Dear NBC

Heroes has been the favorite show of my wife and I from season 1 because it really is a fantastic drama. Recently the gay/lesbian topic has been introduced and I thought I should comment on this because not saying anything will never make a difference.

My wife and I believe in traditional family values and have struggled to find entertainment that will align with that. Heroes has been fantastic not only because of its intricate character cast and brilliant concept, but for my family it has been reasonably safe entertainment. We don't have to worry about whether or not we will have to turn off the TV mid show. Most every other show is not as entertaining or clean enough for the whole family to watch.

For the most part this show has been wholesome, which my family greatly appreciates, but I am very concerned about the direction this is heading. Even though my wife and I are huge fans of the show, we are concerned that we may be forced out of the target audience, which is a business decision i guess, and consequently have to quit watching.

I realize that not everybody shares my opinion, but many do. I am just tired of having it pushed on my family and I during every single show we watch. So, I just thought I should post and hope for the best before it is to far gone for the traditional family values audience.

I do not mean to offend anyone, this is just how I feel.

Your Loyal Viewer,
Atticus

P.S. My wife and I are in my early 20's in case you are wondering

popcorn.gif

Cool story, bro.

Probably should be in general discussion.

Req is correct it should be in General discussion but you should tell a moderator to move it instead of posting it again. I moved it and closed the other thread you created.

I am also going to add a bit of detail to the topic title to clarify what this thread is about.

While I personally don't agree that the scenes you described make it any less family friendly I believe you are entitled to your opinion and the choices you make for your family. I may elaborate more but I'll have to think on it to word myself correctly.

What??

It is in general discussion now. Thanks for the help with getting this in the right place.

Atticus as I said previously I believe you are more than entitled to your opinion and also the choice in what you allow your family to be shown on tv. I do not mean by my following statements in any way to try and change that choice or belittle it because I believe that every person deserves their right to feel and do whatever is right for them.

In that same respect though I think it only fair to mention that people as a whole are entitled to that same right and being gay or lesbian is part of that. I do not wish to argue whether that lifestyle is a choice or not but what I wish to address is the fact that it is life. Heroes has always been a show to show ordinary people doing extraordinary things. Gay and lesbian individuals are just that, ordinary people, so why cant they do extraordinary things? Heroes I don't believe has pushed the envelope but instead made itself more realistic to what our world is now. I personally feel that asking Heroes to not have any gay or lesbian characters would be like asking them to not have any Asian or African American characters. Heroes has always been diverse and that is I think part of what makes it so special and truly a great show in my opinion.

Agreed with bHero. Heroes is a show that should encompass all beliefs, if possible, and shouldn't limit itself simply because not everyone agrees with those views.

The show has dealt with genocide before and that is horrible. The show is heading for what seems racism plots and how Specials are different from normal people. I wouldn't exactly call that wholesome.

imo, not showing Bi or Gay character is like avoiding sexuality altogether and that's obviously not something you can do. Like I said, Heroes is a show that should encompass all beliefs, if possible, simply because that's how the world is. You can't censor life or just write out the parts that you don't like. Why do it in TV shows?

Wait so...you are offended and feel the show has become unwholesome because of a lesbian kiss? What about when Nikki was a stripper? And was basically a political prostitute? Or Tracy doing the same? I mean that is saying that sexual deviance is alright as long as it is in the hetero sexual form...


I hope your username isn't referring to Atticus Finch...

Atticus, I'm with you.

Heroes is the only modern TV show that we watch besides the news.
I also feel it is sad that in order to protect my family the children do not get to watch some episodes or parts of episodes.

dcg

I am glad you dont dcg, there is a whoolle lot of stuff on Heroes that has always been unsuitable for minors. It isn't a program geared towards children fo sho.

While I think you are entitled to your opinion, I highly agree with Leek there. The show is not, nor has it ever boasted to be, a wholesome family show. From episode one, murder and sex have run rampant throughout the story lines. In a radio interview Adrian Pasdar said he wouldn't let his children watch the show.

I think it's brilliant the way the writers have addressed the topics of Genocide and racism, and especially now teen homosexuality. They're subjects near and dear to the hearts of many these days. If you choose to not watch the show because of the chastest kiss thusfar, far be it from me to dissuade you.


But Atticus, and DCG, if you're looking for more family oriented programing, I recommend Disney Channel's Phineas and Ferb, Sonny with a Chance and Wizards of Waverly Place. They're fun and good for all ages.

I never said Heroes was a wholesome family show. I just said that that sometime my children are allowed to watch it and sometimes they are not. My 17 year old gets to watch almost all of the shows all the way through even though he sometimes chooses to close his eyes or leave the room for parts of the show. He actually cried when he realized Jeremy was going to be murdered. I've actually used the show to open up conversation with my 17 year old about topics that would be difficult to cross without something to symbolize it. Recently I've spoken with my son about date rape, genocide, hate crimes, gangs and many many other things (including Jeremy's death). Personally in our house we are more into books instead of TV. And yes, my kids do love shows like Hogan's Heroes, MacGyver, Babylon 5, I Love Lucy etc. but we don't really watch them much either.
OlyMendez - Thank you for your recommendations.

This is kind of funny to me. When I was a kid I was a huge bookie. Well, I am an English Major now so I suppose I still am, but I've never gotten back to the amount of reading I did back then. My parents would take me to the library every other friday and I'd take out a big stack of books. What is funny is how disturbing some of the content was that I was reading about. Sure I loved those cutesie young adult books, but I remember doing an extensive book report on stephen king was I was 12. So why I say it is funny is stuff I was reading was a lot worse then stuff I was seeing on TV. I find that children who read are exposed to some pretty harsh realities, whereas children who only watch TV are only exposed to the lighter side of graphicness. Passionate sex scenes, armed robbery, the fun stuff.

