0
0
A not-so-brief word about the billboard:
If you aren’t familiar with the billboard, a local group called the Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays (PFOX) purchased ad space from Lamar Advertising for a billboard in the city of Richmond along the very well-traveled I-95 corridor.
The billboard reflects PFOX’s support of gay-conversion therapy as a means of changing sexual orientation for those who are attracted to members of the same sex. Lest those who’ve just been recognized by our government believe they actually belong fully to our society, PFOX wants us all to know that acceptance is not what the LGBT community needs – it’s therapy – because clearly, they’ve chosen to be gay.
As expected, this billboard caused quite an uproar in Richmond. Just a little over two months ago, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear an appeal that struck down the Virginia law against same-sex marriage, in effect legalizing same-sex marriage in our commonwealth. Virginia is divided on this issue, with slightly more than half of the commonwealth’s voters supporting gay marriage.
As you can see from the billboard, the first thing that catches your eye is the statement, “NOBODY IS BORN GAY.” Near the top is their reasoning: “Identical Twins: One Gay. One Not.” And then in smaller letters between the two statements is “We Believe Twin Research Studies Show.” On either side of the billboard are the photos of what we assume are male twins, one dressed in a business suit and the other in a t-shirt, illustrating the identical twins mentioned at the top.
This is a solid piece of marketing. PFOX is selling an ideology, masked as the truth.
Notice that the sign doesn’t say that twin studies in truth show that no one is born gay. Because that’s not what the studies show. In fact, the studies are all over the board on this, showing that human behavior and preference is much more complex than the DNA bundle you were given at conception. Chromosomes play a role. Uterine condition plays a role. Amniotic fluid plays a role. Early childhood experiences play a role. The evolutionary process plays a role.[1]
All of these factors point to the very strong probability that the LGBT community has been telling the truth all along: LGBT men and women knew from a very early age that they were attracted to members of the same sex, not because they thought it would be cool to be ostracized by friends and family, or to be demonized by religious leaders, or to have their careers destroyed; but because their sexuality is part of who they are as human beings.
Unlike ads that say, “Tobacco is addictive and smoking causes cancer, emphysema, and difficulty in pregnancy,” because there are boat-loads of undisputed studies that confirm this as fact; PFOX must say that they believe that twin studies support their ideology. It is not fact. It’s their belief, which is protected by the Constitution, and does not make them liable under Truth in Advertising laws.
Beyond the words, it’s the visual of the “twins” that has many people calling foul. The “twins” are actually just one man, a South African man named Kyle Roux. He is a model, and like most models, he poses for stock photos. These images were among the his stock photos from about ten years ago.
For those who do not know, “stock” photos or stock footage are images, still or moving, captured in a general photo shoot for use in a variety of ways. Photographer and producers engage talent to pose as families, medical staff, lawyers, etc. so that those who need images for magazines, websites, and television can purchase them for their projects.
For instance, were I to create an ad for toothpaste, I might purchase from an online stock image company the rights to use photos of children with beautiful smiles and white teeth. The photo does not show the children using my toothpaste, but when I place a photo of my toothpaste at the bottom of the ad and add the words that fluoride stops cavities and my toothpaste has fluoride, then we, as consumers, see the children as having beautiful smiles because of my toothpaste, when really, the kids could have just been born with a predisposition to great teeth. Those children could have children of their own by the time my ad is printed because the photos were taken 20 years ago at a stock shoot.
This is not lying. This is not misleading the public. This is the purpose of marketing. Advertisers do not always use talent specific to their product nor do they say that the people in the ad are directly connected and/or affected by their product. They show a photo, they make a claim, and consumers free-associate and make assumptions based on the images and words. The art of marketing is in skillfully manipulating the public toward your product without the public realizing it.
Stock footage and stock photos are much cheaper than hiring talent and photographers for your ad. Stock companies already own the images and can sell the rights at will. Actors and models receive no remuneration beyond the initial stock shoot and they sign releases with full knowledge that their image could be used for most anything without their approval. So it should come as no surprise that PFOX’s twins weren’t really twins at all, but one man, Kyle Roux.
Here’s the rub: stock footage and photos may be cheaper and more accessible, but just as the actors don’t know where their images will go, advertisers don’t know whose image they are purchasing.
Therefore, it is most ironic, and probably a shock to PFOX, that Kyle Roux is a proud and out gay man.
