this is an example of pure liberal overreach; just because one can believe that homosexuals should have the same legal rights as heterosexuals, it doesn’t mean that pop culture can’t reflect the reality of life: the majority of people are straight.
And pop culture should only show that majority? Let’s see, the majority of Americans are now people of color, so let’s not show any white people. How about not showing any men? That’s “the reality of life.”
And the vast, vast, vast majority of relationships shown onscreen are straight.
What, exactly, is the liberal overreach here? Is anyone saying “we can’t have straight characters”? Is anyone saying “your show must have gay characters”? Sure, some people are bemoaning the fact that there are few gay characters in popular culture, but that’s an entirely legitimate complaint, and totally separate from any demand that a particular show or production have gay characters. Most of the time homosexual characters are portrayed in popular culture, it’s because, big shocker, their creators wanted to portray them as such.
According to GLAAD, a whopping 4% of primetime TV characters are LGBT. More than the actual number? Sure. But still a tiny minority of characters, to the point where you have to actively seek them out most of the time. And keep in mind, when it comes to LGBT individuals, a common complaint is that they feel alone, isolated, and don’t have any positive role models or representation in the popular media. So a slight overrepresentation in the media can hardly be said to be a bad thing, no?
How does this conflict in any way with some cartoons showing same sex couples?
I’m not really sure what ‘portrayed realistically’ means in the cases that have been shown so far. I mean, Ruby and Sapphire are sentient alien space rocks from a race that doesn’t have gender but all present as female. Marceline is a half-demon vampire, and Princess Bubblegum is a mass of sentient candy. Do these count as realistic depictions? Or does realistic portrayal refer to the relationship only? But what would be an unrealistic portrayal there? Real-world relationships are complicated and endlessly varied, no matter what relationship you showed there is almost certainly a real-world example of it somewhere.
The vast majority of people don’t wear the same clothes everyday, or never age, yet it happens on cartoons all the time. The vast majority of people aren’t wizards, or space pilots either. So what’s your point?
Without splitting hairs and focusing on technicalities, I would say there is no valid reason not to depict same-sex relationships in cartoons aimed at kids because:
- parents can select the programs they find adequate,
- kids have always been aware of same-sex relationships,
- a parent should want his/her children to be familiar with reality,
- a parent should want to be the first to explain his/her children certain controversial issues and
- cartoons on their own do have a crucial impact on children’s behavior (only in conjunction with other accompanying factors).
-
Again, the objection that some have is having normalized healthy gay relationships portrayed on shows at all. The reality is that these depictions are, despite the characterization in the op, still quite infrequent and most only hinted at. Korra? Looking for it you knew it was there but it was more implied … at most. And a one brief moment of the whole series that had oodles of straight relationships portrayed. Clarence I have not seen. Adventure Time also implied that the sentient bubble gum princess and the vampire girl are more (or have been more) than just very good friends. Yes the in-between the lines is written in capital letters but it still is not explicitly stated … and again one relationship of many in that show that have been heterosexual even in between candy people, pigs, a little old elephant woman, demon princesses, scientist who becomes Ice King, Martians … and those characters are shown as couples sometimes kissing, sometimes kissing so much it squicks the other characters out. And yeah Gems appear as female but are actually sentient genderless space rocks. Two, maybe three, big romances in the show, one is Ruby/Sapphire the other Greg/Rose (and maybe credit budding childhood romance of Steven/Connie). Clearly though a (singular) show playing with gender roles and expectations as a theme. That track record is considered “overreach”? The vast overwhelming number of relationships in American kids cartoon shows are straight or asexual/buddy relationships. Much more so than reality is.
-
BPC stated that the 4% may be an overrepresentation of reality; it is actually pretty spot on. But even if it was over-represtning I think that reflects who is doing the writing. If one went by media portrayals you’d think that a lot more than 1.4% of America was Jewish for the same reason. (Although Jews who very rarely do anything Jewish.) Gays are also well represented as Hollywood creative talent. That’s not agenda. It’s just plumbing the well of your own experiences for inspirational material. If people get the impression that there are more than that it is possibly just because the shows that happen to have gay characters happen to be really popular ones, especially with the demographics advertisers most want.
