My MP is Derek Conway. I think I’ll send a letter just to irritate him…

Anyone know what products other than those under the Heinz name should be boycotted?

Farley’s, HP foods, Complan, Del Monte and Lea & Perrins

There are several petitions and a letter from Our Glorious Leader…

“Would Heinz have pulled an advert if 200 people had objected to it containing a woman? Or a black person?”

Choosing to do homosexual acts and declaring homosexual tastes is not the same as being a woman or being black. A man cannot choose his skin colour, and couldn’t keep it private even if he wanted to.

Why don’t you get on with what we pay you to do instead of interfering with the marketing decisions of private companies?

Leonie, most serious science points to the fact that we don’t choose our sexuality either. Why don’t you take your bigotry elsewhere, and let Lynne get on with what we pay her to do – representing our views?

But that’s not what I said though is it?

You said “Choosing to do homosexual acts and declaring homosexual tastes is not the same as being a woman or being black. A man cannot choose his skin colour”.

It’s right there. Comment #4. You are wrong.

I think this just shows how bereft of ideas the Left is now. If you think disapproval of homosexual acts can only be phobia, (i.e., irrational) how can you possibly eradicate it?

Leonie, what point are you trying to make? Lynne is doing exactly what we pay her to do, representing our views on a national stage. She has not proposed legislation to coerce Heinz to stop being stupid, she is highlighting their stupidity.

Have you actually watched the advert? It’s quite clear that the ‘couple’ are man and wife with de Niro having replaced the ‘wife’ as she’s making sandwiches using a new york deli flavour.

Regardless, being homosexual is not a choice, it simply is. Forcing people to hide their nature is profoundly illiberal—this is a liberal site in case you didn’t notice.

Heinz made a decision based on a small number of complaints, they are now finding that those objecting to that decision number significantly more than 200.

Lynne represents my views, and the views of those who have signed the petition, etc. Thus she is doing her job.

She apparantly does not represent your views. Fine, why not go find an MP that does?

MatGB,

I never mentioned any personal objections to this advert. I was taking issue with Lynne’s intolerant tone towards that those that did. How does she know that those who objected to the advert were homophobic bigots? Does she know them?

The words ‘sexist’ and ‘homophobic’ are increasingly being used like catcalls to try and prevent a serious discussion. It now always coupled with racism which is a disgusting prejudice that I despise at least as much as any of you.

It is now becoming harder to openly state that you believe that the sexes are different or you disapprove of homosexuality. It is a slippery slope which will end with it becoming effectively illegal to state certain views.

1, Saying that you disapprove of homosexuality IS homophobic bigotry.
2, Nobody wants to make it illegal for you to express homophobic bigotry, they just want people who DO express such things to be treated to the derision they deserve, and not given credence by a company which should know better.

Leonie, as Jen said science is more and more proving that your sexuality is more defined by your biology than your psychology, so essentially you’re also saying it should be ok for people to state a distaste for black people. If you don’t agree with the latter statement, you simply cannot agree that stating a distaste for homosexual practice is any better. Unless you’re a hypocrite of course, perhaps that’s a label you’d rather have than a bigot?

Why should I have to approve of homosexuality? I accept that what people do behind closed bedroom doors was their business, why do I have to applaud them?

A tolerant disapproval of homosexual acts is a very reasonable position and it is based on the moral order that underpins our civilization. How is it comparable to racial bigotry?

To label it as bigotry is a censorious assault on freedom of thought and religion. I’m afraid that you are being bigoted in this case.

Why should I have to approve of homosexuality?

No one asked you to. But there are plenty of us who won’t tolerate homophobia either, and Lynne Featherstone is doing exactly what we would like well-intentioned MPs to do.

But Lee, I don’t ask anybody about their sexual orientation.

Nobody can help but show their skin colour and only a twit would ask about it.

You know what guys? i think that’s enough of a chance.

http://hoboken411.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/please-do-not-feed-the-hoboken-trolls.jpg

Sunny,

I know that you are not asking me but you are implying that I would be bigot if I didn’t.

Why are you conflating an irrational hated/fear of homosexuals with a disapproval of homosexual actions on conscientious grounds?

A tolerant disapproval of homosexual acts is … based on the moral order that underpins our civilization

It is? Please attempt to justify this with historical evidence not based on religious text.

a disapproval of homosexual actions on conscientious grounds?

