Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Admit it or not, anything "gay" is a pet issue for the mainstream media. They only want to report the good things and leave out anything negative. Gay people want total equality, right? Well then they will eventually have to learn to deal with negative press just like everyone else does.
Now, with that being said I will say this is definately not something that needs to be broadcast nationwide.
PS. I know my post probably seems crazy because one minute I am saying the press needs to be even handed and on the other I am saying they shouldn't air it. The reason is while I want equality for everyone and everything, I understand now is not the time to be bringing more hell down on gay people.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways. On the one hand, treat gays equally (with equal respect or equal derision as straights). On the other hand, protect them and cover up the facts. Everyone senses the injustice, and it actually puts gays further behind in gaining full respectability.
and what percentage of anti-gays are in the closet themselves
Good point.....that is one reason the true percentage of Gay people is hard to pin down Plus the violence...discrimination.....I filled my last census report with "Gay couple"; but many people are TRULY AFRAID, how very sad for the "land of the FREE and the home of the brave".
Gay people want total equality, right? Well then they will eventually have to learn to deal with negative press just like everyone else does.
I think there's lots of negative press about gays, and it doesn't take much for people to run with whatever they can get. People are still bringing up that so-called "attack on an old lady" in Palm Springs, and that occurred eight months ago! She wasn't exactly old (she's about 60) and it was barely an attack (she wasn't injured in any way), but the anti-gay folks have probably brought it up at least 100 times on this forum - and that's just the times that I've read it.
Quote:
PS. I know my post probably seems crazy because one minute I am saying the press needs to be even handed and on the other I am saying they shouldn't air it. The reason is while I want equality for everyone and everything, I understand now is not the time to be bringing more hell down on gay people. Straight people just aren't ready to accept news like that as if they were hearing about a str8 man committing the same crime. They will automatically equate this with "all gay people are evil and bad" And like I said, this man's sexual orientation has nothing to do with his crime. There are thousands of supposedly str8 men sitting in jail right now for abusing little boys. There are thousands of child molesters sitting in jail right now, period. But when you say "oh, and he's gay!" that just blows the roof off of everything and all of a sudden all gay people are pedophiles again. That's what I don't want to happen.
Yes, I think you explained the dilemma very well. I do think we should all be treated all equally as possible, but as you acknowledged, it doesn't take much for the anti-gay people to go into hysterics and start coming up with all sorts of negative labels for gays.
Last edited by Reads2MUCH; 07-02-2009 at 09:03 PM..
Reason: error in OP spelling
For gays to be recognized fully as a "demographic"--they will have to be willing to be subject to statistical analysis, just as straight, wife-beating husbands are. Just as young black males are analyzed statistically for gang activity. Just as white females are subjected to insurance risk-analysis in automobile crashes.
It is inevitable. It is not necessarily negative. I think more than 3/4 of this country knows that gays are good citizens.
For gays to be recognized fully as a "demographic"--they will have to be willing to be subject to statistical analysis, just as straight, wife-beating husbands are. Just as young black males are analyzed statistically for gang activity. Just as white females are subjected to insurance risk-analysis in automobile crashes.
It is inevitable. It is not necessarily negative. I think more than 3/4 of this country knows that gays are good citizens.
A slight problem is the difficulty of categorizing sexual orientation. There's lots of guys who have occasional encounters with other men, but who still think of themselves as straight. (Larry Craig is an infamous example.)
Obama has apparently found a way to get around the Defense Of Marriage Act and have the Census Bureau count married same-sex couples as legally married. That's a good start. I would imagine, however, that even if there were a question about sexual orientation on the Census, at least half of the people who are gay or bi would either refuse to answer or they would lie and say they're heterosexual.
Of all of the demographic categories (race, religion, nationality, etc.), I think sexual orientation is still the one where people are most likely to lie. Being homosexual or bisexual probably still carry more stigma than any other category. Does anybody disagree?
Pedophilia and sexual orientation are two totally different things.
Is there a "straight" factor to a rape when Uncle Joe molests his nieces? No.... just the "pedophile" factor.
