"Gay Cure" adverts banned

EGAR

Adverts which suggested gay people could be cured have been banned from London buses.


The campaign was due to run on London buses from Monday
The campaign was due to run for two weeks on the side of vehicles serving five routes in the capital, including top tourist destinations such as St Paul's Cathedral, Oxford Street, Trafalgar Square and Piccadilly Circus.
The posters, by Christian group Core Issues Trust, stated: "Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!".

They were believed to mock pro-gay group Stonewall's recent campaign which featured adverts saying: "Some people are gay. Get over it."
But following a huge public outcry which labelled the Core Issues' campaign homophobic, London Mayor Boris Johnson, who chairs Transport for London (TfL), tonight ordered the adverts to be pulled.

Mr Johnson, who is standing for re-election next month, said: "London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance.
"It is clearly offensive to suggest being gay is an illness someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses."

The campaign, which was backed by Christian group Anglican Mainstream and cleared by industry regulator the Advertising Standards Authority, claimed therapy could change sexual orientation.
It was due to run on London buses from Monday.

Core Issues' co-director Mike Davidson tonight criticised the decision to axe the adverts, saying: "I didn't realise censorship was in place.
"We went through the correct channels and we were encouraged by the bus company to go through their procedures. They okayed it and now it has been pulled.

"I would be interested to know on what basis they have done that."
He added: "It is of deep concern that there can only be one point of view and that is the point of view of individuals who are determined to push through gay marriage and apparently believe that homosexuality cannot be altered in any possible way.
"That is not a universally held view.
"This is a disturbing development and it is disappointing the UK finds itself in this position."
But Stonewall spokesman Andy Wasley welcomed the move, saying: "We are delighted by TfL's clear commitment to diversity.
"It is fantastic that no adverts will be promoting voodoo, gay-cure therapy in London."

A TfL spokeswoman said: "The adverts are not currently running on any London buses and they will not do so.
"This advertisement has just been brought to our attention by our advertising agency, CBSO, and we have decided that it should not run on London's bus or transport networks.
"We do not believe these specific ads are consistent with TfL's commitment to a tolerant and inclusive London."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0412/gay-cure-adverts-banned-from-london-buses.html

stephen_n

I wonder would he like me to cure his heterosexuality the poor repressed little man.

wonderfulname

I like the way it rolls off your tongue; "Post-gay, ex-gay and proud", snap, snap, snap!

Xevkin

Those advertisements have an Orwellian sinisterness to them, don't they?

Oracle

Xevkin wrote: »

Those advertisements have an Orwellian sinisterness to them, don't they?

No not really, the banning of the ads has though .....

wonderfulname

Oracle wrote: »

No not really, the banning of the ads has though .....

Not really, the ads are publicising a practice widely acknowledged to be potentially incredibly damaging, they are also pushing a viewpoint that contributes to homophobia in suggesting homosexuality is an illness or a choice, in addition the ads themselves would cause not only offence, but potentially distress to those who have come out the other end of such practices, never mind that people might actually sign up for treatment based on perceived validity due to large scale advertising.

Freedom of speech and expression is a complicated right, it doesn't just mean you can say whatever the hell you want, there are limits, and those limits generally come into play when you start interfering with somebody else's rights or quality of life, which this organisation clearly does.

foggy_lad

Always thought the gay cure was the same as the straight cure, few pints in slatterys at 6am always used to work for me.

ixoy

Only last week, Robert Spitzer retracted his own 2001 paper that claimed it was possible for gay men and women to change their sexuality. This paper was often used by these (disgusting) groups to try and validate their claim. Now they've even less ammunition to work with.
For what it's worth, Spitzer was also instrumental in getting homosexuality declassified as a mental illness in the US.

bodice ripper

Well, if you will run adverts that are both argument by assertion and belligerent in tone, you should probably consider the chance that other people will follow suit.

I think its a bit childish, regardless of who is doing it.

bananarama22

EGAR wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0412/gay-cure-adverts-banned-from-london-buses.html

Rightly so, suggesting that homosexuality can be cured is shyte. A cure implies that it is a disease or ilness of some kind. I have a few gay friends and they damn well didn't ask to be gay. Who ever thinks that gayness can be cured is either very ignorant or a downright over religioous nut. I may be mistaken, and I will show a link if asked, but I heard that geneticists may have isolated a gene causing people to be homesexual or lesbian.

Oracle

bananarama22 wrote: »

.... I may be mistaken, and I will show a link if asked, but I heard that geneticists may have isolated a gene causing people to be homesexual or lesbian.

That's all very dangerous I think. The problem with the "we're born this way" genetic argument is, biological cause could mean a biological "cure".

There's been a long history of abuse of lesbians and gays by the medical and psychiatric professions. In the past that meant anything from aversion therapy, medication or surgery, and potentially even eugenics. Despite this long history of oppression, the gay movement continues to insist homosexuality has a solely biological, immutable genetic cause. I believe that's a big mistake in both ideology and strategy.

