lack of gay representation in US television? [Archive]

Jerry_111

03-01-2007, 01:37 AM

After watching a few British television shows, I've come to notice a difference betweeen British and US media -- that is, there aren't really any portrayals of gays -- no, will and grace doesn't count -- in U.S. television. On a Brit show I saw two gay men kissing, and the scene wasn't stereotypical nor played for laughs -- it was as serious a scene as one that shows a romantic kiss between a man and a woman. In other words, their sexual orientation didn't define their character; it was just another aspect of their character.

Why the difference?

Qonfused

03-01-2007, 01:42 AM

Because the general US populace is retarded when it comes to gay relations.

Raziaar

03-01-2007, 01:51 AM

Not too many people are keen on seeing two gentlemen sucking on each others tongues as we see men and women do in your normal TV shows. Even some of those people supportive of gay rights, don't particularily like to see that. <shrugs>

My favorite gay portrayal in television has been Carter Haywood from Spin City. heh.

Dalamari

03-01-2007, 01:53 AM

Queer Eye
Will and Grace
That makeover show on Bravo, hell, the whole network is gay programming
LOGO network

smwScott

03-01-2007, 02:01 AM

Pretty much the only shows I watch are on HBO, with a few exceptions like Arrested Development or The Office. There seems to be a lot of gay representation ... maybe even disproportionately so. In Six Feet Under one of the main characters is gay and it makes up one of the series' story arcs. Sopranos had a gay mobster, but he got whacked. There's tons of homosexual overtones in Rome. There's a gay dude in the Office.

I mean, what exactly is the correct amount of gayness that TV should have? It seems to me there are a lot more gay people on television than I encounter in everyday life.

brink's

03-01-2007, 02:02 AM

Just watch HBO

Six Feet Under-David Fisher/Keith
The Wire-lesbian black cop( so many characters i can't remember all their names)
Sopranoes-Vito Spatafore

Mechagodzilla

03-01-2007, 02:10 AM

We ain't talking about the specialty grownup cable channels that you don't order unless you're already pretty gay.

Far more mainstream stuff like ABC, NBC and etc. is the issue.
When shows actually do have a gay character, it's either the entire focus of the show and/or (more likely) played for laughs.

i.e.
"Lol, the hoe-moe don't talk like people talk."
or, (perhaps more officiously),
"Lol, that guy seemed to act normal, but he's secretly gay! That's the punchline! Oh god my funnybone!!"

I don't think there's a single network TV show that presents an uncommented-upon gay character, let alone in a prominent role.

Jerry_111

03-01-2007, 02:31 AM

DeusExMachina

03-01-2007, 02:49 AM

There's an entire channel dedicated to gay programming. And Will and Grace and Queer Eye have lasted for a long time. We freakin' had Brokeback Mountain.

6Three

03-01-2007, 02:54 AM

The L Word.

Best. Show. Ever.

Jerry_111

03-01-2007, 03:05 AM

There's an entire channel dedicated to gay programming. And Will and Grace and Queer Eye have lasted for a long time. We freakin' had Brokeback Mountain.

1) i was talking about regular, network television programming such as NBC. Heck, on Doctor Who in the UK -- predominately a children's show -- there was a bisexual man who kissed another man!

2) I was talking about serious, honest portrayals of gays where their sexual orientation isn't the focus or definition of their characters.

3) true, but the characters' sexual orientations and relationship are again a big part of the focus.

Did you know the main character in the Transporter movies was actually gay?

CptStern

03-01-2007, 03:15 AM

mortiz

03-01-2007, 03:25 AM

I know British T.V. is inundated with raging homosexuals. I think seeing them is turning me a bit queer. I regularly admire men’s asses now. The Conservatives were right, you can catch gayness!

brink's

03-01-2007, 03:27 AM

We ain't talking about the specialty grownup cable channels that you don't order unless you're already pretty gay.

So...watching HBO....makes you gay?

I don't think there's a single network TV show that presents an uncommented-upon gay character, let alone in a prominent role.

Why would they? The majority of Americans arn't big on homosexuality, so the networks target audience would only be a few million viewers( way to small for a major network).

CptStern

03-01-2007, 03:33 AM

so there's no shows targeted to blacks? (12.1% of population = minority)

mortiz

03-01-2007, 03:35 AM

so there's no shows targeted to blacks? (12.1% of population = minority)

Watching shows about Black people turns you Black apparantly.

Jerry_111

03-01-2007, 03:36 AM

so there's no shows targeted to blacks? (12.1% of population = minority)

Anyone remember UPN?

CptStern

03-01-2007, 03:42 AM

Watching shows about Black people turns you Black apparantly.

shiiiiit, now you goes and does tells me, I axed the cable peeple and they said fo sure you'll be blacker than black watching black teevee but I didnt believes dem

now I'm going to watch tele-latino! ...holmes

god does that mean that if I watch one of those perdominatly white shows like Little house of the Prairie or 7th Heaven I'll turn out like her? (http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/images/condi_whitey-thumb.jpg) <shudder>

brink's

03-01-2007, 03:43 AM

so there's no shows targeted to blacks? (12.1% of population = minority)

I don't watch much TV, but i can't think of any shows on network tv right now that target blacks specifically. Past shows, like Family Matters and the Cosby show i think targeted a family audience.

And remember, the majority of Americans don't have a problem with race, i don't think you could say the same about homosexuality.

CptStern

03-01-2007, 03:49 AM

well not so sure about that ..David Duke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke) sure as hell had a lot of support

DeusExMachina

03-01-2007, 03:56 AM

1) i was talking about regular, network television programming such as NBC. Heck, on Doctor Who in the UK -- predominately a children's show -- there was a bisexual man who kissed another man!

2) I was talking about serious, honest portrayals of gays where their sexual orientation isn't the focus or definition of their characters.

3) true, but the characters' sexual orientations and relationship are again a big part of the focus.

Did you know the main character in the Transporter movies was actually gay?

Brokeback Mountain didn't focus on their orientations and the relationship focus was mostly on their wives. The main characters don't even come off as gay. Trust me, I own the film

And how is the main character in the Transporter gay? ...And why is this even relevant?

If you're looking for positive, non-stereotypical homosexuals, you look toward film. There's hundreds of films dealing with them.

Raziaar

03-01-2007, 04:02 AM

there are no postive gay role models on tv because the networks are far too afraid of portraying anything but a stereotype .. homer simpson best explains it when he said "I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my homosexuals flaming" ..anything else is a threat to conservative middle america ..so the networks are a little paranoid ...but can you blame them? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40188-2005Jan26.html)

The character Carter Haywood(played by Michael Boatman) in spin city is a positive rolemodel. And he doesn't follow any homosexual stereotypes... in fact he's always having to counter them from the bigoted Stuwart Bondeck(sp?).

I love SPin City... heh. Those two are my favorite characters.

Gunner

03-01-2007, 04:04 AM

After seeing a guy get ass creamed in Sleeper Cell's 2nd season, I don't really want to see any more "gay representation".

CptStern

03-01-2007, 04:28 AM

The character Carter Haywood(played by Michael Boatman) in spin city is a positive rolemodel. And he doesn't follow any homosexual stereotypes... in fact he's always having to counter them from the bigoted Stuwart Bondeck(sp?).

I love SPin City... heh. Those two are my favorite characters.

never been fan of spin city but they still made a point of his homosexuality ..whether stereotypical or not his character's main defining characteristic is his homosexuality ..again not a fan so I could be wrong

Absinthe

03-01-2007, 04:36 AM

It was at times. But for the most part, his character stood on its own.

el Chi

03-01-2007, 05:04 AM

It's rather unusual to have serious gay characters (as opposed to Will & Grace's obnoxious Jack), but it's even more unusual to have bisexual characters. People aren't so good with the whole "No seriously, I'm just attracted to both" thing.
Recently Torchwood, a spin-off series of Dr. Who, had a lead character whose sexuality was ambiguous, but as the program went on it became clear that he was bisexual, moreover it was interesting that this didn't come out in a "By the way everybody - I'm bi. Just so's you know" type scene. It was gossip and speculation between the other characters and became more evident as the character developed. It was oddly refreshing to see a character's alternative sexuality (I'd say bisexuality is even more misunderstood than homosexuality) developed rather than bluntly stated.
Even some of those people supportive of gay rights, don't particularily like to see that. <shrugs>
So hypocrits you mean?

After seeing a guy get ass creamed in Sleeper Cell's 2nd season, I don't really want to see any more "gay representation".I've got some lovely sand for yuou to bury your head in, if you'd like?
The Conservatives were right, you can catch gayness!
Not to mention, "gayness" rhymes with "anus". Nearly.
Coincidence, or cause-and-effect, nearly?

highlander

03-01-2007, 05:16 AM

we all know everyone on TV is gay :O

smwScott

03-01-2007, 05:17 AM

So hypocrits you mean?

