Private Asset Forfeiture in Oklahoma »« Scalia’s Simplistic and Offensive Bluster

Porter: Shows With Gay Characters ‘Unsafe for Children’

Wingnut extraordinaire Janet Porter (nee Folger), the main person behind all those fetal heartbeat bills in various states, wants people to start boycotting Disney because there’s a show on the Disney channel that is going to include a family with two gay mothers.

Now, you can’t trust the Disney Channel. One of their more popular programs, “Good Luck Charlie” will in a few months be introducing a family with two lesbian mothers. Caving into pressure to include homosexual characters in their programs, they plan to do this in the last episode of what is scheduled to be the final season of the show. Disney Channel Vice President Gary Marsh needs to hear from us. His email address is gary.marsh @ disney.com. Politely let Mr. Marsh know your objections to the bad plans for the “Good Luck Charlie” program at gary.marsh @ disney.com. In fact, there isn’t much on the Disney Channel safe for children to view. More reason to steer your kids elsewhere!

Once again, I’m always struck by how powerful and alluring they think homosexuality must be. What is “unsafe for children” about the mere acknowledgement that there are families headed by gay couples? Do they think a gay couple on TV will instantly and magically make them be gay? Is the appeal of heterosexuality so weak that the very existence of gay people is capable of turning people gay?

Comments

  1. says

    Homosexuality is so alluring that having a single gay teacher, seeing two men kiss in a magazine ad or watching a show with two mommies (who almost certainly will barely touch each other, much less be shown having sex) can override the scores of straight teachers, the tens of thousands of straight kisses in commercial advertising and the uncountable appearances of straight public displays of affection in the media and turn a child irrevocably gay.

    Is their grasp on heterosexuality really that tenuous?

  2. Larry says

    Wait, aren’t the jebus fanatics already boycotting Disney for holding Teh Gayz days at their parks?

    Disney is simply going to be shattered by this new boycott.

  3. matty1 says

    I think it’s two things.

    1. They want to imply without actually mentioning it the old lie about gays being paedophiles.

    2. In their minds gay *only* means gay sex so they cannot imagine gay people appearing on TV except in some kind of porno.

  4. Chiroptera says

    What is “unsafe for children” about the mere acknowledgement that there are families headed by gay couples?

    It’s a pathetic rear guard action The bubble in which they are trying to keep their kids safe from inconvenient truths — in this case, that gay people are ordinary folks — has been compromised, and they are desperately trying to step the leaks.

    Basically, the homophobes are in the position of the Japanese in 1944. They’ve lost already lost the war, but they are still going to continue to the end, inflicting as much pain and damage as they can.

  5. John Pieret says

    What I think they are really afraid of is that, if the kids see gay people acting like normal people and getting acceptance and respect from normal people, the kids might realize what flaming bigots their parents are.

  6. says

    To be fair, she’s right. TV effects us more than we’d like to admit. I saw an ad for an Acura, for instance, and now I know that foreign cars exist. Worse, I know that they’re well equipped, reliable, and available now at a dealer near me. It’s almost as bad as the time my family was watching TV and a fabric softener commercial came on. The wife and I had to have an uncomfortable conversation with our children, explaining why our towels didn’t smell like a spring morning even days after being washed, and why they were not as fluffy and luxurious as they could be. They still can’t look me in the eye.

  7. says

    Of course if DIsney came out with a show where the main villain was gay, openly or heavily implied, she’d probably have no problem with it.

  8. cptdoom says

    Funny she’s complaining about a couple that, from what I’ve read, is going to be on one episode. Meanwhile, ABC Family, a network contractually obligated to carry her buddy Pat Robertson’s 700 Club, is running an actual series about two women heading a family that includes biological, adopted and foster children (called, the Fosters which is their last name, of course) and there’s barely a peep of outrage. Apparently no one wants to tell people to boycott the channel Pat began (he sold it years ago).

