# Why does every gay TV couple want kids? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 19, 2010, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-every-gay-tv-couple-want-kids/536608 "2010-04-19T05:17:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-every-gay-tv-couple-want-kids/536608/61 "2010-04-22T20:49:44Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > …Showing a group of unspecified, unnamed adults without any children present in a commercial is not the same thing as showing a group of adults who have deliberately chosen to eschew parenthood. Right, it allows for the _same_ ad to appeal to both childfree and the other three groups you mentioned. Why kill each bird with a seperate stone when you can kill all four with one stone? ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-every-gay-tv-couple-want-kids/536608/62 "2010-04-23T06:37:30Z")
> [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](#): > > In this case, the word “normal” does not mean “right” or “correct.” If you like, substitute the phrase “the norm.” Right-handed, heterosexual, non-Jewish people who don’t have red hair \*are \*“the norm.” Like they say, “Heterosexuality isn’t normal, it’s just common.” 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-every-gay-tv-couple-want-kids/536608/63 "2010-04-23T14:36:11Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > The charge was that advertisers ignore people without kids because they’d rather sell to families out of either old fashionedness or some kind of moral stance. > > Looking at commercials today, that is obviously bunk. The reason behind a person’s childlessness in commercials doesn’t matter. All that matters is that this group is widely represented in commercials. > > Therefore, the charge is bunk. There was no “charge” other than the observation that it is in advertisers’ interests to have as many people as possible to sell things to, therefore storylines in TV shows that involve child-bearing are likely to appeal to those who pay the bills. “Old-fashionedness” and “moral stance” are nonissues compared to money. Ads promoting vacation opportunities are not all that common, and the ones you most often seen involve family destinations like Disneyland. With car ads, how many are for small sports cars rather than medium to large sedans and minivans? Sure, advertisers sell things to singles and couples who don’t have kids (Mrs. J. and I certainly buy our share of stuff). But when it comes to households with TV watching a given show, a household with 6 people is viewed more favorably than one with 1 or 2 people. Oh, and when did Corona get to be a “fancy beer”? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-every-gay-tv-couple-want-kids/536608/64 "2010-04-23T17:38:54Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > \ > Oh, and when did Corona get to be a “fancy beer”? :dubious: Never, that’s when. NEVER, I SAY! This has been an interesting discussion; I’ve come to the conclusion I’m just as happy with advertisers overlooking my demographic (middle-aged people who never had and never will have kids), and they’re targeting us more or less anyway, because beyond adult vacations and sports cars, we use all the same stuff that childed people use. Well, maybe we use more birth control. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2010, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-every-gay-tv-couple-want-kids/536608/65 "2010-04-24T17:17:31Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > US of Tara: The gay couple next door that they’ve been hanging out with. Oh yeah, that’s actually a good example. Nice catch. (I knew you couldn’t have been talking about Buck.) The neighbor couple hasn’t really sunk in yet as show regulars, at least for me. Too recent an addition I guess. ---
**Author:** ![TBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c89c15/32.png) [@TBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TBG)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2010, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-every-gay-tv-couple-want-kids/536608/66 "2010-04-25T03:55:21Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > “Not normal” and “abnormal” definitely have negative connotations in general use, … You didn’t say “‘not normal’ is not the nicest way to put it, can we maybe say something else instead?” If you had, I never would’ve said jack shit about it. No, you said > [@](#): > > That doesn’t in any way make those minority characteristics “not normal” . which is untrue. Nice try on moving the goalpost after the fact from “they aren’t ‘not normal’” to “it’s not nice to say they’re ‘not normal’” though. > [@Kimstu](#): > > It’s hard to tell because of the lack of character development in commercials as compared to sitcoms, but I kind of wonder how many of those people in commercials are actually meant to be perceived as childfree-by-choice, … Taking that to another level, how exactly could you even write a commercial for a gay couple (childless or otherwise). I mean, with two men or two women instead of a man and a woman, how the hell would they know which one to make the idiot [del](normally the man would be the idiot of course…)[/del] Oh shoot… (the norm would be having the man be the idiot of course…) 😉 > [@lee](#): > > You got Bob Newhart, back when he was a psychiatrist. He and his wife were a great childfree couple. There was no angst over them not being parents For that matter, same could be said of his other great sitcom, where they ran the inn. Again, no kids, no angst. Then in his next series, where he was a comic book artist, they gave him a daughter. That show flopped. Coincidence? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-every-gay-tv-couple-want-kids/536608.md?page=3)