Annasopra

Oracle wrote: »

That's all very dangerous I think. The problem with the "we're born this way" genetic argument is, biological cause could mean a biological "cure".

There's been a long history of abuse of lesbians and gays by the medical and psychiatric professions. In the past that meant anything from aversion therapy, medication or surgery, and potentially even eugenics. Despite this long history of oppression, the gay movement continues to insist homosexuality has a solely biological, immutable genetic cause. I believe that's a big mistake in both ideology and strategy.

So basically you think those who want to abuse us should be allowed advertise their services?

Solair

I'm glad these ads were dropped. I don't see them as any different to a racist campaign.

I think the problem with this is that certain culturally right wing, usually religious points of view tend to look at humans as if we were loan-hunting primitive animals out in the forest somewhere and that success is when the loan hunter reproduces and brings in a large dead deer and completely ignores society / social structure.

The reality is that humans are by far the most socially complex mammalian species on the planet. We function as a huge, complex, deeply-interconnected society. We are so social that we actually cannot function and go insane if we are totally isolated from others. Think: 'the Borg', just a bit cuddlier and messier.

Evolutionary success to a species like that means that the collective progresses, survives, expands, develops.

If you have a huge complex social structure, not every individual needs to reproduce because the success of society ensures survival, not just the ability of the individual to reproduce and avoid being eaten by a predator.

It would seem possible, and quite likely, in a setup like that that homosexuality might actually be an evolutionary advantage to the society i.e. you've got a % of the population who don't spend their lives having babies.

Until quite recently, a vast % of our time and energy was spent having babies. Many women were pregnant almost all the time, and survival rates of babies were very low and men in relationships with them spent all their time trying to support that huge rate or reproduction.

So, if you think about it, wouldn't it have kind of made sense if a % of the population were opted out of that very onerous cycle, freeing them up to do other things i.e. at the most simple level helping to look after the vast pile of kids, develop society, go hunting, build buildings, plan things, develop literature, culture etc etc.

Obviously, in modern society (very recent), with improved rates of infant survival and contraception reproduction is much more optional and in the control of the woman / man involved.

However, when you think about it a bit... you could quite easily see how having a % of the population born gay might have been a huge evolutionary advantage.

I also do not buy this notion that gay men are all stereotypically camp or that lesbians are stereotypically butch. Personal experience, and historical precedent would indicate this is not the case and I think that there is way too much stereotyping of gay people which probably causes even more deep problems.

I just think people need to look at society and humanity as what it really is, not as some artificial, conservative, religiously-inspired construct that is not reflective of reality at all.

Historical accounts show that there have always been homosexual and bisexual members of society, and I seriously think it's just very much a case of 'get over it' and stop trying to 'cure' something that is clearly deeply part of the human state and is as normal as having a head on on the top end of your neck!

Dubhlinner

Solair wrote: »

Evolutionary success to a species like that means that the collective progresses, survives, expands, develops.

If you have a huge complex social structure, not every individual needs to reproduce because the success of society ensures survival, not just the ability of the individual to reproduce and avoid being eaten by a predator.

It would seem possible, and quite likely, in a setup like that that homosexuality might actually be an evolutionary advantage to the society i.e. you've got a % of the population who don't spend their lives having babies.

Until quite recently, a vast % of our time and energy was spent having babies. Many women were pregnant almost all the time, and survival rates of babies were very low and men in relationships with them spent all their time trying to support that huge rate or reproduction.

So, if you think about it, wouldn't it have kind of made sense if a % of the population were opted out of that very onerous cycle, freeing them up to do other things i.e. at the most simple level helping to look after the vast pile of kids, develop society, go hunting, build buildings, plan things, develop literature, culture etc etc.

Obviously, in modern society (very recent), with improved rates of infant survival and contraception reproduction is much more optional and in the control of the woman / man involved.

However, when you think about it a bit... you could quite easily see how having a % of the population born gay might have been a huge evolutionary advantage.

I'm in agreement with your points I've snipped out. Homosexuality is obviously biological

However the above isn't true. Evolution works at the level of the gene and the individual not the group. Gay people can reproduce just as well as straight people and often do. For what you suggest there'd be no need for these individuals to be gay - just infertile... but as I say its not how it works

Dubhlinner

Oracle wrote: »

That's all very dangerous I think. The problem with the "we're born this way" genetic argument is, biological cause could mean a biological "cure".

Only if homosexuality is seen as being pathological. Most people these days realise its just a different sexuality.

There's been a long history of abuse of lesbians and gays by the medical and psychiatric professions. In the past that meant anything from aversion therapy, medication or surgery, and potentially even eugenics. Despite this long history of oppression, the gay movement continues to insist homosexuality has a solely biological, immutable genetic cause. I believe that's a big mistake in both ideology and strategy.

