Bozell Column: The 'Good News' About Gay Teens
If anyone doubts that our entertainment industry and our entertainment media are evangelists for a revolution of sexual immorality (or in their lingo, “progress”), he needs only to read the latest cover story in Entertainment Weekly magazine, a “special report” on gay teen characters on TV, and “How a bold new class of young gay characters on shows like 'Glee' is changing hearts, minds, and Hollywood.”
Gay “Glee” actor Chris Colfer and his boyfriend on the show, Darren Criss, lovingly put their heads together on the cover. Colfer just won a Golden Globe for his part, which is another way the Hollywood press rewards propagandizing the youth of America. In his acceptance speech, he lamented anyone who would say a discouraging word about teen homosexuality, somehow putting all of those words in mouths of bullies: “Screw that, kids!”
In this cover story, Colfer likens the gay couple he and Criss play to beloved and iconic teen-romance “Happy Days” characters from the 1970s: “They're kind of like the Joanie and Chachi of our generation,” he suggests. That line was played up in large promotional type over a full-page photograph of the couple.
Their most controversial scene was the two private school boys singing “Baby, It's Cold Outside” to each other on the Fox show. “That was the gayest thing that has ever been on TV, period, “ Colfer boasted. The magazine touted this was the hottest-selling track on the “Glee” Christmas album, which gives you a flavor of Hollywood's reverence for that holy day.
As you might suspect, Entertainment Weekly didn't plan to debate gay teen propaganda, but to encourage it, energetically. Not a single soul had anything critical to say. Not even a question. If this magazine weren't so earnestly in the tank, the story could come with a disclaimer: “This issue is an advertisement bought and paid for by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.”
Writer Jennifer Armstrong summed it up like this: “The good news: Young gay characters are on a momentous roll after years of stops and starts.” EW championed under the inside headline how “networks are making up for years of on-air silence and providing inspiration for real-life youth (and parents) still searching for answers.” Armstrong says gay characters are “not just an accepted, but <ital>expected<ital> part of teen-centric television.” (Emphasis hers.)
They are not celebrating diversity. They are intimidating dissidents.
In their Gay Teen Timeline, we hear the gay actors proclaiming the lack of opposition. “We never received a negative word,” says the gay actor on ABC's 1994 bomb “My So-Called Life.” The gay teen on ABC's “Ugly Betty” insisted “99 percent of the public response was positive.” Translation: get in line.
One of the leading cable channels in this revolution is ABC Family, which has come a very long distance from its origins as a Pat Robertson channel. Entertainment Weekly crowed that they top GLAAD's “Network Responsibility Index” – as in, you have a responsibility to engage in didactic pro-gay messaging. Most of ABC Family's teen shows seem to have a sympathetic gay character: “Greek,” “Huge,” Pretty Little Liars,” and “The Secret Life of the American Teenager.”
ABC Family vice president Kate Juergens underlined that the children are expecting this: “With our millennial audience, it's what they expect to see...'Don't Ask Don't Tell' was such a vestige of an older generation.”
But there is always a new trail to blaze. Teen Nick’s grope opera “Degrassi” has had eight gay characters, and is now normalizing “Adam,” a female-to-male transgender teen. Co-creator Linda Schuyler proclaimed “People are realizing that the lines of sexuality are not just drawn between gay guys and lesbian girls, but there is a sliding scale of sexuality, and that's something new."
No one should be surprised that Armstrong and her GLAAD allies are also pushing to take the pro-gay message to grade-schoolers. Armstrong complained gay characters are “entirely absent from mainstream sitcoms and tween networks like Disney Channel and Nickelodeon.” Disney Channel issued the magazine a vague statement about their “responsibility to present age-appropriate programming for millions of kids age 6-14 around the world.”
"Age-appropriate" is not a term these activists recognize. Parents should understand that their young children are the next propaganda targets.
- Brent Bozell's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
"It {Glee gay love song} was
Submitted by ant on Fri, 01/28/2011 - 11:36pm.
"It {Glee gay love song} was the gayest thing on television." Yeah, it sounds like it, but I mean the old definition of "lame as hell and something to make the hetero's uncomfortable".
There are now minority quotas for sit-coms? That's pretty gay.
The Good Old Days
Submitted by Joe W. on Fri, 01/28/2011 - 11:37pm.
I yearn for those good old days when sex was discussed within the family and kept to the privacy of the bedroom. I am not a prude, in fact I enjoy a good x-rated movie on occasion. However, flaunting sexuality of any sort is not very appropriate even in today's world. Kids should not be subjected to this information until they are emotionally mature enough to deal with it. And that maturity is best left to the parents to determine. Just sayin'.
I am right there with you.
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Fri, 01/28/2011 - 11:50pm.
I am right there with you. You can direct most of your anger toward Hollywood. For some reason, the industry that enjoys all the greatest perks of the U.S.A. is also the industry that for several decades now has slowly tried to strip us of our morals, values, decency and responsibility.
After Hollywood, you can blame the MSM news outlets.
An Ex-Homosexual Discusses His Conversion
Submitted by papagiorgio200 on Fri, 01/28/2011 - 11:42pm.
There is a video embeded in this post that all here will thoroughly enjoy as it deals with this topic.
During a Q&A with Ravi Zacharias and RZIM at Oxford, a homosexual man asks a question but really ends up encouraging those in the faith of the miraculous work of God in peoples changed lives.
Something said during this exchange that really clicks with my understanding of this very important issue. Love. Most often — as I note often in my debates and posts on this topic (see below) — there is abuse or some family issue that drives these young men and women into this lifestyle. While I am more of a political-animal/armchair-philosopher and I deal with this issue in a “cut-n-dry” fashion, love is the motivating factor of change….
Read more: RPT What Started Out As a Question Ended Up Being a Lesson In Gods Love
ying and yang
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 12:08am.
I'm around teenagers on occassion and when they are calling one another Gay and queer it isn't meant as a compliment. They MAY be more tolerant but they still don't want to be Gay. I say may be more tolerant because it may only be societal pressure to exhibit tolerance. Believe me when the boys and girls are together they ain't same sex curious.
But as far as nobody getting upset with the new Gay shows, it means people are finally tired of fighting the issue. the fact there are Gay shows is getting to be boring. Gays will never get complete acceptance only indifference.
Mid, At this point in
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 12:26am.
Mid,
At this point in history, with all our problems and more of them coming at us every day, all I can manage is "indifference" - to gays, to gays and their "problems", to gays on television, to gay characters on television, to gay teenager characters on television - all of it. I can't get worked up about it any longer - I'm indifferent.
ditto here
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 12:46am.
There is some scary stuff happening in this world so I don't have enough time to waste getting worked up about two baby-faced boys making goo-goo eyes at each other.
What's really odd is that the lefties were always getting down on Right-wing Social Conservatives for trying to 'impose' their agenda on others. But who is really relentlessly pushing a social agenda? It ain't the Conservatives.
While the Lefties are fixated on Global warming, trans-fats, smoking and Sarah Palin we may be seeing the Mideast being transformed in front of our eyes. A unified Islamic Mideast has been an Arab dream for centuries. A unified radical Islamic confederation could be disasterous for the Western democracies.
The United States used to be called the leader of the free world but is now a crippled giant and the Europeans are just pathetic cowards who will do as they did in centuries past when confronted by marauding hoards, they will surrender their towns for plundering.
It is funny to see the left
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 12:57am.
In such an uproar over homosexuality.
Time goes on, we've moved on. Much more important things goin' on.
(There's a lyric there, somewhere).
Chris, I agree with you that
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 8:53am.
Chris, I agree with you that there are more important things going on, but this, too, has serious implications for our society.
To me, the most frightening quote in that article is this one:
Co-creator Linda Schuyler proclaimed “People are realizing that the lines of sexuality are not just drawn between gay guys and lesbian girls, but there is a sliding scale of sexuality, and that's something new."
A sliding scale of sexuality???? Holy Cannoli! Anything goes? It's all OK? If it feels good, do?
I hate to talk "slippery slope" but there's no other way to describe this. With efforts to remove the stigma from pedophilia, and the continued sexualizing of our children (I read last week where a couple of second-graders were performing sex acts in a classroom!) this can't be good.
How long before they are portraying sex between teachers and students as just fine? Senior Orgy instead of Prom?
A "sliding scale of sexuality" is nothing more than a sliding scale of morality. A generation that is fixated on its own degenerate pleasure will accomplish nothing.
I weep for my grandchildren, and what they are and will be exposed to.
Wrong
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 10:01am.
A sliding scale of sexuality refers to orientation, not actions. There is nothing about having a sexual identity in the middle of that scale that requires you to behave on the end of a scale of moral behavior.
