The gay-ing of TVs and Movies

Is Hollywood pushing a gay agenda on the U.S.A. and the world?

This one will probably quickly become an argument over whether or not I'm homophobic and gay-bashing, but I hope for a serious and honest discussion here. Those that want to bash, cry phobic, or otherwise want to turn this thread into something that doesn't belong here at Joe User should move their conversations and responses elsewhere.

Over the last few years especially Hollywood, via movies and television, seems to be working very hard to help make being gay much more acceptable... There was Ellen Degeneres on her TV sitcom with the "Is she, or isn't she?" question that distracted that show right off the network (because the show stopped being funny while worrying over whether or not being gay was acceptable for a lead character in a TV show). There's been Will and Grace, again with characters in a lead role that are openly gay. And there's been bunches of movies that have all wound up including characters that turned out to be gay.

But in the last few years especially, it seems that Hollywood has latched onto a formula that says that just about any show that will be on TV has to include a gay character.

Borrowing a bit, and/or paraphrasing a conversation from another site on the net, there is this exchange about the new show Love Monkey, on CBS:




i didn't catch the friend was gay until the end.

My wife claims she knew... but how'd she figured that one out?


which was answered by another net citizen with this statement (which somewhat echoed my thoughts as I thought about this article):

... apparently there is a new law that all new shows must have a gay character, so she knew to be looking...




Over the last few days there was also a protest/ruckus raised because apparently American Idol was showing itself to be homophobic over using footage of a person of questionable gender. A he, that looked much more like a she, was paraded in front of the panel of judges, which resulted in the judges having a conversation after the audition ended asking just what they had just seen. That resulted in a group protesting the treatment of the individual and gays being very unhappy about the homophobic American Idol.

Coming back on point though, am I wrong in perhaps theorizing that Hollywood has been clearly pushing an agenda of acceptance of gays onto the U.S.A. (and the world) through it's products in the last several years?

I'm not saying that we should treat anyone poorly, but I personally think we don't need Hollywood out in front mainstreaming homosexuality. Showing that we should treat everyone the same is fine, but including a gay character "just because" seems to be a sign that Hollywood is pushing a message here. Are we coming back to a point that any and every "minority" group will have to be represented on every TV show and movie that Hollywood releases or creates? Do we have to have the token Black character, the token Asian, Hispanic/Latino, differently abled individual, etc.?

It seems more and more that is where we are headed, except we don't go there, because that it is too obvious, and is in and of itself racist and discriminatory in nature. Hollywood doesn't play that game, even if they want to, because it is so obvious, but they will slowly but surely mainstream homosexuality while ignoring the fact they have been ignoring minorities of all sorts year after year.

Food for thought, or just phobic rhetoric outta the right here at JU? You tell me.
29,551 views 21 replies
Reply #1 Top
You've heard me say it more then once.... Their spoon feeding society on this one, because they can. Let me say it clearly, I am not homophobic. I have no problems with that miniscule cultural segment having some laws to draw upon. What I won't support is changing the definition of marriage nationally to accommodate gays and the majority rules.

In my world, there's right and wrong...good and bad. Using TV & movies as a bully pulpit for a social change is wrong!

Boy did the Love Monkey ending surprised my wife and I. At first, I enjoyed the show not only because of the questions confronting a single men in his thirties, but because I could relate my earlier life. During a period from my late twenty's through forty, I was part of small group of professional people that lived near one another on the ocean and we spent a great deal of time together when not working. A lobbyist (boy next door type), a corporate pilot (all American x-quarterback,) a movie producer (woman) and a sales executive (black man), and then myself, midwestern boy head of two growing company's.

You can see why I could relate. However, when they threw in a gay x-professional athlete and his personal life adventures everything changed. It wasn't realistic any longer for any of us then or now. Our movie producer friend was exposed to the gay community but didn't foster it outside of work. By throwing in a gay person's issues they are clearly attempting to make their choices commonplace and that's not only misleading it's wrong! They lost our viewer ship....
Reply #2 Top
Thanks for your comments TitanI9.

I've worked with people that were very openly gay in the past. I mean beligerently openly gay. In your face gay. They could have turned just about any workplace into a hostile one with their constant discussion about going out to pick up guys (and gals for the gals that were there too).

One "ex" couple worked there. They'd tell tales on each other that were just disgusting.

If I wasn't a tolerant individual, I wouldn't have survived more than a day working there, yet I wound up working there for quite a while. I basically ignored their conversations and somewhat constant bickering. I had a job that I was paid to do, and I did it and worried about what my employer's customers wanted done, rather than who wanted what done to them where.

Most every other job I've ever had peoples sexuality was their own business. It's a private life and not for open discussion.

