Santy get a boyfriend...

Beastialty and paedophilia aren’t equivalent to homosexuality, though, whereas heterosexuality is.

This really absolute and utter nonsense. The vast vast majority people dont really care in any way whatsoever about the ad. A few people are claiming "controversy" and the George Floyd whataboutery is just..... nonsense.

Obviously you'll be taking the kids and grandkids to see it.

Its an ad

Children see adults kissing all the time. The "sexualising a special figure" is just pure drivel and nonsene. If you really believed that you'd want to ban all parents kissing each other in front of their children. There are lots of examples of Santa being a lot more sexual than this. A tiny minority of people are shocked at this.

The dramatics of this being compared to a grenade are frankly laughable.

And then you talk about "the real world" - Again laughable nonsense. We are discussing a fictional figure.

Lots of people outraged over nothing really.

No one uses terms like “pushing this on”, “exposing“, “sexualisation” and “agenda” when talking about seeing a heterosexual couple do something as innocuous as kiss. No one would be concerned in the slightest about children seeing it.

Some people just can’t let go of seeing homosexuality as a threat, something sinister, a deviancy. Something that will somehow rob children of their “innocence” - implying both that it’s exposing children to something taboo and that it’s an act one can be guilty of: a crime of sorts - maybe not a legal one, but perhaps one against nature. Something that’s ok for “consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom” - as if the consent part needs to be emphasised, the privacy part needs to be imposed. They might be tolerant - the minimum requirement for allowing something to exist at all - but they’re certainly not accepting. It’s ironic, because invariably these are the ones who often claim that homophobia doesn’t exist in society, because gay people are “allowed” to marry.

Fortunately, this is probably the last generation that will harbour these outdated and outmoded notions.

1. Santa Claus is not a religious figure. At best Saint Nicholas would be, but nobody really looks at Santa for a religious aspect. He's a magic man who brings presents as far as kids are concerned.
2. George Floyd was a real man, like an actual person, who was murdered by the cops and it is certainly not a religious figure.
3. 
   

This advertisement isn’t the least bit sexual, it’s more sentimental than anything, which plenty of advertising is around Christmas. It’s not as though the actors are actually frenchying or anything, so calling it sexual or making out that “they’re portraying Santa as gay now” is nothing more than contrived annoyance at the whole idea of anything different - a modern take on a classic theme, blowing it way out of proportion.

I could take it or leave it tbh, I thought their previous advertisements were better, because they were different too, but they were funny, this one is just meh.

Plenty of gay James Bond fan fiction out there already. Fill yer boots:

https://archiveofourown.org/works/search?utf8=✓&work_search%5Bquery%5D=Gay+James+bond+

Would the main issue for most people not be that it could be slightly confusing for younger kids? Not the inherent fact itself, but more so the clash with already established portrayals of a specific character.

I don't necessarily mean one single ad but the concept in general. I think people sweeping all questioning away as homophobia are being disingenuous. We live in a time where cartoons have non-binary or gay characters, kids certainly do not care nor do a great many adults.

But, if in one instance kids see he's happily romantically involved with a man, but the next feature, he's back with Mrs. Claus - It's not that I think kids care one bit, but kids being kids would definitely be curious as to the lack of consistency in Santa's home life.

Assuming we are promoting the fact of there being a singular Santa....I mean if we teach kids that there are several Santa's, that's completely fine then, but if we are promoting that he's the one and same man at all points, it's a bit confusing.

I mean at the end of the day it's just one ad and well intentioned, I don't think it's seeking to smash any traditions but I wouldn't be a fan of Santa himself as a platform for anything really.

Kids are very well used to reboots, alternate timelines, etc. Don't worry about the kids.

Yeah but young kids understand none of that stuff is real. They do however believe Santa is real, that's the crux of the conversation for me personally. They don't see it as some fictional representation of a person or thing, they believe there is just one Santa and that person is very real.

Which makes it a little bit challengning for big changes. People comparing it with James Bond or whatever is completely stupid as James Bond isn't real, no-one's ever believed he is real, and there's zero reason for him to "have" to be straight, or white, or whatever, for that reason.

The fact young kids see Santa as a real person is the only potential issue I see with it. Everything else being talked about or comparisons made - kids understood none of it is real which is a huge difference and I wouldn't ever be against inclusivity in these things.

It's a genuine question as well. People are very quick these days to accuse genuine questions of being screened homophobia or something. If you can explain to a kid that one Santa, whatever his differences, is an "alternative timeline" Santa and that explanation works then.....well, great.

It's not politics. It's not a war. It's not us and them. It's not erasing your identity, or replacing anything you hold dear.

It's is just a little reflection that there's variety in life, and that it's perfectly normal.