University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam, have filmed a 30-second ad for Focus on the Family that is set to air during the Super Bowl. Focus on the Family is antigay and gave $727,000 to support the passage of the antigay marriage Prop. 8 in California in 2008. Reports the Orlando Sentinel:
Focus on the Family, a non-profit Christian organization, is not elaborating on the commercial’s message, but the story is expected to detail the Tebows’ pro-life message in line with Christian faith.
Pam Tebow contacted amoebic dysentery while on a Philippines mission, and the bacterial infection sent her into a coma. Upon recovery, doctors urged Pam to have an abortion because of the damage to her body. Tebow was born healthy on Aug. 14, 1987.
Tebow has been outspoken about his faith and inscribed Bible verses on his eye black on game days.
Super Bowl ads running 30 seconds will cost between $2.5 and $2.8 million this year. Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger told the Denver Post that “every cent for this ad was paid for by generous donors who specifically gave for this project because they are excited about this opportunity for Focus to show who we are and what we do.”
Tebow, who will enter the NFL Draft this spring, has never been shy about promoting his Christianity. However, Focus on the Family is not a church, but a very active political advocacy group that has been very up front with its stands against gay rights. For example, the group’s founder, James Dobson, has said that gay marriage would lead to “marriage between a man and his donkey.” The group is also against passage of ENDA, the bill that would prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.
I am not sure what Tebow’s views are on gay issues, but it is important for people to know the kind of group he is willing to do a promotional ad for. In this case, one that would deny gay people the most basic rights available to other citizens.
on Jan 16th, 2010 at 6:20 PM
Oh, Timmy… Denial, river in Egypt, and all that. Once you head out on your own and find a nice boy, we’ll pretend this never happened. Mommy won’t be happy, but she’ll survive.
on Jan 16th, 2010 at 7:28 PM
CBS shouldn’t even air the ad. I’m sure they wouldn’t air a pro-choice ad or a pro-gay ad. On the other hand, if an organization which is in big financial trouble wants to throw away a couple million bucks in one shot, who am I to complain?
on Jan 16th, 2010 at 7:42 PM
on Jan 16th, 2010 at 8:00 PM
Knew it was only a matter of time before Tebow started infecting the populace with his “Christian” love – a love that has a seething hatred for anyone that doesn’t adhere to his very old testament viewpoints.
Here we go friends, the Tebow/Mccoy combo of Christianity we’re going to get hit by won’t be pretty.
on Jan 16th, 2010 at 8:09 PM
The last I heard anyone willing to pay the money can run an ad during the Super Bowl. Are the complaints because a Christian group was able to get enough donations to cover the cost and did not have to use taxpayer dollars to fund their project or are you just upset that a terrific athlete who happens to be a man of faith is wiling to be their spokesperson?
on Jan 16th, 2010 at 8:13 PM
Judging from the Orlando Sentinel’s story, the ad sounds very much like a ‘pro-life’ spot, however thinly veiled. If Tebow was born from a pregnancy which his mother was counseled to terminate, that could make a pretty powerful statement. I’m not a Tebow fan, and I don’t think this is an appropriate forum for a religious statement (anymore than his eyeblack is appropriate for Bible references, or the lockerroom is a place for ‘God-is-on-our-side’ prayer).
on Jan 16th, 2010 at 8:17 PM
Big deal………….so Tim, his Mom and Focus on the Family spend $725,00 to send their message during the Super Bowl. How is that any different than Go Daddy and their Triple D cup babes spending $ to send THEIR message? That’s free enterprise the last time I checked folks.
on Jan 16th, 2010 at 8:54 PM
“I’m sure they wouldn’t air a pro-choice ad or a pro-gay ad.”
Perhaps those who are pro-choice will find more effective ways to spend their money than encouraging women to ignore the advice of a doctor. How many non-viable fetuses will now be carried until dead by women who might otherwise have chosen to terminate the pregnancy? How many women who are medically unfit to carry a child to term will attempt to do so anyhow? Will they be convinced by non-physicians that they would be aborting a “Tim Tebow”. Would Tim Tebow have been born just the same had his mother carried him when she healed?
on Jan 16th, 2010 at 9:03 PM
[...] it is one thing to promote your personal views, but why do you have join Focus on the Family. They are a hateful, anti-gay organization: The group’s message has been controversial. In [...]
on Jan 16th, 2010 at 9:16 PM
What sets my hair on end is the reference “the Tebows’ pro-life message in line with Christian faith.” It is part of a long campaign by evangelicals to denigrate the faith of those who disagree with them. They are trying to appropriate the word “Christian” and tacitly or overtly imply that those who disagree are not Christian. It is THEIR Christian faith, not the ONLY Christian faith.
