Tebow to appear in Focus on the Family commercial during SB XLIV

The Mancrunch ad is far more unsuitable than a son and his mother telling the story of how he was born.

I suppose Gloria Alred and NOW would be happy if Tim Tebow didn't stick up for any principle, and was just one more dumb jock party animal chasing crease and getting drunk.

 

Nope, not every family story is open for question.

Just those used to advance a political agenda.

 

A lot of family stories probably aren't true. It's just human nature. Our minds play tricks on us.

 

Nothing in either video should make anyone squirm.

Why is it so terrible that people see two adults kissing?

Which is worse “for the kids”… the gratuitous shots of GoDaddy girls somehow selling domain hosting as sex, a guy on a date that tells his girlfriend that his beer is more important than his mother, dog and her or two guys that end up kissing?

You make it seem like this is some terrible thing that is horrible for kids. How about you explain why that is?

Being as the ManCrunch ad contains kissing, I can see it argued that a mother telling the story of her son’s birth would be more “family friendly.” However, it isn’t an issue of ManCrunch versus Tebow.

CBS is allowing an ad with political aspirations air (Tebow) and declining another ad because of a perceived political argument (ManCrunch).

ManCrunch’s ad should be put up against the other ads that exist. It should be compared to the Clydesdales and the GoDaddy’s. If it is more “obscene” then I could understand blocking it. If it isn’t, then the reason for the block is very obvious; a clear bias against homosexuals.

 

Actually, the burden of proof is put upon those making the initial claim, the Tebows. They are the one's making accusations (a doctor told me to have an abortion!).

 

It's a shame the right to life is considered "political" by the left.

 

Well, you kind of made my point for me. Who is offended by a Clydesdale versus two men kissing? Hand count? You, sir, over in the corner. Would you care to explain your argument for being offended by a large horse?

I am a proud heterosexual and I was offended by Janet Jackson's revelation, if you will. Seeing a breast isn't in and of itself offensive, just not on a family television program. I'd say the same thing for two men kissing, for the same reason. There's an appropriate place for everything.

Now, sir, back to the Clydesdale.....

 

I'll agree that Gloria Allred is a fame whore, but she didn't just create that abortion is illegal in the Philippines thing. That was an issue brought up by women's groups before, and she is just running with it. Plus, it's not like it's a secret. Also, since the Tebows have been telling the story for years, it's relevant to note that the earlier stories didn't say that Pam's life was in danger. She said she was told that the medicines she was given for her dysentery would likely cause irreversible damage to her fetus. She said the doctors acted as though they were discussing a bunch of tissue rather than a human being.

Fact is, Allred aside, abortion is and was illegal then. Permission may be granted if the mother would die otherwise, but only after review by a medical board and a special exception. Actually, in 1987, the law there mandated that the life of the mother is no more important than the life of the fetus. There were never any provisions for damage to the fetus. The law there is what that Tebows would like the law here to be: They believe life begins at conception. Meanwhile, we're to believe that some Phillipino doctor suggested that Pam break his/her country's laws and ignored their own policy of when life begins. It also assumes he/she was unaware Pam was a Baptist missionary. Sorry, but I think she's lying, or at best, exaggerating, and I see no reason why I should just take her word for it.

Also relevant, thousands of women die each year in the Philippines because of illegal abortions.

 

How is their story defined as an accusation?

 

Actually, it's an equal-opportunity deal. Abortion has been a wedge issue for the right for years.

 

And Pastor, you might not think that anyone should be offended, and I might even agree with you, but people would have been offended.

That's just a fact. Your sensibilities are not the same as the entire country's.

A lot of people would have been offended, because it would have necessitated conversations with their 7-year old that they'd rather not have.

C'mon. You can understand that.

 

I consider reading comprehension fairly important. It is because of this that I will try and type out the same post again in the hopes that a second read will allow you to better understand…

If you are “offended” by two men kissing then are you equally “offended” by a guy and a girl kissing? If you are not offended at the second, then why are you offended by the first.

Nobody is offended by horses. That isn’t the point.

The point is that there are commercials that some people will find offensive. Why do they get to go on the air and ManCrunch is blocked?

Which is worse for children:
Commercial A: A guy declares that his beer is more important than his mom, dog and girlfriend.
Commercial B: Two guys kiss.

Sorry, but one “teaches” abhorrent behavior. The other, if you aren’t gay, doesn’t apply to you.