I completely agree that the LGBT population is a part of life and that there are gays and lesbians in all professions. I also agree that they should show an LGBT person that is not a victim or perpetrator. Even something simple as being with a same sex partner as an alibi. ... Other episodes, like the stuff with Paul Milander in seasons 1 and 2, and the episode "XX" which was in season 4 Didn't do so well, as Milander being transgendered and the woman who killed her lover over jealousy seemed to reinforce the idea that "Gay is bad."
I think if they're going to have LGBT representation in the series, there is inevitably going to be a gay killer and/or a victim who dies over jealousy/stupidity/any other motive that is used on the shows. (And there have definitely been a lot of jealousy-type motives for heterosexual killers on all three shows.) That being said, if they had gay characters in a broader spectrum of roles, it wouldn't be so bad. (Gay people can't always just be the good guys and the innocent bystanders - if we want it to be fair, anyway.
)
If we think of an average case on these shows - there's usually a victim, a killer, maybe a witness and an innocent suspect. That's not exact, but I'd say it's a pretty generic estimate of the minimum number of people involved in a case. So that's four characters per case (not including the CSIs, lab techs, detectives and coroners, of course). If we take the "10%" rule (which isn't necessarily accurate, but I'm just being theoretical) into account, out of 100 cases, with 400 characters (if there are those four people for each case), we should see closer to 40 LGBT people in that span of time, rather than just a few here and there.
I'm not saying they have to make sure to include one gay person for every 9 straight people, I'm just saying it's obvious that the representation is nowhere near accurate. Of course, the same can be said for different races (particularly on New York - I swear, it seems like they rarely have anybody who isn't white), disabilities (what happened to Dr Giles?! I loved his voice, plus he was just generally awesome), etc. I think at this point the shows have to
consciously include a variety of people because it's apparently not the 'natural' way of thinking for people in the industry at this point (considering the television landscape, I mean - I hope that makes sense). Eventually, it will hopefully get to the point where television more accurately mirrors real life.
But I digress. Basically, I think they need to make a point of showing all sorts of diversity on television, including on these shows, and that includes greater LGBT representation.
I also think that adding a few more experts could solve two problems at once - 1) it would allow them to bring in one-off or recurring characters that could be gay/disabled/of a different race without having to make them a victim or a killer, and 2) it would make the CSIs (particularly on NY) look less like they know everything. Hawkes doesn't
have to magically know everything about computers - they could bring in a computer expert to help him, and it would be more realistic and, like I said, provide an extra space to include another talented actor.
And that's just talking about guest/recurring characters, of course.
I do understand love_fan's trepidation about a person being bisexual. It would likely end up turning out to be a ratings ploy and a person turning out "straight" or experimenting, especially if it were not well received.
A bisexual character
is tricky, I agree. Technically, they could fall in love with a man or a woman, but if they choose to write the character with someone of the opposite sex, it's automatically going to anger some people who feel that it's a cop-out, or it would feel like the 'safe' way to include someone who isn't straight without having to actually make them 'not straight'. Whether or not that was TPTB's intention would be irrelevant because that's how people would take it.
While I agree with what everybody has said about CBS being more conservative than other networks - I really don't think that's an excuse. If people have a problem with something being shown on television, nobody is forcing them to watch that show. Networks shouldn't try to cater to any portion of the population unless they are a niche network (for lack of a better phrase), like Logo or TV One. The major networks should concentrate on creating the best programming to compete with the other networks and attract viewers, period. (And while there
are viewers who wouldn't watch a show where a major character was gay, there are plenty of people who
would watch the show.)
Besides, on shows where they routinely deal with sex, drugs, and (more than anything) murder in sometimes graphic and shocking ways for entertainment, I don't see how they can justify homosexuality continuing to be "taboo".
So, uh, after all of that rambling...
Yes, I think canon slash could work - and I think they'd realize that if they actually
did it. It's easy to say, 'Oh, that would never work' without actually putting forth the effort to give it a try.
