The gay media watchdogs over at GLAAD have been watching an upcoming episode of FX’s 30 Days – and they don’t like what they see.
A forthcoming episode of the series, which transplants people into new lives for a month, features an anti-gay woman who trade places with a child-rearing gay. Cue dramatic music…
In an effort to highlight opposing views, 30 Days‘ producers include an interview with right wing activist Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, who asserts “Homosexuality is associated with higher rates of sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse, and those are all reasons for us to be concerned about placing children into that kind of setting.” Not a rousing endorsement of gays, to say the least, and one that GLAAD believes the show should have clarified.
Says Senior Director of Media Programs Rashad Robinson:
This is an episode of 30 Days that GLAAD would have liked to support for its commendable effort to share the authentic story of everyday lesbian and gay parents and their families and the opposition they face in trying to provide a stable and nurturing home for their children. However, FX Networks’ insistence on airing – and refusal to correct the record on – this defamatory misrepresentation makes that impossible. It is unacceptable that FX Networks and its parent company 20th Century Fox would provide a platform for the inaccurate and dangerous claims of anti-gay activists – misinformation that can put gay and lesbian parents and their families in harm’s way.
ousslander
Let America see how absurd these peoiple are. Shutting out “debate” or another point of view sounds awfully fascist.
Scott
That’s the problem Ousslander … there is no debate. They are presenting the quote as fact without any follow-up to contradict the statement!
fredo777
Fascist, my arse.
I agree with GLAAD on this one. That should have been handled differently, making it clear that it was just the opinion of the right-wingers + also showing the opposing views from the pro-gay side.
Admittedly, this is all based on assumptions, since I haven’t watched the episode.
Darth Paul
Typical FOX scaremongering…
GranDiva
I have actually been dreading this episode since I saw the season line-up. Morgan in the coal mines was interesting. Last week’s hunter-turned-animal rights activist was actually like watching Animal Cops. This one hurt just watching the previews. I am going to watch it, but I have bad feelings about it. I don’t want to be disappointed in Morgan Spurlock’s work.
Cait
My fiance and I watched it last night and found it heartbreaking. I think that it was a fairly balanced episode, and I think what made Kati’s opinions so stark was that she went in to the Patrick home with an agenda rather than an open mind. They were clearly loving parents providing a safe home for these kids, and she just couldn’t wrap her mind around it because it didn’t fit into a neatly wrapped little box.
I think Kati, while certainly very articulate and passionate, seemed strident and defensive when asked to explain her beliefs.
My jaw dropped when I realized she’d rather see children stuck in a dangerous group home than with a loving family (whether gay, hetero or anything in between). She wasn’t open to exploring the gray area outside of her beliefs.
What a shame…but I thought Spurlock created a well-balanced episode that was heartwrenching for all involved – for the Patricks, who couldn’t understand why seeing their happy kids wouldn’t change her mind, and for Kati, who seemed to learn nothing from her experience in Michigan.
GranDiva
@Cait
Now try telling that to GLAAD…
I had just as much trouble having an open mind about Kati as she had about gays and lesbians in general, and try as I might, I couldn’t let go of the feeling that she’s JUST BLOODY WRONG.
At the same time, this is the first episode I can remember (I’ve watched the first season only cursorily thus far) where the fish out of water’s position did not change in the least. Even the hunter last week, though he did not give up hunting, certainly had a shift in his thought proess about the willful mistreatment of other animals. I can’t get over the thought that Kati and next week’s episode are kind of props to avoid the appearance of complete liberal bias.
