Who’s cutting onions in here?!
Christopher Petroni says
November 28, 2011 at 4:54 PM
Time for what, to make me bawl all over my fiance’s computer?
That was beautiful. And of course, it’s not only that it’s “time.” It’s been “time” for a long, long time already.
Michael D. says
I cut an onion about 2 hours ago in my kitchen on the other side of the continent from you…. but you can still use it as an excuse if you’d like :P
November 28, 2011 at 6:01 PM
My friends and I think that this video is beautiful, but aimed at the wrong audience. Chances are that if you’re emotionally engaged by the movie you’re probably already on the “make it happen” bandwagon.
I’d love to see the opposite… a faux campaign asking to “eliminate discrimination, ban heterosexual marriage”.
November 28, 2011 at 6:04 PM
I was trying to figure out the purpose… was his life flashing before his eyes? What were they trying to sell? It wasn’t until the very end that I got it… which I’m sure was the intention. Well done, and yes, I’m crying here too.
November 28, 2011 at 8:27 PM
GetUp! have outdone themselves with this one :)
November 29, 2011 at 12:48 AM
I disagree, it reminded me of an Irish advert Sinead’s Hand. In both, most viewers emotionally connect with the character, it is only at the end that you are confronted with the truth. The aim, I think, is to create a conflict between the belief that marriage is solely hetrosexual, and the connection and sympathy for the character. It is exactly aimed at conservatives by creating a conflict between their regard of the importance of marriage and family, and the cruelty and absurdity of denying it to gays and lesbians.
November 29, 2011 at 3:24 AM
I also disagree. I think the aim is to ‘trick’ (for want of a better word) anti-gay viewers into feeling an emotional connection with the couple, despite never seeing who’s behind the camera. It’s beautifully shot and very engaging, featuring lots of important moments in life almost everyone can relate to. You think ‘aww, they seem like a nice couple’ and that they obviously love each other, and you’re happy for them when the guy proposes. Then you get the ‘big reveal’ and it’s almost challenging people to change their minds – you thought it was beautiful when you assumed it was a woman behind the camera, can you really bring yourself to change your mind in that instant you see it’s actually a man? All the emotions you saw are still there, all the connections and family and friends you’ve met previously are still there. It’s very real.
All in all I thought this was absolutely beautiful and fantastically shot and acted, and the format of it is likely to make some people at least think twice about their preconceptions.
November 29, 2011 at 7:56 AM
It seems I have something in my eye. Or allergies….or something.
That was beautiful. Even though I knew what to expect, it still packed a punch at the end. I think it was that everybody was celebrating with them.
November 29, 2011 at 8:00 AM
For me, it was that everyone was celebrating, plus the knowledge that so many people are working to prevent the scenario in the video from happening.
Pieter B says
November 29, 2011 at 8:51 AM
Damn monitor has gone all blurry, and it’s less than a year old.
Beautiful and beautifully done. I second everything J04NN4 wrote.
November 29, 2011 at 10:09 AM
Oddly, I got it pretty early on but wasn’t sure. What clinched it was the mother’s dicey reaction when they went to the inlaws for a visit; ironically, I think that may have been a red herring because she was delivering bad news, as became clear later on with her in the oxygen mask…
Lauren Ipsum says
November 29, 2011 at 10:14 AM
I’ve seen this four times and I’m still tearing up. It is SO past time.
November 29, 2011 at 11:32 AM
Hey, seems pretty normal here in Canada now.
FORMER Fetus says
November 29, 2011 at 5:37 PM
MARRIAGE is an interpersonal covenant commanded by God in which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership for the whole of life, which is ordered by its very nature to the good of the spouses, and to the procreation and education of their offspring. When the New Covenant (Catholic) superseded the Old (Judaic) marriage was additionally raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.
The special nature of the marital covenant is one of equality and requires that the two participants be one man and one woman, that they be free to marry, that they willingly and knowingly enter into a valid marriage contract, and that they validly execute the performance of the marital contract throughout their lives together.
