Whether you agree with the actions of men and women having sexual relations with their own genders, it is still interesting in understanding how public tolerance of such acts is achieved. It is no small war and not one of any short duration. We’ve come a long way from “the love that dare not speak its name” and even the ACT-UP days are a distant memory. How did we get to here?
One, those who own, produce, and create entertainment largely share a worldview. This worldview is opposed to theism in general, but sexual restraint in specific. So naturally, media is where a squeaky-clean, normal-as-picket-fences, romanticized view of homosexuality takes place. No more films like The Crying Game. We’re talking Buffy the Vampire Slayer, then Brokeback Mountain, Will and Grace, Portlandia, then the Jim Gaffigan show, nearly every show on the CW network and many of the shows/cartoons on Disney Channel’s Freeform. Here, in the scripted world of pretend, all negatives of homosexuality are wiped away. Because those who are homosexual want to convince others that they are normal, media is their perfect instrument. In this manufactured fake world, nothing can stop them from pretending there is no downside to their sexual choices. Nothing requires them to be honest.
To be fair, media as wish-fulfillment and as fantasy is something that has been pursued by straight people for many, many years. I mean this in a specifically sexual sense. Isn’t it strange how characters can sleep around and no-one ever ends up pregnant? How nobody ever gets an STD? How no-one ever regrets their one-night stands?
This follows from a compression of reality that film and TV often use. They rarely investigate the effects of actions upon character’s family relations. The main characters are treated as monads who never have extended family that cares about their life choices, because the hip main characters know it all anyhow. Any elders that do appear are bit parts. Additionally, what time does film or TV have for the thoughts and the feelings of characters except those that can be expressed outwardly? The desire of those who make media are opposed to such realism – media is fantasy, wish-fulfillment, what reality is not, a necessary lie.
Two, gay porn, but specifically lesbian porn. Nothing is faker than pornography, and nothing is faker in porn than lesbian porn. Nevertheless, weak men who get off on a world without men (even for just the length of a porn vid) very easily grant that homosexual men and homosexual women have a right to enjoy one another sexually, in the same consequence-less, emotionless, fantasy world that he does.
Three, reality TV. There are fewer larger lies in TV land than reality TV, for it does all it can to appear real, despite being edited, staged, scripted, and shot until the director gets what she or he wants. And probably the largest lift homosexuality has received in popular culture has come from these shows, where the safe-as-milk homosexual couple buys a house just like any other straight couple. They are presented as normal, even flirty with straight hosts, charming, and stable. You have to look hard to see who is the top and who is the bottom. You even have to look hard in the show to determine if the two people are in fact, a gay couple. This is done on purpose, as is every camera shot, as is every line, edited and filmed to fit into the time allowed and designed to generate the social message that the director and the channel want.
Media has been instrumental in creating the illusion of normality for homosexuality. If Joe America actually knew about the reality of the experience, public tolerance would be much less. However, even what public tolerance that exists has been sold through make-believe and through judicial fiat, not at the voting booth. This puts the homosexual agenda on the precipice, because few in their hearts of hearts condone or participate in it, and because the primary means of recruiting is through older men and young boys (a la Milo), the entire movement is just one generation of home-schoolers away from losing the tenuous grip it has on public tolerance.