I mean I was in middle school when I read The Lovely Bones, about a girl my own age being brutally raped and murdered. I think a lot of my sexual understand came from that first chapter. So books can be a lot more damaging then television sometimes.

/tangent


I'm really not into censorship with kids too much, but only because of personal experience. I was watching South Park when I was in 3rd grade (The whole adult swim line up really, though Celebrity death match scared the tar out of me lol). My cousins, however, were not allowed to watch shows like The Rugrats because the character of Angelica was mean to other children, thus promoting bad behavior. They weren't allowed to say words like "stupid", and were totally bubbled from everything. I count myself as a fairly well functioning member of society, and when we were kids I was a HELLL of a lot more normal then they were. They were just whack because I think their brains got a little morphed from the censoring. So it is one of those things that is necessary in moderation. You expose your kids too much, they get whacko. You shield them too much, same deal.

/Another tangent


I am all for younger kids being protected from violent imagery and stuff, and obviously this is sooooo jut MO and I'm not trying to offend or anything, just discuss. It just feels a little odd to me that a 17 year old boy feels uncomfortable watching some of the stuff that has transpired on heroes. Can't really wrap my mind around that. It is one thing to be sensitive but, for someone who will be legally entering into adulthood soon, i dunno. Just odd to me like I said.

You all make some valid points, there is scandal in just about any show, which includes prostitution, sex, and other variations of moral reprehensibility. And yes, wrong is wrong whether it is shop-lifting or homosexuality or prostitution or whatever, wrong is still wrong. I will not try to deny any of this because you are right, but that is not really my point.

Put simply, it seems like every show now-a-days is pushing this gay/lesbian topic harder and harder under the guise of diversity, but there is no conversation about it. There is no equal representation of the opposing views about homosexuality. What bothers me is not so much that there is a gay cast member, but it's dishonest discussion. One side gets represented with a lot of bias, which my family and I don't share. Now I know that they haven't decided which direction they will take this, but my concern is where it might be heading.

You are probably thinking, what do you mean by that? You mean if Claire goes lesbian? Well, frankly, yes. You brought up genocide, racism, and prostitution as controversial things in the show, but does anyone disagree that these are bad things? Not really. They aren't controversial because everyone agrees and they are not portrayed in a good light. As a matter of fact, a lot of times the heroes try to fight these things.

The gay/lesbian debate though, does anyone disagree that this is a good thing? Yes, there is much disagreement. California and other states passed the controversial prop 8 or other similar bills, which were anti gay marriage. In California, a very progressive state, the bill was still passed. So, by portraying something in a positive or negative light when the debate is 50:50 you alienate a portion of the audience regardless of your stance. In this case its the traditional family values crowd.

This has been a very common thing in just about any show I try to watch and it instantly puts my family and I on the defensive, which is new for this show. I also am being a little hard on Heroes because it is my favorite show and I am disappointed that Heroes is heading in the same direction as the bulk of other TV shows pushing this topic. It seems like I can't turn on the TV anymore without it being thrown in my face. I just don't want that from my families favorite TV show as well.

Hero's Fan,
Atticus

P.S. Thank you all for keeping this discussion civilized. I appreciate the civilized and constructive feedback.

I don't understand what you mean by the "other side" not being represented of homosexuality. You mean the side that does not like it? I mean, the thing is, all that you are going to get is some lame college frat boy calling them "EDIT: Bundles of sticks" or something. The same way that the "apposing" side to some other groups of diversity, lets say African Americans, would be...supporting segregation or something.

There are plenty "typical" American families represented on the show. The Bennets, The Parkmans, The Petrelli's to name a few. We also saw diverse families like The Suresh's and now The Sullivan brothers and what not. The only gay characters we had on this show never even came out and stated it, it was only mildly implied. So if anything, the gay population could argue that before this season the show WAS biased but AGAINST them.

People DO disagree that interracial relationships are bad. Those people are called racist and are deemed as villains. Surely they would like their views equally represented.

When you open the door to negativity towards one kind of lifestyle, you must open it to all to be fair. What you are asking is to have a character who outwardly disapproves of the relationship? What would be the purpose of that story arc?

I mean, I guess I like to side with the argument that does not persecute. So there is my logic. Live and let live. I didn't agree when, say, Sylar murdered people to better himself with their powers, or Micah robbed a bank, but I didn't take it as the show pushing their morals on me.

Awww shucks, really?

Just kiddin' - I knew whatcha meant in that closing...

Anyway, yeah, I think some fave shows which still are decent to watch, with folks of all ages, content-wise, include Phineas and Ferb and ... Huh, I'll hafta think about that one some more. Avatar: TLA was a good one in its day, too. I might be wrong, but maybe Psych's a pretty decent show in the same way you're talkin' (but maybe my memory's fuzzy)?

I'm just attemptin' to think of shows which are entertaining and wholesome.

Seems you'll get some discussion with this topic...

I can't think of any prime time show that doesn't deal with any controversial issues. At first I thought Glee since it has such a positive and youth friendly outlook and messages every week but then I remember teen pregnancy and that nasty homosexual problem lol so yeah.