While there has been a lot of fantasies about Tim being gay on this and may other sites, I certainly hope he isn’t. If he is, he is setting himself up for a life of loneliness and self loathing. A life that evangelicals would very much like to use the power of church and government to impose on those of us who are gay.
on Jan 16th, 2010 at 9:26 PM
Focus on the Family is not anti-gay, I listen to them a lot, they do more to help gays than anyone I know.
on Jan 16th, 2010 at 10:13 PM
I am so proud of him and his mom. I cannot wait to see the ad.
on Jan 16th, 2010 at 10:39 PM
“Here we go friends, the Tebow/Mccoy combo of Christianity we’re going to get hit by won’t be pretty.”
Cynicism is only poignant if it’s backed by intelligence. Comments like this only make you sound like an idiot.
I guess it’s okay for us to hate Tebow if he adheres to Christian values, but it’s not okay for him to express his opinions? I thought tolerance involved tolerating EVERYBODY, even those Christians and their silly morals. Correct me if I’m wrong.
on Jan 16th, 2010 at 11:06 PM
This ad is not about gays. God created marriage and defined it. God also gave man the freedom to make choices which has allowed gays the freedom to choose their lifestyle. They may feel that they have a relationship with someone of their own sex, but it is not “marriage” but that word is exclusively given by God to those who meet the definition…between a man and a woman.
I am in disbelief that this country who professes to believe in freedom of speech would even consider trying to censor this commercial ad. I am more offended by the beer commercials that treat alcohol consumption as a recreational activity when I have lost two of my cousins in alcohol related car accidents. If this commercial from the Tebow family encourages even ONE woman not to abort her child then it was worth every penny donated to create it. God bless the Tebows and Focus on the Family!
on Jan 16th, 2010 at 11:10 PM
Elliot:
Tebow can adhere to all the Christian values he wants, but when he and his Faction of Hate decide to spend 2.8 million dollars to tell others they should also adhere to his Christian values, that’s when I have a problem. Especially mere days after a disaster like the Haiti Earthquake took place. Prioritizing in the name of Jesus indeed…
And of course it’s ok for him to express his opinions, but it’s also ok for me to find those opinions deplorable and address them as such. The expression of opinion doesn’t shield one from the rebuttal of criticism, and you not realizing that very fact makes you look like you’re bearing a far larger idiot stone than the one you’re throwing.
I’m all for tolerance, except when it comes to tolerating intolerance. It’s funny how Christians beg for tolerance while they’re doing the kicking and punching, especially with the ironic rub being that they serve a God who advocates ‘turn the other cheek’.
You asked me to correct you if you were wrong, I’m just answering your request.
on Jan 16th, 2010 at 11:42 PM
Lewis,
You have the Christian faith all wrong. It is not at all about forcing anything upon anyone. Everyone has to come of their own free choice or else the belief simply doesn’t work.
Focus on the Family nor the Tebow family are trying to FORCE anyone to do anything. They are hoping to save a life by possibly convincing a pregnant mother who would’ve considered abortion to give the child a chance to be born. That’s it.
It is absolutely worth 30 seconds of our time to listen to the message. Those who donated their money for this project had every right to give to whatever cause they want to. Saving the life of a child was obviously important to them…as it is to me.
You should be glad that your mother chose to let you have a chance at life, too. If she were contemplating an abortion, you would “hope” that she would’ve heard a message that would’ve inspired her to change her mind.
That is the only message intended from the commercial. Not only does it not have anything to do with forcing anybody to believe anything that they don’t want to but it lacks the ability to even do that.
on Jan 16th, 2010 at 11:47 PM
“Cynicism is only poignant if it’s backed by intelligence.”
Huh? Since when has cynicism ever strived to be poignant?
“Comments like this only make you sound like an idiot.”
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle…
“I guess it’s okay for us to hate Tebow if he adheres to Christian values -”
Who said anything about hating Tebow? People may hate the belief system he subscribes to, but have no problem with him as a person (sort of like the “love the sinner but hate the sin” argument Christians toss out all the time).
“- but it’s not okay for him to express his opinions?”
Tim Tebow can shout his beliefs from the highest mountain. That’s his right. Just like it’s the right of the people who disagree with him to express their opinions (sort of like what Lewis was doing).
“I thought tolerance involved tolerating EVERYBODY, even those Christians and their silly morals. Correct me if I’m wrong.”
Tolerance for everybody would be wonderful, but some of those “Christians and their silly morals” would prefer that we gay people not be allowed to marry, not be allowed to keep our jobs, not be allowed to live where we please without harassment, and not be allowed to exist. Maybe if people had been a little less “tolerant” of the Nazis, they wouldn’t have been emboldened to exterminate millions of Jews, gypsies, gays, Catholics, intellectuals and handicapped people.