For instance, if Kurt and his boyfriend were a straight couple on Glee, no one would even think of accusing them of "flaunting" their sexuality. They are the only couple on that show that have NOT been sexualized, tried sex, or spent time exploring their "degenerate pleasure" on screen. They are by far the tamest couple on that show except for one thing-- they are gay. So apparently if you are straight having sex is pretty ho hum, but if you are gay singing a song together and touching foreheads is some kind of orgy.
The level of prejudice inherent in this whole discussion is horrifying. And incidentally, Mr. Bozell, if the gay song is the best selling track on the Glee Christmas album (and I'm not surprised, it was very well done), that is not an indication of what Hollywood likes. That's an indication of what America likes. You guys don't have to fall in line, you just might want to pay attention to how far out of step you really are.
mamabear, I am aware of what
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 10:44am.
mamabear, I am aware of what a "sliding scale of sexuality" means. It means straight, gay, bi, multi, whatever; it's all good, and teens should be free to explore it all. And that is, indeed a sliding scale of morality. IOW, nothing is "wrong."
Now, YOU may think that's all fine and dandy, but who are YOU to tell the rest of us that WE are the ones who are "out of step"? Just because a new train comes along and we don't hop on it, we are behind the times??
How dare you accuse me of prejudice just because I believe homosexual behavior is wrong? You believe that there can be no other reason for my opposition to it other than prejudice? Of course, morality and natural law have nothing to do with it. It's all about prejudice.
Your tag line suits you well.
Right, Motherbelt. (Can't say MB here!)
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 12:00pm.
"A sliding scale of sexuality refers to orientation, not actions."
I'll give mama bear that one, but what she(?) fails to see, or say, is ORIENTATION LEADS TO ACTIONS!
Once we are convinced that sexual choices are a private affair and OK, we can just move on to the natural conclusion that what you DO about your feelings is OK.
I'm telling you. If someone had said in the 1950's that someday men could marry other men, and women could marry other women, they would have been committed for being nuts. So when I tell you that we are about five years away from some high school kid in Iowa wanting to bring his goat to the prom because he loves "her," or some guy wants to bring his six year old girl friend, you would be ready to commit me.
So write it down, you heard it here first. Just hope it ain't your kid ... or goat.
Have to admit though, Motherbelt, that the phrase, "sliding scale of sexuality" is probably kind of sexy to a gay, right?
Nothing in acknowledging
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 3:46pm.
Nothing in acknowledging orientation requires that we let people exploit children or animals.
Yeah, and education about
Submitted by bretzysdude on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 5:25pm.
Yeah, and education about this to 2nd graders isn't exploitation at all. Depends on your definition of exploitation.
"Gee, mommy, my 2nd grade teacher talked about birth orders, since I'm the youngest, does that I'm gay?"
That would be a great
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 6:25pm.
That would be a great argument if I was suggesting that we should teach second graders about birth order effects in sexual orientation.
Well, it looks like you like
Submitted by bretzysdude on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 8:07pm.
Well, it looks like you like this slippery slope. How far do you want to let it slide?
How about this? Whatever is
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 10:01pm.
How about this? Whatever is considered appropriate for heterosexual education is okay for education about homosexuality. So if they know that moms and dads kiss each other to show that they love each other and that's it, they can probably handle the knowledge that sometimes two women kiss each other because they love each other.
C'mon, motherbelt, is
Submitted by bretzysdude on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 2:45pm.
C'mon, motherbelt, is anything that mamabear says really THAT surprising? Keep in mind what she's already said about abortion and children. And we shouldn't be surprised either by the tagline given Heinlein's political nature.
If we are "out of step", then surely mamabear thinks we need to "trendy" and "fashionable". So homosexuality is a fad like an iPad or indie rock, mamabear? But haven't you said people are born with it? Tell me how the logic doesn't conflict!
Actually, I'm not telling you
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 3:58pm.
Actually, I'm not telling you you are out of step, I'm just pointing out something that indicates you are. I guess I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that natural law has nothing to do with your opinion on homosexuality because you have to be pretty ignorant about nature to look there for any kind of justification. As for morality, my moral code says that your moral code is prejudiced. We have different morals, and the fact that they are "morals" doesn't somehow make them immune from criticism.
~And once again
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 4:03pm.
mamabear sneers, condescends, and delivers wisdom from on high with unparalleled munificence.
Thanks for the laugh, mamabear!
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 4:58pm.
Thanks so much for giving me the "benefit of the doubt" and then insulting my intelligence.
I actually burst out laughing when I read that.
Now, I'm not telling you that you are a self-righteous intellectual snob; I'm just pointing out something that indicates you are.
I was going to comment and
Submitted by bretzysdude on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 5:15pm.
I was going to comment and say how there WAS no difference in her "semantics", but I don't think you need my help. You knocked that out of the park.
good one motherbelt*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 5:21pm.
You did teach the teacher something today about the consequences of not knowing how to throw a boomerang.
I actually burst out laughing
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 6:28pm.
I actually burst out laughing when I read that.
Now, I'm not telling you that you are a self-righteous intellectual snob; I'm just pointing out something that indicates you are.
That was actually intended to be funny, although I suppose I didn't expect you to find it so!
Translation: "Oh, wait...
Submitted by bretzysdude on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 8:03pm.
Translation: "Oh, wait... no, I was trying to be funny. I was just kidding around. HA HA HA! I'm such a comedian!!"
Quit using the same excuses Kathy Griffin uses. You know you lost.
No, I wasn't kidding.
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 10:02pm.
No, I wasn't kidding.
Yes, We Know...
Submitted by Tenebrous on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 7:33pm.
Your moral code says that we are bigoted. Very nice, mamabear. The only thing you failed to do was throw out the usual blather about incivility. We know you hate children, and now it's clear that you think that people who oppose homosexuality are somehow bigoted.
There is nothing about having an identity in the middle of the scale...eh? It's clear that you don't know much about the homosexual subculture, mama. Please do some research and report back to us just how many partners the average homosexual male has in his lifetime. But wait. Orientation doesn't lead to action, now does it? *laughs* Your ignorance is showing. There is something implicit in the inability of homosexuals to reproduce that leads them to believe foremost in their own pleasure; let's call it lust. And oh, you are aware that TV is not real, right? I've known homosexual men and women in my life and their relationships are short-term, usually open, and not stable. But I forgot. TV, being by definition, fake, is more true than reality. I would suspect such idiocy from someone who proclaims that the facts somehow obscure reality. *rolls eyes*
The level of prejudice? If by prejudice, you mean, the assumption that there is a right and wrong, and that homosexuality is wrong, then of course. But your moral code says that we are bigoted -- so if one side is prejudiced then so are you, so that's an empty charge and a meaningless statement.
Yes, Mamabear, if Hollywood hated the soundtrack, it would not have been released. You fail to see all the interlocking levels in the industry, and that stems from your own ignorance about music and TV.
So now you're at the end, telling us that we're "far out of step". I guess when insulting someone's intelligence through arguments based upon massive ignorance, catcalls of prejudice, and psuedo-moral pronouncements in high dugeon don't work, it's time for the nuclear-grade attack of "unfashionable."
I'm speechless at your vapidity.
Visions and Principles blog
Please do some research and
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 10:17pm.
Please do some research and report back to us just how many partners the average homosexual male has in his lifetime.
So, imagine that you had to hide your sexual orientation from your friends, family, and coworkers. Exactly how do you think you would manage to maintain a stable, long term relationship? How many times do you think you could bring the same "friend" to the company picnic without raising eyebrows. Where would you go out for a nice evening and not risk running into someone you know? Intolerance is what creates the climate that encourages the very behavior that you then use to justify the intolerance. It's a pretty clever system you guys have worked out! I'm also curious how the number of partners the average lesbian has in her lifetime fits into your theory. You want to research that and get back to me?
I've known homosexual men and women in my life and their relationships are short-term, usually open, and not stable.
That's too bad for them. I know plenty of gay people in stable, closed relationships, some of which are going on 15-20 years. Neither of those anecdotes are evidence, as Dr. Sam would tell you.
Yes, Mamabear, if Hollywood hated the soundtrack, it would not have been released
And if America hated the soundtrack it would not have been successful. That was my point. Its release may be an indication of what Hollywood likes, but its popularity is a measure of what the rest of us like. That's why I think you are out of step. I'm surprised by how passionately everyone has reacted to that accusation. I could, and have, said much worse things about this group than "out of step." I'd say that you are betraying some investment in feeling fashionable!
Yeah, that's it. Men are
Submitted by ant on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 11:33pm.
Yeah, that's it. Men are sluts because they have to hide their monogamous love from intolerant conservatives. That's so true, my friends and I go out every weekend and fire-bomb the houses of gay couples, but only because Rush Limbaugh told us to.
I suppose a white man in a relationship with a black woman can now cheat on her and just say, "..it was a reaction to a perceived intolerance from others". Maybe he won't get a frying pan thrown at him.
It's funny to see everyone
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/30/2011 - 11:04am.
