Skip

"Dawson’s Creek" is really an indoctrination tool for homosexual activists.
May 7, 2001 11:35 AM   Subscribe

"Dawson’s Creek" is really an indoctrination tool for homosexual activists. "The Family Research Council has taken offense at everything from 'Friends' to 'American Pie'. And don’t even get them started about all the gay people on television".
posted by matteo (44 comments total)

 
"I commend Britney Spears for being outspoken about her virginity and her desire to wait until she’s married..."

Wow, is this woman living in a dream world. I particularly liked the bit where she said how most gay characters on TV are portrayed as the most stable, most likable, usually comedic character, but that marriage is usually portrayed negatively. Implying that marriage should always be shown as a positive thing and homosexuals should be portrayed as they really are - filthy, depraved, promiscuous, hell-bound animals.

I renounce society for the rest of they day.
posted by starvingartist at 11:42 AM on May 7, 2001


". . . there are encouraging signs things are changing today, like the Damon Wayans show, 'My Wife and Kids.' "

You know, people like this always scare me, but this is one of the most frightening statements I've ever heard. I mean, it's a Wayans.
posted by matt8313 at 11:49 AM on May 7, 2001


I have to admit, I was skeptical about the FRC's message in the past. Then I watched the "Dawson's Creek" episode in question. Though I'm 42 with a delightful marriage and two children, I've decided to chuck it all and become homosexual. After all, it's just a "lifestyle choice," right?

Eck. I hereby join Starvingartist and renounce society for the day. At least the party of society claimed by the FRC.
posted by apollo at 11:54 AM on May 7, 2001


Here's what the FRC's spokeswomen said about one of their current staff members who was formerly a lesbian: She’s said she cannot herself remember a time when she didn’t have same-sex attractions. But looking back upon her life she realized there were environmental factors that led her into that lifestyle. It was a long process to try to get out.

Now, I'm not gay, but what kind of environmental factors turns a person gay? You're either born gay, or you're not. Sounds like the "former" lesbian has a college "experience," and now is ashamed of that experience. Who cares? The Family Research Council was started by that moron Gary Bauer, who ran for (ha ha ha) President in the Republican primary (of course).

I guess where all this is leading to is sponsors who will have total control over the content of tv shows. This means getting the blessing of groups like FRC and their ilk. No more groundbreaking shows like NYPD Blue, The X Files or The Sopranos, because it's not family-friendly enough. Why should I only have to watch what some religious group thinks I should watch. Screw them -- they suck.
posted by Rastafari at 11:55 AM on May 7, 2001


It's that darned liberal media at it again. Showing things like tolerance and diversity. And to beat it all, there wasn't a single instance of violence, guns, or even a single plug for tobacco use by youth. The world is going to hell in a handbasket I'm tellin' ya'!! Don't these Hollywood liberals know that homosexuality is the greatest sin known to Christiandom?? Next thing ya' know these soaps will be advocating things like energy conservation and recycling. It's gone waaayyy too far and I'm gonna see what Rush can get done about it!!
posted by nofundy at 12:01 PM on May 7, 2001


My favourite quote: " And I don’t know what I would have thought if those (gay and lesbian) clubs had been around when I was in high school."

Maybe she would have, oh I don't know, become a little more tolerant?
posted by sauril at 12:05 PM on May 7, 2001


But the thousands upon thousands of people who’ve left the homosexual lifestyle demonstrate that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice rather than an inborn characteristic

So there’s hope for someone who feels compelled to be in this lifestyle when they’d rather not be. There’s hope, but it’s not an easy process. When do you ever see that portrayed on TV?

Oh? Like John Paulk, perhaps? How about the "thousands and thousands" of people who have left Exodos and its ilk and describe how it's just a program of repression, causing much shame and suffering? When do you ever see that portrayed on TV?

Y'know if these "ex-gay" groups are really so successful, then how come they refuse to release any actual numbers to proove it? Meanwhile, we have millions of gay people who insist they were born that way. And proof that homosexuality has existed as long as humanity has. So that's all just to be ignored, huh?
posted by dnash at 12:16 PM on May 7, 2001


I dunno, sauril. I kinda took it to mean that she thought she would have been "converted" if the clubs were around. Cause, you know, that's what those clubs do. Practice mind control.

