Thursday, October 04, 2012




Homosexual bigotry OK?

In recent months, there's been a lot of chatter on the interwebs about this thing called "gaycism" on the TV. As defined by Lauren Bans of GQ, gaycism is "the wrongheaded idea that having gay characters gives you carte blanche to cut PC corners elsewhere."

 In her example, Bans cites shows like Modern Family and freshman comedy Partners as emblematic of this trend. Modern Family is an Emmy-juggernaut, a critical darling and a much-lauded champion of LGBT characterization on TV, but that progressivism comes at the expense of Gloria, the lone woman of color. Sofia Vergara is a terrific comedienne and kills in the role, but the brunt of her jokes revolve around her flimsy command of the English language. Gloria's B-story FOR AN ENTIRE EPISODE dealt with her use of malapropisms, like "doggy dog world" and "don't give me an old tomato," because being foreign is her whole purpose on the show. Oh, and having boobs.

King recently upped the gaycist ante with Two Broke Girls, a show the New Yorker referred to as "so racist it is less offensive than baffling." The show reduces black men to sweet ol' jive-talkers, Eastern Europeans to crazed sex hounds and Asian Americans to Long Duk Dong and "Yellow Panic" stereotypes. On the latter, Andrew Ti of "Yo, Is That Racist?" notes, "It's distressingly easy to imagine the writers sitting around and listing off every single ching-chong stereotype, ultimately deciding with some sorrow that a Fu Manchu mustache would be impractical for budget reasons."

Into this controversy steps The New Normal, the new Ryan Murphy show about two gay men who decide to raise a baby together, a show that marries Murphy's trademark tonal inconsistency "with more gay jokes and regular old racism than Gallagher's stand-up act." All of Murphy's shows have huge problems, and Glee has faced heavy criticism for not only being super racist, but also for being super transphobic, which was recently kiiiind of rectified by introducing the character of Unique, a young trans* woman of color. However, as the Cracked article on the show argues, the real problem is that everyone is a "something" on the show, and all the characters conform to broad caricatures, "like the awkward Jew with the afro, the black girl who always sings the big gospel notes, the gay kid with the great fashion sense, the overachieving Asian [and] the fiery, underprivileged Latina."

Source

25 comments:

Bird of Paradise said...

Proof that the quality of TV shows has gone into the trash heap of prime time waste

Anonymous said...

It is sad that some people cannot express themselves in fluent English without vulgarity or obscenity.

Anonymous said...

Anon1:42, I refuse to be PC to suit your puritanical lifestyle.

Anonymous said...

Anon2:25, Why do you care? How does it affect YOU personally?

Anonymous said...

2:25 seems to be confusing genetic gender with homosexuality. And what does he/she propose for those "genetic exceptions" which he/she regards as not normal. They may not be under some definition of "normal" but they are human beings, or perhaps he/she believes in eugenics and euthanasia as the best solution.
And whether homosexuality is an "immoral lifestyle choice" is only his/her subjective opinion, whether or not he/she proposes some similar eugenic or forced solution for homosexuals.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:36, it affects me directly because it directly affects legislation that is intended to change historical and traditional practices all in the name of tolerance for the sake of an immoral minority of people who are unwilling to change their chosen behaviors.

Anonymous said...

"it affects me directly because..."

What a load of crap. It just affects your sensibilities.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:25, "genetic exceptions" should be accommodated with love and compassion because they had no control over their genetic makeup. But as for the homosexual, it is an immoral lifestyle choice that he or she makes, and that immoral choice is encouraged and perpetuated by the vocal homosexual minority.

And even if it was genetic, what about the alcoholic? it has been shown that genetics play a huge role in predisposing people to alcoholism. Yet we have laws, legislation, medical programs, and educational programs to help ensure turn the alcoholic onto a path that leads him away from his alcoholism. And so it is (or should be) with the homosexual.

If homosexuality is so right, then why don't ALL homosexuals just "come out"? The reality is that they can't because they fear. They fear that they will be chastised. They fear that they will lose money. They fear that they will lose benefits. The fact is that in the end, the homosexual is self-serving without regard to the greater moral good.

Anonymous said...

Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right.

Anonymous said...

And just because you want to do something doesn't make it right, nor should it necessarily be your right.

Anonymous said...

"I refuse to be PC to suit your puritanical lifestyle" Anon 2:09, expressing yourself without vulgarity is for your own benefit. Foul language might impress teenagers but intelligent adults will just assume you are immature.

Anonymous said...

When push comes to shove, Liberals routinely resort to name-calling and abuse.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Anonymous said...

