Was it Homophobic?

[Valdrec]

If you got mad at a picture of a black person it would be considered racism, so I think yes, it is, sorry.

It depends on what that black person is doing. If he is just standing there with a cheesy slogan under him, you shouldn't hate him and you might be a racist if you do hate him. However, if he is saying things like "black people are better than you and if you dislike this poster than you are racist", you are allowed to be mad at it(the poster).

Yeahno. It's not saying Homosexuals are better, it's just saying hating them is bad.
It's the equivolent of saying "Rascism is bad" It's true, and there's not reason to get mad about it.
Yes, the picture is intended to be provocative, but the only people it would provoke are homophobic, or censor freaks, and I doubt it is the latter, as most advertising using much more adult themes and suggestive imagery.

Actually, the poster said something along the lines of 'not approving of people that you are not sexually attracted to do sexually provocative things is a disease' and I think that is completely false. Being diseased implies being worse off. So lacking that 'disease' would make gays and the people that are pushing for the gay agenda(I really need to find a better word than agenda) be better than the people that disagree with them. That statement lumps people that are actually homophobic(hate or fear gay people) with people that think PDA's(Public Displays of Affection) shouldn't be all over advertisements.
Yeah, it would piss off people that like censors and I really think certain things (like people making out) shouldn't be all over advertisements if they can be seen by the public. If it is in a public place, it should not have people making out on it regardless of if they are gay or straight.

edit: I was reminded by a post a few slots above me of this point. There is a difference between a kiss(like a few seconds of lip contact) and making out(like if they keep this up, they will be having sex very soon).

Welllll, I have to say I think there should be more public affection, it's become a bizare line we were toeing and fell onto the wrong side, but I agree that there should be some moderation some of the stuff when kiddies are about, but the poster is partially excused becuase they wouldn't have to do that if people were just tolerant in the first place.
Saying that they're going to be having sex soon is a little silly, that's like banning mirrors from your shop becuase they could break and be used as weapons.

 

[Vicarious Vangaurd]

I hate the word homophobia. It implies someone fears gays (in the context of sexuality and not the literal definition of the prefix) when some people just don't care for them.

 

[xdom125x]

-snip.

-snip-.

Yeahno. It's not saying Homosexuals are better, it's just saying hating them is bad.
It's the equivolent of saying "Rascism is bad" It's true, and there's not reason to get mad about it.
Yes, the picture is intended to be provocative, but the only people it would provoke are homophobic, or censor freaks, and I doubt it is the latter, as most advertising using much more adult themes and suggestive imagery.

Actually, the poster said something along the lines of 'not approving of people that you are not sexually attracted to do sexually provocative things is a disease' and I think that is completely false. Being diseased implies being worse off. So lacking that 'disease' would make gays and the people that are pushing for the gay agenda(I really need to find a better word than agenda) be better than the people that disagree with them. That statement lumps people that are actually homophobic(hate or fear gay people) with people that think PDA's(Public Displays of Affection) shouldn't be all over advertisements.
Yeah, it would piss off people that like censors and I really think certain things (like people making out) shouldn't be all over advertisements if they can be seen by the public. If it is in a public place, it should not have people making out on it regardless of if they are gay or straight.

edit: I was reminded by a post a few slots above me of this point. There is a difference between a kiss(like a few seconds of lip contact) and making out(like if they keep this up, they will be having sex very soon).

Welllll, I have to say I think there should be more public affection, it's become a bizare line we were toeing and fell onto the wrong side, but I agree that there should be some moderation some of the stuff when kiddies are about, but the poster is partially excused becuase they wouldn't have to do that if people were just tolerant in the first place.
Saying that they're going to be having sex soon is a little silly, that's like banning mirrors from your shop becuase they could break and be used as weapons.

Woah, wait once again. You are saying that it is okay for somebody to put a poster up with the intention of offending other people if the topic has been toed around because they knew crossing the line would offend people(into agreeing with them?). If you are trying to convince people to agree with you it is best not to say that disagreeing with you is proof of them having a mental illness when that argument has been used against the very cause you are arguing for.
Also, I was pretty sure that making out is heavier and a lot longer and a lot more intense than a kiss which is why I added the 'next step would be sex'; because there is an order to it: kissing; making out; sex. Also your mirror analogy doesn't really hold up because making out is commonly done before sex while people using shards of a mirror as a knife isn't.

