Posted on 12/15/2023 9:10:36 AM PST by Morgana
As far back as 2019, Hallmark sparked controversy when homosexual activists began a crusade insisting that Hallmark stop trying to instill traditional conservative family values and start promoting sexual aberrancy in their Christmas movie line-up. The Dissenter covered the saga as Hallmark took heat for playing an ad with lesbians kissing and then took more heat when removing the ad.
LGBTQ Nation—a pro-sodomy propaganda website—called on the Lifetime and Hallmark channels to produce and run queer romance movies for Christmas as part of a “diversity” campaign this season. After all, these channels even have movies produced for the “black community” and the “Jewish community”—and everybody knows that queer is the new black. (Not really.)
The pressure worked and the Hallmark CEO announced in 2019 that he was now ready and willing to start producing “gay Christmas movies.” That was fast. And Hallmark’s first sodomite Christmas movie, The Christmas House—which was first announced at the LA Times describing a scene of two sodomites adopting a child as “so beautiful and intimate because this couple has so much love for each other”— aired that year.
Fast forward to 2023, and Hallmark is now neck-deep in Christmas sodomy. Just this past week, Hallmark announced a new movie that you and your family will be sure to love. Because what’s better than snuggling on the couch with your kids and indulging in the festive acts of watching two men kissing and acting like effeminate boobs going through normal day-to-day troubles like any other family?
This film features three storylines, one of which focuses on Zian and Mike, a homosexual couple portrayed as “happily married” as they get ready to celebrate their first Christmas in their home. The film cunningly depicts them dealing with typical household issues, such as power outages and kitchen renovations, an approach that subtly normalizes their relationship by aligning it with everyday experiences familiar to many viewers.
This deceptive tactic solicits an emotional connection between the viewers, especially women, who can relate to these routine domestic challenges. However, the plot takes an even darker and more sinister turn when the couple is shown receiving news about the opportunity to foster a child. The portrayal of a homosexual couple in a parental role, particularly in the context of fostering a child, is not normal behavior in a functioning society and should send shivers down any sane person’s back.
Not that I’ve ever watched Hallmark movies, but the fact that they would take such a sharp turn toward appeasing the grotesque sexual zeitgeist of the modern culture has firmly placed their content in the ‘not on my watch’ category of my television viewing choices, and I would suggest it merits the same treatment on yours.
Once you lose Hallmark...
Still just the ratification stage. Next up is the forced participation.
And do Zian & Mike have a baby via a surrogate? According to LGBT’s that’s their justification that they’re not about depopulation.
Pride Month is half a year away but they still can’t leave it alone.
“...Depicting Homosexuals Fostering Children”
A big business in Russia, during the 1990s was exporting for their babies to be adopted in the West. They’ve since outlawed it, for the above reason.
Conservatism has been successfully discredited as racist, Nazism. This is why Republicans will lose next year.
If there’s any religion that calls for the deaths of alphabet folks, it’s ISlime and their rooftop parties if you know what I mean.
The alphabet people can’t reproduce they must indoctrinate.
Can’t have the population going up.
Every demographic had their TV channel. Kids, teenagers, men, blacks, queers, hispanics, everybody.
Including middle aged white women. But no more. Faggots have co-opted the Hallmark Channel.
Surrogates. That’s their justification when questioned if they’re about depopulation.
Just stop watching the channel. Eventually their bean counters will encourage the powers that be to “readjust”.
My understanding is that as long as you have a cable/streaming subscription, they get the money whether you watch or not.
I was thinking that when I first posted about this last week.
This is a real life Handmaid’s Tale.
Thanks Liz
Exactly, that was the one and only channel where women could watch G-rated, sweet, male/female romances. No more.
Advertising dollars are what matters. They may get a small percentage of their funding from fees, but the real money is in ad buy and that is all about viewership.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.