Every time I think I have a decent grasp on the pulse of the American public, I learn that Focus on the Family has come up with something else to be pissed about:
Johnson & Johnson will be advertising its brand, Tylenol PM, in the July 19 issue of The Advocate, a leading gay magazine.
The ad shows two shirtless men in bed side by side. The text over one reads: “His backache is keeping him up.” Over the other: “His boyfriend’s backache is keeping him up.”
Johnson & Johnson has been advertising in gay media since 1996. Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, said people need to take notice.
“A lot of corporate America has bought into the idea that they can secretly promote homosexuality without their consumers noticing out there,” he said.
Mike Haley, director of the gender issues department at Focus on the Family, said the gay and lesbian community has a lot of expendable income, so they are targeting big corporations who are caving to their pressure.
“I think it’s a critical issue,” he said, “because it’s one more way that the issue of homosexuality is being normalized and sent out as though it’s not harmful
Jorge
The issues here is that the Radical Cleric Dobson believes that homosexuaility is a sinful behavior as opposed to just being black or Jewish which folks like Dobson haven’t considered sinful since the early 1970’s.
P.Nitty
I think this blog post is incontrovertible evidence that Mr. Cole himself has been taken over by the evil gay-zombies that are right now plotting to take over our country and paint the White House pink! Mr. Cole, are you now, or have you ever been, a fan of the Teletubbies?!?
Jorge
Hey John,
Can you post a link to the orginal source for this story?
Thanks,
Demdude
As a gay guy, I really would like them to get more press for this and their other wonderful press releases.
They have absolutely no credibility with anyone outside their own wacky circles. On a regular basis they blame gay people for everything from the decline of all societies to tooth decay. Their decline is inevitable. Let
Mr Furious
Um, the gay couple around the corner have restored their bungalow to magazine-quality glory. Literally, it was featured in American Bungalow. They are completely up front about the fact that they are free to pour the money into it, since they don’t have kids, they’ve got the disposable income.
Of course the fact that they are two gay men is only incidental, any committed (ie: married) professional couple would be in the same situation if they decided never to have kids. In fact the income-gap for the wife might even cancel out the gap for the gay men! ;-)
nb_luddite
John, I think you need to immediately appoint someone as the “Director of the Gender Issues Department” for Ballon Juice. I would recommend Rick or Stormy70.
Warmly,
Luddite
Zifnab
Johnson and Johnson is advertising in a gay publication. They’re making monetary gain on a horrible, flesh eating, mental disability that spawned from Satan’s barb shaped wang. It’s obvious that J&J is merely a corporate arm of the Anti-Christ’s new World Government that only Focus on the Family can stop by forbidding people to buy Tylenol and instead purchase Family Research Council approved holy water and faith pills.
Personally, I blame activist judges.
John Cole
Joyge: It is the first link, which I errantly had linked to a previous item here. It is fixed now, but if it isn’t, here it is again.
Mr Furious
“Satan’s barb shaped wang”
LOL! you gotta warn us when we’re going to blurt out laughter in the office.
Marcus Wellby
No pun intended, eh?
Gay men and women are simply another market/demographic to corporations. Their money is just as green as anyones. Think corporations care one iota about whether or not they are “sinning in the eyes of God”? Sooner or later the corporations that support the GOP are going to get pretty tired of the Fundy Foot Soldiers. That will be the day of reckoning for the GOP, it will most likely happen sooner than later. The “God Hates Fag” crew is violiting the contract and becoming far too visible. The SCOTUS nominations will raise the insanity to unseen levels.
albedo
Yeah, FOF and Dobson’s fixation on homosexuality is truly bizarre (to say nothing of the likes of Fred Phelps). I can’t decide whether it’s all attributable to latent homosexuality in the ranks of the Christan right, or the fact that gay people are just about the last minority group that society still deems it okay to be bigoted toward.
SomeCallMeTim
Per the article cited, I glanced at it and noted that the data referenced in one graph was from 1990 and that the study supporting the 27% figure was published in 1995. There have been dramatic changes in perceptions of Gay Americans in that time. Moreover, I suspect that if you break out income bands, you might see that the Reverand is right in the higher income bands. (And you might not.) It wouldn’t be shocking to find out that active homophobia increases as you go down the socioeconomic ladder. (And maybe that’s my classism, etc.)
