"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"

[Skwim]

.

"The evangelical Christian hate group One Million Moms (Twitter count: 3759) is furious that The Hallmark Channel is airing the following commercial that involves a wedding kiss between two women:

What’s wrong with that ad? Nothing, unless your entire existence revolves around demonizing LGBTQ people.

One viewer commented on the board:

“Why would you show a lesbian wedding commercial on the Hallmark Channel? Hallmark movies are family friendly, and you ruined it with the commercial.”

Another viewer wrote:

“Our family was watching a wonderful Hallmark movie based on a true story. It was late, but our daughter was up late with us. During the commercial break, there was a commercial from Zola with two women lip locking! Please Hallmark … we are fed up with having the gay agenda crammed down our throats! You are one of the few channels we thought we would not have to deal with this issue! Please remove this and any other gay, lesbian, bisexual, or anything else it is called from your channels. … We love you but won’t keep watching with this type of ads.”
…

Shame on Hallmark for airing commercials with same-sex couples and even considering movies with LGBT content and lead characters.

Until recently, Hallmark had a good record for keeping their movies and commercials family friendly. Now, parents can no longer trust Hallmark because Hallmark is no longer allowing parents to be the primary educators when it comes to sex and sexual morality.
​

Imagine how sad your life must be that this wedding commercial ruined your day…"
source


​

Call me quirky, but while this is sad it's also an amusing bit of news.

.

​

 

[Harel13]

I've never heard of the group, I don't know if they're hateful or not, but I remember that when Arthur decided to make Mr. Ratburn homosexual, there was one state that refused to air the episode without first informing parents of the content of that episode, knowing fully well that many of the viewers were of a conservative background. That's called being responsible.
This, on the other hand, seems grossly irresponsible. Right now, the term "family-friendly" has a certain meaning, to my knowledge. Shoving your ideas down someone's unexpecting throat (whether they're correct or not) isn't right.

So it's sad, but not how the article made it out to be.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I've never heard of the group, I don't know if they're hateful or not, but I remember that when Arthur decided to make Mr. Ratburn homosexual, there was one state that refused to air the episode without first informing parents of the content of that episode, knowing fully well that many of the viewers were of a conservative background. That's called being responsible.
This, on the other hand, seems grossly irresponsible. Right now, the term "family-friendly" has a certain meaning, to my knowledge. Shoving your ideas down someone's unexpecting throat (whether they're correct or not) isn't right.

So it's sad, but not how the article made it out to be.

So, are you saying that just depicting two people kissing is shoving ideas down someone's throat?

 

[Harel13]

So, are you saying that just depicting two people kissing is shoving ideas down someone's throat?

It's not "two people", it's two women, which is something many religious people have a problem with, whether you like it or not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's not "two people", it's two women, which is something many religious people have a problem with, whether you like it or not.

Lots of people have a problem with anybody of any gender kissing. Does it therefore stand to reason that depicting anybody kissing is "forcing your ideas" on them?

It wasn't that long ago that depicting ANYBODY kissing was taboo. Should that never have changed?

 

[Harel13]

Should that never have changed?

If only.

Lots of people have a problem with anybody of any gender kissing. Does it therefore stand to reason that depicting anybody kissing is "forcing your ideas" on them?

When it's on a family-friendly channel and appears out of nowhere, then, yes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If only.

When it's on a family-friendly channel and appears out of nowhere, then, yes.

What's "family-unfriendly" about a kiss? And how does it "appear out of nowhere"? Its depicting the end of a wedding ceremony - it's pretty obvious that there's going to be a kiss.

And are you seriously suggesting that kisses should never be depicted on screen?

 

[Rival]

If you're not interested, don't watch T.V. T.V. stays on aer by showing senseless and often controversial nonsense to keep you viewing. It's on you to turn it off and write a book, draw a picture, or pick something better to watch on YT or some other place.

 

[Harel13]

And are you seriously suggesting that kisses should never be depicted on screen?

I could only wish.
And you clearly don't know much about Orthodox Jews.

What's "family-unfriendly" about a kiss?

Again, family-friendly has a certain meaning, which is, yes, not pro-LGBT.
And kissing in public isn't very modest. I assume that's where the mocking term "PDA" came from.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I could only wish.
And you clearly don't know much about Orthodox Jews.

Fair enough.

But surely you can understand that not every depiction is "forcing an opinion down somebody's throat", right? A kiss can just be a kiss.

Again, family-friendly has a certain meaning, which is, yes, not pro-LGBT.