I give credit to the ending on Love Monkey for not being blatant about the guy's orientation. They didn't make a big in your face, and yet it was there for shock value certainly. It's not like the guys he was hanging with were commenting about his love life, except to give him a hard time about not taking advantage of the hot woman that was basically throwing herself at him while they were still on the hoops court.

Like you have said though, it seems to be a case of spoon feeding society. Slowly but surely Hollywood is working to change everyone's minds and make things more acceptable. It works because people don't pick up on it, and don't call out the Hollywood types for doing it. If you do call them out, you're Homophobic. If you don't, you're assumed to be ok with it, and they just keep adding more and more.

What happens when Hollywood gets it's apparent way on this, do they then move on to mainstreaming child molesters? Ooops, I must really be phobic to consider that slippery slope. There's obviously no ties between homosexual behavior and pedophilia, right? Why then do we have Priests wind up preying upon young boys? Is it because the Priesthood attracts pedophiles, or because someone that can't control their urges to have sex with others of the same sex start preying upon younger individuals because they are easier to victimize and are less likely to report such advances?

Hollywood has tried so many times to send messages and change society, and yet many of the times it has tried to do it, no matter how well meaning, it's failed miserably, and just helped to make us more tolerant of bad behavior that never should have been tolerated to begin with. They glorify criminals and criminal behavior, making it entertaining for us to the point we forget that the acts we are watching are criminal. They get us to cheer for the bad guys, hoping that the good guys will miss and be a bunch of buffoons that can't catch the heros they are creating for us. They had more and more gratuitous violence to their creations until we don't notice that any more either. We're no longer shocked by those acts, and they have to go find bigger and badder. Then when someone that was disaffected by the imagery snaps and goes crazy, we're told by the defenders of the Hollywood types that there's no link between images seen in movies, video games, etc., and real life. Ah, then why did the Columbine murderers seem so entertained by the acts they were carrying out?

It's a blurry line that Hollywood is continually trying to cross, if not outright pick up and move. Will they be called on it, or no?
Reply #3 Top
I don't know if it's spoonfeeding the idea of gays. Perhaps I just live in a particularly gay-influenced country, but most people I know know someone who's gay. It would be stranger to see a sitcom without any gay characters, particularly if it's set in the city or in a creative profession. It's just the way things are.
Reply #4 Top
It would be stranger to see a sitcom without any gay characters, particularly if it's set in the city or in a creative profession. It's just the way things are.


And yet how often do you turn on the TV and see shows that don't include a person of color, or a person of Asian heritage, or Latino heritage, etc?

Seriously, shows like Friends -- mostly a circle of white folks. Seinfeld, were there frequently people of color? Don't think so. New shows like Courting Alex - mostly white. Two and a half men - white bread. My Name is Earl - uh, ignore that one. It rips on all poor folks.

You get the idea though... where Hollywood isn't holding back on putting gay characters into shows, they seem to continue to have a problem showing groups of people that don't look like everyone else in the group.

One of the few exceptions is reality TV like Survivor, where the producers try hard to include one of everything. One bitchy player. One domineering player. A schemer. A pretty boy/girl. At least one black player. At least one woman. At least one gay person. All of the colors and shades under the rainbow.

I'd ask this though -- what are the numbers behind the actual statistics for numbers of people that are gay in this country? Is it really 1 out of 7, or 1 out of 4 or 5 as some TV shows would seem to indicate, or is it more like 1 / 10 or fewer, which means Hollywood is most likely over representing gays to help further their agenda?
Reply #5 Top
Well from my perspective - a country where there less than a 20th of the population could be considered 'black' - the figures match up. I can't, of course, make any judgement though about the situation where you live. But generally sitcoms tend to be about people who work in creative professions, or at least the Hollywood sitcoms that make it to Oz are. So considering the kind of work the main characters do, and the kind of work screenwriters do, I doubt it has to be a conspiracy for them to include so many gay characters. They are, after all, quite common in showbiz - or so I've heard.
Reply #6 Top
It's ironic, TV and Movie writers and producers fall over themselves showing how much they do for society.

In one side of their mouths they brag that they helped reduce the number of smokers, increased seatbelt and helmet use, improved racial and cultural understanding and other things, just by showing our favorite television and movie characters doing it.

Then they deny they have any effect on society, "we're just a mirror of what's going on out there".

They know what they are doing (and they are very good at it). In this case, it shows everytime a person is treated like a total bigot just for disagreeing with gay issues.
Reply #7 Top
TV gives us what we want. If it isn't profitable, it doesn't stay around long, no matter how "progressive".

Either A WHOLE LOT of gays are tuning in (and supporting the sponsors), or America appreciates these programs. I don't think an alternate form of morality is being pushed down our throats...rather, the American public expects gay characters to be a part of a well-rounded program.
Reply #8 Top
Yup Texas, and Brokeback Mountain did so well at the Golden Globes because the movie watching world was out demanding a movie about 2 sheep ranchers in the 60s. ;~D
Reply #9 Top
Yup Texas, and Brokeback Mountain did so well at the Golden Globes because the movie watching world was out demanding a movie about 2 sheep ranchers in the 60s.