To go with another ideology or strategy would be lying.

Solair

Dubhlinner wrote: »

I'm in agreement with your points I've snipped out. Homosexuality is obviously biological

However the above isn't true. Evolution works at the level of the gene and the individual not the group. Gay people can reproduce just as well as straight people and often do. For what you suggest there'd be no need for these individuals to be gay - just infertile... but as I say its not how it works

Evolution isn't as straight forward as that, once you get beyond very simple organisms and start moving into complex social systems.

Let's put it this way: You have tribe A which has no gay members and no gay genes in its library.

While tribe B has some gay genes in its library, even if those genes are not passed on by the actual gay members of the tribe, they are carried through and the tribe occasionally produces a gay member.

Let's assume that tribe B's % of homosexual members proves to be a major advantage and they hunt, gather, and become extra supports for the tribe's offspring, keeping them well-fed and safe.

Tribe B increases in size as more healthy off spring survive ... genes for those characteristics remain in the group. The group's genetic influence grows, and spreads.

Meanwhile, tribe A shrinks, and ultimately fizzles out due to a failed group strategy.

The result is that the genes from tribe B become are dominant in the species, while the unsuccessful tribe's genes disappear.

Evolution is about survival of the fittest.
In individual organisms that's about survival of the fittest individual and his/her ability to reproduce. In groups, it's about the group prospering and spreading influence and genetics - each member of that group does not have to reproduce for that collection of genetic code to keep spreading and moving forward.


So, by that logic, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that homosexuality could be an evolved-in characteristic that benefits the survival of a group.

We are not single celled free-floating amoeba, we are a hugely complex interconnected social organism that functions as cooperative groups, so evolutionary mechanisms become a tad more complex than simple generational progression (although that also still happens).

We don't just carry the genes that produce a single copy of ourselves, we also carry a huge library of other options that may not be expressed in ourselves, but might reappear in our offspring when our genetics are crossed with the other parent's genetics.
So, other features than those presented by the parent can crop up in their kids. That could be a huge advantage, could produce fairly random results like a % of redheads to non-redhead parents, perhaps gay offspring or, it can go horribly wrong and you get two carriers of a genetic disease like CF who don't have any problems themselves, yet produce a kid who does.

I don't know exactly what the evolutionary advantage to a tribe of having gay members might have been. It could have been stronger supports for the group, it could have improved social cohesion within the tribe, it could have been anything. Whatever it was, the characteristic seems to have been around for a very long time, and be very widely distributed right across the whole human species so it's obviously been something that we have had in our make-up for a very long time.

Also, yeah of course gay people can reproduce, but if you're attracted to the same sex, the opportunity to do so is a little more limited.

All, I am saying is that the whole notion that it's some kind of evolutionary error/hiccup or that it's unnatural does not really stand up at all.

unfortunately

Solair wrote: »

Evolution isn't as straight forward as that, once you get beyond very simple organisms and start moving into complex social systems.

Let's put it this way: You have tribe A which has no gay members and no gay genes in its library.
...

The idea put forward in your post is called "group selection" which is discredited by modern evolutionary biologists (famously, in Professor Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene).
The only way a tribe would benefit from having gay members (assuming it is genetic) is if they were all closely related.
Say being gay meant no children to take care of thus you would have more food which you can share. If you share to those around you and they are not related to you then you are helping their genes, at the expense of your own.

A gay uncle who helps his siblings (who share half his genes) or his nephews and nieces (1/4) then having a gay person in the family would be good, for the gene. It is a selfish gene - the gene only wants itself or a copy of itself to survive. The level of selection is the gene, not the tribe, nation, race or species or any other grouping.

There is a video where Dawkins discusses possible ways in which a "gay gene" could survive:
1. The gay uncle idea, the gene survives through copies in relatives.
2. "Sneaky fucker idea" - the gene is actually more for bisexuality, and so a gay member of a group may be trusted to protect the women alone and thus pass on the gene that way.
3. The gene has "switched", genes can "be" for more than one thing. So a gay gene in the past may make people have better eyesight - an obvious advantage. But modern civilisation is different from the prehistoric savannah so something like, for sake of argument, being bottle-fed rather than breast-fed "switches" , (or makes it more likely to switch) to the gay gene.

This is all assuming it is genetic, it could be something hormonal in the womb. Having said that, I do think there is an evolutionary argument for homosexuality surviving, seeing as it is expressed in other animals.

All, I am saying is that the whole notion that it's some kind of evolutionary error/hiccup or that it's unnatural does not really stand up at all.

Precisely, if it was an error then natural selection would have killed it off long ago.

stephen_n

http://m.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/apr/20/i-tried-to-cure-gay-people?cat=lifeandstyle&type=article

Not sure if this works on normal browsers or just mobiles devices but it's an interesting read.

wonderfulname

just knock out the m at the start for normal browsers.