Bearing this in mind, it is impossible for homosexual couples to enter into valid Judeo-Christian marriages as they are not able to fulfil even the most basic obligations of the true marital bond, as understood, and fore-ordained from the beginning of time by God.
Within democratic societies homosexuals need to come up with their own man-made, secular, non-religious institutions, and not try to falsely appropriate authentic Judeo-Christian ones as their own. Homosexual marriages and/or unions have never, and will never receive any sort blessing by the Lord God, no matter what any false representative of God states to the contrary.
November 29, 2011 at 6:17 PM
It’s kind of cute when they try to be coherent.
November 29, 2011 at 6:20 PM
From what I’ve seen, pretty much everyone who uses the phrase “Judeo-Christian” has no knowledge of Jewish traditions or religious practices whatsoever.
John Morales says
November 29, 2011 at 7:48 PM
MARRIAGE is an interpersonal covenant commanded by God in which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership for the whole of life, which is ordered by its very nature to the good of the spouses, and to the procreation and education of their offspring. [...]
Bearing this in mind, it is impossible for homosexual couples to enter into valid Judeo-Christian marriages [blah]
By this criterion, women who have had a hysterectomy or are menopausal (or otherwise infertile) should not marry, nor should men who are likewise infertile.
You reckon the Church should require a fertility test for both parties before being allowed to have a Catholic marriage ceremony? :)
Clearly, you haven’t thought your contention through: Your religiously-motivated definition of marriage implies no-one not in your sect (Catholicism) could possibly be married, and, accordingly, that you should have no qualms if someone already married under any other religious or secular tradition were to marry again in a Catholic ceremony.
* All people are former fetuses, but not all fetuses will become people. This, because fetuses aren’t people, but rather potential people.
November 29, 2011 at 7:50 PM
I suppose — for cringe-worthy values of ‘cute’.
Robert B. says
November 29, 2011 at 7:58 PM
Dood. There isn’t any God. You are speaking absolute nonsense.
November 30, 2011 at 12:30 AM
Wow, marriage is a Judeo-Christian institution? Must be news to all those Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos, and even atheists who get married just fine.
Also, marriage isn’t a religious institution, it’s a secular one. You can tell, because people have to go to the government for a marriage license, and our government is secular by law, despite the best efforts of people like you.
November 30, 2011 at 12:36 AM
aren’t you missing the point?
“Homosexual marriages and/or unions have never, and will never receive any sort blessing by the Lord God, no matter what any false representative of God states to the contrary”
No-one outside of the church cares about the blessing of a being that doesn’t exist – no matter how much you want to force the rest of world to abide by your insanity.
November 30, 2011 at 7:06 AM
This would be all well and good if we were discussing how your religion defines marriage for its own membership.
We aren’t. We’re talking about the secular marriage license issued by the government to all citizens. We aren’t members of your church. We aren’t adherents of your religion. There’s no reason for any of us give two shits about what your imaginary friend thinks of homosexuality, nor do we have any reason to give two shits about how your church defines marriage.
November 30, 2011 at 10:48 AM
Per Mirriam-Webster, the term “marriage” was first coined in the 14th century, and is derived from Latin by way of French. Curiously, the Latin derivation would seem to pre-date the Roman Catholic Church (the rise of the Church actually seems to end the Classical Latin period), which means that the Church itself has no claim upon the term–they co-opted it from the pagans. So, really, the only claim the god-botherers have is to the Aramaic word, Gwz (near as I can tell, that’s pronounced “Zog”). Go here and enter “marry” in the search field.
So you guys can have your Judeo-Christian zogging, and the rest of us can have our pagan marriages, m’kay?
November 30, 2011 at 6:37 PM
I guess you missed this, “which is ordered by its very nature to the good of the spouses”.
You focussed on the latter, the secondary procreative aspect.
Then the whole rest of your response is just silly.
There is no such thing as a potential human being. Don’t let false nihilistic feminist ideology cloud your thinking. A woman is with child.
