A Beautiful Ad That The US Needs to See More Of

Here's a sweet Australian ad for—well, I don't want to ruin the surprise (you will probably be able to guess what's going to happen anyway), except to say that the United States could stand to see more campaigns like this.

Source
This is such a beautiful ad, and I hope we can see something like this in the US. I actually cried at the end.

Fantastic ad.

That one is a true ad for something that is truly needed.


Discrimination of marriage is discrimination against two loving people. No matter what way they spin it, its keeping two happy, loving people without legal rights. Thats sick and wrong.

I can't believe this is still a problem to debate, it's time to move on.

Originally posted by cetaphobic

Here's a sweet Australian ad for—well, I don't want to ruin the surprise (you will probably be able to guess what's going to happen anyway), except to say that the United States could stand to see more campaigns like this.

Source
This is such a beautiful ad, and I hope we can see something like this in the US. I actually cried at the end.

edit on 26-11-2011 by cetaphobic because: (no reason given)

Well I cant say it made me cry or anything since I was able to guess so quickly as to what I was watching but It did a decent job of conveying its message.

Reminded me of that old prodigy video----"Smack my B**** up" I think that was the name of the song anyways

This is why we fail, we identify more with symbolism of a moments of time than with each other, a sick sick predicament. The reason it evokes emotion is because it is built to do so....

reply to post by cetaphobic


At the risk being admonished....(or worse)

Why do homosexuals need commercials to promote their agendas? Is it too hard to live your life the way you want, in freedom, without screaming about it from the roof tops? Must you continue to push your lifestyle on the public? Seriously?

Is being gay that big of a disadvantage; like being disabled?

Should we discriminate against heterosexual Americans and have affirmative action for homosexuals too?

I'm being serious...not trolling.

Attacks begin in 3......2.......1

reply to post by seabag


Yes, it is too hard to live our lives in freedom because some people won't LET us live our lives in freedom. Are we allowed to marry the people we love yet? No? Then where exactly is our freedom? You would have us sit down and shut up while we are still seen as second class?

No, we should not discriminate against heterosexuals. We SHOULD however, be given absolute and complete equality with them. And you will notice that we do not have anywhere complete equality with them.

reply to post by cetaphobic

Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships

Last Update: July 14, 2011

Quick facts on key provisions:
• Issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples: Massachusetts, Connecticut, California*, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and the District of Columbia
• Recognizes same-sex marriages from other states: New York, Maryland
• Allows civil unions, providing state-level spousal rights to same-sex couples: Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island (Note: In Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire, same-sex marriage has replaced civil unions.)
• Grants nearly all state-level spousal rights to unmarried couples (domestic partnerships): California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington
• Provides some state-level spousal rights to unmarried couples (domestic partnerships): Hawaii, Maine, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia

link

You said you wanted to see gay marriage in the US. Well, here you go. As of June 2011, 12 states prohibit it via statute and 29 via the state's constitution. Some states recognize it and some don't. You may have to move to a state where it’s accepted; just like some people change states because the employment is better. The reality is most Americans don’t accept it. This is how our system works, as you know. The states should/do decide these matters for themselves.

reply to post by seabag


No, the reality is that the majority of the people who VOTED don't accept gay marriage. And when gay marriage WAS legal in California, the Christians didn't just accept it, no, they voted in Prop 8. So why should I sit here and accept what they voted in? I never will. I will always fight against injustice, because the majority of people once accepted slavery.

I'm glad to see ads like this. Hadn't seen this one yet. It challenges some of our ideals, our symbology to an extent.

To this day, I still fail to understand why people who are opposed to gay marriage -- with all the rights and priviledges that heterosexual marriange entails -- care one way or another. In other words, I can't imagine having the gall to attempt to deny anyone else the opportunity for the joy, happiness and security that I've found.

In 1958, a black and white couple married in the U.S., contrary to the existing law at the time. They were jailed. Their names were Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving. They lived in exile outside their home state and on 12 June 1967, the Supreme court overturned the law against inter-racial marriages and ruled it unconstitutional.

