Tired of Homosexual Stories being covered by the Media

Post Reply New Topic

After many many posts about Ireland's Referendum, the Westboro Baptist Cult, and JK Rowling's response, I wrote a blog post on my webcomic site about how I'm sick and tired of people milking the gay-marriage issue.

The post can be viewed here.

What do you think? Should the media publish other stories and take a break from publishing articles with a homosexual theme?

Can the media publish reports and commentaries about same-sex marriage? Sure. Should it? It does get tedious and there will only become an avalanche leading up to the U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the matter in about four weeks. Not worry, after the court opinion is published, most media will suddenly find a new shiny to talk about. Even LGBT Americans are just about tired of it all.

If you're tired of it, don't watch or read. For the people this will directly impact, there will never be enough coverage until widespread acceptance is attained.

I rather think that the reporting itself is causing a view that this is exceptional.

You can watch Fox News Network, which is geared to the conservative Republican base.
Though they are probably still covering gay marriage as well, but in negative light.

I hate to tell you, Gay marriage is the most controversial and divisive issue of all times.
As long as it is, it will be front and center in all media.

Gay marriage, and LGBT rights are the new civil rights movement, and needs to be in the spotlight.

Honestly, I hear and see more stories about transexual/transgender individuals than I do homosexual stories. It does get a little tedious. The real reason it's covered though is because those who support it will be happy to watch/read it and those who do not support it will be so frustrated that they can't turn away.

That leaves me. I refuse to be a lemming and refuse to click on the articles as I already know what they contain and the general premise of the story without even reading. As for the televised news, I don't own a TV and probably never will.

I think it's a gaping hole in our modern western society that not all human beings are treated equally.
People who say marriage is sacred ritual are deluded, it's just a ceremony.

I was listening to some paranoid guys on the radio, who were saying that "Feminist" and LGBT SJW's are the shock troops of authoritarianism, who are able to manipulate political correctness to put pressure on the arts, journalists, and academia to keep their mouths shut about a lot of things. The idea, they said, was that instead of attacking the thing that they really want to censor directly (such as civil libertarians and anti war proponents), SJW's pedantically go after supposedly prejudiced language or supposedly un-pc depictions of homosexuals, women and hot button issues like rape.

Another tactic in the SJW arsenal is the phenomenon of pink washing which is when groups that are caught committing acts of dubious human rights legitimacy associate themselves with LGBT rights as a PR move to whitewash their image amongst liberals.

While I have 0 time for bigots, I think that a more cynical eye on the more liberal/ libertarian side of things toward how LGBT issues are actually used might not be a bad thing.

Last edited by Nebogipfel on 29 May 2015, 6:59 am, edited 4 times in total.

When the media is like this, it's because they are distracting you or it's a slow news day.

I don't think it's a civil rights movement when people are forced against their beliefs normally protected by the 1st amendment. More like a politically correct movement.

I suspect that you are referring to anti-discrimination laws which require LGBT individuals to be treated equally under the law. Having written such a law and advised about several others, I can tell you that such laws aren't intended by most advocates to influence private religious and speech rights. Sure, there is a very small and vocal group in the United Kingdom attempting to force the Church of England to perform marriages that the church chooses to avoid, but, as that nation's designated official church, perhaps it should be expected to respond to the demands of the taxpaying public (its employers), not its own desires. If the U.S. government had a designated official church, I would expect nothing less from it, too. Thankfully, it doesn't have such a government-designated church, and we are spared that fiasco.

The question now becomes one of why Americans with private religious and speech rights seem to expect that those rights extend to the public square when the Bill of Rights clearly prohibits such an extension no matter how fervently some may want it to do so.

The final step in the logic comes when business owners with private religious and speech rights want to extend those rights to their business activities despite a body of law which sees a difference between public accommodations (see McDonald's Restaurants' "come one, come all; spend your cash here!" marketing), and strictly private businesses (see Rodeo Drive and Fifth Avenue merchants and many private professionals who decidedly exclude any customers who aren't approved first) or religious non-profits like Hobby Lobby who fall outside the legal definitions of a public accommodation. At the very least, federal "truth in advertising" laws are violated when a "come one, come all" business decides to exclude guests for reasons of their own making (like LGBT guests). Now, strictly private businesses may pick and choose their guests, as they do already. But, businesses which don't operate as strictly private have quickly learned that, without specific legal measures, they are counted as a public accommodation and are held to the laws that apply to them.

But, despite these legal examples, why would a anti-LGBT business owner want to turn away good money simply because the guest with the cash and a desire to give it to the merchant is LGBT? The answer: most wouldn't. So, I see little with which to be concerned from both sides of the debate.

The exact same claim was made by those who opposed the civil rights movement for African Americans. They claimed discrimination against blacks was a moral issue, and even a religious one (one cretinous governor even claimed God was the "original segregationist," as he had put different races on different continents). And there were in fact racist business owners who preferred to go out of business than serve blacks, which they claimed was in opposition to their deeply held faith. The fact is, no right is absolute, especially when it violates the rights of others.

Forced against their beliefs? No one's forcing you to get gay married, yourself. They're just asking for equal protection from discrimination. If that's "forcing" to you, then perhaps you need to get forced to stop discriminating, after all.

Your religion (a choice you made) should not require or allow you to discriminate against someone because of their race (not a choice), gender (not a choice), age (not a choice), sexual orientation (not a choice), or disability (not a choice).

I listed disability last for a reason. As an ASD individual, I would hope you would understand how unfair it is to be discriminated against because of something that is essential to your being which you had no choice in. But then again, we on the spectrum have the Americans With Disabilities Act to protect us, so maybe you've gotten too accustomed to having accommodations that you've forgotten -- or never knew -- what it was like to be legally discriminated against.

Well written. I believe that there is also a tendency among people with ASD to believe a certain ideology or political philosophy and express it in extreme ways. I see this often at WrongPlanet.net and usually respond with silence. But, it does appear to me to be a real characteristic that can be equated most accurately with either foolishness or cultism. I amn't trying to insult others, in fact, I have resisted writing anything about my beliefs about this matter. But, I do see plenty of examples of what is described in politics as "red-meat eaters." They are the true believers whose statements are protected speech while failing to notice the statements' more unpopular truisms which are equally valid.

I think I resemble that remark.

When there is heavy coverage, it is generally due to nothing more interesting going on, in their opinion, that will make them money, or get people watching.

I really couldn't care less about gay marriage. Wasn't marriage intended to be a religious union, which then got watered down to a piece of paper? Most of the people campaigning about it aren't religion, so I don't understand why it matters so much to them.