Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Study: Support for equal marriage boosted by television portrayal of gay couples

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Peter Robertson 12 Apr 2013, 7:24am

    “network television began to shove homosexuality down our throats years ago”.

    Churches/mosques/synagogues/… have been shoving their fairy stories down our throats for centuries. The difference is that the television stories are fiction based on fact while religion is fiction based on nothing.

    1. Superbly correct, Peter! Well said!

  2. I absolutely love the New Normal. Though it does sterotype alot. Other than that it has proven great entertainment. And it is The New Normal for families to be Gay, Single Parent etc. Hopefully it goes some way to change public opinion.

    1. Agreed, plus Justin Bartha is in boxer shorts a lot which is always nice.

      1. Yeah. He is gorgeous lol

    2. Totally agree. Especially enjoyed the season finale. Very moving. For those that missed it, the episode can be seen online here:

      http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi1071687193/?ref_=tt_wb_hulu_all_0

      1. That reminds me…I need to visit catch up!! We’re about 5 or so episodes behind in the UK!!!

    3. I find it depressing. The cliché preppy type and flamboyant shallow queen. The bigoted grandmother as “misguided”. The sanctmonious kid and dippy mother. It’s a hot mess

      1. It’s a compendium of clichés, true, but then what sitcom isn’t?

  3. Many Americans have believed gay people to be evil, sexual predators. This perception was and is wholly due to negative religious conditioning. But since TV has begun to show gay people in normal, everyday situations and gay citizens have found the courage to ‘come out’, society is realising the truth. Gay people are everywhere, are just like heterosexuals and that it is religion which is the ‘devious’, ‘evil’, ‘devisive’ influence in society.

  4. I say if television helps people see that gays are just as normal as straights, thus changing opinions of us, bring on more baby!

    1. Yes, Teddy, bring on more, bring on full saturation, until the brainwash of religion is washed away forever!

  5. And your completely unrealistic model of society then is presumably that of The Holy Family, forever in a state of bliss, with absolutely no variations.

    Grow up. Look at your OWN extended family for goodness’ sake!

    Acknowledge reality!

    1. keith, moral instructor to immorals 12 Apr 2013, 7:01pm

      There is plenty of scope for ‘variation’ within normal heterosexual monogamous family units. There are people of all shapes, colour and size.
      These deviant families have no benefit t society. A loving mother and father trumps a loving mother and mother or father and father every time.

      1. If that were true it would be brilliant news for children everywhere and there would be no need for social services. Plenty of people love their children but cannot look after them because they have addictions, learning difficulties, health problems etc. etc.

        They’re have been studies to disprove your comment which you’re probably aware of but have chosen to ignore because they don’t agree with your hateful agenda.

        1. keith, moral instructor to immorals 12 Apr 2013, 9:38pm

          Social services exists because parents haven’t a clue these about parenting these days and not ecause they are not homosexual. Homosexuality is not linked to better parenting.
          Given a choice between a homosexual coupe and a heterosexual coupke wit equal parenting skills. it is better for te child to be with the hetero couple. better to have a mother and a father where possible. Homosexuality and same sex arrangements bring no added benefit, in fact, they teach the child that what is biblically disgusting is actually acceptable.
          There are no studies that show homosexuals make better parents, liar!
          Where possible, children should be with their bio parents. Whre there is risk , quality hetero couples should be sought before homo couples.

          1. Overall, parents are better at parenting than any time in recent history. There is more information available about child-rearing, the average parent has more available resources and hurting children until they obey is no longer considered a valid method of conflict resolution.

            Why is a mother and a father better? And, practically speaking, do you really think there a choice between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple with equal parenting skills frequently enough for this to be an even vaguely relevant scenario?

            “Biblically disgusting” is a meaningless phrase. Literally. I can’t think of any interpretation except “as disgusting as the Bible”, which doesn’t tell me anything, because I don’t know how disgusting you find the Bible.

            I have seen a study which showed homosexuals make better parents. It was only in passing, though, so I can’t speak to it’s authority.

