Why so many gay couples in tv shows?


I got rid of tv all together for other reasons, but I’ve enjoyed purity of mind as well.


I agree.

I know who you are talking about and I have seen the posts that says the 1950s was the decade to be alive. I respect the opinion but the point is the opinion has been expressed in this forum several times.


What would your solution be in this case?


May I ask why?
Personally speaking a woman’s marital status is nobody else’s business.

Why should I have to proclaim it to the world?

I know for a fact that single women are still held in contempt especially if they’re over a certain age. Why should I subject myself to that?


The solution is to stop watching such TV shows. I mean, for Catholics and all Christians, if our choices are filled with sexual immorality and blood and gore, just stop watching it. Turn to other things, like books and good music. However, even with contemporary books, I have to be careful. I had to throw out several after encountering profanity and descriptions of sexual activity, and I’m referring to books about historical events. This trend is new. I haven’t seen it in general audience books prior to the 2000s, and I never see it in highly specialized books published by specialty presses in recent years.


I gave up TV since most of the shows are trash.

Even the so called documentary or learning channels have gone off the rails.


You should realize that censorship is a double-edged sword and, if allowed, would almost certainly be used against the Catholic Church in most nations. In America, for instance, (although real censorship would require the destruction of the Constitution), the most politically powerful religious group are fundamentalist protestant evangelicals who widely believe the Catholic Church to be the antichrist and consider the veneration of Mary and of saints to be idolatry.


I was around when Miss and Mrs changed to Ms. It always had a feminist character about it. Whenever I heard that title it just wreaked of feminism, still does, and that is not what I am.

I understand what you are saying here. I did not marry until in my 30’s, so I was a Miss for quite a while. I would have rather someone would have just called me by my first name rather than call me Ms. because many times when someone puts that title in front of your name it is an assumption that you follow the feminist ideal, and again I do not at all and haven’t for quite a many years, since college and after I realized what the feminist ideal is.

Perhaps if you do not want someone to know you are single or a widow than there is probably not an issue with the title and perhaps it is best or just have them use your first name.

For a married woman, IMHO the title Mrs., showed in the past and continues through still today, that she and her husband are one. She is not independent and free.


The qualification was no flaws whatsoever. The 1950s were a great time to be alive in the US even if not perfect.


Quite an admission.


I just would like to point out that your argument here is dishonest. The study showed that 15% of movies have some at least one gay character (honestly I haven’t seen it personally) not that 15% of all movie characters are gay.

This would be like showing a study that shows 75% of movies have at least one black character, and saying black people are overrepresented in film because they are only 15% of the population.


What is the feminist ideal?

I would like to make sure we are on the same page here.

I grew up in an entirely different continent, Asia, where women are still truly considered as inferior, so I may have a different perspective.


So, in short, what I learned from the feminists here in America, what I grew up understanding beginning in high school, is men are bad, evil, oppressers that women must break free from. It is not just about being equal (men and women are equal in dignity, but different in who they are and the roles they have in a family), but it is about overpowering men, again breaking free from them and being financialy independent.

That is the shortened version.


The promotion of ideologies needs the weight of cultural acceptance.
Language is a big part of that. Redefining words for instance. Words like “man”, “woman”, “marriage”, “human being”. If basic meanings of words can be questioned and deconstructed, those things they describe can be deconstructed.
Same with art. Literature. Film.

If you control the cultural narrative you have the power to shape thinking for better or worse. Lies need repetition to take hold. So for instance, the oft repeated lie that black people are sub human took hold, and the minds and hearts of those who hear the lie accept it.


I disagree with feminism because of its insistence on abortion as women’s healthcare. This is ironic, since in Asia, the primary victims of abortion are unborn women.

Nothing wrong with being financially dependent on one’s husband but I don’t think it’s a sin if I as a single woman am not financially dependent on a man.


That’s right. Everyone needs to careful about what they see, hear and read. Modeling bad and immoral behavior on TV is becoming more common. We - meaning Catholics - need to reject this. A bad example is a bad example.


Yes, I agree with you in all this. It is sad. Also, the women having abortions, soooo many times are victims also. Even here in America, I read that over 80% of women having abortions have someone behind them pushing them, leaving them with the feeling that there is no where to turn or that they have no choice. Thankfully there are many places giving help popping up right next to abortion clinics today in America.

A single person, I would say is definitly fine to be financially independent, even important.


My experience was different from yours—I grew up with feminism presented as a quest for equality, not a need to degrade men.

Obviously, financial independence and equal pay are important—no one should be unable to support themselves because of their sex.

And I’m not sure what you mean by “overpowering” men. Women make up approximately 51% of the population—if they had that percentage of leadership roles, it wouldn’t be overpowering, it would be proportional.


I heard about equality also, but in getting there it was a degrading of men. You know the name calling, such as “male chauvanist pigs” and more that I would not want to post here.

I think for feminists what is meat by equality is a big issue. For feminists it is equal without gender or role differences. Jesus gives us equality, equality in dignity and value but maintains that we are different in roles and gender.


I think a lot of the “chauvinist pigs” and crazy stuff are cherrypicked extreme examples to try to paint the cause of equality as crazy by entrenched interests. I personally have never met a feminist who acts like rightwingers commonly portray them.

Consider how popular culture and the left wing portray Christians, usually pulling out examples of crazed fundamentalists calling for the execution of gays or that women be forced to be barefoot and in the kitchen. Something in human nature calls us to make cartoons out of people we disagree with rather than listen to what is actually being said.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.