It's funny to see everyone try and pin homosexuality on the "nurture" side of the false dichotomy, while I point out the "nature" side of the equation. Then when it comes to a behavior that lets you feel superior, you are all about "nature" and reject any suggestion that it might be an environmental effect.
Nothing is just nature or just nurture. It is a completely false dichotomy, both are affecting things all the time. I'm not saying that social approbation is the only cause of behavior in gay men. I am simply trying to point out a problem with the suggestion that gay men are inherently incapable of stable relationships. Really, I didn't need to do that, because there are plenty of examples of how wrong that idea is.
mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 01/30/2011 - 11:33am.
For once we completely agree.
I'm sure there are plenty of lasting and loving gay relationships. I recently met a gay (female) couple for whom I designed an expansive addition for their home. One is a long-time police officer, the other manages a building supply outlet. They have gorgeous twin daughters (age 3, I think) and appear to live much like you'd expect of any committed couple.
But just like in the heterosexual world, there is a portion of the homosexual population that prefers promiscuity. Unlike the heterosexual world, that promiscuity seems to be a trait that is not only advertised and celebrated by both gays and their straight advocates, but also preferred by those out front of the cause. Bigger, louder, bolder- anything to draw attention to themselves and their risky behavior. Maybe they feel that's the way to get noticed so they can make their grievances -or issues- known; personally I think it's a character flaw. I think flamboyance drives more people away than it attracts. I think it hurts their cause; makes them look less like a group that wants to mesh with society and more like a group that wants to stand out and garner special treatment from society.
You've accused me of being a homophobe in the past, though in reality, it's more the presentation I'm against. What people do behind closed doors is none of my business, but the gay community in trying to advance their cause has no designs on keeping their business behind any doors. Maybe it's the "closet" metaphor that they're intrinsically fighting against, but there is no modern era group that is more in-your-face than gays; and Hollywood makes this all the more intense by using the big and little screen to advance that tactic.
This is why they'll have problems being excepted into the armed forces; perception -like possession- is 9/10's of the law.
I see flamboyant gay culture
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/30/2011 - 5:59pm.
I see flamboyant gay culture as a backlash against repression, and I think viewed in that light, it isn't surprising at all. If you are being criticized for something you can't change, I think it is a pretty natural human reaction in some people to reject that criticism by embracing the thing that earned it.
But your reaction to "in-your-face" activism is exactly why it is so important that entertainment provides some well-rounded gay characters. Up until now, and still for the most part now, gay characters in TV shows have been defined primarily by their gayness. That isn't realistic, and it creates a situation in which gay people are portrayed as being all about their orientation, which isn't usually true. So people who think they don't know anyone who is gay have only that image on which to base their opinion of gay people as a whole. They are then doomed only to ever experience the in-your-face side of the community because they don't interact with it in any other way.
I happen to really like pride parades and other celebrations, but I definitely understand why many don't. Part of the reason I think repealing DADT is so important for the gay community is that they don't have many chances to break those stereotypes and show people who are wary of them how normal they are. Serving in secret, for obvious reasons, doesn't help.
MamaBear
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 01/30/2011 - 6:10pm.
Like I stated many times, I have nothing against gays. Even though I do not approve of their lifestyle and it is not for me, I am not one to judge and tell them how to live their lives.
However it does bother me that they insist on changing our laws. I can see your point on DADT but why is it so important to force gay marriage on us?
Why not be happy living in a civil union.? Why force Preists and Pastors to marry gays when it is against their religion? If gays want to live their lives happily, I do not see why they are so insistent on others to fully embrace their lifestyle.
First of all, no one is
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/30/2011 - 10:20pm.
First of all, no one is forcing priests and pastors to marry anybody who their religion says shouldn't be married. This is about the state and the legal rights and benefits that come with marriage.
Second, separate but equal is not equal. But even that aside, as long as the federal defense of marriage act is in place, we can't make civil unions exactly the same as marriages. This is a civil rights issue, and "why can't you just be happy with this thing that's almost as good as everyone else gets," is not exactly a compelling rallying cry.
Mamabear
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 01/30/2011 - 11:01pm.
Okay I concede your point that forcing priests to marry presently is a little bit hyperbole on my part, but I honestly believe it is only a matter of time. What really is happening now is people are trying to force non profit Catholic hospitals to perform abortions and provide condoms and morning after pills even though it goes against their religion. Lawsuits will happen when gay marriage is legalizedgrislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 01/30/2011 - 6:28pm.
I believe homosexuals are born as such, not made.
While that one particular belief puts me opposite many conservatives, the most disturbing part of it is that it puts me on the same as you for a nanosecond.
I hate that.
The "flamboyance - flamboyant" part of male homosexuality starts, appropriately enough, with "flam" as in flamers.
I see two possible benefits from allowing flamers on the front lines, especially once they have irrevocably broken the current military dress code and are allowed to wear boas and high heels in combat; one is that the enemy will be so busy gawking open-mouthed at the display that they will present much easier targets to hit; or, that the enemy will be laughing so hard they will choke to death.
Either way represents a significant cutting back, waaaay back, on ammunition usage and costs.
MD
You don't need to worry, you
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/30/2011 - 10:24pm.
You don't need to worry, you are really not the same as me at ALL! You're like Sue Sylvester. I'm going to have to take back what I said about your sense of humor, the way you talk about gay people is pretty horrible.
grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 12:39am.
See if you can imagine what I would have to say about pushy homosexual militants if not compelled to stay within certain language limitation parameters here.
Your holier-than-thou attitude regarding my sense of humor merely reinforces what I have thought about you liberals for some time now; you have none.
If you think talking about male Gay flamers wearing boas and high heels is pretty horrible, but support abortion, you really are in no position to judge what is , or is not, horrible.
MD
edited to ask:
1. Did you misinterpret what I said about making targets easier to hit? That was in reference to the enemy soldiers.
2. Who the hell is Sue Sylvester?
1. Did you misinterpret
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 8:50am.
1. Did you misinterpret what I said about making targets easier to hit? That was in reference to the enemy soldiers.
Oh, actually, yes I did. Still though! 2. She's the sort of bad guy on Glee.So you did misinterpret that, grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 10:42pm.
and yet it comes down to "Still though!", as a way of reinforcing you, the liberal, as being always correct and your adversary equally benighted. You liberals live in "The Land of How I Wish It Was", rather than in real time. La La Land, indeed.I see flamboyant gay culture
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 01/30/2011 - 6:38pm.
I see flamboyant gay culture as a backlash against repression, and I think viewed in that light, it isn't surprising at all.
I might agree on that point if we were talking about an eight year old, but unfortunately we're talking about somewhere between 1 and 3% of the US population. That's a lot of immature little brats.
And my reaction to gay culture should have absolutely no bearing on what entertainment does or doesn't project. If the purpose of entertainment was to merely promote the wholesomeness of the gay lifestyle, then maybe, but entertainment is supposed to be - uh- entertaining. That's why preachy "entertainment" generally does so poorly; it only arouses a certain demographic that seeks out the message. Usually it's preaching to the choir anyway, and has the effect of driving away most others; especially if you have to pay to hear it. Most people pay to be entertained, not lectured. I guess as a teacher, you might find that point a bit mystifying.
Part of the reason I think repealing DADT is so important for the gay community is that they don't have many chances to break those stereotypes and show people who are wary of them how normal they are.
On that I would disagree wholeheartedly. You wanna know how to break the flamboyant gay stereotype? Stop promoting gays dressed up like Cher. Stop gays from performing fellatio on public streets in San Fransisco. Stops gays from acting like that Lambert kid on Idol. Stop releasing lists about which city is the gayest and why San Fransisco is getting a bad wrap for falling to eleventh on the stupid list. If gays want to be seen as "normal" the best thing they can do is act normal. RuPaul is not normal, and promoting and acting like that does not further the "we're normal, can't you see that?" claim. You're making excuses for them -which is tacitly admitting that for many, the gay agenda is the exact opposite of normal.
The couple I mentioned above live seemingly very normal lives, but no one is putting them on tv. The entertainment industry instead makes movies like Bruno, or highlights crossdressers and assless chaps-wearers from the Pride parades. They interview the most feminine male they can find to talk about how great it would be to serve in the Army when there's no chance in hell that guy would ever dream of actually doing it. So while you may revel in Hollywood saturating the airwaves and moviehouses with gay characters, much of the coverage and many of the characters are actually doing their cause a great disservice- at least if they wish to be accepted as normal; which I contend their activists, do not.
Sorry, bk---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 01/30/2011 - 7:00pm.
but presenting calm, rational, common sense posts reference Gays, whether flamboyant, or next door neighbors who are good and decent people, will never outweigh the belief in the minds of liberals like mamabear that we conservatives are unaware, unfair, and downright homophobic.
Sad.
MD
exactly Matthew*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 01/30/2011 - 7:27pm.
It would seem that according to the "gay brigade" that conservatives have no gays in their circle of friends nor gay family members. Some people are unable to see the world beyond the end of their noses..