I mean, I'd say just stick to nick at night if you want to be totally safe and or watch with young children who you wish to censor from those sort of things. Though I don't feel it will do them much good but to each his own

Hmm... well I don't advocate censorship because everyone has to make his or her own decisions in life (even my kids despite how I raise them), and I believe the post that said the show was bias against gay/lesbians prior to this season is incorrect, but instead disproportionately represented would be more correct. Raising children is tricky though because it becomes a balancing act. You cant control their minds, but you have to regulate their input until they have the tools to deal with what they are seeing and experiencing. To unleash a concept like the gay/lesbian debate onto kids where there are passionate arguments on both sides is a bit unfair to the children because there is no way they can make an educated decision about what they are taking in. Then 'let your kids watch nickelodian or disney channel' right? Is that what this has come to, there are only 2 stations left that have family values (this is debatable because even the t-nickelodian station pushes the gay/lesbian debate), which produce somewhat decent programming? That's unfortunate.

Anyways, I digress. You mean to tell me that the anti gay side is fairly represented? Thus far I think that is a bit over reaching. If they brought in an anti gay character into the series, would it be in an equally positive way? Or would they bring in a crazy priest who is a child molester or a crazy guy who wears a T-shirt saying Jesus is my Episco-Pal? I lean towards the latter due to my experience with other TV shows, but, to be fair, we shouldn't make assumptions about how the producers of Heroes will handle it.

Lets go to the other side of the coin. Would you all be perfectly comfortable with a few intense Christian episodes? Islamic? Jewish? I am not asking for this, nor do I want it, but the point still holds. Which one is right? Well doesn't that come down to opinion? Yes, it does, the same way this gay/lesbian topic does. Take your pick, no matter what it is, do you want to see anything you view as morally reprehensible routinely and then to have it portrayed in a positive light?

Now the likely response is to say 'then quit watching' and that is something I hope to avoid. Furthermore, I would hope that wouldn't be how NBC would treat any customer or viewer. Even if someone completely disagrees with me, I would hope that NBC would value them as much as they value me, not more and not less despite the bias of the film producers, which is why I feel compelled to represent this side. I have many friends and family members who have taken the 'quit watching' approach. It changes nothing and their opinions go unheard and I would do the same in most circumstances if Heroes wasn't my favorite show. Just because it isn't voiced a whole lot doesn't mean that they aren't losing viewers over it and I do not want to be one of them.

Loyal Viewer,
Atticus

Umm...disproportionately represented?

Without getting into a debate, that group (gay/lesbian) comprises approximately 10% of the population. At least that's the last stat I heard. It may be overinflated, or underreported, I neither know nor care.

We've seen well over a hundred characters, either major or minor, or almost completely irrelevant. Not to mention the "red shirt" characters.

Of those...approximately 1 has been a homosexual- Gretchen.

Zach was intended to be, but that was changed. There was supposed to be one in S2, but that was changed as well. There were hints, sort of, at one in S3. But nothing was ever more than indirectly implied.

You're right. My answer is to stop watching if you feel that strongly about it. Not because I want the show to lose viewers, but because there is no winning in this. If you convinced NBC to drop this storyline, they would lose an audience of the same size but for different reasons. Actually, based on the numbers the show has been pulling in (which indicate a steady, if small, climb) the risk may be far worse.

Are your children public schooled? Do they go out in public? If the answer to either is yes, then they are already aware of homosexuality, and have most likely witnessed a homosexual kiss.

Finally, from the perspective of a Christian, how is the Gretchen/Claire situation different from "Las Vegas Niki," or Jessica sleeping with Nathan or any of the other sexual immoralities they've shown, not to mention the murders, lying, stealing and generally immoral actions of pretty much any character you can name?

Synch, seriously, read the thread before goin' off on what you think are original or new points... There's more to the post, but this is the start of one from Atticus:

Where did you get your numbers? 10% gay sounds high, but if you can find that link please do post it. Does the show publish their numbers? I would be interested to see that too. As for your final point, it has already been addressed, read a little further up and you will see it.

I agree that dropping the story line would be detrimental and I don't think there is any possibility of that nor would I want them to do that. In my very first post I said something along the lines of I am concerned with where this MIGHT be heading and I hope it isn't in a direction that I am forced out of viewership. That does not necessarily mean that it is so far gone that it will never recover or can't be saved. As for the response to just quit watching, well that may happen, but how would that make you feel if your favorite show/store/whatever did something you disagree with strongly and told you to shove it when you brought it to their attention? There probably is no winning, but that doesn't mean this should go without discussion.

Heroes Fan,
Atticus

There are a lot of people who have no problem with racism, even if they may not use that word. Prostitution has some surprising supporters, for a variety of ideological reasons (I'd use the phrase "strange bedfellows", but, well...) I'll give you genocide, though given the rhetoric in the US and elsewhere over the last 8 years, I'm not sure I should.

I guess I'd throw a couple of points out. You say you addressed the question of how Claire's one kiss is worse than multiple graphic murders, heterosexual sex scenes, nuclear explosions, etc., but it doesn't seem like you addressed it very well. For instance:



This is said in a very matter-of-fact way, but there are assumptions buried in it that are not necessarily true. The idea that it's in every show you watch seems like a bit of selective perception. "Pushing the topic under the guise of diversity" may be nothing of the sort, particularly given the matter-of-fact way that Heroes has handled it so far. It's a story element, very similar to tonight's story element of HRG rejecting his partner's advances. I fail to see how Claire's non-relationship is pushing homosexuality any more than HRG's pushed adultery. "No conversation about it"? Claire and Gretchen talked about it for most of an episode, with Claire making it pretty clear she was uncomfortable with the situation. Did she reject Gretchen outright and call for a burning of the heathens? No, but that extreme a reaction isn't a "conversation" either, it's a polemic.

