Monday, June 27, 2011

Something's Queer About The Homosexual Movement, Part II

If you haven't done so, please read Part I before continuing. Thank you.

Homosexuality went from practical obscurity in as late as the mid-twentieth century to a publicly endorsed media circus in this day and age. The main reason for this abrupt spike in the approval of homosexual behavior stems from said media. Executives in print, radio, television, and movie industries understand that they have a vast influence over a captive audience and what they see, hear, and watch. These executives know it, and the homosexual community knows it, too. Oftentimes, the media is more influential than the school, church, and even one's family. As such, it doesn't take much to add two and two together and realize that normalizing illicit behaviors en masse will eventually tear down what once were unshakable values. The staining of the American fabric that homosexuality brought came in no small part to the gradual portrayal of homosexuals as freedom fighters and their heterosexual counterparts as bigots.

Perhaps no greater medium is indicative of this than television. The average American spends nearly three hours per day watching television and, unless you're into educational programming or CBN, are bound to stumble upon homosexual characters/themes at some point. Today, MTV leads the way in devoting prime time coverage of the homosexual lifestyle per year at 207.5 hours, which is equivalent to 42% of their programming. MTV has long been notorious for airing programs that condone drunkenness and fornication, so this is nothing that's too surprising on their part. But what's more surprising are the underlying influences that practically shove these representations down their audience's throats. While there may be no conclusive evidence that any one individual or sponsor directly encourages the spread of homosexuality, I find it more than coincidental that certain stations who back homosexual ideologies are themselves backed by homosexual organizations.

Take the broadcast network ABC, for example. In the same, aforementioned study, 26% of its prime time programming prominently features homosexual characters. Doesn't sound like much, one out of four basically. Well then, let's look at one of those four more closely. ABC's highest rated scripted program right now, Modern Family, includes two gay men raising a young daughter as part of its featured cast. The show took a lot of heat last year for featuring a scene in which a heterosexual couple greeted with a kiss, and the homosexual couple greeted with a hug. Months later, the two men did kiss, albeit with less fanfare than initially projected. It's a step forward (or backward) for a sitcom that thrives on showing the diversity of a typical, American, modern family.

Other ABC programs, such as Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, Brothers & Sisters (which was cancelled last month) and The Secret Life of the American Teenager (over on ABC Family, of all places) feature at least one homosexual character in its recurring cast. In fact, GLAAD lauded ABC not too long ago for having the "most fair, accurate and inclusive representations" of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) characters on television.

But have you ever stopped to think who owns ABC? If you said The Walt Disney Company, you are correct. Turns out Disney has been packing more "fudge" than the Keebler elves (not that they're homosexual) and distributing it as family-fun entertainment.

Now, at this point, you're probably wondering where's my proof to back up such a bold claim. To which I'll say the following. This is an opinion piece, first and foremost. I can't say definitively that Disney, among others, is run by a hidden gay agenda for one of two reasons. They may actually have one, but they'll never tell because to do so would financially bankrupt the morally bankrupt people who happen to run a very successful company. Or, they simply don't have a gay agenda, all the connections drawn to say otherwise are entirely coincidental, and I'm just spinning my wheels.

Then again, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it must be a duck. How fitting, especially since two of their mascots, Donald and Daisy, don't wear any pants. They let it all hang out, so why don't their masters? Disney can't because Disney won't, but consider some evidence that they are decisively pro-homosexual.

Last year, Disney shareholders rejected a nondiscrimination policy that would've allowed ex-gay employees the same protection to express their sexual orientation as do homosexuals, calling it a "nuance" that can't be accommodated. Wait a minute, hold up. So homosexual employees can be open about their sexual preferences, but those who are no longer homosexual can't? What gives? If it's true that one's sexual orientation is a conscious choice, like I've argued at the conclusion of Part I, then to deny certain individuals the freedom to express themselves is tyrannical. That's why thirteen British colonies in North America decided to declare their independence from the motherland nearly 250 years ago, and look what happened. In the same way, Disney is chipping away at the individual liberties of those who renounced homosexuality. So much for giving "equal opportunity for all employees and applicants for employment without regard to ... sexual orientation...."

Also, since 1991, Walt Disney World near Orlando, Florida has been the unofficial home for Gay Days, a gay pride movement that has now expanded to a week-long event in early June from its origin as a singular Gay Day event. I say unofficial because, while its held at Walt Disney World, the company claims to have no affiliation with the movement. No, I get it. It's completely circumstantial on their part that such an event would be held in a location owned by a company that is so enamored with sexual perversions, they've inserted several subliminal sexual innuendos in children's movies. And if you believe otherwise, then I've got some swampland down in Florida to sell to you. I double as a real estate agent.

But getting back to my initial premise, Disney owns ABC (as well as A&E and ESPN), so of course they're gonna oversee the content that airs on those channels. And in the direction they've chosen to go, they want programming where homosexuals are meant to be praised for their bravery and label anyone else who thinks otherwise an old-fashioned fool. Whatever Disney wants, they get, and it's reflected in the television shows that carefully weave this web of collusion. That's not to say anything and everything owned by Disney is inherently crooked, but it should come as no surprise to find homosexual slants at every conceivable turn.

Think of it. Have any of y'all recalled a scene where a heterosexual character stood up, proclaimed the evils of homosexuality (be it in response to a particular character or scenario), and everyone else was won over? Heck to the no, 'coz I sure didn't. Well, I don't watch much prime time programming unrelated to sports to begin with, but I would bet the house that there's never been an instance like the one I described, especially on ABC. Instead, the trend I've seen (and read) is that homosexual characters are typecast as societal ambassadors, like aliens who come in peace, and every heterosexual that is even the slightest bit apprehensive is ostracized because they're not tolerant enough. No straight person seems to have a backbone on TV anymore without being ridiculed for staying true to moral norms. And this is the majority getting pushed around. In that regard, I think of homosexual characters as petulant, little children who will say and do anything just so people will pay them attention instead of disciplining them to correct the error of their ways.

But, remember, this is an issue that goes way beyond Disney and television. If there's one thing the media in general does best, it's their sensalization to make mountains out of mole hills. Especially regarding the homosexual lifestyle and its dangerous consequences.

To Be Continued...

No comments:

Post a Comment