Like it or not, and I don't,
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/30/2011 - 10:37pm.
Like it or not, and I don't, there's a reason why we worry about what kinds of role models are provided by entertainment. We may wish that all it did was entertain us, but no one being honest about the issue will claim that that's true. And you are agreeing with me that presenting gay characters without an effort to make them as multidimensional as other characters is doing the gay community a disservice.
The heterosexual world is full of strange, flamboyant people as well. The only difference is that you associate straight people with all kinds of other tropes, and so you don't judge them all the same way. That's just a function of level of exposure. When you see construction workers whistling at passing women, you don't think all straight men are pigs, because you know men who aren't and you see men in other roles in life and entertainment. There are probably thousands of hours of Girls Gone Wild out there, but you don't think every woman under thirty is necessarily going wild. If I told you that in order for women to be taken seriously you had to stop those girls from going wild, do you think you could do it? Do you think you should?
Adam Lambert didn't hurt anybody, for goodness sakes, and neither does RuPaul. I say more power to them if they feel comfortable enough to express themselves. The problem isn't that gay people need to suddenly stop having extreme elements, and they can't any more than straight people could. The problem is that the rest of the community needs more exposure so that people can see them as normal.
Reply posted below at 10:33.
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 01/30/2011 - 11:34pm.
Reply posted below at 10:33. Damn narrow columns...
Mamabear, it is a wonderful
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 12:10pm.
Mamabear, it is a wonderful treat this Monday morning to come check out NB and witness your single-handed rhetorical ass-whupping of a dozen or so posters who seem determined to prop up Bozell's sleazy nostalgia for a world in which gays new their damn place with the usual "Hey don't call me homophobic, I just wanna, um . . . protect the children!!!! Yeah, that's it!" line of so-called argumentation.
Brilliantly done. This assertion that the (obvious & self-evident) fact that sexuality is made up of a continuum and not polarized fixed points must mean that "Anything Goes!" is about as wilfully dense as the homophobes can get. And that's saying something.
Yes JasonC*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 6:17pm.
The reason libs like you get so worked up is because you wish conservatives just
"new" their place.
Thanks!
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 8:00pm.
Thanks!
Go girl*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 8:52pm.
Having read your 9:37 post with all that "we" stuff, it would appear that mamabear is finally "coming out"..you go girl!
The "we" stuff was all about
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 9:55pm.
The "we" stuff was all about being worried about role models in entertainment. I don't think that's a gay or straight issue, but I'm happy to know that you'd be supportive if I was coming out!
'respectful at least*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 10:17pm.
You should know cajun well enough by now to know that I respect honesty. To quote a friend.."truth has no agenda"..cajun is your friend on Fox
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 10:32pm.
cajun is your friend on Fox News?
Fox News?*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 10:53pm.
Actually Ms Rad, mon ami is currently at NB...;-)
Yup, gotta make sure we quell any
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 12:33am.
Real research into homosexuality. Why find the root cause? Really? Just make it normal and we'll all be happy.
While the attempts to protect gays from wanton violence and discrimination is laudible, the attempts to cow anyone who asks legitimate questions as to the cause and effect of homosexuality will surely lead to the detriment of the very people they claim to be protecting.
Oddly enough, I was always---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 12:49am.
pretty much indifferent to the "Gay" situation.
Live and let live, I figured.
Then certain ones got militant, and pushed, and pushed, and pushed until they finally pissed me off.
While I will do my best not to bad mouth them as a group, because not all of them are ferociously militant; neither will I sympathize with, or stand up for, any of them.
They have just gone too far with the "my way, or the highway" attitude.
MD
Exactly how I feel
Submitted by TexasMom0517 on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 1:09am.
I am not interested in hearing about anyone else's sex life, not Perez Hilton's nor Tiger Woods'. I do object to gay "marriage," but not some sort of civil partnership (though I think the whole issue is bogus on its face) and to repeal of DADT, but I also object to women on submarines or in combat units unless they're as big as men and have the same strength and fortitude. I don't want a female firefighter trying to throw me over her shoulder and taking me down a ladder unless she has as much upper body strength as a male counterpart. Sorry, folks, I am just practical about certain things. Human beings simply are NOT all the same and why the Left tries so hard to make human beings into cookie cutter images is just stupid. I'd like to see "social justice" practiced in the NBA- that would be a clever move.
Thank you
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 9:23am.
for this subtle display of homophobia.
trogster, ever the liberal dork---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 10:33pm.
Thank you for your unsubtle display of what liberals are all about; i.e., disagree with 'em and you are hateful, homophobic, or ignorant.
Nothing at all subtle about what was said, or how it was said; the problem is in your perception that anything not in line with your preferences is either outrageous, or somehow out of order.
You never disappoint with your prejudicial take on things.
MD
You see, you do it again.
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 8:18am.
No interest, in why I might think that. No self-doubt. Nothing. It has to be my fault, my prejudices and of course my liberalism. You can't live without that dichotomy of conservatism and liberalism, can you?
Prejudices are sometimes subtle and disguised. Perhaps you really don't see it here. The giveaway in this instance was
"[...]neither will I sympathize with, or stand up for, any of them."
In line with your diatribe it would have been fine to say something about the "militant" ones, although that would have triggered a question what you are talking about, in return, but so what. But you deny each and every member of this group your sympathy or support, because some of them are "militant"? That's a classic. And it's called homophobia. At least be honest about it.
No Big
Submitted by rammingspeed on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 1:13am.
I've known and worked with gays and they couldn't have been more "regular" as people. The purity of your soul, or lack thereof, is in how you treat others. Gay characters on TV shows definitely reflect reality. And I don't believe people "choose" to be gay just to indulge something different in sexual experiences. It's their nature, they're born that way.
The gays I don't like are the political activists who are leftists first, gays second. A distant second.
@ramingspeed
Submitted by ncstevem on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 5:41am.
If homosexuals are "...born that way..." as you contend, do you believe that bisexuals, pedophiles, those who engage in bestiality or any other sexual proclivity are also born that way?
Or is it your belief that only homosexuality is genetic and all other sexual preferences are choices. If so, what evidence do you have to support this belief?
There is no evidence...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 8:17am.
to support the assertion that gays are "born that way".
They tried and tried to find the physical markers, and couldn't. I've read an article once about a gay activist who gave up looking for the so-called "gay gene", because it simply doesn't exist, or at the very least, has not been proven to exist.
Gays may have been conditioned at a very young age to the point where the "choice" is natural for them, but so far, all the indicators I've seen show that homosexuality development are caused by social and environmental factors, and yes, in some cases, it is reversable.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
There are tons of physical
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 10:06am.
There are tons of physical markers. This article explains many of them.
But none of those can be determined to have a causal relationship with sexual orientation, which is why no one can ever point to a "gay gene." They are just strong indicators that orientation is biological. There is similarly no "straight gene" that controls sexual expression in all straight people.
And environmental effects are certainly important, but many of those seem to involve effects in utero, which we can hardly blame anyone for. Fundamentally, if your orintation is determined before you are old enough to know what an orientation is, then we really can't claim it is just a "choice," right?
Ok, I admit that I didn't have the time...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 1:46pm.
...to read the entire article (5 or 6 pages), but from what I did read sort of justifies what I said.
You seem to be admitting that there is no gay gene, and I never implied that there was a "Straight Gene". In fact there is no gene at all to govern orientation, which was the point that I think now we can both agree on.
That was what I was referring to when I said "Physical Marker". Obviously our interpretation of what a physical marker is are different. The way a person cuts their hair, or speaks with a certain intonation to me is not a "physical marker" Perhaps I should have said "biological markers".
And a "strong indication" is not PROOF! All the "science" so far is hypotheses and conjecture, from a psychological context -- according to the article.
"And environmental effects are certainly important, but many of those seem to involve effects in utero, which we can hardly blame anyone for. Fundamentally, if your orintation is determined before you are old enough to know what an orientation is, then we really can't claim it is just a "choice," right?"
Isn't that what I said? After all, I did put the word "choice" inside ditto marks, because for some, there doesn't appear to be a choice, However, regardless of orientation, people can still "choose" to govern their actions, and that includes, if they so choose, to seek out ways of reversing their orientation, if that's possible. (For some have already succeeded in doing so)
"...environmental effects are certainly important, but many of those seem to involve effects in utero..."
Like, which effects would those be that SEEM (note emphasis on the word) to involve those in utero? Atheists like to point to the fact that there is no proof that God exists, therefore he doesn't exist. I'm now asking you to submit to the same scrutiny. Where's the proof? It almost SEEMS that the homosexual lifestyle is a matter of faith, does it not?
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Second verse, same as the first
Submitted by bretzysdude on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 2:36pm.
All mamabear did was regurgitate an old argument that was posted a few months ago. I didn't click on link, but I'll bet you anything it was the SAME article, because I remember the "strong indication" wording.
mamabear, let it go. You lost. AGAIN.