The other point I would make is that I don't really understand the idea of refusing to watch a show because of a specific plot point like this. It seems like an "ignore it and it will go away" sort of action, which is exactly the opposite of the "conversation" you're calling for. That's the idea that has led to (among other things) the red/blue split in the US, that whenever you see something you don't like you just pack up and move on. Fox News and MSNBC have both become laughingstocks (rich laughingstocks, but laughingstocks nonetheless) by throwing away "all the news that's fit to print" and replacing it with "all the news that my demo won't find threatening." If you retreat into an insular little box when you run into an idea that you don't like, all chances of a "conversation" disappear and you're left with nothing but echo chamber reality. Coming here and posting your message good as far as it goes, but it seems to me that you've overlooked the very thing you're asking for because it doesn't look on-screen like it does in your head...and not noticing that is both a symptom and cause of the larger opinion tribe problem.

Claire has shown far more hesitation to pursue this relationship than, well, most any other character on the show that's been in a heterosexual relationship. It seems like the problem is not with a lack of conversation, which has existed both within the storyline and in the fan community, but with the conversation not being definitively won by your point of view.

I pose the question once again: How is it possible to depict a positive anti-gay character? Because as eloquent and gentle as you are being in making your posts Atticus, which I really commend, I am still surprised, shocked, and can respond no other way then an uncomfortable giggle when I read how many times you have said homosexuality is wrong or immoral, even comparing it with rape and prostitution as "one of the bad things".

You seem like a good hearted family man, but the second you become oppressive of any people, you become villainous in some small way. So, perhaps that is the problem? There is no way to have an "anti-gay" character NOT be the bad guy. Because the people who are being offensive against others always just feel kind of..wrong to us? By nature? Perhaps...

In a mainstream show like Heroes, to be safe and keep the majority happy, the rule always seems to be this: extremists of any sort are bad. Whether it be regard religion or sexuality or anything else. So they veer away from them and stay in the safe zone.

I think the main problem of most people that are homophobe (yes, they have a name ) is that they don't understand homosexuality or feel as if their heterosexuality gets "attacked" by something unnatural (or a mix of both in the most cases).

Due to this they are trying to shield such persons out of their environment and shielding their families to prevent any of their family members being "infected" by it.

The thing is that it's in the gene of a person at the time they are born.
Some recognize it very early and others first in their 30s.

Shielded persons that are born like this end up mostly suffering either half or their whole life trying to be heterosexual for the sake of their families that want's them to be just that and don't accept anything else.

Some are killing themselves because they can't get the pressure, others are pushing themselves to be someone they are not to and others again break free sooner or later taking their life in their hands accepting who they really are.

The bottom line is that we are all "human creatures" no matter our color, sexuality, beliefs no matter if we want it to be true or not.

Acceptance can do wonders and unify people giving everyone more peace, love and togetherness than any inacceptance ever could do.

I understand everyones point of view and respect it but to be honest, it saddens me to see that even in year 2009 many people still seeing people of a other race or sexuality as if they were "infections" and "viruses" that would kill their traditions and values if they would ever come in contact with them.

I just hope that if indeed happen to have someone in your family turn out to be gay, that you will try to open your mind and give that person the love and support you would have if it wouldn't in the same manner instead of breaking that person only because it isn't build the way you want it to be.

There are tons of informations around the internet.
Please do some research to understand things better.

Oh, and as a straight white male I'll be the first to admit homosexual scenes and scenes of minority "empowerment" hold zero interest to me in television. But whether we like it or not (I personally could care less) there are gay people out there and most rational studies show that :

A) Doesn't matter if you're homosexual, heterosexual, bi-sexual, or a-sexual. You don't make a personal choice on what physical phenotype your body is attracted to, and

B: The population of self described homo or bi sexuals, by polling, floats consistantly between seven and ten percent.

The cynical side of me is usually going to believe that storylines like this in a show are staged for that almighty exposure and empowerment (they have, after all, been trying to work a gay character in since the show started), and I'm ESPECIALLY cynical about it being "I'm here to be Eye Candy" Claire all of a sudden not knowing her sexuality, but nevertheless a gay character and even a gay relationship on the show would in no way deviate from real life, nor would it introduce any morally dubious aspects in and of itself. Sorry if your mystical Sky-Daddy disagrees.

PS-I also don't see anything inherently wrong with prostitution. We let Lebron James use his god given natural attributes to make money, why not women, if they so choose? Of course, there are tons of problems with pimps and abuse and underage hookers and all...but most all of those could be solved. If, you know, we legalized it.

And that name is probably the most singularly misused term on the planet.
A homophobe is someone who fears (thus making it a Phobia) homosexuals. The vast majority to whom the term is applied are not afraid of them. We disagree with the choice on moral and/or ethical grounds, but we're not scared of them.




This is not the place or time for a debate on homosexuality, but I cannot let these statements stand. You comment about research proving it is genetic. But it is just as easy to prove to research proving it's not. There is absolutely no definitive answer out there, no matter how much some would prefer you to believe there is.



I didn't think they were original or new. Any discussion like this will have already covered those basic elements. That single portion of a much longer post was intended to convey my disbelief that a single element, which is truly no worse than elements that have been in since the beginning episodes of the show, could cause a viewer to leave the show. Or to contemplate leaving it.