  9. says

    From an external point of view, she is correct. As visibility and acceptance of gay and lesbian families increases, more people are likely to come out, or at least stop hiding as deep. Gay teachers will give gay students more freedom to be open. The end result is the knowledge of more gays and lesbians, thus proving her hypothesis.

  10. schism says

    Do they think a gay couple on TV will instantly and magically make them be gay?

    Pretty much, yes. A lot of fundies think LGBT people are possessed by demons, and demonic possession is generally portrayed like a viral infection.

  11. raven says

    Fundie xianity has proven to be unsafe for children.

    1. They have rates of child sexual abuse higher than normal people. In fact, the second highest predictor of child sexual abuse is “membership in a consevative religious sect”. It’s a problem in the JW’s, Mormons, Catholics, and any authoritarian mind control cult that is based on male dominance.

    2. They also have higher rates of children growing up in poverty, teenage pregnancy, and any other social problem you can think of.

    3. A hundred or so fundie children are sacrificed in grisly rituals known as “faith healing” and “raising children by beating them to death” every year.

    But there is no reason to boycott them. People are leaving the US xian religions at the rate of 1-2 million a year.

  12. magistramarla says

    Tim @ #7
    “Of course if DIsney came out with a show where the main villain was gay, openly or heavily implied, she’d probably have no problem with it.”

    Have you ever watched “The Lion King”? The evil lion is almost certainly portrayed as gay.

  13. says

    Paul Cameron: Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does

    Gay sex is superlatively seductive! If you can’t trust discredited psych “researcher” (but totally heterosexual) Paul Cameron about the superiority of homosexual sex for the hedonistic pleasure seeker, who can you trust? Marcus Bachmann?

  14. says

    magistramarla “Have you ever watched ‘The Lion King’? The evil lion is almost certainly portrayed as gay.”
    You’re thinking of The Loin King. Common mistake.

  15. raven says

    Have you ever watched “The Lion King”? The evil lion is almost certainly portrayed as gay.

    I haven’t seen that movie.

    Hmmm, well, what does a gay lion look like and how does he act? How do you tell a gay lion from a hetero lion. Inquiring minds want to know. (Not really, I have way too many other things to think about than cartoon gay lions!!!)

    I suppose the lion will just have to join the Teletubbies, the Muppets, and Spongebob Squarepants as gay cartoon characters.

  16. says

    raven “Hmmm, well, what does a gay lion look like and how does he act?”
    Like Jeremy Irons*, apparently.
     
    * “I thiiink it’s. Time. For me to chewww the…ssscenery.”

  17. cjcolucci says

    I think it’s a sign of progress that a TV soap opera, General Hospital has an evil gay character, and that his gayness is part of his evil, because he is always trying to get gay sex from unwilling gay and straight men. He harasses the good gay character (who is also black — a twofer) and tried to blackmail a cute straight character. (Not a good idea. He was, unbeknownst to the Evil Gay Character, the victim of a prison rape and who knows how he might go off if the Evil Gay Character pushed too hard.)

  18. says

    Somehow I managed to get through 300 and I don’t know how many bare, muscular, male chests–and the closest thing to a gay thought I had was: “Good Lord this movie blows.”

  19. Synfandel says

    Do they think a gay couple on TV will instantly and magically make them be gay?

    Probably not, but the impressionable tots might get the idea that gay and lesbian parents are thoroughly normal, insidiously undermining all the hard work their parents’ have been doing to instill proper bigotry in their children.

  20. Moggie says

    raven:

    Hmmm, well, what does a gay lion look like and how does he act? How do you tell a gay lion from a hetero lion.

    Honey, they don’t call it a pride of lions for nothing.