I've got some lovely sand for yuou to bury your head in, if you'd like?

Aren't you higher than thou. I am all for equal rights for everyone but that doesn't mean I enjoy seeing two guys **** ... I find it uncomfortable and even a bit repulsive. That doesn't mean I'm going to not watch a good film or show because it contains that, because I really don't care that much. Nor is it saying they shouldn't be able to do it.

You should at least acknowledge that some people have a natural aversion to seeing gay sex, as they might even have towards certain heterosexual fetishes.

People who go on about how everyone else should accept them and then attack somebody else for feeling a certain way are the true hypocrites.

Mechagodzilla

03-01-2007, 05:42 AM

And remember, the majority of Americans don't have a problem with race, i don't think you could say the same about homosexuality.

Chicken and egg.

I think it's far more likely that positive (AKA neutral) portrayals in the media were what led to greater tolerance in the public sphere, instead of the other way around.

How, exactly, are you going to get people to stop fearing gays irrationally when they have experience with them in public (it's not visible like race; there's no such thing as a gaydar) and they aren't represented in any positive way except through specialty channels that specifically target the liberal-minded folks who are already least fearful?

Really, the cable/network dichotomy has created some weird kind of TV segregation. "Family-friendly" means, basically, gay-free whether it's intended that way or not.

In 1968, casting a black man as the lead in Night of the Living Dead was considered vastly unusual, especially in a film that is not overtly about race.

Here in 2007, people are probably still making Brokeback Mountain jokes, and that movie was specifically about homosexuality.
I can't think of a mainstream movie that features an openly gay hero in a plot that isn't specifically about homosexuality.

It's like if black people were only ever cast in movies about slavery, and there's something wrong with that.

People who go on about how everyone else should accept them and then attack somebody else for feeling a certain way are the true hypocrites.

I'm not sure I follow your logic.
We're against homophobia, while you're pro-disgust.

They call it homophobia for a reason, because it's an irrational fear, like spiders and heights.
I get the chills if I see a spider, even though I know spiders are harmless. That's something wrong with me.
You've also got an irrational reaction.
The difference is that fear of spiders doesn't retard the development of society.

That, and I'm not afraid of bugs on film (although I used to be as a kid).
How did I get over that fear?
By viewing movies, shows and books about spiders. Simple as that.
Familiarity kills fear, and familiarity is something that the public is not getting.

15357

03-01-2007, 05:42 AM

So what. We have 0 representation of gays and nobody's complaining.

CptStern

03-01-2007, 05:49 AM

So what. We have 0 representation of gays and nobody's complaining.

jeez I wonder why?

The Government of South Korea practices censorship of gay-content websites through its Information and Communications Ethics Committee, an official organ of the Ministry of Information and Communication. Homosexual and gay-related websites have been frequent and easy censorship targets, being blocked, filtered, or even outright banned by the Government. [5] Most recently the Ethics Committee included several prominent gay websites and servers on its banned list, declaring them "Harmful Media to Adolescents"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights_in_South_Korea#Censorship_issues

Mechagodzilla

03-01-2007, 05:57 AM

Hahaha, nobody's complaining because Numbers is cracking down on the ability to complain.

HAIL SOUTH KOREA, BASTION OF FREEDOM

And that's different from North Korea's evil censorious propaganda machine... how?

15357

03-01-2007, 06:06 AM

#1. NK doesn't have Internet.

#2. NK is evil, while we are not.

#3. In the puppet state of NK, it is illegal to be gay. (Yeah, there is a law regarding that), while in the great Republic of Korea, it isn't.

#4. We aren't cracking down on the ability to complain, we are cracking down on harmful websites.

CptStern

03-01-2007, 06:10 AM

And that's different from North Korea's evil censorious propaganda machine... how?

less guys on shiney white horses? (http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=14620)

Raziaar

03-01-2007, 06:11 AM

never been fan of spin city but they still made a point of his homosexuality ..whether stereotypical or not his character's main defining characteristic is his homosexuality ..again not a fan so I could be wrong

No... his main defining characteristic was that he was a unique individual, who stood up for what he believed in and fought for the rights of everybody equally.

Besides... what's wrong with making a case of his homosexuality? It's not like they were saying it was a bad thing. We're talking here about lack of gay representation in US television... so why is the fact that they bring it out and have it regularly brought up in the series, such a big problem? Should they of kept him in the closet? heh.

Besides... it's a show about political humor. What's not to like?

15357

03-01-2007, 06:12 AM

less guys on shiney white horses? (http://www.videosift.com/story.php?id=14620)

That too. :laugh:

Oh god... the translation is a bit off but... HUGE STORMS ALWAYS HAPPEN!

Raziaar

03-01-2007, 06:15 AM

Oh, forgot this...

So hypocrits you mean?

Not necessarily hypocrits. You don't have to enjoy the sight of two guys making out, tongue lashing each other to be supportive of gay rights. :laugh:

CptStern

03-01-2007, 06:16 AM

No... his main defining characteristic was that he was a unique individual, who stood up for what he believed in and fought for the rights of everybody equally.

Besides... what's wrong with making a case of his homosexuality? It's not like they were saying it was a bad thing. We're talking here about lack of gay representation in US television... so why is the fact that they bring it out and have it regularly brought up in the series, such a big problem? Should they of kept him in the closet? heh.

on the flipside the fact that a character is heterosexual is never an issue ..unless he's a deviant ...........................

Mechagodzilla

03-01-2007, 06:21 AM

#1. NK doesn't have Internet.
Oh, so you're actually well ahead of North Korea in terms of pointless evil government censorship.
#2. NK is evil, while we are not.
As stated above, pointless government censorship is evil.
#3. In the puppet state of NK, it is illegal to be gay. (Yeah, there is a law regarding that), while in the great Republic of Korea, it isn't.
Good for them, but that's a red herring when we're talking about freedom of speech laws. Focus plz.
#4. We aren't cracking down on the ability to complain, we are cracking down on harmful websites.
Hahaha, harmful how? Get you get GAY CANCER from one?
You suck at freedoms.
But at least you're good at evil, right?
Just like the North Koreans.

By the way, I heard that one of the koreas has pointless laws against gay people.
Tell me which one I'm talking about, plz.

We're talking here about lack of gay representation in US television... so why is the fact that they bring it out and have it regularly brought up in the series, such a big problem? Should they of kept him in the closet? heh.
That on its own is not a bad thing, but gays effecively don't exist in any other context. Either they're being persecuted or they're the "gay best friend."

Check, instead, the example at the start of the thread about an average guy who just kisses his husband and then goes off and does his job.
That simply doesn't happen on TV or on film.

Raziaar

03-01-2007, 06:28 AM

on the flipside the fact that a character is heterosexual is never an issue ..unless he's a deviant ...........................

Isn't it homosexuals that are trying to get their sexuality out there... making it obvious for the world? A show like Spin City, which has a prominent, respected homosexual figure, in the world of politics no less... supports that goal for gay rights. What's the issue?

Qonfused

03-01-2007, 06:30 AM

In before move to political.

Mechagodzilla

03-01-2007, 06:42 AM

This already was in "political". Spam less, SVP.

Anywho, Razaar you are right that that's the current best-case scenario, yet the character is still only single a minor one on a sitcom that was canceled years ago.

I mean really, that's as good as it gets?

Raziaar

03-01-2007, 06:45 AM

Ehh. I don't see any problem with homosexual characters being introduced in a comedic environment. The way they did it in that show was class and very funny. Bringing homosexuality to a POSITIVE comedic light is not a bad thing. We already have heterosexuality there... how is bringing the two more in alignment a bad thing? Must homosexuals be displayed in a strictly serious, heavy way?

smwScott

03-01-2007, 06:48 AM

I'm not sure I follow your logic.
We're against homophobia, while you're pro-disgust.

They call it homophobia for a reason, because it's an irrational fear, like spiders and heights.
I get the chills if I see a spider, even though I know spiders are harmless. That's something wrong with me.
You've also got an irrational reaction.
The difference is that fear of spiders doesn't retard the development of society.

That, and I'm not afraid of bugs on film (although I used to be as a kid).
How did I get over that fear?
By viewing movies, shows and books about spiders. Simple as that.
Familiarity kills fear, and familiarity is something that the public is not getting.

I'm not averse to watching movies/television with homosexual content. Like I said before Six Feet Under is one of my favorite shows. Brokeback Mountain was a pretty good movie. I've seen plenty of indie films with such themes. I don't run and hide under the bed like an immature idiot.