Nine out of ten dentists (and the majority of our nation) agree that brushing with effective toothpaste is an important part of a healthy mouth. Discovery that the kids in my proposed toothpaste ad are not using my toothpaste would not cause much of a stir. But not everyone agrees that no one is born gay or that gay-conversion therapy is wholesome or efficacious. PFOX blindly chose a stock image of a gay man to advertise an extremely divisive stance on homosexuality by featuring it on an enormous billboard in a highly trafficked area of the capital of a commonwealth that now allows same-sex marriage. Of course it blew up in their faces.[2]
But arguing against the billboard is not the argument to make. Attacking the marketing strategy effectively attacks every other ad out there, including ads that fight for acceptance and equality. This weakens the pro-acceptance stance and does not address the root of the issue.
For those who disagree with PFOX’s belief that no one is born gay and that gay-conversion therapy is a successful and life-affirming option – and I count myself among them – the best way to combat their marketing campaign is with the truth.
Genetics is hard to understand, and so is biology. We must find a better way to explain how complex the dynamics of humanity really are, or simplistic billboards like this that dumb down the issue and make it into a catch phrase will win.
Tell stories of men and women who came out and are loved and accepted without having to change who they are.
Show images of the heroes in the LGBT movement so those who are struggling will believe they can be heroes, too.
Counter that billboard with another one nearby that says Richmond welcomes everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, so that when that eleven-year-old kid who is traveling with his or her family from Maryland to Myrtle Beach, sees the PFOX sign, and begins to believe that he or she is an unloved and unwanted miscreation; that child knows there is a place where hospitality exists and that there is another voice in the conversation.
Speak in the language of love, for it is the only language strong enough to make a lasting argument for inclusion and the only one loud enough to hear over the cries of condemnation.
_________________________________________________
[1] See the references in the Wikipedia article on Biology and Sexual Orientation. Also, see LA Times Article about a pair of identical twins, one with Downs Syndrome and one without Downs, showing that there can be chromosomal differences in twins with otherwise identical DNA.
[2] Hillary Clinton’s marketing department made the same mistake in 2008 when they used stock footage from Getty Images of a little girl sleeping in bed for their “3 a.m.” television commercial, aimed at discrediting Barak Obama’s leadership experience as he ran for the Democratic nomination to the presidency. The little girl was eight in the footage, but at the time of the commercial, she was seventeen-years-old and had been actively campaigning for Obama.
LGBT discrimination and its rebuttal has always struck me as a oddball among types of discrimination. For example, it’s homoPHOBIA not an ‘ism’ like racism or anti-semitism. Now it could just be that homoism doesn’t roll off the tongue. But I tend to think that homophobic people are actually afraid of homosexuality. And, I also hypothesize that they are afraid that they might be gay. There is no way that I might be black. And I’m not Jewish or Muslim. And a quick inspection shows that I am not a girl. But, hmmm, how do you or even I know that I’m not gay? Wait! I feel like hugging that man – AM I GAY?! That I might love or have affection towards someone of my own sex might mean that I don’t like having sex with my opposite sex? Oh no!!!
I think that this might account for the gay persecutors who are found out to be engaged in gay sex.
But there is another par of this weird brand of discrimination. This idea of choice. The debate about whether we are born gay, achieve gayness or have gayness thrust upon us. By making this a point, I can’t help but wonder if protestations that being gay is genetic aren’t feeding the fire. By saying, “I can’t help being gay, I’m born is way!” It implies that they would change if they could but they can’t. I’m not saying that’s what is explicitly meant, but that it’s easy to read that into it. It’s almost as if they are accepting the moral judgement. Often, they are answering the charge that it’s not natural. But who cares if it’s natural. That shouldn’t be the point. We human beings do unnatural things every day. And there are plenty of ‘natural’ acts such as rape and murder that we abhor.
I think that we need to focus on the point that whatever two consenting adults choose to do should be their own business. And I think that we should allow children to be who they feel like being. Period. They only limit to that is that they don’t actively hurt others. (I added the word ‘actively’ to head off the claims like, “there existence or presence offends and hurts me”)
I don’t know but I think that there are people who are born with an attraction to the same sex and that there are people who decide to be homosexual or bisexual or switch for their own reasons. I doesn’t matter!!!! Does the fact that I can choose my religion make it any less a part of who I am? When looking at the natural world, I can’t see much evidence of Christian, or Hebrew or Muslim traits in nature (in fact, nature looks pretty atheist to me). So religion is a choice and it is unnatural and it makes some people uncomfortable- perhaps we should ban it and have treatment centers to cure people of religion.