I think the disabled diversity is good.
I think they can improve the CSIs by having more than just one token black person on each show for one.
The GLT thing is going to be more controversial...some of us, like me, don't think TV needs to be pushing on everyone what some of us still consider a sinful and unnatural lifestyle...I don't think there will ever be a way to avoid fights and angry letters.
I think there are other things that should be addressed too. Give some future characters decent family lives...it's insane that every CSI is divorced, single or widowed...let someone have a wife and kids and be happy. And these shows also too often don't have enough balance in their portrayals of Christians. Don't always portray us as wierd people or criminals. People of faith should be portrayed positively at times as well.
So, cripples are acceptable for public view--especially if they're to be used as pity props or Inspirations--but not gay people, because the fact that gay people exist might make tight-pantied, narrow-minded people angry?
Your magnanimity astounds.
Actually, your assertion that gay people should be kept out of public view because they make others want to go HULK SMASH is not only grossly offensive, but illogical in light of your oh-so-charitable embrasure of disabled folks on TV.
Why? Because there are people who don't want to be reminded of the existence of disabled people, either. They harangue schools to segregate them into separate classrooms so that they don't "slow down" their perfect child, and so that little Johnny doesn't have to re-evaluate his perception of humanity, of what it means to be "normal." When I was in college, outraged parents left obscenity-laden messages on the Disability Services voicemail and threatened to withhold donations because the university wanted to include them in the Union with the rest of the student organizations. Nasty, vile, hateful messages from people who thought they were protecting their children by denying disabled students the right to be seen with other students in the university commons. It was wrong and hateful and deeply painful for those who had to hear that their inclusion in the Union offices was a threat to the safety of other people's children because they might give them cripple cooties.
It was discrimination. The disabled were denied equal opportunity for the comfort of ignorant people. Clearly, if you think that disabled diversity is good, then you understand that such treatment, based on a fundamental and immutable part of someone, is wrong. If you believe it is wrong to treat disabled people as pariahs better kept in closets and basements, then why is it acceptable to ask gay people to hide in the closet or basement because you find their choice of life and love partner icky?
And why, prithee, are Christians entitled to a positive portrayal, but not gay people? Why is inclusivity in the greater social discourse only a right when it applies to your standards of acceptability? It's only a right if it's granted to everyone, even the pin-headed jerks and "distasteful" people. Otherwise, it's a privilege, and a rage-inducing one, at that.
