Modern Family Survey

[BryanP]

I started watching it primarily because the wife & stepdaughters watch it.  It's pretty funny.  If you enjoyed Arrested Development you'll probably like Modern Family.

[ArfinGreebly]

I has no patience with social engineering.

Don't give a crap about teh gayz.

Give a crap about trying to mainstream weirdness.

I would also not watch a show that worked hard at trying to tilt my attitudes about religion, either.

WDF, Hollywood?

You have more staff psychologists than staff writers?  What's with all the head wrenching?

[dm1333]

This is the show with Sofia Vergara in it, isn't it?  The list of possible answers is very incomplete!   

[Lee]

Only seen it a few times. A few of the scenes I saw were pretty funny...a few very funny. 
I thought her name was Sophia Viagra...or maybe it's just me.

[Balog]

I try to limit my intake of propaganda.

[BryanP]

I try to limit my intake of propaganda.

Sometimes a funny tv show is just a funny tv show. It's a show about an extended family. Part of that extended family happens to be a gay couple. They are portrayed in a positive light, and as real people who try to do their best but screw things up sometimes, usually for a laugh. If that's qualifies as propaganda I'm not sure what wouldn't qualify as such.

[Balog]

It's an attempt to normalize the relationship, to artificially grant equivalence. If (in your worldview) it already is no different then your point is valid. If not, then it's not.

[Balog]

Sort of like how if one views an unborn baby as a parasite afflicting it's poor host like our dear leader does, then a show where a character had an abortion and it was treated as perfectly normal and acceptable would probably seem like it had nothing else going on.

[BlueStarLizzard]

It's an attempt to normalize the relationship, to artificially grant equivalence. If (in your worldview) it already is no different then your point is valid. If not, then it's not.

Umm... In some place's it already is normal.

[cordex]

I've never seen the show, but when it comes to fistful's being off-put by teh gay ...

I'm not an expert on the matter, but I do work with one gay guy (that I know of) on a daily basis and I've known a number of homosexuals of both genders.  In my experience, there are Gay People and people who are gay.  The ones who define themselves by their sexuality and base their lives around the culture of others who define themselves by their sexuality tend to be off-putting to me.  The ones who are software architects, cops, mechanics, shooters, writers, research analysts or whatever else, but also are gay?  Most often I don't even think about it; they're just people.  Who they sleep with is of zero concern to me.

On the other hand, I don't think I've ever seen a gay character portrayed in media that is anything but Gay People, so without watching the show I think I can understand fistful's point of view.

[grislyatoms]

SWMBO watches it, but I usually tune it out, working on the laptop, or reading....

This.

Kiddo loves it. I tune it out.

[grislyatoms]

Only seen it a few times. A few of the scenes I saw were pretty funny...a few very funny. 
I thought her name was Sophia Viagra...or maybe it's just me.

Coupla guys at work call her Sophia Viagra...

[Balog]

Whether it's intentional propaganda or that's just an unintended consequence of the writers beliefs isn't relevant.

Popular culture is a huge shaper of overall societal views. Look at the way unmarried folk living together is generally viewed and portrayed in media today vs a few decades back. I think that the entertainment folks who helped normalize that after the "sexual revolution" knew what they were doing and meant to do so, but even if they were so monumentally parochial and clueless as to not that still doesn't change what they accomplished.

[Balog]

And before the inevitable outcry about how hateful I am comes (always reminds me of how anyone who criticizes Obama is a racist), I have no more issue with the gay folks I work with (and since I work in downtown Seattle that's a lot) than I do with the almost total majority who had pre-marital hetero sex. Only folks I object to are the ones who claim to be co-religionists with me but practice what our Scripture rather clearly states is immoral.

[Northwoods]

Tl;dr.

Don't really give *expletive deleted*it about almost anything on TV.

[MicroBalrog]

On this logic all art is propaganda, since every artist cannot help but have their understanding of what is 'good' and 'normal' affect things.

Which is neither a criticism of art nor a praise of it, just stating a fact.

[Marnoot]

On this logic all art is propaganda, since every artist cannot help but have their understanding of what is 'good' and 'normal' affect things.

Which is neither a criticism of art nor a praise of it, just stating a fact.

Perhaps the difference between different pieces of art (on that subject) then is the intent of the artist. Whether they intend their art as propaganda or not. I've not seen more than a couple minutes of the show in question so I can't speak too much on it, though Balog's last statement pretty much reflects my own views.

[MrsSmith]

I don't know of a single "artist" myself included who doesn't have a message to send of one form or another. All writers write to send a message of some sort to their readers. Every single one of them. As a reader, I choose what I wish to read.