I can't say it was my kind of movie but when you consider the field there weren't many good movies out last year - at least, there weren't many good movies that get globes last year. maybe it was just the best of a bad bunch, or maybe the fruit baskets were just really good...
Reply #10 Top
Then there was the Family Stone.  You got a 2-fer.  A black Gay guy!
Reply #11 Top
It's a blurry line that Hollywood is continually trying to cross, if not outright pick up and move. Will they be called on it, or no?


There are population segments that buy into the belief that gays are becoming commonplace, even though they are not remotely close. Plus there's a sorry segment that doesn't do anything because their little world isn't bothered. To answer your question, they are being called on their actions. There is a large segment of folks like myself that won't accept the spoon feeding. Even though I am not a member of the Christian Right which leads the fight on such issues, I have signed on to help them stop the entertainment industries exploits.

It's sad when I think there's a population segment that assumes if it's profitable it's what we want, if not, it goes.... They lack understanding of where profits come from and how movies and TV shows get made. A movie can appear to have failed but proves profitable when purchased by a distributor for offshore marketing or the VCR/DVD rental and sale aftermarket . Writers are measured by their creative writing skills not the resulting P&L of the show or movie. TV shows are purchased by networks or distributors in lots, example being a TV or movie plot , 5 or 10 shows as a filler. Even though Joan of Arcadia wasn't on long, by purchasing a defined # of shows and selling advertising, the writers and distributors earn profits making the core shows P&L successful before cancellation. That's when programming content becomes the issue and the target. For the failed Joan of Arcadia further revenue streams are generated through syndication or when sold to cable channels around the world.
Reply #12 Top
Yup Texas, and Brokeback Mountain did so well at the Golden Globes because the movie watching world was out demanding a movie about 2 sheep ranchers in the 60s.


Actually, Brokeback Mountain is a perfect example of the intellectual dishonesty of some of these guys. It "did so well" in the theaters because they would only release it in markets where it was guaranteed to sell tickets, rather than in the heartland where theaters would sit empty.

I DON'T think there's the market people think there is for gay characters, frankly. If you look at the numbers, network TV's primetime lineup doesn't get a massive share of the total viewership, due to competition from cable. I mean, come on, Monday Night Football can't even survive on the networks anymore. So to increase viewership, networks execs have been appealing to niche markets. It's a safe bet that if a program has a gay character on it, the gay community will usually fawn over it as the most progressive new entertainment ever devised, and those numbers, due almost entirely to the viewership of the NICHE market, will give the network the numbers they crave.

I don't really care about the presence of a gay character on these shows, frankly. With the notable exception of "Ellen" (a show that was originally pretty funny but deteriorated when the gay theme DOMINATED the storylines), most shows don't go far out of the way to push the "gayness" of these individuals, having probably learned their lesson from the "Ellen" fiasco.

Frankly, I am just not that "into" prime time TV anymore. And I think that's true of a lot of other Americans. If I were a network exec, though, I would be thinking "how can I create buzz and get people talking about our network again to bring it back to life?" And (no offense intended) when I read articles like this I'm inclined to wonder if that isn't exactly what they did.
Reply #13 Top
Lets see:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekly/chart/

BB is not in the top 5 and Narnia is. Hmmm

For 2005, Narnia came in #3 for the year and BB came in 65th. Hmmm Guess that tells you something about popularity.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2005&view=releasedate&view2=domestic&sort=gross&order=DESC&&p=.htm

The awards show was a farce. If it was based on what the public wants and likes it would be completly different results. BB would not even get a coaster of the year award.

BB is ranked over 1000th all time, Narnia is ranked 28th. LOL Guess no one listens to the public anymore.
Reply #14 Top
as of last week:

Brokeback mountain 24 million dollars+huge success and ground breaking.

King Kong= 440 million dollars, disappointing and a failure.
Reply #15 Top
Yup Texas, and Brokeback Mountain did so well at the Golden Globes because the movie watching world was out demanding a movie about 2 sheep ranchers in the 60s


What I'm getting at is this...we live in a capitalistic society and we viewers help shape what we are offered. It's a reflection of us. I'm more disturbed by the trend toward "male-oriented" programming (Think SpikeTV or the new changes to G4) than I am by the inclusion of gay characters. But the reason why this is happening is because we are some sick bastards and apparently that's what most of us want to watch.

There are times when a movie or TV program is introduced because it's someone's grand vision, but generally, if something doesn't make money, it's going to be pulled (or in the case of movies, producers are going to move away from that theme).