But the larger point is: who cares? They have more money, they have less money, who cares? They’re still a market, and they still need aspirin. Dobson needs to get laid more than nutjob I’ve ever heard.
ppgaz
FOF’s behavior is not bizarre, if you see it for what it is: Entirely self-serving. They are in the manipulation business, period. All means are justified by that end.
If they thought that a campaign to spot and report suspiciously homosexual speech or behavior, say, in the workplace, would get them more people-money-attention, they would do it …. and don’t be surprised if they do. Don’t be surprised at anything they do. Being 100% self-referential makes anything possible, and anything okay.
For examples, see: GOP
Marcus Wellby
Ever get a feeling the only food in Dobson’s house are bananans, foot-long hot dogs, and popsicles? Just saying…
metalgrid
That will be the day of reckoning for the GOP, it will most likely happen sooner than later. The “God Hates Fag” crew is violiting the contract and becoming far too visible. The SCOTUS nominations will raise the insanity to unseen levels.
Posted by Marcus Wellby at July 12, 2005 01:50 PM
I don’t see this happening. The corporations may have the money, but don’t have the mobilizational power, or the grassroots organizational powers of these or other fundamental religious groups. The corporations aren’t the ones doing the voting – the heavily mobilized fundamental voting block is. History is rife with policies that wreak havoc within parties in other countries when demonizing rhetoric is used to mobilize one segment of the population against another. Eventually the zealots end up running the party because it is in the nature of zealotry to outlast the opposition.
The only reason they have lucked out in this case is that the average person really doesn’t care much whether gays are demonized, relegated to rehabilitation camps, have their churches vandalized, etc. They are too small and invisible a population. As a result, they can be treated like Jews were in ages past in current times and the people doing so can get away with it.
Defense Guy
Dobson is an idiot on this count (presumably on others as well). I am a Christian, and I can not for the life of me figure out where this guy gets the idea that the witness to the sin is supposed to condemn the sinner as if he was G-d himself. Nowhere does it say that homosexuality is a sin greater than others and nowhere does it say that you cannot sell products to sinners. Everyone sins, as is our nature, as is explained quite clearly in the bible.
Mans job in this regard is quite simple; it is to show the love of G-d and pass the message to those that are willing to hear it. You may not force it on anyone, and to castigate those that in the words of the Catholic Church are committing
Jon H
Little known fact:
The most nefarious aspect of Johnson & Johnson’s scheme is that if they also buy advertising in Christianity Today and other magazines for people of faith, the gay might be transmitted via advertising to those good Christian people.
Christie S.
And that’s it in a nutshell.
John Cole
Link, Jon H? I will incorporate the secret plot in this post provided there ie a link.
Zifnab
Oh no. I think I just got the gay from reading this post thread.
This will lead inevitably to incest and beastiality. Oh. Yep. There we go. My cat’s giving me the eye and I’m in a raunchy mood.
Dobson was right!
SoCalJustice
I wonder if they boycott Pfizer over the naming of this product.
I mean, Conservative Christians are sometimes in need of pain and muscle relief too.
Stormy70
I think Dobson is getting a little too big for his britches. Taking on Johnson and Johnson? I guess now that the Disney “boycott” is over, he needs a new fundraising talking point. This is pathetic. If I had a business, I sure as hell would market it to the gay population. They have disposable income, and I would want them spending it on my products. This will backfire like the Disney boycott, because it is stupid. Take any business owner in church, he will sell to the gay community Monday through Friday. Very asshated of this group, to be sure.
ppgaz
I’ll believe FOF when I see the data which shows that “promotion” of homosexuality actually causes people to switch teams.
If gayness is that much latent, just waiting under the surface of all our psyches, to be released by subtle tv ads, then …. it must have been created by an Intelligent Design and therefore, is God’s work. God wants you to be gay.
Or, if you are Hank Williams, gay-o.
Doug
I suppose Dobson’s head would explode if it were Proctor & Gamble advertising in the Gay magazine what with P&G’s ties to Satanism and all.
Lesley
Hmm. Advertising in a magazine targeted towards gays is “secretly promoting homosexuality” and “normalizing homosexuality”? Just who the hell do they think reads these magazines anyway? I’m going with gay people, myself. So, yeah, I suppose Johnson & Johnson might be promoting homosexuality to gays, but it seems kind of redundant. I just don’t think they’d waste their advertising dollars on something like that.
