rationalskepticism.org

Shrunk wrote:
From that story:

Earlier today the ACL said the issue with the ads was about condoms, not homosexuality.

"I've been labelled homophobic. This has absolutely nothing to do with gay couples," spokeswoman Wendy Francis said.

"This has nothing to do with anything other than another condom ad in a bus shelter, where the children are catching buses to school and billboards where their parents are stopping at lights.

"I will continue to fight sexual imagery in our outdoor advertising until we can get it removed."

Even her lies are odious.

Quite. And they're even more transparent when you read the actual complaints that Adshel received. If the concern was just about 'sexual imagery' ( ) then Wendy should have instructed her minions to complain about 'sexual imagery' and not complain about those dirty queers.

Additionally, if they want G-rated imagery in all public advertising then why are they focussing on this one advert? There are many more explicit ads around. And what about alcohol adverts? They always turn up in bus shelters. But, of course, alcohol adverts would never influence impressionable youth.

While some complaints focus on the issue of sexual imagery in public places, many complaints deviate from the script...

[PDF link] http://qahc.org.au/files/shared/docs/AS ... ints_0.pdf

REASON FOR CONCERN : My children pass this daily. Refers to homosexuality as "ok" I disagree on a moral basis that saturation and desensitisation of the public is occurring to make a minority group "normal" for political correctness!! Surely there are other ways to educate about safe sex. It should represent everyone- not just homosexuals. ASB ID: 6321

REASON FOR CONCERN: This ad is not suitable for general advertisement. Those practicing homosexuality are a minority - such an ad does not need to be viewed by the general public, particularly children. The reason homosexuals need to use condoms is because their sexual behaviour has very high risks of serious diseases - this is not something we want to be impressing on our children as 'safe' sex. If safe sex was the intention of the ad, then a heterosexual couple would have been more appropriate (but still unappropriated for outdoor advertising). This ad is offensive and is completely contrary to prevailing community standards.ASB ID: 6321

REASON FOR CONCERN: The advertisements, which I have seen on a billboard, & numerous bus shelters, is blatantly & very publicly, promoting to our impressionable youth & children, an unhealthy lifestyle choice. It shows two young males in the act of foreplay & to me is encouraging homosexuality. This public display is unacceptable, & damaging for young people to be exposed to. Could it please be removed immediately. ASB ID: 6321

REASON FOR CONCERN: The ad shows two men with one man kissing the neck of the other man with his arm around and references a health I object to a general public sign depicting two gay men in a foreplay pose which is visible to the public (children walking to school). Ads like this could influence and confuse young people who are thinking about their sexuality etc. The same-sex community is a minority group. There is no need for a public ad like this. I am concerned this is an attempt to normalise a same sex sexual relationship. It is not natural and our children should be protected from this type of advertisement community’s initiative. Clearly it is two gay men. ASB ID: 6321

REASON FOR CONCERN : Firstly, one of the men is wearing a wedding band. This suggests that either (A) they are a married gay couple (which is illegal in Australia), or (B) that at least one of them is married and is cheating on his wife. Secondly, since when has advertising condoms been appropriate in a public space- especially at a bus stop right next to a popular city park where children frequent. ASB ID: 6321