Then that needs to change.

And, in many places, already has. As it should.

And kissing in public isn't very modest. I assume that's where the mocking term "PDA" came from.

It's depicting a wedding. Is kissing at a wedding not modest?

 

[Skwim]

I've never heard of the group, I don't know if they're hateful or not, but I remember that when Arthur decided to make Mr. Ratburn homosexual, there was one state that refused to air the episode without first informing parents of the content of that episode, knowing fully well that many of the viewers were of a conservative background. That's called being responsible.

So tell us why conservatives need to be advised of depictions of homosexual expression of love. Should they be advised of depictions of heterosexual love? How about of depictions of violence? Or depictions of liberal love? Or, god forbid, liberal-conservative love?

This, on the other hand, seems grossly irresponsible. Right now, the term "family-friendly" has a certain meaning, to my knowledge. Shoving your ideas down someone's unexpecting throat (whether they're correct or not) isn't right.

So does showing heterosexual love without warning amount to shoving the fact down someone's unexpecting throat? How about depictions of violence? Or depictions of liberal love? Or, god forbid, does showing liberal-conservative love without warning amount to shoving the fact down someone's unexpecting throat?

Exactly what is the criteria for shoving something down someone's unexpecting throat? That they simply don't like it? Would showing people eating liver be shoving the idea down my unexpecting throat because I don't like to eat liver?

.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So, are you saying that just depicting two people kissing is shoving ideas down someone's throat?

I'd suppose it's in the lines with "Get a room for God's sake".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Or, god forbid, liberal-conservative love?

Ewww.

Keep it off my TV, thanks!

 

[Rival]

So tell us why conservatives need to be advised of depictions of homosexual expression of love. Should they be advised of depictions of heterosexual love? How about of depictions of violence? Or depictions of liberal love? Or, god forbid, liberal-conservative love?


So does showing heterosexual love without warning amount to shoving the fact down someone's unexpecting throat? How about depictions of violence? Or depictions of liberal love? Or, god forbid, does showing liberal-conservative love without warning amount to shoving the fact down someone's unexpecting throat?

Exactly what is the criteria for shoving something down someone's unexpecting throat? That they simply don't like it? Would showing people eating liver shoving the idea down my unexpecting throat because i don't like to eat liver?

.

'Is it relevent to the plot?' comes to mind. As a writer I keep this in my head. If it's fluff, cut it. The other problem is that you try finding me films and programmes without some romantic subplot. That is very difficult. I don't know why they feel the need to put these in, yet even then, we don't need to see folks kissing to know they're in love. We're so conditioned to seeing this that we think it's normal, but there are groups out there who aren't conditioned to this and don't think so. In OJ society, few people will even hold hands in public.

This ad is just controversial for the sake of it. I'm saying this, and I mostly fancy girls.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

'Is it relevent to the plot?' comes to mind. As a writer I keep this in my head. If it's fluff, cut it. The other problem is that you try finding me films and programmes without some romantic subplot. That is very difficult. I don't know why they feel the need to put these in, yet even then, we don't need to see folks kissing to know they're in love. We're so conditioned to seeing this that we think it's normal, but there are groups out there who aren't conditioned to this and don't think so. In OJ society, few people will even hold hands in public.

The problem is that some groups or organizations will always treat kisses between same sex couples as disposable, distracting or controversial compared to heterosexual couples kissing - regardless of how necessary either are to the plot. Gay kisses are, for some reason, determined to be more "gratuitous" that straight kisses merely by the fact that they are between two people of the same sex rather than two people of a different sex. The same can be said for interracial kissing, which until recently would receive the exact same response (and still receives generally more negative responses from views than non-interracial kissing).

This ad is just controversial for the sake of it. I'm saying this, and I mostly fancy girls.

What's controversial about depicting a couple kissing on their wedding day?

 

[Harel13]

A kiss can just be a kiss.

Well, it is an ad. It's trying to say something.

Then that needs to change.

Does it? The hate, sure, but other than that?

It's depicting a wedding. Is kissing at a wedding not modest?

To some people yes, but that's not really the point. The point is that while you find any two people kissing in public to be perfectly okay, many people see saying something like what you wrote as an attempt to whitewash away their beliefs.

 

[Harel13]

Should they be advised of depictions of heterosexual love? How about of depictions of violence? Or depictions of liberal love? Or, god forbid, liberal-conservative love?

I do wish.

 

[RESOLUTION]

.