6:02 The fear is from bigoted people like yourself who will make life very difficult for homosexuals, and in the past was even more dangerous to be "outed" when it was made criminal.
Of course, there is a difference between just being homosexual (whether genetically or emotionally caused) and expressing homosexual behavior (either very privately or more openly), and the bigots expect both types of homosexual to be totally invisible and preferably celibate, so as not to offend the bigots' fragile sensibilities.
As for what is traditional, I guess we ought to go back to burning witches and torturing blasphemers!

Anonymous said...

6:02 is dishonestly comparing homosexuality with diseases like alcoholism if the two were genetically based. So of course 6:02 didn't want to compare it with high intelligence if that was genetically based!

Anonymous said...

If homosexuality IS genetically based, then yes, that is a factor that needs to be taken into account. But it is society that determines what BEHAVIOURS are acceptable or not. An alcoholic is given compassion because his condition is genetically pre-disposed. But if he exhibits drunken behaviour, that is considered unacceptable. Likewise with the homosexual, if genetics causes them to be predisposed to be a homosexual, then we should be compassionate and loving. But if he exhibits otherwise socially unacceptable homosexual behaviour, then he should be dealt with.

And if homosexuality is NOT genetic, and simply a choice, then again, the choice to exhibit homosexual behaviour is socially unacceptable, and he should be dealt with accordingly.

The problem is that homosexuals waffle back and forth about the nature of their homosexuality claiming genetics or choice depending on what suits them.

Throughout history, society has established specific laws, rules, and norms to keep society stable. Those minority groups who try to change the norm are doing nothing but selfishly disrupting society and causing it to turn in a direction which is contrary to the moral good.

Anonymous said...

5:22 AM - Wow, so you think society is static and nobody should change any of its norms, if so, you would be back in the middle-ages, burning witches and blasphemers. So who decides if homosexual behavior is acceptable or not?

Anonymous said...

Gas Chambers? What a typical Liberal suggestion. How about they all just man-up and act like real male adults instead of wussing out and insisting that everyone pander to their selfish fragile egos?

Anonymous said...

So what is your solution other than your bigoted rants?

Anonymous said...

1:58 - It is common to use the excuse of "protecting children" to attack the freedoms of other adults.
Secondly, if "marriage" and "civil unions" are the same in all but name, what is the point of the distinction?

Anonymous said...

Stop pushing your religious behaviours on the rest of us, particularly our children. You can brainwash your children with bigoted ideas, but leave the rest of alone.

Anonymous said...

@2:43 AM, I'm just reading a page from the Liberal playbook.

And second, "marriage" and "civil union" are NOT the same thing. a civil union is a legal contract providing for specific legal rights. Marriage is both a legal contract, and (typically) a religious covenant defined by most religions as the heterosexual union between a man and a woman. And the legal aspect of it comes directly from its religious distinction.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:05 AM, it's interesting how Liberals demand that religious people stop pushing their beliefs on others, yet in doing so, the Liberals are pushing their own beliefs on others. Hypocrisy at its finest. Liberals claim to want equality, yet they are so quick to suppress those who dare to contradict or refute Liberal opinion.

If you want equal rights, then you have to ensure that religious people are free to express themselves as well. Oh wait, it DOES say that right in the Constitution. And notice that the right to the concept of "religious expression" is specifically stated, yet "gay expression" is not. Hmmm.

Anonymous said...

@ 7:11 AM, I'm just reading a page from the Ignoramuses´ playbook. Marriage was not always in the control of religions or the Christian Church, and in today's secular states (yes, the US is also a secular state!), churches only perform legal marriages under licence from the state. The authorized churches and their members still have the freedom to marry who they please and to attach to the ceremonies whatever religious language and significance they like, but that it is up to them and has no further legal significance. Religious freedom is in no way being suppressed by the state which can also offer "marriage" in secular courts or other venues or can decide to call them marriages even when it involves same-sex couples.
In short, religious rights are not inhibited but many religious people seem to want to inhibit the secular rights of their fellow citizens - that is HYPOCRICY!

Anonymous said...

Marriage is BOTH a LEGAL contract and a RELIGIOUS covenant that far pre-dates the United States Constitution. In fact, "marriage" isn'e even addressed in the Constitution. Why? because historically, marriages were and continue to be conducted in religious environments (though many are done outside a religious environment due to either convenience or non-religious beliefs.) And no, this isn't just a "Christian thing". This holds true for almost all religions world-wide and throughout history. So stop assuming it's just a bunch of right-wing Christians speaking out againse homosexuality and gay marriage. Yes, many do, but it's far from exclusive to Christianity. Just go to any Muslim country and flaunt your gayness, and see how long your head stays attached to your body.

Anonymous said...

So 5:54, are you saying we should be grateful that Christian bigots are not as murderous as Muslim ones?