  21. dingojack says

    MO – Jezza? Chewing the scenery? Clearly you’ve never experienced Brideshead Revisited (lucky you).
    From FoAW: -

    Number 96 was a popular Australian soap opera set in a Sydney apartment block…. Number 96 was launched amid much controversy on 13 March 1972…. The show featured a multiracial cast, had frequent nude scenes, and featured a long-running gay male relationship that drew no particular interest from any of the show’s other characters. It is believed that the series was the world’s first to include a portrayal of a gay couple as normal people fully accepted by and integrated into their community…. Lawyer Don Finlayson (Joe Hasham) was revealed as gay in an early episode and had several boyfriends over the course of the series; his most enduring relationship was with film buff Dudley Butterfield (Chard Hayward).

    Oh we’ve come a long long way since ’72 baby! @@

    Dingo

  22. valhar2000 says

    “Good Luck Charlie” will in a few months be introducing a family with two lesbian mothers.

    As opposed to a family with one closeted lesbian mother, which is how it was in the good ol’ days.

  23. Pierce R. Butler says

    Chiroptera @ # 4: … the homophobes are in the position of the Japanese in 1944.

    The Confederates of 1864 seem a more appropriate analogy.

  24. M can help you with that. says

    aaronbaker:

    Somehow I managed to get through 300 and I don’t know how many bare, muscular, male chests–and the closest thing to a gay thought I had was: “Good Lord this movie blows.”

    Same here. And I’m gay. The movie was just that bad.

  25. Abdul Alhazred says

    Do they think a gay couple on TV will instantly and magically make them be gay?

    Are you kidding? It doesn’t even have to be a couple.

    Nothing flings a craving for dicks onto a fundamentalist “family man” like seeing Paul Lynde on Hollywood Squares.

    :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

  26. says

    Abdul Alhazred “Nothing flings a craving for dicks onto a fundamentalist ‘family man’ like seeing Paul Lynde on Hollywood Squares.”
    And I thought my references were out of date. [mugs for camera, adjusts giant glasses]

  27. thascius says

    @9-actually some conservatives, including “a million moms” had a hissyfit over The Fosters also. I don’t think anybody outside their narrow circle actually cared.

  28. Pen says

    They want straight sex to be so costly that it does indeed raise the appeal of homosexuality for anyone with that option?

  29. kermit. says

    Is the appeal of heterosexuality so weak that the very existence of gay people is capable of turning people gay?
    .
    All sins have an irresistible draw for Fundamentalists.
    .
    Fundamentalist Christians are taught from infancy that they – as all people – are inherently perverse.(1) They understand this to mean that we will choose to do the wrong thing given the chance, unless we pray really hard and allow ourselves to be possessed by the invisible Holy Spirit, who is distinguishable from other spirits.(2) Since we are naturally sinful by nature, anything sinful (grandmother abuse, interspecies romance, sleeping in on Sundays) holds a powerful and dreaded fascination for the Fundy, even though they’re really not naturally interested in most of it. They just think they are.
    .
    Of course, sin for them is disobedience, not hurting others, so much of what we seculars do they consider to be sinful, but they can see that we seem to be perfectly happy, and nobody normal gets hurt, not even their feelings, so they can’t trust their own feelings on these matters. The real sins, as any authoritarian can tell you, are disobedience and disrespect. Forbidden animal lusts – adultery, children, barnyard trysts, gay love affairs, are all gonna get us if we let our guard down. These poor people don’t even know what they really want – they are not allowed to examine themselves – too dangerous. Might find some religious doubt in there between beautiful Bossy the Cow and Pat, that cute but sexually ambiguous neighbor.
    .
    (1) We inherited this from our ancestors Adam and Eve, who perversely disobeyed God before they knew the difference between right and wrong, and so we all became instantly impure, before the fact of our birth. This is also our choice. Somehow, all the tens of billions(?) of humans who have lived have had free will, but we all chose to do evil. What are the odds?
    .
    (2) Don’t ask me how; I was merely the precocious grandson of the preacher. What do I know?

  30. sezme says

    Do they think a gay couple on TV will instantly and magically make them be gay?

    Of course because it’s true. Every time Ellen is on the gay cooties come pouring out of my screen. Hell, I have to wrap my schnoodle in tin foil just to keep her safe.

Leave a Reply