In fact my neighbour across the street came over two weeks ago to show me the ‘baby’ kicking within her womb. What am I supposed to do now, go back and correct her, telling her such nonsense, “Well, you know, it’s only a potential person…?”
Only feminists insist an unborn baby isn’t human. Everyone else knows the truth.
November 30, 2011 at 6:49 PM
The First Covenant between God and humanity was the marital one. Between God…and Adam and Eve.
It’s the natural order, so of course other religious entities stumbled onto it. The original was one man with one woman. Not many wives, concubines, etc.
“Also, marriage isn’t a religious institution, it’s a secular one. You can tell, because people have to go to the government for a marriage license, and our government is secular by law…”
The Catholic Church doesn’t recognize civil unions.
And we never will.
Only sacramental marriages, before God, in the presence of the community of faith are recognized.
November 30, 2011 at 7:08 PM
FRANCE which is far more secular than the United States only grants homosexual unions, never marriages. Of course America has been morally bankrupt for a long time. After all what other country has dropped atomic bombs on a live populace killing hundreds of thousands?
But they were gooks, right?
And America brought the world unrestricted abortion.
Millions murdered under the unbelievable banner of a woman’s right to choose.
Americans sure can kill.
I guess the only thing outlawed in America is conscience.
November 30, 2011 at 8:52 PM
Now you’re arguing from three fictional characters.
Like, I could bring up King Solomon and a bunch of Popes, and completely rip apart your church’s credibility and consistency on monogamy and marriage and so on. But that would be missing the main point, which is this:
There is no good evidence that God exists.
There is no good evidence that Jesus ever lived.
In fact there is such a void of reliable evidence, when people have been looking so carefully and for so long, that the very lack constitutes evidence against the existence of either figure.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe that your church (or any other church, religion, or spiritual belief) is more than just a fantasy story that got out of hand.
Arguing based on the supposed word of God or the characters in your mythological text will gain no traction here. We are aware that they are fictional. Therefore, your argument is absolute nonsense to us, as I said before. To make your case convincingly, you’ll have to either convert us first (and if your beliefs are true, I hope you succeed! I love truth.) or make arguments concerning marriage based on the premises we already have in common, i.e. reality.
If there is a God, I want to believe that there is a God.
If there is not a God, I want to believe that there is not a God.
Let me not become attached to beliefs that I may not want.
– Litany of Tarski
December 1, 2011 at 12:11 AM
I’d respond, but I respect Jen too much to fill her blog comments with responses to irrelevant or off-topic maunderings.
December 1, 2011 at 8:46 AM
Former Fetus (10). Marriage isn’t what you think it is. You seem to think that it is somehow a divinely ordered institution. It is a secular institution that has rather successfully and unfortunately been co-opted by various churches.
What we secular people want is for secular marriage to be properly available to all citizens. We’re quite happy if you religious types want to have a man in a dress say some magic words and wave some magic water or smoke around or whatever it is that you do. Just keep your damn religion out of our marriages and relationships. We aren’t interested. While your at it keep your religion away from our children too.
I suggest that if you don’t like that then you religionists need to come up with a religious institution that is all your own. Call it “religious union” or something. We’ll give it all the respect that it deserves but don’t expect tax breaks or anything secular to come out of it.
December 1, 2011 at 1:44 PM
What a sweet video. Why is it that some people oppose love between two consenting adults?
December 1, 2011 at 6:31 PM
Darn tootin’, John reply.
You’ve already lost. Look at your current prez.
Look at that assassination president go…Obama is bigger than international law of course! In the old days, when America was still Christian, war criminals were brought to trial, and justice was dispensed.
Hot damn, not with this president.
He ain’t got time for that! He’s one killin’ machine. He’s got numerous hit/death squads on the go, all over the Middle East. Finally, he’s acting openly, like the true Marxist atheist that he is!
He’s got their playbook and he’s running with it…
You must be logged in to post a comment.