Well, birth order effects
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 4:09pm.
Well, birth order effects point to an in-utero factor. Every son produced after the first has a 33% higher chance of being gay, and that effect persists even if they are separated from their families and raised in a different social environment.
The fact is that we can't prove what makes someone gay because ethically we can't ever perform the experiments that would be necessary to do so. For instance, I could make a rat gay by altering the hormones it receives before birth and during maturation. So I can absolutely prove that hormones affect orientation in rats. And people are definitely more complicated than rats, but I can't do that to people because.. well, because we just don't do that to people, it's wrong.
So even if we were to find a "gay gene," all we could ever say is that there is a correlation between that gene and sexual orientation, unless we did experiments to add or remove that gene from human embryos, which we will never do.
So if you keep in mind that just about every statement that everyone has ever made about what causes behaviors and other traits in people is limited by similar ethical constraints, we have pretty darn good evidence of a variety of biological effects on orientation. It won't be one gene, but there are genes. It won't be one hormone or one immune effect, but add them all together and you get the spectrum that motherbelt is so scared of. It's just reality, and calling it a choice, when people do, is just a convenient way to hide from that reality.
~..
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 4:15pm.
you get the spectrum that motherbelt is so scared of.
You mean like how you're scared of an armed American populace executing it's duly elected representatives? At least motherbelt is concerned about something that is actually happening.
An unrelated argument, but
Submitted by bretzysdude on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 5:36pm.
An unrelated argument, but more worthy than the garbage she's spewing out.
I must have you confused with
Submitted by bretzysdude on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 5:22pm.
I must have you confused with someone else, but aren't you known about your arguments about child limitations and abortion? Because if you are, 1) doesn't the multiple birth order argument contradict your arguments in some way, and 2) you arguing about ethical embryonic research is laughable to me right now. Can't wait to hear you talk about stem-cell research.
Now, I'm not telling you you're a hypocrite, but I'm pointing to something that makes you one.
So are you going to be one to tell the family that has 17 kids that they might as well buy their most recent son a bunch of dresses? Because it's not going to matter, he was known in the womb!
Since I'm going to be accused
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 6:39pm.
Since I'm going to be accused of being snobby anyway, I might as well stop trying to avoid it.
So in that spirit, here's a math lesson:
There are some arguments over what percentage of our population is gay, but let's say 5% for the sake of discussion. I think most people would agree it is somewhere in there. So if anyone in our population has a 5% chance of being gay, let's think about what would happen in a family with 17 kids. Presuming half of the first 16 are boys and then they have a 17th kid who is a son, his chance of being gay (and this is assuming that the chance to be gay starts at 5%. If it gets larger as the number of older brothers increases and 5% is the average, then it probably starts lower) is, even with my generous assumptions, 49%.
So no, I wouldn't advise that they buy a bunch of dresses.
1) doesn't the multiple birth order argument contradict your arguments in some way
This is hilarious. The way you've worded this makes it pretty clear that though you have no idea how this affects my argument on abortion, you really really hope it does. I don't think I can help you there.
Since I'm going to be accused
Submitted by bretzysdude on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 7:19pm.
Since I'm going to be accused of being snobby anyway, I might as well stop trying to avoid it.
None of us could tell you were trying. It just comes naturally for you.
Translation on your abortion argument: "I know I'm contradicting myself, but I just want to put in a facade to the new people here."
Don't try to hide it. We all know you too well.
And And with your logic and statistics, and 49%? That's a coin toss! A 1 in 2 shot! And you're saying this is accurate?
If you give me an actual
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 10:21pm.
If you give me an actual reason why I can't support the right to choose an abortion and also think that boys born with older brothers can have a 33% higher chance of being homosexual, bring it on! I'm not pretending about anything, you just said they must contradict each other in some way, but didn't say how. If you can't come up with a reason why they do, I'm not going to do the work for you! Either make an argument or admit you have none.
And with your logic and statistics, and 49%? That's a coin toss! A 1 in 2 shot! And you're saying this is accurate?
No, but I think I made all of the necessary caveats. I was just trying to point out that if you thought to make the idea of the 33% increase sound absurd by implying that someone's 17th child would be guaranteed to be gay, then you have a poor intuitive grasp of mathematics and will need to come up with some other reason.
And what percentage does your math lead to
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 01/30/2011 - 2:02pm.
If all 16 previous children were boys?
Well, I could calculate that,
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 01/30/2011 - 5:39pm.
Well, I could calculate that, but what's the point? If someone managed to have 17 boys in a row, I'd start to worry about some sort of genetic disorder, and then who knows what would happen with orientation!
In any case, presumably the relationship was only tested up to a certain point-- meaning that if the most older brothers included in the study was, say, six (and that's a lot), we don't know if there is a ceiling somewhere above the number tested. All we know is that it holds for the sibling groups studied.
What a load of
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 5:25pm.
crap.
Clearly there is a significant portion of the "gay populace" that has made the choice to ride the wave of popularity. You can deny this all you'd like, but in doing so you're leaving out the sexual nature of the behavior.
Some people experiment with sexual proclivity because it has become socially acceptable to do so. The sexual revolution of the sixties was not due to hormonal changes among human beings; rather it was a socially-fueled behavior choice that gained steam as opposition withdrew. Same can be said for the rise in homosexuals or homosexual activity in today's society. As the behavior becomes more socially mainstream -acceptable and normalized- more people will "try it". A greater percentage of people aren't suddenly being born "gay", they aren't tapping into some dorment geneology, they're participating in an activity that is becoming more popular and experiencing less opposition. This is not evolution unless it is the beginning of the extinction of the species; if that were the case, this would be devolution.
So go on with your claims about genetically altering rats and how that might be possible in humans if we weren't so damned concerned about morality and such; the simple fact is people do what feels good -especially young people. And while sex acts may feel good at the time, it certainly doesn't mean the participants are drawn to each other in any other way. Much of today's homosexual revolution -if you will- is no different than the counter-culture movement of the hippie generation. This too will pass as a fad.
We can only hope it passes as
Submitted by bretzysdude on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 5:31pm.
We can only hope it passes as a fad. And I think some people will turn away. But my guess, is that this will only get worse as long as the propoganda's there.
I'm sure people try out being
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 6:44pm.
I'm sure people try out being gay who eventually end up realizing they are straight. I'm also quite sure the opposite is true. While there are culturally mediated effects on our sexual behavior, you can't disentangle the sexual revolution of the sixties from increasing acceptance of homosexuality. People aren't suddenly being born gay more often than they were, but they may be admitting they are gay more often than they were because it is no longer as socially unacceptable. Which is the whole point of this article, and which I think is a good thing.
I'm sure people try out being
Submitted by bretzysdude on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 8:03pm.
I'm sure people try out being gay who eventually end up choosing a straight lifestyle.
FIFY
I'm also quite sure the opposite is true.
That they choose a gay lifestyle? I'm sure that is the case.
While there are culturally mediated effects on our sexual behavior, you can't disentangle the sexual revolution of the sixties from increasing acceptance of homosexuality.
No, but that is a culturally mediated effect that is part of a huge combo, and it opened the door. Your very special Mr. Heinlein has even been credited for this. I'm sure you light a candle to him every day.
People aren't suddenly being born gay more often than they were,
That is if "born gay" was a valid and conclusive argument...
but they may be admitting they are gay more often than they were because it is no longer as socially unacceptable.
Yeah, by all means, "get on the train! Don't be behind the times!" /sarc
Which is the whole point of this article,
To print misguided biased information? Sure it is.
and which I think is a good thing.
We already know what you think.
Yeah, by all means, "get on
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 10:34pm.
Yeah, by all means, "get on the train! Don't be behind the times!" /sarc
I can't tell what is meant to be sarcastic here. Are you making fun of the idea that everyone must just be getting on a bandwagon, or making fun of the idea that they aren't?
Old Key West saying.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 8:10pm.
Being bisexual doubles your chances of getting lucky, since we're talking percentages.
Cool
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 1:26am.
This is America. Let them be happy.Should we educate high school gays about...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 8:19am.
...homosexual life expectancy, diseases related to homosexuality, condom use, bare backing,etc...?
and have them make an
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 8:54am.
and have them make an informed decision?
Why would you want to do that?
\sarc off
Same reason they don't want women to know the truth about that "pregnancy" they are terminating.
Sure if you want to
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 2:20pm.
It's a free country. Try creating a show that explains how evil homosexuality is and pitch it to The Fox Nerwork or NBC now that Comcast is taking over. Maybe you will have a huge hit on your hands. I believe there are dangers in barebacking in heteral relationships as well, and yes I believe we should teach why condoms are important. Thank you for all your thoughtful questions.You actually believe that
Submitted by bretzysdude on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 2:39pm.
You actually believe that Comcast will make NBC conservative?