You're right, it's not the time or place, but you had your say and I'll have mine and if there's more to be said I guess we can take it to PM's.

Nobody ever said it was genetic. Well, I don't believe I did. I said people didn't have a choice over it. Two of my better friends in HS turned out to be gay, and believe me, they didn't "choose" it. They figured out they liked men right around the time I was starting to admire miniskirts and pretty feminine faces. Nor have I ever heard of homosexuals outside of drunken young adult women who perform sexual acts with those of the same sex by "choice." Ever. Perhaps you can point me towards one or two anecdotes, but set against the twenty or thirty million non-heterosexual people in the country they wouldn't add up to much. I'm also totally willing to believe that every now and then a kid gets abused by the opposite sex and it becomes ingrained to only seek to be with the same sex once adulthood is reached. Or "drunken college girl" syndrome, where people do it to be "cool" or different. But however many of those types of people there might be in the GLBT community, it's going to be a really, really small percentage. As said above, most discover they're gay the same way you and I discovered we were straight.

There are more options open in the "it's not their choice" camp then genetics. For example, interesting research points to hormone levels in the mother during a certain time of pregnancy having an influence.

Now, some religious people think they should still hold rein over their actions, true. People against homosexuality often feel that they should bury their feelings and urges like society expects and demands pedophiles to bury theirs, but to me there's no harm done by consensual homosexuals like the obvious harm done by pedophilia. Therefore, people should just mind their own beeswax.

PS- I will agree that homophobe is indeed a word used far too often and mostly in the wrong way. Kind of like the word racist.

I'd say now is a good time for that. I am debating editing both of your posts but will leave them for the sake of it's your opinion and vaguely relates to the topic at hand. But... This topic is controversial enough without bringing up the topic of choice.

So any further discussion between you two or any one who wants to post opposing views on whether homosexuality is a choice has two options:
A. Take it to personal message
B. Start a thread in the BTD discussing the topic

Lets keep this on topic out of respect for the OP and the forum rules.

Also please keep it civil in here and do not belittle what people choose or choose not to do with their families. A couple posts in here are borderline inappropriate and remember the moderators are watching very carefully...

See, here's the sitch - this is gonna be a topic where there are definitely two different viewpoints on the topic.

There are gonna be those who say that everyone should be tolerant of everyone's lifestyle, and that people have the right to do whatever they want.

And then there is another viewpoint that deals with issues and it's not from a civil rights or diversity or freedoms point of view. It comes from beliefs that may stem from a set of values/standards/morals or religious background which defines things differently, and not necessarily as what "the world" believes.

Yeah, there's more to it, and maybe I'll elaborate when I get the opportunity, but as long as there's different viewpoints which view the topic based on different values, then there'll be two sides which may or may not even understand where the other person's comin' from*.

I actually can see it from both points of view, 'cuz I may have what I believe, but I also know folks (and relatives) who don't see or do things the same way.

One thing outta all of this, though, is that the tough part is to "love your neighbor", although ya might not actually like everything that person does...

Again, you guys across the Big Pond have succeeded in making a European sit in front of her screen, bemusedly scratching her chin as she envisions Americans watching a family friendly show with nothing worse than the occasional sawn-off skull, clipped-off toe, charred and blackened corpse, and mangled limbs along with their kids, but dash for the remote control to save their poor innocent kids from the sheer, unimaginable horror of watching two girls kissing.

Uh, that's all I can say, really. I'll go scratch my chin some more.

Don't forget the boobies. American's freak out about boobies as well.

Breasts are evil, dontcha know.

Just ask Janet Jackson.

Honestly, I've always just gone by the live and let live approach. Sure, I'll take a stance in major topics (Genocide, Racism, etc), but when it comes to things like sexuality? I never cared enough. Honestly, sex is sex. As long as no one is pushing their beliefs on me, and that does go for sex as well, I'm fine with letting people just live how they feel is best.

Really, does it affect me in any way if two men or two women are in relationships with one another? Nope. If those two men or two women attempt to try and make me think how they do, then it becomes a problem, but in all honesty, I don't see that happening.

It's just so much easier to let things be. Sure, there are gay people out there. So what? Trying to pretend that there are no gay people is like trying to pretend we don't have hair. We obviously do have hair, so why try and fight it?

Ok, Bbhero is being much nicer than I.


*Quotes deleted per Bozi's request *


To Atticus - I have a couple questions.

What was the purpose of starting this topic? (I'm not being snide... but honestly asking.) Was it to let NBC know how you feel... a 'letter to the editor' of sorts? Or was it to garner discussion about the topic? Or both?

And if it was to garner discussion... on which topics and issues? I'm just curious... because in some ways this seems like a morality debate snuck in under the guise of discussing an episode. Morality debates on boards like these can be fun, but can also quickly become places for insults, etc.

I'll reiterate the warning issued earlier.. that we should try and keep this from becoming personal, and remember we are all fans of Heroes, which is what we are here to discuss... right? Lol

And, as for the actual topic itself...

I think I understand where Atticus is coming from. Here's my $0.02

Regardless of my personal beliefs, I guess I would say it this way... I am leery of any show where I feel an agenda might be being pushed. I dislike the way that shows have to be so diverse now. What I mean is this... doesn't it seem like there has to be the token minority, the token homosexual person, etc on a show? To me that's almost more degrading. "Well, if we have to to appease the masses, we'll add a minority." I enjoy the shows where race and sexuality isn't really an issue... meeaning... it's there, but the people live it the way they would in everyday life. Like, I loved Ellen, even back when we all knew she was gay, but hadn't come out yet... and her show was hilarious. Once she came out tho... it felt like she was pushing an agenda... every show was about her being gay, and how that made her very different than before. Imho, it doesn't work that way in reality, and thus it seemed forced for it to be like that on her show. Will and Grace on the other hand, I loved. And I guess because they didn't ever really have these big discussions about it... they just were who they were. Does this make sense?