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 7:35 AM
But I’m sure it would be perfectly fine with most of you if he did a pro-gay ad, preferably shirtless, right?
The young man was born under very extreme circumstances. His mother made a decision which resulted in the smart and healthy young man most of you certainly have no problem drooling over when this site posts half-naked pics of him. He holds a slew of records as a football player.
His message will be his message. Just as we don’t care for gay people who hide their sexuality, he shouldn’t have to hide his faith. My personal guess is that this will be a pro-life ad, and so what if it is? He is entitled to express his opinions, and we’re entitled to disagree.
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 10:32 AM
He is still well known and he is using the last vestiges of his celebrity to publish his views. Let’s face it people; his is good to look at, but he is NOT an NFL QB!! He will get drafted (probably in the 3rd or 4th round…and he will proceed to fail miserably as an NFL QB, after which, he will become priest. He doesnt have even half of the passing/throwing ability of Brady Quinn, and look where his NFL career is. He is one of a multitude of college QB’s that run 1st and pass 2nd, and these QB’s always fail at the pro-level. The NFL is now a pass happy league, and those QB’s that cannot pass will not succeed.
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 10:41 AM
“I am not sure what Tebow’s views are on gay issues, but it is important for people to know the kind of group he is willing to do a promotional ad for. In this case, one that would deny gay people the most basic rights available to other citizens.”
Gays and lesbians should not be allowed to get legally married, but should be allowed a legal domestic partnership similar to but not called marriage. I do not understand why they want to get married in a church when they are not religious or believe what Christians believe. However, they should not have any rights taken away from them. Whether or not they go to a Christian church or any church at all, others should not choose for them. I do not understand why people are gay or lesbian, etc. but they are not committing any crimes.
However, I do not see any problem with this ad Tim Tebow will be in that will be televised during the Super Bowl. Why bash him for his beliefs? I am surprised so many on this web site would be bashing him for his beliefs when they cry foul so much when it happens to them.
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 11:25 AM
SC wrote “This ad is not about gays. God created marriage and defined it. God also gave man the freedom to make choices which has allowed gays the freedom to choose their lifestyle. They may feel that they have a relationship with someone of their own sex, but it is not “marriage” but that word is exclusively given by God to those who meet the definition…between a man and a woman.”
Have you read the bible? The bible (God’s word) displays multiple types of marriage, Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 12:28 PM
Wow, this is really weird.
Is it gay people commenting on here who just don’t like gays or is it non gay’s commenting here who don’t like gays?
I’m an educated guy, don’t like to be told what to do, so I’m not religous plus coming from Europe, it’s not our thing but I understand the desperate need to believe..in anything to make your existence more understandable but these comments are just really odd.
Blah, I’m not American. Something like this would not even see the light of day in the UK and well, we have less poverty than you, equal rights for gays and with the fact we let people have abortions, don’t have a warped number of children in care, left to die in the streets by sh*tty str8 parents or so messed up because mummy was a cr*p mother show selfishly didn’t want to abort she brought up a crack baby.
Times like this, I’m so glad I’m not American nor do I live in your crazy hypocritical country that keeps on telling people what to do, how to look and how they should ALWAYS pray, pray and pray!
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 12:31 PM
Someone said: “God created marriage and defined it.”
Which god? There is no proof whatsoever of the existence of any god.
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 1:05 PM
SC,
I love it how anti gay foes board gay themed Internet Sites with the intention of rabble rousing. You have very few fans on such forums and will not win over “hearts and minds”.
On a related note, I also love how Christians pretend to have a monopoly on the word marriage. By the way, such “social institutions” pre-dated christianity and also occurred in places isolated from the christian faith such as the New World prior to 1492.
Furthermore, since you brought up the Bible I feel compelled to offer my two cents. First of all, the Bible can’t be discussed apart from slavery let alone homosexuality. With that being said, most translations of the Bible replaced the world slave with servant because such a word is easier on the ears. However, not every translation of the Bible (Holman Christian Standard Bible for example) abandoned the word slave. What does this mean? Well, the Bible was utilized very effectively to defend the institution of slavery in America’s early days. Passages such as Exodus 21:2-6 which discusses purchasing Hebrew slaves were readily quoted. Similarly, Exodus 21:7 even indicates that a father can sell his daughter into slavery. According to Exodus 21:20-21 beating slaves is perfectly acceptable as long as they don’t die from injuries sustained. As a result, many southerns turned to the Bible not only to defend their peculiar institution but also to justify violence against slaves. Times certainly change because most people today view slavery as evil. Yet, in contemporary times opponents of gay rights immediately turn to the Bible to justify their bigoted beliefs. Unfortunately, history has a way of repeating itself.