 

[Josdeb]

There are much worse displays of affection in public places everyday.
Ads for food. Ads for clothing. Billboards for deodorant. About 95% of movies. About 95% of TV shows.

The only reason you don't notice is because it is between a man and woman.

So you can feel uncomfortable, that's not discrimination. Just don't complain because it is there, because that is equality.

 

[deadlydeadlybees]

Gay people seem to live pretty well seeing straight people make out everywhere in movies, television, still images and real life. I think one poster shouldn't bother you so much.

I see what you're saying, that you don't see why it needs to be such a big deal that we need a poster of dudes making out.

Imagine you're a gay kid and all around you are images of straightness. Maybe that poster makes one gay kid feel not so weird and abnormal and invisible, unrepresented. Yes it's a PSA poster, which is annoying because we're a generation annoyed by PSAs, but the truth is that homophobia (and weird issues with sexuality being expressed, by the way) IS a social disease. Just like racism. Children aren't born racist or sexist or homophobic. If they didn't see those things around them, if they didn't hear their classmates or parents or the tv make jokes about women needing to get in the kitchen to make a sandwich, or gay dudes being called fags, or "ironic" jew jokes, they wouldn't have these opinions about different kinds of people. Humans don't naturally hate other people. It's when society influences them to hate and fear and disrespect certain types of people, is when this becomes a social disease.

I invite the OP to really think hard about why the poster bothers him so much. Are you just grossed out by guys kissing, or are you really so offended by the idea of homophobia being called a social disease that you want to rip the poster down?

 

[ReservoirAngel]

Huh. Do you...happen to have a digital copy of this poster? *shifty eyes*

Anyway! I don't think it's homophobic. I understand that you'd be made uncomfortable with it. You might not hate gays, most homophobes (deep down) don't hate gay people in and of themselves. What they don't like is the in-your-face attitude some gays have about it. Not liking in-your-face homosexuality is perfectly understandable. Hell even I hate that.

 

[LiquidGrape]

Homophobia.
ho·mo·pho·bia
noun \ˌhō-mə-ˈfō-bē-ə\
Definition of HOMOPHOBIA: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

I'm not saying your response is homophobic. But homophobia is very much a dysfunction, and a destructive one at that. And as such, it needs to be confronted.

 

[deadlydeadlybees]

I wonder: Would you feel the exact same way about the poster if the guys weren't kissing? If they were holding hands, or not there at all?

 

[Pain Is Inevitable]

You know, I really wish they had used two smoking hot lesbians making out on that poster so that OP and his friend could have gone home and rubbed one out instead of getting their panties in a bunch about how insecure uncomfortable they suddenly feel after seeing it, and we wouldn't be sitting here on the net arguing about public displays of affection and the homosexual agenda.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Yeah that poster seems a little extreme. I'd be put off too.

 

[Grabbin Keelz]

You just hate the poster, not gays.

 

[Valdrec]

-snip.

-snip-.

Yeahno. It's not saying Homosexuals are better, it's just saying hating them is bad.
It's the equivolent of saying "Rascism is bad" It's true, and there's not reason to get mad about it.
Yes, the picture is intended to be provocative, but the only people it would provoke are homophobic, or censor freaks, and I doubt it is the latter, as most advertising using much more adult themes and suggestive imagery.

Actually, the poster said something along the lines of 'not approving of people that you are not sexually attracted to do sexually provocative things is a disease' and I think that is completely false. Being diseased implies being worse off. So lacking that 'disease' would make gays and the people that are pushing for the gay agenda(I really need to find a better word than agenda) be better than the people that disagree with them. That statement lumps people that are actually homophobic(hate or fear gay people) with people that think PDA's(Public Displays of Affection) shouldn't be all over advertisements.
Yeah, it would piss off people that like censors and I really think certain things (like people making out) shouldn't be all over advertisements if they can be seen by the public. If it is in a public place, it should not have people making out on it regardless of if they are gay or straight.

edit: I was reminded by a post a few slots above me of this point. There is a difference between a kiss(like a few seconds of lip contact) and making out(like if they keep this up, they will be having sex very soon).