Liberal overreach? Nah. Capitalism at its most pure.
I meant to say that they do not have a crucial impact on children’s behavior.
Except for maybe a few budding transvestites who were inspired by Bugs Bunny. 
actually, the majority of Americans are still white, and many Hispanics are considering themselves white.
I’m not advocating hiding any non-majority groups at all, no. I’m just against tokenism and forced quota fitting for an x-character.
Then what are you arguing with? No one has advocated for that.
My answer to the question asked in the OP is “No”. What bothers me is that it took over 20 years to portray something that’s been shown in anime at least since the mid '90’s.
Who advocates that? Last I checked, there’s nobody advocating the shoehorning in of gay token characters.
That was the objection I remember about a kid’s show a few years back (sorry, I don’t remember what the show was called): a show targeted to pre-kindergarten kids where the only couples had been parents shown from the knees up (and saying that there were “couples” is actually over-reaching, the few times I saw one there was only one parent around), and suddenly there is a wedding and it’s same-sex? “What happened to fluffy rainclouds? 
” seemed to be the reaction of a lot of the parents. That episode was just radically different from the usual fare.
“Pure liberal overreach”? How is this an example of “pure liberal overreach”? Pop culture is starting to reflect the reality of life better than ever before. The majority of characters are straight, and some aren’t, just like in real life.
There has been no tokenism or quota fitting, and no one here is saying there should be. Even if there was, and I’m certainly not saying there should be, wouldn’t tokenism be better than having no LGBT characters at all? Kids seeing LGBT characters represented in their favorite shows discourages bigotry and better prepares the kids for a world where they will most likely encounter LGBT people. Also, LGBT kids seeing characters like them might make them feel better about who they themselves are.
I would never call for the government to step in and regulate content.
When pop culture gives the impression that half the world is LBGT, that is a false impression.
That is an attempt at gay norm equalization. Gay will never be normal, nature has relegated it to the margin of sexual behavior by sheer numbers.
It might be a short term fad, but reality always wins in the end. This kind of programing won’t stay mainstream because mainstream money won’t support it.
When has pop culture done this?
Gay has always been “normal”, if often suppressed to the shadows due to discrimination, but the last few years have shown that a large majority of the country accepts it as normal.
The reality is that there have always been gay people, and there always will be gay people. Larger and larger majorities are accepting this.
If anything is abnormal, it’s irrationality, this time in the form of homophobic bigotry. And I agree, in the end reality always wins. That’s why, more and more, bigotry of all types are losing.
And nobody (I hope) is calling for the government to step in and regulate content.
Nobody has done or demanded anything resembling this.
Or this, for that matter. According to GLAAD, the group of major characters in prime time television that are gay makes up almost 4%. That’s a far cry from “most”. You’re not likely to find “half” even on the few shows with a very explicit LGBT focus!
Now I’m a little bit confused. What, exactly, is wrong with pop culture treating homosexuality as “normal”?
“Mainstream money” supports Steven Universe. Steven Universe is a children’s cartoon show that clearly and explicitly displays and celebrates a lesbian couple and promotes non-traditional families. Beyond that, it uses “homophobic” (or in this case “fusion-phobic”) behavior as in-universe signaling for “this character is at best backwards and more likely outright evil”. It’s gotten great ratings and rave reviews.
Why does it get so much support? Mostly because it has incredible writing, strong characters, and great humor, so that even the most rabid homophobe has to admit that, all other things being equal, it is a really good show. But also because being gay is not a big deal any more, and the great majority of people have absolutely no problem with it. I don’t see that changing any time soon. This argument makes no sense; it assumes people are unable or unwilling to observe or appreciate LGBT individuals because of their sexuality or gender identity. That may have been the case in the past, but the world has changed.