However, that seems to be the way of the casting world these days, so... it is what it is. I am a big believer in... regardless of how I morally feel about something... don't make it personal. A metaphor... maybe I don't like the color blue... but someone I work with does, and fills their office with blue things. I won't stop being friends with her, treat her differently, or think any less of her just for liking Blue. I'll still go to her office and tho it might not be my thing... I won't let it affect how I treat her. If, however, she started pushing blue things on me, then I'd have to speak up and just say I didn't like Blue... in a kind and polite way. I'm not trying to force her to dislike blue, but please, do not force me to try and like blue. See?

Ok, back to Atticus - the sense I got from some of your messages was this... Racism, genocide, etc... these are things the general public accepts as either right or wrong (in these examples, wrong, hopefully. Lol.) However, an issue like homosexuality is one that still has quite a bit of debate going on around it. It can be a polarizing issue. So, the execs have a choice... write in a homosexual storyline, but then risk alienating the people who have moral issues with it. Or, don't write in a homosexual storyline, and risk alienating those who are homosexual.

Now, if those are the choices, I got the sense that Atticus is kind of frustrated that the execs keep choosing to please those who do not have the moral issue with homosexuality. Which actually is an interesting thing... because if those who are homosexual are in the minority it is interesting the execs keep seeming to choose to please the less instead of the more. Just a random thought. Does this make sense?

So, why would execs keep choosing the smaller demographic to please? And then would that make one think maybe the execs have an agenda to push? So then are we back to them having to add the 'token' homosexual? And then I have come full circle.

Or perhaps I make absolutely no sense because I'm exhausted and brain fried from Anatomy class, Chemisty lab and Anatomy lab today. In which case... sorry... Lol

Most of the time I am mortified to say that I am American. The amount of "intellectually challenged" people that feel free to give their opinions on subjects that they no nothing about amazes me.

I apologize for the obvious hypocrisy.

Not all of us are dolts, but it sure seems that way on every forum I join.

Believe me I live in America and I feel the same way. I usually scratch my chin at that way of thinking. Like heaven forbid those innocent kids be exposed to the very world that they live in. I mean who would want their child to be prepared to interact with people of various religions, races and sexual orientations. That's crazy.

One girl-on-girl kiss, that wasn't even highly sexualized, and some are acting like Heroes has suddenly become The L Word ( love that show by the way)

As an unrelated note, I have a very curious theory involving homosexuality. One of the hugest problems facing the worlds society today is over population. Perhaps it is merely out species adapting to satiate a bodily and basic need of life, while not filling our maximum capacity as a result. I just had to bring up my whacky conspiracy theory sorry lol.




But then you get into that old and tired back and forth of "America is a country founded on freedoms". Like, here is the thing. Even if it WAS their choice of a life style, they aren't hurting anyone. If they do not subscribe to the bible, which plenty do not, then there is no harm no foul. So why do we have to metaphorically lynch them on our television sets? Is the line our children stand on between normalcy and that drunken drug orgy really that thin that the knowledge and exposure to homosexuality will send them over in a bright rainbow of colors?

It just gets me annoyed when you think about the drug addicts and the serial murders running around swimmingly saying "Hey but at least we aren't gay!"



The name of the game is repression over here XD

That is why we are so screwed up.



Can't, she's still at the bottom of the lake. Turns out she didn't float!






First, I totally understand the mod stance that in this bar, we don't talk about religion or politics. It does get crazy.

That being said, I do not know about all of you, but personally I do not come over here for the pretty colors (Because that mustard is so soothing. It's like...Mortuary in SPRING TIME!). I come for the stimulating discussion. And I have always been of the belief that at least when you have to a stand still discussion wise, you are still growing by learning a possible argument to your beliefs. So we all win!

Since Heroes is a show about issues a lot of the time, and how they can become more complicated when superpowers get mixed in, I do believe it sort of relates. Especially when the conversation, as I saw it, was not started with a moral debate in mind, but of the questions we are all asking .Does Heroes push it too far, do they have an agenda? Is this good or bad for the ratings, etc. So I just feel it is relevant to debate it, as long as we try to keep on track.

To your blue metaphor, which I really love by the way to explain this lol, i think the rebuttal is should she be forced to hide the fact that she likes blue away from everyone? To keep you comfortable, because you don't want it in your face everyday. And if so, we have to take a lot of classic children's books off the shelves that use colors as a metaphor for diversity and being yourself. Because we are asking her to repress her fiendish affinity for blue inside the walls of her cubicle. Tuck it away nicely so we don't have to know you are weird, and different. If we cannot see your difference we can ignore it and then for continue to function on as a society.


And as to why they do add the token characters...I dunno, I sort of feels the majority of their viewing audience would be way more offended by them persecuting a homosexual or purposefully leaving them out then by adding them.



Maybe being more constructive would help. Be more constructive with your criticism Steve.



I mean there are still schools out there that have a banned book list. Like Catcher in the Rye is REALLY gunna seal the deal of their child's soul delivered into the hands of Satan.

Pretty much this.

