I’m not sure if this is Great Debates material or not, but the subject matter might make this the appropriate forum so I’m placing it here.
With National Coming Out Day approaching, I went to Yahoo! News and searched for “coming out,” to see if there were any relevant news stories. At the top of the results list, Yahoo has a short “Sponsor Matches” section, one of those links being this.
I have no idea how to react to this. Should I be outraged? Is this just a mistake? Does it really matter if it is? Or am I just overreacting? I don’t want to get bent out of shape over nothing, so I’d be interested in everyone’s opinions.
If you want to be pissed, be pissed at the fatherheart guys, not at Yahoo! (at least, not about this specific thing. Being pissed about other things is cool). It’s doubtful that they do anything more than make certain the check clears before they add those sponsored links.
It depends - if you think of being gay as a perfectly natural thing - then by all means you should be offend.
If you think that being gay goes against nature and natural human evolution then i guess it would be pointing out the obvious.
Then again this is a religious tape so … well religion has no place in human behavior
So its up to you if you wanna be offended - i wonder if the tapes work ? I wonder if there is a reverse tape
Father Love Heart TV Ministries
One of the first kissin Christian Websites to Broadcast In Broadband
Broadband Sparkly Christian Broadcasting 56K too
Hetrosexual Video
4-part, 2 hour series
What is the Cause of Hetrosexual ?
Once Straight, Always Straight?
—>Watch Video Now <—
Do you or someone you know struggle with breeding ?, or do you want to understand it better to help others? Do you want to change, but just don’t know how? This four-part, 2 hour series can help you. From the mouths of people with first hand experience you will see how. This video has the life story of three individuals, two male and one female and one we aint sure about who were in the a straight happy swinging lifestyle for years and broke free (with lots of mind altering drugs. You can do it too, this tape can help!
The Freemasons have always maintained a certain privacy (those fearing it would say secrecy) regarding the protocols of their meetings (and they use symbolism and ritual in those meetings).
In addition, a fair number of the movers and shakers in Europe and North America have been Masons.
Combine secrecy and power and you have a ripe situation for the fearful to conjure up wild tales of conspiracy and domination.
As to this video, if perversion is turning away from what’s natural, and homosexuality desire is natural for some people, then the video promotes perversion, and should be banned for obscenity!!
Yahoo! shouldn’t take ads from hate groups such as any organization that tries to “change” gays. But given the current economy, you can’t really expect them to turn the money down. I’d write Yahoo! a note and tell them that you found the ad they let someone put on their site offensive, and that you’ll only be using Google and Lycos from now on.
A year or so back Catherine Drexel, for whom Drexel university is named, was cannonized. The Philadelphia Inquirer’s published a special magazine suppliment to commemorate the event. There was a 2 page ad by an organization whose goal is to provide birth control and the knowledge of its proper use to developing countries. Local Catholics were outraged. The suppliment was about a Catholic woman, a decision by the head of the Catholic church, and was clearly aimed at a Catholic market. Yet, it contained a 2 page ad for an organization whose very reason for being is forbidden by the church. I agreed with the Catholic readers. The Inquirer apologised.
If the page is coded so that certain ads will always be the ones linked as sponsors, I am outraged. If the page opens with links to a handful of a hundred or so sponsors, it’s a minor oversight.
RE-The Video
If God did not want people to be gay, He wouldn’t make gay people. People come in a wonderous variety. Sexual orientation is just one more detail that adds to the variety.
There were 2 sponsor links - the one i mentioned earlier and this (this link isn’t an anti-gay site).
My first thought is that someone might be questioning their sexuality, feeling very confused and vulnerable, and find the site mentioned in my OP while looking for information. Frankly, the idea that Yahoo would be supporting such a scenario (with or without malicious intent; I doubt this was deliberate homophobia on their part) is abhorrent to me.
**Note: i repeated my search at Yahoo News, and the questionable link has been removed. Either they caught their mistake, or someone complained.
Yahoo probably just didn’t bother to examine the content of the page, but I agree that it’s offensive. Imagine if a search for an MLK day event turned up a KKK site. It’s kind of the same thing.
I don’t know, with a search for only the words “coming out” Yahoo has no way of knowing that you’re not looking for what those Fatherland freaks are offering. Diogenes makes a good point about a search for MLK coming back with a KKK sponsor. However, what about the reverse? If some skinhead was searching for KKK, would we be as upset if they found a sponsor that seeks to end bigotry and promotes racial harmony? I’ll agree that there’s a difference, but shouldn’t Yahoo be impartial in such matters? Besides, Yahoo makes their money from advertising. Fatherland was willing to pay because they thought that there would be people out there searching for “coming out”, who would be interested in their video. Do we need to establish that they aren’t the strongest when it comes to common sense? Yahoo can’t make that call.
In conclusion, I agree with Some Guy, be pissed at Fatherland, not Yahoo. However, do write to Yahoo and let them know that the ad offended you. Yahoo will not risk losing their users (and eventually other sponsors) for this one sponsor. If enough people write, they will certainly pull the ad, but I wouldn’t count on a public apology.
**
I dunno… there were 2 sponsor links, both of which dealt with homosexuality. I think Yahoo had an idea what I was looking for.
**
Is it unreasonable to expect them not to take ads from hate groups? I don’t think that has anything to do with impartiality.
**
I think Yahoo can and should make that call. It’s ultimately their decision who advertises on their site; they don’t have to take the money. And when it comes to this gay “conversion” group in particular, I don’t think Yahoo should have ever agreed to put the ad up.
