Prospect of a Gay Wedding on Aussie soap Neighbours, do you approve?

[Mr Allen]

I don't have a problem with the concept in general, I just think that Neighbours is shown pre watershed, so a Gay Wedding might not be appropriate for a lunch time soap.

Bit of an old fashioned view I suppose but I'm "old school" so yeh.

Anyone else got thoughts? The characters in question would be Aaron Brennan and David Tanaka.

 

[Thinx]

It's great news that gay characters are getting featured at prime time. LGBTQ people have Equal Rights here in the UK and this should help along the understanding of anyone who may not fully feel comfortable with this reality. Hope they snog.

 

[Bolletje]

I don't watch the show, but I don't see a problem with airing a daytime wedding episode. There's nothing inherently inappropriate going on that younger viewers should be shielded from. A "gay" wedding is just a wedding, but with same-sex partners.

 

[Chance]

I don't feel I have the right to approve or disapprove in any situation where 2 people say or feel they love each other... gay, straight, or otherwise. If it is real LOVE... who am I to even have an opinion? If its an agenda... Who am I to fuel the very fire they want people to fuel?

 

[xudo]

I don't watch the show, but I don't see a problem with airing a daytime wedding episode. There's nothing inherently inappropriate going on that younger viewers should be shielded from. A "gay" wedding is just a wedding, but with same-sex partners.

This is exactly what I was going to say. I don't see how having a gay wedding on during the day is any different from a straight wedding during the day. So long as they're not showing the wedding night in either situation then there's really no issue.

 

[Southern Discomfort]

I don't exactly see a gay wedding as a X-rated feature of a programme that needs to be watershed.

This should be normalised. It's the 21st Century, we ought to be able to be grown up about this sort of thing.

 

[OlLiE]

i'm so 'equal rights', that i don't see why i should care

 

[Judge]

Let me put on my Aspie "Over-thinking cap". Interesting question given two considerations.

1) Does this long-running soap opera involve a specific point in time in our relative past as opposed to our relative present? If it is intended to reflect the past, I could see the point of such a question to maintain a sense of social continuity- purely from a creative perspective. Though if the show itself deliberately evolves over time, then it would seem logical to presume that present moral and legal standards would be highly relevant, "pre-watershed" or not IMO.

2) If heterosexual marriage has never been an issue relative to broadcasting content and viewing time considerations, applying any such limitations to gay weddings might invite legal accusations of discrimination in any legal jurisdiction where gay marriage is perfectly legal.

Yet in Northern Ireland, same-sex marriage is still illegal under law. A political issue where both Catholics and Unionist Protestants continue to block advancement of marriage equality while Sinn Féin supports it.

I can only guess that the BBC routinely broadcasts the show to the six counties of Ulster, where individual episodes may or may not be subject to censorship as opposed to all other jurisdictions of Great Britain where same-sex marriage is perfectly legal. Ironically the Republic of Ireland also constitutes one of those jurisdictions as well and voted for same sex marriage a few years ago.

Under such circumstances, I think it's a fair question of Rich to ask. Can't help but wonder how the BBC may handle such an issue likely relevant only to Northern Ireland which has had its share of "troubles".

 

[Mr Allen]

Let me put on my Aspie "Over-thinking cap". Interesting question given two considerations.

1) Does this long-running soap opera involve a specific point in time in our relative past as opposed to our relative present? If it is intended to reflect the past, I could see the point of such a question to maintain a sense of social continuity- purely from a creative perspective. Though if the show itself deliberately evolves over time, then it would seem logical to presume that present moral and legal standards would be highly relevant, "pre-watershed" or not IMO.

2) If heterosexual marriage has never been an issue relative to broadcasting content and viewing time considerations, applying any such limitations to gay weddings might invite legal accusations of discrimination in any legal jurisdiction where gay marriage is perfectly legal.

Yet in Northern Ireland, same-sex marriage is still illegal under law. A political issue where both Catholics and Unionist Protestants continue to block advancement of marriage equality while Sinn Féin supports it.

