D.C. Metro & Bus Anti-marriage Ads

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2009 1:10 AM GMT
    In case any of you in D.C. haven't seen one of these yet. I thought I'd share this

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/12/26/DC_Marriage_Foes_Buy_Bus_Ads/

    I found it interesting
    -- Stand for Marriage DC wants a referendum on this month's resolution legalizing gay marriage, places ads on DC metro & buses.
    -- Full Equality Now DC wants ads removed claiming they are offensive to gays and lesbians and violates DC metro non-discriminatory policies.
    -- ACLU, Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, and some LGBT groups support Stand for Marriage DC's right to place the ads.

    Do you agree with FENDC or the ACLU?

    Feel free to comment, though bear in mind that the news article focuses more on the free speech aspect of the ads (and the disagreement among pro gay marriage organizations over them), rather than the ads anti-gay marriage stance.


    **Learned today that yet another group -- Campaign for All DC Families -- weighs in favor of running the ads.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2009 10:25 PM GMT
    It does not matter, hiding your prejudices behind free speech is still a prejudice and morally and ethically abhorrent, and people who do it should always be held accountable for perpetuating human injustice
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2009 10:27 PM GMT
    Here it is without the link:

    antiX390.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2009 10:36 PM GMT
    Maybe the gay orgs in DC should run ads asking: When do we get to vote on your marriages?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2009 10:38 PM GMT
    If any other hate group wanted to run ads, they would be turned away.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2009 10:45 PM GMT
    I side with the ACLU. I am sorry to see a gay group advocating that an ad should be removed because it is offensive. This undercuts our whole position.

    Religious groups oppose gay rights because they are offended by homosexuality. But freedom of speech means that NO ONE has the right to NOT be offended. Not them, and not us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2009 10:54 PM GMT
    I myself am all for referendums. But you still one way or another get people who will be upset, no matter what.

    I recall one of the Last referendums in Oz was when we voted Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in as our Head of State, over Australia becoming a Republic. Those Republicans activists have never been able to hear that Australia is happy with things the way they are, and still try to force their agenda, not hearing the will of the people.

    So even with a referendum, some one is not going to win, and be unhappy; yet I'm still all for referendums. The will of the majority is passed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2009 10:58 PM GMT
    rotabilis saidI side with the ACLU. I am sorry to see a gay group advocating that an ad should be removed because it is offensive. This undercuts our whole position.

    Religious groups oppose gay rights because they are offended by homosexuality. But freedom of speech means that NO ONE has the right to NOT be offended. Not them, and not us.


    You know thats right. One of the first battles homosexuality had, was to fight censorship, to stop people from tucking them away; keeping them in hiding, now gay and lesbian activist won't to use censorship to repress.

    How would people like Starlin of survived without censorship, or the Chinese Government?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2009 11:30 PM GMT
    free_spirit09 saidIt does not matter, hiding your prejudices behind free speech is still a prejudice and morally and ethically abhorrent, and people who do it should always be held accountable for perpetuating human injustice



    It's not for you to decide what speech is or isn't abhorrent. Banning "unpopular" speech is abhorrent in and of itself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2009 11:32 PM GMT
    Pattison saidI myself am all for referendums. But you still one way or another get people who will be upset, no matter what.


    Referendums are great if voters didn't believe every 30-second tv spot that they see. Unfortunately, a well versed script can turn uneducated voters any which way you'd like. People are like putty.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2009 11:40 PM GMT
    Since most child molestations occur in the homes of heterosexual, self-identified Christian couples in the United States, as does child abuse, and as children are routinely indoctrinated into Christianity against their will via Sunday Schools and churches, I propose that Christian marriage be banned in order to protect our young ones.

    After all, Christianity does not exist in nature. It's members must recruit or indoctrinate in order to perpetuate their unnatural life-style. Finally, this aberrant lifestyle is a choice that one makes.


    Think they'd let me run that on the side of a bus? Enough said.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2009 11:42 PM GMT
    Are you D.C.-ers going to Rosa Parks it?

    I stopped reading the Los Angeles Times and tell everyone to stop reading it as well because during the prop 8 campaign the fully endorsed it. ...they had ADs plastered all over their website 24/7.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2009 11:49 PM GMT
    jimbobthedevil saidSince most child molestations occur in the homes of heterosexual, self-identified Christian couples in the United States, as does child abuse...


