Let the gays out of the closet

Bill Browning at The Bilerico Project makes a bloody good point that many marriage equality adverts focus on straights to sell the idea and not the gays themselves.  Why do ad makers find it so hard to show gays as parents, as couples and as families in their own right?  Is it because voters find it easier to accept their own… and most voters are straight so hey, they’ll listen to other straights.

I understand that focus group after focus group tell pollsters that seeing gay people turns off the straight folks we need to vote in our favor. The general public wants to see grandmas and grandpas talking about their families, but never actually showing them too much. They think that voters will identify with the friends and family members of gays and lesbians. I disagree.

We’ve done all these focus groups and produced these same old ads for years now. We’ve never won with them. We can claim that they move people all we want, but it’s the same as those polls that always show us with inflated numbers about how good we’re doing. People lie about their feelings about same-sex marriage to pollsters. That’s a known fact.

One of the most important honest-to-gosh ways to advance our rights has been pretty simple. LGBT people came out of the closet and showed people their faces, lives, and families. Why should we do any less now?

As I have said before marriage equality is about family but I too would love to see some ads showing GLBT families in their own right – and not just relying on straights to vouch for their gay family members.

 

  • Peter

    Appropriate name BROWNING? I always argued years ago the Hero parade should be sponsored by Lion Brown, not Lion Red.

  • Jimmie

    Probably the same reason why movies dont show two guys shagging each other much (not like 2 lessos) its not exactly too appealing to the average punter.

    Gay guys are protrayed as pretty boys who love shopping and fancy clothes but no mention or showing of them getting hot and heavy…….

  • Andrei

    As I have said before marriage equality is about family but I too would love to see some ads showing GLBT families in their own right

    Gay’s can’t have families without resorting to test tubes and things and then lying about usually the father is but if you are a rich homosexual you can exploit a poor woman and then lie about who the mother is.

    This is an area filled with self centered deceit and is not really about gays having families at all, it is about normalizing aberrant behaviour and ramming it down peoples throats.

    When gay marriage comes a few middle and upper middle class gays will get “married” and flaunt it to be sure but not many.

    This is about forcing children to be indoctrinated with abnormal sexuality in kindergaten.

    It is the last gasp of a selfish and self centered and contemptible generation who have squandered the wealth of the Nation before the Nation goes into its final decline.

  • kowtow

    Why? Cos it’s not natural.

  • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

    There was an advertisement for condoms for gay men recently in Australia (Queensland, I think, and it may have been in January). It showed a man hugging another from behind and smiling at the camera. One of them may have been holding a condom. The ad was shown at bus shelters where children would see it, so it got lots of complaints, which weren’t upheld by whatever the equivalent of the standards authority is over there.

    The point being, many people don’t want to be exposed to alternative lifestyles when they are not expecting it, and they don’t want their children exposed to it either.

  • BR

    Same-sex “marriage” must always be strenuously opposed.

    The promotion of homosexuality as a way of life comes from the left of politics. When the fourth Labour government repealed the laws that outlawed buggery in the mid 1980s, many people at the time were opposed to such a law change. It is no better an idea now than it was then, despite the propaganda efforts by the left-driven homosexual lobby to promote sodomy as part of as a healthy lifestyle choice.

    There is some behaviour that should be kept illegal in order that it is not openly encouraged. Buggery is an example of such behaviour.

    One of the arguments being promoted in favour of homosexual “marriage” is that traditional marriage is already a crumbling institution, so it is futile to try to save it from further demise.

    The institution of marriage has been in decline for some time, with the introduction of the DPB, no-fault divorce and the uncertainty in the property laws associated with de-facto relationships. Politicians, particularly those on the left, have contributed in no small way to the decline by meddling with the laws and conditions related to traditional marriage.

    The campaign to legitimise homosexual “marriage” by left wing politicians is an example of further meddling. If people wish to indulge in aberrant behaviour, there is not much that can be done to stop them, but must such behaviour be state sanctioned?

