Alot of people are of this opinion, but I beg to differ.

Well, sure, there're more gay people on TV this decade-in Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and on shows like America's Next Top Model and Project Runway. But all these shows do is enforce negative stereotypes about gay people. It's now acceptable to be gay as long as you're either flamboyantly gay (to the point of being funny) or straight (to the point of being a board of wood.) People are always asking you to be their "gay best friend" or do over their hair-it's acceptable as a humorous thing, we're acceptable as fashion designers and models but not as regular, everyday people.

All this ruckus about Brokeback Mountain-it's all anybody can talk about. When you mention the word "gay", you hear Brokeback Mountain. And all the attitude over it just shows how unused people are to it. Like we just started a GSA (Gay-Straight Alliance) at my school, and the 8th grader in it, that's all he can talk about. And they're applauding straight actors for playing gay, but whoever applauded Rock Hudson and Ian McKellen and John Gielgud for playing straight all these years? Like it's a role you should have to take.

So, is the '00s really a step forward in gay rights? I beg to differ. It's just the absorption of gay culture into a materialistic American attitude-we're accepted as long as we can sell shampoo.

Not really, I fear :(

I think they're more homophobic than the '90s.  People always use "Gay" as a slang word, myself included I hate to say.

Definitely not, homosexuality is still looked down upon a lot from when I hear on TV and stuff. Especially around here, Ohio is still a conservative state, even though we're very democratic in northeast ohio, gay marriage and stuff liked that is not approved by many people at all even a lot of the democrats.

Absolutely not, and it's sad that we can't say the opposite.  As evolved and advanced as America likes to think it is, it couldn't be more backward in its thinking sometimes.

Alot of people are of this opinion, but I beg to differ.

Well, sure, there're more gay people on TV this decade-in Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and on shows like America's Next Top Model and Project Runway. But all these shows do is enforce negative stereotypes about gay people. It's now acceptable to be gay as long as you're either flamboyantly gay (to the point of being funny) or straight (to the point of being a board of wood.) People are always asking you to be their "gay best friend" or do over their hair-it's acceptable as a humorous thing, we're acceptable as fashion designers and models but not as regular, everyday people.

All this ruckus about Brokeback Mountain-it's all anybody can talk about. When you mention the word "gay", you hear Brokeback Mountain. And all the attitude over it just shows how unused people are to it. Like we just started a GSA (Gay-Straight Alliance) at my school, and the 8th grader in it, that's all he can talk about. And they're applauding straight actors for playing gay, but whoever applauded Rock Hudson and Ian McKellen and John Gielgud for playing straight all these years? Like it's a role you should have to take.

So, is the '00s really a step forward in gay rights? I beg to differ. It's just the absorption of gay culture into a materialistic American attitude-we're accepted as long as we can sell shampoo.


In the grand scheme of things (i.e. compared to the '60s), we've come a long way, but I fear you're right.

I think it's possible to overdo or underdo anything. If the media is, from one side, trying to "force" it on us, especially the flamboyantly gay look/voice/style, than the more close-minded, other side of the media won't really take it seriously. So, we'll actually be regressing. People will still see gays as a "joke", which is what we don't want.

If we really want to make being homosexual not an issue, it's best to really not make it an issue. In other words, create TV programming based on the appeal of the characters or the plotline, not their sexuality either way. Discriminating FOR them will almost have the same effect as discriminating against them (unfortunately, but true).

P.S. I personally could care less if a gay man has that flamboyant style. I would be friends with him all the same (as long as he was respectful, it wouldn't mean a thing to me). It's no different than a straight guy talking/acting like Barry White, for instance.

Definitely not, homosexuality is still looked down upon a lot from when I hear on TV and stuff. Especially around here, Ohio is still a conservative state, even though we're very democratic in northeast ohio, gay marriage and stuff liked that is not approved by many people at all even a lot of the democrats.


I'm a longtime resident of the Buckeye State, so I can agree with above statement. Northeast Ohio has a *lot* of Dems, but mostly of the Roosevelt/Truman variety due to the large number of senior citizens that live there. I

I'm not trying to paint everybody with the same brush, but I believe most folks from that area are still uneasy about the gay lifestyle and that probably applies to many throughout the region. I don't know how much of this is driven by media stereotypes, or if it's just a lack of interaction. Hey, I used to feel the same way. When I was in school, "gay" was something you heard about, but you probably didn't encounter...until a friend of mine came out of the closet after graduation. It was a weird experience for me. However, that experience plus the natural process of becoming an adult have helped me to have a better attitude about the whole thing, even though I still don't totally understand it and still have questions.

Overall, I'd say we've come a long way in the last couple of decades in dealing with the issue, but we *can* do better. As Depeche Mode once sang "people are people". 