"Hey in there, Cliff. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?" Frasier Crane in "Cheers"
I don't know if they will or not
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 2:57pm.
What I do know is Comcast is bleeding customers and they bought NBC to make a profit. The ratings for NBC suck. They need a hit on their hands. They cannot afford to sit back and lose money just to make a political statement like GEDon't judge a book by the cover
Submitted by p-squared on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 8:59am.
I don't believe you can judge every gay person by the actions of the militant homosexuals. I have friends who are gay, and they want the same things out of life that I do. But they don't ride down Main Street in leather chaps and nun habits slapping each other on the butt, either. I believe they've made a choice, and they will ultimately bear the responsibility for that choice.
Music and film have always been where social boundaries are pushed, so the "gay explosion" of TV characters shouldn't come as a shocker. What is disturbing to me is the push to include gay indoctrination in our education system, especially at a young age. Kids are smart, but not smart enough to resist life-long indoctrination.
All entertainment magazines are crap
Submitted by Clutch1956 on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 10:43am.
I think that these voyuristic POS magazines are partially responsible for the dumbing down of America (I call it the People Magazine Effect). Why go read something intelligent that may challenge your mind when you can look at a pretty airhead and the b@stard child that she whelped with another handsome meat puppet (actor) that is schtupping someone else behind pretty airhead's tattooed back? It's sad when you are more interested in Bennifer's life than your own...
Somehow or another, my son is getting these POS mags delivered to the house, but he never reads them. When this particular mag dropped into the mailbox, as soon as i saw it, out in the trash it went (not that i have anything against gays in general, i'm just not going to put up with this propaganda).
evangelists? hardly
Submitted by Q on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 12:16pm.
i see it as creating characters that represent real life.
a handful of shows have been targeted, while the hundreds of others at our disposal tend to have no gay characters.
seems like an awful small number of shows to make a stink over
Shut up, Zippers
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 2:16pm.
.
Yeah, there'll be just a
Submitted by bretzysdude on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 2:48pm.
Yeah, there'll be just a handful of shows that will be approved by NAMBLA in some years. No big deal.
yeah...sure
Submitted by Q on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 5:26pm.
whatever you say
troublesome, that you see no difference between the raping of a child and 2 consenting adults having sex
There is the cue*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 2:56pm.
Q has exposed himself. Still work at that kiddie show? Brace yourself.
caj
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 3:01pm.
This is becoming pathological.
Typical Liberal Myopia
Submitted by Tenebrous on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 7:44pm.
And if we waited until there were a lot of shows to make a stink over, then it would be, "It's too late. Why didn't you say something sooner? You're just cranky."
Liberals are so transparent in their attempts at arguing.
There's a lot of things that are not on TV and equally represent real life: take for instance, people going to church on Sunday, people participating in a pro-life march, or people serving in a charity. Yet none of those are in fictional TV series, and why is that? Because it doesn't fit with the worldview of the people making the shows. It has nothing to do with "representing real life". That line is trotted out whenever people need to defend immorality.
Visions and Principles blog
chances say otherwise
Submitted by Q on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 5:32pm.
if there was one show on tv with a gay character you'd still be campaigning against it
so now there's what, 3?
so here's an idea.........just shut up, turn off the tv, and let the people who enjoy the characters you're so frightened of carry on with their deviant ways
3? Really,Q? Whadda you get,
Submitted by ant on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 11:21pm.
3? Really,Q? Whadda you get, 1 channel on your TV?
hundreds, i think
Submitted by Q on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 1:32am.
and seldom do i watch a show with overtly gay characters
then again, i'm around gay men and women daily so the idea of gay characters on television is quite normal
well Bk*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 4:35pm.
I will not pile on but the dude has a masochist bent that is just befuddeling.
Life is too short
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 01/29/2011 - 6:34pm.
I agree with MD and Chris. Try to be happy in your own life and care about how to raise your own children the best you can and not worry about what others are watching I get angry when gays want to force their opinion on me too, but gay characters on tv is no biggie.mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 01/30/2011 - 11:33pm.
The heterosexual world is full of strange, flamboyant people as well. The only difference is that you associate straight people with all kinds of other tropes, and so you don't judge them all the same way.
Examples?
When you see construction workers whistling at passing women, you don't think all straight men are pigs, because you know men who aren't and you see men in other roles in life and entertainment.
Seriously? Whistling construction workers? Is this 1955?
There are probably thousands of hours of Girls Gone Wild out there, but you don't think every woman under thirty is necessarily going wild. If I told you that in order for women to be taken seriously you had to stop those girls from going wild, do you think you could do it? Do you think you should?
Girls Gone Wild is a porn genre, not a social statement. And there are surely an equal number of lesbian acts as solo or hetero acts. You can't use an element of pornography that is distributed for profit in the same vein as Pride parades or the lude acts that the gay community celebrates in public spaces like Fulsom. Non sequitur.
Adam Lambert didn't hurt anybody, for goodness sakes, and neither does RuPaul. I say more power to them if they feel comfortable enough to express themselves. The problem isn't that gay people need to suddenly stop having extreme elements, and they can't any more than straight people could. The problem is that the rest of the community needs more exposure so that people can see them as normal.
Again, examples of the extreme heterosexual element? I guess you could cite certain sexual fetishes, but that's clearly not limited to the hetero community. And to the best of my knowledge, they aren't celebrated by the media the same way the extreme elements of the gay community are.
I've got to hand it to you though, mamabear; you're a helluva dancer.
You really need me to give
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 8:29pm.
You really need me to give you examples of people practicing way too much heterosexuality or celebrating extreme aspects of heterosexuality? Girls Gone Wild is the only porn genre advertised on mainstream television. Why? Because that's a porn genre that is mainstream enough not to freak people out. Jerry Springer and his ilk televised paternity tests and thousands of people tuned in to find out how many men the baby mama had slept with. Charlie Sheen's character in "Two and a Half Men." Everyone in "Jersey Shore." "The Bachelor." "The Bachelorette." "Temptation Island." "Flavor of Love." "Farmer Wants a Wife." "Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire." "Who Wants to Marry My Dad." "Mr. Personality." "Married by America." "I Didn't Know I was Pregant." "16 and Pregnant." "Tool Academy." "Sexual Healing." "Real Chance of Love." "The Player." "Cheaters."
Do you want me to keep going? Because I have at least three more "worst reality TV show" lists on the first page of my google search I could comb through. And those are just the shows that focus specifically on extreme heterosexual behavior. If you wanted me to list media vehicles in which heterosexual extremes happen to be included, we'd be here all day.
Jersey Shore even got mentioned to the President of the United States. Have you watched that show? Don't. It is essentially a collection of one night stands by some of the most stupid, self-absorbed straight people you will ever see on TV. And people love it. I honestly can't understand how anyone who watches that show could find a gay pride parade offensive.
mamabear, the things on the
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 10:30pm.
mamabear, the things on the shows you mention aren't actually shown on t.v. At a gay pride event various sex acts are performed in public on public streets. The behaviors you are talking about on those shows are not done in public. If they were, the particpants would be arrested.
The only thing I can say about "16 and Pregnant" is that I've seen it several times. Each episode I've seen has chronicled the difficulty of sexual activity at a young age, and didn't show the couples sleeping around. So it's not pertinent to the argument.
I think you are thinking of
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 7:54am.
I think you are thinking of the Fulsom Street Fair, which is not a pride event. It is a closed event that no one sees unless they want to. Pride parades happen in the middle of downtown streets, they are a public event, and I've never seen anyone actually having sex during them.
mamabear
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 7:37pm.
A quick look at pictures from the NYC gay pride parade showed many "flamboyant" and "overtly sexual" marchers. http://www.brooklynvegan.com/archives/2010/06/the_2010_nyc_ga.html
I also think the San Diego fire department had problems with the sexual behavior at the gay pride parade. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=43250
Overtly sexual is not the
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 9:12pm.
Overtly sexual is not the same as overt sex. I can't seem to get the firefighter story to load, but your pictures don't show anyone engaged in sex acts in public. It shows only a few outfits that would be considered particularly risque at a swimsuit model runway show. The fact that you don't like seeing men's bodies in those skimpy costumes does not actually make them less decent than they would be on an attractive woman.
Oh, and now I can read the firefighter story. What they objected to was being yelled at and getting "gestured at." While I don't think they should have had to participate if they didn't want to, there is also nothing in that story that indicates anyone observed actual sexual behavior going on.
Wow, you have a much
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:02pm.
Wow, you have a much different set of mores than I do if you considered those photos only slightly more risque than a model on a swimsuit runway. Did you go all the way to the bottom?
There was a bit more to the firefighter story than you acknowledge. If done by a man to a woman...well, he'd be in huge trouble...
You see what these shows have
Submitted by ant on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 11:32pm.