On another note, rape is condoned in a few Biblical passages. For instance, Zechariah 14:2 speaks of “ravishing women” during war time.
I did not mention the previous Biblical passages in an attempt to Bible bash, get a rise out of anyone, or even dismiss Christianity. I simply want to inspire others to cling to the more positive messages of the Bible such as the teachings of Jesus. You know, the parts of the Bible that advice loving one’s neighbor and abstaining from judging others.
I also want to point out that the Bible was authored when the world was a very different place. For instance, slavery was common during Biblical times. Given the way gay and lesbian individuals are mistreated in contemporary times, I can only imagine how such individuals would have been received during Biblical times. Again, Biblical passages seem to parallel public opinion at the time.
Unfortunately, the Bible can become a tool of condemnation. With this in mind, the Old Testament Book of Leviticus has assuredly been used to condemn gays. At the same time, other Biblical books such as Deuteronomy also condemn eating certain animals and even wearing clothing with more that one type of fiber. Yet, everyone gets hung up on Leviticus 18:22 while dismissing other Old Testament Laws.
Furthermore, there is nothing inherently unnatural about sexual activity between individuals of the same gender. The things gay couples do together in bed are also practiced by many heterosexual couples. Yes, gays can’t procreate with one another (tired argument). However, what’s truly unnatural is the utilization of birth control to chemically alter one’s hormones in an effort to prevent pregnancy or surgically altering one’s body to achieve the same ends. After all, under such circumstances sex is no longer about procreation but rather lust and pleasure. Consequently, when opponents to gay rights stop utilizing birth control pills, condoms, and diaphragms or surgically altering their bodies through vasectomies and tubal ligation procedures I will perhaps be a little t more receptive to their viewpoints.
With all that being said SC, there is no good reason to deny gay and lesbian couples entry into the institution of marriage. Doing so will not pave the way to bestiality or polygamy. Although many Biblical passages seem to indicate that polygamy is “business as usual” including Genesis 4:19 and 2 Samuel 12:8. Yes, these books are in the Old Testament but Jesus said the Old Testament is the Law (Matthew 5:17-18). Consequently, why is there so much hatred toward polygamists? Furthermore you may want to begin eating a Biblically correct diet and wearing biblically correct clothing before condemning gays.
On a final note, the state does not compel religious leaders to preside over any marriage ceremony. With this in mind, a religious leader could even opt out of performing a ceremony for an interracial couple because he or she has grievances against such unions. The same holds true for gay ceremonies. As a result, the overwhelming majority of gay unions would be performed by a justice of the piece and would be rendered a contract between two people and the state. As a consequence, religion would not even be invoked. As a result, what kind of hate monger would still want to deny others rights when their very own rights are so carefully guarded?
By the way, I remain neutral with respect to Tim Tebow.
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 1:08 PM
Hey there DR! So everyone has a sort of morally fungible “message” and we should all be cool about it because, well, there really are no repercussions of any degree whether a certain guy on one hand poses shirtless for men (and women, I might add) or on the other hand lends his fame to an organization that dissolves the Constitutional separation between state sponsored civil marriage and religiously discriminating choices about which American citizens should benefit from the US Constitution’s Equal Protection “civil” rights? Yeah, you must just about be the most well-adjusted gay guy on this religiously afflicted planet, right? Or, just one more straight guy completely lacking in empathy for “others,” and who completely accepts the status quo simply because that’s all you can see beyond your nose, right? God bless us & save us from blindly followed religiosity in its age old battle against the basic tenets of democracy & human rights!
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 1:32 PM
RomanFingers, maybe you ought to see the ad before you pass judgment on what the ad contains. Many people suspect that this will not be an anti-marriage equality ad, but rather an anti-abortion ad.
Until this young man actually speaks his mind on the issue of marriage equality, I refuse to ASSUME what he does and does not believe, nor do I ASSUME that he will become an anti-equality activist.
Even if it is an anti-equality ad, that means is that I need speak up against his views. I’m certainly not going to engage in the venom-spewing I’m seeing online. I may not agree with them, but I will certainly defend his right to express them.
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 1:54 PM
DR, would you defend his right to suggest black people should still be slaves, Asians should still be held in interment camps, and jews should still be tortured in concentration camps – during a superbowl game where in previous years advocacy has been a strong no-no with regards to ad time?
I’m just trying to figure out if the gay issue is the only one you’d bend over backwards and apologize for.
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 2:00 PM
Lewis, you’re being asinine. Seriously. How does being a potential spokesperson in a pro-life ad equate this nonsense? Oh, right, you, like so many others, ASSUME the worst.