Micro is right. Society is influenced by popular culture to a scary degree and that has the power to "normalize" just about anything.

I'm with Cordex though. I have a hard time with anyone whose primary way of defining themselves is by their sexuality. I have the same issue with someone whose defining trait is the color of their skin, their body art, or their religious or political beliefs. It strikes me as little more than a cry for attention. We are ALL sexual creatures, all a member of one race or another, all have religious and political beliefs, all have talents and skills and things we are really good at. Forcing yourself into one tiny mold is sad and pathetic because it sends a message that the rest of who and what you are is not of equal importance or value.

[Perd Hapley]

I think they could at least change the name to "Postmodern Family."

[Balog]

On this logic all art is propaganda, since every artist cannot help but have their understanding of what is 'good' and 'normal' affect things.

Which is neither a criticism of art nor a praise of it, just stating a fact.

Perhaps you could say that all art could be used as propaganda, and then we would agree. I'm something of a utilitarian in that regard: I don't care what the artists stated or even conscious intent is, I care about how their work is being used.

I don't know of a single "artist" myself included who doesn't have a message to send of one form or another. All writers write to send a message of some sort to their readers. Every single one of them. As a reader, I choose what I wish to read.

Micro is right. Society is influenced by popular culture to a scary degree and that has the power to "normalize" just about anything.

I'm with Cordex though. I have a hard time with anyone whose primary way of defining themselves is by their sexuality. I have the same issue with someone whose defining trait is the color of their skin, their body art, or their religious or political beliefs. It strikes me as little more than a cry for attention. We are ALL sexual creatures, all a member of one race or another, all have religious and political beliefs, all have talents and skills and things we are really good at. Forcing yourself into one tiny mold is sad and pathetic because it sends a message that the rest of who and what you are is not of equal importance or value.

Pretty sure I said the bolded part.

I'm curious what you consider the appropriate way to define oneself? It isn't clear from your post.

[cordex]

I'm curious what you consider the appropriate way to define oneself? It isn't clear from your post.

By the forums you frequent.

Duh.

[MicroBalrog]

the rest of who and what you are is not of equal importance or value.

Isn't that true?

THat is to say, each of us picks and chooses and decides - even if we don't actually ever say it - what aspects of our life are more important than others.

[roo_ster]

Wait, you find the gay guys off-putting because they're gay? ...or?

Yep, and drunks because they are drunks, lechers because they are lechers, and so on & so forth with a whole list of objectionable/unseemly/whatever behavior.

I find quite a bit on the teevee objectionable, personally, and even more as inappropriate for my kids to watch.

So we don't.

[Perd Hapley]

As a consumer of video entertainment, I recognize that most in the entertainment industry do not share my viewpoint on matters moral, cultural and political. They don't necessarily have to, to entertain me. John Steinbeck is still among my favorite belletrists, regardless of his atheism or his politics.

Still, some things just interfere with my enjoyment of what might otherwise be very good entertainment. As an example, I've seen enough South Park to know that it can be very funny, while skewering all the right people. But since things like cartoon poop turn me off (much like actual poop), I avoid it.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Isn't that true?

THat is to say, each of us picks and chooses and decides - even if we don't actually ever say it - what aspects of our life are more important than others.

Truth.

I'm not so sure what is meant when by saying that gay people define themselves soley on the fact that their gay or the characters in these shows are doing so.

I presume balog and mrs. smith and others are refering to the so-called "gay lifestyle" or gay sterotypes, but I think the one is much more just about being effeminate, rather then anything to do with sexuality, and the other one is just a creation of those who fail to understand the first.

As for pop culture, well, in this particular show, the gay couple seems to identify first as a couple, then as fathers and them as part of an extended family, and then maybe as gay.
The other major sitcom I think of off the top of my head is Will & Grace, and Will identified primarly as Grace's BF, businessman, and then gay (which was apprapro since much of the plot centered on both major characters dating lifes) and Jack was just an immature, wannabe star who was BF with a boozy socilalite, once again, the fact he was gay was a secondary part of his character.

Had any of these characters been straight, no one would care, but at the same time they still would have been fully developed characters.

I think the real problem people are having with the idea of "gay propaganda" is the fact that these characters are gay, and instead of being able to focus on the characters the audiance gets stuck on something they can't handle.

 The fact that they are gay simply opens up a series of plot devices that center on that subject, just like the fact that Ted in How I Met Your Mother is an arcatect which allows for plots discussing arcatecture and all the characters in Big Bang Theroy are fanboys, which allows for storylines about comic books.