"Religious Conservatives Lash Out at Kellogg’s Over 'Anti-Christian' Cereal"

[sealchan]

I would wholly support people receiving a full education in the biology and psychology of sex and relationships in schools. We desperately need that as it would empower young people with the knowledge to know what to decide what the time and urges come. That is an appropriate educational setting for discussion of these topics and is also the most appropriate way to demonstrate a "civic respect towards diversity" by actually giving people the tools to navigate those feelings in a constructive environment. I think we can agree on that.

But I find trying to reduce someone's sexuality to a commercial marketing campaign is pretty dam insulting. It should be a no-brainier that heterosexuals do not consult the cereal box for dating or relationship advice, nor that we would ever expect or demand a cereal box to become a source for dating advice for the anxious and frustrated or an affirmation of their self-worth after a bad evening speed dating.

Even if it is a stereotype that insecure single women do spend time consoling themselves with the ice cream tub even as they obsess over their whether their figure is size zero enough, the ice cream tub shouldn't be giving them relationship advice. Nor should men be going to the back of a milk carton to figure out what to say to their date tonight or how to pick up women at a bar.

That's just weird and pretty creepy frankly.



As far as I am aware, it is not customary for heterosexual people to consult fortune cookies on who and how they date. As for the difficulties of LGBTs, given all the mental problems involved, I do not believe they would necessarily reach out for the cereal box to seek similar guidance for such a pressing and important part of their lives.



I'm willing to say that Kellogg's should stick to making corn flakes and cereals. I don't think we need any more corporations getting involved in telling us what's attractive or acceptable in relationships so they can profit out of other people's vulnerability. We already have too many problems coming out of body image, toxic masculinity, submissive femininity, rape culture and all the rest as a result of the media trying to "sell" sex and pornography. We don't another for-profit intervention in to people's love lives.

I would prefer that we make genuine efforts at education in schools and universities, including the biology and psychology of sex and relationships, where there are rigorous standards determine the quality of content available to students, rather than cynical commercial exploitation of people



It is possible to determine someones (biological) gender by doing an ultra-sound on the unborn child based on the criteria, "does it have a penis or does it have a virgina?" The debate over whether that means anything given the role of society in determining gender norms is considerable, particularly in relation to Transgender issues and rights. There is however no test to demonstrate what sexual orientation someone is, but it can be discovered over the course of a person's life based on what (and who) they do.

I think you protest too much...if a company is willing to risk its brand that says something. If a parent puts a box of cereal on the table that implies various kinds of people are all okay and legitimate, then that may very well stick in the mind of a child who in some small way sees those cartoon characters as representing something of value in their world.

It seems to me a company can easily do both this bit of political statement AND make the product that they are known to make without undue suffering to the product.

No need to put Kelloggs "in a box" of only being qualified to sell cereal.

 

[HonestJoe]

I'm willing to say that Kellogg's should stick to making corn flakes and cereals. I don't think we need any more corporations getting involved in telling us what's attractive or acceptable in relationships so they can profit out of other people's vulnerability.

Do you object to companies supporting anti-LGBT campaigns or selling themselves on their religious principles too then? Again, I'm not saying Kellogg's is right to get involved in this, only that it isn't unusual and it isn't one sided.

I would prefer that we make genuine efforts at education in schools and universities, including the biology and psychology of sex and relationships, where there are rigorous standards determine the quality of content available to students, rather than cynical commercial exploitation of people

Which "religious standards" though? There isn't agreement on these questions within most religions, let alone across them.

That said, wouldn't one good standard be that kids should bully and discriminate against other people? Or are you promoting that kind of behaviour against anyone who dares to go against your standards?

There is however no test to demonstrate what sexual orientation someone is, but it can be discovered over the course of a person's life based on what (and who) they do.

Just because we can't test for something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's irrelevant though and you missed the point. I doesn't matter what the victims actual sexual orientation might be (or might turn out to be), bullying them based on the sexual orientation you think they have remains wrong. If you can't agree with that, we'll be done here.

 

[ecco]

It is possible to determine someones (biological) gender by doing an ultra-sound on the unborn child based on the criteria, "does it have a penis or does it have a virgina?"

I guess you have never heard of...

Ambiguous genitalia - Symptoms and causes
Ambiguous genitalia is a rare condition in which an infant's external genitals don't appear to be clearly either male or female. In a baby with ambiguous genitalia, the genitals may be incompletely developed or the baby may have characteristics of both sexes. The external sex organs may not match the internal sex organs or genetic sex.


Ambiguous genitalia isn't a disease, it's a disorder of sex development. Usually, ambiguous genitalia is obvious at or shortly after birth, and it can be very distressing for families.

​

Nature is not perfect. Or one could say that it was God's Will.