I love the cited study in the article. Yvette (the former lesbian): "In reality, no scientific studies show an inborn cause for any such complex behaviors. In this day of shirking responsibility and blaming anything but ourselves for our actions (e.g., I spilled coffee and burned myself, but it was the restaurant’s fault for serving hot coffee), claims that someone is genetically or chemically structured to engage in dangerous or antisocial activities find increasing appeal. "
posted by gramcracker at 12:18 PM on May 7, 2001


What got me was that Newsweek/MSNBC ran this piece with no rebuttals whatsoever. Scarry.
posted by mapalm at 12:25 PM on May 7, 2001


matt8313: I actually like My Wife and Kids, its one of the few shows on the "big four" with a black family that's not "strugglin' to survive on laughs and love in da hood"
posted by owillis at 12:33 PM on May 7, 2001


Sorry, gramcracker. I should have thrown a sarcasm tag in there somewhere. I'm pretty sure that she was aghast at the whole thing, too, but who knows, maybe she would have ended up with a different perspective.
posted by sauril at 12:37 PM on May 7, 2001


You're either born gay, or you're not.

That’s not necessarily true. Certain events in childhood can make some heterosexuals homosexual and vice versa. I don’t know the stats but I suppose this phenomenon is in the minority.

Just a little caveat.

Here’s another enjoyable read on the Christian Right fighting for their version society.

dnash, you’ll like this quote:

“Sexual-orientation conversion efforts are both futile and crushing, says Manhattan psychologist Ariel Shidlo, coauthor of a forthcoming study of 201 people who have been through conversion therapy. "It's equivalent to a black family trying to teach their child to pass as white," says Shidlo. "It teaches a child that an important part of them isn't desirable, and that's a very hard feeling to shake off." ”
posted by capt.crackpipe at 12:39 PM on May 7, 2001


Actually, the jury's still out on genetic causes of homosexuality. Personally, I think environmental factors and life experience are equally capable. But what do I know.

These people are laughable except that, for some reason, people pay attention to them.
posted by solistrato at 12:45 PM on May 7, 2001


oh, damnit, captain, making my point for me again.
posted by solistrato at 12:45 PM on May 7, 2001


owillis: Yeah, I've heard the same thing from some other people, too. But hearing someone from the Right claim that it's one of the Wayans brothers who is helping to uphold American Decency, etc. . . . it's just a bit odd.
posted by matt8313 at 12:47 PM on May 7, 2001


"It's equivalent to a black family trying to teach their child to pass as white,"

Bingo. Thank you.
posted by dnash at 12:48 PM on May 7, 2001


From that Village Voice article Capt. Crackpipe linked:

The only way out for those "trapped in the hellhole of sexuality," said Paulk, is to cast off their sinful ways and find Christ.

A ha! And here we see the true agenda - it's not just homosexuality that's bad, it's sexuality itself!
posted by dnash at 12:51 PM on May 7, 2001


I've gotten to the point where when I hear someone talk about a "homosexual indoctrination tool," I just laugh. I don't actually watch Dawson's Creek, but I'm guessing that they've shown heterosexual kisses on the show, and I'm going to go waaaaay out on a limb and guess that the number of those kisses is greater than two.

Actually, there are gay genes, and we homosexuals know where they are and how to test for them. The exact way they're expressed is complicated, but, basically, we can score a person from one to ten, where ten is the ideal state of total homosexuality. We know this because through governmental funding, we get blood test results of every child born in the US, and we use these data to recruit children who are in the middle of the scale. If we find a child who's at, say, a four, we have a program that involves placing him in the classroom of a predatory gay school teacher, enrolling him in ballet classes, and setting up an invisible speaker in his bed so that we can pipe in "Tales of the City."

Then, when we have these kids sufficiently confused, we arrange for them to see Dawson's Creek. Later, we put on our black robes, surround their homes, and chant "Come over to the dark side." This recruitment regimen has been particular effective on boys named "Luke."
posted by anapestic at 12:58 PM on May 7, 2001


I knew it! Anapestic, are bis allowed? I've missed mystic ritual since I left my fraternity, and I'd really like to be able to say that I wear a black robe and help usher people to the dark side.
posted by starvingartist at 1:09 PM on May 7, 2001


Poor Kerr Smith - all his worst nightmares are coming true.

