OLTL has played "Devil's Advocate" for homophobes many times - with Clint, Michael McBain, even Daniel Colson. Neither Clint nor Michael were presented as evil people. So I don't see why it needed yet another round. OLTL has more than done its part in presenting both sides of the social controversy over homosexuality with its multiple gay stories in the last two decades. Again, I fail to see why it is obligated to once again portray the same old pro/anti debate it has done a thousand times, instead of doing what it did and striking new ground.

Edited November 4, 200916 yr by Vee

While I think the execution was odd and sloppy, I agree with you there Vee. Why should we have to rehash the same stories once again

IRL, it tends to not be quite that black and white.

This is a pretty simple expression of how I feel about the whole thing. It was done in a very black-and-white way, IMO, which probably does more harm than good. The main issue here is that the story has been SO rushed and one-sided. I'm sorry, and I may risk opening myself up to criticism here, but I think it is unfair to always portray the people who oppose us, as ILLOGICAL, IGNORANT, and WRONG they may be, as the stereotypical sign-carrying, Bible-quoting, F-word-spouting homophobic bigots similar to (but worse than) what OLTL gave us the last couple of days. Yes, those types of people DO exist, and yes, that's sometimes an accurate portrayal, but come on, not everyone who opposes gay marriage is like that, and I think that the story could have had a lot more heart if it was taken at a much slower and true-to-life pace. Yeah, many gay people are surrounded by friends and family who love them and are 100% for gay rights, and that's awesome, but unfortunately, that's not true for all of us, and it's also not true for some of us that everyone who *does* have a problem with homosexuality is 100% against us. I just feel that by rushing this story, they robbed it of something more.

And that's probably more of a commentary on the whole show than it is on just this story. EVERYTHING is rushed, and nothing ever happens organically anymore.

While I think the execution was odd and sloppy, I agree with you there Vee. Why should we have to rehash the same stories once again

Whenever the issue of gay marriage comes up, there are always gonna be people who are for it and people who are against it, and how can a story be lauded as "realistic" and "accurate" when it only focuses on one side and displays the other side as Scooby-Doo villains. Nixon somehow found a way to focus on both sides while leaning to the more liberal side when she wrote Erica's abortion.

not everyone who opposes gay marriage is like that,

A bigot is a bigot is a bigot.

and it's also not true for some of us that everyone who *does* have a problem with homosexuality is 100% against us.

How AREN'T they?

how can a story be lauded as "realistic" and "accurate" when it only focuses on one side and displays the other side as Scooby-Doo villains.

The story is a referendum about denying minority groups their civil rights & other side's "arguments" are baseless & without merit.

Nixon somehow found a way to focus on both sides while leaning to the more liberal side when she wrote Erica's abortion.

...And the fight for women's reproductive rights continues 30 years later.

Right, it would be at least *interesting* to see a calm, rational (regardless of what our personal ideas of "rational" are) person who wasn't influenced by religion have a conversation where he or she was not in support of gay marriage, or homosexuality in general. We'd of course be free to disagree, a problem I have with these stories is all of the slant. We don't need that, we're not that dumb, no one has to tell us how to feel or who we should be siding with. If we're going to "rehash", let's at leasat toss in some hitherto unexplored elements, I don't mean turning a beloved character into a demon for s/l purposes, but say a character who (right or wrong) provided the opposing argument in an intellectual way opposed to a crazy emotional, religious one.

This is Chris Engen all over again.

provided the opposing argument in an intellectual way

There is no "intellectual" opposing argument.

Edited November 4, 200916 yr by DeeeDee

A bigot is a bigot is a bigot.

I disagree. What if Kyle and Oliver were portrayed like Perez Hilton? It would be just as old and played-out.

How AREN'T they?

It's more about their behavior and attitude. It's just like how a person can oppose gay rights while not believing that gay people go to hell. They're certainly not for homosexuality, but at the same time, they're not self-proclaimed homophobes who wallow and take pride in their bigotry and ignorance.

The story is a referendum about denying minority groups their civil rights & other side's "arguments" are baseless & without merit.

Baseless and without merit as they may be, those arguments still exist. If a character on the show expressed an opposing view with what they believed was appropriate back-up, but was then shot down with explanations of how every single piece of "evidence" they have is wrong, then THAT would have been a way to show both sides in a purely truthful and honest way.

...And the fight for women's reproductive rights continues 30 years later.

True, but I don't understand how pretending like the other side of the issue doesn't exist gives one side the right to claim victory. Voters in Maine over-turned the state's allowance of gay marriages yesterday, and this is a quote about one of the leaders of the main anti-gay marriage group:

Conroy said most of the Stand for Marriage supporters are ordinary families who are worried that children will read stories about same-sex couples in schools, that teenagers will be encouraged to experiment with their sexuality, and that same-sex marriage will become widespread. She said that gays and lesbians have won antidiscrimination protections and should “leave marriage alone.’’

The ridiculous thing about that is that they essentially believe that if their children don't know about homosexuality, they'll never meet a gay person. That's not true, and thinking that if not acknowledging the presence of those who don't support us means we'll never have to cross paths with someone who is going to not be OK with homosexuality is the same thing.

Just to clarify, my problem with the storyline is not the actual thing itself. RC has established himself as a pretty over-the-top writer, so this is nothing when compared to the likes of Mendorra, 1968, etc. It's just that I don't get how this is supposed to be a "realistic" portrayal. I'll accept it as hope for what we want the world to be, but I'm not sold on it being what the world is today.

ALSO: I'm not saying that I want the show to show homophobic characters who are okay with their homophobia with gay characters who just bow down and accept it. What I want is for them to show a mildly homophobic person who can be easily swayed to the way of being accepting of homosexuality. I want to see a story where a person who denies being a homophobe but occasionally makes homophobic comments is shown how their words and actions aren't consistent with someone who claims to be accepting of gay people.