That being said, I don't feel indifferently to it as I do many things. Your comparison to how you would feel when seeing a spider is apt. This doesn't mean I hate or dislike gays, just that the thought of homosexual sex disturbs me. Many people have various turn ons and turn offs, and there's nothing wrong with being put off by something as long as you don't try and push your feelings on others.

If anything it strikes me as a very rational evolutionary reaction, seeing as homosexuality does not lead towards procreation. The same can be said for how most women are indifferent/attracted towards other women, as it is an effective means of attracting the opposite sex.

Mechagodzilla

03-01-2007, 07:17 AM

That's a bit of the old naturalistic fallacy, but I do respect where you're coming from.

The thing is, back to spider analogy, I used to be like terrified and now I'm not.
Then I used to get the chills and now I don't either.
Even in real life, I just catch the suckers and toss them without any real reaction at all.

It's nice that you're tolerant, but it's of benefit to no-one, least of all yourself, to be disturbed at the thought.

Gay sex isn't arousing to me either, but I'm not disturbed by thinking about it.

It's not natural, as far as I've been able to determine, to be in such a state. Indifferent maybe, but disturbed? That just doesn't fit.
It's equally against heterosexual reproductive instinct to have sex with a tree, but people aren't disturbed at the thought of trees.

People instinctively fear heights, darkness and yeah, even spiders because they're reasonably indicative of dangerous circumstances.
That just doesn't apply to homosexuality, probably because that specific fear is a cultural and not a natural one.

brink's

03-01-2007, 07:26 AM

I think a lot of people would be disturbed by the thought of someone having sex with a tree.

Mechagodzilla

03-01-2007, 07:39 AM

I think a lot of people would be disturbed by the thought of someone having sex with a tree.

I dunno, I think it's more "huh?" than "ugh!"

But myself and other folks here aren't be talking about putting explicit gay sex on mainstream TV.
Just including gay characters. or, in this case, simply trees.

Edit: sorry, I accidentally deleted a small chunk of your post by pressing the wrong button.

The "Edit" and "Quote" buttons are right beside each other. :P

Raziaar

03-01-2007, 07:48 AM

Edit: sorry, I accidentally deleted a small chunk of your post by pressing the wrong button.

The "Edit" and "Quote" buttons are right beside each other.

Whoops, my finger slipped! There goes Canada up in flames. Whoops, my finger slipped! There goes Austrailia beneath the ocean!

Gunner

03-01-2007, 07:57 AM

I've got some lovely sand for yuou to bury your head in, if you'd like?

And I've got a lovely sledgehammer I'd like to take to your face.

15357

03-01-2007, 12:37 PM

Oh, so you're actually well ahead of North Korea in terms of pointless evil government censorship.

That's right! :D

Wait... what? Internet is censorship? D:

As stated above, pointless government censorship is evil.

Why? (both pointless and pointful)

Good for them, but that's a red herring when we're talking about freedom of speech laws. Focus plz.

Freedom of speech isn't the ultimate truth of life.

Hahaha, harmful how? Get you get GAY CANCER from one?
You suck at freedoms.
But at least you're good at evil, right?
Just like the North Koreans.

If you don't know what gay is, than you can't be one. Reality Control. :p

Gay porn is the same as normal porn, except that you don't get the "enter your social security number" message, and instead you get the "Internet Safety Commission" message.

What 'evil' are we good at?

By the way, I heard that one of the koreas has pointless laws against gay people.
Tell me which one I'm talking about, plz.

North. Pointless laws are all in the north, or Communist China.

On another note: I don't really care if there are gay people on TV or not, but it pisses me off when you make such a big deal out of it.

Absinthe

03-01-2007, 02:34 PM

Shut up, Numbers.

el Chi

03-01-2007, 03:13 PM

Aren't you higher than thou. I am all for equal rights for everyone but that doesn't mean I enjoy seeing two guys **** ... I find it uncomfortable and even a bit repulsive. That doesn't mean I'm going to not watch a good film or show because it contains that, because I really don't care that much. Nor is it saying they shouldn't be able to do it.

You should at least acknowledge that some people have a natural aversion to seeing gay sex, as they might even have towards certain heterosexual fetishes.

People who go on about how everyone else should accept them and then attack somebody else for feeling a certain way are the true hypocrites.
I should admit that, when I posted that, I'd had a few and so tact wasn't exactly on my agenda, nor was well-reasoned argument. Sorry.

Not wanting to see two gay people kiss, but still being in support of gay rights is fair enough although I do think it still denotes a degree of homophobia. On the other hand, as long as that homophobia not destructive or counter-productive to maintaining a civilised fair society then fine. No-one is utterly without prejudice. Not even Captain High-horse (otherwise known as me).

My point was that a TV program/film/etc. shouldn't be worried about offending someone who has issues with the sexuality of other people. If anything, these issues should be met head-on, because one can't tackle prejudices by avoiding the issue or just ignoring it.
It's reflecting the real world (well, to an extent) and the way that the world works (well, to an extent).

And I've got a lovely sledgehammer I'd like to take to your face.
My response to your initial post was impertinent, but when someone responds like this, I really feel far less inclined to apologise.

<RJMC>

03-01-2007, 04:47 PM

here the only gay people you see in tv is fashion designers

here people is very antigay,is not like they burn them and kill them but they just dont stand it and pratically all the insults are related to gay stuff

CptStern

03-01-2007, 04:55 PM

I dont want to see two men kiss in public ..but I also dont want to see a man and woman kiss either ..two women ..well not unless they're hot ..so it's all relative to personal taste ..so to be absolutely fair no one should kiss in public so as to not to potentially offend someone ...or the flipside is that everybody can kiss in public despite homosexuality, unattractiveness etc ..in other words it's really none of our business what other people do with their lives so long as it doesnt impede personal freedoms

If you don't know what gay is, than you can't be one. Reality Control.

freedom through censorship ..now that's a novel concept ....so there were no homosexuals before the invention of the television?

Solaris

03-01-2007, 05:54 PM

Problem with the whole "Gay sex" repulses me argument is so what?

No-ones going to force you to download gay porn, it's highly unlikely you'll ever see to guys having sex unless you actively seek it. Live and let live I say.

Raziaar

03-01-2007, 05:58 PM

No-ones going to force you to download gay porn

But that's exactly what this latest trojan I have does! ARRGGGGHTHHHHH!

Gunner

03-01-2007, 06:05 PM

I should admit that, when I posted that, I'd had a few and so tact wasn't exactly on my agenda, nor was well-reasoned argument. Sorry.

Not wanting to see two gay people kiss, but still being in support of gay rights is fair enough although I do think it still denotes a degree of homophobia. On the other hand, as long as that homophobia not destructive or counter-productive to maintaining a civilised fair society then fine. No-one is utterly without prejudice. Not even Captain High-horse (otherwise known as me).

My point was that a TV program/film/etc. shouldn't be worried about offending someone who has issues with the sexuality of other people. If anything, these issues should be met head-on, because one can't tackle prejudices by avoiding the issue or just ignoring it.
It's reflecting the real world (well, to an extent) and the way that the world works (well, to an extent).

My response to your initial post was impertinent, but when someone responds like this, I really feel far less inclined to apologise.

Yeah whatever, when you decide to grow up and to leave behind your naive fantasies behind, let us know mmkay?

el Chi

03-01-2007, 06:11 PM

If you'd like to expand on that and make a coherent point, then feel free.

Gunner

03-01-2007, 06:23 PM

TV is entertainment, it's not meant to teach you moral values. That's what you fail to understand.

Atomic_Piggy

03-01-2007, 06:26 PM

On a Brit show I saw two gay men kissing, and the scene wasn't stereotypical nor played for laughs -- it was as serious a scene as one that shows a romantic kiss between a man and a woman.

Torchwood perhaps?

Stigmata

03-01-2007, 08:36 PM

TV is entertainment, it's not meant to teach you moral values. That's what you fail to understand.Er, no. Television is a medium for art, the art in this case being the programs on television. As such, it is completely free to teach us or show us whatever moral value(s) the creators so choose.

Yes, the networks have the ability to censor their content, but ridding television of all homosexual content is easily analogous to ridding it of, say, Christians, or black people. And I'm pretty sure banning either of those would cause an uproar.

"I don't like this so I think nobody should be able to see this" is what tyranny is made of, my friend.

Gunner

03-01-2007, 08:54 PM

Er, no. Television is a medium for art, the art in this case being the programs on television. As such, it is completely free to teach us or show us whatever moral value(s) the creators so choose.

Yes, the networks have the ability to censor their content, but ridding television of all homosexual content is easily analogous to ridding it of, say, Christians, or black people. And I'm pretty sure banning either of those would cause an uproar.

"I don't like this so I think nobody should be able to see this" is what tyranny is made of, my friend.