Oh God. The directors showed two girls kissing. Is the sky falling yet? Is the world ending? No? Okay, just checking.

I think I'm going to need a bigger thing of popcorn.

Hmm. . . That is very well put. Why must we have this token character in every show? Or any other token minority for that matter? It shouldn't be an issue, but because the show forces it to the forefront, my opinion on the subject is similarly brought to the forefront, which leaves me on the defensive. If it was there, but a non-issue, it would be less of an issue.

I am no homophobe as some other poster so eloquently put it and I have not mentioned a faith by name that I subscribe to because this is not a religious discussion. This is a traditional family values discussion vs. non. I understand where you are pulling that inference from, but I am not approaching this subject by quoting scripture from The Qur'an, The Bible, or The Old Testament, I am approaching this topic as a concerned viewer who has an opinion about the show.

As for why I posted this topic, for both reasons really. I want NBC to know at least the type of viewer I represent because I have tried leaving shows before without saying anything and the next show turns out to be the same. I am also thrilled about the constructive and, mostly, respectful feedback that is being posted. It is much appreciated. I wanted to get other commentary from other viewers as well to see what the consensus was and it has been better than I expected.

To go back to the quote at the beginning, I don't want to feel like something is being forced on my family and I when we turn on the TV. By having it in the show as a non-issue, I can explain it to my children without having to argue with the message the TV show sends (TV show in general). Furthermore, I have said that what Heroes will do is not finite. In one of my first posts I said that I am concerned with where this show COULD be heading, so please don't take my posts as an accusation because they are not. It is just a concerned viewers opinion.

Heroes Junky,
Atticus

Yeah, guys! Every show on television should totally only have white, straight people in it! Because that's how the entire world is, right? Right? There totally aren't enough shows with white, straight people in them because white, heterosexual people are totally minorities, and other minorities like black people and homosexual people--well, we just plain don't need to represent them at all since it's not like they actually exist or anything. Our children certainly don't benefit from learning about people who are different than they are! Why, those silly little notions about diversity just addle their young minds!

Except . . . Oh wait.

If I were you, I'd steer clear of Flash Forward. That show has (*GASP!*) two mature, grown women in a (*GASP!*) lesbian relationship with each other. Oh, the humanity. Oh, and Queer As Folk. And pretty much every other show on TV since they all have "token" characters who are diverse in them.

But I do hear that AMC or Nick at Nite still play reruns of Leave It To Beaver. Maybe that's more up your alley?

Hmm... well not that I am pro war or anything, but lets think your comment through. If there are two opposing view points you can accept mine or I can accept yours, I prefer the first, wouldn't you?

Well since we won't agree on that, what else is there to do? Well the opposing factions fight over the issue. If we fight over the issue and one side is eliminated then we have peace, which would probably be more peace than acceptance or tolerance. Just think about it. I know it's weird, but war can bring peace, not that that is what I wish for, but it's true.

Please be serious and respectful. We are not proposing anything of the sort. Just that things would be present and there, but not the focus of a show. Ya I know what you are talking about with Flash Forward, we watched that show. Please don't take it to the extreme.

I must have missed where they devoted an entire episode to Claire and Gretchen's possibly-lesbian relationship. Last I checked, the kiss lasted for all of three seconds out of a series that's been several millions of seconds long thus far.

As far as taking it to the extreme, I don't quite think I'm the one doing that in this topic because, well, to me, at least, one three second kiss or, heck, even one episode dedicated to a possible homosexual relationship out of how many episodes the show's had thus far? Really not that big of a deal.

But YMMV, & etc.

Well then, the only answer to that is to turn off the TV completely. You won't find a television show, book, video game, song, or anything else that isn't made using some perspective or set of principles. If what you're actually saying is that you don't want to turn on the TV and see anything that challenges your worldview, well...I can't say I think much of that.

One other point:

Where do you think "traditional family values" come from, and with what justification? Come now. Besides, "traditional family values" as the phrase is used now go back maybe fifty years in the US...before that, the lifestyle wouldn't be anything like what we call "traditional family values" now. At least, not unless you want to roll back any number of other civil rights advances.

But the facts are homosexuality does exists amongst the population, even if they are a minority, after a point gay characters do and will make an appearance, Claire was very unlikely but hey, I don't write this show. I hope now they have opened this door they pursue it to acceptance of Claire's sexuality or conclude it was nothing.



So homosexual don't have family values, I know many lesbian and gay couples, some even have children, and I can think of many more straight relationships not as healthy as these, I guess the poster must be ignorant of reality and is living in a little bubble which ignores the diversity of people which live in the world.



Nothing it being forced down your throat, a different plot point is being explored, like it or not, homosexuality exists and always will, your kids will encounter gay people in their lives, they may even be gay - I dread to think how you would deal with that. If someone is gay, they are gay, no putting your hands in your ears and chanting "nah, nah, nah... I can't hear you!", your kids won't turn gay because they see gay characters on TV.

I'm so pleased I live in the UK, people don't really make a fuss about homosexuality any more, and those who attempt to attack homosexual members of our society are quickly shouted down, we even have laws now to prevent discrimination of gay and lesbian people - one Hotel is currently being sued for not allowing a gay couple to stay over because of their sexuality.

Having read the opening post, I'm more convinced that this storyline is needed, as the opening post seems to be prejudiced against gay people - though will no doubt deny it, though viewing a gay relationship as being of less value as a straight one certainly demonstrates this prejudice.