 

[ecco]

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adolescents also reported higher rates of substance use compared to heterosexual adolescents. In one meta-analysis, LGB adolescents were 90 percent more likely to use substances than heterosexual adolescents, and the difference was particularly pronounced in some subpopulations; bisexual adolescents used substances at 3.4 times the rate of heterosexual adolescents, and lesbian and bisexual females used at four times the rate of their heterosexual counterparts.

Perhaps many people turn to drugs because they feel hatred from parents and peers and pastors and priests and online posters toward non-straights.

Yay, let's promote lifestyles with increased drug use

What do you suppose is the purpose of promoting these lifestyles?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hatred? And you're not pro-gay

Sounds credible

It depends what you mean by "pro-gay." I am not in the slightest interested in making anybody else gay, nor am I interested in increasing the percentage of the population that are gay. But I am certainly "pro" treating gays (and everybody else, wherever possible) with dignity and respect.

You cited a bunch of statistics about gays behaving in self-destructive ways more often than non-gays, and guess what, this is likely true -- although I point out again that I do not do those things. In my case, it is very likely that growing up with no family at all, and very little in the way of societal expectations of me, I felt very comfortable in my own skin. Let me assure you, though, that this was certainly not easy, even for me, and much less so for others, when I was growing in my own self-awareness in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Hatred of gays was prevalent then, and even the police felt empowered to act with impunity in beating them up.

And even families, in those days, were likely to toss their non-comforming kids out, as did churches and whole communities. Renting apartments, getting jobs, were all a lot more difficult.

So I put it to you: when you -- the straight world -- act deliberately to turn people into outsiders, why the Christ are you surprised if they then act like outsiders? That's something I think you should consider.

I've said this before -- I was a leading member of the Pride movement in Toronto years ago, and what that was truly about was NOT "pride" in anything like a sinful or in-your-face way. It was about simply saying, "I'm not going to be ashamed any more of being who I am. And you bigots can no longer make me feel ashamed."

 

[Darkforbid]

Perhaps many people turn to drugs because they feel hatred from parents and peers and pastors and priests and online posters toward non-straights.



What do you suppose is the purpose of promoting these lifestyles?

Are you saying Gay people have such a miserable life they turn to drugs?

 

[Darkforbid]

It depends what you mean by "pro-gay." I am not in the slightest interested in making anybody else gay, nor am I interested in increasing the percentage of the population that are gay. But I am certainly "pro" treating gays (and everybody else, wherever possible) with dignity and respect.

You cited a bunch of statistics about gays behaving in self-destructive ways more often than non-gays, and guess what, this is likely true -- although I point out again that I do not do those things. In my case, it is very likely that growing up with no family at all, and very little in the way of societal expectations of me, I felt very comfortable in my own skin. Let me assure you, though, that this was certainly not easy, even for me, and much less so for others, when I was growing in my own self-awareness in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Hatred of gays was prevalent then, and even the police felt empowered to act with impunity in beating them up.

And even families, in those days, were likely to toss their non-comforming kids out, as did churches and whole communities. Renting apartments, getting jobs, were all a lot more difficult.

So I put it to you: when you -- the straight world -- act deliberately to turn people into outsiders, why the Christ are you surprised if they then act like outsiders? That's something I think you should consider.

I've said this before -- I was a leading member of the Pride movement in Toronto years ago, and what that was truly about was NOT "pride" in anything like a sinful or in-your-face way. It was about simply saying, "I'm not going to be ashamed any more of being who I am. And you bigots can no longer make me feel ashamed."

Sounds like you're saying everyone who disagrees with your lifestyle is bigoted which is incredibly conceited

 

[SomeRandom]

Are you saying Gay people have such a miserable life they turn to drugs?

I think they’re saying that when society treats people like crap, they might be inclined to seek out some pain relief.

 

[Father Heathen]

Are you saying Gay people have such a miserable life they turn to drugs?

In societies where they're bullied, persecuted, assaulted, discriminated against, disowned by family, etc. it very well can be.

 

[Laika]

I think you protest too much...if a company is willing to risk its brand that says something. If a parent puts a box of cereal on the table that implies various kinds of people are all okay and legitimate, then that may very well stick in the mind of a child who in some small way sees those cartoon characters as representing something of value in their world.

It seems to me a company can easily do both this bit of political statement AND make the product that they are known to make without undue suffering to the product.

No need to put Kelloggs "in a box" of only being qualified to sell cereal.

I want a product to do what “it says on the tin.” I want a product to be good, reliable and trustworthy. If its good, I’ll buy it again and thats how companies should make money. I don’t want the emotional manipulation that could cover up a bad product. That’s all. I think the principle still stands.

I guess I want the world to be a bit simpler and not have an economy built on deception and manipulation, when you could make money making a perfectly good product.

Using cereal to sell LGBT rights is genuinely quite weird, but its also profoundly manipulative. They could do anything regarding workers rights, the environment or fair trade by improving their operation- but no, they picked LGBT rights because its popular and-probably- because its cheaper to buy the symbolism by donate to a charity than actually do good works.