You mean “ignoring the science” grounds, right? Or you mean “something I disapprove of and thus it shouldn’t be allowed”.

I concur with Jennie—thou art trolling. If you’re not intending to be, try actually justifying your position with substance rather than dubious appeals to history and conscience.

“A tolerant disapproval of homosexual acts is a very reasonable position and it is based on the moral order that underpins our civilization.”

Okay then, state your reasons….

“A tolerant disapproval of homosexual acts is a very reasonable position and it is based on the moral order that underpins our civilization. How is it comparable to racial bigotry?”

Because, as I said, homosexuality is as much a matter of biology uncontrollable by the person as their skin colour is. You state therefore it is unreasonable to say it’s “wrong to be black”, but you continue to falsely believe that homosexuality is an issue of morals rather than biology?

Leonie,

I know the libertarian point you’re trying to make.

But, Lynne clearly asks ::

Would Heinz have pulled an advert if 200 people had objected to it containing a woman? Or a black person? I certainly hope not! But if such blatant sexism or racism isn’t acceptable, why treat homophobia as ok to give in to?

No-one is compelling anyone to associate themselves with someone they don’t want to. We’re asking a company why, after only 200 complaints, it chickened out? Would it have done so had it featured a black or Asian family? We both know the answer to that.

Heinz produced the advert, and they reacted – prohibitively – to moderate complaint.

Now, returning to our libertarian theme…

It is my right as an individual to sign any petition, read any article, and not to buy any product I see fit. Heinz is now, following this silly decision, on my list.

And no, I don’t consider you a homophobe, but I think you missed Lynne’s point.

Maybe someone should tell Featherstone that the non gay,lesbian,transgender population are actually the majority in the UK.

No wonder her party is doing so badly in every election if they now position themselves as the anti family party.

I don’t usually buy Heinz products but I will now.

John – why does thinking that it’s ok for a TV advert to show two men very briefly kissing make someone anti-family?

@john Z

Maybe someone should tell you that the Heinz ad featured a gay FAMILY (kind of) so I fail to see how that makes either Ms Featherstone or the Lib Dems the ‘anti-family party’.

Oh and the majority of the population may not be LGBT, but they are also not bigots or homophobes; thats left to a small minority of people like you

I just don’t get the attack on Heinz. Heinz perceived that there was a negative response to their advert and pulled it. Big companies spend a lot of money on market research and advertising monitoring. Heinz simply made a commercial decision that the advert didn’t work. The advert concept might work in a few years time when the audience is more responsive.

Why attack the company for commercial defensiveness when the real problem is homophobia in viewers of the advert?

Charlieman,

I refer you to my comment

We’re merely pushing the issue – so to speak.

“Why attack the company for commercial defensiveness when the real problem is homophobia in viewers of the advert?”

Because in the same time it took for 200 people to complain about the advert existing, 10,000 complained about it being taken off air. Yet…the advert isn’t back on air yet is it?

You’re right, Heinz and others spend lots of money, so you’d think that this response gives them the perfect excuse to have not wasted their money, but they’re not doing so.

23 & 24

You seem to be competing in a pissing competition to see who can be macho Liberal man.

No prizes for guessing why your electoral performances are so poor,you are just so out of touch with the majority of normal families.

“No prizes for guessing why your electoral performances are so poor,you are just so out of touch with the majority of normal families.”

Normal is such a subjective term isn’t it. It’s a shame you got called on the ridiculousness of your statement (that supporting an advert involving a gay family is somehow trying to state that families are bad?) and have none of the mental capacity to follow that up with anything other than trolling.

My heart weeps for “normal” people like yourself

I’m quite pleased and proud to be abnormal if that’s what tolerance towards other people is; if “normal” means being small-minded and judgemental about things which do not affect me one jot, I have no truck with it whatsoever.

Speaking as someone in a ‘normal’ family, with mostly ‘normal’ relationships &c, I’m thinking of the friends I’ve got who are gay, lesbian, bi or simply “not normal”. I’m thinking of the grandmother I met in my previous job proudly showing me the photos of her grandsons civil partnership ceremony. Thinking of the lesbian couple happy that law and society finally allows them to settle down to a ‘normal’ existence and raise a family.

And bloody glad that the idiots who think this sort of thing is wrong are losing, and kicking and screaming over such an innocuous ad, unable to understand how far out of touch they really are. And also glad that, really, it isn’t just me, it’s so many people.