Brad R.
Little boys all over the country are not going to look at a Tylenol PM ad in a gay magazine, say to themselves, “all of a sudden I like penises and I deny the existence of Christ” and become card-carrying members of the homosexual agenda. IT JUST DOESN’T WORK LIKE THAT, no matter how much Focus on the Family think homosexuals are on a mission to ‘gay up’ the whole country.
Y’know, the angier you get, the more amusing you become. It’s like you’re a blogosphere George Carlin or something ;-)
Anderson
If you want some more homophobia run rampant, check this out:
These people aren’t just nuts, they’re anti-Christian nuts.
Jon H
John Cole: The link will be brought to you any moment now, by heavenly messenger.
Or, maybe not.
Once, when my sister was in a churchy mode, she got into some branch of Carolina Christianity which thought My Little Pony was eeevil. All the different colors had occult symbolism.
Honestly, if you went to a Focus on the Family event, and passed out pamphlets giving my J&J gay-spreading conspiracy theory, enough people would believe it for it to get around.
It would be easy enough to come up with an explanation involving “gay sex demons inhabiting the advertisements” or something, that would be readily accepted.
metalgrid
I just wonder, does FOF have anything to say about church vadalism when it’s not a fundamentalist church?
http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2005/07/united_church_o.html
Demdude
The thing with all of these right wing groups is if the term gay(homosexual) is not followed by, “sinner”, “filthy”, “degenerate” or something similair, you are “promoting” homosexuality.
It sad to think that when I hear the term “Christian” attached to a group, I immediatelty wonder what disgusting remark will be coming out of their mouths.
Very sad.
Rick
Insert your own Zima joke.
Here goes: Insert your own Zima.
Ba-da-boom!
Cordially…
Rachel
J&J is promoting homosexuality??!! And all this time, I thought they were promoting aspirin.
How naive I’ve been!
Rachel
J&J is promoting homosexuality??!! And all this time, I thought they were promoting aspirin.
How naive I’ve been!
Defense Guy
Demdude
So true. The worst of it is that when I talk to those who call themselves former Christians about why they left the church, the usual remark I get is about how those in the church would so often act in decidedly unchristian ways. I suppose the Christians that do not preach hate, and there are a lot of them, are just not loud enough to get noticed.
Stormy70
How to market this drink demographically to gays all around the country:
Texas – serve with plastic gun in drink
San Fransico – serve with plastic protest sign in drink
Miami – serve with umbrella in drink in a hurricane glass
New York – serve with Broadway show schedule
LOL – If the drink is good then I will drink it. One must respect the good alcoholic drink in all its many forms. Here’s to diversity!
Darrell
Either that, or our blog host is so highly-tuned to anything coming from Dobson that he makes sure it’s noticed. Not saying I disagree with JohnC that Dobson is frequently whacked.. I’m just saying that I had hardly heard of Dobson before visiting this blog. I’m curious as to how much influence Dobson actually has
ppgaz
Good lord, Darrell. You can’t be serious.
Sean P
Darell: Quite a bit, actually. I grew up in a conservative christian family, and my folks read and listened to Dobson, um, religiously. Their church purchased a number of his lectures on video, and played them during worship service. He has an empire of tape and video lectures, as well as books. I’ve read several, including “Preparing for Adolescence” which is worth reading for Dobson’s description of the sex act alone (trust me — it’s priceless).
There are two thing to keep in mind about Dobson. First, Dobson didn’t get involved in politics until several years after Falwell and Robertson, and he saw what happened to their reputation when their profile got to big (& they started opening their mouths in public). Dobson doesn’t seek out the media and rarely gives press conferences, so average Joes are less likely to know who he is, but his followers do. Second, while many on the religious right will acknowledge that Robertson is unbalanced and possibly crooked, and Falwell is dogmatic, Dobson is almost universally respected, so he really does have the ability to rally a large part of this movement to any cause he chooses to take on.
Demdude
He has the current administration on speed dial. He has said, and there is certainly is ample data to back this up, that he confers regularly with not only the executive branch, but also confers with Delay & Frist in the Congress.
There is nothing wrong with him doing so, that is how our political system works, but this addresses the question on his influence.
llamajockey
“Homo Light”
Pear flavored, sounds yummy and original. What were the fundies afraid of. That it would taste like Clorox and gay men would not be able to get enough of it.
llamajockey
“Homo Light”
Pear flavored, sounds yummy and original. What were the fundies afraid of. That it would taste like Clorox and gay men would not be able to get enough of it.