    It is not clear to what extent any of this benefits homosexuals. Not all homosexuals believe that same-sex “marriage” is a good idea. Homosexual MP Chris Findlayson voted against it. Clearly this same-sex “marriage” campaign is being driven by more than just homosexuals.

    Homosexuals appear to make up around 2 percent of the general population. However, aided and abetted by the left, their lobby groups have become a political force to be reckoned with.

    If the homosexual lobby get their way on their version of “marriage”, where to next? Will they go off and live happily ever after and shut up about their so-called “rights”?

    That seems unlikely. The homosexual lobby are perpetual complainers.

    Most churches have said that they will refuse to officiate in any “marriage” ceremony involving two people of the same sex. For now, the politicians are saying quite loudly that churches will be exempt from endorsing such unions under the proposed law. However, nobody can give an assurance that this will not change in the future. The left never sleeps. Their record of attacking time tested traditional institutions is well documented. The left-wing homosexual lobby will continue to grumble about discrimination, and will campaign for the kind of law that will make any and all discrimination against homosexuals illegal. Watch this space.

    Some years ago there was a cult commune set up in NZ called Centrepoint. The leader, Bert Potter, was eventually jailed for child sexual abuse along with some of his followers.

    Most child sex abusers hang their heads in shame in at least a token gesture of remorse when they are up before the beak on charges of child sex offending, but not Bert Potter. He was defiant. He claimed that sexually interfering with children was beneficial to them and in their best interests. Many of Potter’s followers agreed with this. Some parents on his commune even permitted their children to be sexually molested by Potter and some of the other adults there.

    It is not clear what percentage of the population have an unhealthy fondness for children. There would be very few who would openly admit to such a proclivity. This means that other than perhaps a few rare exceptions, the only ones that have been identified are those who have been arrested and charged. The majority of men who cannot get sex are not rapists, so it is reasonable to assume that most of those who are sexually attracted to children have not offended either.

    The left would waste no time in encouraging child abuse perverts to “come out” if they believed that it would be to their political advantage. The left have no morals or conscience. Leftist agenda comes first, last and everything in between. The silence and cavalier attitude from the left-dominated educational establishment as a response to warnings from the police about James Parker was very telling. This should not surprise anyone who has looked further than the mainstream media at what really motivates the left, of course.

    The kiddy-fiddlers will be watching the progress of this homosexual “marriage” legislation with great interest. There would not be many of these perverts who are anti same-sex “marriage”. It certainly does nothing to harm their own agenda. It should not be forgotten that the homosexual lobby are indebted to those pedophiles who stood along side them in their campaign for legitimacy. If this legislation is passed, two pedophiles could get “married” and therefore be eligible to adopt children.

    It is also not inconceivable that some time in the future, some pedophile who is young, charming, charismatic (perhaps someone like James Parker), and who holds a degree in psychology or sociology (degrees that are mostly run and attended by leftists), could promote Bert Potter’s ideals. Such a person could quite possibly gain respect as an authority on the subject by flaunting his university credentials before an increasingly dumbed down public. If such a campaign ever gains any traction, one can only hope that closet pedophiles are far fewer in number than homosexuals.

    The media scrum surrounding the release from prison of Stewart Murray Wilson is worthy of comment here in that it was arguably more newsworthy than the event itself. Wilson is not the only pedophile to have been released from jail after serving a lengthy sentence. However none have inspired the sort of lurid voyeurism displayed by the media the way Wilson has. What is it about this pathetic, dirty old man that inspires such fear and media fascination? Could it be because his charge sheet includes a conviction for bestiality?

    Perhaps that will be next.

    Why stop at homosexual “marriage”?

    What goes on between a man and his goat in the privacy if their own home is none of anyone else’s business.

    That is the test, isn’t it?

    Bill.

    • Alex

      The rambling post of an idiot.