24

Can you remind us which party fought the Bermondsey by-election on an overtly homophobe platform ?

The ‘straight’ choice ring any bells?

A party of closet homophobes?

29

Just highlight your stance against Heinz in the upcoming Glasgow East by-election,the punters there will just love it. Nah of course you won’t.

Could it be you that is short in the mental capacity assets for not understanding why Heinz pulled it.,could it possibly be a concern at the reaction to their AD by the MAJORITY.
Please don’t kid yourself that Heinz gives a damn about the opinions of a handful of leftie cranks in a minor political party.

Can you remind us which party fought the Bermondsey by-election on an overtly homophobe platform ?

The “Real Bermondsey Labour” party ran a blatently homophobic anti-Tatchell campaign back in 1983 when I was 9. The Liberal Party (now reduced to a rump of a few councillors scattered around the council as the majority joined the Liberal Democrats years later) ran a good open campaign, the only bad point was their standard usage leaflet using the stock phrase “A straight choice between liberal and labour” in place of the other option of “a two-horse race”, both slogans being regularly used on election leaflets by all parties.

Congratulations for mentioning a 25 year old campaign which I happen to have studied at great depth. That was rather foolish, especially since you managed to both misquote and misrepresent at the same time.

Oh, last I looked Lee isn’t a Lib Dem member, as this is a non partisan site, if any party is prominent it’s Labour activists, us Lib Dems are in a minority, but don’t let facts get in the way of a good little rant.

Anyone got a magic hammer? 200 is somehow greater than 10,000 and in the majority. Nice maths skills as well.

Heh.. “could it possibly be a concern at the reaction to their AD by the MAJORITY.”

You know 10,000 is more than 200, right? Meanwhile, as we’re at it, 12×10 is 120 and the square root of 25 is 5…or perhaps I should be informing you 1+1 is 2?

“Just highlight your stance against Heinz in the upcoming Glasgow East by-election,the punters there will just love it. Nah of course you won’t.”

Where’s this come from? What relevance does Glasgow East have to this discussion? Are you stating that Glasgow East residents are homophobes? And why do you think exactly I would plan to go up there to make my statement on my opinion on Heinz and then come back again? Very bizarre statement.

“Please don’t kid yourself that Heinz gives a damn about the opinions of a handful of leftie cranks in a minor political party.”

Mat is right, I’m not a member of any political party, but I’d love to see the size of your hands

But hey, now that you’ve diverted and dazzled us with incoherent irrelevancies, how about that explanation of how someone supporting homosexual rights is anti-family. You’ve said it, gotta justify it really. But given your feeble grasp on simple concepts like “which number is bigger” I wonder if there is anything actually behind your opinion?

Just to remind you, what is anti-family about supporting gay rights?

Just to raise an idle point, can someone tell me how it is possible to separate biology from psychology, except in the abstract or by decapitation?

The human condition has always seemed to me to be an imprecise combination of the two, so it would help to be pointed in the direction of further information which would enable me to escape contingent reality.

34

Get real Lee,10,000 emails or whatever from the Abbott / Featherstone assorted lefties rent a mouth,your having a laff,its called herd instint!

Doesn’t this discussion expose our culturally-based attitude towards sexual relations? I never knew mouths were considered genitalia, and for instance in many mediterranean countries homosexual behaviour is defined as receiving penetration.

Why don’t we have this similar debate regarding other expressions of relationship – there are many depictions of parents kissing children without any consideration of paedophile tendency.

So are all views here guilty of hypocrisy, or is this just a controversy built out of our reactions to specifically anglo-victorian prudery?

“The human condition has always seemed to me to be an imprecise combination of the two, so it would help to be pointed in the direction of further information which would enable me to escape contingent reality.”

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough here, it’s a hard distinction in all fairness. The way I see it is that when talking about the brain, psychology doesn’t affect the biology of a person…their brain’s structure or their physical structure, however (obviously) the structure of someone’s brain and what it does biologically does affect psychology.

Anyway, here is the link I was referring to earlier in this discussion.

“So are all views here guilty of hypocrisy, or is this just a controversy built out of our reactions to specifically anglo-victorian prudery?”

The argument by people like myself is the Heinz ad was a depiction of family life that happened to have two male parents, the fact Heinz removed the ad because 200 people complained about the same-sex issue made it a homophobia discussion. That’s all.