What is with you people today? go find my post and quote where I said I'd like to censor gays, or ban them from TV. Or are you just trying to sound clever? I don't particularly enjoy sex scenes on tv or on the big screen, to me it's pointless, if I want to see sex on tv, I'd just watch porn. Whatever, THIS is pointless.

TV is a medium for art :laugh:

tehsolace

03-01-2007, 09:10 PM

I think the US television media (I can't speak for other countries) has dug itself a hole when it comes to portraying sexual scenes on public channels (non-cable, safe for kids to watch).

We think its just fine to show a man and woman kissing, even to our children, but its somehow crossing the line to show children two men or two women kissing.

Its a double standard. I think children in the US would grow up to be more tolerant of gays if exposed to it via television more often.

Mechagodzilla

03-01-2007, 10:35 PM

TV is entertainment, it's not meant to teach you moral values. That's what you fail to understand.
Every form of media conveys a message, intentionally or not.
The current message given by network television is, basically, that gays aren't as good as straights.

Saying LOL ITS SI ONLY ENTERTAINMENTS is like when people congratulate Michael Bay for letting them "leave their brain at the door" while they absorb extreme amounts of misogyny in Bad Boys 2 and an anti-stem cell research screed in The Island.

It's pretty much an announcement that you've got low/no standards.

DeusExMachina

03-01-2007, 10:45 PM

I found pretty strong atheistic messages with The Island...

But that's neither here nor there. Nor am I saying Michael Bay is, at all, someone who directs good movies.

Mechagodzilla

03-01-2007, 11:10 PM

Atheistic messages be damned when a key message and plot point of the movie is that a women can't be trusted with her man's credit card, not to mention that stem cell research is directly equated with subjecting retarded children to the holocaust. :p

Gunner

04-01-2007, 12:23 AM

Every form of media conveys a message, intentionally or not.
The current message given by network television is, basically, that gays aren't as good as straights.

Saying LOL ITS SI ONLY ENTERTAINMENTS is like when people congratulate Michael Bay for letting them "leave their brain at the door" while they absorb extreme amounts of misogyny in Bad Boys 2 and an anti-stem cell research screed in The Island.

It's pretty much an announcement that you've got low/no standards.

Why do I even bother with the likes of you... your sense of rationality is impaired.

Jerry_111

04-01-2007, 01:25 AM

uh-oh, insults time ftw!

DeusExMachina

04-01-2007, 01:40 AM

Listen, the fact that we have an entire channel dedicated to it seems ample enough :|. And once again, we have a bunch of movies dealing with it. We're fine.

Rim-Fire

04-01-2007, 02:04 AM

15357

04-01-2007, 02:10 AM

freedom through censorship ..now that's a novel concept ....so there were no homosexuals before the invention of the television?

Nonono, there were no gays before the invention of language. :p

CptStern

04-01-2007, 02:46 AM

so language is the root of homosexuality? in other words once man evolved into an intelligent being able to communicate with others he then invented homosexuality? what came next? fire?

15357

04-01-2007, 02:54 AM

No, language is the root of... everything...

NOTE: Homosexuality may or may not apply due to it being naturally caused.

CptStern

04-01-2007, 02:55 AM

so if it's naturally caused then it would be immoral to suppress it, therefore your country is suppressing the right to freedom of expression ...what do you say to dem apples?

15357

04-01-2007, 02:57 AM

We aren't suppressing anything, are we?

CptStern

04-01-2007, 03:02 AM

We aren't suppressing anything, are we?

ummm yes you are

Civil Penal Code. Article 92 of the Military Penal Code, however, singles out sexual relations between members of the same sex as "sexual harassment," hence punishable by a maximum of one year servitude. The Military Penal Code does not distinguish between consensual and non-consensual crimes and states informed consensual intercourse between homosexual adults as "reciprocal rape"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights_in_South_Korea

15357

04-01-2007, 03:07 AM

Military Penal Code =/= Civil Criminal Codes

Core407

04-01-2007, 03:33 AM

Why do I even bother with the likes of you... your sense of rationality is impaired.

So you're saying that television doesn't have any affect on the viewers? Unfortunately television does alter out perceptions on things and it happens without us even knowing it.

A lack of homosexual characters on television doesn't say to me that "straights are better", though. I'd assume this is more of an issue of what the viewer wants and if there isn't a demand for these types of shows then whats the point of airing them? No ones going to watch and your networks going to get zero advertisement.

CptStern

04-01-2007, 04:18 AM

Military Penal Code =/= Civil Criminal Codes

it doesnt matter if it's specific to one segment, it's still suppression

Military Service is mandatory for all male citizens in South Korea. Enlistees are drafted through the Military Manpower Administration which administers a "psychology test" at the time of enlistment that includes several questions regarding the enlistee's sexual orientation. Homosexual military members in active duty are categorized as having a "personality disorder" or "behavioural disability" and can either be institutionalized or dishonorably discharged.

This is a problem since South Korea does not allow for conscientious objection and dishonorable discharge bears with it significant social pressure, as many South Korean companies will request a complete military service profile at the time of a job application. On military records, the applicants can appear as having been dishonorably discharged either due to their homosexuality or for being 'mentally handicapped'
.

and then there's the matter of censorship which by definition is suppression

The Government of South Korea practices censorship of gay-content websites through its Information and Communications Ethics Committee an official organ of the Ministry of Information and Communication. Homosexual and gay-related websites have been frequent and easy censorship targets, being blocked, filtered, or even outright banned by the Government. Most recently the Ethics Committee included several prominent gay websites and servers on its banned list, declaring them "Harmful Media to Adolescents"

Mechagodzilla

04-01-2007, 04:47 AM

Why do I even bother with the likes of you... your sense of rationality is impaired.

You do it because the make-up sex is wiiild, sugar.

What? It's about cloning, not stem cell research.
Yeah, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers isn't about communism; it's about aliens.

The plot is about cloning, but that's just the device through which the overall message is conveyed.
Of course, it's anti-cloning too. It's an extremely "pro-life" picture.

I mean, hell, the movie came out just a few months after the whole Terry Schivao debacle, and features an evil scientist doctor lying that his patients are in a persistent vegetative state, when they're actually fully conscious and he just wants to kill them for profit because he doesn't believe in the human soul. (!)

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 05:30 AM

its gross and should be banned

Stigmata

04-01-2007, 06:14 AM

its gross and should be bannedPlease, explain yourself. It's incredibly hard to debate entirely non-specific subjectiveness. Either that or I'm just tired.

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 06:32 AM

Please, explain yourself. It's incredibly hard to debate entirely non-specific subjectiveness. Either that or I'm just tired.

I dont want to debate it, I just think its gross on TV. Gays are getting more and more publicity these days and children are going to start to think its normal. Yes, its abnormal. But im not saying I hate gays, I just think it should be private and not on day-time television.

now LESBIANS are a diferent story :bounce:

Jerry_111

04-01-2007, 06:34 AM

I dont want to debate it, I just think its gross on TV. Gays are getting more and more publicity these days and children are going to start to think its normal. Yes, its abnormal. But im not saying I hate gays, I just think it should be private and not on day-time television.

now LESBIANS are a diferent story :bounce:

Hypocrisy much?

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 06:37 AM

Hypocrisy much?

ya think?

Stigmata

04-01-2007, 07:21 AM

Actually, if you bothered to educate yourself, you'd find that homosexuality is 100% normal, natural, and biological in nature. Many non-human species exhibit it, such as horses and dogs, and homosexual acts realistically effect society in no negative way whatsoever. The only problems arise when you find people, like you, who arbitrarily declare gay people to be "gross" or "wrong" or some other such unfounded total bullshit, and go on to claim that it should be banned because some ignorant assholes think gay people shouldn't exist.

No offense to anyone here (this, to me, is a VERY serious issue regarding human rights and freedom of expression, and I'm also massively frustrated at finding so much ignorance and hate in everyday life), but really, try and be objective when you're forming opinions about things that affect people who aren't you.

Mechagodzilla

04-01-2007, 08:31 AM

Hold on Stig, can't you see he's trying to assert his masculinity on the internet?

Education would blow that plan straight out of the water.

After all, the goal here is for people to be stupid and stay stupid, RE: things that they don't understand.

Que-Ever

04-01-2007, 08:47 AM

GAYS!

represent. (http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1097/gangstasjpgw560h374vu3.jpg)

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 12:45 PM

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 12:57 PM

Absinthe

04-01-2007, 01:56 PM

http://home.maine.rr.com/waassaap/Forum%20Pictures/YourAFag.jpg

Seriously?

MiccyNarc

04-01-2007, 02:47 PM

The number of gays on TV should be representative of the percentage of the population that is gay.

As long as there aren't alot of gay people, don't expect alot of gays on TV.

