Have they not started doing this in the UK?
I think they should.. big time.
rated with hugs
and screams at how slow this site is right now hahah

This post raises a very important question. As a big supporter of gay rights, I would say DWTS should absolutely go for it and allow same-sex dancing couples. However, I think I read an interview somewhere with a gay star who was asked about this and pointed out that dance in general is done with a man and a woman, regardless of either person's sexual orientation, so would changing the rules for a gay star, be another form of discrimination? I can see both sides of the argument. Thanks for writing about this, and I'm eager to see what decision will be made. R.

Yes, this seems like such an obvious question...I wonder why I haven't thought about it before. I'm all for it and America...well you can't make everyone happy. However, the first thing that came to mind for me was how the dancing would actually change. I mean the female has certain moves and then the male other ones. It would be so awesome to see that revolutionized...probably bring in a whole new audience.

Very cool, Catherine! I tried to identify all the people on the video but my trivia skills are not all that great. I had to look it up on the NOH8 (no hate) site. If anyone else can't identify the people in the campaign, it's on this link.

I've seen a couple of gay celebrities on DWTS ask myself the same questions. I see both arguments. On one hand you want to allude to classic dance traditions. On the other hand, it's discriminatory. Maybe DWTS could start a new tradition where the celebrities all do a couples dance with a loved one, choreographed by their professional dancers. This way everyone has a chance to exemplify the love that so much dance derives from.

I hope they do it, even a small step in the right direction is a good step. I hate that our children feel like they aren't accepted just as they are.

Let me see... in college it was quite common to witness numerous same-sex couples on the dance floor at the local watering hole. In the '70s.

DWTS allows some of its participants to wear the most titillating costumes imaginable.

And they're worried about being politically correct?

-R-

Yes, please. I'd be an even bigger fan if they opened up to same-sex dance couples. I want to dance with Lacey!!!

Of course they should do it (above and beyond the fact that Portia is one gorgeous woman).

P.S. I adore the new NOH8 anti-bullying video. Just look at how ground breaking that is! Not only do you have Cindy McCain supporting LGBTQ rights, but she's on the same video as Slash! wOOt!

Dunno why anybody'd mind. The girls always danced with each other when I was in school. Boys didn't, but we all hung out against the wall.

The timing is odd. First I can't avoid the fact that Portia Derossi has a book about bulimia and now this. I think we all have seen enough of Ellen(she is on billboards everywhere here, so I sure dont need an Ellen fix) and now with Derossi everywhere. I think if I see either one in the next week I'll melt.
I do think dancing is not serious business, and sure, let anyone dance together, but I think it would be a publicity grab if those two ambitious ladies got involved and would cause more problems than it would be worth.

I think they should go for it. -R-

Damn, you raise such great questions!

What a great idea! You throw a couple into the "mainstream" & people realize, Wow, that's not so scary after all!

I think DWTS should do it if there are people willing to be the ones. I know that on another dance show, So You Think You Can Dance, there was a gay male couple entering the competition as ballroom dancers and they did not get very far in the audition process.
I liked the inclusion of the NoH8 video.

I can always count on you to write a thoughtful and informative post. Thanks for the additional links and thanks for the video. I hadn't seen it in it's entirety.

Of course it's a good idea culturally but that's how this decision will be made.

Producers will have to weigh the inevitable impact of boycotts by those politically opposed to lgbtq vs new viewers who support it and/or are watching for curiosity. Will ratings go up or down? And whats the net net for advertisers? If the producers believe they'll gain more viewers than they'll lose (and this is something they'll need to focus test pretty extensively) then they'll need to sell that belief to their advertisers. Some advertisers may still stand to lose sales even with a larger viewing audience on the show, depending on the product. I think it's risky for dwts as well as individually for each advertiser. My prediction: they pass. I don't think they're going to mess with what has been a winning formula.

Of course it's a good idea culturally but that's how this decision will be made.