Welllll, I have to say I think there should be more public affection, it's become a bizare line we were toeing and fell onto the wrong side, but I agree that there should be some moderation some of the stuff when kiddies are about, but the poster is partially excused becuase they wouldn't have to do that if people were just tolerant in the first place.
Saying that they're going to be having sex soon is a little silly, that's like banning mirrors from your shop becuase they could break and be used as weapons.

Woah, wait once again. You are saying that it is okay for somebody to put a poster up with the intention of offending other people if the topic has been toed around because they knew crossing the line would offend people(into agreeing with them?). If you are trying to convince people to agree with you it is best not to say that disagreeing with you is proof of them having a mental illness when that argument has been used against the very cause you are arguing for.
Also, I was pretty sure that making out is heavier and a lot longer and a lot more intense than a kiss which is why I added the 'next step would be sex'; because there is an order to it: kissing; making out; sex. Also your mirror analogy doesn't really hold up because making out is commonly done before sex while people using shards of a mirror as a knife isn't.

IF I COULD GET AWAY WITH PUTTING UP POSTERS OF GAY PEOPLE TO OFFEND HOMOPHOBES I WOULD.

 

[mjc0961]

He was two gay men dressed as hockey players making out.

That sounds like it could get someone in trouble for some kind of sexual harassment of it was in a workplace. It probably shouldn't be there. They can send whatever message they want to send without that bit. I mean, I highly doubt they would get to hang a poster of two girls or a guy and a girl making out, so they shouldn't get to hang one of two guys making out either.

IF I COULD GET AWAY WITH PUTTING UP POSTERS OF GAY PEOPLE TO OFFEND HOMOPHOBES I WOULD.

Why? That wouldn't help make the situation any better for either party. You'd just be trolling.

 

[s0denone]

It's not homophobic but it does hint at an underlying prejudice (which I imagine may have more to do with gender than orientation).

Underlying prejudice? For not wanting to see two gay men making out on a poster?
What!?

Homophobia.
ho·mo·pho·bia
noun \ˌhō-mə-ˈfō-bē-ə\
Definition of HOMOPHOBIA: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

I'm not saying your response is homophobic. But homophobia is very much a dysfunction, and a destructive one at that. And as such, it needs to be confronted.

How though, I dare ask, does anyone improve upon such a "dysfunction" by being radically in-their-face about it?

Just like, you know, the gay-pride parade has adverse affects on the normalization of homosexuals.

Is it ironic that this poster defending homosexuality is saying that people are diseased for feeling differently than them?

My thoughts exactly.

 

[xdom125x]

-snip.

-snip-.

Yeahno. It's not saying Homosexuals are better, it's just saying hating them is bad.
It's the equivolent of saying "Rascism is bad" It's true, and there's not reason to get mad about it.
Yes, the picture is intended to be provocative, but the only people it would provoke are homophobic, or censor freaks, and I doubt it is the latter, as most advertising using much more adult themes and suggestive imagery.

Actually, the poster said something along the lines of 'not approving of people that you are not sexually attracted to do sexually provocative things is a disease' and I think that is completely false. Being diseased implies being worse off. So lacking that 'disease' would make gays and the people that are pushing for the gay agenda(I really need to find a better word than agenda) be better than the people that disagree with them. That statement lumps people that are actually homophobic(hate or fear gay people) with people that think PDA's(Public Displays of Affection) shouldn't be all over advertisements.
Yeah, it would piss off people that like censors and I really think certain things (like people making out) shouldn't be all over advertisements if they can be seen by the public. If it is in a public place, it should not have people making out on it regardless of if they are gay or straight.

edit: I was reminded by a post a few slots above me of this point. There is a difference between a kiss(like a few seconds of lip contact) and making out(like if they keep this up, they will be having sex very soon).

Welllll, I have to say I think there should be more public affection, it's become a bizare line we were toeing and fell onto the wrong side, but I agree that there should be some moderation some of the stuff when kiddies are about, but the poster is partially excused becuase they wouldn't have to do that if people were just tolerant in the first place.
Saying that they're going to be having sex soon is a little silly, that's like banning mirrors from your shop becuase they could break and be used as weapons.

Woah, wait once again. You are saying that it is okay for somebody to put a poster up with the intention of offending other people if the topic has been toed around because they knew crossing the line would offend people(into agreeing with them?). If you are trying to convince people to agree with you it is best not to say that disagreeing with you is proof of them having a mental illness when that argument has been used against the very cause you are arguing for.
Also, I was pretty sure that making out is heavier and a lot longer and a lot more intense than a kiss which is why I added the 'next step would be sex'; because there is an order to it: kissing; making out; sex. Also your mirror analogy doesn't really hold up because making out is commonly done before sex while people using shards of a mirror as a knife isn't.

