The bolded should go without saying.

One can always find a small handful of exceptions, of course.

I'm sure there are some African-American's who are White Supremacists.

Most television is already filthy anyway. Adding a bit more filth (whether heterosexual or homosexual) doesn't change much.

That commercial is indeed filthy.

Not surprising considering the wicked and perverse generation in which we live.

I wouldn't have brought it up, but there have to be some gay people who think that it is better than being hetero. If I were gay, I would probably think it was better myself, because of not bringing children into the world. Now I just think I'm better because I got myself voluntarily sterilized.

It appears this commercial was created for shock value publicity. I've never seen a commercial with that kind of PDA featuring a hetero couple. Probably should not be shown during TV programming for children, but I imagine that's not happening anyway. Commercials in some foreign countries have often been more boundary pushing than those in the US, so it probably is more shocking for Americans.

I can't wait to do this sometime!

I promise you that grocery stores would not want to be associated with the English word gross.

I thought gross was pronounced the same way in German though, just with a different meaning. (Large?)

Only if they're blind.

I don't know that this is true. Gay people are still biologically people with all the same molecules. However it is that you're measuring superiority/inferiority, it's not clearly a static metric which differs significantly based on sexual orientation. It's like saying that the ocean depth differs in two spots which are just a foot apart from each other when the ground below them and the water at the top are constantly moving and changing the depth.

Is this a meaningfully sized group or are we talking about 6 people? I haven't seen anyone using the term gay pride to imply superiority over straight people.

Six people sounds about right imo.

They don't have a choice. The words share a common origin.

Not sure yet how 'gross' acquired the meaning of 'disgusting', but in French 'grossier' meant 'wholesaler' and 'gross' also has the meaning of 'whole' in English like in 'gross income' or a 'gross dozen'.

ETA: ok in French 'grossier' means rude but in Latin 'grossarius' meant 'wholesaler'. I'm assuming that the original meaning was 'whole' and then took on meanings sort of like 'rough/unpolished/raw/crude/disgusting' through semantic drift.

Crude is a similar sort of word where it means 'raw' as in 'crude oil' but can also refer to behavior.

In any case the main problem is that there are plenty of inferers if not implyers. Some of them are on record expressing their concern. They might be stupid like those who don't realize that "black lives matter" is a shortened version of "black lives matter just as much as white lives". But alleviating stupid people's concerns is sometimes worth it.

These posts brought back memories to me. They are the same type of comments that surfaced when commercials started showing interacial couples. The sight of a black man and a white woman as a married couple was just too much for some to bear. After all, in many states it interracial marriages had been illegal until the Supreme Court struck down state laws.

That's disgusting. Why shove it down our throats? What about the children? What about grandma? How far should we go to shield people from seeing images that break past barriers of discrimination? Should we not show a commercial with a white person and a black person sitting in the same bus stop bench because some older people recall when that was not allowed and they still believe its wrong?

If someone wants to go through life thinking homosexuals should be put to death because a few lines in a over 2000 year old book says so, that's their business. But it is ridiculous to expect that homosexuals should therefore have to hide their expressions of affection for their loved ones while in public so as not to offend the haters. From those who would see a young man and woman walking in a mall holding hands and say "oh, how sweet" yet say "oh, how disgusting. We do they have to shove it down our throats" if a same sex couple did the same thing?

How should "the problem" of commercials with gay couples showing affection be "handled" in order not to gross some people out? The same way they handled interracial couples on TV. Treat them just as any other couple on TV. Show them doing all the same activities that a straight couple or a white couple is shown doing.

IOW treat them as any other people because they are the same as any other people. There is no need to pretend they dont exist on TV so as not to offend those who think they are doing something wrong.

I'd say that one of your favourite sources, Wikipedia, sums up my beliefs pretty well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

I've done no such thing.

One of the links is to the Spitzer study, and one is to an article about the same study - a study that Spitzer himself came to believe was wrong, and apologized for - which you hand wave away because he was old and that maybe he broke under pressure. LOL.

As for the other links, well, let me try and help you out with this.

I have a very close family member that is pansexual. To make things simpler, just think of her as bisexual. It may well be that she one day settles down with a guy, gets married, has kids. She would still be bisexual; nothing has changed.

