I've been a big fan of HOC for the first 4 seasons. I'm not completely done with season 5 but through ten episodes it sucks. I'd be curious what you think about the series. Here are things that bug me.

1) The terrorist threat is from a group called "ICO" Islamic Caliphate. However, the one scene were they show the terrorists getting ready to behead someone, they show two white guy's.....really?

2) why are there so many awkward homosexual based scenes? I can't watch this show with kids or family members because you never know when it's gonna pop up. I don't care if someone is gay. I don't care if there is an ongoing gay character or gay couple in a show. Why is it so awkward in this show? Why is it even necessary? Obviously the producer or director or both are gay and feel the need to push this upon us. Does this not seem forced to you guy's. I get it if it's a significant part of the story.

3) The relationship between Claire and Tom is creepy. I've almost stopped watching the show because I hate his character. This is again another unecessary part of the show IMO.

It's ironic the bad guy's are portrayed by the Democrats. I wonder why they chose to do this?

Anyway, I'm trying to get through this season and I'm curious what you all think.

Joint mod post:

A thread about a popular politically-focused TV show is certainly welcome. And since the show more than occasionally involves LGBT plot-lines, scenes, and characters, some of the discussion in the thread may be LGBT-focused.

Please keep in mind that the forum-wide rules prohibiting the expression of unadulterated homophobic viewpoints must be obeyed. There is a fine line between expressing a negative opinion about specific gay TV characters (e.g., you don't like some things about one of the gay characters, or etc.) and expressing a negative/bigoted opinion about all gay people.

The thread will be monitored to hopefully keep the discussion productive and conforming to the forum-wide rules. In the extreme case in which the discussion is neither productive nor conforming to the forum-wide rules, the thread could be closed.

Thank you in advance for your consideration and cooperation.

ya man ya kno, I dont got no problem with ppl doing whatever they do. just keep that ish behind closed door ya know what I mean. dont be putting that crap out in the open and flaunting it in my face.

amirite?

I'm just curious what you all think about the homosexual story line that exists in this show. It's certainly not meant to be homophobic. My friend who is quite liberal brought this up to me. We both wonder what the purpose of these scenes are. I watch modern family which has a gay couple and I have no issues with this. I enjoy their characters and their role in the show. However, I don't get what the creators of HOC are trying to get across. Is it a liberal agenda? Perhaps it is the opposite. Frank Underwood is portrayed as an evil character with low moral values. It seems thst his bisexual desires is negatively associated with his overall character. I'm wondering if someone who is gay or bisexual feels uncomfortable with these scenes. I personally don't see how this adds to the show. Similarly, I don't see how Tom Yates character adds to the show. I feel you could fast forward through all of these scenes and not miss a beat. Obviously, I wouldn't fast forward through Modern Family or Shameless because the gay characters occupy a meaningful part of the show.

I hope we can have some good discussion about the show. It is obviously using plenty of real life material. It obviously fits in with the theme of this forum.

In before it gets locked for homophobia tomorrow.

If this thread gets closed, it won't be because of "homophobic" content. It will be due to the inability of people like you to have intelligent, open minded, objective conversations about real life topics. You seem to come from the perspective of a victim so your reality is highly disconnected and distorted. We should all be able to have an adult conversation about any topic. It's sad that a few bad apples ruin it for everyone.

The threaded continuing will depend on it being largely about the issues some have with LGBTQ being represented on TV and the way it's usually under represented.

The question for you Mongidid is that this was very tame sexually for a show such as HOC so would you really have had any discomfort or issue if it was a heterosexual kiss? If not then why does it cause you a problem and why on earth shouldn't a casual affair on TV be homosexual?

If in fact it does still shock people to see a non key plot homosexual encounter portrayed in the same way that heterosexual ones are portrayed all the time then isn't that a good thing? I'm not going to stop you objecting to an agenda because I think there should be an agenda to address that under representation.

This matters for real life. How do you think it feels to be and LGBTQer if kissing each other in public causes 'shock' (and far worse) while it's perfectly ok for everybody else. Many are still concerned about holding hands in an affectionate way because of how people react.

Some chance of him being able to empathise with LGBT people when he doesn't give a toss if Alaskans get nuked as long as his own city is unaffected.

It's seems pretty silly to judge someone based on what they feel. Why does it even matter to you if what I or anybody else sees on TV or in public makes us feel uncomfortable or awkward?