IF I COULD GET AWAY WITH PUTTING UP POSTERS OF GAY PEOPLE TO OFFEND HOMOPHOBES I WOULD.

1.)Except, you completely missed the point of my post. I was stating that hating or fearing gay people is wrong. I was also saying it is okay to not like people you don't find sexually attractive doing sexual things( hey, a straight person's sexuality is hardwired from birth as well. You should not go out trying to offend straight people). Other people in this thread have stated from the side that is pro-gay acceptance that this poster went a little overboard and if they say straight people making out like in the poster that they(the viewer) would feel wierded out.
2.)I happen to think that the use of posters of people(that a specific person doesn't find attractive) making out tends to be a poor way to get that person to join your group and that there shouldn't be posters of people making out used to advertise any points at all.

Now here is the tl;dr version of my previous statement for you.
1.)Homophobia is bad. Homophobia(the term) is being used so broadly that it can mean that anyone that doesn't completely agree with anything that would help gays( regardless of reason) is homophobic.
2.)I oppose the poster because it is using people doing something sexual to sell a point. Doing that seems bad to me. I do not care what the point is about in the slightest. I think if a person needs to use people doing something 'sexy' to get you to agree with them, that means they couldn't come up with a good argument to make you agree. They get less points if they say disagreeing with me means you mentally ill.

 

[WaderiAAA]

No, homophobia is not the same as feeling uncomfortable about something. It sounds like you aren't really homophobic, so the poster is not about you. It is about people who are really homophobic, and I don't see anything wrong about them campaigning against it. Sure, the poster might make you uncomfortable, but there are more than enough posters that would make gay people uncomfortable in the same way - you just have to suck it up.

 

[Biosophilogical]

It pissed me off, but for a different reason". The poster said "Homophobia is a social disease".When I saw it I thought to myself " fuck you, just because a person isn't down with who you are does not make them socially diseased."

You are taking too broad a view of the message. Sure, if someone says "Gnosticism[footnote]I picked Gnosticism because it is, at worst, neutral on the basic level, and tends more towards good than not, so it is the opposite of the Homophobia topic in that manner. Also, Gnosticism is a religius belief, homophobia is an unfounded fear/hatred, though it is more commonly used to mean 'negative bias' rather than fear and hatred exclusively[/footnote] is a social disease" (if you need an explanation, just PM Naheal) then you are right to be offended because of the subject. Calling Gnosticism (or Buddhism, or socialism/democracy,etc) a social disease is plain intolerance towards predominantly beneficial ideologies; calling homophobia a disease is saying that negative bias towards others based upon their sexual orientation (a factor which has no definitive impact upon any aspect of an individual beyond sexual attraction) is detrimental to the desired society of those that put up the poster[footnote]And it sounds like the society it is going for is one without bigotry, which I think most of us would like[/footnote].

So not only is the subject matter of the poster acceptable for criticism (discrimination/prejudice is a pretty good subject to be intolerant towards, if you don't mind me saying), but the terminology of 'social disease' fits because it is a transferred quality (homophobia can be taught) similar to an infection, AND it is detrimental to the society (like a disease is detrimental to the body). So I don't see why you are offended by slogan except through a misunderstanding or homophobia, because it is a perfectly reasonable statement with a beneficial intent (to decrease the amount of homophobia within society).

 

[Lady Larunai]

Im personally on the side of the thread maker and i fall into the LBGT category.. in a lot of the forums im on, the gay community seems to be on the side that everyone who isnt for homosexuality is against it.. so not liking that poster is apparently homophobic..

Im personally sick of the world being black and white in the LBGT community when the flag is a rainbow...

The sad thing is they are becoming really church like about it.. im not a fan of churches preaching about their god let alone everyone else preaching about their personal preferences.. I don't even like people preaching about movies

 

[Lem0nade Inlay]

Totally agreed.

I don't care if you're gay. But if you're going to say "I'M GAY, WHAT YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?" I'm gonna say "I don't give a damn if you're gay. I don't like that stuff, but do whatever you want and leave me alone."