Have you seen "This Film is Not Yet Rated"? It makes a couple claims of the MPAA rating things harsher when homosexuality is involved.  Of course, independent films don't have the leeway studio films do in dealing with the MPAA, yet also produce a bigger chunk of gay and gay-friendly films out there. 

 Studio product depends on a mass audience who tend to view any gay content as automatically adult in nature. Which is why the effect Dumbledore's outing does or doesn't have on the last 3 Harry Potter film grosses bears close watching. 

I agree This Flim Is Not Yet Rated is well done. The biggest problem is the MPAA does not list its specific criteria for ratings, lacks any transparency, and has no accountability for consistency and nondiscrimination. There is no reason the motion picture industry should be exempt from nondiscrimination laws when other industries are bound by the laws. In effect, the MPAA is a self-generated censorship board which by its nature skirts the laws by having no accountability, which no other industry would ever be permitted to get away with. And since it is a vertical industry with many components - production, marketing, distribution, and sale of product, it should be all the more accountable in upholding nondiscrimination laws. Major distribution venues for films such as Wal-Mart and Blockbuster will not stock those with certain ratings, severely limiting profit potential and making nondiscrimination in ratings all the more important. When gay content films are restricted in the marketplace due to discrimination in ratings it diminishes not only glbt visibility but also diminishes the chances of producing future glbt-inclusive films.

GLAAD needs to stand up to the MPAA and demand fairness and transparency in their ratings system. An outrageous example is that the recent HERE! movie Shelter received an "R" rating from the MPAA. This is so blatantly homophobic and obviously biased that I can't believe GLAAD didn't protest the MPAA. Have you seen Shelter? It could not be tamer. Shelter should have been a PG or PG-13 at most. I know that After Elton is owned by LOGO which is owned by Viacom which owns Paramount, which is part of the discriminatory MPAA. Perhaps After Elton could interview the heads of Paramount/Viacom to ask why they sustain such a discriminatory and non-transparent organization as the MPAA. Theater chains are also part of the MPAA, and they reside in all the states where this kind of discrimination in the delivery of goods and services is presumably illegal. If movies with black people, or hindus, or disabled people were given more restrictive ratings than other movies without such references do you think any jury would find that non-discriminatory?!

If the MPAA treated Jewish content the way they treat gay content, the Anti-Defamation League would not rest in condemning them. But GLAAD remains disturbingly silent. Perhaps we need a new anti-defamation group because GLAAD seems to have caved or become too cozy schmoozing with stars to deal with this kind of discrimination. I'd be interested to know if After Elton could get Viacom/Paramount execs, or any other members of the MPAA, to explain why the public should continue to support any movies rated under their non-transparent system?