As I said, until I see the ad, I have no reason to believe that this young man is going to be an anti-gay activist. There is nothing I can see which indicates that he plans on doing anything other than a pro-life ad where his personal story being used.
As I said, if he begins activism against marriage equality, I’ll deal with it when the time comes. But while I may not like the company he keeps, I’m also not going to assume the worst about him because he is a pro-life Christian male.
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 2:15 PM
What did I equate? I didn’t make any equations. I simply asked if he were to start advocating for social causes that are obviously inhumane, would you defend his right to do so during one of the biggest staples in American history where advocacy has always been showed the back door.
Unsurprisingly, you failed to answer the question and shifted the focus back to your hero worship.
And I’m the one being asinine.
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 2:20 PM
That’s because your questions were classic red herrings, meant to detract form the issue at hand, which is “Tim Tebow appears to be doing a pro-life ad during the Superbowl”. Your suppositions were irrelevant and designed to detract from that topic. That, in my book, makes your comments asinine.
If you have a shred of proof that Mr. Tebow will be doing an anti-equality ad, post it for all of us to see so that we may read it and come to our own conclusions. Unless and until Mr. Tebow PUBLICLY takes a stand against marriage equality, I will not make the mistake of assuming he’s the next Dobson.
Next time, ask questions relevant to the discussion and maybe I’ll answer them. I have neither the time nor the patience for logical fallacies.
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 2:40 PM
Translation: “No, I wouldn’t defend “Mr. Tebow’s” right to advocate other social inequalities during a game where advocacy is strictly prohibited unless it agrees with the theological think tank, but since it’s “Mr. Tebow” – a swell, stand up pro-life Christian male (with piercing bedroom eyes that whispers “you know what I want” and a smile that makes my pants shorter), I will don my apologist hat proudly and defend his actions against you radical meanies who dare have the nerves to stand up to typical fundie proselytizing at the most inappropriate of times.”
Gotcha.
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 2:56 PM
@ Lewis
My post says it all.
DR has been posting on Towleroad and has been equally really ‘un-responsible’ and ‘evasive’ on this issue.
All I will say, which is IRONIC, is that the right wing on the UK are really brutally honest in what they believe in. They don’t make excuses. I have friends who hunt, went to a school in the country etc and they say what they think.
But from what I’ve seen ‘blog-wise’ in the US, because you are so religous you start making buggers issues of the reasons you don’t care about equality, than you have to.
You can’t even begin to have a ‘gay community’ when the community hates each other.
This post has shown that.
Tim ‘who cares’, could’ve said ‘I want to KILL gays’ and most of the posters would be like ‘well, that is within his right’.
Okay.
I’ll troll through Towleraod more to see if DR as made an opinion about the Uganada kill all gays bills, the Malawi gay couple, etc etc
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 2:58 PM
Wow, talk about hateful and ignorant, Lewis. Your comments are becoming more and ore irrelevant. Come back when you understand the question regarding his stand on abortion and stop making things up as you go along.
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 3:13 PM
How do you people make these bizarre logical leaps from what appears to be his stand on abortion?
Wow. Just wow.
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 3:32 PM
@ DR
Your the majority. Everyone is like YOU.
Why are you upset when people like YOU rule the world?
99% of the world is religous, be it Islam or Christianity.
America is one of the most neo right wing nations in the world, with the concept of free marketism being the only choice you have.
So why do you guys cry, whine and sulk when something doesn’t go your way!!??
YOU rule the world. We are what you want. We have conformed, no personality. We HAVE to play your game.
You win!
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 3:44 PM
John, maybe if you spent less time being pissed off, as per your moniker, you’d understand what my point is. Clearly it’s easier for you to hate the world than to admit that this is a discussion about a football player’s choice to participate in an abortion discussion via a commercial. I feel sorry for you, I can’t imagine living my life so angry at the world that you can’t even have simple discussion.
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 3:52 PM
Hello again there, DR! The point you seem incapable of acknowledging (or possibly purposefully unwilling to recognize) is the regressive Christian Dominionist organization to which young Mr. Tebow is lending his personal & professional fame. It’s similar to when the famous long-lived architect, Philip Johnson, praised Fascism during his younger adult years of the 1930′s. He grew up, had his mind opened by the harsh realities that brought on World War II, and spent the rest of his life apologizing for his youthful stupidity. Nevertheless, what Johnson did in his ignorant youth was extremely deadly in its consequences. Can’t you see how Mr. Tebow’s choice of subject, whether abortion rights or equal rights, is so very less important than that he is now a vital part of a vehemently homophobic fundraising machine, erroneously named Focus on the Family? Or, are you just amused as all Hell that you’re getting so much attention regardless of its friendliness or reprobation?
