I just saw a commercial with a gay couple talking about their hotel needs and the one guy says "for me it is all about sleep" and the other guy says, "Well not for me it isn't" and the first one goes, "Well for me it is" and the second one goes, "lucky me."
They also said the one's parents was watching the kids so they could get time away.
How progressive.
Hotwire.com
Because it is the first time I have ever seen a commercial with a gay couple.TPRJones wrote:Sounds like a typical lame hotel commercial to me. It probably wouldn't have warranted comment if it had been a heterosexual couple, no? I'm wondering why the fact it was two men makes so much difference.
Also saw a commercial recently with a guy with one arm in which that wasn't the point of a commercial, and with an interracial couple.
It's like companies are racing to show they are the most open minded.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Remember all the Disney commercials that featured black families?
Go there sometime and tell me how many you see.
They weren't trying to be open minded, they were trying to sell to an audience that isn't buying their product.
Go there sometime and tell me how many you see.
They weren't trying to be open minded, they were trying to sell to an audience that isn't buying their product.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
Because it is the first time I have ever seen a commercial with a gay couple.
Really? I don't watch that many commercials, but I'd have to guess about 5% of those I do see have a gay couple in there somewhere among the other couples. I think the first time I noticed was an orange juice ad about four or five years ago. Now it's just normal.
Although most ads I see are on Youtube rather than TV, so it may be different there.
Edited By TPRJones on 1403795992
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Cool. I'll make sure the next one has that chick from the Schumer show you like so much with Melissa McCarthy.GORDON wrote:I don't enjoy being nudged to think about 2 dudes boning. Doesn't enrage me or anything, but I think I may dislike it more than the average hetero male.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
For years I've said I don't care what they do as long as they don't tell me I have to accept it as normal. Now they're pretty much telling me what I'm allowed to think about it.
You are welcome to think what you like, as long as you don't expect them to live their lives to meet your expectations of what is normal. To them it is normal, and they shouldn't have to pretend otherwise.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Does it count when it gets legal protection as "normal?" I am not sure if that is the right way to characterize what I am trying to say.TPRJones wrote:You are welcome to think what you like, as long as you don't expect them to live their lives to meet your expectations of what is normal. To them it is normal, and they shouldn't have to pretend otherwise.For years I've said I don't care what they do as long as they don't tell me I have to accept it as normal. Now they're pretty much telling me what I'm allowed to think about it.
We can legislate what is "normal," yes? Isn't that akin to being forced to accept it?
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
We can legislate what is "normal," yes?
Not really, no. People write laws trying to make people do this or stop people doing that, but that doesn't really define "normal" no matter what the politicians say. It just determines if we live in a free society or not. People will still do what they consider right and normal, with only token regard for what the laws say about it.
Does it count when it gets legal protection as "normal?"
In an ideal world people would leave each other alone and let them do what they want and no protection would be required. In the world we live in there were a fair number of lynchings for awhile of young gays and so some special laws were needed because the general laws about not killing people didn't seem to be enough to get the job done. They aren't as necessary now and before too much longer we could get rid of them completely. IMO.
Edited By TPRJones on 1403881704
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
We can legislate what is "normal," yes? Isn't that akin to being forced to accept it?
No. You can legislate the morality of a person or society; what is acceptable and what is not. And no, you don't have to accept it. Prisons are full of people that don't.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
But if I say I think it's a sin, they mount a public campaign to try to get me fired.TPRJones wrote:You are welcome to think what you like, as long as you don't expect them to live their lives to meet your expectations of what is normal. To them it is normal, and they shouldn't have to pretend otherwise.For years I've said I don't care what they do as long as they don't tell me I have to accept it as normal. Now they're pretty much telling me what I'm allowed to think about it.
That is certainly NOT allowing me to think what I like. It's not even allowing me to worship as I see fit. It's tyranny.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
But if I say I think it's a sin, they mount a public campaign to try to get me fired.
If you think it, they aren't going to do shit. I also hardly think anyone's going to try to take your job unless you've a very visible one subject to popular opinion, in which case you should probably watch what you fucking say if you like your job.
That is certainly NOT allowing me to think what I like.
Yes, you can think whatever you want. When you start saying and doing things someone doesn't like, they're entirely free to say and do things you don't like, and that can include getting you fired from your job. Leveling the charge of "sin" at someone is not something most folk take kindly to, even if they aren't members of your religion. Calling an action such is an act of disapproval. When it's applied to actions others consider to be typical, average, everyday, normal parts of their lives, it's accusing someone of chronically and willfully living against your beliefs. You permanently disapprove of something they do ultimately not because of anything related to them but because of some matter of dogma which is unarguable, probably derived from an ancient book written years after the facts it's trying to describe. And as you have pointed out, who you like to fuck isn't protected legally in the same way which supernatural superfriend you select is. So I can kind of understand why they're pissed off seeing as how who you like to fuck is ingrained behaviour and supernatural superfriends are supposedly your choice.
What if the gays start a religion so they can transform their sexual orientation into a matter of faith? Hell, they can be tax exempt, too.
It's not even allowing me to worship as I see fit.
Let me know when the gays come in to church and stop your services Sunday morning.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."