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 03:09 PM

I dont remember when being gay was normal. Did I miss something?

I was being somewhat loose with my last statements as I generally dont take most of what I read on these forums seriously, but some of you need to loosen up

Absinthe

04-01-2007, 03:14 PM

but some of you need to loosen up

Actually, that's a priority for homophobes. It's not the other way around.

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 03:19 PM

So the problem is with the "homophobes" and not the homosexuals?

MiccyNarc

04-01-2007, 03:25 PM

So the problem is with the "homophobes" and not the homosexuals?
I'm a Christian, and I say wholeheartedly:
Yes.

:laugh:@ Absinthe:

CptStern

04-01-2007, 03:42 PM

The number of gays on TV should be representative of the percentage of the population that is gay.

As long as there aren't alot of gay people, don't expect alot of gays on TV.

what's 6 to 10% of 300,000,000? ..one researcher says could be as high as 30% but he's probably just gay and wants more menz in the dating pool

I dont remember when being gay was normal. Did I miss something?

define normal .. "normality" is relative; what's "normal" to you may not be "normal" to me. In this particular case it highlights your own irrational prejudice more than anything else ..what business is it of yours what other people do with their lives? what right do you have to dictate what's normal or not? sorry but "normality" is not the judge of what's right or wrong because not so long ago it was "normal" to separate blacks from whites

So the problem is with the "homophobes" and not the homosexuals?

yes, how can you possibly argue otherwise? think about it: "some people have a problem with what other people do" ..it's just so obvious

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 03:50 PM

what's 6 to 10% of 300,000,000? ..one researcher says could be as high as 30% but he's probably just gay and wants more menz in the dating pool

define normal .. "normality" is relative; what's "normal" to you may not be "normal" to me. In this particular case it highlights your own irrational prejudice more than anything else ..what business is it of yours what other people do with their lives? what right do you have to dictate what's normal or not? sorry but "normality" is not the judge of what's right or wrong because not so long ago it was "normal" to separate blacks from whites

Normal = Not having sex with the same gender

There, that was easy

CptStern

04-01-2007, 04:07 PM

Normal = Not having sex with the same gender

There, that was easy

you didnt understand anything I said ..it's not normal to you ..but it is for other people ..are you equating being normal with majority vs minority? that argument doesnt hold any water as use of that argument you could make a case against every single special interest group in america ..but then would mean the end of personal freedoms and the beginning of a collective bound by the universal abhorrance of anything outside the norm

again what business is it of yours what other people do with their lives? ...if you're not going to answer all of my points at least answer that one question

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 04:15 PM

Its none of my business, I simply said i didn't care for it. Of course normality is relative, but in that sense, you can argue that sex with animals is normal. Im basing all of it on society.

Beerdude26

04-01-2007, 04:16 PM

Normal = Not having sex with the same gender

There, that was easyOoh, ooh :D

Is it also normal to stone women who have been raped? I'd LOVE to do that, but I'm not Islamic. Maybe if you agree with me, we can make a Christian/Islamic/Anti-Gay religion (and make some fat cash in the process!) :D

:|

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 04:24 PM

Where are you going with that?

CptStern

04-01-2007, 04:26 PM

Its none of my business, I simply said i didn't care for it.

doesnt matter if you like it or not it doesnt justify "banning" homosexuality as you originally called for

Of course normality is relative, but in that sense, you can argue that sex with animals is normal. .

I'd hardly call people who practice bestiality a "special interest group" ..the fact that it is illegal/non consentual makes it even less "normal"

Beerdude26

04-01-2007, 04:33 PM

Where are you going with that?People have opinions. Leave it at that.

However, if you start HURTING or DISRESPECTING people with your opinion, you're going to get criticized. Imagine you are, say, heavily dyslexic. And I feel that dyslexic people should be muted, because all they say is crap and most of the time can't even form a decent sentence. They are a burden to society because often they have to be babysitted all the time. You will find my opinion offensive. You are allowed to do that. You are also allowed to criticize my opinion, because it puts you in a lower "class" than I am in. Essentially, I find myself better than you (and I deserve more privileges, etc.). And that is pretty wrong, because that dyslexic person can't do anything about his problem. Doesn't matter if he had it at birth or because of a heavy accident.

Want me to draw the parallel with homosexuality?

Absinthe

04-01-2007, 04:38 PM

So the problem is with the "homophobes" and not the homosexuals?

Yes. Strong aversion to same-sex relationships has no basis in rational thought. It's a fear based on prejudice with unnatural, unhealthy reactions. I'm not advocating that you need to embrace homosexuality, turn bisexual, or sit through gay porn. But there isn't a rational case justifying the mentality of "its gross and should be banned".

If you think there is a "problem" with homosexuality, then explain yourself.

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 04:38 PM

doesnt matter if you like it or not it doesnt justify "banning" homosexuality as you originally called for

I was half kidding with that, obviously theres not a chance of banning homosexuality. We are way off topic now, back to Gays and television.

Do you think its appropriate for children to be exposed to such shows which almost promote homosexuality?

Beerdude26

04-01-2007, 04:42 PM

Do you think its appropriate for children to be exposed to such shows which almost promote homosexuality?Well (I'm presuming we're talking America here), there are also channels who promote the bible as the ultimate saviour, just dump 5.99$ into this account for the first page! Hell, I have absolutely no idea what other channels there would be in America, but I'm pretty sure some of them are very radical.

Absinthe

04-01-2007, 04:51 PM

Do you think its appropriate for children to be exposed to such shows which almost promote homosexuality?

What a bullshit question. It's not like there's anything on TV trying to convert innocent straight children into pill-popping rave fags. There is no promotion of homosexuality, unless you think merely exposing it qualifies as such, which is stupid. Shows with straight characters aren't promoting heterosexuality.

Even if there were serious gay-centric shows that don't mine the sexual preference for jokes (ala Will & Grace), what's the big fuss? So what if two guys kiss on TV? I hardly think that's going to scar this generation of offspring. And at the very least, you can change the channel. Behold the wondrous freedom the remote control has granted you.

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 04:51 PM

Well (I'm presuming we're talking America here), there are also channels who promote the bible as the ultimate saviour, just dump 5.99$ into this account for the first page! Hell, I have absolutely no idea what other channels there would be in America, but I'm pretty sure some of them are very radical.

You didnt answer my question

Absinthe

04-01-2007, 04:52 PM

Define "promote homosexuality". Ambiguous questions aren't cool.

CptStern

04-01-2007, 04:53 PM

I was half kidding with that, obviously theres not a chance of banning homosexuality. We are way off topic now, back to Gays and television.

Do you think its appropriate for children to be exposed to such shows which almost promote homosexuality?

please state a reason why it's not ..it's up to you to prove it's detrimental to children in any way ..oh and having two children of my own I can safely say they wouldnt care because they dont comprehend sexual/emotional relations ...homophobia in children can always be traced to their parents: it's a learned behaviour

Absinthe

04-01-2007, 04:56 PM

YOU ARE LEADING YOUR CHILDREN DOWN THE DARK PATH OF SODOMY AND INCEST

RETURN TO THE LIGHT

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 05:01 PM

You have to tell me if you think homosexuality is inborn or learned for me to go down that rocky road

CptStern

04-01-2007, 05:04 PM

did you choose to be heterosexual?

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 05:07 PM

ya, it was question 7 on the sats

CptStern

04-01-2007, 05:07 PM

I'll take that as a "no"

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 05:09 PM

Eh, i lost interest in this thread, good game

Stigmata

04-01-2007, 05:24 PM

Eh, i lost interest in this thread, good gameWe were consistent in our arguments, we provided evidence, we were objective.

You changed your argument a number of times, misrepresented ours, asked purposefully vague questions, ignored answers that proved you wrong, dodged questions, and provided no evidence for your views in any capacity.

You hardly "lost interest" in the thread; I'd go so far as to say you lost.

CptStern

04-01-2007, 05:29 PM

Eh, i lost interest in this thread, good game

because you're not effectively defending your POV?

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 05:36 PM

becuase i dont really need to defend it anymore. I say i dont like it, you say you dotn care. thats that.....plus i just got a huge promotion at work and my minds elsewhere......:)

Solaris

04-01-2007, 05:37 PM

becuase i dont really need to defend it anymore. I say i dont like it, you say you dotn care. thats that.....plus i just got a huge promotion at work and my minds elsewhere......:)
Please don't post here again if your going to say something stupid, then jump out and have people waste their time replying.

CptStern

04-01-2007, 05:41 PM

becuase i dont really need to defend it anymore. I say i dont like it, you say you dotn care. thats that

opinion is meaningless unless backed up with something ..anything

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 05:42 PM

Please don't post here again if your going to say something stupid, then jump out and have people waste their time replying.