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 4:17 PM
So we automatically assume guilt by association, is that it? Has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, the only part of the FotF’s agenda Tebow really believes in would be it’s stand on abortion? Or is that not possible in your minds? That since he believes in one part of their mission, he must therefore believe in all of it? Must be nice to live in a black and white world where people aren’t capable of being educated and are either marching in the streets with us or hate us.
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 4:18 PM
*its. damn typos
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 5:11 PM
Can’t blame them for finding the hottest stud for their commercial!
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 7:01 PM
Look, Tebow is entitled to an opinion on this subject, just as every other American. I agree TT should be called out for endorsing an anti-gay organization, but he is entitled to his opinion….and in my opinion nobody should EVER be criticized for speaking out against the government-sanctioned Holocaust of the Unborn that is our national shame.
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 7:57 PM
Oh, DR darling, you’re such a laugh riot! You probably know that popular pre-WWII phrase that went something like: “Well, at least Mussolini makes the trains run on time.” And I wouldn’t want to get you started about those favorite quips of the KKK about what Negroes “are good for!”
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 8:03 PM
And, Munson Man, you sly devil you! Is that a wire hanger factory that you looking to invest in once women’s control over their own bodies are once again outlawed? Hey, I’m down for it, Man. After all, I’m not a woman. Won’t affect our little male agendas, will it, MM, huh?
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 9:05 PM
Everyone knows that Tebow is just a Chris Rix wannabe.
on Jan 17th, 2010 at 9:41 PM
Ahh, Roman, how typical…Can’t debate the point, engage in the ad hominem attacks. Again, I feel pity for you and guys like you. Too much hate in you.
on Jan 18th, 2010 at 12:04 AM
“government-sanctioned Holocaust of the Unborn”
on Jan 18th, 2010 at 12:54 AM
I just read all 46 statements.
DR – thanks for being the true voice of reason on these posts. If the gay community had more sensible voices like yourself, the world would be a better place, and more effective dialogue would exist that could transform people’s negative opinions and biases towards homosexuality.
Instead, what the world sees from many gays are ignorant, polarizing diatribes (exemplified by many of the posts above) from Christopher Hitchens wanna-be’s that are so blinded by their own biases that they can’t even understand how others can hold opinions different from their own.
No wonder a majority of people said they didn’t want gay marriage in California.
on Jan 18th, 2010 at 11:19 AM
My issue is not the message (though I have serious doubts about that as well) but the organization. Focus on the Family is not Christian organization but a business / ponzi scheme that uses Christianity as part of their efforts to raise money to keep their founders in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.
FoF’s positions change with whatever will return the highest return on investment. When the ex-gay movement started being a loss leader, they quickly sold off and cut their ties with Exodus International. Abortion remains a solid cash cow and hence this ad.
I am confident that this advertisement is being placed not to protect any “unborn lives” but to garner donations for FoF. This is an investment by a financially struggling organization in the hopes of gaining members and renewed donations or face disappearing.
on Jan 18th, 2010 at 12:46 PM
OutinLA,
The “majority” of people in California did not say “no” to gay marriage. However, the majority of individuals whom showed up to the voting booths did. Personally, I predicted this outcome long before Prop 8 was subject to vote. Unfortunately, the same outcome will occur in any state where citizens are allowed to decide whether or whether not marriage rights should be extended to same sex couples, Why? Well, members of the opposition are an especially motivated force. Consequently, these same individuals would do whatever it takes to cast a ballot against gay marriage even if it required walking up hill for 100 miles or crawling over broken glass.
Gays and lesbians are perhaps equally motivated to cast their own ballots but account for less than 10% of the populace in any given state. As a result, gays and lesbians lack the necessary numbers to single handedly defeat any anti-gay referendum. Consequently, straight allies are required to make up the difference.
However, straight individuals without any grievances toward gay marriage are not as motivated about the issue as gays themselves or even our opponents. Simply put, the lives of these straight individuals don’t change when marriage rights are taken away from their gay neighbors. Yet, if these individuals had been convinced that their support was critical a very different outcome may have resulted in California and most recently Maine.
Unfortunately, from what I recall campaign efforts in both California and Maine were too busy attempting to rebuttal the negative ads spawned by groups like the National Organization for Marriage and Focus on the Family creating a “he said, she said” circus. In reality campaign ads should have centered mostly on convincing straight allies to get out and vote. After all, a 30 second sound byte will not change any opinion with regards to gay marriage.
