RightFaith Clouds military


Welcome To RightFaith
I Enjoyed Writing These
RightFaith BlogRoll
Aggregators

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

ABC's Progressive Agenda Evident in Programming

The culture war manifested itself once more on primetime television. On Sunday night, "last season's hottest new show," Deperate Housewives, showed its 'desperation' for achieving that top rating once more (current it's number 2) by depicting two men kissing each other and sleeping with each other.

This invoked a firestorm of activity on the ABC Message Boards. While most defended ABC, a few conservatives voiced their opposition:
...we were totally appalled that the gay storyline is being shown during prime time. We find this disgraceful and in poor taste. It is not something we want to watch nor do we want our teenagers watching it.

How can ABC have the audacity to show this? Are there no parents within the ranks of ABC decision makers? This is totally inappropriate for network television to show in prime time. ABC should be ashamed of this decision. We will not be watching much ABC with this type of programmingcite.
ABC may indeed be aiming to capture the market of the extreme secular progressive side of society. The Book of Daniel is even more abhorrent to traditionalists.

In a related story, just days ago an Irish public official voiced his discontent with rising amount of homosexual behavior being depicted on public television shows in Ireland.

I contacted ABC using this form and said this (feel free to do the same):
Your pandering to the homosexual movement to change American culture reveals your willingness to be used as a patsy for progressive secularists. Sunday night's gay kiss on D-Hw was inappropriate for network television. I will not be watching ABC until you consistently demostrate your support of the traditional values of the American majority.

Thoughtful Readers Speak:
So if liberals are progressive, what does that make conservatives? Stagnant? Regressive? Troglodytes?
 
Tradionalists.
 
Yeah, you do realize that progressive means, "gradual betterment; especially : the progressive development of mankind." That's a definition thanks to Merriam-Webster.

I know, I know...you're using the definition in a pseudo-philosophical-political way, but progress is usually seen as a positive thing, and it's rather difficult to disassociate the connotations...unless, of course, you are just against progress, in which case, that's an entirely different issue.
 
Oh, and Tradion is a German ISP company...I'm really glad to see that Conservatives are supporting the German Cause of Getting the Internet.
 
Did you even watch the show? If you did, then it's a little ridiculous to be complaining about a gay kiss, as though adultery and murder are totally non-objectionable. But show two gay men in a loving relationship and hold the phone! Something must be done! We don't want our teenagers to see gay kissing! Adultery, yes, but God forbid a man kiss another man!

And if you didn't watch the show, it's beyond idiotic to be complaining about how offended you are.
 
I don't think it really matters if JR watched the show or not. He can, in a completely un-idiotic way, state that he doesn't like that this is being shown on network television.

What's strange to me is that this would upset anyone in the first place, especially in a show that contains a lot of promiscuity and adultery in the first place (as pointed out by Chet). Is the objection that the show is racy or that it became racy between two men? If the show had been not-racy heterosexually and then not-racy homosexually, would this be a problem? Probably.

I must give you kudos on going out and "fighting the good fight." I ought to do the same, except, of course, fighting against censorship and a lack of perspectivalism.
 
JR, in what sense are your views "traditional"? The values that typefy the conservative right are anything but historical. For instance, you've expressed a desire that children should not have sex education; but traditionally children would have been exposed to sex at a very early age, both from the observation of their livestock and the very simple reality that, until recently, even very large families shared a domicile with only one room. "Privacy" is so modern a word that it doesn't even appear in the Constitution. One-roomed hut, sexually-active parents - you do the math. Children would have been very sexually knowledgable indeed, traditionally, because their parents would have been forced by necessity to have sex right in front of their children. This was common and nobody thought twice about it until very recently.

Or abortion. Abortion has always been historically legal and avaliable; indeed abortion has been a legal proceedure for all of this nation's history except for a few decades between the early 1900's and Roe V. Wade.

Or government interference. For a self-styled conservative I've been dismayed by how often you've called for government action to interfere with your ideological opponents. Laws against gay marriage, laws against obscenity, laws forcing intelligent design in the classroom - there's almost nothing you won't countenance the government shoving down our throats, so long as it is congruent to your religion and ideology.

In short very little of what you believe could be described as a "traditional" view. So, from what basis do you call yourself a "traditionalist?" I think "Repressive", as Erica has suggested, is the far more accurate moniker for your position.
 
I would like to point out that for those of us who don't believe in evolution, there are laws "shoving it down our throats" in public schools. I think the point you're missing is that in a democracy, the will of the majority rules. It has been shown time and again that the majority of the people in America see homosexuality as an aberrent behavior. By the way, in terms of evolution, homosexuals would be the weaker of the species and would necessarily go the way of the dinos, since the stronger is usually defined by the ability to procreate.