Edited November 4, 200916 yr by All My Shadows

What if Kyle and Oliver were portrayed like Perez Hilton?

As effeminate self obsessed media whores?

Could be fun.

It's just like how a person can oppose gay rights while not believing that gay people go to hell.

So Gays are not good enough to be equal citizens but not bad enough to be given an automatic to hell is a viable ideology?

Really?

Baseless and without merit as they may be, those arguments still exist.

And to entertain said arguments is giving them validity which they don't deserve.

When Evangeline's character was attacked by racists there wasn't an uproar about treating racists with kid gloves so why should homophobes get a free pass?

If a character on the show expressed an opposing view with what they believed was appropriate back-up, but was then shot down with explanations of how every single piece of "evidence" they have is wrong, then THAT would have been a way to show both sides in a purely truthful and honest way.

Now THAT would have been an After School Special.

I don't understand how pretending like the other side of the issue doesn't exist gives one side the right to claim victory.

It is not pretending.

It's not caring.

Justifying bigotry need not be indulged or entertained.

It's just that I don't get how this is supposed to be a "realistic" portrayal.

On a show where Todd's harem fights to be his Bottom Bitch?

On a show where John McBain's scuzzy hair & doughy figure is sexy?

On a show where John Paul Lavoisier & Farah Fath's hair out acts them?

Mitch?

The presence of reality on OLTL is highly overestimated.

What I want is for them to show a mildly homophobic person who can be easily swayed to the way of being accepting of homosexuality.

That is unrealistic.

Ignoring homophobia is not realistic but bigots being swayed by a Scissors Sisters cd isn't?

Right, it would be at least *interesting* to see a calm, rational (regardless of what our personal ideas of "rational" are) person who wasn't influenced by religion have a conversation where he or she was not in support of gay marriage, or homosexuality in general. We'd of course be free to disagree, a problem I have with these stories is all of the slant. We don't need that, we're not that dumb, no one has to tell us how to feel or who we should be siding with. If we're going to "rehash", let's at leasat toss in some hitherto unexplored elements, I don't mean turning a beloved character into a demon for s/l purposes, but say a character who (right or wrong) provided the opposing argument in an intellectual way opposed to a crazy emotional, religious one.

The problem is that most of the people who vocally oppose gay marriage generally are emotional and religious. Their arguments are based on, "The children will be perverted," "Europe/Scandanavia/Sweden are dying because of the gays," "Marriage is about reproduction," and so on. A lot of the time it's "Because I say so."

There aren't a lot of logical, calm, rational arguments against gay marriage. At least not from those who actively get involved in these things. That's why so much of this becomes, "Don't question my opinion, you're a bigot against my religion! You're persecuting my religion!!!" when anyone pushes back against this mindset.

I think the scheming and gameplaying from the main gay marriage proponents (Nick and Amelia) and Dorian's claiming to be gay for pure political reasons presented a picture of gay marriage which was not all sweetness and light.

I wish the story had been more balanced and much slower paced, as viewers had few reasons to invest in Kyle/Fish/Nick, together or individually, but since the story really wasn't about gay marriage itself, I'm not as bothered as a lot of people are.

I would rather the show be more realistic about rape and abuse against women, which sadly seems completely unlikely.

Edited November 4, 200916 yr by CarlD2

I would rather the show be more realistic about rape and abuse against women, which sadly seems completely unlikely.

Bingo.

Loved Blair's hair today. I may hate her these days but her hair was looking lovely today. Im glad she got a new style and it suits her well

For the thousandth time - why does OLTL once again have to show the "opposing (bigoted) argument" in a gay storyline? They were doing that before any other soap did. They've done it a bunch of times. Why do it again and again? This was something different.

As to today. I loved Danielle and Matthew. Destiny has got to be recast. That kid can't compete with those two, they're too cute together. Tea is a bitch, what else is new. They just need to let the character own it, or at least the writers need to own it.

Greg and Rachel are still hot. Sean Ringgold has suddenly become a much better actor than he used to be. And Bo and Nora are still great.

For the thousandth time - why does OLTL once again have to show the "opposing (bigoted) argument" in a gay storyline? They were doing that before any other soap did. They've done it a bunch of times. Why do it again and again? This was something different.

Didn't Clint oppose to something during the gay storyline in the mid 90's under Malone, and people hated Clint for that?

As to today. I loved Danielle and Matthew.

Same here but I also like Matthew/Destiny.

Destiny has got to be recast. That kid can't compete with those two

True. I wish she was a better actress to be on par with Eddie and Kelley Massal. BTW, I thought Kelley was pretty good in her first scenes with Flo and they look like daughter/mother too.

Tea is a bitch, what else is new. They just need to let the character own it, or at least the writers need to own it.

I think she's written like a bitch and I like it.

Sean Ringgold has suddenly become a much better actor than he used to be.

He brought it today when Shaun confonted Rachel/Greg.

I didn't like how we didn't get a continuation of yesterday's episode. I hate it soaps do this.

Sean Ringgold has suddenly become a much better actor than he used to be.

He brought it today when Shaun confronted Rachel/Greg.

For all my hate of Carlivati's OLTL, I have much love for Sean Ringgold. His are some of the few OLTL clips I can watch without wanting to pluck out my eyes and dip them in bleach. I like watching a rough actor who doesn't fit the mold grow and develop. I think he has real talent and he seems to have at least one foot planted in the real world. I haven't seen the Rachel/Greg scenes, mainly because I have no interest in Rachel 4.0 or Greg. But it sounds like they're worth watching.