On another note, I am the antithesis of biased. With that being said, I celebrate religious diversity whether we’re talking about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, etc. However, I strongly feel that religion should not influence legislation. With that being said, if religion and legislation are acceptable bed fellows many things should change. For instance, perhaps this “silly” war against terrorism should be abandoned. After all, Muslim extremists are merely drawing inspiration from the Koran, a book sacred to some 1 billion people. Whom are we to call the actions of extremists crimes against humanity when they are merely interpreting religious doctrine in a particular way.
Yes, that was sarcasm and not a reflection of my actual beliefs. Consider it food for thought. However, I have a genuine take home message. The messages of love and tolerance need to be resurrected within all faiths.
On another subject, I only ask that those whom view the world differently than myself meet me at least one-quarter of the way and exercise a degree of flexibility. After all, I feel that no one should be discriminated against for their religious practice. People of any faith should be able to walk down the street safely without fearing verbal harassment or physical assault. A practitioner of any religion should never be denied a housing opportunity, job, or the provision of goods and services at any business establishment because of his or her faith.
On a related note, I am not actively engaged in any effort to over turn the tax exempt status of any church. I am not interrupting church services with protest. I have never physically assaulted anyone let alone physically assaulted someone because of the religion they practice. I also feel that no religious leader should ever be compelled to preside over a gay union. With this in mind, I have a “live and let live” attitude toward religion. From my personal experiences this viewpoint is shared by the over whelming majority of gay and lesbian individuals. Yet, we are all to often under assault. I ask that religious individuals exercise the same degree of tolerance that we routinely demonstrate.
On a final note, I don’t really care how anyone feels about gay marriage. However, I do care when individuals are so inflexible and filled with hatred that they would deny two people an equivalent contract with the state. Again, as I mentioned in my earlier post, the overwhelming majority of gay unions are without religious connotation and mere contracts between two people and the state. Religious leaders are not compelled by law to preside over any marriage ceremony, gay or straight. With this in mind, no religious individual has any legitimate reason to fear gay marriage. Yet, it is religious individuals who routinely deny their gay and lesbian neighbors equal protection under the law. To borrow your words OutinLA, that is an exercise in both ignorance and intolerance.
on Jan 18th, 2010 at 1:48 PM
Has it been confirmed that CBS will run the ad? I suspect they will not (due to their policy about “advocacy” ads) and further suspect that FOTF knows that — this is a publicity stunt, obviously. If CBS says no, then FOTF gets to make a big stink about how Christians are being oppressed or whatever.
on Jan 18th, 2010 at 3:51 PM
Why are gays so paranoid when someone has a different opinion than they hold?
on Jan 18th, 2010 at 7:25 PM
Regarding the “Christianity doesn’t force you to choose” issue: I was abused as a child by several church members and ministers. Sure, God doesn’t “force” you to choose but his people sure as hell pressure, intimidate and scare you to “choose God”. Face it people. Religion is for a$$holes. There’s nothing to debate about that.
on Jan 19th, 2010 at 3:21 AM
the religious bigots in this country need to mind their own damned business and let women do what they want with their bodies and give us gays equal rights to live healthy normal lives. their thousands-years-old voodoo religious book of choice has no right to tell ANYONE how to live.
and who cares about Tim Tebow anyways he’ll be a free agent after he’s undrafted he’ll never make it in the NFL.
on Jan 19th, 2010 at 9:39 AM
Too bad we won’t all be around thousands of years from now. People of that future time will look at today’s christianity the same way we look at the acient religions and gods of the Greeks and Romans.
In other words, they’ll be asking, how could those people believe in something so completely that is so clearly fantasy? Come on people, virgin birth? rising from the dead?
When you sit down and really think about it, how can any sane, rational, intelligent person believe in those things?
on Jan 19th, 2010 at 11:33 AM
Mike:
Personally, I can’t even begin to wrap my brain around the complexities of the earth and surrounding universe. Attempts to do so often result in a headache! However, I have convinced myself that the things that we can see and touch are not the side effect of some cosmic accident but rather an extension of an unseen creative force.
On a friendly note, religion can be wonderful. It often delivers a great sense of purpose and even happiness into the lives of practitioners. Yet, I do realize that churches have all but posted “No Gays Allowed” signs at the front door. However, I refuse to believe that heterosexual individuals hold some sort or religious monopoly or patent. With that being said, the road to faith is open to all and zealot religious quacks such as Pat Robertson or Focus On The Family type cults should never be allowed to impose roadblocks on others.
on Jan 19th, 2010 at 11:37 AM
There’s no short supply of Christian hate in America.
on Jan 19th, 2010 at 6:05 PM
When you consider how the christian churches have treated gays over the years, I’m amazed there are any gays who don’t hate the churches.
on Jan 19th, 2010 at 8:07 PM
Mike:
It’s called not sinking to their level. Yes, I don’t hate anyone including those whom choose to attend conservative churches. Sure, many misguided individuals are within the ranks of such organizations. However, I deal with such people by challenging them to have the courage to question their beliefs whether self determined or parentally implanted instead of blindly accepting them at face value.