What does this have to do with gay marriage? Simply this: We can now look back on the times of Mildred and Richard Loving and get a sense of how backward the times were, how archaic the laws, and how we have grown as a culture. These kinds of marriages are common today, and most of us would consider it none of our business if two people who love each other choose to be married; I would guess that most people believe that legally married people should be able to enjoy the benefits of that union (tax, insurance, hospital visitation, etc.) regardless of their skin tones.

Married people should have laws applied to them across the board, without singling out this or that couple -- a fair and consistent application of law and benefit. I firmly believe that any two people of legal age should be able to enjoy a legal and state-recognized marriage, regardless of their personal variables (skin tone, sexuality).

Until the time where the above is a reality, I don't object even a tiny bit if the issue appears to be pushed; I believe it needs to be highlighted, to get people to talk about it. It's not an issue that should be sequestered to back rooms and venues of hushed voices. Politicians, for the most part, seem afraid to discuss it. We, the people must discuss it, and in doing so perhaps the people who seem so frightened of the idea can come to terms with what disturbs them. I personally believe it's unconstitutional to discriminate against anyone in this manner by denying them the rights available to others.

reply to post by cetaphobic


I'm giving you a star and flag here for effort even though we disagree…

It’s not injustice when the rule of law has been enforced!

It was brought before the voters.

People voted.

Your idea was rejected.

That’s democracy.

If it didn’t hold in California, a state dominated by liberal views, it likely won’t hold in most.
I could name 100 scenarios to put on the ballot (marriage between a man and a cat) but they simply won’t be accepted.

Like I said, if it’s so important that you get that piece of paper then move to a state that shares your values!
Society doesn’t bend from the will of a few. That’s reality…and it’s fair.

reply to post by seabag


But you're not listening. Marriage equality was voted in.. and then people like me but on the opposite side voted it back out. So why should I give up and move somewhere else instead of voting THEIR law out?

reply to post by seabag


What freedom do they have? A few states here and there allow gay marriage. Most don't.

The ad functions like this:

You see a guy who is obviously connecting with someone. You develop a sense of how he feels and feel happy for him. Then, it's revealed that this actor's character is coupled with another guy. At this point, the viewer can either feel that gays can experience the same valid connections as straights, or they feel prejudiced to think that something like that can only happen for straights.

Yes, it's being pushed into the faces of viewers. So is content that is hateful against gays. Enough religions teach prejudice against gays.

So, think of it as a countermeasure to expose people to a broader message of universal human to human affection. If people see something enough, it becomes familiar to them and that builds acceptance.

We've all got agendas. What's yours? Keep gays restricted to certain areas? Yea...

reply to post by seabag


I'm not going to troll you.

Whether you agree with homosexuality as being acceptable or not, there is a question you have to ask yourself. Why do you have to ask it? Because by banning gay marriage people have chosen for others whether or not they should be married..

anyways, the question is, "Is it really freedom if they are restricted from having their life together, by people they don't even know?"

Just imagine if you were white, and someone told you that you cannot worry a black woman because she's black (or the opposite, if you are female.) Once upon a time, this was even true. One could make many arguments for societal concerns, but in the end it's not about that. It's about a bigoted public trying to legislate against what they don't like.

Originally posted by seabag

That’s democracy.

That's also the tyranny of the majority. The United States of America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. People voting on the rights of others is a sick and twisted practice and it needs to end. Of course, I suppose we could vote slavery back into effect, lord knows I could use a hand around here.

If it didn’t hold in California, a state dominated by liberal views, it likely won’t hold in most.
I could name 100 scenarios to put on the ballot (marriage between a man and a cat) but they simply won’t be accepted.

Consenting adults, yada yada yada. Come on, you know these arguments. Don't be silly with your cat analogy.

Like I said, if it’s so important that you get that piece of paper then move to a state that shares your values!
Society doesn’t bend from the will of a few. That’s reality…and it’s fair.

