FREEP CBS for False "Gay Marriage" Claims on Amazing Race

Self & Worldnetdaily | 6/4/2003 | Andrew Ainsworth & Joe Kovacs

[Vitamin A]

Well said, RonF. Thank you for pointing out the obvious, which unfortunately needs to be done more often than it should be these days. Sounds like a couple guys in here are prime candidates for the CBS spokesPERSON.

[Vitamin A]

Sure, it provides a teaching moment, and any parent can turn off the show. No argument whatsoever.

But is that any reason why people should not speak up and express their opinion that intentional misrepresentation on primetime TV for political motives is something they disapprove of? I can turn off porno too. But does that mean I should sit silently when CBS throws "Debbie Does Dallas" onto the tube at 8 pm?

[Dilly]

In post No. 6, you said:

And for anyone of any age to not know that no state in the U.S.A. establishes or recognizes a state of marriage for homosexual couples; do you have to have any kind of brain to work in CBS's public relations department? Or at least read something other than People or Variety?

and in post no. 38 you said:

When people hear the word "married", it's a universal presumption that somewhere there's a legal document with the names of both parties and a legally authorized third party defining the two as married.

Which is it? I don't think you can have it both ways here.

[Vitamin A]

As a follow up, Dilly, we are consumers. We have tastes and preferences. We have every right to voice our tastes and preferences to people who are trying to get us to give them (or their sponsors) money.

My personal taste and preference is that I should be able to watch a primetime TV show about a race around the world without having to shoo my kids out of the room, or without having to resolve their confusion about two men kissing on camera with the "married" designation on screen.

As a consumer, I have every right to voice a preference for clean, wholesome primetime entertainment. They can agree and get my money, or disagree and not get my money.

Any problem with that?

[RonF]

The point is that "marriage" is not a term whose definition is mutable. If their relationship doesn't meet some state's definition of marriage, they're not married. It's that simple. When people hear the word "married", it's a universal presumption that somewhere there's a legal document with the names of both parties and a legally authorized third party defining the two as married. The CBS spokesperson certainly seemed to think so. Of course, by her own words she reveals her own brain to be hermetically sealed.

CBS can't change this. The fact that they seem to be trying to do so for financial gain is outrageous.

To compare this to a woman calling her best friend "sister" fails on two counts. For one thing, there's no multi-billion company trying to get publicity for and consumption of their product on the basis of that statement. Secondly, there's also a tradition of the use of the words "brother" and "sister" to sometimes symbolize a relationship based on shared experiences of a highly emotional nature rather than blood that cuts across cultures back into antiquity. And when such a thing comes up, if the people involved are not actually blood related, it's made clear. There is no such tradition for the word "married". Anyone seeing the word "married" presumes a legal relationship as well as a social one.

Fine, forget the lawsuit. Perhaps the government shouldn't be involved. I accept the criticism. But this is still deliberately devious and misleading on the part of CBS, and they should be ashamed on that basis, regardless of how you feel about gays and marriage. But shame is not an emotion that is much in vogue, these days. So many people seem to think that shame is old-fashioned and an imposition on their right to blame everyone else for their problems; an impediment to doing as you please to get whatever you want.

[Dilly]

Hey, I didn't say you couldn't (or shouldn't) speak up or complain to CBS if you're offended by this. What I said is, I don't think this is a matter that it appropriate to take to the courts. I didn't instruct you to sit silently by. Please don't put words into my mouth.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP

[RonF]

Whoops. Sorry about the double post.

There's no conflict. The woman at CBS apparently did presume that there was a legal state of marriage between the two men, thus fufilling my term of "universal" in post 38. The fact that she was ignorant of the truth was what I was deploring in post 6.

Of course, it appears that somewhere in that spokeswoman's brain there is a perfect vacumn. Since a perfect vacumn doesn't exist in this universe, she might well be excludable from the term "universal" ;-)

[Vitamin A]

Dilly, fair enough. But I stand by my belief that CBS has potential legal problems here. They are engaging in misrepresentations while selling advertising. It's arguably prohibited in CA. The libs use the courts to get what they want, why shouldn't we?

[colorado tanker]

I don't watch the bilgewater on the networks.

[Dilly]

The libs use the courts to get what they want, why shouldn't we?

Because two wrongs don't make a right, and that's something I do want my children to learn.

[Vitamin A]

Haha, good point motherbear. I hereby declare myself the King of England! Who's to say I am not? Just because they use that term differently? Hey, I should call CBS and let them know!

[Vitamin A]

I guess by that logic you don't approve of war either. I guess the intentional killing of another human being who is trying to kill human beings would be two wrongs also. So because the libs use the courts to do damage, we shouldn't use the courts to undo their damage and do good?

[Vitamin A]

I'm out people, gotta get back to work.

[LWalk18]

Are you going to sue the vast majority of brides who were white on their wedding day?

[Dilly]

I guess by that logic you don't approve of war either.

I'm not going that far afield in this conversation. We're not discussing "just war", which philosophers have debated for millenia. You and I started our discourse discussing what influence CBS' actions might have on children. My point is that I'm not going to teach my children to go file a lawsuit every time someone does something that offends them.

[ChicagoGuy]

Many words have both legal definitions and other connotations, too. Their use of the word 'married' to describe their relationship simply doesn't meet the legal standards for 'fraud' (intentionally untrue, detrimental reliance, etc.) that take it outside the First Amendments bounds. Like I said, if you don't like it, don't watch, complain all you like, etc. But don't try to twist the First Amendment so that people can't describe their relationships how they like.

"I expect more from a law school valedictorian. Which law school by the way?" Northwestern. And your expectations aren't really my issue.

[PoisedWoman]

Yes, hearing the word "married" over and over to describe those two dipsh*ts was disgusting. The good news, however, is that they are inept, clumsy, and basically stupid. Two haircuts in matching levis falling further and further behind in the race. If they succeed in staying on for a few weeks, they'll probably throw a dozen hissy fits and sue for divorce on camera. Gay "marriages" usually last 20 minutes.

[Vitamin A]

Well because there is no law against non-virgins wearing a white wedding dress, then "No"