I can only guess that the BBC routinely broadcasts the show to the six counties of Ulster, where individual episodes may or may not be subject to censorship as opposed to all other jurisdictions of Great Britain where same-sex marriage is perfectly legal. Ironically the Republic of Ireland also constitutes one of those jurisdictions as well and voted for same sex marriage a few years ago.

Under such circumstances, I think it's a fair question of Rich to ask. Can't help but wonder how the BBC may handle such an issue likely relevant only to Northern Ireland which has had its share of "troubles".

It's on Channel 5 man, has been for over 5 years, the BBC decided they couldn't afford it any more so they sold the rights to it, and Channel 5 bought it.

Website.

Also, like I said, I personally don't have a problem with it, but I know SOME people will be writing to their MP to moan about it.

 

[Judge]

Also, like I said, I personally don't have a problem with it, but I know SOME people will be writing to their MP to moan about it.

I suppose that's inevitable. Interesting to see that Channel 5 (owned by a subsidiary of Viacom) is available in Northern Ireland as well. Anyway, from a purely legal- and political perspective I'd think MPs in any jurisdiction that already legally facilitates same-sex marriage would simply tell their constituents that it's the law. Even with explicit censorship standards regarding British television no matter what channel, I'm not sure how they could be defended or applied regarding an institution that is now perfectly legal.

Though if and when special interests directly lobby television networks and producers instead of politicians, on rare occasion strange things can happen to save or sink a show. That much is true at least on this side of the pond. Where networks take great interest in what constitutes a "target market".

Still, it is weird though to have lived in a time of great censorship, only to evolve towards very little in comparison with earlier times. Where some may adapt faster than others in accordance with legal precedents usually determined by a political majority. Where if THEY approve, that's all that counts.

The public got over Captain Kirk kissing his communications officer in November 1968. We survived. So too shall Britain over televised fictional gay marriage.

 

[Thinx]

I liked the Channel 4 Gay wedding that was a musisal written by the 2 guys marrying on the first day it was legal in 2014. I think they really captured some of the suffering lying behind the denial of same rights for so long to sexual minorities, as well as the varied feelings of the men and their mothers and families and friends. It was a historic decision as was the pardoning of gay people who'd supposedly committed crimes by being gay such as Alan Turing. Think he was Asp that's my thought not a fact. And btw there is a higher incidence of sexual diversity in people who are aut and asp. I think again it's just my idea, that this may be partly because we do not conform to norms so readily indeed are sometimes unaware of them. It's not my experience that sexuality is static or a one time reality. I think it's on a spectrum. Ditto gender.

 

[xudo]

1) Does this long-running soap opera involve a specific point in time in our relative past as opposed to our relative present? If it is intended to reflect the past, I could see the point of such a question to maintain a sense of social continuity- purely from a creative perspective. Though if the show itself deliberately evolves over time, then it would seem logical to presume that present moral and legal standards would be highly relevant, "pre-watershed" or not IMO.

2) If heterosexual marriage has never been an issue relative to broadcasting content and viewing time considerations, applying any such limitations to gay weddings might invite legal accusations of discrimination in any legal jurisdiction where gay marriage is perfectly legal.

It's an evolving over time soap, so it's modern day. To be perfectly honest, from what I understand it's only the UK base of people watching it that really keeps Neighbours going. It's not particularly popular even in it's own country of Australia. I would imagine that the inclusion of a gay wedding at this point in time would be because Australia recently voted to make same-sex marriage legal.

As to whether it's even broadcast in Northern Ireland (or if anyone watches it) I have no idea. Channel 5 may operate in much the same way as the BBC does in different parts, in that certain programming on the same channel may not be shown everywhere where that channel is available. For example, there is a BBC One and a BBC One Wales. Most of the schedule is exactly the same, but sometimes there will be a programme on the Welsh channel that is not on the standard BBC One.

 

[Mr Allen]

It's an evolving over time soap, so it's modern day. To be perfectly honest, from what I understand it's only the UK base of people watching it that really keeps Neighbours going. It's not particularly popular even in it's own country of Australia. I would imagine that the inclusion of a gay wedding at this point in time would be because Australia recently voted to make same-sex marriage legal.