The fact that the guy lived with another guy is irrelevant. Maybe if he were married to the guy (if it were legal) you'd hear about it, but to be honest, we've had a couple of instances around here were STRAIGHT MALE teachers raped/molested girls at the school they taught at, and I don't think it's been reported once whether or not these guys are married, have other kids, or girlfriends.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways. On the one hand, treat gays equally (with equal respect or equal derision as straights). On the other hand, protect them and cover up the facts. Everyone senses the injustice, and it actually puts gays further behind in gaining full respectability.
That's fine, but bring it up when it is relevant. The only reason anyone wants to bring up his sexuality is because they think it will further their "no children in gay homes" agenda. Bad news involving gay people should be broadcast, but not in such a way as to cause an attack on all gay people. And that is exactly what this sort of story is designed to generate. It isn't about protecting or getting justice for the child, it is about making a big issue over the fact that this gay man has children. The normal procedures should be followed, but the fact that he is gay shouldn't be a big factor. The man is simply a monster, and this would be true wether he was gay or str8. If this was a story about a man hurting or raping another man thought to be his lover, then his sexuality would play a huge role in the validity of the case. But in this circumstance, his sexuality has no bearing on the case. He raped that child because he was a pedophile, not because he was gay.
Pedophilia and sexual orientation are two totally different things.
Is there a "straight" factor to a rape when Uncle Joe molests his nieces? No.... just the "pedophile" factor.
The fact that the guy lived with another guy is irrelevant. Maybe if he were married to the guy (if it were legal) you'd hear about it, but to be honest, we've had a couple of instances around here were STRAIGHT MALE teachers raped/molested girls at the school they taught at, and I don't think it's been reported once whether or not these guys are married, have other kids, or girlfriends.
This is exactly what I was addressing. While I think the press should shine light on the negative actions of gay people, I don't see the "gay" connection this story is shooting for. It is simply an attempt to demonize all gay homes where children are present. There is no gay factor to this story. The man is a pedophile, and they come from all walks of life. The story was meant to do nothing more than stir up anti-gay sentiment. And frankly, I am just sick of the gay issue being at the top of everyone's discussion list. People are who they are, and their sexuality does not predispose them to being child molesters. Being gay has nothing to do with the monster this man has shown himself to be.
That's fine, but bring it up when it is relevant. The only reason anyone wants to bring up his sexuality is because they think it will further their "no children in gay homes" agenda. Bad news involving gay people should be broadcast, but not in such a way as to cause an attack on all gay people. And that is exactly what this sort of story is designed to generate. It isn't about protecting or getting justice for the child, it is about making a big issue over the fact that this gay man has children. The normal procedures should be followed, but the fact that he is gay shouldn't be a big factor. The man is simply a monster, and this would be true wether he was gay or str8. If this was a story about a man hurting or raping another man thought to be his lover, then his sexuality would play a huge role in the validity of the case. But in this circumstance, his sexuality has no bearing on the case. He raped that child because he was a pedophile, not because he was gay.
Just to play devil's advocate one could argue that the reason the 'gay' factor was not mentioned was not because of it being a pet issue but because of the history of the media marginalizing the partners and spouses of gay people.
Don't get me wrong, I can see what you are saying but there is a lot of history that gives points to the other possibility being equally valid. The most recent, and perhaps flagrant, thing that comes to mind is the 9/11 Penn flight where one of the main people to put up a fight was a gay man. Yet almost nowhere in the discussion of him in the news was that mentioned - some news agencies barely mentioned him at all. He wasn't mentioned even when you had other interviews with the surviving spouses of others who had been involved. The media didn't touch it. There were no interviews with his partner. Instead they did interviews with his parents but again made no mention of him being gay or the man that had just lost his spouse. They only discussed them losing their son.
That incident is not an isolated one either. Because it is not, I cannot honestly say which I believe is the answer: They didn't mention it because it is a pet cause or they didn't do so because they have a history of not mentioning such things? I'm not sure anyone can answer which is the truth but I suspect your (general your) opinion about gays will strongly influence which you (again general you) decide is the truth.
I believ many of those liberal reporters are gay. They are not going to rat out their own. It's up to us to make sure people know the real news.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
