[Mike]

Originally Posted by Baboinga

Not true. How often does Ellen mention being gay on her show? You can watch ten shows in a row and hear her mention it once, MAYBE. I would know, because I've watched many, many episodes of her show. Ellen had a successful comedy career before her show, which is why she has her show. Because she's funny and charming. Even in her comedy shows (Such as her most recent DVD out, I believe called "Here and Now" she mentions being gay in the very begining, and then not again throughout the entire thing.

Alternately, there is a woman called Elvira Kurt. She's a Canadian lesbian comedienne; and SHE capitalizes on the lesbian thing. She has a show because she's charming and funny and a lesbian, this is very significantly different from the Ellen situation. ( http://www.elvirakurt.com/ )

I really like Ellen Degeneres, and I like her show, and I think that she is very funny. However, there are dozens of very funny women actors who have had their own sitcoms who were never offered their own talk show. The only other that I can think of that was offered a show was Christina Rey (sp?) who had a short-lived sitcom, and then took over the Rosie O'Donnel show after Rosie O'Donnel left... But had Rosie O'Donnel not started that show, Christina Rey would have never had it ... it wouldn't have existed. Ellen, on the other hand, was given a show not because she's a charming, funny comedian ... because there's hundreds of them ... but because she was a comedian who made a splash on her television show by being a Lesbian. Ellen also hosted the Emmy's or one of those award shows not long ago ... she hosted this because she is funny and witty, but there are hundreds of other funny and witty women who have had their own relatively shortlived sitcom... and none of them were ever given the job of hosting the Emmy's. She is as famous as she is BECAUSE she is a funny and witty Lesbian... and homosexuals are a big draw on television.

Again... this is because their sexuality is the default and is assumed. Television shows use gimmicks for people, someone being "straight" isn't a gimmick, but someone being gay is. The fact that there are homosexuals on television now is at times a blessing and a curse. It gives it homosexuality more exposure, which is a great thing; but on the other hand, it perpetuates the stereotypes.

Exactly. Just like how Gay Parades that are known for their flamboyant display of indecency stereotype homosexuals into this category of ridiculous dressing and acting people who lack any and all morals. Now, I don't believe that is what a homosexual person is, because I don't think that somebody's sexual preference predetermines how they act in civil society. While the majority of people at these parades are looking to strengthen community and push the modest homosexual agenda, the parades are known for being this display of morbid irregularity (this is evident in if you google image "Gay Pride Parade" the entire first page is filled with crazy people; and when people talk about Gay Pride parades, they generally tend to focus on the crazy outfits and expression of others). (this paragraph also corresponds to the continuation of that paragraph)

Well fucking duh. Did I sound like I wanted all ads all the time directed at me? Or at heterosexuals? No. But I was saying as an arguement towards straights having a pride event, which you didn't even say, so that part doesn't pertain to you. So don't shit yourself over it.

You were saying that every day is Straight Pride Parade and then cited people holding hands, advertisements, and marketing techniques that feature heterosexuals. If it doesn't pertain to me, then don't include it in your post. That post was obviously directed at me. I wouldn't start spewing on about the fouls of communism, which would obviously be directed at Jep (as Jep and I have many a discussion on Communism and poli-economics), in a reply to one of your posts. If a post is directed at me and you do not want me to respond to a particular point, then announce that this point is irrelevent to our conversation and does not pertain to me.

Right, because on television shows there is token black guy who has a few extra lines once a season when he confides to the main character some difficulties because he's black. Same with gays. It's their schtick, it's the role that they're given. This is going back to what I said earlier.

Well Black people aren't really a good example anymore, because Black people generally have more varied roles and have for some years. There are more shows based on the lives of Black people than there are on the lives of white people (rarely would you have "Friends" mention the whiteness of 'the friends' unless it was making fun of them; in a show like "Sistas" on UPN or the WB, whatever network that is, the blackness of 'the sistas' is the premise of most of the episodes). But in pertainance to homosexuals, I have a philosophical problem with this because I do not think that sexuality makes people innately different... I think that its like liking the color red or the color blue... it is something that does not predetermine every decision, outfit, and the way you act for the rest of your life. I think the only thing that it changes is who you go to sleep with at the end of the night and who you think about the next day. The Gay-media-blitz, coupled with the stereotypical image that Gay Pride Parades put out, perpetuate the idea that the effects of homosexuality on a person are ridiculously different than the effects of heterosexuality on a person... which in and of themselves, they are not... they're different sides of the same coin.