(Smith, by the way, portrays the gay character, Jack, on DC, and has gone out of his way trying to make it clear to everyone that in real life he likes girls, not boys.)
posted by gsh at 1:19 PM on May 7, 2001


Straight people not only recruit: they breed. Talk about unfair. Of course, sometimes their kids are gay, showing that someone out there has a sense of humour.
posted by holgate at 1:21 PM on May 7, 2001


Anapestic:
Star Wars as subersive gay erotica never stops being fun. R2-D2 must be the most popular butt plug in history.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 1:35 PM on May 7, 2001


(Smith, by the way, portrays the gay character, Jack, on DC, and has gone out of his way trying to make it clear to everyone that in real life he likes girls, not boys.)

If he so hates playing gay roles, why does he keep taking them? He's not only been on Dawson's Creek but also The Broken Hearts Club and Hit and Runway.
posted by dnash at 1:40 PM on May 7, 2001


Poor Kerr Smith - all his worst nightmares are coming true.

In the print edition of Entertainment Weekly re: this epsidoe, Smith's vehement insistence doth begin to border on a Lady Macbeth-like "protesting too much..." At least he's mercenary enough not to let anything foolish like audience perceptions get in the way of his "play a fag, get a paycheck" routine or his "very close friendship" with producer Greg Berlanti...
posted by m.polo at 1:45 PM on May 7, 2001


If any group is "misrepresented" on TV, it's Dads. Since I can remember, TV dads have always been bumbling idiots without any sense of emotion or tact. Wait, my Dad was like that. Nevermind.
posted by girard31 at 1:55 PM on May 7, 2001


We see a lot more of the “Friends”-type fare, with people jumping from one bed to another. There’s nary a mention of marriage.

Do real people use the word "nary" anymore?
posted by Reggie452 at 2:08 PM on May 7, 2001


Reggie - and much of Friends this season has been about - get this - two of the characters getting married. So much for that example of "evil" TV.
posted by dnash at 2:24 PM on May 7, 2001


apollo: Though I'm 42 with a delightful marriage and two children, I've decided to chuck it all and become homosexual.

Welcome aboard!

Rastafari: Now, I'm not gay, but what kind of environmental factors turns a person gay?

Ironically, it's trace amounts of arsenic in the water supply.

dnash: Y'know if these "ex-gay" groups are really so successful, then how come they refuse to release any actual numbers to proove it?

If you're an "ex-gay" then apparently size really doesn't matter.

anapestic: when I hear someone talk about a "homosexual indoctrination tool," I just laugh.

Homosexual indoctrination tool? Ron Popeil actually used to sell those, didn't he? "Not only will this amazing device sway your sons to sample sodomy, they'll also be able to make fabulous salads and decorative garnishes with the julienne attachment when they come out!"

And don't even get me started on that "Leatherman Tool" all the geeks seem to covet. Hello?!

Reggie452: Do real people use the word "nary" anymore?

I think they meant "Mary!", as in "Come off it, Mary! No one's buying this gay menace crap."
posted by bradlands at 2:29 PM on May 7, 2001


I went to a homosexual recruitment fair once. Lots of fun, free buffet, and the boys were dreamy. But the dues!
posted by aaron at 3:50 PM on May 7, 2001


brad will be appearing all week in the Zsa Zsa Lounge, be sure to tip your waiters...
posted by owillis at 3:55 PM on May 7, 2001


For the love of Mary, why isn't anyone talking about what's really important here?

As if setting him up for the big kiss, Dawson's Creek made sure Toby lost his glasses this week. Now I see why Jack would want to kiss him!

(And it ain't just the red hair.)

