Do you think HC (Homosexual Content) TV advisory ratings markers should be allowed?

You know, what I really think is that these Jerry Falwell type people should just be humanely killed. Put out of their misery and prevented from indoctrinating another generation of children with their hate-based belief systems.

I think it is OK to call it out. It is offensive to some people in a similar way that language and violence is offensive. ....and just as I can sometimes be more interested in a show that has violence and language markers, I would likely be more interested in a show that had HC markers.
I think there's nothing wrong will calling out and being honest about homosexual content and behavior. What's wrong is persecution, intolerance, and laws that treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals.

elijahblue - though I often share your feelings, I think what ends up working out better is facing them down. For example, an alternate response to Jerry saying Tinky-Winky is gay is: "Yeah, maybe he is. So what?" (as opposed to "no he's not! You're being ridiculous.") If only the media saw it that way (i.e. it's not news).

I agree completely with Bill on this one. I think the rating system in terms of 18+ etc. is bad, because that is censorship, but I think the rating system in regard to warning of content which some people find offensive is very good, as it helps people self-censor.

I don't think this is an offensive survey, but then again that might be my heretical left-wing humanist bias showing...

I suppose that means 1 in 10 tv shows would have it? or that for every 10 recurring characters on a given show, there was the probability that closeted behavior might slip out? or for every 10 actors/writers...?

Brian makes most of his surveys offensive - and I have to fix most of them. It's kind of like babysitting. I also often have to fix his "questions" because he often puts them in his explanation and makes his question more of a title, or abstract phrase that is vaguely associated with the actual question. For example, this surveys "question" was "HC", so I fixed it. I've mentioned these problems to him as have others, but he just ignores us.

Don't most shows have characters?

I feel sort of torn on this issue. On the one hand, I think that a rating system that allows parents to evaluate media products on behalf of their children (and themselves) is fine. On the other hand, I'm afraid that what happens in the movie industry will happen on TV, with shows censoring themselves in order to avoid ratings that might limit their audience. On the other tentacle, I think that homosexual characters are great and should be much more common on TV than they actually are, that everyone should just get over their homonegativity and recognize that we're all just people. And when I'm standing on my soapbox, I think that children should not be discouraged from whatever they want to read/see/access, but that parents should be aware of and involved in that process and discuss whatever issues arise in that material that the parents or the children find troubling.

On the one hand I'm generally into putting as much information out there as possible and letting people make their own decisions on the basis of it (though I don't believe that trying to avoid "exposing" people of any age to reality works especially well). I wouldn't mind doing this as part of a comprehensive indexing/rating system.
But if we're talking about a single-sided way of making it easier to apply pressure on "gay" shows than other shows, I disapprove.
So I checked both "yes" and "no".

Isn't there already an adult content rating? Personally I find shows like Touched by an Angel much more offensive and would like to know which shows are going to try and preach to me.

bill and doplicar-- don't you think that notifying people of homosexual content is a type of "homonegativity"? we don't give a BC for black content or RC for religious content or HetC for heterosexual content. what i am trying to say is that gays are a part of everyday life as are all of these other things.... but by rating a show simply by it having a homosexual character kind of makes that thing seem negative simply by having to rate it!!! the only other things we ever rate are violence and sex(which by american standards is considered negative). i think it is a shame that gays are viewed in such a way.
i agree with anonymous--- i find a lot of touched by an angel's content offensive and preachy but i don't think it should be rated.....

jettles, I agree with not rating Touched by an Angel, I was trying to illustrate that what someone finds offensive someone else will have no problem with. :)

The question asks if the ratings should be allowed, but the explanation asks if it should be part of the standard ratings system, which probably implies that it would be mandatory. These are different questions.

I don't think content providers should rate or otherwise annotate their content in subjective contexts like this one. We should come up with a good way for arbitrary third parties to rate content and for viewers to access those ratings. Then anyone can use the moral standards of whatever group they want when filtering their content. Trying to agree to one set of values for the whole world, or even a whole country, is ludicrous and doomed to fail.

How about a compromise. Let's also add "RC" for "Religious Content". And while we are at it, let's add "LC" and "CC" for liberal and conservative content.

