"All My Children" Lesbian Wedding...Too Controversal?

[Nate Wesley]

Obviously. But you protested my bringing a political description into the discussion, when all the while, you were more than happy to pursue it and to let others do so.

Nobody was talking about partisan politics or the Fairness Doctrine until you started. And the FD still has almost nothing to do with the original topic of All My Children, despite your insistence.

That's quite a leap of logic. Yes, I expect a political angle here. You yourself just said it was a ploy to grab eyeballs. Why? Because they know the topic is a political hot potato. So you've already admitted that it was a premeditated move. And you want to fault Focus on the Family for calling them on it?

It's a social hot-button, too. And that's how FOTF makes a lot of its notoriety, speaking out on social issues. My point is largely based upon the group being fixated on low-hanging fruit like soap operas, programming that has never been aimed at 'the family' in the first place.

But it has nothing to do with separating fiction from reality. "All My Children" is using fiction to promote a real agenda. That's a device as old as literature itself.

To the extent that you insist? I doubt it. Name all of the special interests that help with the writing, the casting, and the producing. I'm sure they're collectively big enough to bankroll the show and bold enough to insert secret subliminal messages, too. Is George Soros involved? Do I need to get the heavy-duty tin foil for my hat to keep the government from piercing my brain with its satellites?

It would never happen, but if the show were to portray the marriage in a negative light, there would be a great hue and cry from homosexual advocates. And no one would accuse them of failing to separate fiction from reality.

And there's the double standard. When have soap operas portrayed heterosexual marriages in the best of lights? Multiple affairs, multiple divorces, multiple remarriages. Why isn't FOTF protesting outside the daytime studios of CBS & ABC daily? Where's the crying from heterosexual advocates, assuming any are actually needed?

 

[ironbear]

You got to admit that was hard to read into the point when one post said "FOTF can go kick rocks....." and your followup post you said "they can't get their allies in Congress." The subject went from "FOTF" to "they" but apparently it changed to "liberal groups" somehow?

Yeah, the thought was that FOTF couldn't get their allies in Congress to act on their behalf, with the rest implied, like liberal groups can. Didn't mean to mislead ya.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So, just what do you think Focus on the Family should have Congress do on their behalf? New laws outlawing homosexuality? Censorship of media? Exactly how mean do you want them to get, while trashing American values and the Constitution, and creating a theocracy for your benefit?

Did you say something about being out of touch with reality?

 

[dhett]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Doesn't apply here. Religious organizations are allowed to involve themselves in social issues, hence the LDS Church's involvement in the marriage legislation in California - perfectly legal.

But again, what I was saying was FOTF uses boycotts as their means to pressure change that they want, as opposed to secular, liberal groups, who use Congress to act on their behalf. I never said that FOTF would (or should) lobby Congress.

 

[dhett]

Nobody was talking about partisan politics or the Fairness Doctrine until you started. And the FD still has almost nothing to do with the original topic of All My Children, despite your insistence.

You just can't let that go, can you? The point was not about the Fairness Doctrine. I was just drawing an equivalence between a method used by conservative group Focus on the Family to attempt to influence content that they don't like - boycott - and a method used by liberal groups to influence content that they don't like - Fairness Doctrine. Since FOTF was already described as "conservative" before I posted my thoughts, it was perfectly legitimate to draw the "conservative" vs. "liberal" comparison.

I get it - you don't like the fact that FOTF is trying to influence content. I merely pointed out that they're no different than anyone else.

That's quite a leap of logic. Yes, I expect a political angle here. You yourself just said it was a ploy to grab eyeballs. Why? Because they know the topic is a political hot potato. So you've already admitted that it was a premeditated move. And you want to fault Focus on the Family for calling them on it?

It's a social hot-button, too. And that's how FOTF makes a lot of its notoriety, speaking out on social issues. My point is largely based upon the group being fixated on low-hanging fruit like soap operas, programming that has never been aimed at 'the family' in the first place.

So it's a problem if FOTF responds to a social hot-button, but not if ABC presses the button in the first place? But this emphasis on "low-hanging fruit", as you call it, is not new. Religious and social watchdog groups have been critical of soap opera content since there were soap operas - now they should stop because we've hit the ultimate PC topic?

But it has nothing to do with separating fiction from reality. "All My Children" is using fiction to promote a real agenda. That's a device as old as literature itself.

To the extent that you insist? I doubt it. Name all of the special interests that help with the writing, the casting, and the producing. I'm sure they're collectively big enough to bankroll the show and bold enough to insert secret subliminal messages, too. Is George Soros involved? Do I need to get the heavy-duty tin foil for my hat to keep the government from piercing my brain with its satellites?

George Soros. Thanks - I didn't think about him. Yeah, he's got to be involved somewhere. So now, if I disagree with you, I'm a conspiracy nut, eh? Nice.

No "special interests" need to be involved in any of the show's production in order to promote an agenda. Apparently you didn't read my other post, as the "lesbian" actress and the president of GLAAD (a special interest) were certain that an agenda was promoted, and they liked it.

It would never happen, but if the show were to portray the marriage in a negative light, there would be a great hue and cry from homosexual advocates. And no one would accuse them of failing to separate fiction from reality.

And there's the double standard. When have soap operas portrayed heterosexual marriages in the best of lights? Multiple affairs, multiple divorces, multiple remarriages. Why isn't FOTF protesting outside the daytime studios of CBS & ABC daily? Where's the crying from heterosexual advocates, assuming any are actually needed?

As I said above, religious and social watchdog groups have been critical of soap opera content since there were soap operas. Nothing new to see here.