martymartymarty
This series did an episode in a previous season where they brought a guy from smalltown Michigan to live with gay guys in San Francisco and that went (surprisingly) fine — not sure why this one seems so much more negative, must have new producers or their ratings have made them desperate…
Jim
“It is unacceptable that FX Networks and its parent company 20th Century Fox would provide a platform for the inaccurate and dangerous claims of anti-gay activists – misinformation that can put gay and lesbian parents and their families in harm’s way.” This is the typical rhetoric we see from those who promote the “normalization” of homoesexuality in the world. Homosexual advocates’ platform is a self-refuting double standard: equality, tolerance, and inclusion, unless you disagree. If anyone speaks against homosexuality, they are a “homophobe” (and I thought we learned in kindergarden not to call people names). If anyone voices their belief that homosexuality is wrong, then they “put gay and lesbian parents and their families in harm’s way.” It appears that it is absolutely wrong for a Christian to determine that homosexuality is wrong. Who gave homosexuals the right to tell people what is right or wrong? Homosexuals violate their own principles when they “offend” Christians by telling them that they are discriminators, intolerant, homophobic, bigoted, and divisive. The success of the homosexual agenda thus far is its ability to dupe people into believing that it is a civil rights issue. Based on what? What inalienable right does a person have to be gay? It is asserted without proof. What authority does a person call upon to prove that they have a right to be gay? None actually (science has not found a gay gene). If a homosexual asserts an absolute standard that demands acceptance of their belief, then how is that any different than a Christian who states that God is their standard for denouncing it? Again, double standard. If homosexuals want to have honest debate about why homosexuality is against God and should not be accepted as a civil (or any other) right, then there are many true Christians who would love to have it with them. But, homosexual advocates are not willing to have these honest and open debates, they just want their way. Of course, I will be labeled all the derogatory names I have listed above. Why? Because when a person is unable to argue their position with incontrovertible facts and solid reasoning, they result to name calling. It is for this reason that all the names hurled at the adversaries of the homosexual agenda are empty and without force. Ironically, the same names meant to be derogatory are actually virtues in favorable uses of the terms. Should one be intolerant of people having sex in public in full view of children passing by? Should one discriminate against allowing a human and a farm animal enter legal marriage with all the incumbent rights it contains? Are there such things as rational and warranted phobias that protect us from harm or undesirable consequences? Is it always wrong to be divisive? The only “name” that is truly derogatory is “bigot.” If one hates a person precisely because they are black, or chinese, or a woman, or an introvert, or whatever, then that is indefensible. So, barring the last one, I would consider myself to be all the other names. I am proud to have my view. I feel comfortable being me. I think that anyone who would try and make me feel that I am a bad person or wrong is a hurtful person who only cares about themselves. I think that I should be commended for my willingness to be honest and fight for my beliefs. I do not want to sit in a closet and be afraid to be a Christian who knows the truth of God. Isn’t this the way that homosexuals feel? I think the “agenda” will find in the coming years that those who believe homosexuality is wrong are going to see the straw-man and ad-hominem tactics that have been used against them and just say no. No, to self-refuting and self-contradictory rhetoric. No, to double-standard platforms that manipulate others merely to get what they want. No, to an agenda that has manipulated a public debate to where those who truly have the burden of proof staring them in the face (homosexuals) have made their adversaries think they do (traditionalists). Well, I can’t wait to see if this post makes it through the censor. If it goes through, let’s see the true “colors” of those who disagree with me.
TANK
You’re right, Jim. Homosexuals are Bruno. We don’t need normalization, rights, or anything but the status we have now. We need more death culture of smoking, drinking, drugging and promiscuous sex. In case you missed it, that is “normal” gay culture. So that shrill rhetoric you deplore so much which seeks to curb that perception clearly needs to stop, because we need to embrace the nothing that we’ve come to represent. And after all, nothing advances our rights better than movies like bruno, and shrieking drunk drugged drama queens–we’re fighting against assimilation, after all! We need to be nomadic, and lead empty lives filled with alcohol, smokes, and drugs (don’t you love the queens who are all against smoking cigarettes but do a bump of tina in the bathroom? LOL!). We’re outsiders, and “necessarily” so–not individuals, but TYPES. And some types thinking in types (as types tend to do) think any condemnation of the death culture you represent as a threat to that outsider status.
TANK
@Jim:
Oh…damn…that was a mistake. I should have read further. YOu’re antigay crackpot. My mistake, douchebag. I thought you were interested in an intelligent discussion that didn’t hide your opinions behind god’s opinions. You fucktarded cunt.