I'm sure "other shows with characters" is a typo, but I liked it anyway.

If there are people who care about these things, there should be a way to let them know about them. Unfortunately it will undoubtedly get out of hand.

However I have no idea what question in the explanation means.

Since I watch almost zero TV, I am totally indifferent

Having such a rating seems like a bad idea. However, disallowing them means someone is forcing someone else not to have these ratings; that seems wrong.

jettles - I agree with you, which is why I would disapprove of doing this in a single-sided way. But I wouldn't mind if we got into the habit of indexing media events every which way -- I'd love to see a distributed dynamic rating/indexing system for TV shows and movies, like Firefly.

Ds and Ls and Vs and whatnots?

I don't understand why so many people are terrified of homosexuality. Can't people just *accept* other people? What's wrong with children seeing two people in love or what have you, just because they're the same sex? I can totally understand how parents wouldn't want their kids exposed to pornography or something, but that isn't at all the issue. If it's okay for them to see a man and a woman kiss on television, then why not two women or two men? This is something I'll never never understand I fear. I wish I could get at what it is that people are so against. It's entirely too frustrating.

OK, here's my latest theory, take it for what it's worth. I think that homosexuality is frightening to people because it implies that there is a choice about something that's very basic to our lives, that rather than being able to automatically just trip down the path laid out by society and biology, people might have to think about what they really feel and what they really want and consciously choose how they want to live their lives. And having to think, especially about emotional issues, seems to be very frightening to most people these days.

(Please note, I'm not saying that being homosexual is a choice, merely that whether or not one chooses to be honest about it is.)

I have a rather less complex theory to offer:

people are stupid and hateful.

Good explanation. People need to quit being scared. And stupid and hateful too.

hunter, to add to your theory... I think it becomes doubly hard for people to deal with homosexuality because they know that they have treated homosexuals unfairly. Thus, to back-down from their position would mean to admit that they are wrong and that they have been hurting others.

I'm actually applying a race-prejudice theory to this one, but I think it applies to homosexual in a similar way. People need to feel their world view is consistent and just. They would rather hide or even destroy things in their world that don't fit sometimes than recognize that they are wrong in a very basic way.

Very true, Bill. Good point.

bill: Your theory also works when applied to animal rights...

jen, I think that's somewhat true, but really exacerbated for us in the US by some weird cultural stuff.

Hunter, and Bill: You are both quite correct.

god is in the TV

But what exactly is homosexual content anyway? I thought they weren't allowed to show sex on TV...

Pandora...In the bible, homosexuality is called an abomination. It is said to be against "God's" law. So, many people with strong Christian beliefs have had that drilled into their heads and do not approve of it being celebrated, encouraged or acknowledged, especially glorified and celebrated on prime time television where their impressionable children might see it and think it's OK. That's why. It's sad..but many people feel this way. It is a religious and moral issue for them. They do not feel that they are being hateful...just righteous and following a path that will lead them to heaven. They are also taught to speak out against what they consider sinful behavior. That is why all the furor over the issue of homosexuality. Does that help you see what might be motivating some people to disagree with homosexuality or feel that it is bad?

"Every sperm is sacred..."

that is completely ridiculous

mandy: I also believe that it specifies a man laying with a man as with a woman, it doesn't say anything about woman/woman... unless I am mistaken.

reality...That didn't stop my preacher cousin from writing me a letter when I came out to my family, declaring that I was an abomination to god...a cur...lower than a dog or a prostitute....and I'm a woman and he knows his bible.....

Yeah, my parents can't accept my bisexuality either, and they claim it's because it's against Judaism, which it really isn't.

There is a difference between sentimental and tasteless content. Ratings should be done by user sentiment memberships, not explicit scales (as Seth said). My children are better prepared for meaningless sex & violence than the non-explicit content of 'Lost Highway'. I changed genders, my kids live in AK, home of the 'thought provoking' chip. Unfortunately, HC content is provided outside-out, no keys to relating are provided, only views that easily translate to fit outward biases. I don't even mind hardened stances, from those that feel/Know both sides.