Deb Price: Gay gains in 2003 give glimpse of future

The Detroit News ^ | Monday, December 8, 2003 | Deb Price

[scripter]

I can't keep up with the pings so I'm just doing what I can.

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1), (Version 1.0)

Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list)

Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search

All FreeRepublic Bump Lists

Would you like to be part of the solution? To stay informed of the issues? A simple freepmail is all it takes to join the homosexual agenda ping list, and you can cancel at anytime.

Thanks for the ping.

[itsahoot]

60% of Americans oppose gay marriage. Sure, President Bush will just ignore them. Makes sense.

Certainly does, I think the opposition to open borders is about 75% and he ignores that.

[little jeremiah]

Having spend some time in and around SF, I can assure you that there is a segment (have no idea how many, don't want to know) of female homosexuals who perform all kinds of REALLY weird "sexual" practices involving every orifice, including the use of implements. Sometimes using violence, bondage, S&M. Sad but true.

One finds this out just by scanning bulletin boards, posters on on walls, and ads in the papers.

[I got the rope]

"But before I fall into one of my bad habits of jumping ahead to guess what might be under next year's tree, I'll pause to give thanks for the gifts of 2003."

To whom...God or the "state".

[Holden Magroin]

2004 should be the year Americans just say no to the homosexual movement. I, for one, am getting sick and tired of the 4% of the population that calls itself "gay" getting 80% of the liberal media's attention.

[WOSG]

Dittos .... At some point America is going to say: "STFU and go away!"

Others have made the point - let me make the point - 3% of Americans gay... 1% are homeschooling and 10% send kids to private school. Or take some other number, like the 30% of americans that are evangelical christians.

How come there are many gay characters on TV prime time and not a *single positive representation of an evangelical* in a TV sitcom??? There should be 10 times as many as there are gays.

We should be seeing 10 times the puff pieces on conservatives of faith and how they handle life then on this self-absorbed woman's gladness about the year of the homosexual. (egads, I detect a TIME mag cover :-/)


Problem is, the gays are in the newsrooms and the media and so on, but conservatives are not. Hence the media overexposure.

[fiscally_right]

Its also about ratings... You think sitcoms about evangelist christianity would go anywhere? You can call it a manifestation of the gay agenda, but gays on TV are probably just more entertaining. Which is the point of tv.

[WOSG]

sorry I dont buy your reasoning... what is made on tv is what hollywood produces. there is plenty of evidence they dont go with popular ideas that clash with their prejudices. much of the PC/gayified 'comedy' today, is mindless unfunny tripe.

"You think sitcoms about evangelist christianity would go anywhere?" yes i do. the only portrayal i can think of is in a v popular show - the Simpsons. aint positive portrayal but at least it is there.

[John O]

and she only helps to reinforce the stereotype that homosexuals are obsessed with their sexuality to the point of excluding anything else.

It's not a steroetype. It's a fact.
The second law of homosexuality:

To the mentally healthy person (heterosexual), sex is something you do.
To the mentally diseased person ('homosexual'), sex is everything you are.

The more I learn of these diseased people the more I pray that God will save and change them or (if they refuse to be changed) remove them before they drag others to hell with them

[presidio9]

Problem is, the gays are in the newsrooms and the media and so on, but conservatives are not. Hence the media overexposure.

Actually, the real problem is that the buttsex crowd has successfully cast themselves as victims in the eyes of society. Liberals love victims. Victims give liberals a reason to take more of my money.

[fiscally_right]

You might find a show mindless or humorless, but if Will and Grace or Queer Eye took a ratings dive, NBC would cut them in a hot second, whatever their 'prejudices.' I love the Simpsons, but the portrayal of Christians in that show isn't exactly favorable.

I honestly don't think that a show which revolved around a positive portrayal of Christianity would get good ratings. Of course I could be wrong, you never know until you try. I know you're probably thinking "well Hollywood doesn't try because of their bias." To that I don't really have an answer, but if I were them, I'd stick with Fear Factor and Average Joe and Queer Eye, since the ratings/cost ratios of those shows are astounding. Their job is to sell advertising, after all.

[WOSG]

Your argument is circular. these shows are around because they are marketed to succeed. Hollywood knows that PG movies get more money than R movies, but they put the sex n violence in because it's their way. It's also their way to sell moral degeneration 9 times out of 10, and to copy those kinds of shows, yet a successful show eg "touched by an angel" gets no copycats.

If you check the MRC (www.mrc.org) web site, they have plenty of stories of how hollywood will do the 'left' thing and the morally degrading thing even when it HURTS their ratings. Not to mention their bullying moralisms that they shove into the nooks and crannies of any show they can:

http://www.mrc.org/BozellColumns/entertainmentcolumn/2003/col20031126.asp

[fiscally_right]

I never argued that the studios don't inject their biases into otherwise neutral shows.. I agree with you there. It should also be noted that movies and TV are not run by the same people.. They may have the same mindset, but the creative process is totally different. Hollywood makes R rated movies because they want to capture the teen/adult market.. I haven't seen a PG movie since I was 10, and if there were only PG movies I'd probably never see one again. I don't laugh at comedies that are 'clean,' I don't respond to dramas that are violence-free, and I don't respond to romances at all, but if I did I'd want there to be some sex. Sue me, but I think that's the average mindset of a male in his 20s.

Anyhow, this argument isn't really going anywhere.. Surely some 'wholesome' shows have done well, because there is a market for those shows. I just think it is dwarfed by those who want to see people eat cow testicles (fear factor) or see gays make jokes of themselves (queer eye).

[WOSG]

"I never argued that the studios don't inject their biases into otherwise neutral shows.. "

Good, now lets agree that the REASON they inject their biases has nothing to do with ratings, and everything to do with their prejudices and their desire to inflict them on the rest of America. It's an explicit project of cultural brainwashing. This has been the plan of the Hollywood left for decades, going back to the 1940s when the Communist party nearly took over hollywood.

As for comedy, 'blackadder', 'jeeves' and 'fawlty towers' are the funniest comedies ever made. They are lots funnier than your average 'dirty' comedian. Comedy is irreverant but doesnt have to be unclean.