No. You haven’t.

Because that site isn’t anything but a “gay niche” template site owned by the same woman who does “Cougar Life” and “Arrangement Seekers.”

She’s just using the political power of the gay community for a quick buck.

Okay so a gay commercial got denied, big suprise! Move on! We need to try to get our Gay channels more viewers and get our channels on common cable.

Maybe we should follow BET’s lead and get a gay station to become a lil more common place. Sorry LOGO, but you guys are still pretty obscure and not easy enough to acces.

I say, lets just boycott the superbowl and be done with it if its that big an issue.

I certainly do not see any ad for a commercial venture as representing our “community”. We should be more intelligent than the masses of voters that think political ads truly portray what a candidate will do once in office. Plus the message of “straight” guys finding their atraction and going for it likely would resonate with the super bowl crowd. And, yes, the RR will hate to see facts, as they always do, but married men cruising simply should not be alarming to anyone in our society.

For Emma, just a few comments:
-CBS does not own the airwaves. We the people do, and we license their use to broadcasters. They are not free to censor or not, there are limitations to what they can use our property for and I don’t think it is appropriate to roll over and say they have a right to censor. It is a fine line and I don’t know where it lies, but I’m not comfortable saying the sole decision lies with the licensee. I believe the FCC would have an issue with that.

Secondly, while I admire your plea to accept all and let the marketplace decide, I still think there is a difference we need to not let go unacknowledged. The FOTF piece is basically hate speach. It seeks to impose a narrow religious view on all of us, by making abortion illegal. No, it does not seek to stop a woman from having an abortion. They do not care about women or the individual fetuses. They care about imposing their laws, taliban-esque, on all of us. It also promotes faith healing which is dangerous considering weak minds not able to reason properly are the ones that will decide to listen to the priest instead of the doctor.

The other ad promotes a business venture, however distasteful, perfectly legal. It does not advocate subjugating our laws to an imagined deity nor does it seek to impose guilt on a whole class of society so that they will use their shame to change our nation’s laws.

I find it hard to accept both are equal and subject them to the marketplace. Commercial venture vs. hate speach…should we have a different place in our rules for each of them??????

However, like always, it constantly comes down to confidence. If women had more confidence in their husbands, vice-versa, there really wouldn’t be anything to argue against. I mean, let’s face it, the commericial was stupid, wouldn’t have done anyone justice, and certainly would’ve motivated a very few. Anyone getting the indication that narrow-minded straight people aren’t as stable as they like to pretend to be?

I am not a prude but something had to be done. So I gritted my teeth and said as politely as I could, “I am sorry ma’am, but some of us really need to get to the bathroom.” She apologized and let me by.

Back to this ad.
Is it really too much to ask for ads showing same-sex couples in settings where they are enjoying other’s company but in a graceful, dignified way? I’t a possible to show a good variety of scenes featuring attractive same-sex couples same as can be done for classy straight couples. Might have to spend a few dollars to film it but the lowest budget style as this ad appears to me with a room, TV, couch, bowl of snacks and 2 sloppy and noisy college-aged dudes is not the way to go.