          2. keith, moral instructor to immorals 13 Apr 2013, 9:44am

            Mother and father is better because that was the way God/nature intended, a father provides that which a mother cannot and vica versa. It is also clear in the animal kingdom.
            It is not I that should be defending what is natural, traditional and works perfectly as a model. You should be explaining or giving an example of how it might be determined that a homosexual couple might be better for a child than it’s biological parents if those parents are loving and skilled parents?

          3. Again a very odd concept. Nobody is going around people’s homes taking children away from their biological parents “if those parents are loving and skilled”. Children who are up for adoption will usually come from very difficult homes with heterosexual parents who have been deemed to be unfit and no close relatives who are able to look after them. Unfortunately they will often have endured a history of abuse and violence at the hands of those who should have looked after them but were unable to. What these children need are loving families so that they might have a chance in life. You bible people just try to score political points on the skin of these poor children to defend whatever deviated perception you have of heterosexual superiority.

          4. keith, moral instructor to immorals 13 Apr 2013, 6:01pm

            It is not a political issue. It is amoral one. You nonbible people have no authoritative objective moral point of reference.
            Children need mothers and fathers. That is the superior model since each provides something the other cannot. The homosexual model fails to provide fully in this regard, therefore, it is always better to place children with qualifying hetero couple before qualifying homo couples.
            Of course, homosexual adoption is illegal inmost countries for the same reason that consensual adult male sex between father and son is illegal. It is morally wrong!

          5. The bible is hardly an objective reference. :) We non-bible people have as moral point of reference a conscious observation of the world around us, instead of relying on a book written thousands of years ago, translated and mistranslated hundreds of times and interpreted differently by different people usually relying on it to justify whatever their biases might be. There are lots of christians who see no problem with homosexuality. Why should I consider the interpretation you’ve chosen over theirs. As per the alleged superiority of a heterosexual family I’ve already addressed this point so I won’t repeat myself. This idea that mothers and fathers provide something the other cannot is another one of those Disney-lite ideas you’ve espoused. Fathers can teach woodwork skills and mothers can pass down recipes. People are different not just because of what’s between their legs. Any two people will bring something different.

          6. keith, moral instructor to immorals 14 Apr 2013, 10:40am

            ” We nonbible people have as moral point of reference a conscious observation of the world around us”
            Exactly! Each will reach a different conclusion as to what’s right or wrong.Drugs, abortion, etc!

            “There are lots of christians who see no problem with homosexuality”
            No, they are false Christians. The bible is clear about God’s view of men who lie with men.
            Fornication is condemned in the bible. It’s not possible to have gay sex without committing fornication in God’s view as biblical marriage requires opposite sex union..

            “As per the aleged superiority of a heterosexual family I’ve already adressed this point so I wont repeat myself”
            I asked you why a gay couple would make better parents than a heterosexual couple whilst adopting. I made the case for hetero, what is the case for homo?

            “This idea that mothers and fathers provide something the other cannot is another one of those Disney-lite ideal”
            How debased your views are. Kids need a mother, even if not the biological one.

          7. Yes, people will have different opinions about issues, I had hoped you might have figured this out for yourself. As I’ve said already even Christians interpret the bible differently so obviously even bible people come to different conclusions. Some of them, you might be surprised to hear, actually base their Christian beliefs on the message of this guy called Jesus Christ who never uttered a word against gay people.
            Regarding parenting, you can say kids need a mother all you want but all scientific evidence shows that kids need stability not parents with breasts and that the children of gay parents do just as well as those of straight parents so unless you have anything more to go on, I’m afraid there’s not much more to add. Again, you are forcing me to repeat myself, I’ve already given you more information about this in a previous comment so I won’t be going over this again. Just re-read.
            I don’t know why you think your word carries more weight then logic and scientific evidence.

          8. keith, moral instructor to immorals 14 Apr 2013, 9:43pm

            “As I’ve said already even Christians interpret the bible differently so obviously even bible people come to different conclusions.”
            The bibles moral laws can only be interptered one way. Some may try to twist scrioture for their own agenda. You however say that people should decide for themselves what is right or wrong Many have decided abortion for instance or drug taking and you have no basis on which to say these things are morally wrong.