 

In the grand scheme of things (i.e. compared to the '60s), we've come a long way, but I fear you're right.

I think it's possible to overdo or underdo anything. If the media is, from one side, trying to "force" it on us, especially the flamboyantly gay look/voice/style, than the more close-minded, other side of the media won't really take it seriously. So, we'll actually be regressing. People will still see gays as a "joke", which is what we don't want.

If we really want to make being homosexual not an issue, it's best to really not make it an issue. In other words, create TV programming based on the appeal of the characters or the plotline, not their sexuality either way. Discriminating FOR them will almost have the same effect as discriminating against them (unfortunately, but true).

P.S. I personally could care less if a gay man has that flamboyant style. I would be friends with him all the same (as long as he was respectful, it wouldn't mean a thing to me). It's no different than a straight guy talking/acting like Barry White, for instance.



Yeah, I totally agree with this, it's better to just have characters in something who may actually be gay but it's not an issue or a huge deal, or it's not to be funny, than to have lots of stereotypical gay characters who are the very appeal of something for being gay. In that way, we've really regressed seriously since the 1980s, and now the whole PC movement is passe, and people are being politically incorrect without realizing how offensive it can be if they take it too far.

The whole Michigan/W. Pennsylvania/NE Ohio area is full of Truman/Roosevelt Democrats because of the factories that are the engine of the local economy around the big cities, and because of all the senior citizens in the more rural areas.

Yeah, I totally agree with this, it's better to just have characters in something who may actually be gay but it's not an issue or a huge deal, or it's not to be funny, than to have lots of stereotypical gay characters who are the very appeal of something for being gay. In that way, we've really regressed seriously since the 1980s, and now the whole PC movement is passe, and people are being politically incorrect without realizing how offensive it can be if they take it too far.


Don't take this the wrong way, but I could care less about the thought police.
I think it would make more sense if gay characters were portrayed more as real people who just happen to *be* gay. Leaving the stereotypes out of the equation would go a long way toward putting older folks at ease. I can't guarantee that you'll totally rid the world of bigotry, but you can be fair to all parties.


The whole Michigan/W. Pennsylvania/NE Ohio area is full of Truman/Roosevelt Democrats because of the factories that are the engine of the local economy around the big cities, and because of all the senior citizens in the more rural areas.


...or it could be the region is full of oldbies due to the crappy economy, which has forced the young ones to fly the coop in search of brighter prospects. I grew up in the Youngstown, Ohio area, one of the hardest-hit cities in the Rust Belt. While the area has finally begun to rebound after a seemingly endless recession, it's still in poor shape when compared to similar towns.

Because of the relative lack of opportunity for college graduates in the region, there's been a so-called "brain drain" for the last two decades. What you're left with is a bunch of retired steelworkers and union officials who moan about how much better we'd have it if we were still back in the "good old day" when smokestacks belched ash on us and corruption ruled city hall.  >:( Hey, I'd love it if Big Steel could pump money into the local economy, too, but that hasn't happened since 1979. How about some new ideas for economic development?

Sorry about the rant, but I had to say something. I'm off the soapbox for now...   

Don't take this the wrong way, but I could care less about the thought police.
I think it would make more sense if gay characters were portrayed more as real people who just happen to *be* gay. Leaving the stereotypes out of the equation would go a long way toward putting older folks at ease. I can't guarantee that you'll totally rid the world of bigotry, but you can be fair to all parties.

...or it could be the region is full of oldbies due to the crappy economy, which has forced the young ones to fly the coop in search of brighter prospects. I grew up in the Youngstown, Ohio area, one of the hardest-hit cities in the Rust Belt. While the area has finally begun to rebound after a seemingly endless recession, it's still in poor shape when compared to similar towns.

Because of the relative lack of opportunity for college graduates in the region, there's been a so-called "brain drain" for the last two decades. What you're left with is a bunch of retired steelworkers and union officials who moan about how much better we'd have it if we were still back in the "good old day" when smokestacks belched ash on us and corruption ruled city hall.  >:( Hey, I'd love it if Big Steel could pump money into the local economy, too, but that hasn't happened since 1979. How about some new ideas for economic development?

Sorry about the rant, but I had to say something. I'm off the soapbox for now...     






Yeah, there was a big movement from places like Youngstown and Warren, which are incredibly economically depressed cities, to other parts of the country or economically healthy Midwestern cities and their suburbs like Toledo, Columbus, Indianapolis, Chicago, even suburban Detroit, etc. As far as I know, the Cleveland metro area is still growing suburban-wise and gaining lots of new economic investment in downtown, which makes me happy, and Akron and Canton are doing all right...but Pittsburgh and places like Youngstown, Buffalo, and Altoona are still pretty damn economically depressed.