TANK
And ironically, you represent a death culture–just a different one.
TANK
Because when a person is unable to argue their position with incontrovertible facts and solid reasoning, they result to name calling.
Actually, they have discovered a biological basis for homosexuality. You should read up on it, and fill that empty head with ideas instead of superstition. You call the bible a fact? It’s no more a fact than the charles dickens, and it is YOUR JOB to prove otherwise.
Jim
Tank, I won’t respond to the rash statements you have made that are based solely on hatred and emotion. But I will say I also get angry and feel like lashing out at people who promote an agenda that goes against the heart of my faith. Do you think that your feelings and your desire for a world to be the way you think it should be is more valid than mine? Anyway, I’ll respond to this: “Actually, they have discovered a biological basis for homosexuality. You should read up on it, and fill that empty head with ideas instead of superstition. You call the bible a fact? It’s no more a fact than the charles dickens, and it is YOUR JOB to prove otherwise.” Who are “they?” What does “basis” mean (theory? hypothesis? incontrovertible fact?)? How is it possible that you have an adequate range of knowledge to determine that the Bible is superstition? Were you there when the universe was created? Did you witness first hand (empirically) that God in fact did not exist and so create the world? Were you present throughout the process of biblical revelation in history to verify without question that it was all a sham? The answer of course to these questions is “no.” So then, your position sounds sort of superstitious itself, being that you have no proof to assert that the God of the Bible as well as the Bible itself are not true. Likewise, I am unable to prove (emperically) to you that God exists and that He communicated His message to and through mankind in human language so that we might know Him. This is because I also have insufficient knowledge to exhaustively prove my faith and thus assert it with omniscient knowledge. Nonetheless, truth does not require that I prove it. It is true all by itself. I assent to it by faith and can corroborate this faith by countless examples of rational empirical evidence. All you can assert rationally is that you disbelieve and reject it (which obviously you do). That is the “freedom” that God gave you. I have used my freedom to believe in the God of the Bible. This does not make me righteous. On my own merit I am not righteous. My heart, without the help of God, is just as evil as the next person’s heart. My sins are just as wrong as anyone: the homosexual, the murderer, the liar, the theif, etc. I do not voice my knowledge that homosexuality is wrong because I am “better” than that — I am not. I voice this knowledge because it is simply true. I sin. However, I agree with God that it is sin and I do not promote my sin to be accepted in society. I do not try and coerce a world into allowing me to propagate my sin to others. You, of course, do not believe that homosexuality is a sin. You have that right. I also have a right to call it sin and thus determine that it is not to be tolerated (in society). You say that I hide behind God’s opinion. Well, based on your own words then my opinion is valid and true. If it is God’s opinion, then it is true — He is God after all. I would be a moron in the true sense of the word if I consciously disagreed with God. Therefore, I believe and agree with God’s law (opinion) and boldly assert it as truth. Thuth does not originate from me, so I cannot make my own (that would make me my own God). I recognize truth and accept it, that’s all I can do.
strumpetwindsock
@Jim:
First of all, learn to use the return key and separate your argument into paragraphs. Your stuff is as hard on the eyes as if you didn’t use punctutation.
Secondly, not everyone belongs to a faith that condemns homosexuality, and not everyone is religious at all. You can follow whatever rules you want, but you have no right to impose them on anyone else. If you are an American, then I don’t think there’s anything in your constitution that says church law applies to everyone.
Mind your own business, live your own life, and let others live theirs.
@TANK:
As it happens I disagree with Jim as much as you, but aren’t you contradicting what you said just yesterday?
http://www.queerty.com/fountain-of-youth-discovered-stop-eating-so-much-20090710/#comment-191765
Of course, I know the foundation of the answer will be that TANK is never wrong.
strumpetwindsock
Like Nixon’s argument… when the president does it, it’s not illegal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8
TANK
@Jim:
Okay, you’ve just repeated “because lordy said”. This is not an argument (you have no argument, in fact), no matter how much puff you include around it, you antigay bigot. It is your hateful bigoted opinion, you just use god to attempt, poorly, to legitmize it. Be a man and take credit for where credit’s due, you sorry sack of shit.