            I will not dignify your comments about children not needing mothers. Your views are heinous and unworthy.

            “Jesus Christ who never uttered a word against gay people.”
            He did not mention did not mention paedophilia, bestialty or rape either but exactly what conclusion does that lead you to?

            Did you miss the bit in my post where I said Jesus condemned fornication (which includes gay relations as gay marriage is)
            He also said of the old testament law that he came to fulfill law it,not destroy it.
            Jesus was a Jew. He always quoted from the OT.

          9. “I will not dignify your comments about children not needing mothers. Your views are heinous and unworthy.”
            Sounds like someone is out of arguments. You might consider it heinous but I’ve made a clear logical argument: if studies consistently show that children raised in stable homes by same-sex or opposite-sex parents are equally happy and well-adjusted individuals, it’s self-evident that you cannot say that children need a parent of a particular gender. Let me rephrase that: you CAN say it, but it’s called a LIE. And that is why all scientific professional bodies involved in child development support same-sex parenting as well as some christian denominations. With that, I wish you well and hope that you find enlightenment. I won’t hold my breath, though.

          10. keith, moral instructor to immorals 16 Apr 2013, 10:51am

            You said that homosexual parents are than hetero parents for adoption purposes. I challenged you and still challenge you to show the evidence. Until you do, your claim is a lie.
            You also seem to have ran out of steam on your Jesus condones homosexuality theory, since I showed you otherwise!

            Finally, the best case scenario for children is to have a loving biological father and mother. This can never be achieved with the homosexual model.

          11. keith, moral instructor to immorals 16 Apr 2013, 10:52am

            You said that homosexual parents are better than hetero parents for adoption purposes. I challenged you and still challenge you to show the evidence. Until you do, your claim is a lie.
            You also seem to have ran out of steam on your Jesus condones homosexuality theory, since I showed you otherwise!

            Finally, the best case scenario for children is to have a loving biological father and mother. This can never be achieved with the homosexual model.

          12. Of course it’s better for children to be raised by their own loving biological parents if they have them and they are indeed loving but that’s just not the reality for many children. What I told you, and I can’t believe you’re making me repeat myself one more time, is that children who are up for adoption didn’t have loving parents, so the fact that they were biological parents is irrelevant if they are abusive parents or simply passed away and the children had to be taken into the care system. All your other points are answered by re-reading what I’ve already written including the point I made about statistics on children with same-sex or opposite-sex parents. They are statistics, not my opinion. I have no interest in discussing the Jesus issue further as it is of no particular interest to me. It is a FACT that different Christian denominations exist and that some interpret the message of Christ as being perfectly ok with homosexuality.

          13. These are FACTS that you just keep trying to deny. Just today the Church of Scotland published a liturgy for the blessing of same-sex unions. It’s on the home page of Pink News. Just read it. I can imagine you sticking your fingers in your ears and going “LALALALA I’m not hearing this”. There are even historians claiming Jesus may have been gay himself. You just can’t know that he wasn’t.

          14. These are FACTS that you try to deny. Just today the Church of Scotland published a liturgy for the blessing of same-sex unions. It’s on the home page of Pink News. Just read it. I can imagine you sticking your fingers in your ears and going “LALALALA I’m not hearing this”. There are even historians claiming Jesus may have been gay himself. You just can’t know that he wasn’t.

  6. It’s possible the tongue-in-cheek aspect of it bypassed you. Have you watched the programme?

  7. This is just like what happened with The Cosby show, the Jeffersons, Good Times, and the other shows of their time. They showed that an African American family is as normal as every other family.
    As we can see, gay families also live the same lives. We aren’t so scary. We just want to be treated like everyone else, because we are just like everyone else.