Looking forward to this summer's Beach Blanket Bingo scenes with both lads in tasteful Cape Cod swim trunks and nought else. (Wait... isn't it always summer in Capeside?)
posted by joeclark at 3:59 PM on May 7, 2001


Yeah, aaron, they really get you grasshopper style for the dues.
posted by SpecialK at 7:03 PM on May 7, 2001


Was just watching Air Force One on ABC. Remember the scene where Harrison Ford fights his first Russian terrorist in that movie? There's a point where he turns and sees a stool which he then picks up and swings into the guy's cranium, knocking him unconscious.

Regular television, in its constant attempt to broadcast theatrical motion pictures for ratings, only after having them filtered through censor-hungry extremists who believe images on a two dimensional screen are the reason for the deterioration of all things noble about society, decided that the entire fight between Harrison Ford and this glorified extra was acceptable, but that last violent outburst with the stool was just too much to show - it might damage the mind's of children up past their bedtime and turn them into homicidal maniacs. These same censors want to turn television into 24 hours of Leave It To Beaver reruns, lest some environmental factor might slip through and somehow turn people gay. Jesus!

Television is a modern day extension of theater, and from the very beginning of theater since its Greek roots, its purpose has been and always should be a reflection on our humanity. Be it realism, metaphorical, satire or parody, it is how humanity looks at itself. To water down theater, and limit or restrict its reflection in any way is for me more incorrigible than anything. Historically, it has been the actions of governments to restrict the speech and actions of its people that caused the downfall of societies and cultures. Not homosexuality. It is the development of class structure and classifying or categorizing one part of a society as less valid or equal than another which divides a society and causes it to crumble from within. It is tolerance and consensus that strengthens society, not fear and hatred.

StarvingArtist renounced society for a day. I renounced this society a long time ago. To some, I'm worse than any of them extremists out there. I'm aware of that. I haven't hidden my opinions of homosexuality in my online writings over the years. However, I applaud and cheer homosexuals in this society for standing up for their rights and demanding equality. I disagree with you but I'd be proud to stand by your side to protect those rights if and when you'd have me.

But most wouldn't, because there is the confusion on both sides of this issue that in order to love and respect a person, you have to accept what he or she does. In this case, I don't think that is valid. And that is where the line is truly drawn. I do love humanity. I renounce what humanity does; to themselves and to their environment. We fight amongst ourselves over among other things disagreements and entanglements of ancestry, skin color, geographic location, sexual orientation, and deep-rooted beliefs and theories about how we got here and where we're going. In reality? Skin pigmentation is as irrelevant as hair or eye color. Geographic location is transient and buildings and property can be replaced. What one does inside their buildings with their property amongst friends and loved ones is one's own business so long as it doesn't jeopardize another's rights or liberties. We don't honestly know how we got here and where we're going. Even the most steadfast belief systems are just educated guesses. Some would argue they're not even educated. Human beings fight over piddly shit. That's what I'm trying to say.

We fight amongst ourselves like children whining and straining over a stuffed toy. We just should learn to agree to disagree, accept our differences and move forward. We should be fighting to improve ourselves not as a nation or as separate cultures but as a people. As part of a planet. I don't even watch Dawson's Creek but since they have homosexual characters on their show, they are helping to reflect humanity. As much as right wing extremists want to take all who disagree with them and sweep them under a rug pretending they don't exist, the fact is they do. Acceptance and tolerance of differing opinions is the only way to strengthen a people. If that's what Dawson's Creek is proselytizing, count me among the indoctrinated.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:11 PM on May 7, 2001


Every time I see little diatribes such as this from the FRC or Focus on the Family or the Eagle Forum or whatnot, I am reminded of the observation of comedian Lynn Lavner: "The Bible contains six admonitions concerning homosexuality and 362 admonitions concerning heterosexuality."

"I do not mean to imply by this," she says, "that God hates heterosexuals, only that they seem to require a great deal more supervision."
posted by bradlands at 8:23 PM on May 7, 2001


Thank you, bradlands. Thank you thank you thank you.
posted by lia at 2:17 AM on May 8, 2001


Leave It To Beaver? Leave It To Beaver? That show is full of sex! You think Eddie Haskell and Wally are just "pals"? Why exactly is "The Beaver" so submissive to Wally ("Ah gee Wally!")?