Lee, I agree. However it is a classic commercial trap which we’ve fallen into in discussing it by continually referencing the brand.

They knew they would stir up a controversy and they knew there would be complaints. They knew they would garner support from the pro camp for making it in the first place, but they also knew they would be able to pander to the anti-camp by removing it. They have saved money on buying future ad space, but they have created a virus which keeps them on the lips of their potential customer base.

From whichever way they look at it they have made a relatively staid and boring brand relevant again and it is almost guaranteed their sales figures have been given a shot in the arm.

They have done nothing but stoke the fires and give the passive audience something to get indignant about, but they have only entrenched existing pockets of opinion with their cynical attitude because they’ve not done anything to show they are willing to alienate any paying custom for the benefit of any political idealism.

Regarding the way brain architecture affects sexuality: it’s an interesting debate, but the studies tend to prove correlation rather than causation and are therefore inconclusive.

What happens if a brain scan is made on a person who’s never had a homosexual experience, but is shown that they *are* (or vice versa)?

My worry is that there is a politicised element to any research which results in *proving* determinism one way or the other in order to justify the existence of specific groups and their actions (by which I mean to equate the celebratory positive and repressive negative responses to such private issues).

Well that’s why this latest study is interesting, as they’ve tried to pinpoint parts of the brain which we know to be “fixed” at the point of birth, and have found correlative differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals..or rather the similarities between homosexuals and the opposite gendered heterosexuals…on those points. Like you say, it’s not by any way proven, it’s just looking more and more likely to be more than just an “immoral choice” as some wish to paint it.

Like thomas says (or I think this is what he’s saying) though, deterministic studies like that can be used to justify oppression too. Women and gays are DIFFERENT! Therefore they should be treated DIFFERENTLY! The thing is, we are all individuals, and it would be nice if we could all be treated as such, instead of herded into pens according to gender or sexuality.

*winks at Jennie*

I wasn’t sure how to put it, and while reading Sunny’s fight-picking with Rod Liddle I was tempted to raise race as a similar example where eugenic arguments are made, but thought better of it.

You were tempted by Rod Liddle and Sunny? Now THERE’S a threesome…

I think that’d result in some lengthy oral activity – I’ll send you a dvd of HardTalk – with Andrew Neil (or is that StraightTalk?) – when it happens.

*Squirms involuntarily*

* watches you squirm, grinning *

Well it’s a tough balance isn’t it? If you want to ignore biological differences in us all then you allow people to try and paint the way people are as “lifestyle choices” that can be classed as immoral, etc. If you accept the differences (and as such really throw the cat amongst the pigeons in the whole God debate), then yeah you allow people to define people as not the same.

I would think the right way to go about this would be to, hopefully with more studies, know once and for all that you are essentially born with little to no choice of your sexuality and to continue using the same arguments liberals have been using for centuries…that it doesn’t matter how different we all are we’re all people. If we start trying to say we should be careful of deterministic studies lest they give ammunition to the bigots in society then we’ve a) missed the point that they’ll be bigots one way or another and b) that the right argument to have with people is about diversity being a positive thing for all.

But enough about that

Wait a sec, Lee, I think you’re trying to egt everything written down and fixed when thats what I think is impossible.

I see some stark and easy dividing lines between natural and artificial states, as well as between public and private arenas.

For example on sexuality, I think it important to allow children to mature into the person they become without being forced to parade themselves against their free will and without being forced to accept a received view of who or what they should be, and just as with the discrimination debate both positive and negative impositions should be avoided.

Didn’t we all enjoy our personal journeys of discovery? Or are we all so hard-bitten and emotionally repressed nowadays that we can no longer find joy in willing experimentation within our imaginative boundaries?

I don’t think it is possible to fail to notice difference, but it is healthier to be secure enough to have no need to draw attention to whatever that is.

I don’t mind asserting biological differences between people, but I do object to “all women are x” and “all men are y” (if you pardon the geneticists pun) when there are vast differences between individual women and individual men.

So that is where I think we should be careful.

But then, as I have mentioned in this sort of debate before, every test bar the “what genitals do you have” one pegs me as male, so…

so… you’re not sure if that’s the gob in the yorkshire or the yorkshire in the gob?