Producers will have to weigh the inevitable impact of boycotts by those politically opposed to lgbtq vs new viewers who support it and/or are watching for curiosity. Will ratings go up or down? And whats the net net for advertisers? If the producers believe they'll gain more viewers than they'll lose (and this is something they'll need to focus test pretty extensively) then they'll need to sell that belief to their advertisers. Some advertisers may still stand to lose sales even with a larger viewing audience on the show, depending on the product. I think it's risky for dwts as well as individually for each advertiser. My prediction: they pass. I don't think they're going to mess with what has been a winning formula.

Double comment AND wrong both times!

Meant to say: that's NOT how this decision will be made.

This is a total bullshit issue and irrelevant to America's more serious problems. As somebody sympathetic to many of the arguments put forth by Marxists and socialists and members of the radical Left, I find this Bourgeois American liberal obsession with "crotch politics" to be distasteful and somewhat useless.

We have an increasing mass of unemployed Proletarians, laid off factory workers and service workers and the "big minds" of the moderate, flaky liberal elite waste their time talking about dancing homosexuals.

Liberals should be very careful on this issue. If you alienate workers, by focusing on gay issues to the exclusion of working-class issues, they will turn on the gay rights issue, leaving gay rights out in the cold, with neither the right or the left, addressing the honest civil rights issues affecting homosexuals.

I have many unemployed friends. Blue collar. Working class. Union members. Whenever they talk to Democratic Party elites, these elites seem to be much more concerned with gay rights, than the rights of the unemployed. This will be their undoing.

Rated, if only for pointing out the idiotic arguments infecting the flaky minds of the Bourgeois American liberal elite.

I'm not holding my breath on this one.

It's pretty obvious that DWTS is a right wing produced piece of fluff. Look at the attention given to such dancers as Tom Delay and Bristol Palin. Unless there's some miraculous conversion where absolutely Everyone who's in the closet in the GOP suddenly decides to come out, it ain't gonna happen.

ONL--you're absolutely right about that. I do believe it is a right-wing production. That said, I think the right will eventually throw-off the Xtian fundies and embrace a more libertarian, gay friendly approach. Regardless, because the right wing is pro-multinational corporation, pro-neo-liberal capitalism and anti-worker means that it must eviscerated by any and all means necessary. Just because they distract the common folks with this nonsense faux-discussion about whether dancing homosexuals should be on television in no way detracts from the fact that this show's primary purpose, as well as the purpose of this debate, is to distract.

Any network which serves to elevate Sarah Palin should be smashed.

I'm just saying... those tight dance pants on the guys, Two guys together, doing the classics... Wood you?

You know, now that you mention it, DWTS does seem to have a Republican slant. Tom Delay? Bristol Palin? Maybe I'm wrong - do people who are known for liberal politics ever go on the show?

Maybe we can get Tom Delay and Ted Haggard as a couple... :)

I have to agree largely with RW. And I'll even take it a bit further. DWTS is the circus component of bread and circuses.

The real question is, more appropriately, why is this nonsense on in the first place? Does America even need the DWTS it already has?

Sorry I'd missed this. It's terrific.
I do not at all get why some economic-oriented writerd such as RW005g think Justice is only for some (in his background--and yes, I do know him) and that focusing on Justice for others and not so narrowly focussing upsets him. I do not buy his political argument at all...this is personal on his part clear as a bell.

Rated.

Gads, I don't know. I see a danger of "messing and missing:
messing with the format and missing the larger point about equal rights.

JW misses the point. Stonewall and Supreme Court cases, those are significant civil rights accomplishments. Dancing With the Stars, a right wing production, is not. Debating it for this format is merely a distraction. Further, yes, there is only so much time in the day one can focus on various issues. Certain people love all liberal issues and accomplish little. Others obsess over a few, or even one, and accomplish a great deal in this spheres. Jack of all trades, master of none, master of one trade, etc...

This whole discussion is a giant waste of time.