Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Glee’s new Christian character ‘won’t approve of homosexuality’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Commander Thor 4 Jun 2010, 2:31pm

    Will a racist be included too?

  2. Jean-Paul 4 Jun 2010, 2:36pm

    Not a bad idea. Think of the possibilities.

  3. So they’re going to present a homophobic christian character as if being homophobic is a legitimate standpoint? Inclusive my ass!

  4. I think it’s a great idea! For those with fear in their hearts over this, it’s worth pointing out what a pro-gay show this is. I can’t imagine this will change. No – what’s really important is that the Christian right will have a platform from which to be exposed to more people because when you remove fundamentalist literalist excuses for homophobia: what is left? Nothing. There are no decent ethical arguments against accepting the diversity of human sexuality other than biblical literalist prejudice. I predict that what in fact will happen is to highlight a healthy embarrasement of the fundamentalist position. This, for me, is quite exciting.

  5. Translate this article means “we folded to negative bigot pressure” when ever were christian an oppressed minority to the point you had to intentionally force cast one into a show? To be honestest all I think this will do is help justify bigots and homophobes in the same way they said “hey look im represented in there!” they can also say “well that persons view is okay there so its all good!”

    But perhaps on the ultimate flip side, with this new character flaunting their dislike for gays and what not perhaps this will only further educate the newer generations on “who sat on a stick earlier in life and still has not extracted it from their rear” cough cough..

  6. Mihangel apYrs 4 Jun 2010, 4:41pm

    an oertly homophobic character will add nothing: it won’t do anything to convince the haters that we deserve to live, and it will make young gays uncomfortable, espacially about coming out.

    And why no racists (thank you thunderer) or antisemites….

  7. de Villiers 4 Jun 2010, 5:00pm

    There is, socially, an empircal difference between the acceptability of homosexuality as opposed to race – which I discussed in a previous post.

    A person being black does not represent a challenge to conventional, Western religion or its history. To be black and to assert its equality with being white is not to deny the truth of a culture’s historic values. Most Western countries have had a deep link with religion which has provided legitimacy for the state and its monarchs. Even secular countries such as France (my own) continue to have a religious undercurrent.

    America has had notable difficulties with race but this appears to be based not on fundamental religious and moral certainties but on wealth, power and class. Blacks went to America and many other European countries, in chains. This may have led to a notion of white superiority and supremacy by virtue of geography.

    Perhaps it is easier to recognise that a supposed geographic superiority linked to colour rather than morality and religion is less defensible than homophobia which is linked to an historic and promoted set of deep religious and moral values.

    Perhaps, also, a person’s colour may be considered to be less threatening and more acceptable on account of its openness. It is nearly impossible to hide one’s colour and impossible to adopt a different one. A person could not in any reality start genetically as white and then choose or be turned to become black at the age of fourteen. There is no perceived element of choice.

    With sexuality, however, there is the element of being hidden, being ready to unmask one-self and having one’s corruptible way with another in secret and in the dark – there being a danger of taking advantage of and corrupting those who are not secretly already corrupted. There is also the perceived (by others) element of choice or of ‘turning’ others which reinforces the danger of gay people changing people from straight to gay.

    Finally, there may be a biological element. For myself, I find the mechanics of heterosexual sex make me feel queasy and I avoid thinking about the details of it. I can only assume that heterosexual people feel queasy about homosexual sex, vice versa. Perhaps it could be linked to protecting oneself against failing to reproduce. From this may extend biological (and therefore natural and initially unchosen) behaviour ranging from nervousness to hostility.

    Such instinctive reaction would appear to be absent with regards to colour or race. A person being black or white creates no instinctive recoil.

    To that end, perhaps achieving gay equality in people’s thoughts (as opposed to under the law) requires more effort on the part of the person than race equality. Of course, as gay equality becomes more socially acceptable and the call of religion weakens, the deep cultural, religious and moral values that speak against us themselves carry less weight in the minds of the population.

  8. Lol. Dumb decision. They don’t care whatsoever. They will still hate the show. At least the character could (could) be mocked at.

  9. Dave North 4 Jun 2010, 6:08pm

    de villiers – 7

    I think you will find that the bbible was used wholesale to permit the continuance of slavery in the States.

    “You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)”

    “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

    During the time they were trying to abolish slavery, the following statements were made:

    “The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage.” A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

    “The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined.” United States Senator James Henry Hammond.

  10. “‘ Oh look – I’m represented there, too!'”
    Box-ticking, anyone?

    Plus, they already have a Christian character, Quinn – she’s presumably not good enough anymore since she got pregnant.

    I love the show. I just find the urge to be so all-inclusive mysterious. Especially the fact that they’re being so open about the fact that they’re bringing in this character just to be more all-inclusive and to please the American right-wing.

  11. I agree with Commandor Thor: are they also going to inclde a racist character? Why have a homophobic character if you are not going to also have a racist character?

    There millions of racist people in America, and their views should be included, no?

  12. Can they make develop Kurt as well please

  13. “A person being black or white creates no instinctive recoil.”

