In his first action since banning and erasing all comments on his blog, Exodus executive director Alan Chambers wrote an open letter to ABC on Feb. 17.
He says he is “outraged” that ABC News subjected him, his wife and kids to the sight of married gay couples kissing. He considers kissing “Rated R” and concludes:
If ABC World News Tonight is going to be a program that exposes children to things that they don’t need to know about, needs an R rating and promotes controversial (at very best) sexuality on it’s show then maybe you should move it to a midnight time slot.
While most gays are tolerant (albeit annoyed) when the media provide equal time to exgay and antigay voices, it appears that Chambers not only believes gay people are something that kids “don’t need to know about,” he also wants real gay Americans omitted from the nightly news and rendered nearly invisible — wedged, no doubt, in between the overnight “Girls Gone Wild” commercials taped in Chambers’ home state of Florida.
To me as a gay person, Chambers’ comment about gay kissing appears to show remarkable contempt for gay people, their faith, their commitment, and their high moral standards.
Just days earlier, in a blog entry comment that he subsequently deleted, Chambers said, “Live your life, love who you want to love, do everything that is legally afforded to you but leave children out of it.” What he apparently really meant was, “Live your lives out of sight from antigay Americans — and think twice about that, when we re-enact sodomy laws.”
I have yet to see a TV set that did not have both an on/off switch and a channel selector. We make prodigious use of both of them on the TV sets in our house. Chambers should consider using those on any TV sets he has in his house.
When I saw that entry, I was really surprised by how close he’s starting to sound to Donald Wildmon, who I remember reading one time was incredibly outraged because a gay individual on a TV show was shown to be a “nice person.” How shocking that must be.
I was raised with almost no television because my parents did not want us exposed to anything controversial. Instead of watching TV and using opportunities to discuss our moral views and differences, they chose instead just to ban most movies and most television and the newspaper. Even Little House on the Prairie got turned off when something was found to be offensive. It’s sad that Alan is doing the same thing with his family.
However, I just love the idea that ABC is “promoting controversial sexuality” as I’d imagine that the sight of gay people kissing must not make most straight people comfortable – and I doubt anyone saw it and thought, “You know, I’ve been wrong. Now that I’ve seen two gay people kiss, I think they should be married! No, wait, I think I should be gay and get married!”
I’m going to write a letter to ABC letting them know that Alan doesn’t speak for all Americans. I hope others will do the same.
Oh puh-leeze. News is in a completely different category than entertainment. I am excluding infotainment in my analysis because it is more entertainment than news. It is one thing to complain about the Janet Jackson affair or the Britney/Madonna kiss but this is different. While I may disagree with the wisdom of what is happening, the story is undeniably newsworthy and should be covered. I guess we should have gotten rid of the live embedded reporters in Iraq because they might accidentally record something offensive.
Real life is offensive and different people find different things to be offensive. What is being advocated is nothing more than conservative PC. What we don’t need is yet another generation of Americans with a chip on their shoulder.
While he’s at it maybe Alan could write Clear Channel because they have the most indecency claims against them. Or, he can ask Clear Channel affiliate KNEW to pull down its billboard that is polluting the jury pool in the Peterson case. I find THAT offensive.
Well, once again Rich demonstrates his total reasonable-ness, if only the Alan Chambers of the world could learn from him. And Rich is right – there is no Constitutional Right not to be offended. I am offended by all the sports stars who insist on thanking their “personal Lord and Savior” for every touchdown or victory (never realizing that if God is responsible for your wins, He is also responsible for your losses). However, I cannot insist they not have the right to free expression just because I am offended.
Just what is it about gay people celebrating their weddings that Chambers finds offensive? The very image of two gay people being affectionate? He can’t simply explain to his children (oh, that’s right, he doesn’t have any) or someone else’s child that the people on TV may look happy, but are really sinners? That’s his belief after all.
I think what Alan is really concerned about, what all the anti-gay types are concerned about, is how quickly straight people’s “revulsion” at homosexuality, particularly gay male affection, goes away after they’ve been exposed to it for a very short time. Poll after poll shows that people who know and love a gay person are far more likely to be supportive of gay people than those who do not. With this story, America is getting a pretty good glimpse of the realities of gay life that people like Chambers deliberately hide – that there is real love and happiness involved in gay relationships. The more Americans see that on their TV screen (and we have at least until Friday), the less “revolted” they will be, and potentially more supportive of gay rights and gay marriage.
There really is no other reason for the “religious” right to be so incensed about what is going on in SF. If the licenses really are worthless, then a few beauracrats wasted their weekend officiating at the ceremonies and handing out the licenses. There is no other harm that has come to anyone from this “lawlessness.” But the “religious” right is so quick to demand Newsom’s arrest for his law-breaking. These are the same people who did not turn Michael Johnson over to the authorities for knowingly exposing his (gay) sex partners to HIV.
Which “lawlessness” is more damaging?
Shows just what a high premium he places on truth and open discussions, doesn’t it?