You see what these shows have in common don't you? These are not exactly depictions of "normal" behavior. Whether the subject is heterosexuality or homosexuality, it is all about depravity. It is all about the worst aspects of human behavior and most of all, it is about the breaking down of society and, by extension, Western civilization. The Gay community probably doesn't know it, but they are just another tool to weaken the foundations.
What was it John Adams said about the Constitution being wholly inadequate for an immoral people? I.ME.MINE will not preserve any society.
mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 12:40am.
Wait a second. You mean that when I asked you for examples of extreme heterosexual acts or behaviors you list reality TV shows?
Hold on....
Ok, I'm back. Now my head hurts.
Mamabear, I'm not sure if you know this or not, but "reality TV" does not mean it's real. What I asked you for examples of were extreme acts either of perversion, dress, or sexual activity that is both limited to heterosexuals and celebrated in some public form. (I know I didn't spell that out, but in the context of our discussion, I thought that was clear) TV and movies don't count. I mean actual examples of extreme behavior; behavior that you, and most other people would find offensive. Sort of like the flamboyant behavior of crossdressers, or the perverted sexual acts committed in public, or the annoying feminine speech patterns used by a significant number of gay men. That kind of thing. Except limited to heteros.
And without trying to be mean -because honestly, I don't want to be perceived as that- I'm really surprised and disappointed in your last reply.
How do you get more
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 3:18pm.
How do you get more "celebrated in some public form," than being put on TV?! This whole thread is about a fictional TV show and it's affect on culture and society. What better reflection of our baser natures do we have than the sleaze we watch on television? For that matter, what forms of celebration of gay culture are you referring to that you didn't see on TV, or hear about on a website? While reality TV may not be authentic, it is real people doing the things you see without a script. All of the shows I mentioned got made, some of them got watched, and a few of them are watched a lot by many people who greatly enjoy them. If you think that doesn't say anything about our culture and how it celebrates bizarre expressions of heterosexuality, then I can't think of anything that would.
You continue to horrify me, by the way. I thought we were talking about real extremism-- self-destructive behavior or promiscuity or extreme debauchery. Apparently, you were talking about dressing in women's clothing and speaking with a lisp. That's the behavior you want locked away and condemned by the community? Seriously, every time I try and convince myself you aren't a bigot, you say something like that. If the criteria for "extreme" is anything that prevents you from ignoring the existence of homosexuality, then straight people are being "extreme" every time they show you pictures of their kids or talk about their spouses!
How in the world do you
Submitted by ant on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 5:43pm.
How in the world do you equate being shown pictures of someone's kids with a man being pissed on while performing fellatio on multiple "partners" in the street in broad daylight?
Read a great quote from someone after viewing pictures of what goes on in San Fran's many parades; "If God doesn't destroy San Francisco, He owes Sodom and Gomorah an apology." Check out Zombietime website, you don't have to be homophobic to find these public displays objectionable.
mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 8:59pm.
As conversations often do, this one somehow migrated from it's beginnings to something unrecognizable at this point. Be that as it may, I'd like to point out some of what I thought we were discussing:
I said: "But just like in the heterosexual world, there is a portion of the homosexual population that prefers promiscuity. Unlike the heterosexual world, that promiscuity seems to be a trait that is not only advertised and celebrated by both gays and their straight advocates, but also preferred by those out front of the cause."
To that you replied: "But your reaction to "in-your-face" activism is exactly why it is so important that entertainment provides some well-rounded gay characters. Up until now, and still for the most part now, gay characters in TV shows have been defined primarily by their gayness." And: "I happen to really like pride parades and other celebrations, but I definitely understand why many don't." (I guess those that don't -even though you understand why they don't- are horrifying bigots as well?) You then added: "Part of the reason I think repealing DADT is so important for the gay community is that they don't have many chances to break those stereotypes and show people who are wary of them how normal they are."
So at this point I'm thinking, "She recognizes the stereotype, she even understands why some people are uncomfortable with it, but doesn't quite get that it is the homosexual community -at least as much as the anti-homosexual community- who perpetuate that stereotype. So I say: "On that I would disagree wholeheartedly. You wanna know how to break the flamboyant gay stereotype? Stop promoting gays dressed up like Cher. Stop gays from performing fellatio on public streets in San Fransisco. Stops gays from acting like that Lambert kid on Idol. Stop releasing lists about which city is the gayest and why San Fransisco is getting a bad wrap for falling to eleventh on the stupid list. If gays want to be seen as "normal" the best thing they can do is act normal."
I will concede that you and I could have an entirely different view on what is "normal." I don't find crossdressing normal. I don't find young males talking like this, normal. I don't find homosexual sex acts normal. I also don't find Down Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy "normal", but that doesn't mean I'm offended by it. Am I offended by crossdressing? Not necessarily, but I would not allow an employee to crossdress under my employ. I never mentioned anything about a lisp because that is stereotypical, and I prefer to deal in reality. The video above is reality for a lot of homosexuals. And that effeminate method of speaking is one: not natural for a male, and two: a learned behavior. Am I offended by it? No. But I am curious why a lot of homosexual males speak that way. (My guess is to draw attention to themselves and their orientation- which I find annoying. Clearly you don't, and that's your prerogative, but just because I do, doesn't mean I'm a bigot. I'm generally annoyed by anyone -straight, gay or otherwise- who has to go through their day shouting "oh, look at meeeeee!") Public homosexual fellatio? You're damn right I'm offended by it. Aren't you?
Yes, the thread began by discussing a television show. But by the time I interjected, the tenor of the conversation was not about the TV show, and neither you or I mentioned it, until I asked for real-world examples -that you claimed were a reality by saying: "The heterosexual world is full of strange, flamboyant people as well." Then the examples you provided were reality tv shows, which of course, do not represent reality. But even if they did, what element from those shows is as offensive as the Folsom Street Fair AND is limited to heterosexuals? You've yet to provide that answer. I personally don't consider the stereotype construction worker whistling at the stereotype pretty young ladies as they cross the street as offensive or "flamboyant" as this. And there's more, as that picture was easily found here. These I find extreme and these are the face of homosexuality in America. It may not be the body and soul of it, but it's the face that we all see first, and the champions of the homosexual agenda seem to prefer this face over that of the more conservative loving couple.
So let me say publicly that I am no bigot. You don't know me well enough to make that claim and I believe you should withdraw it. I have been nothing but respectful to you even in disagreement and I don't resort to silly namecalling to dodge answering questions. If you can't equate the FSF to something heterosexual then you should concede the point. And, if you don't find the FSF offensive, you should say so because that would help to clarify your position vis-a-vis this discussion.
The video above is reality
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 9:36pm.
The video above is reality for a lot of homosexuals. And that effeminate method of speaking is one: not natural for a male, and two: a learned behavior.
What evidence do you base that statement on, exactly? Because I can't find any definitive answer as to whether speech patterns recognized as "gay" are learned or inherent. While it doesn't surprise me that you would assume they are learned, those are the kind of assumptions that, added up, start to make you look prejudiced. I don't know if you are a bigot, you're right. I'm telling you that you sound like one. If you don't know the behavior is learned, don't pretend you do! One of the findings in the artcle I linked above is that 75% of gay men can be identified as such by their voice alone. I found another study that found that children with gender dysphoria can be identified as being vocally different from their peers as young as ten years old. They probably didn't pick that accent up in the clubs. But those are both inconclusive in terms of the larger picture. So unless you have some evidence to back up your statement, I'd like you to admit you just assumed it. As for my stance on the Fulsom Street Faire-- I am not offended by its existence. If I attended it, I would probably be offended by things that I saw there, but fortunately there is an easy solution for that-- I don't attend, and I don't search the internet for pictures to show me what I missed. As long as everyone there is fully consented and responsible for themselves and keeping the event closed to the public, I don't have a problem with what they are doing. And in that context, I would say that I find Jersey Shore to be as offensive as the Fulsom Street Faire, and you know you won't ever see someone gay on that show. Certainly the behavior exhibited is at least as self-destructive, and it goes on for much longer than one weekend a year. I have a similar solution to my feelings of offense-- I watched it once, and I don't intend to repeat my mistake!"Fulsom Street FAIRE?"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 9:41pm.
Geez, why don't you Elizabethan it up a bit?
Sorry, it ain't all that highbrow. Unless there's a "jousting tournament" that hasn't been publicized.
In defense of BK's annoyance
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:04pm.
In defense of BK's annoyance with the lisp thing, I feel the same way about Madonna and her "English" accent.
mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 10:09pm.
You seem to be stuck at least partially on the effeminate voice thing so I'll address that first.
You're right, I don't have any evidence to back up the voice thing. What I do believe is that heterosexual males don't talk that way but gay males do. And why do I say it's learned? Because speech -in itself- is a learned behavior. No human is born with the ability to speak a particular language, especially how to pronounce, or inflect words.
