lack of gay representation in US television?

[Tyguy]

its gross and should be banned

 

[Stigmata]

its gross and should be banned

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

 

[Tyguy]

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

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

now LESBIANS are a diferent story :bounce:

 

[Jerry_111]

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

now LESBIANS are a diferent story :bounce:

Hypocrisy much?

 

[Tyguy]

Hypocrisy much?

ya think?

 

[Stigmata]

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

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

 

[Mechagodzilla]

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

Education would blow that plan straight out of the water.

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

 

[Que-Ever]

GAYS!

represent.

 

[Tyguy]

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

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

 

[Tyguy]

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

Education would blow that plan straight out of the water.

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

You understand homosexuality? Do tell.....

 

[Absinthe]

Seriously?

 

[MiccyNarc]

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

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

 

[Tyguy]

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

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

 

[Absinthe]

but some of you need to loosen up

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

 

[Tyguy]

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

 

[MiccyNarc]

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

I'm a Christian, and I say wholeheartedly:
Yes.

@ Absinthe:

 

[CptStern]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Tyguy]

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




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

Normal = Not having sex with the same gender

There, that was easy

 

[CptStern]

Normal = Not having sex with the same gender

There, that was easy

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

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

 

[Tyguy]

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

 

[Beerdude26]

Normal = Not having sex with the same gender

There, that was easy

Ooh, ooh

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





















:|

 

[Tyguy]

Where are you going with that?

 

[CptStern]

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

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

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

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

 

[Beerdude26]

Where are you going with that?

People have opinions. Leave it at that.

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

Want me to draw the parallel with homosexuality?

 

[Absinthe]

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

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

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

 

[Tyguy]

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

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

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

 

[Beerdude26]

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

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

 

[Absinthe]

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

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

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

 

[Tyguy]

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

You didnt answer my question

 

[Absinthe]

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

 

[CptStern]

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

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

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

 

[Absinthe]

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

RETURN TO THE LIGHT

 

[Tyguy]

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

 

[CptStern]

did you choose to be heterosexual?

 

[Tyguy]

ya, it was question 7 on the sats

 

[CptStern]

I'll take that as a "no"

 

[Tyguy]

Eh, i lost interest in this thread, good game

 

[Stigmata]

Eh, i lost interest in this thread, good game

We were consistent in our arguments, we provided evidence, we were objective.

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

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

 

[CptStern]

Eh, i lost interest in this thread, good game

because you're not effectively defending your POV?

 

[Tyguy]

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