No, it's tyranny. Society shouldn't be able to dictate people's rights. If you don't agree with that assertion, that's your right. Everyone has the right to be wrong. It wouldn't be fair if we voted me some nappy-headed farm equipment, would it?

Truth be told, I'm much more interested in what California has legalized. If I didn't have roots here in NY I'd be stoppin' over in Cali on my way to Pluto.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by cetaphobic

 

At the risk being admonished....(or worse)

Why do homosexuals need commercials to promote their agendas? Is it too hard to live your life the way you want, in freedom, without screaming about it from the roof tops? Must you continue to push your lifestyle on the public? Seriously?

What freedom? It is illegal for gay people to get married in most states, simply because they are gay... That is discrimination. I have seen no gay people shouting anything from any roof top,but I have seen people from all over the world, gay, straight, black and white, wanting true equality for all...

Agenda? Please.... They want equality and I don't blame them a bit.

Also, you are talking about it being voted against... Well, some voted for it as well.... Over time, after people lose their fear of gay people or whatever it is that allows for this discrimination to continue, gradually all states will allow gay marriage.

See you all around the boards

Originally posted by cetaphobic
reply to post by seabag

 

But you're not listening. Marriage equality was voted in.. and then people like me but on the opposite side voted it back out. So why should I give up and move somewhere else instead of voting THEIR law out?

Well, you can surely try. It’s not hard to get it on the ballot again. The problem is that in Michigan, only 29% support gay marriage. The majority don’t have a problem recognizing same-sex couples, just not marriage. It doesn’t look like it’s going to change where you live….looks like support is very low.

A July 2011 Public Policy Polling survey found that 33% of Michigan voters thought that same-sex marriage should be legal, while 53% thought it should be illegal and 14% were not sure. A separate question on the same survey found that 62% of Michigan voters supported the legal recognition of same-sex couples, with 29% supporting same-sex marriage, 33% supporting civil unions but not marriage, 35% favoring no legal recognition and 3% not sure.

link

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by seabag

 

Whether you agree with homosexuality as being acceptable or not, there is a question you have to ask yourself. Why do you have to ask it? Because by banning gay marriage people have chosen for others whether or not they should be married..

anyways, the question is, "Is it really freedom if they are restricted from having their life together, by people they don't even know?"

They are not restricted from sharing their lives together. That was my point. Nobody comes to your house and decides who can or cannot live together. Some states don’t recognize gay marriage. The voters of each state determine what is or is not acceptable. If you don’t like what your state does you have the option to move. The Defense of Marriage act was passed by both houses of Congress by large majorities. This makes it a state issue, which it should be. But that doesn’t prohibit people in any state from sharing their lives together.

Originally posted by Miraj
Whether you agree with homosexuality as being acceptable or not, there is a question you have to ask yourself. Why do you have to ask it? Because by banning gay marriage people have chosen for others whether or not they should be married..

anyways, the question is, "Is it really freedom if they are restricted from having their life together, by people they don't even know?"

They are not restricted from sharing their lives together. That was my point. Nobody comes to your house and decides who can or cannot live together. Some states don’t recognize gay marriage. The voters of each state determine what is or is not acceptable. If you don’t like what your state does you have the option to move. The Defense of Marriage act was passed by both houses of Congress by large majorities. This makes it a state issue, which it should be. But that doesn’t prohibit people in any state from sharing their lives together.

reply to post by Sunsetspawn

That's also the tyranny of the majority. The United States of America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. People voting on the rights of others is a sick and twisted practice and it needs to end. Of course, I suppose we could vote slavery back into effect, lord knows I could use a hand around here.

It’s not tyranny. The constitution prohibits states from voting in laws that are unconstitutional, such as slavery. People have a RIGHT not to be enslaved. There is no RIGHT for gay people to marry and there is no constitutional protection for gay marriage. Marriage has been determined to be between one man and one woman. The Defense of Marriage Act is very clear. The people of each state determine their own laws on this matter. Just because you don’t like the outcome in your state doesn’t make it tyrannical….

Sorry!