Not happy about qantas mag today

[Cruiser Elite]

his (her? transgender?) ....................he (she? the other thing?)

WOW - getting interesting now!

 

[Blackswan]

I agree.

In any case, this makes yet another interesting case where human nature does not allow people to debate a specific issue without getting all caught up in their own agendas.

My understanding is that the OP dislikes any adds for adult meeting things - not a particular opinion only on gay things. If that is his (her? transgender?) position then I completely agree - I do not think this is a necessary sort of theme add for a magazine that is forced on children.

If he (she? the other thing?) is expressing a particular outrage because it is a gay thing, and that he (she? the other thing?) would be OK if it was for "normal" persuasions, then I completely disagree with it.

If they were so concerned about the content, why didn't they just say "adult introduction service"? Why did the OP have to mention it was for gay men (men was capitalised, not sure why the emphasis). Subsequent posts has shown the OP's underlying feelings. You might be right, other members 'own agendas' may have caused them offense, but the OP has done little to apologise for unintended offense.

The ironic thing is this was posted in the introductions section.

 

[donovan301]

[TABLE="class: wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter, width: 100%"][TR][TD]The Simpsons[/TD][TD]Brunella Pommelhorst[/TD][TD]Trans man[/TD][TD]Mrs. Pommelhorst is the gym teacher who announced her intention to take time off and return as "Mr. Pommelhorst, the shop teacher".[/TD][TD]1989–present[/TD][TD]United States[/TD][/TR][TR][TD]Dewey Largo[/TD][TD]Gay[/TD][TD]Mr. Largo is the school's music teacher. He is a gay man.[/TD][/TR][TR][TD]Grady and Julio[/TD][TD]Gay[/TD][TD]They are a gay couple, who later break up.[/TD][/TR][TR][TD]Karl[/TD][TD]Gay[/TD][TD]Karl, voiced by Harvey Fierstein, is a gay guest character in 1990 episode Simpson and Delilah, and takes part in a same-sex kiss.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP][/TD][/TR][TR][TD]Lady Gaga[/TD][TD]Lesbian[/TD][TD]She kissed Marge on the lips on the season 23 episode "Lisa Goes Gaga".[/TD][/TR][TR][TD]Patty Bouvier[/TD][TD]Lesbian[/TD][TD]The character Patty officially came out in the episode "There's something about Marrying" which was one of the episodes that carried the occasional warning of content that might be unsuitable for children.[SUP][13][/SUP][/TD][/TR][TR][TD]Waylon Smithers[/TD][TD]Gay[/TD][TD]Smithers is portrayed as a semi-closeted gay man.[SUP][14][/SUP] Waylon Smithers rides a float called "Stayin' in the Closet!" during Springfield's annual gay pride parade in the 2002 episode "Jaws Wired Shut". The season 27 episode "The Burns Cage" had Smithers officially come out as gay[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

 

[RooFlyer]

With an opinion such as that, you are well on your way to be shot down in flames.

Why does any opinion here have to be 'shot down in flames' ? Can't the opinion just be politely disagreed with?

Edit : just saw the post above.

I guess not I might politely disagree with it, but I have no idea what its getting at -but then I don't source The Simpsons as my world experience.

 

[get me outta here]

I don't see it as being, "forced on children". It is adults who have this bias that is forced on some children.

I agree.

In any case, this makes yet another interesting case where human nature does not allow people to debate a specific issue without getting all caught up in their own agendas.

My understanding is that the OP dislikes any adds for adult meeting things - not a particular opinion only on gay things. If that is his (her? transgender?) position then I completely agree - I do not think this is a necessary sort of theme add for a magazine that is forced on children.

If he (she? the other thing?) is expressing a particular outrage because it is a gay thing, and that he (she? the other thing?) would be OK if it was for "normal" persuasions, then I completely disagree with it.

 

[donovan301]

I guess not I might politely disagree with it, but I have no idea what its getting at -but then I don't source The Simpsons as my social compass.

I was merely pointing out that if the OP is worried about children seeing such things......then...

(as for the advert, Kids gloss over almost everything they see unless it suits their mindset, they either don't see it, don't understand it, of plain old Just dont Care)

 

[mannej]

Why does any opinion here have to be 'shot down in flames' ? Can't the opinion just be politely disagreed with?

Edit : just saw the post above.

I guess not I might politely disagree with it, but I have no idea what its getting at -but then I don't source The Simpsons as my world experience.

Read the last sentence of the post I quoted, the OP is not after discussion as they don't see any other opinion apart from theirs being the right one.

That is the whole issue with this debate is there is very little tolerance for differing opinions.

 

[purpleparrot]

I thought that guy banned from Qantas for life

 

[juddles]

Has anyone got a photo of the offending page - otherwise I will have to wait for my Sunday morning flight before I can get all outraged!

 

[get me outta here]

The pie thrower was in court today : Perth pie thrower fined $3600 following Qantas stunt

 

[dajop]

Ok it didn't take much googling to find I assume what is the offending advertisement. Make your own judgements. This is from a much earlier edition I understand, note the topic of the opposite story.

 

[get me outta here]

Not only balanced, but symmetrical too.

Ok it didn't take much googling to find I assume what is the offending advertisement. Make your own judgements. This is from a much earlier edition I understand, note the topic of the opposite story.View attachment 101108

 

[LittleFokker]

Ok it didn't take much googling to find I assume what is the offending advertisement. Make your own judgements. This is from a much earlier edition I understand, note the topic of the opposite story.

oh that is priceless!

 

[samh004]

This advertisement has been in the Qantas mag for well over a year. Can’t call yourself a frequent flyer if you’re only just discovering it now. I’m sure if a heterosexual introduction company wanted to advertise they’d have no problem either, but it’s no where near what Ashley Madison was, which if we’re going to compare to a samesex service I would probably say “Grindr”. All that said, everyone is entitled to an opinion, it doesn’t necessarily mean your opinion is what the majority feel.

 

[TonyHancock]

Can’t call yourself a frequent flyer if you’re only just discovering it now.

First I'd heard about it today.....although I have never considered myself a frequent flyer,

 

[Archphoto]

Ok it didn't take much googling to find I assume what is the offending advertisement. Make your own judgements. This is from a much earlier edition I understand, note the topic of the opposite story.View attachment 101108

Yep, that's the one I thought it was - wow, so much cough happening there!!!

 

[dajop]

I am not a prude but I personally don't think an inflight magazine is the place for any such adds, but I don't care if it is for gays or any other group.

I think there are far more offensive/inappropriate things on the IFE (given they can also be viewed by children, either on their own screen if not child locked, or surrounding pax screens), than dating advertisements with fully clothed people in them, whether they be MF, MM or FF type advertisements!

 

[Virgin Bart]

I'm so offended at the mere sight!!! .... of the lady on the page on the right.

 

[ninin]

Here's the version that was appearing back in 2014, it's been running for years.



I wonder if the Op would have taken the time to register for this site (or perhaps even create a new User ID) if the advertisement was for a heterosexual dating service? I doubt it.

Well done Qantas for leading the way forward and it's acceptance of everybody.

 

[Solid]

Never seen it. Shows how often I read the inflight magazine. I might have to start so I can get outraged over nothing too!