Speaking of stupid posts...

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=118290

and who are you to tell me not to post here? I was a content writer for a good amount of time with this website. How about you think before you speak.

Absinthe

04-01-2007, 05:52 PM

Stigmata

04-01-2007, 05:59 PM

Speaking of stupid posts...

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=118290

and who are you to tell me not to post here? I was a content writer for a good amount of time with this website. How about you think before you speak.You seem to be missing the point.

See, we here in Politics have this thing called "reasoning". It's usually comprised of three key parts: "opinion", "objectivity", and "evidence". This so-called "reasoning" allows us to have educated debates regarding political and social issues.

You, on the other hand, seem to have a severe deficiency of objectivity and evidence. This deficiency leads you to show, through your posts, that you do not in fact have anything to offer to the debate.

As such, it's probably best that you leave this thread. You don't want to come here with an open mind, and we don't want to waste our time debating with someone who is quite clearly incapable of the act.

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 06:02 PM

I was under the impression that your contributions as a content writer were pretty much jack. Not like it matters though, since you aren't one any more and the position is independent of whatever crap you post on the forums.

Hahaha, someones tough....I guess when all else fails, try insulting the person, that usually works. Grow up a little.

You seem to be missing the point.

See, we here in Politics have this thing called "reasoning". It's usually comprised of three key parts: "opinion", "objectivity", and "evidence". This so-called "reasoning" allows us to have educated debates regarding political and social issues.

You, on the other hand, seem to have a severe deficiency of objectivity and evidence. This deficiency leads you to show, through your posts, that you do not in fact have anything to offer to the debate.

As such, it's probably best that you leave this thread. You don't want to come here with an open mind, and we don't want to waste our time debating with someone who is quite clearly incapable of the act.

:laugh:

Stigmata

04-01-2007, 06:05 PM

[edit] Nevermind. Ignorant, but not quite childish enough for blocking.

[edit2] Actually, never mind. Childish pretty much covers it.

CptStern

04-01-2007, 06:08 PM

alright guys take a deep breath ...Tyguy you have to expect that your opinion will be questioned especially when they're so controversial ..so you have to expect people will question your reasoning because it doesnt seem like its based on anything of substance

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 06:09 PM

Are you going to block me, oh mature one?

Absinthe

04-01-2007, 06:11 PM

Hahaha, someones tough....I guess when all else fails, try insulting the person, that usually works. Grow up a little.

Irony at its most delicious. Somebody that feels the need assert his hetero-manliness and then pretend he doesn't care about the argument he's partaking in is accusing me of acting tough. And after posting a dated, lame picture calling somebody a fag, I'm childish.

I'm curious as to where you think I actually insulted you. If memory serves me correctly, your contributions were sparse and you were essentially dead weight. That was the objective reality of your time as a content writer, correct?

CptStern

04-01-2007, 06:12 PM

tyguy you're purposefully being a jackass ...I'm not going to defend you if you cant add to this conversation in a constructive way

Absinthe

04-01-2007, 06:16 PM

Don't bother. He expresses the same clueless dumb****ery in nearly every one of his posts.

There. Now I insulted him. Guess I better get back to growing up!

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 06:17 PM

tyguy you're purposefully being a jackass ...I'm not going to defend you if you cant add to this conversation in a constructive way

Constructive left a few pages ago as soon as the personal attacks started.

Beerdude26

04-01-2007, 06:18 PM

:laugh:What? He's right, you know :|

Stigmata

04-01-2007, 06:19 PM

Are you going to block me, oh mature one?Actually, no, I'm not going to block you. Why would I?

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 06:26 PM

Gotta love stirring sh!t up in the politics room

kirovman

04-01-2007, 06:53 PM

Gotta love stirring sh!t up in the politics room

With your penis?

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 06:58 PM

With your penis?

I cant type well with that, it hits more than 1 key :P

brink's

04-01-2007, 06:59 PM

Gotta love stirring sh!t up in the politics room

Tyguy, maybe you should just stop posting. You can't tell me that you posted legions of biased, unjustified and largely idiotic responses for the sole purpose of pissing us off.

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 07:03 PM

sshhhhhhhhh

CptStern

04-01-2007, 07:09 PM

intentionally stirring up shit has led to quite a few bans around here ..I would prefer that you actually debated points/ideology than flame for the sake of flaming

KagePrototype

04-01-2007, 07:20 PM

Gotta love stirring sh!t up in the politics room

Not really. :P

Less trolling Tyguy, or you're gone.

I was a content writer for a good amount of time with this website. How about you think before you speak.

Less of this as well. You were removed from the team for a reason.

brink's

04-01-2007, 07:20 PM

intentionally stirring up shit has led to quite a few bans around here ..I would prefer that you actually debated points/ideology than flame for the sake of flaming

Hopefully it will lead to one more

GET ON IT MECHA!!!

Raziaar

04-01-2007, 07:22 PM

Hopefully it will lead to one more

GET ON IT MECHA!!!

You're not exactly encouraging the situation to get back on track with that sort of post.

brink's

04-01-2007, 07:27 PM

I was just kidding around, wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 07:28 PM

brink isnt very nice

jondy

04-01-2007, 07:37 PM

You were removed from the team for a reason.

He was gay?

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 07:42 PM

Less of this as well. You were removed from the team for a reason.

No warning, just a swift kick out the door for not posting news in a while.....

Hectic Glenn

04-01-2007, 07:51 PM

I was a content writer for a good amount of time with this website. How about you think before you speak.
Indeed, it would seem we got a lucky break when I decided to remove you from this content team. And this attitude you are displaying is most concerning, you can forget any further follow ups from the PM's you've sent myself & Pi about moderation status, you've displayed some crazy behaviour here, which doesn't impress one bit.

I firmly believe that we as human beings are continually evolving, but not physically so much, but through our beliefs and attitudes. As time goes by we should be progressing to states of mind whereby we are more accepting of a vastly varied society and the people within it. This gay debate is just one example in a large mixed bag, but I do think everyday things are moving on to a near perfect acceptance level. Going to take some more time, but evolution of ideas is in practice, it's clear to see.

kirovman

04-01-2007, 07:57 PM

gh0st was once a member of the news team...

CptStern

04-01-2007, 08:05 PM

wow Tyguy you really escalated this non issue into a big lets all point fingers at Tyguy ..but you only have yourself to blame ...anyways it's funny how some antiquated POVs survive the test of time

I find that while people are generally more progressive than they were 20 years ago I also find that the flipside are far more vocal than ever ...it doesnt matter what issue it is someone will always find something to find disagreeable ..especially when it comes to individual rights ..oddly enough it's alm ost always attached to some religious moral principle ..so in conclusion kill all religions and we'll progress faster :)

Mechagodzilla

04-01-2007, 08:08 PM

Right, so do any real people have reasons why gays shouldn't be presented neutrally on network tv?

I like to think of it this way: where was the last time you saw a statue honoring the man who prevented civil rights?
And then, who would want a statue made of themself for that purpose?
I'm pretty sure we don't teach our children to celebrate "The Guy Who Shot Martin Luther King Jr. Day" or "Strom Thurmond Day"
It should be blatantly clear that society at large doesn't stand for this bullshit, which is certainly why folks like tyguy have to bring it to the internet.

So much for the gays being socially unacceptable and harmful to children.

Que-Ever

04-01-2007, 08:46 PM

This may not be much of a point, but imagine sex ed for kids if they had to learn about gays then, too. It might not be too bad for kids who had gay parents already.

CptStern

04-01-2007, 08:50 PM

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 08:51 PM

I dont understand....am i the only one who would be concerned if the gay community was no longer a minority?

Que-Ever

04-01-2007, 08:51 PM

ummm why would sex ed have to get into details about gay sex? the only reason why it's even discussed in hetero couples is because of the reproductive process ..and could they just say: "everything that applies to heterosexual sex applies to homosexual sex ..except penile/vaginal penetration"

I forget how I came to that conclusion. It was an interesting process.

soemthing like, "And sometimes, they take it in the pooper" and the kids are all like, " D: "

I dont understand....am i the only one who would be concerned if the gay community was no longer a minority?

And why would that happen?

CptStern

04-01-2007, 08:53 PM

but that could be taken for heteros too ... "and sometimes seamen inexplicably ends up in someone's mouth" and the kids are like D:

I dont understand....am i the only one who would be concerned if the gay community was no longer a minority?

if it's a majority do you have so little faith in your own heterosexuality that simple peer pressure would have you all of the sudden wanting man-cock?