  8. keith, moral instructor to immorals 12 Apr 2013, 9:27pm

    Social services exists because parents haven’t a clue these about parenting these days and not ecause they are not homosexual. Homosexuality is not linked to better parenting.
    Given a choice between a homosexual coupe and a heterosexual coupke wit equal parenting skills. it is better for te child to be with the hetero couple. better to have a mother and a father where possible. Homosexuality and same sex arrangements bring no added benefi, in fact, they teach the child that what is biblically disgusting is actually acceptable.

    1. Actually, statistically same-sex couples make better parents although admittedly that’s only because the great majority of same-sex parents have seriously considered and wanted to become parents whereas so many heterosexual couples end up being parents by accident and don’t often do a very good job.
      Therefore, even in the case of a “homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple with equal parenting skills” (wording that shows you know NOT what you are talking about: if a couple is trying to become parents, how could you know about their parenting skills, how could they have any — you’d have to make an estimation of their likelihood to become good parents) statistically, the gay couple would have a better chance to become good parents, although I’ll grant you that if both couples are trying to adopt, the straight couple is probably equally driven and motivated.

  9. Actually I don’t believe that 10% that says they were affected negatively. Are they trying to tell us they were pro-marriage equality and now are against it because of the portrayal of same-sex couples on tv? I think they’re just virulently anti-gay and are just very disturbed by all the positive portrayal of gay-couples.

  10. keith, moral instructor to immorals 13 Apr 2013, 10:42am

    Just to be clear on my position I will create a hypothetical case.
    A baby is in need of adoption. There are two couples that qualify for adoption, each couple having ticked all the necessary adoption boxes.
    However, couple A is hetero and couple B homosexual. For this example we will say male homosexuals.
    Leaving out my personal morals and ethics regarding homosexuality, I still believe that the child would be better served if adopted by the hetero couple since there is advantage of having a mother. To argue that a child does not need a mother and would be better served by two fathers is saying that fathers are better than mothers or vica versa.

    1. All your comments seem to indicate a very confused mental model of how adoption works. You seem to think that the adoption process consists of couples being paired up with another couple to compete for one child. You’re assessed individually to establish if you are a viable adoptive parent. There’s also an issue of whether you are a good match for a specific child based on a number of factors and personal experiences of both the couple and the child.

  11. keith, moral instructor to immorals 13 Apr 2013, 10:43am

    Just to be clear on my position I will create a hypothetical case.
    A baby is in need of adoption. There are two couples that qualify for adoption, each couple having ticked all the necessary adoption boxes.
    However, couple A is hetero and couple B homosexual. For this example we will say male homosexuals.
    Leaving out my personal morals and ethics regarding homosexuality, I still believe that the child would be better served if adopted by the hetero couple since there is advantage of having a mother. To argue that a child does not need a mother and would be better served by two fathers is saying that fathers are better than mothers or vica versa..

  12. keith, moral instructor to immorals 14 Apr 2013, 9:48pm

    “Regarding parenting, you can say kids need a mother all you want but all scientific evidence shows that kids need stability ”

    Where is the evidence to support your claim that a homosexual couples are more stable as adoptive parents than heterosexual couples as adoptive parents? That is either gross ignorance or an outright lie!

  13. Well I said it not too long ago about “The New Normal” when someone said they hated the show because of how it portrays gay men! Anything that shows people that we, gay men OR women, can lead fruitful lives that not involve sleeping around and behaving like sexual deviants, is a good thing.

    We know that the LGBT world is full of different kinds of men and woman. Some men are very butch, whilst others can be the other extreme and be very flamboyant. The same with gay women, some of us are very butch whilst there are many who nobody believes are gay because they’re too ‘girly’. When it comes to shows like Queer as folk and Lip Service or The L Word, I think they portrayed us in a very negative light. We slept with anything that was the same sex and had a pulse! We were incapable of long term relationships. And we knew every gay person in town!

    The image shows like ‘The New Normal’ is far more positive. and closer to reality!

  14. …this T.V. show has got to be the best. Why, because it’s simply educational not sensational and people around the World ought to take notice but alas of course they won’t…because of their heinous ignorance.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all