    That's pretty skewed. Assuming that homosexuals make up 10% of the population, leaving straights to make up the other roughly 90%, it would be logical to assume that 90% of such molestations and abuse take place in heterosexual households.

    I don't understand why so many people in these forums are so anti-Christian. Not all Christians are right-wing nutjobs who want to crucify gays.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2009 11:56 PM GMT
    sjv209 said
    jimbobthedevil saidSince most child molestations occur in the homes of heterosexual, self-identified Christian couples in the United States, as does child abuse...


    That's pretty skewed. Assuming that homosexuals make up 10% of the population, leaving straights to make up the other roughly 90%, it would be logical to assume that 90% of such molestations and abuse take place in heterosexual households.

    I don't understand why so many people in these forums are so anti-Christian. Not all Christians are right-wing nutjobs who want to crucify gays.


    It's supposed to be skewed. That was kind of the point. These are the arguments they fabricate against homosexuals; it's just as easy, and for that matter even more valid, to apply it the other way.

    And the Christians and the Mormons are leading the charge to take away your civil liberties and basic rights. The Christians and Mormons that aren't standing up against that are nothing more than enablers. Believe me, if the leaders of those groups have their way, you'd be in prison for being gay, or worse. I know this, because I used to be one of them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2009 12:07 AM GMT
    Pattison saidI myself am all for referendums...

    I note the following:

    1. You are an idiot.
    2. "Oz" is not the United States. I have the greatest admiration for Australia (can you never actually say its proper name?), and for Australians, but we have different systems of government, and different traditions.
    3. The problem with referendums on civil rights is that they enforce the "tyranny of the majority" of which many original founders of the USA feared, which made them wary of a democracy. Minorities like gays also have rights, but when subjected to majority referendums, they often lose.
    4. You are an idiot.
    5. This is a US issue, not an Australian one. We here do not intrude on your politics, and you should not intrude on ours. Indeed, I can't think of any other RJ Aussie besides yourself who offers unsolicited advice on what US citizens should think or do.
    6. Those DC bus ads are driven by hate and bigotry, and the ACLU risks its reputation when it defends them purely as a matter of freedom of speech, under the US Constitution. The ACLU record on hate speech is inconsistent & contradictory.
    7. You are an idiot.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2009 12:20 AM GMT
    sjv209 said
    free_spirit09 saidIt does not matter, hiding your prejudices behind free speech is still a prejudice and morally and ethically abhorrent, and people who do it should always be held accountable for perpetuating human injustice



    It's not for you to decide what speech is or isn't abhorrent. Banning "unpopular" speech is abhorrent in and of itself.


    Please read in context, I never advocated or implied banning unpopular speech, I merely stated the people who perpetuate it should be held accountable, word do carry consequences, last I checked
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2009 12:33 AM GMT
    This isn't a question of free speech as nobody is denying the transportation company's right to place the ads or the pro-referendum organization's right to create them.

    This is a question of whether gay people should request the company to retire these ads, making known that they are offensive to some people. That it is a transportation company who serves a blend of communities suggests to me that they would do well to respect the diversity of their clientele and could be reminded of such.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Dec 29, 2009 1:23 AM GMT
    I don't think that qualifies as free speech, ad space on a bus I mean.

    As for internet advertising, sometimes websites don't have control or are aware of the kinds of ads that are being generated on their pages, like if they are driven by the kinds of words showing up in the page for example. Talking about gay marriage on a web page could bring up anti-gay marriage advertisements or pro-gay ones. Sometimes websites can have such ads filtered out once made aware of them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2009 1:37 AM GMT
    Red_Vespa said
    Pattison saidI myself am all for referendums...