Well, I don’t think this was deliberate homophobia on Yahoo’s part, just a mix up (though I don’t think they should be runnning ads like this at all, but I guess that’s another topic). The problem, I think, is that many people don’t see these conversion therapy groups (or whatever their called) as hate groups.
I’m sure they knew you were looking for something related to homosexuality. However, there are self loathing individuals everywhere. All kinds of people (hetero and homosexual) feel guilt and shame over various desires they have. You and I can feel sorry for people like that, but how is Yahoo supposed to know that you’re not one of them? Someone debating on whether or not to come out might search for “coming out” and actually feel relieved to find such an ad. I agree that this Fatherland group is an hate group and that it would be totally dysfunctional to actually want their video, but that doesn’t change the fact that there probably closet gays out there who do want it.
Should we take that one step further? Should a search for KKK or any other hate group, come back with zero hits?
As for not taking the ads: I don’t think it should be legislated. I do think they should feel pressure from consumers. That’s why I think writing a letter is appropriate. A petition would also be a good idea. I, for one, would sign.
I’m sure they knew you were looking for something related to homosexuality. However, there are self loathing individuals everywhere. All kinds of people (hetero and homosexual) feel guilt and shame over various desires they have. You and I can feel sorry for people like that, but how is Yahoo supposed to know that you’re not one of them? Someone debating on whether or not to come out might search for “coming out” and actually feel relieved to find such an ad. I agree that this Fatherland group is an hate group and that it would be totally dysfunctional to actually want their video, but that doesn’t change the fact that there probably are closet gays out there who do want it.
Should we take that one step further? Should a search for KKK or any other hate group, come back with zero hits?
As for not taking the ads: I don’t think it should be legislated. I do think they should feel pressure from consumers. That’s why I think writing a letter is appropriate. A petition would also be a good idea. I, for one, would sign.
**
I’m not talking about web site hits; I’m talking about sponsored ads. I think this Fatherheart site has every right to exist, and in fact every right to be linked by Yahoo, but I also think Yahoo was wrong to accept them as a paid sponsor. I’m definitely not talking censorship here. If you want to go looking for this sort of thing, I believe you should have access to it (and Yahoo does have anti-homosexuality links, which I’m not complaining about).
**
I agree; this shouldn’t be legislated. Consumer pressure is all I’m talking about.
I agree that this was an unfortunate ad, especially in the context of the “news” section which I somewhat irrationally would hold to a higher standard than the rest of Yahoo!
However, let’s keep some perspective on the term “hate group”. I am sure there are plenty of groups out there that hate gay people; and I’m sure that many of them mask their underlying hatred with crappy products like the one in the ad.
But isn’t it a bit rash to automatically call anyone whose opinion on homosexuality you don’t like a member of a “hate group”? Is it not possible that these are well-meaning people who fully believe that they are trying to help homosexuals? I don’t like their viewpoint either, but “hate group” is strong enough to warrant a little proof.
Full disclosure: I have not subjected myself to the torture of watching the two hour(!) video, and these particular Freemasons may well be a “hate group”. I just don’t like the flash cut from “I disagree with their agenda” to “hate group”.
A fair statement, but I stand by my classification of these groups as “hate groups.” True, most such groups don’t call for violence or murder against gays and lesbians, but their implied mission is the emlimination of homosexuality.
In terms of discrimination and equality, I see little difference between race and sexual orientation (other than the fact that the latter is not immediately obvious to others). Because of this, groups that seek to eliminate gays and lesbians by whatever method fall under the label “hate group” in my opinion.
But of course, this is all opinion, so I won’t argue too hard or too long over what these groups should be called.
I have not seen the tapes but i would assume (if you scrap the religious dogma) that what they are trying to do is help those THEY FEEL are mentally ill.
YOU may think gay people are not mentally ill but THEY DO and they are trying to help these people they feel are sick.
Perhaps THEY look upon gays the same way YOU look upon pedophiles.
A pedophile is responding to a natural urge the same way a homosexual does right ? Is it is a unnatural urge ? In which case the Pedfophile is considered mentally Ill … but the homosexual is not ?
You can no hold Yahoo responsible for this - it is just an add. As for the Minitry trying to sell this - pffft why bother ? If you are bothered just tell your gay friends parents /friends/wives/husbands (sorry have to presume you are gay for arguments sake), that these video tapes are lies and you are perfectly happy being Gay and that there is no way that being Hetro sexual is natural.
Not to tread over the same ground again, but I think this is dangerous thinking:
So what you are saying is that while THIS group may not be a hate group, you are willing to bundle all seemingly similar groups together and paint them with the same brush.
This is the same logic that gets people talking about “the blacks” or “the Pollocks” or whatever group they want to stereotype as one homogenous lump.
Judging a group or an individual by associating it with a broad archetype and then assuming it fits all of the stereotypical characteristics you associate with the archetype is dangerous. Either take the time to understand the group as an individual entity, or forego the entitlement to criticize them.
I’m paraphrasing someone here I’m sure, but prejudice is for the lazy–if you really want to dislike someone, get to know them.
hmm… either I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying, or I wasn’t clear in my previous posts.
I consider any group that attemps to change homosexuals into heterosexuals a hate group, including this FatherHeart group that is linked in the OP. I think this because, as stated in my last post,
But maybe “hate group” isn’t the phrase I’m looking for; that does seem to imply that the members of said group are violently opposed to whatever the group’s focus is. I don’t think most (if any) conversion therapy groups are advocating violence in any way, so it’s only fair for me to lay off the “hate group” talk, at least until we can all agree on a definition for the phrase.
Nevertheless, my attitude towards such groups is unchanged. I believe them to be bigoted and still don’t think it’s appropriate for Yahoo to take ads from such groups.