I don't watch a whole lot of TV, and of the maybe 5 shows that I watch with regularity, none feature a gay character.
Reply #16 Top
What I'm getting at is this...we live in a capitalistic society and we viewers help shape what we are offered. It's a reflection of us. I'm more disturbed by the trend toward "male-oriented" programming (Think SpikeTV or the new changes to G4) than I am by the inclusion of gay characters. But the reason why this is happening is because we are some sick bastards and apparently that's what most of us want to watch.


Turnabout is fairplay here though Texas Wahine....

There's Lifetime, programming for Women. Lifetime Movie Network (aka movies about revenge against spouse abusers), obviously aimed at Women. Oxygen (Oprah's programming for women). WE (Women's Entertainment). E! (primarily Entertainment Weekly type programming), not specifically aimed at women, but skewing that way... Love Stories (by Starz!, though maybe with a different name now), again aimed primarily at women.

Should I continue the list?

Maybe include Soapnet (Soap operas 24x7)... Perhaps Gameshow Network (GSN), which skews towards women...

There's a ton of programming aimed at women, which is why Spike! was created. It was created to aim at men, true. But eventually if that niche isn't profitable, they'll move on.

There's also of course Telemundo, Megahertz, and other targetted channels, as well as BET, and more. I should also mention by the way Logo TV, which is aimed at the gay audience for it's niche. Niche programming is bound to happen, and I have no problem with that... I'm more concerned that mainstream programming is being bent or warped so it can be injected with a style that Hollywood wants to push upon us. It's great that you don't see any shows featuring gay channels in your limited exposure to TV, but there is definitely an increase in the inclusion of characters of the gay lifestyle coming through on network TV.

Check out Crumbs, Love Monkey, My Name is Earl, and more, not just Will and Grace. There's been other shows as well, and some shows started to go down that road, and then backed up a bit. Whether they did it because they felt they were gonna be too obvious, is a good question, hopefully it was more a case that a character didn't fit within a show, but who knows for sure.
Reply #17 Top
we now have LOGO a station that celebrates the gay and lesbian lifestyle.
Reply #18 Top
There's Lifetime, programming for Women. Lifetime Movie Network (aka movies about revenge against spouse abusers), obviously aimed at Women. Oxygen (Oprah's programming for women). WE (Women's Entertainment). E! (primarily Entertainment Weekly type programming), not specifically aimed at women, but skewing that way... Love Stories (by Starz!, though maybe with a different name now), again aimed primarily at women.


I was telling my husband the other day that I wanted to make a channel for women. I don't consider Lifetime or Oxygen or WE or any of that even remotely interesting. Haha. I don't think I'm unique...so there may be a market for a channel that shows X-Files, CSI, The Simpsons, Family Guy, Science programing, a smidgen of history programming and maybe some hourly news (Ok, Ok, and some Julia Roberts and Drew Barrymore movies).

There's a ton of programming aimed at women, which is why Spike! was created. It was created to aim at men, true. But eventually if that niche isn't profitable, they'll move on.


No doubt Spike and others reflect what men (and perhaps women, too) want to watch, but the sex-obsessed, misogynistic tone of the channel doesn't align with my family's values, despite the fact that we enjoy CSI reruns, MAX X, and the other "amazing video" programming.

The perfect channel for my husband would be G4 showing X-Play, Cinematech, some science and nature programming, Star Trek, and America's Funniest Home Videos. He'd never stop watching. Hehe.

Niche programming is bound to happen, and I have no problem with that... I'm more concerned that mainstream programming is being bent or warped so it can be injected with a style that Hollywood wants to push upon us.


But you see, I feel that the "male-oriented" programming is being pushed on us in mainstream programming (the base, boys-will-be-boys, glorification of misogyny) every bit as much as you feel that gay culture and values are being forced on you.

I have the choice to not watch that which offends me, but other than that, what do I do? Apparently the majority enjoys this whole "embrace your inner pig" stuff, and apparently the majority doesn't mind gay characters. Otherwise neither thing would be there.

IMO, the only "agenda" the media has is to make money.
Reply #19 Top

Actually, Brokeback Mountain is a perfect example of the intellectual dishonesty of some of these guys. It "did so well" in the theaters because they would only release it in markets where it was guaranteed to sell tickets, rather than in the heartland where theaters would sit empty.

I was listening to a Movie Critic who refuses to even discuss the Golden Globes.  Why?  Because it is voted on by a Club of Foreign Film Critics, whose only qualifications are they write 2 articles per year for their home publications, and (this is all according to him) their only purpose is to schmooze with the glitteratti.

Reply #20 Top

The perfect channel for my husband would be G4 showing X-Play, Cinematech, some science and nature programming, Star Trek, and America's Funniest Home Videos. He'd never stop watching. Hehe.

G4, Spike and SciFi.  Merge them into one (get rid of those cheesy z movies on Sci FI!) and you got my male channel!

Reply #21 Top
*prescribes Drawn Together for everyone in this thread*