Furthermore, anti-gay religious voices are beginning to undermine their own causes. For instance, many churches oppose gay marriage despite guarantees religious leaders will never be compelled to preside over a same-sex ceremony. Many churches are more unreasonable and actually come out in force against Civil Unions despite the complete absence of religion from such institutions. Recent examples of this occurrence are alive and well in Hawaii where anti-gay religious foes have poured out into the streets and are frothing at the mouth over a potential Civil Union bill. Finally, some churches have even spoken out against the federal government declaring that it is inappropriate to physically harm an individual because of that person’s real or perceived sexual orientation. Again, such instances are causing greater numbers of Americans to realize that conservative voices stemming from some religious communities are actually enshrouded in hatred rather than love. As a result, this is off putting and more people are reacting by turning away from conservative churches. With this in mind, even religion must adapt to a 21st century world. After all, contemporary America has left slavery to the Old Testament and no one is attempting to commission the La Amistad II. It’s only a matter of time before “gay” becomes a non-issue.
on Jan 20th, 2010 at 4:35 PM
RGMike,
From what I’ve heard, CBS is running the ad (unless something changed since this morning), and that is really the big issue that gets lost in all the back and forth on what Tebow believes and freedom of speech, etc. CBS is choosing to air this spot but has not allowed spots from other advocacy groups (like PETA for example) in the past. So, if anyone has $3 million bucks laying around and they want to test the system, make up a pro-choice ad, or a support gay marriage ad, and see if CBS accepts it.
on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 10:00 AM
Will he be shirtless? I hope he’s shirtless. He was in GQ shirtless. He should be shirtless all the time. I bet he’s shirtless now. wow. Shirtless.
on Jan 24th, 2010 at 2:22 AM
Is the ad going to show clips of him being a sore loser, cry-baby after the Alabama game?!!!
on Jan 24th, 2010 at 6:51 PM
Why has Outsoprts.com not provided a link or avenue to protest Tebow’s
support and CBS’s support of an anti-gay organization. Yeh, I don’t mind
laughing at a link just below the article “male sports fan shows love for
Tim Tobow” but it seems pretty shallow and short sighted to have that
be the only link provided by Outsporst.com
How are we going to advance as a people when our web sites are focused
solely on profit via sex and humor?
on Jan 25th, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Mr. Buzinski:
Thanks for pointing out several times that Focus is anti gay, but what does that have to do with the pro-life message of the ad that will air during the Super Bowl?
It seems, as a journalist, you would want to stick to the topic.
on Jan 27th, 2010 at 11:14 PM
What basic rights are gays denied over any other citizen in this country?
on Jan 27th, 2010 at 11:23 PM
“What basic rights are gays denied over any other citizen in this country?”
Uh, the right to marry for one. Or the right to hold a job w/o being fired simply because of your sexual orientation. What planet do you live on?
on Jan 28th, 2010 at 12:19 AM
Obviously he is extremely grateful that his mom chose to give him LIFE. Enough so to let everyone know…and not be ashamed of it. What is wrong w/you people??! Your comments are everything your accusing his associations to be???!!!!!
on Jan 28th, 2010 at 4:35 PM
Another “Trojan Horse” from the evangelical right. The only reason CBS is doing this is to recoup $ from lost car ad revenues, and it is just another propaganda attack from these evil preachers who want to distort our nation’s heritage of freedom FROM an official religious viewpoint and take over our govt and YOUR life. ‘Dominion”…THAT is what they want, and they will lie, cheat, murder and steal to do it. They feel a higher cause, just like the TALIBAN.
CBS has held a policy of airing only COMMERCIAL ads on the Super Bowl, and has broken it for this ad. I will not watch the Super Bowl for this reason ( Colts will blowout anyway) Now with new legislation allowing corporations to spend whatever they want on politics, we will see more negative politcal ads, more propaganda from preachers who want to run your life, etc. Maintaining a policy of NO NONCOMMERCIAL ads made the Super Bowl a refuge from this, and in giving in to this American Taliban, they have dramatically reduced it’s entertainment value. It’s a stupid buisness move and an annoyance to most FB fans.
on Mar 11th, 2010 at 1:36 PM
Latest news: Tebow scored even less than Roethlisberger on his Wonderlic. Tebow: 23, Roethlisberger 25. Idiots, please support your quarterback.