Pops
I would like to thank FOF for giving me the oportunity to let J&J know what I think
I just sent the following to J&J…..
“I am a straight 54 year old male. I get headaches and backaches and I have gotten relief using your products. I have no objection to Gays and Lesbians getting the same relief and I think you should be free to market your products to them. It does not mean you endorse their lifestyle any more than it means you endorse any particular type of pain. Which brings me to my question. Do you reccommend regular or extra strength tylenol to treat the pain in the ass that I get from the religious right?”
Pops
I would like to thank FOF for giving me the oportunity to let J&J know what I think
I just sent the following to J&J…..
“I am a straight 54 year old male. I get headaches and backaches and I have gotten relief using your products. I have no objection to Gays and Lesbians getting the same relief and I think you should be free to market your products to them. It does not mean you endorse their lifestyle any more than it means you endorse any particular type of pain. Which brings me to my question. Do you reccommend regular or extra strength tylenol to treat the pain in the ass that I get from the religious right?”
Rick
John, I think you need to immediately appoint someone as the “Director of the Gender Issues Department” for Ballon Juice. I would recommend Rick or Stormy70.
If nominated, I shall not run. If elected, I shall not serve. I rarely stray onto the comment threads of our host’s outstanding interests–(Christian) fundamentalism and gay issues. They exist for me only on Balloon-Juice, and I ducked in here only to take advantage of John’s set-up line.
All that said, I endorse Darrell’s comments of 4:56 p.m. Dobson looms far large in John’s and Democrats’ nightmares than in actual fact. All this is just a dying echo of the panics over Falwell and Robertson, which came to nothing. In fact, those two’s high points followed the fundie presidency of Jimmy Carter.
We got through it.
Cordially…
Jess
What’s Dobson doing reading gay magazines?
Rick
What’s Dobson doing reading gay magazines?
For decorating ideas?
Cordially…
Brian
Gee, I thought they were just a company trying to make money for their shareholders.
They could not advertise to the gay community and make less money or they could advertise to the gay community and make more money.
Do you think guys like Dobson honestly believe that corporate America is trying to promote a homosexual agenda or is he just blowing smoke to fan the flames of his followers?
I hope it is the latter. I would rather live amongst liars than nutcases.
Just a personal preference I suppose.
bodiddly
Let’s see. J&J advertises in a gay publication, and Christians start a campaign to boycott J&J.
This based upon the fact that Christians see homosexuality as sin, a belief rooted in their acceptance of the Bible as authoritative.
Aside from the “right” or “wrong” argument about homosexuality, when did it become socially unacceptable to not support a company with whose policies a person disagreed?
If J&J did advertise in Christianity Today (or a similar publication) and the Gay/Lesbian community called for a boycott, would the reaction be the same–that they were being Christianophobic?
I guess I’m seeing this all wrong, but this is the message I’m getting:
Christian: Homosexuality is wrong, and we won’t support those who promote its practice as normal.
Gay Rights Supporter: You are showing your intolerance and ignorance. Why do you hate gays?
Christian: I don’t hate gays, I just believe their lifestyle is wrong, and I choose not to support a company that embraces it as normal.
Gay Rights Supporter: It’s a person’s right to live however they choose and love whomever they choose.
Christian: That’s fine, but don’t ask me to support their lifestyle or say it’s not wrong. I have a right to my opinion.
Gay Rights Supporter: Get lost, you intolerant Right-wing bigot.
bodiddly
Let’s see. J&J advertises in a gay publication, and Christians start a campaign to boycott J&J.
This based upon the fact that Christians see homosexuality as sin, a belief rooted in their acceptance of the Bible as authoritative.
Aside from the “right” or “wrong” argument about homosexuality, when did it become socially unacceptable to not support a company with whose policies a person disagreed?
If J&J did advertise in Christianity Today (or a similar publication) and the Gay/Lesbian community called for a boycott, would the reaction be the same–that they were being Christianophobic?
I guess I’m seeing this all wrong, but this is the message I’m getting:
Christian: Homosexuality is wrong, and we won’t support those who promote its practice as normal.
Gay Rights Supporter: You are showing your intolerance and ignorance. Why do you hate gays?