    Sadly, it does for many people…

    And I’m sick of homophobic views being justified by religion. The Bible does NOT condemn consensual, adult same sex relationships. By all means have a right-wing Christian, but, as Thor says, why not go the whole hog and have them being racist (Curse of Ham), anti-women, anti-disabled people (the Bible says their presence pollutes a place of worship) and in possession of a big pile of rocks to stone any adulterers. That’d be more biblical accurate than them being homophobic.

  14. David in Indy 5 Jun 2010, 9:06am

    Hey Ryan Murphy, suck on my knob. And thanks for the memories.

    I’ve only watched your show a few times and I wasn’t impressed. Trust me, I won’t watch it in the future. American trash at it’s worst. Thanks for the half ass effort, Fox.

    Get a real job Ryan, you frigging sell out.

  15. David in Indy 5 Jun 2010, 9:18am

    Gotta keep the homophobes happy. God knows. After all, they still run this God forsaken country, don’t they?

    And here I was about to buy the first season DVDs and give it a chance. Pffft!

    Just sit back and wait. Sooner or later they all show their true colors. Homophobes will always out. You might have to wait a while, but sooner or later it will happen.

    They cannot help themselves. It’ll always out. Sooner or later.

  16. glee is on fox owned by Murdoch home to fox news. what idiot would look to glee for positve glbt representation. glee is like lost a concept with no story.

  17. Karah Termi 5 Jun 2010, 11:21am

    oh shush the lot of you. You cant get equality for all if you dont allow all to be included. Stop thinking Glee is just for gay people etc.

  18. Karah Termi 5 Jun 2010, 12:18pm

    Dean you are obviously one of the sad weirdos that walk about with gay shoes, gay clothes, gay TV programmes, watching gay films. Get a life. Being gay is a part of your life not the whole bloody thing! I am gay as well but dont behave like a LGBT fiend.

    Get out much? To non-gay places to meet non-gay people?

  19. y the heck is the producer telling everyone about whatll happen next hes an idiot

  20. Glee is utter trash. The very notion that you need a homophobe (for balance) is just dumb. And like others have said, will we also have a racist, or even better a white supremacist (lots of those in the USA), or how about someone who dissaproves of disabled people.

    Glee, bringing you diversity via the medium of bigotry.

  21. People dont want Glee to give a platform for homophobic views and make it look like a legitimate harmless opinion. How is that synonymous with wanting the show to be ‘just for gays’? There are plenty of straight people who aren’t homphobic zealots. I’m not black but it doesnt mean I’d like to watch a white supremacist character being shown in a positive light to attract racist viewers.

  22. David in Indy 6 Jun 2010, 7:40am

    “People dont want Glee to give a platform for homophobic views and make it look like a legitimate harmless opinion.”

    A “harmless opinion”? I have been putting up with these “harmess” opinions for more years than you can count on your fingers. It isn’t harmless, and Ryan Murphy just sold us out.

    God Bless America “YA’LL”

  23. Whoa there. Remember, portraying a homophobic character in a drama isn’t the same thing as endorsing one. It all depends on the context in which the character is portrayed.
    If the show is preaching that zealous homophobia is as much a legitimate viewpoint as anything else I’d be inclined to agree with you, but it’s the age old argument of ‘should drama hold a mirror to reality as it is or should it be a vehicle for social change?’ I don’t think it’s as straightforward as ‘I don’t want any characters I can’t personally relate to spoiling my viewing experience’.
    Whithout a decent antagonist, the protagonist usually looks like a bland one-dimensional cypher anyhow.
    Let’s wait and see how this pans out.

  24. well said flapjack!, my point precisely, irritatingly more eloquently argued, I conceed.

  25. Why don’t they just add a character who “doesn’t approve” of weather. It would make as much sense.

  26. Talking of people who don’t approve of homosexuality… we have a newsflash on the whole Ted Haggard situation: He’s supposedly ‘cured’ of his ‘unwanted’ homosexual urges and he wants to reach out to us!
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/06/us-gay-scandal-pastor-church
    Just put some crystal meth in that incense burner and let the battle of wills commence!

  27. darkmoonman 7 Jun 2010, 2:56pm

    Well, the Religious Right Nutters deserved this … after all, they have almost no presence in the media or politics here in the USA.

  28. who cares? its a frakkin television show..if you like it ..watch if not… dont

  29. Hey everyone,
    I would like to note that adding this character is not just to please conservatives but to add more conflict and dimesion to the show. I can tell you that I have experienced many situations where my religious friends disagreed with my parent’s lifestyle. It was a powerful underlying conflict but it did open my eyes and help sympathize with where they were coming from. I don’t hate them for not approving of my family. By the way Glee creator Ryan Murphy is gay as is at least 2 of his actors and the show was celebrated by GLAAD for showing some realities albeit exaggerated of homosexuality. Thanks hope I helped!

  30. I find it offensive to continue the misconception that all “Christians” are homophobic. Many LGBT Christians are represented in denominations (UCC,MCC,Disciples of Christ) as well as “open and affirming” congregations of many other denominations. Christ preached love for the underdog. Homophobes are just ignorant and fearful of the unknown.

  31. I dunno what the point of this is as you could easily add all-sorts of bigots but that isn’t likely to happen plus seeing christian homophobes in programmes makes me angry since homophobes are jerks who hurt others

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all