Oh come on now! The ONLY kind? What about Will Truman and his boyfriend Vince on “Will and Grace”? Thomas the footman on “Downton Abbey”. And there are many, many more but they just don’t spring to mind right now.
Never watched the latter, and only saw like two episodes of the former. It could be confirmation bias, I suppose.
ETA: especially because my wife watches nothing but decorating shows.
Maybe, who knows. My reaction was visceral and not a deeply reasoned response. I’m guessing this will be true for large chunk of the intended heterosexual audience.
The “how dare you be offended by these loving men doing the same thing straights do” position may be a perfectly valid ethical position, but the commercial is still transgressive of many peoples PDA boundaries, and will garner a large portion of visceral reactions. Is that smart advertising if the message goal is expanded tolerance and respect?
Maybe that’s all you see, but perhaps it says more about your choice in TV. I watch plenty of shows with nonstereotypical gay men. You ever see Max from Happy Endings?
I don’t really care. Statistically, there is no fight for rights to be made in the younger generations. They get it already. If people in their 60s or 70s get cranky about it, well, paradigms shift one funeral at a time.
Oh come on now! The ONLY kind? What about Will Truman and his boyfriend Vince on “Will and Grace”? Thomas the footman on “Downton Abbey”. Or Barney’s (black) brother in “How I met your mother”. And there are many, many more but they just don’t spring to mind right now.
Do you feel that the other three major characters on Glee who are gay are also representing some harmful stereotype?
Even if I agreed with your assessment (and I don’t, either as to how gay characters in popular culture are generally depicted nor as to the consequences of it) it seems awfully unfair to say that Chris Colfer (or any other famous gay person) is “hurt[ing] the cause” when the decisions about what characters are going to be on TV come down to what the network executives approve, and there’s nothing Chris Colfer can do about that.
I could support your view if you limited it to fictional characters (I still think you would be wrong, but it is a common enough complaint), but once you sashay into reality TV (even “reality” TV) you are now talking about a real person!
I don’t see how trying to spare the delicate sensibilities of people who are offended that we have the temerity to do the same things straight people do helps our goals at all. Encouraging gay people to be “polite” by not doing normal things – kissing each other in socially appropriate circumstances, etc. – just makes it easier to ignore inequality.
Probably. I’m not exactly a fan of the show, but I get the impression that it’s certainly reinforcing the meathead jock and whore cheerleader stereotypes. This thread is about gays, though (and presumably the rest of the LGBT community).
No, I’m talking about real people. That’s the thing - any one or five or twenty effeminate or otherwise stereotypical gay men are one thing. It’s when they outnumber all other gay people and characters that it’s a problem.
Also, why is everyone on TV beautiful?! That’s not representative of real life!
If that advert had been EXACTLY the same, but the soldier had greeted his wife, there’d be no issues at all. People wouldn’t even flinch. It’s digusting and it’s prejudiced and it’s not “blatant”.
Good god, when I clicked on the video I was expecting some sort of gay pride parade with men dressed like dicks and like Dorothy, flaunting their penises everywhere. I don’t have a problem with that either, but I can see why some might! This is just a loving kiss between a happy couple - one of whom had gone to war, to fight for his country, for heaven’s sakes!
FTR, I am totally straight so that bullshit line about “only gay people find this couple sweet and loveable” is just that - bullshit.
Well, maybe not your life. 
I just wanted to echo this. If it’s okay for a heterosexual couple to be portrayed doing a particular activity, it should be okay for a homosexual couple to be portrayed doing the same thing, personal squick responses notwithstanding.
That’s why I asked about the other three gay characters in the main cast of Glee.
An individual is not a people. In my opinion, anyone on reality TV only needs to be true to himself (or herself). It’s not his or her obligation to represent the entire population of gay people.
No one is required to behave in any particular way simply to better represent “his kind.” Seriously, the whole POINT of being openly gay is so you can BE YOURSELF!
There are three other gay characters? 
You are absolutely right, but you have also totally missed the point. I didn’t say anything about making stereotype-fitting people act like somebody they aren’t. I just said that it was bad for the cause if that’s all people see.
I thought it was really sweet, myself. (Although the ring was butt-ugly. Maybe they’re trying to break the stereotype of gay men having style?)
Seriously, it shows a guy whose boyfriend just got back from war, what’s he supposed to do – shake his hand?
There are always going to be people who act like stereotypes. But bigots don’t give a shit even if gays are “normal” people, either. Why should that matter for the “cause”, if the point is, gays are people, who should have equal rights?
Bigots are going to see what they want to see, and if they don’t, they’ll make something up.
I think this juxtaposition is telling. Maybe effeminate gays are all that “people” see because “people” assume gay = effeminate, and therefore not effeminate = not gay?
Well, there’s Kurt’s boyfriend, for one. And the lesbian duo.
Again, I think that’s more indicative of the type of TV you choose to watch.