"hmmm they all seem to like it, maybe it's not all that bad, perhaps if I just tried it ..."

the only explanation I can come up with to explain your thought processes is that you're self-loathing closeted gay ...or as I explained before you're not sure where you stand sexually and are just looking for support/derision so you can finally make up your mind

of course I'm speculating, perhaps your god demands you hate gays

DeusExMachina

04-01-2007, 08:55 PM

I dont understand....am i the only one who would be concerned if the gay community was no longer a minority?

How would the gay community ever become more than a minority?

Que-Ever

04-01-2007, 08:58 PM

but that could be taken for heteros too ... "and sometimes seamen inexplicably ends up in someone's mouth" and the kids are like D:

Oh! Now I remember. I don't really know how it's done nowadays, but the videos from fifth or sixth grade, as far as I can remember, were along the lines of "when a man and a woman love each other very much..." except with diagrams. It was still a bit mind blowing, or at least is was for those of us who were still innocent. And then to learn immediately afterwards would be like, a mind scramble. Like fried eggs leaking out of our ears. I dunno, TBH I was a stupid little kid.

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 09:03 PM

but that could be taken for heteros too ... "and sometimes seamen inexplicably ends up in someone's mouth" and the kids are like D:

if it's a majority do you have so little faith in your own heterosexuality that simple peer pressure would have you all of the sudden wanting man-cock?

"hmmm they all seem to like it, maybe it's not all that bad, perhaps if I just tried it ..."

the only explanation I can come up with to explain your thought processes is that you're self-loathing closeted gay ...or as I explained before you're not sure where you stand sexually and are just looking for support/derision so you can finally make up your mind

of course I'm speculating, perhaps your god demands you hate gays

There we go, another personal comment....

Que-Ever

04-01-2007, 09:04 PM

If you take it personally then it's probably true.

CptStern

04-01-2007, 09:09 PM

There we go, another personal comment....

what? I'm not attacking you personally ...I'm trying to rationalise your POV ..come on man not everything is an attack

Tyguy

04-01-2007, 09:09 PM

If you take it personally then it's probably true.

cute

Que-Ever

04-01-2007, 09:12 PM

Shut up baby, I know it.

Stigmata

05-01-2007, 12:12 AM

Look, Tyguy, we don't care whether or not you're gay. We're simply entertaining the notion that perhaps the reason you're so vehemently negative towards homosexuality is that you're kidding yourself. It's perfectly alright if you are, nobody I know would think any less of you for it (in fact, I'd think more of you, since coming out takes a lot of courage and confidence).

If you're not, that's fine too, but there's reason to suspect that this is the case, and it would explain your behaviour.

PvtRyan

05-01-2007, 12:33 AM

Yeah, I'm betting Tyguy is quite the Ted Haggard.

Raziaar

05-01-2007, 12:43 AM

All of you... and myself. JUST SHUT THE **** UP already. Quit ragging on each other. You're all turning this into a playground verbal fight.

Que-Ever

05-01-2007, 12:47 AM

You smell.

EDIT: oh wait, that's what we're avoiding.

Stigmata

05-01-2007, 12:52 AM

Alright, alright. Issue at hand.

Those opposed to the representation of homosexuals on television, please provide evidence to back up your claims that it is harmful.

Jerry_111

05-01-2007, 12:54 AM

*looks at my thread

D:

*runs away

Mechagodzilla

05-01-2007, 04:21 AM

Core407

05-01-2007, 04:35 AM

I like how certain folks are afraid of gays being a majority, when all common sense holds that as being pretty much impossible.

Gays don't reproduce, being gay is not hereditary and, unlike bisexuality, it can't be taught.

The only reason you'd have to be afraid of homosexuality is if you were gay and, in denial, clinging tenuously to a straight lifestyle.
But we shan't go there because it's a "sensitive gay area" for certain folks.

Emphasis, above, on how sexuality can't be taught. It's biological, by any scientific standard.

Some people just find the idea of two gay man just disgusting. I don't really care, but I object to any public displays of homosexuality or any of their parades.

The parades are just hilarious to me. They basically take all the stereotypes and run, or rather prance, with them. :P

Note: I'm against public displays of heterosexuality.

Mechagodzilla

05-01-2007, 04:41 AM

CptStern

05-01-2007, 04:47 AM

oh man that's a tough trade off ..tempting but no, idiots can be ignored (shut up stern, no they cant)

note: I am against public displays of idiocy

Mechagodzilla

05-01-2007, 04:58 AM

No, see, if idiots aren't allowed in public, then they can't campaign for this retarded nonsense. :shh:

Idiocy can reproduce, is hereditary, and is constantly taught.
Hell, idiots are already the vast majority.

So which group is the real threat then?

Unlike core though, I'll be kind enough to let the idiots out - as long as it's for one of their parades. (http://www.pamspaulding.com/graphics/straight/P1010017.jpg)

Beerdude26

05-01-2007, 05:03 AM

"and sometimes seamen inexplicably ends up in someone's mouth" and the kids are like D::laugh:

Mechagodzilla

05-01-2007, 05:14 AM

CptStern

05-01-2007, 05:15 AM

Mechagodzilla

05-01-2007, 05:17 AM

I was totally going to use that picture. :P

CptStern

05-01-2007, 05:21 AM

I love that photo. I want to meet him and thank him

love the straight parade pic, goes right into my "funny pics to piss off homophobes" folder :)

Mechagodzilla

05-01-2007, 05:30 AM

The best part is either A) that they are dressed as furries or B) that over 50% of the thirty-ish people who showed up were gay.

Kadayi

14-01-2007, 02:14 AM

Unless the 'Gay' aspect is fundamental to the plot or it drives a characters behaviour in a film/show I'm really not seeing the need tbh.

Core407

14-01-2007, 02:28 AM

So you don't care except for when you are against all public displays?
What constitutes a "public display of homosexuality"?

Holding hands?
Wearing a shirt with a rainbow on it?

"Yeah, hi, I'm Freedom of Speech and you just spat in my face."

How about this: you can ban gays from public once I'm allowed to ban idiots from the same.

Ever seen the Gay Pride Parade? Those guys are taking gays back 50 years all by themselves. They're some fruitass mother****ers!

I'm against all forms of public displays of affection (straight or gay). Did you happen to even read the last line in my post? I don't mind arguing about this stuff, but I do mind when people ignore aspects of a post for whatever reason.

I don't have a problem with gays at all. I don't really give a shit because I'm not threatened by them. Gays sure do enjoy to use their sexual preference as a crutch though.

Edit: I also find it funny that whenever a straight man dislikes a gay man, they get accused of being homophobes.

To anyones who is gay, here are some questions the straight world wants to know.

Whats the deal with the wrist?
Do guys start talking with lisps for a reason?

Core407

14-01-2007, 02:34 AM

Hey, an idea: If being gay is so repulsive to "normal" "straight" people like core & friends, shouldn't they want to educate kids as much as possible about the spooky g-g-g-gays?

You'd think they'd want to "Never Forget" the attrocity of anal sex, but instead it's like they're denying that the anal holocaust inflicted upon them by "The Gay" ever occured.

Stop denying the anal holocaust!

Once again, where did I say I'm repulsed by gays? I clearly stated that I don't give a flying ****, but that most people are repulsed by it.

Mechagodzilla: Are you gay by any chance?

CptStern

14-01-2007, 02:55 AM

Once again, where did I say I'm repulsed by gays?

this doesnt sound like a term of endearment:

They're some fruitass mother****ers!

I also find it funny that whenever a straight man dislikes a gay man, they get accused of being homophobes.

homophobe: 1. a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality

I clearly stated that I don't give a flying ****, but that most people are repulsed by it.

including you

Whats the deal with the wrist?
Do guys start talking with lisps for a reason?

:upstare: how old are you?

Core407

14-01-2007, 03:05 AM

this doesnt sound like a term of endearment:

homophobe: 1. a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality

including you

:upstare: how old are you?

So if a straight guy happens to dislike a gay man because of his personality, it must mean hes a homophobe? Theres plenty of gay people who don't have to shove their sexuality in everyones face.

I'll never hang out with a feminine homosexual for the simple fact that its indicative of their personality. Same way I won't hang out with heterosexual guys who are going at 100% full speed all the time or some guy who gets angry at the drop of a dime.

While my questions were in poor taste, they're still questions I'd like to have answered. I honestly just want to know. You could almost say I'm fascinated by it, really.

It's not a term of endearment, but it wasn't meant to be. It's a direct reference to a previous post and it's 100% true. The simple fact is that it disgusts people.

CptStern

14-01-2007, 03:16 AM

So if a straight guy happens to dislike a gay man because of his personality, it must mean hes a homophobe?

no, he dislikes that particular person because of their personality not their sexual preference ..I thought that would be abvious considering the definition of homophobe is someone who dislikes homosexuals not personalities

Theres plenty of gay people who don't have to shove their sexuality in everyones face.

does this happen often to you? do strange gay men come up to you and shove their sexuality in their face? ..are you threatened by their homosexuality?

