lack of gay representation in US television?

[Qonfused]

In before move to political.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Mechagodzilla]

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.

 

[Raziaar]

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]

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]

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

That's right!

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.

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]

Shut up, Numbers.

 

[el Chi]

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>]

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]

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]

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]

No-ones going to force you to download gay porn

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

 

[Gunner]

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]

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

 

[Gunner]

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

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

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]

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]

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

 

[tehsolace]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Gunner]

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]

uh-oh, insults time ftw!

 

[DeusExMachina]

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]

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.

What? It's about cloning, not stem cell research.

 

[15357]

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.

 

[CptStern]

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]

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



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

 

[CptStern]

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]

We aren't suppressing anything, are we?

 

[CptStern]

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]

Military Penal Code =/= Civil Criminal Codes

 

[Core407]

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]

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]

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. (!)