Christian: I don’t hate gays, I just believe their lifestyle is wrong, and I choose not to support a company that embraces it as normal.
Gay Rights Supporter: It’s a person’s right to live however they choose and love whomever they choose.
Christian: That’s fine, but don’t ask me to support their lifestyle or say it’s not wrong. I have a right to my opinion.
Gay Rights Supporter: Get lost, you intolerant Right-wing bigot.
bodiddly
Let’s see. J&J advertises in a gay publication, and Christians start a campaign to boycott J&J.
This based upon the fact that Christians see homosexuality as sin, a belief rooted in their acceptance of the Bible as authoritative.
Aside from the “right” or “wrong” argument about homosexuality, when did it become socially unacceptable to not support a company with whose policies a person disagreed?
If J&J did advertise in Christianity Today (or a similar publication) and the Gay/Lesbian community called for a boycott, would the reaction be the same–that they were being Christianophobic?
I guess I’m seeing this all wrong, but this is the message I’m getting:
Christian: Homosexuality is wrong, and we won’t support those who promote its practice as normal.
Gay Rights Supporter: You are showing your intolerance and ignorance. Why do you hate gays?
Christian: I don’t hate gays, I just believe their lifestyle is wrong, and I choose not to support a company that embraces it as normal.
Gay Rights Supporter: It’s a person’s right to live however they choose and love whomever they choose.
Christian: That’s fine, but don’t ask me to support their lifestyle or say it’s not wrong. I have a right to my opinion.
Gay Rights Supporter: Get lost, you intolerant Right-wing bigot.
Simon
I think it is understandable how one might conclude showing two naked guys in bed together, labeling them as
jenofiniquity
Simon
If the thing being casually portrayed as acceptable is historically repugnant, then it is quite reasonable to perceive its casual portrayal as promotion.
Indeed, and another part of our capitalist system is the right not to purchase something, a right the “fundies” are enjoying here. Women who have sex with dogs are “out there” too. They are “out there” just as homosexuals are. Polygamists are “out there” too. Nevertheless, if P&G portrayed these behaviors as acceptable and normal, many here would perhaps object. Well, if they refuse to object because of homosexuals, they certainly ought not object to a casual treatment of five men having sex with one woman. There is just no logic allowing an acceptance of homosexuality and a rejection of these other relationships.
Hardly. Dobson understands that homosexuality is logically inhuman and objects to its being portrayed as human. He is quite right to take his position. It is far more logical than the pro-homosexual position.
bodiddly
My apologies for the triple post. My browser was returning an error.
Kim
I remember, when I went to a privately run Christian school as a kid, that they had it in for Proctor & Gamble back in the 70’s.
Seems P&G has 13 stars in their old logo and that means Satan started the company, I guess.
(Funny, how many stars were on the first American flag??)
And it seems the obsurdity continues to this day:
http://www.bibleistrue.com/roarlion/nlpg0999.htm
cw
Simon
I do not doubt that homosexuality has been accepted by certain segments of some ancient cultures. After all, many ancient cultures also permitted bestiality, polygamy and human sacrifice, even throwing their own children in fire. So it is no surprise that many of them would also permit homosexuality.
But it is unreasonable to suggest a general normalization of these practices within ancient cultures merely because ancient artifacts have depicted them. Such a thing is similar to the suggestion that because certain people in a certain culture relished sacrificing children by burning them, mothers generally accepted this as normal and fine behavior. No evidence supports this sort of claim.
Where homosexuality is concerned, the lion
Jed
“I think it is understandable how one might conclude showing two naked guys in bed together, labeling them as
Jed
Homosexuals only heap bitterness upon the country by using courts to run roughshod over people
Simon
This is irrelevant. If the advertisement was only run in a magazine specifically targeted to pedophiles, perhaps you would be able to see the issue here. The Dobson people think homosexuality is a disorder every bit as much as pedophilia. So they think it ought not be treated as casually as P&G treats it. They also apparently wish not to associate with a company that treats something as revolting as homosexuality as if it is normal and good. In my opinion they do nothing unsavory.
Pedophilia is reality. So is bestiality. But P&G does not
Simon
I think what you do here is exploit language so that you may overlook my concerns. It is typical of homosexual proponents. After ignoring and ridiculing people like me, you then run over my views by controlling the courts, acting as if you haven