Eddie Haskell + June Cleaver = Mrs. Robinson

Leave It To Beaver is evil.
posted by owillis at 2:24 AM on May 8, 2001


This disturbs me: "I’d like to pose a question to MTV: Is Jackass making a positive contribution to society, considering that teens who watch the show are not able to discern between reality and fantasy?"

Read that again. Teenagers are not able to discern between reality and fantasy.

I'm sorry, when was it we became a nation of psychotics? I thought not being able to discern between reality and fantasy made you padded cell material.
posted by dagnyscott at 6:39 AM on May 8, 2001


For the industry: controversy = higher ratings = more money
For the opposition: controversy = more exposure = proselytization

What we have are people that are using controversial topics to make more money, and people that are using that controversy to push their moralistic paradigm. I am completely out of either side of the arguement. But I feel that we have a media that constantly turns the voltage up on the bugzapper and a good portion of nostalgics that forgot how easy it was to love them for it. It's a win win situation for both sides, so there's no reason for either to discontinue.
posted by samsara at 6:55 AM on May 8, 2001


Television is a modern day extension of theater, and from the very beginning of theater since its Greek roots, its purpose has been and always should be a reflection on our humanity.

Excellent point, and you bring up there one of the oldest arguments about the value and nature of art and theater. Plato, in his ideal city described in "The Republic" banned artists - art is dangerous because it might depict the gods as less than perfectly godly, and it shows people doing bad things. He thought, as FRC does, that showing these things made people more likely to do them. Aristotle, on the other hand, thought seeing things like sex and violence helped people think throught them and purge their desires to do them.

The Plato camp has gotten very loud in recent years. But luckily the Aristotles win the day most of the time.
posted by dnash at 7:28 AM on May 8, 2001


Metafilter Unite!!! (At once all left-sided MeFi'ers post another whine session about the idiocy of Christians and their opinions.)
posted by prototype_octavius at 7:38 AM on May 8, 2001


prototype_ocatavius, if you disagree with what's been posted here, then say so. Calling us all "left-sided" and saying that we're whining is not a logically compelling argument.

Your statements are also inaccurate. I haven't seen much whining in this thread. And even aaron didn't defend what the FRC said on this issue. If he's "left-sided" then I'm Marie of Rumania.
posted by anapestic at 8:52 AM on May 8, 2001


dnash: I think Plato deserves more credit than you're giving him. Yes, he has Socrates ban artists from the Republic--but doesn't it seem important that this ban is actually depicted inside a work of art? Or that Socrates himself had been condemned--by some of the people he speaks to in that very dialogue, among others--for teaching young people disrespect for the gods?

Plato loved art, but feared it would distract us from still higher things. These people, on the other hand, seem to see it as merely a tool for indoctrinating teenagers into good or evil. Later Platonists--beginning with Aristotle--found reasons to defend art. The censorship brigade, on the other hand, never seems to soften, or even admit to doubts.

(Of course, they actually have nothing to worry about from shows like Dawson's Creek. The real enemy is orange juice.)
posted by moss at 9:43 AM on May 8, 2001


Every time I hear one of these self-appointed "Christian leaders" speaking on behalf of all other Christians, I wince in pain. As a Christian, I am routinely embarrassed and disappointed by the opinions these people express. Even if I sometimes agree with their main point, I usually disagree with their methods. I won't presume to speak for all Christians, but I will ask that all of you remember that no one person or group speaks for the entire Christian population. I shouldn't have to point this out, but I feel the need to remind everyone that the vast majority of Christians are simply people who are trying to live according to what we believe are God's desires. It's a certain number of our so-called leaders who have the political agenda. The vast majority of Christians are more likely to pray for someone and try to help them than we are to condemn their actions. Please don't believe that all Christians support, or even agree with, the FRC.
posted by Reggie452 at 10:46 AM on May 8, 2001


You make a good point, Reggie452, and that's a sentiment that I, and others, have expressed before. I would like to point out that there were no anti-Christian posts in this thread (unlike some others). The person we were disagreeing with just happened to be a Christian. prototype_octavius inferred a criticism that wasn't there.
posted by anapestic at 11:23 AM on May 8, 2001


« Older   |   New Bose radio hooks up to PC. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post