The way we leave ourselves open to that worries me.

Do you object to companies supporting anti-LGBT campaigns or selling themselves on their religious principles too then? Again, I'm not saying Kellogg's is right to get involved in this, only that it isn't unusual and it isn't one sided.

I would hope so. I have my bias and blindspots, but I support LGBT rights. My problem is not the issue itself, but that this crosses an unwritten line about where and when it is appropriate to bring it up. The sex side of it is pretty inappropriate, but politicising a box of cereal should be concerning as well.

Which "religious standards" though? There isn't agreement on these questions within most religions, let alone across them.

I meant rigorous standards. To maintain the quality of educational material available to young people and adults.

That said, wouldn't one good standard be that kids should bully and discriminate against other people? Or are you promoting that kind of behaviour against anyone who dares to go against your standards?

Yes, it is a good standard. But what the hell has it got to do with a breakfast cereal?

Just because we can't test for something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's irrelevant though and you missed the point. I doesn't matter what the victims actual sexual orientation might be (or might turn out to be), bullying them based on the sexual orientation you think they have remains wrong. If you can't agree with that, we'll be done here.

Bullying is wrong. LGBT bullying and discrimination is wrong.I don’t deny that.

But why bring it up at the dinner table over breakfast? That’s bizarre. Thats weird. Even with the best of intentions. Kellogg's intentions are at least partly doing this for the money and the publicity, not just the fact its a good cause. So its a dubious exercise in manipulation here.

 

[HonestJoe]

The sex side of it is pretty inappropriate, but politicising a box of cereal should be concerning as well.

This still has nothing to do with sex. That is all in your mind.

I meant rigorous standards. To maintain the quality of educational material available to young people and adults.

So they could use a religious standard like refusing to acknowledge homosexuality in any way, not teaching girls and spending half the day learning the Koran by rote? Religion is not standardised at all.

Yes, it is a good standard. But what the hell has it got to do with a breakfast cereal?

Nothing. From the campaigns point of view, a cereal box is just a convenient way for them to get their message out to people without having to spend lots of money themselves. They could put posters on the sides of buses too, that wouldn’t mean the campaign had anything to do with public transport.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you saying Gay people have such a miserable life they turn to drugs?

Wouldn't you if you lived in a society that largely rejected you, or told you you were a sinner, or that there's something fundamentally wrong with you?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sounds like you're saying everyone who disagrees with your lifestyle is bigoted which is incredibly conceited

Being gay isn't a "lifestyle". If you were black, and people told you that they disagreed with your "black lifestyle" because of the colour of your skin, would you think those people were bigoted?

Also, the fact that you took Evangelicahumanist's post, which was honest and personal, and reduced it to just this singular response just demonstrates that you are not trying to listen.

 

[Darkforbid]

Being gay isn't a "lifestyle". If you were black, and people told you that they disagreed with your "black lifestyle" because of the colour of your skin, would you think those people were bigoted?

Also, the fact that you took Evangelicahumanist's post, which was honest and personal, and reduced it to just this singular response just demonstrates that you are not trying to listen.

Acceptance isn't a human right nor is it his right to label anything that doesn't accept his lifestyle bigotry

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Acceptance isn't a human right nor is it his right to label anything that doesn't accept his lifestyle bigotry

Again, being gay isn't a "lifestyle". People have the right to equal treatment as human beings, especially for things that they have no control over, including sexuality, race or gender.

And you didn't answer my question.

Do you or do you not disagree that a person who denigrates black people for living a "black lifestyle" are bigots?

 

[Darkforbid]

Again, being gay isn't a "lifestyle". People have the right to equal treatment as human beings, especially for things that they have no control over, including sexuality, race or gender.

And you didn't answer my question.

Do you or do you not disagree that a person who denigrates black people for living a "black lifestyle" are bigots?

Well I suggest you prove that by explaining the cause of Gay-ness

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well I suggest you prove that by explaining the cause of Gay-ness

I don't need to explain anything, any more than you are required to explain the cause of "black-ness".

People don't choose to be gay. If you don't understand that, there's not much I can teach you.

 

[Darkforbid]

I don't need to explain anything, any more than you are required to explain the cause of "black-ness".

People don't choose to be gay. If you don't understand that, there's not much I can teach you.

The cause of black skin is very well known, and as I know gay men who have ****ed their way though half the lesbians in Oxford why are you lying about gay not being a choice

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The cause of black skin is very well known, and as I know gay men who have ****ed their way though half the lesbians in Oxford why are you lying about gay not being a choice

Wow.

And you accuse me of lying?

Prove to me that being gay is a choice, then. Become gay for a week.

 

[Darkforbid]

Wow.

And you accuse me of lying?

Prove to me that being gay is a choice, then. Become gay for a week.

Why would I need to? The world is full of ex-gays and ex-heterosexuals