I think perhaps I might be getting slightly jaded

[loinburger]

It was intended to give homophobes erections, therefore it is porn.

Are you also redefining the word "homophobe" now?

Granted that many homophobes are probably turned on by gay pornography, but I hardly think that a picture of two men kissing could be intended to give an erection to a homophobe.

[Kidlicious]

Sorry of like how aggregating is a bannable offense (according to your dictionary)?

Aggrevate. All you do is aggrevate.

[loinburger]

Aggrevate. All you do is aggrevate.

Close! "Aggravate." You really do suck at using the dictionary.

[Al B. Sure!]

It was intended to give homophobes erections, therefore it is porn.

Homophobes erections? Why would a homophobe get an erection from seeing two men about to kiss? Oh the closet gay homophobe types? Maybe.

But it seems to me that the point of the ad was to make people reappraise their moral outrage and then direct it to ending homophobia while leaving the poor children to starve to death with no concern... I doubt the ad existed to turn people on.

Now, I have not seen the ad in question so I don't know what the men look like, if they are wearing clothes, or anything else but I assume the picture was the gay approximation of the images you can find if you google "about to kiss". Now, you being presumably a heterosexual man, does this give you an erection?

[

[Al B. Sure!]

Is this beastiality?

[Al B. Sure!]

Are you about to cream your shorts?

[Kidlicious]

Are you also redefining the word "homophobe" now?

Granted that many homophobes are probably turned on by gay pornography, but I hardly think that a picture of two men kissing could be intended to give an erection to a homophobe.

WT...? This is just too stupid.

[Al B. Sure!]

WT...? This is just too stupid.

What is too stupid about it? We all know what the purpose of the ad was with the starving child next to it and it being spelled out in words... clearly, it was not intended to make someone horny.

[Kidlicious]

Albie, posting porn is no way to try to prove a falsity.

[Al B. Sure!]

Albie, posting porn is not way to try to prove a falsity.

So you're saying that those pictures give you an erection?

[Kidlicious]

What is too stupid about it? We all know what the purpose of the ad was with the starving child next to it and it being spelled out in words... clearly, it was not intended to make someone horny.

Of course it was, or it wouldn't be offensive. No erection no offense.

[Lorizael]

Kidicious, your definition of homophobe is...?

[Al B. Sure!]

Of course it was, or it wouldn't be offensive. No erection no offense.

Wait what? Who is getting offended? The person with mis-placed moral priorities, according to the people who made the ad, right? That is to say, a homophobe. This homophobe offended by the ad has an erection so he is offended? Or is he offended because other people (gay people, presumably), supposedly get erections from the ad? Even assuming gay men get erections from the ad, why would another man's erection be of any concern to this offended homophobe?

Why are you, sir, offended by a gay man's erection?

[loinburger]

Kidicious, your definition of homophobe is...?

Obviously the one in the King James Bible

[Kidlicious]

So you're saying that those pictures give you an erection?

One of them is pleasing. If I were younger and never had sex ...