactly. We can let o2 in, but not co2 out

    or whatever a stroma does lol
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iamgreatness)
    exactly. We can let o2 in, but not co2 out

    or whatever a stroma does lol
    That isn't even close to what a stroma does.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think that the adverts just aren't allowed to target any groups of people in a negative way.

    Un-gay ads are deliberately offending gay people whereas Pro-gay ads do nothing to offend straight people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stroma)
    That isn't even close to what a stroma does.
    i have a B in biology.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aoide)
    I'm completely pro equality but I think if your going to allow ads promoting either side of the arguement then you should allow both sides to be presented. As long as it isn't worded in an attacking way I don't think it should be blocked as offensive. Hearing an opinion you disagree with isn't the same as an offensive attack- I don't agree that people have the right not to hear opposing views however incorrect they may be percieved. I can't see how it is at all fair to put up adds which clearly provoke disagreement and then ban people from responding.
    Couldn't agree more with this
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by therisenmitten)
    I think that the adverts just aren't allowed to target any groups of people in a negative way.

    Un-gay ads are deliberately offending gay people whereas Pro-gay ads do nothing to offend straight people.
    They do offend people in exactly the same way a homosexuality is bad sign would. It is impossible to deny the adds provoke religious groups who view homosexuality as bad.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Curing homosexuality is not possible and offering a cure indicates it is a disease.

    Homosexuality was discriminated for thousands of years (ever since abrahamic religion claimed it to be sinful) and as such can make people feel VERY insecure about themselves and often lead to being hurt by themselves or others.
    That's why.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jakaroo94)
    Oh dear. Do you not think that perhaps 'ex-gay and proud' suggests that there is something wrong with being gay in the first place?
    No more than "gay pride" parades suggest that there is something wrong with being straight...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think the Stonewall ad was 'Pro-gay' per se; rather it was anti-homophobic. The difference being that it didn't make any judgement on straight people - and there is the distinction between it and the Christian ad. If the latter had been along the lines of "Some people are straight, get over it" or "some people aren't gay, etc" I don't think there would have been so much of a furore. Similarly, if the Stonewall ad had deliberately provoked straight people/religious groups then I doubt it would have been allowed.

    So yeah, from my perspective the reason why Stonewall's ad was allowed and the Christian group's was not was that the former only said that it's not bad to be gay without passing judgement on whether it was bad to be straight; the latter said it wasn't bad to be straight by implying that it WAS bad to be gay.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jakaroo94)
    But in any case, you're clearly a bit dense so I won't be contributing any further.

    xox
    Lol, get over yourself mate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well, one is promoting acceptance and tolerance, and the other is making an offensive and hurtful statement- I thought we'd got over the whole 'homosexuality is a disease' thing by now?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prettygeek)
    Well, one is promoting acceptance and tolerance, and the other is making an offensive and hurtful statement- I thought we'd got over the whole 'homosexuality is a disease' thing by now?
    Obviously the guy who negged my first post (slightly higher up) didn't think so. =l

    Dumbass (not you, guy who negged me)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    One states a fact (That some people are gay and deserve respect as it is who they are); the other peddles a lie (that there is a real cure for homosexuality). The Taliban also "cure" gay people by stoning them to death, but I doubt they would be allowed an advert on a London bus.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ufo2012)
    You are stating that as if it is fact. So yes there is a problem with that. It is not proven fact that a person who was once gay can become heterosexual.

    The ad implies that a person, even if it was only one single person was a gay and moved on and is now Ex-Gay, so they are also now Post-Gay.

    Nobody ever mentioned in this thread that being gay was an 'illness' that must be 'cured'.

    But in the DSM there is an article for people who wish to change from being gay - if it exists in that there is most than one person who has encountered this in the past and by what it would seem there are people who continue to advocate that it is possible to once be gay and then become heterosexual.

    Of course the DSM is undergoing a revision which will be with us soon, so it will interesting to see if that diagnosis is kept or removed.

    Whether you agree with the above or not is not really the primary debate of this topic though (there is a separate topic for the issue you are talking about).
    There are a lot of questionable things in the DSM. There was once a trend of calling literally anything a mental disorder.

    Disregarding that fact, the fact that it includes a disorder where people who are gay wish to not be gay does not in any way support the idea that one can actually stop being gay. I could have a mental disorder where I wish I was a cat, and that disorder could be added to the DSM. Does that now mean that it's possible for me to become a cat?


    (Original post by S1L3NTPR3Y)
    One states a fact (That some people are gay and deserve respect as it is who they are); the other pedals a lie (that there is a real cure for homosexuality). The Taliban also "cure" gay people by stoning them to death, but I doubt they would be allowed an advert on a London bus.
    I agree. The fact that it feeds into some homophobes'/ignorant people's idea that being gay is a choice is potentially harmful to gay people's position/treatment in society. We work hard to break down these misconceptions/myths/lies and it would be very annoying for some idiotic Christian organisation to undo that.

    Also, since I've seen this a few times lately - it's peddle, not pedal.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronove)
    There are a lot of questionable things in the DSM. There was once a trend of calling literally anything a mental disorder.

    Disregarding that fact, the fact that it includes a disorder where people who are gay wish to not be gay does not in any way support the idea that one can actually stop being gay. I could have a mental disorder where I wish I was a cat, and that disorder could be added to the DSM. Does that now mean that it's possible for me to become a cat?
    The DSM reports experiences from a number of voting expert psychologists and psychiatrists who often base their findings on things that have been reported back to them in more than one single case.

    So if one person reported the 'cat syndrome' you discuss then they would see it as crazy, if hundreds or thousands of people reported it, then they would have a case to answer.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 29, 2013
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.