"The evangelical Christian hate group One Million Moms (Twitter count: 3759) is furious that The Hallmark Channel is airing the following commercial that involves a wedding kiss between two women:

' hate '- Is this really acceptable because moms believe it isn't acceptable for their children to see?
At one time LGBTQ were not acceptable to the others people here on earth because they did not do as the rest of us. It isn't hatred it is not acceptable to tell someone
what they can and cannot accept as 'normal' to them. But to call that hatred is about as bad as it gets and is in league with those who wrongly cal the LGBTQ
perverts etc. Truth is that man demonized anything that was not 'natural' to him and the word not 'normal' wrongly used. There lies the difference. People do not like anything which does not come naturally to them by feeling or thought. So mums have a right for their children to make their own way in life and choose their own sexual agenda without
it being made part of television. We show films which are horrific to watch where people are murdered, raped, and even tortured. Do you believe these acts should be witnessed
by children? Society is faced all round like the town hall clock. People should be loved and accepted for whom they are. Just as children should be allowed to grow up and be children and let them make their own decisions in life. Tell me how would you explain two women kissing or having sex on tv to a child?

What’s wrong with that ad? Nothing, unless your entire existence revolves around demonizing LGBTQ people.

One viewer commented on the board:

“Why would you show a lesbian wedding commercial on the Hallmark Channel? Hallmark movies are family friendly, and you ruined it with the commercial.”

Another viewer wrote:

“Our family was watching a wonderful Hallmark movie based on a true story. It was late, but our daughter was up late with us. During the commercial break, there was a commercial from Zola with two women lip locking! Please Hallmark … we are fed up with having the gay agenda crammed down our throats! You are one of the few channels we thought we would not have to deal with this issue! Please remove this and any other gay, lesbian, bisexual, or anything else it is called from your channels. … We love you but won’t keep watching with this type of ads.”
…

Shame on Hallmark for airing commercials with same-sex couples and even considering movies with LGBT content and lead characters.

Until recently, Hallmark had a good record for keeping their movies and commercials family friendly. Now, parents can no longer trust Hallmark because Hallmark is no longer allowing parents to be the primary educators when it comes to sex and sexual morality.
​

Imagine how sad your life must be that this wedding commercial ruined your day…"
source

Call me quirky, but while this is sad it's also an amusing bit of news.

.

​

A good argument... but teaching a child and what that child later chooses for themselves are two different things. Why do we still have arguments or even media which use the LGBT to provoke thought in their adverts and get their products to be bought by many. For Hallmark it is an executive business decision to make a statement saying our channel is all people and group friendly. There should be a water shed time for all programs so that adults will see these and not children. When Children they should be allowed the freedom of innocence and to make up their own mind. But a parent should be allowed to keep these things from their children. If you have family members whose sexuality are difference they will grow up loving the person for who they are not their sexuality. Sex sells things but would it not be better if an item can sell itself on it's own merit? Because sex is a private thing between two people. You don't ask a person their sexuality or judge a
person on it. We so not introduce someone as " This is Jane and she is a lesbian". A person is important not their sexuality.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, it is an ad. It's trying to say something.

Indeed. It's trying to say "We offer wedding planning services" and also presumably "We also do this for gay weddings".

Does it? The hate, sure, but other than that?

We need to understand that homosexual relationships are not "more icky" than heterosexual ones. While I can understand your aversion to immodesty or public displays of affection in general, surely you would agree that we should treat both straight and gay people equally, and part of this is getting rid of the negative reaction that people have to gay kissing when compared to straight kissing.

To some people yes, but that's not really the point. The point is that while you find any two people kissing in public to be perfectly okay, many people see saying something like what you wrote as an attempt to whitewash away their beliefs.

How am I whitewashing anybody's beliefs? Aren't you the one arguing that gay weddings and kissing - something that does exist and that many, MANY people believe in strongly - shouldn't be depicted on television?

How is that not whitewashing people's beliefs?

 

[Rival]

The problem is that some groups or organizations will always treat kisses between same sex couples as disposable, distracting or controversial compared to heterosexual couples kissing - regardless of how necessary either are to the plot. Gay kisses are, for some reason, determined to be more "gratuitous" that straight kisses merely by the fact that they are between two people of the same sex rather than two people of a different sex. The same can be said for interracial kissing, which until recently would receive the exact same response (and still receives generally more negative responses from views than non-interracial kissing).

What's controversial about depicting a couple kissing on their wedding day?

The company chose a controversial topic out of every other topic they could have used. They did this specifically to cause sensation. It's like a newspaper publishing bs to sell its trash.