      When the “buggery” laws were repealed we were told about the imminent threat of sodomy in the streets, and that homosexuals would ran recruitment campaigns so that heteros would find themselves in a minority.

      Didn’t happen.

      So now we’re told that same sex marriage will lead to paedophilia becoming legal. Is the Beast of Blenheim starting up a lobby group? Is he likely to receive support from any section of society?

      Do you see the same fallacious slippery slope logic? Probably not.

      Your list of factors for why marriage has declined are solely due to heterosexual failings. So what was that proverb? Oh yes: “And why behold you the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye?

      Amazes me how your on the so-called conservative “right”, like your extreme Left kin, have no faith in voters’ ability to distinguish right from wrong. In this case, between consensual sex between two same sex adults, and sexual exploitation of animals and children by adults.

      Homosexuals will always be a minority (whether it be 2% or closer to 10%). So I don’t get why you, Lucia Maria, Andrei and RedBaiter spend so much time venting your spleen against a group who are numerically quite insignificant, all things considered. Suppose now that it’s unfashionable to attack Jews and witches, you need to find a new target.

      Homosexuals have had to put up with constant crap — from family members, schools, churches and public. They have been killed and seriously assaulted just because of being homosexual. They have committed suicide due to feeling worthless. When you understand that context, you’ll understand why homosexual groups are so vocal.

      The anger that drives many homosexual lobby members is that they resent having had the quality of their lives compromised by bigots, and they resent the same bigots making it so difficult to establish meaningful relationships. They want to make sure that the next generation doesn’t have to put up with this rubbish ever again.

      Here’s an interesting role play exercise for you: imagine how you’d feel if you lived in a society where heterosexuals were a minority; you fall hopelessly in love with a girl; but you fear showing any signs of affection in public because you’re afraid of the negative attention you’ll receive and, in some dealings with other people, you have to either stay silent about relationship or deny it entirely.

      Tell me would you find this situation desirable?

      • Andrei

        Here’s an interesting role play exercise for you: imagine how you’d feel if you lived in a society where heterosexuals were a minority;

        You silly billy such societies don’t exist or if they do they go extinct pretty darn quick because they are sterile and cannot sustain themselves.

        This is exactly why gay “marriage” is from loopy la la land

        • Alex

          As usual you miss the point.

          The point of the exercise was not to suggest there could be any such society, but rather to put your feet in someone else’s shoes and try to understand it from their perspective. In other words, show some empathy. Why is that so hard?
          Could it be that you know my question was rhetorical?

          • BR

            Are you willing to put your feet into thew shoes of the kiddy-fiddlers?

            Bill.

      • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

        So I don’t get why you, Lucia Maria, Andrei and RedBaiter spend so much
        time venting your spleen against a group who are numerically quite
        insignificant, all things considered.

        I don’t consider defending traditional marriage, “venting” my “spleen” against anyone. Strangely enough, some (I know not all of those who identify as homosexual are involved) of this “numerically insignificant group” are trying to redefine a heterosexual institution, thus getting the attention of everyone who is interested in defending marriage as is.

        You can’t attack a fundamental pillar of society and not expect serious fight back, unless you are totally naive or of limited intelligence.

        And I agree with Andrei, such a society where heterosexuals were a minority could not exist.

      • BR

        You are confusing homosexuals with the homosexual lobby. They are not the same. One is a small group with a psychiatric illness, the other is a much larger group made up of some homosexuals, but mostly hard leftists who’s agenda is to destroy the civil society. The left will aid and abet any group, no matter how evil or repulsive, if it will advance their agenda. They will also go after more noble causes and divert them towards their own ends. The promotion of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice is one of a very large number of causes they are involved with. Some of the National party, most of the Labour party and ALL of the Green party have been infiltrated by these dreadful people. They are vile, digusting and evil, and every cause they support must be strongly opposed, and every organisation they are involved with must be defunded wherever possible.

57%