I'll never hang out with a feminine homosexual for the simple fact that its indicative of their personality.

that's homophobia: it's the fact that they're gay that would prevent you from "hanging out with him" ..if he was macho gay would you hang out with him?

Same way I won't hang out with heterosexual guys who are going at 100% full speed all the time or some guy who gets angry at the drop of a dime.

again those two examples are because of their annoying habits ..unless you're willing to say you'd hang out with macho gay guys my original assessment stands

While my questions were in poor taste, they're still questions I'd like to have answered. I honestly just want to know. You could almost say I'm fascinated by it, really.

or repulsed? ..why do americans all talk like they've just stepped out of a barn? why cant white guys dance? why do all italians drive camaros? ...are you seeing my point? that stereotype is just that? a stereotype ..I've met/worked with many gays and I'd say perhaps 1% fit that stereotype ..some you would never know

Kadayi

14-01-2007, 03:24 AM

no, he dislikes that particular person because of their personality not their sexual preference ..I thought that would be abvious considering the definition of homophobe is someone who dislikes homosexuals not personalities

But the sad truth is though Cpt, that there are unfortunately a lot of gay men whose entire personality revolves around them being a 'homosexual' rather than that merely being a part of their nature. I like sticking my dick in asian chicks, but I don't let that penchant rule my life, or feel the need to go on about it at length at every drop of a hat.

Core407

14-01-2007, 03:25 AM

no, he dislikes that particular person because of their personality not their sexual preference ..I thought that would be abvious considering the definition of homophobe is someone who dislikes homosexuals not personalities

You're the one who posted the definition of a homophobe in the previous post. I too thought it would be obvious, but I guess I was wrong.

does this happen often to you? do strange gay men come up to you and shove their sexuality in their face? ..are you threatened by their homosexuality?

Actually yes, they do. I work with a gay guy who happens to shove it in my face every day (not literally of course!). I told you, I'm not a homophobe . I honestly just don't care and you can keep calling me a homophobe all you want.

I'll tell you this though. You know how I'm not threatened by their sexuality? Because when I jerkoff, its to women and not guys. Get it? Dudes don't give me boners and that alone is enough security i need.

that's homophobia: it's the fact that they're gay that would prevent you from "hanging out with him" ..if he was macho gay would you hang out with him?

What the hell is macho gay? I'd hang out with a gay person who doesn't annoy the shit out of me. To me, someone flailing their wrists around and making a scene about some trivial thing does not sound like a good time.

again those two examples are because of their annoying habits ..unless you're willing to say you'd hang out with macho gay guys my original assessment stands

or repulsed? ..why do americans all talk like they've just stepped out of a barn? why cant white guys dance? why do all italians drive camaros? ...are you seeing my point? that stereotype is just that? a stereotype ..I've met/worked with many gays and I'd say perhaps 1% fit that stereotype ..some you would never know

Oh man its like talking to a wall here. I'm simply stating that most people find homosexuals repulsive. People are naturally afraid of foreign things and I can completely understand why a male who has no exposure to gay culture would have ignorant views on the subject. IM NOT CONDONING IT THOUGH. JUST PLEASE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO GET ANYTHING OUT OF MY POST, PLEASE LET IT BE THIS.

I look forward to a response that ignores everything that I say.

Beerdude26

14-01-2007, 04:42 AM

Stern is just annoying you because you forgot the word "some".

Gays sure do enjoy to use their sexual preference as a crutch though.If you had put:

Some gays sure do enjoy to use their sexual preference as a crutch though.Nothing would have happened, because there are indeed some people like that. The most important thing when talking about stuff like this is to check your posts for accidental generalizations.

Nemesis6

14-01-2007, 04:50 AM

What would you guys say if I said that one's sexual preference isn't something television should affirm or discourage?

We had the Gay 5 on TV. I don't know if they're on anymore. They made my blood boil and was one of the reasons I stopped watching TV. If you mean people like that, then I will brain you. They piss me off. And that's where the distinction has to be made: There's a difference between being TV-gay and just being gay. The people who walk around and grope other men on screen - That's not right and they be punished in some way for annoying me.

Mechagodzilla

14-01-2007, 06:29 AM

That's a shame your blood gets heated up watching the homosexual groping show. Whatever show it is you're talking about.

Also, real-life people grope eachother too.
That's what makes Core sad. People shouldn't touch eachother because he doesn't like it. :(
And yes, I did in fact read that bit you added. But straight rights aren't exactly in real danger, are they?

Also, Core, what sexuality do you think I am?

Man, it's like the victorian era and people are talking about The Negro.

_Z_Ryuken

14-01-2007, 06:39 AM

Gays should represent themselves. It's not any networks responsibility.

If that bothers you, get into TV and represent your people.

Jintor

14-01-2007, 07:42 AM

You shouldn't enforce quotas or something like that.

I agree with _Z_Ryuken. Don't just sit there and nag someone else to represent you. Represent yourself.

(Unless you're in court.)

Stigmata

14-01-2007, 08:11 AM

The problem arises when the people that own networks, and censor networks, decide that homosexuals shouldn't be represented. Hence where quotas come in.

Quotas of representation should be enforced up until the point at which the representation is self-sustaining.

_Z_Ryuken

14-01-2007, 09:19 AM

Mechagodzilla

14-01-2007, 09:31 AM

Hold up, I'm not saying quotas or anything. That's retarded affirmative action bullhockey.
But, at the same time, this "represent yourself or you don't matter" stuff is also crap.

The point was that the producers and studios, and everyone involved in the artistic process should finally get around making a normal gay character for once. Just to see if they can.

Kadayi

14-01-2007, 01:31 PM

The point was that the producers and studios, and everyone involved in the artistic process should finally get around making a normal gay character for once. Just to see if they can.

You talk about Gay as if it's something that is tangible like skin colour, height or a persons sex. Where as it's purely a behavioural issue. Sure there might be a gay gene, but your not seeing it externally. All you see is the behaviour of a person, and that behaviour leading to experiences. The trap a great many people fall into is they let their past actions define their future ones.

gick

14-01-2007, 04:04 PM

The point was that the producers and studios, and everyone involved in the artistic process should finally get around making a normal gay character for once. Just to see if they can.

All the gay people I have spoken to about this, and similar subjects are of that opinion. FFS, people need to learn that just because someone is gay doesnt mean that they let it govern their entire lives and personalities.

Core407

14-01-2007, 06:30 PM

Absinthe

14-01-2007, 06:31 PM

Baseless ad hominems are fun.

Core407

14-01-2007, 06:33 PM

It's their networks. They decide what to air. They decide when to air it. They decide who is mature enough to see what. They decide what is to be seen. It is their business.

If you want control, get your own channel. Make your own commercials. Don't force people to do what they don't want to do.

The funny part is that the reason why we don't see it isn't because networks don't want it, but because people don't want it. Networks are competing for viewers and its pretty clear that people don't just want to see gay characters thrown on a random show.

RakuraiTenjin

14-01-2007, 08:18 PM

Wait actually I think there's more gays in shows than you think. And I don't mean gay actors I mean people in the show who are gay.

Hell take the entire show Frasier for example

Kadayi

14-01-2007, 10:04 PM

Hell take the entire show Frasier for example

LOL, I must of missed that episode :laugh:

CptStern

15-01-2007, 04:10 PM

Wait actually I think there's more gays in shows than you think. And I don't mean gay actors I mean people in the show who are gay.

Hell take the entire show Frasier for example

:upstare: there are no gay characters on fraiser

What would you guys say if I said that one's sexual preference isn't something television should affirm or discourage?

so no more beer ads featuring bikini clad babes? ...cant be affirming/discouraging sexual preference on tv

We had the Gay 5 on TV. I don't know if they're on anymore. They made my blood boil and was one of the reasons I stopped watching TV.

never heard of gay 5 ..why are you watching gay programs if it makes your blood boil?

If you mean people like that, then I will brain you. They piss me off.

so because they "piss you off" they have no right to exist? if you pissed someone off does that give them the right to take you out back and shoot you? why do you even care? what right do you have to make any sort of judgement on what other people do? how does them being gay affect your life in any way? (besides having high boold pressure)

And that's where the distinction has to be made: There's a difference between being TV-gay and just being gay. The people who walk around and grope other men on screen -

what gay programs have you been watching? and why are you watching gay programs if you're repulsed by it?

That's not right and they be punished in some way for annoying me.

you're starting to annoy me, you should be horse whipped, tarred and featured and paraded naked through your neighbourhood because as a tax paying citizen I have a right not to be annoyed

..btw who made you the authority on morality? you dont speak for me or anybody else besides yourself