As for anecdotal evidence: I was working in someone's home last week repairing some drywall in a two-story foyer. The woman had the TV on. All day. I got to listen to Ellen and Oprah, as well as a couple of soaps and a network morning news show. Oprah's show was about gays and how their life has changed since they came out. Every male on the show, even the Indian Prince (it seemed, the accent may have thrown me off), had the effeminate speaking style. And every one claimed to have lived at least part of their adult life in the closet. Well, guess what mambear? If you talk like those two kids on that video I linked, you ain't in the closet! It's almost like these people are trying to act gay; which baffles me because they are gay and they're perpetuating the stereotype -if that feature is in fact, stereotypical. That annoys me. I don't know how that makes me sound like a bigot, but I'm sorry if it does.
As for the Jersey Shore- well, I don't watch it. I don't watch much commercial television outside of news, sports and South Park, and I detest reality shows. Again, they purport to be something they're not, which insults my intelligence. The goofballs on that show are hamming it up for the cameras. It could be that they do that on a regular basis and that's why the producers put a camera in front of them, but certainly the players are excentuating their idiocy. [Afterthought: maybe that's what flamboyant gays are doing?] Since I don't watch the show, are you saying that what the players do on that show is something only done by heterosexuals? I say this because I don't know of a Folsom Street Fair for Straights; maybe there is one, but I'm not aware of it.
I don't believe the FSF is closed to the public- there are an awful lot of pictures available. I could be wrong though so until it's determined one way or another, I won't argue the point. But what happens there is well documented. I'd be surprised to learn that the people participating don't condone that sort of behavior or that there willingness to perform sex acts on perfect strangers in public is not a regular activity. I'd consider that pretty self-destructive behavior as well.
You take a case where you
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 11:27am.
You take a case where you could recognize speech patterns as "gay" in people from widely differing cultural backgrounds with different histories many of which included being isolated from gay culture while in the closet. Any unbiased person would take that as an indication (not proof by any means, but an indication) that the speech pattern you recognize is not culturally learned. If it is cultural, then you would expect the Indian version to differ from the American version, for instance. That's often how we define culture-- it is regional. You, however, see it as evidence that everyone involved is somehow faking their speech patterns to play up a stereotype!
I'm sure that happens sometimes. But there is absolutely no evidence, even of the anecdotal sort, that should lead you to that conclusion in your story. It would be interesting to know if speech patterns can be recognized with the same 75% success rate in other languages. As for speech being learned-- it is, but qualities of voice are not. You can tell boys from girls by pitch when they are very young, for instance, and a wider pitch range is something that has been suggested to vary between straight and gay men.
I lived in San Francisco, and I promise you that the Fair (sorry about the e before) is closed to the public. As for pictures, of course you can find them on the internet. What can't you find on the internet?! If I wanted to, I could find plenty of pictures of heterosexual people doing things that should never see the light of day, but I would never be stupid enough to enter the appropriate keywords into a search engine. I practice safe computing ;)
I think you're wrong on this one, mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 12:08pm.
It would be interesting to see an unbiased study on the speech patterns or voice inflections of gays vs straights. You have to admit that the effeminate voice does exist, correct? And that when you hear it you think "well, he must be gay", right? And by thinking that, it doesn't mean you're disparaging the person, it just means that you recognize a common trait.
I think you may be mistaken on the private nature of the FSM. There's this from the FAQ page of their website:
I hadn't heard about the Up Your Alley Fair before but Zombie has a few photos of that event as well. What this does, mamabear, is prove that these events aren't just one weekend a year, and that they are, in fact, open to the public. From Zombietime: If you've got any integrity at all you'll browse through the pictures for this event as well. Can you honestly say that a naked man eja*****ing from an open window onto the street is reasonable behavior? Under any circumstance at all? As for not searching for material to back up your argument... well, I guess that's one way of debating. I'm not sure how effective it is, but you're free to present your argument as you see fit. Since you often accuse me of making things up, I prefer to back up my claims with actual evidence whenever possible.You have to admit that the
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 11:25pm.
You have to admit that the effeminate voice does exist, correct? And that when you hear it you think "well, he must be gay", right? And by thinking that, it doesn't mean you're disparaging the person, it just means that you recognize a common trait.
Right. The difference between us is that you assume that that trait is somehow evidence of your stereotype that gay people are all about getting attention. I don't make assumptions about what it means, because I know that assumptions are generally stupid things to make.
The Fulsom Street Fair was a closed event when I lived in SF-- it wasn't invitation-only, but it was cordoned off and accessible only through a few entrances. The point wasn't that the fair limits who gets to go, but that you will only see what happens in there if you go in. That's the issue at hand, right? I've never heard of Up Your Alley, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't the same thing. It is open to the public, but you have to make a conscious decision to enter the fair, you can't wander in there with your kids by accident.
And I didn't mean that I wasn't going to look up evidence to support my argument. I was making a statement about my attitude towards offensive things in general-- that is, if I don't want to see something, I don't go to it. And if someone is actually serious about not wanting to see something, they also have the choice not to search out things to be horified by on the internet. I have to wonder at people who make a big deal about how awful it is that they should ever have to look at something like that, but then can point you right to all the pictures of it on the internet! Frankly, I'm pretty sure I don't need to look up pictures of the new fair. I will take your word that people do incredibly lewd things at it. I still think that's fine as long as the event is organized such that people who don't like incredibly lewd things don't have to see or deal with them.
And trying to get vaguely back to the original topic, I still think this is an issue of under exposure. The Fulsom Street Fair, and maybe this new one, is as extreme as it gets, at least as far as I know. If I was, hypothetically, to find you a similarly outrageous event that was focused on heterosexual behavior (and just to be clear, it isn't only gay people who attend those events. Fulsom is a "leather/fetish" event, technically, and straight people can be into that too. They also raise a little over $300,000 every year for charity), would that fundamentally change your opinion of heterosexuals as a whole? No, it wouldn't. Because you have so many other experiences with heterosexuals in your life, some strange orgy weekend would just seem like an unfortunate outlier. That is the benefit of familiarity that gay people often don't get. There is a clear division in attitudes towards homosexuality between people who have gay friends or family members and people who don't. And in the absence of personal experience to shape attitudes towards homosexuality, how they are portrayed in the media probably fills in the gaps, and that is why I think it is an important issue.
mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 12:02am.
I largely agree with your latest post. I'm sure that if you're vacationing in SanFran in late September and get off a bus or street car in the vicinity of the FSF, it wouldn't take long for you to decide that the event was something you'd have to have a real taste for before choosing to stick around. The fair is, however, on public streets and unless everyone who lives on those streets are childless and gay, there is a reasonable chance that some folks could be unintentionally offended. And I'm sure there are heterosexuals who attend the event, along with lots of media, though from the information I've seen, it is internationally known as a "gay orgy".
I'm not sure that I've indicated the voice thing is definitely a stereotype; I thought I was questioning that, though I may not have been very clear. I did say I'd like to see a study on it, backed by firsthand testimony.
I definitely agree that gays are portrayed a particular way in the media and entertainment -which is puzzling given that the media and entertainment are almost universally gay-friendly. Wouldn't you think they'd go out of their way to portray gays as mainstream? And yes, I'm sure people with gay family members or friends are generally more accepting of the gay lifestyle; the same can probably be said about dog lovers.
One clarification: I don't think "that gay people are all about getting attention." Those are your words. I do think that some gay people are attention whores. Particularly those that employ the voice, crossdress, or perform lewd acts on public streets. And since the media is more than willing to give those people that attention, it is those images that create the stereotypes that many people view as abhorant. It is why many in the military won't be able to trust someone they know is gay- which I'm not saying is fair but it is the reality. Until such time as gays are fully accepted in the mainstream, forcing that acceptance on the military is a dangerous position. That's why I was against repeal of DADT -and I've been entirely consistent on this: It's not because gays don't already -or can't serve equally as well as straights, it's because the gay persona is completely anti-establishment; a trait wholly unacceptable for military service. And if you can't know for sure that the guy next to you doesn't attend the FSF on leave, then you can't trust him to go over the hill with you when the bullets are flying (metaphors, both).
Keep in mind that what gets
Submitted by mamabear on Thu, 02/03/2011 - 6:50pm.
Keep in mind that what gets shown in entertainment is driven much more these days by marketing and pr research than it is the agendas of writers and producers. I'm sure that gay characters would be presented as more mainstrwam if Hollywood was able to reflect only its own values. But they don't, they reflect the country, at least when the offerings are pared down based on success.
I apologize if I oversimplified your views. It is hard not to use some shorthand when typing out these long discussions, but I do recognize that you have a complicated view of gay people. I think that if you are right, and some gay people will be attracted to an open military after DADT is repealed that don't belong there-- I think that will become apparent to them very quickly. Meanwhile, the gay people who do belong in the military, who you can trust to go over the hill with you (which of course has nothing to do with whether or not they attend the FSF on leave, right?), will be safer and more secure in their position, and frankly better able to trust YOU to go over the hill with THEM!