As it is, free speech is bent because the loud obnoxious -CENSOR'd!!- will get to spread their filth before anything reasonable. This is why you don't have any one great homosexual rights figure, yet you have Phelps and Robertson against it. The media doesn't like that kind of thing.

Say wha!? Explain your reasoning.

This reminded me of something. Why is it that in the U.S., Robertson and the like have big broadcasting coporations, and spread their word all around, yet people rarely ever seem to be that willing to give that level of power to those who wish to further the social acceptance of minorities?

Do you want someone to just give a homosexual rights activist a network of their own, so that they can reach the masses?

No one "granted" Pat Robertson any power. He founded CBN himself. Do you want someone to just give a homosexual rights activist a network of their own, so that they can reach the masses?

But do yu think it would be as easy for an open homosexual to found a network.

There's the gay television network "here!", available to around 40 million US households, there's "LOGO", there's the PlanetPride Network and Proud TV. All of which would be just as influencial to their normal viewing public as Pat Robertson would be to his.

It wouldn't be any more difficult than it would be for a straight person... The great thing about capitalism is that anyone with money can do pretty much whatever they want.

(And there's the gay television network "here!", available to around 40 million US households, there's "LOGO", there's the PlanetPride Network and Proud TV. All of which would be just as influencial to their normal viewing public as Pat Robertson would be to his.)

How is this really "Freedom of Speech", exactly? A country that pulled God the Devil and Bob from the air purely because it cast God as a human-like being?

Yes, and this is the same country that produced the movie Bruce Almighty, who cast God as a human-like being, and is the second highest grossing comedy film of all time. And by the way, God's actor was Morgan Freeman, a black man.

There will likely be a sequel, and the biggest controversy I heard of stateside was over the use of a real telephone number that turned out was NOT owned by the movie studio, so someone was getting called a LOT.

Ironically, this very movie was banned in Egypt for portraying God as a human-like being. It didn't happen here in the U.S.!

But if you show postive homosexual "things", there will be Letters, and it will be taken off the air.

But if you show postive homosexual "things", there will be Letters, and it will be taken off the air.

I've also noticed that Will and Grace was canceled after it's first season due to angry letters.

That was a tragedy.

Oh please, that was hardly activism at it's finest. The majority of the "gay" characters were very stereotypical.

But anyway, as with Ellen, that's the not the point. Both of those are sitcoms, and not someone actually getting up on a podium and telling.

I wasn't talking about "Ellen" as in the sitcom. That show wasn't very good, gay or straight. I'm talking about "Ellen" as in the person with the popular talk show and multiple HBO stand up specials. If there was some force deliberately pushing down gays, I would think her career would have died with her horrible sitcom.
Instead, if anything, her career has taken off since Ellen got cancelled. I've seen her make several talks about gay rights, too.

The reason people like her is that she doesn't whine. She says "this is wrong, let's fix it.", not "this is wrong because stupid christians and conservatives made it this way and they shouldn't be allowed to do this".
That's the difference. She attacks the problem, not the people.

Answer me this; why are there no(or almost none) gay characters in kids' cartoons? It is 1 in 10 after all. The one time they had that Spongebob thing which wasn't a regular saturday morning cartoon thing, the reaction was huge. Imagine if a regular kids cartoon had an openly gay character; and not make a deal of it, just present guys liking guys as a normal every day thing. Suddenly, relationships become purely sexual and it's introducing children to sexual concepts they shouldn't be exposed to, but apparently heterosexuality, girls and guys holding hands, is okay.

Let me explain something to you in pretty easy terms, Kit.

PAT ROBERTSON HAS VERY LITTLE INFLUENCE OVER US POLITICS. THE VAST MAJORITY OF ALL AMERICANS DO NOT GIVE A FLYING -CENSOR'd!!- ABOUT WHAT HE SAYS.

I disagree. Protesting is pretty much worthless. Most people either view them as "wrong" or, at best, just ignore them.

Protesting and rallying is what the KKK does.

Making a way through mainstream media gives your message some credance.

Mainstream media is only concerned with achieving profits. I see no benefit for the gay community in supporting it.

Because most characters in kids shows are meant to be kids, and kids have only a very limited sense of what sexuality is, if at all. "Girls and guys holding hands" isn't an expression of any kind of sexuality in that context, only childlike friendliness.

Let me explain something to you in pretty easy terms, Kit.

PAT ROBERTSON HAS VERY LITTLE INFLUENCE OVER US POLITICS. THE VAST MAJORITY OF ALL AMERICANS DO NOT GIVE A FLYING -CENSOR'd!!- ABOUT WHAT HE SAYS.