Now instead, imagine that rather than having loving parents who accept her as she is and just want her to be happy, she had homophobic parents who are disgusted and appalled when she comes out to them, and they send her off to conversion therapy. She one day settles down with a guy, gets married, has kids. Has she been "converted"? Or is it possible that she's repressed her feelings to make her family happy? Or that nothing at all has changed, but things worked out with a guy and she's allowing her family to believe that she's chosen to "go straight" when it actually just happens she found a guy she loved?

Obviously that's not going to be everyone's story, but I believe that among these anecdotes that you can go scouring the Internet for, there will be a whole lot of different varieties of repression (consciously or not) and/or saying what makes the homophobes in their lives happy - doing what they have to do to fit in, Because as the Wiki article says:

And the bolded is by far the most important part of that quote. Is it possible that there are some people for whom conversion therapy has actually changed the way they feel about their sexual orientation? Honestly, I don't really care, because people's sexual orientation doesn't need to be "fixed", especially when the cure is generally much more harmful than the (non-existent) "disease".

I would agree about everything you say here if this was a commercial with two gay men holding hands. But come on, this commercial here is definitely over the top. I can safely say I have never seen a commercial featuring a straight couple passing food from one mouth to another, and I don't remember ever seeing any couple do something like this in public. At least in the US, this commercial would certainly be controversial even if it featured a white man and a white woman doing the same thing. Even the gay man quoted said that no one needs to see this, and that it is likely trying to make people think of semen being passed between the two mouths, In any public place apart from a swingers' club, I'm pretty sure eating a candy cream egg like this would be considered socially unacceptable, and if I saw anyone doing it, I would be pretty certain they were just trying to make a scene. The makers of this commercial were just looking for shock publicity, and I don't think they're doing anything positive for gay rights, nor were they trying to do so.

I don't know if you clicked on the link and actually watched the whole video. The pictured part with the gay couple lasts about 2 seconds. But your interpretation of that scene representing passing semen is just completely over the top. Unless of course you also interpreted the scenes before it with women spilling the creme out, dipping their fingers in it and tasting it as equally representative of semen.

And if the post I responded to had simply express the concern about videos showing a couple sharing food, I would prob agree with you. But his post was clear that what he found gross was the fact that a gay couple were kissing, not just being grossed out by the food. And he reinforced that in additional posts. His point was that tv ads shouldnt show gay couples expressing affection bc that would gross out people who are offended by the very existence of gay people in public.

If you look on youtube you will find lots of videos of European commercials that would never be allowed on US TV due to how sexually explicit they are. So judging it by US standards is a but unfair, as TV ads are very different over there.

The semen interpretation was not mine, it was that of the gay man quoted, as I mentioned. Actually it's even worse than what you're likely thinking of.

"I love being gay, but no one needs to see two dudes f***hing a Cadbury creme egg."

The censored word is "felching". Google it and learn a new word today. You're welcome!

Got it. I actually thought it was a misspelling of ****ing so couldn't figure out where in the world you had come up with that. My bad.

A great many people who "miscontrue" those slogans are not doing so in good faith.

Black lives matter.

because

All lives matter.

because

All people are made in the image of God.

If we're just a byproduct of naturalistic evolution, then no lives matter.

In the scheme of things, if we assume naturalistic evolution, then ultimately our hopes, our dreams, our paintings,our love letters, our warm embraces, our science, our literature, our music, our poetry, our pets, and our loved one's have no more value than the vomit a dog spews on the carpet.

Things don't have to have value to the universe to be able to have value to the people we are interacting with.

Sure. Everyone can choose to value whatever they want. Some people will value feeding the hungry, and some people will value starving the hungry. May the side with the best weaponry win.

You mean neither position is inherently good or bad, better ot worse? It's just the side with the better weapons than the other who wins, but it doesn't matter which side that is? Does feeding the hungry include foods stamps, so there is a side that wants to provide food stamps and a side that wants to cut them? Or expanding or reducing the free school lunch program?

I think the two sides have been drawn on this issue, but strangely the side most likely to wrap themselves in god's mantle is the side that shows little interest in feeding the hungry.

This mantra is why it is so important to some religious people that homosexuality remains considered a choice and a sin. Because if they are born that way, and all people are made in god's image, then that would mean than either god made a mistake (impossible) or homosexuals are actually just fine to god. Because if god wanted homosexuals put to death, why would he keep making so many of them?

Pretty sure all studies that have looked at it show that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Which charities idk so maybe it's the take-food-away-from-hungry-kids ones.