As to whether it's even broadcast in Northern Ireland (or if anyone watches it) I have no idea. Channel 5 may operate in much the same way as the BBC does in different parts, in that certain programming on the same channel may not be shown everywhere where that channel is available. For example, there is a BBC One and a BBC One Wales. Most of the schedule is exactly the same, but sometimes there will be a programme on the Welsh channel that is not on the standard BBC One.

The UK base of fans is probably because most of us male fans are in love with half the women, such as Paige, Elly, Susan, Terese etc.

Just not that annoying Izzy woman.

 

[Progster]

Don't quite get this. Why would it be ok to show a different sex wedding at lunchtime, but not a same sex wedding? A wedding is a wedding!

 

[Judge]

Funny to read this show failed in the US. Too tame for our tastes. How ironic!

"Americans found Neighbours too realistic, with one US network describing it as less raunchy … too wholesome”.

Neighbours is Australia’s grandest, trashiest soapie export. So why did it fail in the US?

Don't quite get this. Why would it be ok to show a different sex wedding at lunchtime, but not a same sex wedding? A wedding is a wedding!

Yeah, in the US there is much less censorship any more when it comes to scheduling shows for late night airing as in the past. However virtually all of the more exotic programming occurs on cable, not subject to the stern regulation of the FCC in the past where such programming used to be restricted exclusively to later hours in the evening.

 

[Mr Allen]

Funny to read this show failed in the US. Too tame for our tastes. How ironic!

"Americans found Neighbours too realistic, with one US network describing it as less raunchy … too wholesome”.

Neighbours is Australia’s grandest, trashiest soapie export. So why did it fail in the US?



Yeah, in the US there is virtually no censorship any more when it comes to scheduling shows as there was in the past. Of course virtually all of the more exotic programming occurs on cable, not subject to the stern regulation of the FCC in the past where such programming used to be restricted to later hours in the evening.

There isn't now, but there used to be, remember somebody called Mary Whitehouse? She wanted your government to censor the crap out of almost everything including cartoons which were thought to be too "violent" for kids' viewing (even classics such as Tom and Jerry apparently).

Have a look on Wikipedia.

 

[Mr Allen]

Don't quite get this. Why would it be ok to show a different sex wedding at lunchtime, but not a same sex wedding? A wedding is a wedding!

I agree, but there are some Daily Mail and Telegraph readers in the UK who object voraciously to such things.

 

[Judge]

There isn't now, but there used to be, remember somebody called Mary Whitehouse? She wanted your government to censor the crap out of almost everything including cartoons which were thought to be too "violent" for kids' viewing (even classics such as Tom and Jerry apparently).

Have a look on Wikipedia.

Oh yeah. A dynamic we know well on this side of the pond. But relative to computer gaming and online censorship more than anything else. Around the turn of the century it was Bill Clinton, Tipper Gore and Joe Lieberman. Whose attempts at legislation aimed at online censorship were ultimately eviscerated in our courts.

With the most recent critic of violent computer games being Donald Trump only a day or so ago. Here we go again.

Trump’s Violent Video Game Distraction Lags Out

 

[xudo]

There isn't now, but there used to be, remember somebody called Mary Whitehouse? She wanted your government to censor the crap out of almost everything including cartoons which were thought to be too "violent" for kids' viewing (even classics such as Tom and Jerry apparently).

Have a look on Wikipedia.

Mary Whitehouse was British. She objected to pretty much anything and everything, from homosexuals to the reporting of wars on the news.

 

[pjcnet]

I've never liked watching soaps, I have tried, but I've found them unrealistic, negatively exaggerated and otherwise quite boring, but it honestly makes no difference to myself whether they allow gay marriage or not and it's only fiction anyway. I've watched bits of Neighbours in the past and I found it especially bad, also why does virtually everyone look like a perfect supermodel without a hair out of place? I'm sure if I walked down an average street in Australia not everyone looks like this?

If they didn't allow it pre-watershed however then they could say the rules are prejudice against gay people since they allow heterosexual weddings to be shown without any question. Even if many people did disapprove they like televising things like this because they're bound to get higher viewing figures. You wouldn't be making a thread about Neighbours if it wasn't for this and similarly it creates publicity where usually no publicity is bad publicity for a show like this.