Once again, I bring in my point. If we do it our way, homosexuality can be displayed on a television program just as it exists in real life. Those who do not like it, as I do every night with the Jay Leno show, can turn it off and watch Veronica Mars on Megavideo (Though not really because there are gay characters on that which is a shame because it is such a freaking great show you'd be missing out).

To do it the other way would involve oppression. Can you see how oppression is bad?

And you are hard pressed to make the argument that it is being portrayed as good. Have you ever seen Dexter? He makes being a serial killer cool and bad ******. So before you deal with the gay issue we need to first re-wire the morality of all our programming, you know?


The one show that me and my parents would sit down and watch together no matter what was the sopranos. So weird, right? Especially if you have seen the sopranos. Now here is me just wanting to spend quality time with the folks and watch Tony Soprano run his crime syndicate and deal with the daily dramas of that. But every now and then they would have these super super uncomfortable sex scenes, and I'd sit there wanting to die having to watch with my parents. And yes it was awkward, and she it was uncomfortable. But so is watching two and a half men with them because every joke is a penis and sex joke. So the whole thing is either you are at the level where you can look past the things that make you uncomfortable and enjoy the show, or you have to reenter the bubble.

Like seriously dude, look at how many "traditional" families are on the show. The main stairs are all white, strait people. That has always been the case. It has also always been the case that Heroes tries to stay topical and relevant where it can. So I don't see the "new direction" to which you speak.




We didn't invent the term ****** over here though, buddy. You had a considerable head start on us in adjusting homosexuality to your culture. So let's not point fingers lest someone lose and eyee

Atticus, with your apparent position (correct me if I mistake this) that homosexuality is wrong and should not be portrayed on television, I think you are in the minority in this country and in this corner of the Internet. You wont be changing anyone's minds here.

For this thread serving as a sort of "letter to the editor", this channel hardly runs to the TPTB that run the show or NBC, so little, if any, influence will be exerted upon them by this thread.

As personal commentary on the issue at hand, which is whether the lesbian element being introduced has a place in our favorite show, I say yes. the Heroes 'verse is supposed to me a mirror of sorts to ours, only with superpowers in it. our 'verse has LGBT members of it's human citizenry, so should it.

I feel that this is not being done as a stunt, or an "everyone else is doing it" thing, but rather as a legitimate portrayal of Homosexuality in the Heroes 'verse.

I refused to watch the Sopranos, and I refuse to watch Two And A Half Men as well as Dexter

Why? Because there is not a single redeeming quality in either show. What little entertainment value there is in those shows does not even approach overcoming all the reasons against watching them.

I watch Heroes because it is good entertainment. Does it display things I disapprove of? Absolutely. But it (like the other two I just mentioned) makes no pretense at being a family show.

We all have absolute control over what we watch. It's called the remote, or the power button. If you believe so strongly that something in the show is against your moral viewpoint, you always have the option of turning to another network, or turning it off and picking up a book.

Unlike Sopranos, which, by its very premise, revolved around a mob family and everything involved in that, or Dexter, which, by its very premise, revolved around a "good" serial killer, or even Two And A Half men, which, by its very premise, revolves around a sex-addict and his brother, Heroes is a show set in the "real" world.
And, whether we like it or not, whether we support it or not, there are homosexuals in the real world. It was only a matter of time before Heroes had them on screen.

Once the decision was made to include homosexuality in the show they were faced with a choice. They could, of course, take an anti-gay spin. However, there is (as Leek pointed out) no way to write that type of story without being perceived as a homophobe, or a bigot, or worse. The only alternative was to take either a positive or indifferent tack.



Actually, it's a 14th century Anglo French word.

For a bundle of sticks.

Still not sure how the Gay/Lesbian community got it. Same with Gay actually.

Hmm... well not that I am pro war or anything, but lets think your comment through. If there are two opposing view points you can accept mine or I can accept yours, I prefer the first, wouldn't you?

No, if the other person has a viewpoint that's more logical or valid or disproves mine completely, then I'd happily give up my right to be, well, right.

Well since we won't agree on that, what else is there to do? Well the opposing factions fight over the issue. If we fight over the issue and one side is eliminated then we have peace, which would probably be more peace than acceptance or tolerance. Just think about it.

Er, wait, so we should declare war on gay people because other people disagree with their lifestyle and want to be morally right? o_O I am confused by this statement.

I didn't meant to insult you or anyone by saying you should inform yourself more about the whole thing and homophobia is not only being afraid in a manner that you are running away when you see a gay person. It goes rather more deeper and you can read about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia (you too Synch ).

As a matter of fact I'm totally against war and most of all when it comes to a war like the one you are stating because the way you are writing it, it sounds as if forcing your beliefs to other people through war is a good thing and that's something I would never agree in any case at all.

In my opinion there are always peaceful ways but most people are too lazy to take them because they are more difficult than getting what they want covered through force.

As about accepting only my point of view or yours, I can tell you that I'm accepting both no matter if it looks otherwise through my postings or not.

In my opinion we just sharing our views and talking this through in a peaceful manner in a discussion I find interesting. I know that no matter what I'll write I won't change your opinion and believe it or not I even understand it cause I was raised in a very tolerable but also very traditional family.

I'm sure you want only the best for your children like everyone should, but switching the show won't protect neither you nor your children from such a thing.

I have a question: what would you do if one of your kids turns out to have feelings towards their own gender sometime later?
Will you try to understand due to your love towards your kid or will you turn your back to it?
Ever thought of that?

No matter what you choose, is your choice to make not mine.
I'm just trying to point out what I meant with acceptance.