[size=6]Foxtel faces backlash after it shows ads opposing same-sex marriage[/size]
Monday 10 August 2015 14.14 AEST Last modified on Monday 10 August 2015 15.53 AEST


Some people say they have cancelled their Foxtel subscriptions after the company broadcast advertisements rejected by two free-to-air TV stations

[youtube]fKEmJv9o-mQ[/youtube]
Anti-gay marriage ad that prompted backlash against Foxtel

Foxtel is facing a backlash from some subscribers after it decided to screen advertisements opposing same-sex marriage.

The ads, created by anti-gay marriage group Marriage Alliance, were knocked back by the Seven and Ten networks but have been screened by the pay TV provider.

People took to Facebook to vent their anger, with many saying they would cancel their Foxtel subscription.

“Just cancelled my account – Netflix is much less homophobic, and better value,” one wrote.

“What’s new on Foxtel this week? Bigotry, hatred and lies,” said another.

Some questioned Foxtel for airing advertisements for I Am Cait, the new reality show about Caitlyn Jenner’s transition, alongside the anti-equality message in the ads.

Marriage Alliance’s campaign, which uses the line “It’s not as simple as you think”, says legislating to allow same-sex marriage may affect other people’s rights.

Foxtel said it was aware its decision to air the ad had “caused hurt and distress to some customers”.

“We believe this debate should be won by the force of the argument in favour of reform, not by refusing to engage in debate or allow contrary opinion to be put,” a spokesman said.

The company said it was a strong supporter of marriage equality and it was screening a series of celebrity-backed ads calling for marriage equality.

“We believe this debate should be won by the force of the argument in favour of reform, not by refusing to engage in debate or allow contrary opinion to be put,” a spokesman said.

if we were sent to the polls to vote on gay marriage, id vote for it to happen but Jesus the way some people carry on because someone has a differing opinion to them is disgraceful (and that's people on both sides of the fence)

Carrying on?

100% I agree they have the moral right to advertise what they want, but just as much consumers have the right to not continue to pay for their service if they chose not to.

In the case of Foxtel it just seems very puzzling as a business to expose themselves like this.

“We believe this debate should be won by the force of the argument in favour of reform, not by refusing to engage in debate or allow contrary opinion to be put,” a spokesman said.

Yes but those in favour of gay marriage refuse to engage in debate also, simply dismissing anyone opposed to gay marriage as 'homophobic' and making ridiculous overreactions (cancelling Foxtel subscriptions :lol: ) when someone has a different opinion to them.

The conviction of a gay couple who lived in Australia and the United States for trafficking their adopted surrogate baby and using him to make paedophile pornography ought to provoke questions about the wisdom of same-sex adoption

The pair began sexually abusing the child when he was less than two weeks old. They also took him around the world and allowed him to be abused by at least eight men in several countries. Photographs and videos were uploaded to a paedophile site. The men told the child that the abuse was normal behaviour and coached him on what to say if he were ever questioned.

Abuse of infants and children is not confined to homosexuals. But Newton and Truong actually portrayed themselves in the media as champions of gay rights. Under the headline “Two dads are better than one”, the ABC (Australia) described the idyllic world of their son in 2010. “Becoming gay parents was hard work for Pete and Mark but they’d do it all over again if they had to,” the ABC journalist wrote. “It’s a happy, relaxed family scene. But it wasn’t an easy road to get there. After many hurdles [their son] was born by surrogacy in Russia.”

Three years later, the words ring false, but the journalist was completely duped. “We decided that we would have a child, that it was time for us to have a family. We wanted to experience the joys of fatherhood and we started our surrogacy over in the United States back in 2002,” Truong told him.

Incredibly, they admitted that one of the difficulties they faced was police suspicion that they might be pae do philes. The journalist asked whether the authorities believed that there was “something dodgy ... something pae do phlic going on here?” Newton seems to have laughed it off. “Absolutely, absolutely, I’m sure that was completely the concern,” he responded.

Last year I asked American and Indian IVF clinics whether the demand for surrogate mothers would rise when same-sex marriage was legalised. The response of a doctor in Hyderabad whose clinic catered for gay clients was typical: ''We have seen an increase in the number of gay couples and single men approaching our clinic as soon as legitimacy to their public union is granted in their respective states or country." Whether the clinics are in India, or Guatemala, or the Ukraine, or Cyprus, surrogate mother brokers do not ask many questions about what happens to the children after they are handed over.

Abuse of infants and children is not confined to homosexuals.

I'm pro marriage equality but this is not that big of a deal tbh.

Is it silly that Foxtel would agree to show this ad? I don't know, I bet there are more conservative foxtel subscribers then non-conservatives. Sky news is actually pretty conservative from what I've seen. Not fox news conservative but more than what I originally thought

Who are foxtel upsetting at this? The young leftist uni student vote and they don't have foxtel and won't for about 5-10 years.

Im all for gay marriage but it worries me the lack of debate.

It is concerning when a timid differing opinion like this is given and people believe it to be 'risky', 'dangerous' or outrageous creating hostile reactions yet heavily saturated propaganda for the opposite would be considered fine, viewed as safe and normal programming.

In my opinion that is not a free thinking society at all.

Only part of what you quoted that needed to be.

Yes but those in favour of gay marriage refuse to engage in debate also, simply dismissing anyone opposed to gay marriage as 'homophobic' and making ridiculous overreactions (cancelling Foxtel subscriptions :lol: ) when someone has a different opinion to them.

surprised?? rupert murdoch slags off same sex marriage in one way or another every day.


i cant wait for netflix to pick up the HAL

surprised?? rupert murdoch slags off same sex marriage in one way or another every day.


i cant wait for netflix to pick up the HAL

Yes but those in favour of gay marriage refuse to engage in debate also, simply dismissing anyone opposed to gay marriage as 'homophobic' and making ridiculous overreactions (cancelling Foxtel subscriptions :lol: ) when someone has a different opinion to them.

I'm interested in those that say same sex marriage is ok but a polygamous marriage is not.

Surely if the definition is widened to encompass other forms of marriage then who's to say a polygamous marriage is not legitimate.

In the press club debate Corey Bernardi made this argument and Penny Wong more or less dismissed it out of hand but surely if you're talking about discrimination then one is as valid as the other.

I think the current debate centres around monogamous relationships.

What precedent is there for polygamous relationships?

A-League and chill

Aussies love a good whinge.