The big thing I take issue with is the way ABC puts the homosexual storyline directly against the only "Christian" figure in the show who is also portrayed as a semi-drunk, murderer, vengeful, and anything else they can throw in there to make Christians look evil.
 
Rel, it's not clear to me how it is that you know you don't believe in evolution, since in two paragraphs above you've amply demonstrated that you don't even know what evolution is.

The majority of Americans accept homosexuals. It has never been shown otherwise. Moreover, recent scientific research corelleates female fecundity with homosexual male siblings. So there's your evolutionary explanation.
 
JR, you've certainly attracted a group of twisted non-thinkers: Chet, Diehn, and Erica.
 
Chet, you say that the majority of Americans accept homosexuals. Is that why in every election for gay marriage it's 60-80% against? Or is that a complete unrelated datum?
 
Yes, it's completely unrelated. Elections aren't surveys, for one thing, since the samples are self-selected.

For instance, a recent poll of high school students showed that less than 30% of them held anti-gay sentiments; every single one of these students belonged to a fundamentalist religious movement outside the American mainstream.

And while you're right that a number of anti-gay marriage initiatives have passed in the 60% range; when polled, over 60% of Americans support civil marriage-like protections for homosexuals. The Americans who exhibit strong anti-gay sentiments are in a small minority.

The majority of Americans support homosexual rights, to some degree. Which just plain makes sense. ABC is in the business of making money. If a gay storyline didn't have appeal, they wouldn't go with it.
 
Interestingly enough, the thread on the message board you linked to is gone, however this one approving the scene and many others like it are still available.
 
Well, probably somebody on your side made one of those charming anti-gay slurs you're so well-known for, and they had to take the thread down.
 
It used to be that a majority of Americans were in favor of keeping blacks as secondary citizens.
 
Randy Kliene: I can appreciate any intelligent comment made on this blog. I can appreciate JR's posts, even if I whole-heartily disagree with them. To declare that those who disagree with him are "twisted non-thinkers" is nothing but unfounded name calling and rather childish. I think JR appreciates people who disagree with him so that he can open a dialogue on issues about which he feels passionate. If JR came on here and asked us to refrain from commenting, then I would. However, by disagreeing, we are giving him an opportunity not only to state his opinions, but also defend them. If you don't think our comments are "non-thinking" and "twised" comments, well...there's not much any of us can do about that.
 
Chet: i was referring to the procreation of the homosexual persons...not their sisters. (ala 'natural selection.') also, i fail to see that i said near enough about the subject for u to judge my familiarity w/ it, since i only mentioned evolution in two sentences. is your purpose to discuss, or to try to make me look stoopid so no one will pay any attention to what i say?
 
Rel, Chet was talking about kin selection.
 
Chet: i was referring to the procreation of the homosexual persons...not their sisters.

Biology 101: What do siblings share?

i fail to see that i said near enough about the subject for u to judge my familiarity w/ it, since i only mentioned evolution in two sentences.

And those two sentences were enough to prove you don't know what you're talking about. To wit:

By the way, in terms of evolution, homosexuals would be the weaker of the species and would necessarily go the way of the dinos, since the stronger is usually defined by the ability to procreate.

1) Homosexuals are not a different species.
2) Homosexuals are not sterile.
3) "Stronger" - by which I think you meant "fittest", as in "survival of the fittest" - is not defined as "the ability to reproduce" (which homosexuals do not lack, anyway) but as the degree to which an individuals genes come to be represented in the gene pool as a whole.

Let me lay it out for you about sisters. Because siblings typically share genes, the gene for male homosexuality persists because the susters of male homosexuals have more children that otherwise; the gene for male homosexuality is therefore passed on to the offspring of these fecund females.

is your purpose to discuss, or to try to make me look stoopid so no one will pay any attention to what i say?

I could hardly do a better job of that than you've been doing, yourself.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home
RIGHTFAITH: Where everything favors the stewardship of patrimony. All content is believed to be correct but may be amended based upon new information. The content of this page may be republished with proper citation without the expressed consent of the author. This site is not, in any manner whatsoever, associated with the religious philosophism from the Indian penninsula. All comments or emails to the author become the property of the author and may be published or deleted without notice or reason provided. Copyrighted 2005.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Social Conservative Action Centers

Archives
Web Blog Pinging Service
allianceanonymous


Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!
GOP Bloggers
rwn