@Alua
I agree that this discussion is one that's best hashed out over a cup of coffee.

It's difficult for me to convey emotional context via writing. My writing has always been done for business purposes. While it's effective for corporate work, it can appear dry and coldhearted. If we met in person, you'd find I'm anything but that. I just flat-out lack the talent of expressing warmth in writing. When I've tried to post here in a 'voice' that more closely resembles how I'd talk to you in person, my comments largely range from incomprehensible to insipid. So, in light of those limitations, please bear with me.

My intent wasn't to promote an argument with anyone, or demand conformity. It was simply to offer a different perspective. Food for independent thought, if you will. In that spirit, since you (and others below) asked, and some misunderstandings are present, I'll assume they were all honest questions and will consolidate some simple responses here.

Apologies in advance for the length. It's a hard topic to reduce into sound bites. And I'm trying to respond to several people. So I'll break it up into smaller posts .

OVERSAMPLING
Tthe context of my observation about "oversampling" was what I was watching and what friends were watching. This covered most of the top shows from NBC, ABC, and CBS. And, it was in the broader context of the narrative that was consistently appearing in major news sources (most of which is sampled from AP reporting). So I didn't mean to imply that there was any formal statistical sampling. It was just a rough sampling of the product being produced by the biggest entertainment networks (and their news counterpart).

PERVASIVENESS
Regarding the 3-4% identification rate, that's the most generally accepted data that's out there right now for the LGBT population. Speculations of higher incidence are, at this point, anecdotal (or perhaps specious).

And by saying "self-identify", I assumed that would be different from "openly profess." If a study is well-constructed, a sense of anonymity would give a participant the freedom to identify themselves honestly, regardless of whether they had made this private information public. Also, a broad enough sample population would ensure statistical validity.

In general, I try to look at how a study was designed and administered before buying off on its conclusions.
Where I've seen a lot of studies on this topic go wrong is by making the study population too small (at best) or deliberately targeted (at worst).

TOLERANCE and TOXICITY
About the topic needing to become a non-issue, I agree. We just differ on how this might be best achieved . My perspective is that too often social activism creates a special-interest group; and that special interest group eventually becomes entrapped in a cultural ghetto. So I'm no longer convinced it's a good model.

It pains me to see friends (and a family member) who've identified themselves a homosexual, have their lives shrink on account of it. What I've seen is that it usually becomes the only lens through which they see themselves and live their lives. Their personalities transform into a flattened and one-dimensional version of themselves. Their whole world contracts. I don't think any human being should be pigeonholed or reduced to a caricature of an archetype. It strips them of their individuality and dignity.

ACTIVISM
I've become wary of activism for any 'cause'. I'm NOT saying I oppose dialogue. I've just become opposed to the type of activism that's been done in the US over the past 50+ years because of its unintended yet predictable consequences.

Even when an activist cause starts out well, it has usually taken on an afterlife of its own. As acceptance of a marginalized population is reached, activist leaders/groups seek to maintain their own influence. And to serve their selfish ambitions they keep the cause alive.

They willingly keep people they claim to want to help, entrapped in a cultural ghetto. The (formerly) marginalized population is encouraged to see any disappointment or setback as being a direct result of their being (fill in the blank for any special interest group.) And they're driven to build up and defend distinctions that prevent integration into society.

The road to hell is always paved with good intentions.

MY ORIGINAL COMMENT
My comment wasn't about this show, in isolation. It was about whether the topic of this show becomes an agenda for social activism within the K entertainment world.

That approach has failed in the US. We've descended to the point that a worthwhile topic is being used as a platform for demagoguery . And as a result, we can't even talk about differences of opinion without vitriol, bullying or name-calling. Acceptance and understanding are never achieved that way.

What's sad is that you aren't really seeing what I'm saying. I'm saying that the whole issue of sexuality should be irrelevant to a degree that goes BEYOND what you mention. A person's sexuality shouldn't be at the center of their existence, or cross anyone else's mind.

But the way the topic is being handled has transitioned from promoting understanding, to fostering divisiveness and keeping it entrenched.

My wish is that people could just see each other as people. And do away with racial, ethnic and sexual categorizations entirely. Only then can the divisiveness and judgmentalism - and the pain they cause ALL of us - finally stop.

Thanks Kim.

I appreciate your reaching out. However what I'm saying is coming out how it's intended. I can appreciate that some will see it as foot in mouth; but I think that's because diversity of perspective has become somewhat of an anathema. I went into this knowing I might be quickly categorized in a way that would inhibit people's ability to hear what I'm saying.

Re: the data. There is indeed a range of figures out there. The ones I referenced seemed to have the most widely accepted consensus and were produced from reliable studies. Some have implied that citing those figures arises out of an agenda. There isn't one. Given what my ultimate aim is, it'd be foolish to knowingly start out with faulty data.

Re: ignoring prejudice in myself. From a very young age my friends have been from diverse segments of society. I had first hand experience with how much pain it caused them to be segregated (and judged) by societal labels. It dawned on me early (the start of high school), that my thinking had evolved the same way. Although I didn't judge these friends, I did label them. (By thinking this is my "black" or "Chineese" or "Japanese" or "Jewish" or "deaf" or "gay" or "Norwegian" or "hispanic" or "rich" or "poor" or "popular" or "unpopular" or "fill in the blank" friend.) They were all equally my friends. But I saw those individuals through a lens that was a barrier to knowing them fully as a person. So I decided to stop that nonsense. With discipline and time, I rooted it out of my thinking. In a prior post someone said this isn't possible. Actually, it is if you decide to do it. Admittedly, I do still categorize people. But it's on the basis of whether I've observed them to be thoughtful, kind, generous, honest, helpful, trustworthy, etc. I think it's ok to do that.

Re: "you wish that when these issues are addressed it’s part of the larger fabric of their character rather than made out to be THE ISSUE of what defines their character." Exactly. That's a nice way to condense what I said. But also add: THE ISSUE that also defines their personality, the trajectory of their life and their interpretation of life's injustices and disappointments.

Re: the thesis. It was presented in layers. The first post was designed to offer a divergent perspective using language that captures the essence of the problem (Nobody likes someone else preaching at them, and both sides are now bunkered in their pulpits.) In the next post(s) I fleshed out some ideas on why I think we are where we are and where I wish things would go. The last set of posts have aimed to see if people are willing to try to find common ground. My central question was: if we start from opposite viewpoints, can we talk sensibly and find common ground?

Why? Philanthropic interest. My view is that a civil society should aim to have no victims of prejudice, discrimination or censorship. The way things are going, we're just creating different victims. To address that from a funding perspective requires first identifying root causes and then developing a theory of change. There are a lot of smart and thoughtful people here on this site. I was hoping that discussing the issue openly and candidly would yield some insight. It has. Not quite what I'd hoped for. But it definitely has.