    I note the following:

    1. You are an idiot.
    2. "Oz" is not the United States. I have the greatest admiration for Australia (can you never actually say its proper name?), and for Australians, but we have different systems of government, and different traditions.
    3. The problem with referendums on civil rights is that they enforce the "tyranny of the majority" of which many original founders of the USA feared, which made them wary of a democracy. Minorities like gays also have rights, but when subjected to majority referendums, they often lose.
    4. You are an idiot.
    5. This is a US issue, not an Australian one. We here do not intrude on your politics, and you should not intrude on ours. Indeed, I can't think of any other RJ Aussie besides yourself who offers unsolicited advice on what US citizens should think or do.
    6. Those DC bus ads are driven by hate and bigotry, and the ACLU risks its reputation when it defends them purely as a matter of freedom of speech, under the US Constitution. The ACLU record on hate speech is inconsistent & contradictory.
    7. You are an idiot.


    Are you trying to hurt ones feelings? You fail again!!!

    Now you should go look in the mirror.

    You just fear if it was held to a referendum, the majority may well say no! Thats what you get for living in a democracy, and not under a dictatorship; you just can't please all the people all the time.

    Please tell one, while you were in the Army with a wife being all straight or pseudo heterosexual. Did you support gay rights back then, not so long ago? I suspect not. Sorry old fella, but I've lived my whole life as a homosexual, and I'm not going to let some bisexual stop me from having a point of view on homosexual issues no matter where they are in the world, and I'm able to talk about other things than sex.

    Oh when America stops having such a strong influence on my country and culture, I may then think about it, and every time time America picks a fight with another country, and Aussies and Australians have to go and fight that too, and as a tax payer I help fund that too. I may consider not having an opinion on American issues; but not before then. But........ then homosexual issues are universal.icon_wink.gif

    RED V just because you may not do something, doesn't mean no-one else does not have the right to do it; sorry but you are not my superior in any way other Than by many years. Also one is not a sheep, and I'm OK to have an opinion, and too stand on my own. But just because one may not see things your way, doesn't make one wrong, nor foolishicon_wink.gif

    From the land of OZ.......and A true blue Aussie too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2009 1:43 AM GMT

    Meanwhile, on another topic, Pattison is saying how he'd prefer to be bisexual....icon_rolleyes.gif

    Pattie, if a man marries and has children, being gay and in the closet, how does that mean he's bisexual?

    Spoken in Pattinese: Pattison, a man if he maries, being in the closet has kids, how hes bisexual you make a mistake. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2009 1:47 AM GMT
    rotabilis saidI side with the ACLU. I am sorry to see a gay group advocating that an ad should be removed because it is offensive. This undercuts our whole position.

    Religious groups oppose gay rights because they are offended by homosexuality. But freedom of speech means that NO ONE has the right to NOT be offended. Not them, and not us.


    Right on. As much as I might personally hate the ads, they have a right to present their case to the public.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Dec 29, 2009 1:52 AM GMT
    GwgTrunks saidIf any other hate group wanted to run ads, they would be turned away.


    The KKK of Anne Arundel County would like a word with you. They have been running ads for years. The problem is that most aren't well funded enough, not that they are a hate group. Everyone has their price, this group just found that they could afford WMATAs price.

    As for me. "I can't stand what you are saying, but I will fight to the death to hear it said." If this group can be legally shut up, so can any of us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2009 1:53 AM GMT

    ...and if these were ads requesting the right to vote away the rights of blacks to marry?


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2009 1:53 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    Meanwhile, on another topic, Pattison is saying how he'd prefer to be bisexual....icon_rolleyes.gif

    Pattie, if a man marries and has children, being gay and in the closet, how does that mean he's bisexual?

    Spoken in Pattinese: Pattison, a man if he maries, being in the closet has kids, how hes bisexual you make a mistake. icon_biggrin.gif


    If you have a wife, then a male lover, this puts you under the B in the GLBT.I myself having only ever had male lovers and husbands, and thats what makes one a homosexual, and not a bisexual. One has never said being a bisexual is a bad thing, it's just not the same as being a homosexual. Thats why the B is in the GLBT.


    One never claimed to be perfect. Oh you trying to enforce your political correctness on one are you; tut, tut, tut.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Dec 29, 2009 1:54 AM GMT
    meninlove said
    ...and if these were ads requesting the right to vote away the rights of blacks to marry?




    Then they would be laughed of stage, but that doesn't have anything to do with the groups right to free speech. The question is if they can post an ad. Not if you (or anyone else) agrees with the ad.