SBS Says ‘Yes’ to Debauchery – ‘No’ to Marriage

Last night marked the anniversary of the day SBS banned our ad.

This is the same Government- funded TV station that played ads for Ashley Madison, whose slogan is Life's short. Have an affair and broadcasts the MA15+ rated Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade - that proudly political protest march with its “marriage equality” float. This was certainly the right time to place our gentle counter-protest. The decision by SBS to ban our ad stimulated debate in a big way. The ad has been seen over half a million times, and posed the question, “What about equality for kids?” on numerous radio stations, TV current affair programs and media websites here and overseas.

Watch the ad SBS banned for yourself...

 

 

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

12 Responses

  1. Does SBS have to play it right then? I do think they should have played it at some point, but can’t people just watch the Mardi Gras in peace? I’d have no problem if they didn’t play a pro-marriage equality ad during an anti-marriage equality documentary. Playing the two messages with each other feels very acrimonious, as if both sides are trying to drown each other out. Playing them separately feels like they’re taking turns to speak.

    By the way, your ad got much more publicity then it would have without a ban. The controversy created it. Streisand effect.

    Of course, you couldn’t resist calling Mardi Gras debauchery either. Lovely.

    • AJ

      ‘I’d have no problem if they didn’t play a pro-marriage equality ad during an anti-marriage equality documentary.’ SBS are yet to play one of those. You are right, the ad may have gone all but unnoticed had SBS let it go to air. We are thankful for the extra publicity their ban provided – and for the way it highlighted the Government funded SBS’s clear bias. Debauchery means ‘an excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures’ – Sums up the Mardi Gras… and Ashley Madison quite well, don’t you think? BTW, the kid is no actor, just a regular kid but thanks for the compliment.

      • So you found a gay couple at random with a daughter and filmed them without their knowledge or consent?

        • AJ

          You have a wild imagination, Nick.

  2. By the way, everyone can see that the kid is an actor who’s meant to look sad.

  3. Once again, AMF fails to provide any logically consistent argument to support their opposition to Marriage Equality! The fear-mongering “Think of the child” campaign resists on a straw man argument that somehow same-gender parents deprive children of some benefit. research clearly indicates that where the children of same-gender parents do experience anxiety, it is caused by intolerance and bigotry of people who cannot accept diversity of human relationships.

    Marriage has always been dynamic, flexible and changing – responding to the social changes of every community where marriages are celebrated. The Bible records over 4,000 years of human community in a wide range of cultures and national expressions. In each unique environment, marriage is recorded as diverse and adaptable to the needs of couples, families and communities. What Marriage Equality is requesting is simply another expression of human relationship, to reflect the changing needs of our own contemporary community.

    • AJ

      Your belief that mothers are redundant is duly noted. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

    • Lew

      Marriage is about procreation. That is the essence of it. The institution of marriage has no function in society apart from regulating, from a social standpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So-called “marriage equality” is nothing more than a specious marketing slogan. A relationship of two men or two women is not a marriage because they cannot form a human biological unity. Any children brought into such a relationship are not a unity of both partners. The concept of same-sex marriage is a lie. It’s the queers who have failed to make the logical argument for the re-definition of marriage.

    • Brian, You haven’t studied the history of marriages very well. By the comments you made you’ve got those ideas out of your head. If you are going to quote the Bible at least state at the beginning when God made man and woman to become “one flesh” (sexual intercourse-marriage) to create new life (children) to fill the earth with people. The public, life-long commitment to the behavioural practice of sexual intercourse, excluding all others for the benefit of children hasn’t been forever protected and supported by a legal law. My forefathers in Germany had non-legal home church weddings because the King tried to control their minds by persuading them to get married in his state church, but they refused. The history of marriages in NSW were only recorded in the Church of England and other denominations between 1788-1856. The marriage registry was only established in 1857 to protect and support religious marriage by recording accurate records for the illegitimacy of children and inheritance. I only have a church marriage certificate and I have changed my name. My legal marriage certificate is in the NSW marriage registry office.

      Your mind must be so twisted if your unable to comprehend that marriage (sexual intercourse) has been practiced from the beginning of time, and it has been the only way natural, biological children have entered this world. This is a logical and rational belief which is supported by scientific evidence. There is no law in Australia requiring people to get married. However, there is a religious law about a man should leave his mother and father, and join with his wife to become “one flesh” (sexual intercourse- marriage). There are no religious laws requiring “man and man” or “woman and woman” to become “one flesh” (sexual intercourse-marriage) as this is impossible, even to God. You can try to appeal to the stress and suffering of same-sex couples children or suicide of LGBTIAQ people. Often same-sex couples only think about their own desires, feelings, lusts and passions and don’t think about the consequences for living the gay “life-style” and the impact this will have on any children or a pervious partner. Same-sex couples are only concerned about their own feelings, desires, lusts and passions between each other that they don’t even consider their negative impact on society. The AIDS epidemic in the Asian community, the chem-sex health problem in London with 5 gays diagnosed with HIV per week, the cost of the PReP trial in Victoria so high risk LGBTIAQ people can practice unprotected sex which goes against the safe-sex education program. There have been people whom have lost their business, gone to jail, lost their job because they haven’t bowed down to the “gay” alter. The Australian community spent millions of dollars changing 85 laws so lesbians and gays have the same legal rights as defacto couples whom are treated the same as married couples. Defacto relationships can be sexless like some LGBTIAQ people claim they want marriage to mean. However, marriage is a sexual union (sexual intercourse), otherwise we would call it a friendship or business partnership. Married couples will divorce if a marriage is sexless or adultery despite the divorce law being “faultless.” Some LGBTIAQ people are claiming to make marriage just a legal union for the benefits of marriage such as divorce, IVF, surrogacy and adoption. However, they haven’t thought through the consequence of marriage only meaning a legal union because there wouldn’t be anything to stop marriages between parent/adult and child, siblings, people and animals, multiple relationships or affairs. Unfortunately, many LGTBIAQ people haven’t thought about the impact their life-style has on teachers, healthcare professionals, welfare officers, religious people, legal services, partners, children and teenagers. I have personal experience with homosexual, transgender, bisexual, asexual and queer as a child/teenager, and I know the difference between these sexual activities and sexual intercourse which is different to healthcare practices of sexual activities including minors. There is no law requiring gender to get married so society is going to collapse, especially if nurses and doctors are going to get a new legal right to have sexual intercourse with patients including minors.

  4. What exactly is the current definition of marriage equality?

    How is it possible that two same gender people can become parents ?

    It is obvious that, in order to do so, they will require external assistance so in that respect the marriage cannot be considered as being equal with two heterosexual people who, except in rare cases, are capable of becoming biological parents.

    Parenthood for same sex couples defies all biological concepts and so cannot possibly be considered as an equality issue in the discussion regarding marriage equality.

  5. Why are taxpayer’s funding SBS and its progressive propaganda? Time to sell it off.

  6. If 70 percent pf the people agree to same sexarriage ,does this meant that
    Their baby can go to ss couples
    OR
    Only anyones baby but not theirs

Leave a comment