She’s the Yorksher Gob, and she picked the name well. As to your latter point? I’m from Devon, I merely live here…
*whistles innocently*

*apologises to Lynne and promises to behave*

*looks over shoulder sharpish*

…didn’t mean to infringe on anyone’s territory – this is a thread about a bit of give and take, right? So, I’m just asking which way Jennie swings on the validity of gender mentality tests and whether culture can override the growing academic orthodoxy (in a light-hearted way).

“Lee, I think you’re trying to egt everything written down and fixed when thats what I think is impossible.”

Oh god no, and if I’ve given that impression I’m sorry as that’s not what I intended. I was merely stating that anything that gives the liberal stance ammo against those that claim things like homosexuality are just choices, absolutely and completely freely made, is a good thing.

LOL thomas, Mat isn’t cock-blocking, don’t worry

To be semi-serious, I see gender as partially biologically determined, and partially a matter of, for want of a better word, choice. I don’t think people’s genitals or sexuality should fit them into boxes. I don’t think “because you are x or look like y or prefer to z, we must treat you in a particular way” is EVER the right way to go, and that’s why I get antsy about studies that say women prefer X, because mostly they involve a HUGE wide bell curve of data for both women and men and I tend to fit better in the male one.

I was trying to think of an alternative description for the ‘lifestyle choice’ phrase which gets viewed through the ‘moral’ lens of onlookers, but maybe this is just another good old conflation of ‘life choices’ and ‘lifestyle’ which are seen as ‘successful’ and/or in ‘good taste’.

talking about bell curves… you’re sure that the fact that it might appear like there is some level of crossover is nothing to do with the fact that northern gals wear trousers more often than southern ones?

I’m teasing, yes, but only because the metaphor matches both sides of the nature/nuture question – could this be something to do with geographic adaptation, or a magnified result of dispersal away from the centre(s) of accumulated property in a capitalist society?

Being a trend-watcher (but not a dedicated follower of fashion) I’m constantly picking up on stories which hint at how general moods evolve, such as how changes in society affect our tastes.

There seems to be some sense that progress towards gender equality leads to closer levels of cultural repreesntation in pay, politics and family roles simultaneously with divergent attitudes towards what counts as an (un)appealing body image, presentational and communicational style and sexual roles in direct mirror-image. As progress occurs at an uneven rate across the population it is inevitable that the mismatch between the changes and the way we understand and cope with those changes at individual level causes friction when we come into contact with different people.

I read, for example, in a random article that one reason Chinese authorities are more willing to investigate relaxing their official attitude towards homosexuality and whether to provide centrally organised encouragement and support for homosexuals was as a foresighted ‘enlightened’ response to the demographic challenges which face their urbanising society – not only is there a numerical disparity between the genders in different regions, but this may assist their desire for population control, while satisfying the physical needs of couples who spend long periods apart due to working requirements without leading to the ‘dishonour’ of family breakdowns due to exposure of repressed sexuality and infidelity (either hetero or homosexually).

Another raft of Chinese think tanks are apparently consulting on how similar policy reversals can be managed without damaging the existing power structures and with the knock-on effect on social order and stability. What level of social infrastructure should be provided with central support to these ends, and would there be widespread popular support for usage of tax funds, or should private underground networks be allowed to come overground and how should they be regulated?

It made me blink because it was implicit that there was a belief that something as personal as sexuality can be finitely influenced by central policy, which it the opposite of the evidence Lee cites and is gaining sway in the western hemisphere.

Add to this the different attitudes and justifed from Thailand to Nigeria to Iran or Brazil and it’s easy to see there is a full spectrum of examples available in all their diversity. So again one has to ask at this level whether the difference is to do with ‘culture’ or ‘race’, and whether it is healthy for the state of global debate (such as it is) to intervene in managing the balance.

Sometimes its better not to start something you don’t know how to stop (which, I’m guessing was the thought of Mr Heinz before their brand manager thought this scheme up).

John Z: “Maybe someone should tell Featherstone that the non gay,lesbian,transgender population are actually the majority in the UK.”

So if only a minority of people do something, we should disapprove of that thing? Should companies pull adverts that show people who are left handed because they’re not the majority? They could choose to write with their right hands, after all.

Tyranny by the majority is not a moral compass.

Oh well, if the argument is that it’s wrong to depict something which isn’t in the majority, I guess we’d better ban all men from the TV. After all, the majority of the population are female.