The bible has about as much to say about the world, as any piece of fiction, including great expectations (which is actually better than the bible in terms of coherence, plot, and character development). It’s a book of superstition. One can’t make predictions based on it that are falsifiable and testable and you can’t provide a shred of positive direct evidence for your bigotry other than your empty vacuous faith. Certainly science doesn’t back you here (I wouldn’t put it past a wingnut like you, however, to misunderstand and deliberately abuse science by accessing discredited and universally condemned antigay bigots who use pseudo science for their agenda; employed by religious wackos like focus on the family). And it’s not science–it’s religion, and its status as religion is no more accurate or true about how the world works (and ethical truths that are based upon, though distinct from, how the world really is as opposed to pretheoretic, a priori religious babble) than dr. seuss. The bible has no more to say about the world and the creatures inhabit it as alice and wonderland, and this is a fact. And no, simply having faith in something’s truth doesn’t prove something’s truth, or even begin to establish it (re: past monster). Pasta monster actually has one up on the 3-O god you worship (the god of judaism, christianity, and islam–largest religions in the world), as your god contains a logical contradiction that precludes it from existing.
This isn’t about beliefs, though. You can believe whatever false horseshit you want to fill your empty little head with. That’s your prerogative. You are, however, a bigot. And no, appropriating the terminology of the discriminated to call yourself a victim when you, having majority power, bully and are responsible for the proliferation and victimization of homophobia doesn’t make it accurate anymore than calling yourself a bird would make that true. Black people weren’t bigots for speaking out against klansman and calling them racist scum, contrary to your logic. And no, gay people aren’t bigots for calling out discriminatory scum like you who want to prevent them from equal treatment under the law. You’re antiamerican bigot, too–make no mistake.
TANK
@strumpetwindsock:
How would I be contradicting myself? HE made the claim, I disproved it–he needs to defend it credibly, like an adult who understands the rudiments of logic would.
M Shane
I’m not sure why you don’t preach to folks who have an interest in your bigotry, and that is what it is stupid. There must be a cheering section pushing you on to face the devil, promising an extra share of pussy tonight; however I ‘m sure too that there are neo-Nazi Blogs where your blather would be appreciated much more than it will here, because we just don’t care what you believe.
The fact is though, that I’ve come to the conclusion that small minded twits like you are really masochists who just want to iritate people and would be happier with a fist up your ass, which I personally refuse to supply.
strumpetwindsock
@TANK:
Yup, that’s the answer I expected.
M Shane
Oh yes, @JIM
GranDiva
Okay, so we’re arguing about something that happened over a year ago? Jeez. So someone was itching for a fight and Googled a contentious subject and ended up here to proselytize to people whose mind he stands no chance of changing.
Sounds like someone needs a job.
M Shane
Guys.There is no argument against people who arrange their feelings towards other’s according to the hate that is in thier hearts. It’s like asphalt, melting and hardening. It’s there as long as they need something to blame the the disenchantments of this world on.
That is why this earth may not last, some people want scapegoats when things don’t seem right. Jim no doubt feels the same way toward Jews or Moslems. That’s why they have wars and Holicausts. The Aryans were very chrtistian too. You can only hope that there are laws to keep them in line.
The very reason that I sometimes support Civil Unions is that it seems an abomination to be associated with people like Jim.
Jim
Thank you all for your comments. I see that I am not wanted on this blog. For people who constantly inculcate the world on the virtue of tolerance, you all seem quite intolerant. But, that was one of my points in the first place. This is my last post, and I’ll state a few last things. For one, you all have proven that you only want equality as it suits you. For two, the purpose of the gay agenda is to impose them on everyone else, while at the same time crying to your opponents not to do the same. For three, bigotry has nothing to do with judgement on behavior, which homosexuality is, but the “agenda” keeps invalidly abusing the word for its own selfish purposes. I’ll meet you all in the public square to defend my rights. If you want to be taken seriously, abandon the rhetoric, strawmen arguments, and verbal manipulation tactics.