Monday, December 1, 1997
Warning label on 'Ellen' should not be questioned
HOMOPHOBIA: Children's education on gays comes from parents in due time
By Dianna Hole
I am writing in regards to Mike Hendrix's article "Homophobia was label's basis." I find it interesting that Hendrix should question the warning label on the "Ellen" show considering that the show does contain adult content and the issue of sexual orientation should not be introduced to children who do not even know what sex is all about. Children should be protected from this type of material, and I agree with Hendrix that it is absurd that shows containing mature material should have warning labels, whether dealing with homosexual or heterosexual relations. We should also consider that "Ellen" airs during prime time, when many children are watching, whereas shows with obvious sexual innuendos are shown after children have gone to bed, which might explain why these shows do not have a warning label.
On a personal note, I have to wonder why Ellen Degeneres decided to take this "bold step" about addressing homosexuality on television when her ratings were so low anyway, that it could only help her with such an ingenious publicity attraction. I am left asking whether she would have done the same thing had her show already been in the top 10.
Hendrix decided to assume responsibility for everyone's opinion, stating, "The implication of the warning label is that homosexual relationships are perverted." Funny, I didn't get this impression at all. I merely saw the label as the network's way of trying to protect children from watching unsuitable material, just as they have through TV ratings of sitcoms and dramas. He also claims that homophobia is a result of people's ignorance about the "facts" surrounding it. He goes on to explain these "facts" through studies that supposedly show that homosexuality is not a choice, but instead is due to biological factors.
These studies, such as the twin studies, are not fact; they are just theories. There are too many variables to control and thus they cannot prove these "facts." There are also counter-studies that have failed to find a biological component or gene to determine an individual's sexual preference. One must also ask for an explanation to homosexuals who claim to not have been "born with it," and when some switch to heterosexuality after having experienced homosexual relationships for a long period of time. These phenomena would not occur if homosexuality was biologically determined, considering one cannot change his or her genetic makeup.
Hendrix talks about the fear that homosexuals are looking for converts or that it's seen as a contagious disease. This is obviously absurd, but one must take into consideration a similar problem: the effect of TV violence on children. Children are easily manipulated and seek to imitate their heroes and favorite stars. They model their behavior after them - this has been deeply studied. These studies do show increased violent acts among children who have just watched a violent show. So, when introducing the subject of sexual orientation to children who are too young to understand, they may be confused and model their behavior after their heroes even before they know what it means. Just as we would not introduce children to adult heterosexual issues, we should not introduce homosexual issues to children, even at the expense of biases which might come along with the warning label.
It is more important to protect children than a reputation which may or may not even be created. It is not up to the media to educate children on homosexual issues. It is the parents' role to teach children values and standards of society, and when children are old enough, they can decide for themselves what to believe and accept.
It was also interesting to see the careful quotation of the Bible to lay blame of judgement on Christians. It is amazing that in a growing, "politically correct" society, criticizing anyone's beliefs is shunned. However, when it comes to Christianity, everyone is allowed to throw a stone. Why is that? Because Christians don't believe in doing whatever you want to? So? Is that not their right to believe? Hendrix claims that the Bible contradicts itself with the statement, "Thou shalt not judge," (Leviticus 18:22), but what I find interesting is that he did not take the time to write out this verse: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." I'm sorry, but it does not say anything about judging homosexuals, only that according to God, that type of lifestyle is wrong. Christians can disagree with homosexuality without judging the individuals, yet many critics of Christianity cannot separate these two different elements. So, they immediately assume that if you don't accept their sexual orientation, you cannot accept the individuals, which is not true.
I agree with Hendrix that people should not be judged, because who are we to judge others? Something as personal and as mature as homosexuality should not be dealt with lightly, and a warning label is appropriate whenever children are involved. So, the warning should not be questioned and blamed for homophobia, when homophobia has been around long before the label itself.