Instead of blowing your morality police whistle and crying fowl, how about answer the questions I have posed. Did you watch the series? What relevence do these scenes have?

Game of Thrones has scenes with homosexuality but you don't here me complaining. This is because I recognize that these scenes have relevance to the story.

I'm asking all of you to come down from your little "I'm a better person than you perch" and enter real world of discussion. Just because I don't like the same things as you does not make me a bad person.

I think it would be sad to be gay and not feel comfortable holding hands in public.

I think it's sad that more people don't like death metal. CARE!

I heard the guy who wrote the show hates the Clintons, and the Underwoods are loosely based on them and their corrupt quest for power. He probably tossed in the butt stuff to piss off ol slick Willy.

I'm not judging you. You're objecting to it being shown and have made a thread about it. I think it's an interesting topic with political merit so I'm participating (and as it came up, as mod I'm part of currently allowing it)

I have watched it and the irrelevance was my point. Would you be bothered by a similar non key plot scene if it was a heterosexual kiss?

Anyone who watches the show knows that most of the sexual encounters, gay or straight, are very awkward-the gay ones even more so

No doubt their characters are based on the Clintons.

The purpose of the thread is not about me objecting to the homosexual scenes. I think it would be interesting to discuss the show. I have brought up some parts of the show that I questioned.

I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing that as a non gay man I feel a bit uncomfortable when I see a gay scene. I wouldn't be as bothered with a heterosexual kiss. This should make sense since this is what I'm more comfortable with and used to. That being said, I have seen gay scenes before ( Game of Thrones) were it wasn't an unconfirtable situation because I understood it's relevance.

I've been to a gay bar and hung out with friends because thats were they were. I had a good time. I have no problem if your gay or straight. I think my issue here is that it seems very in your face. It feels like the shows creators are trying hard for some reason to make this a part of the show.

I zoned out half way through the first season but stuck with it, and then gave up around episode 2 of season 2. Does it get any better?

If this was supposed to be a play on the clintons it would have been more interesting if it closely mirrored their lives.

Relevance is the key issue. Why should a gay kiss require relevance when a heterosexual one doesn't?

I'm sticking to the political point on this which is that part of the way prejudice and discrimination manifest and persists is in the target being seen as not part of the everyday world on TV/film/etc - it's hidden away unless it's 'relevant'. The same thing happens with the disabled, minorities etc.

I think this is something worth reflecting on a little further.

So, let me say at the outset that none of what follows is an attempt to say that you are morally culpable for having felt uncomfortable, or that it makes you a bad person to have felt uncomfortable. I have felt uncomfortable watching gay sex scenes. I do not consider myself to be a bad person. But I have found it useful to reflect on why I felt uncomfortable, how I would like to feel, and how my feelings might change.

It seems to me that your explanation for your reaction touches on two (interrelated) reasons why you would feel uncomfortable. The first is that you're heterosexual. And the second is that heterosexuality is more familiar. These explanations differ in an important way. If being heterosexual innately and automatically makes a person uncomfortable seeing homosexuality, there's no reason to expect your comfort level to ever change. But if familiarity is more important, then there's every reason to expect that it could change, simply by having more exposure (even just by media) to depictions of homosexuality. What I'd like to suggest is that the latter is far more important as an explanation.

One of the interesting and important things about changes in American culture in regard to homosexuality is that our attitudes have changed so quickly. We've gone from the overwhelming majority of people believing homosexuality was deviant, and that gay people should be shunned, to not only tolerance but acceptance of homosexuality as normal, as well as majority support for gay marriage, in only a couple of decades. At least in part this happened because straight people became more familiar with gay people. They realized that gay people were their neighbors, friends, and family members. It's easier to blithely categorize people as deviants when they are only viewed as an attribute (gay) and not known for real, in all of their humanity. Familiarity reduces discomfort.

Media played an important role in this change, both in introducing more straight people to the reality that gay people existed ,and were not deviants to be shunned, and in making it easier for gay people to come out of the closet. But, of course, it's one thing to come to intellectually accept homosexuality and another to overcome the enculturation that tells you that its deviant. The culture has changed so quickly that pretty much every American over the age of maybe 25 or 30 probably grew up in an environment in which being gay was seen as wrong. Even if you weren't religious, it was still weird, deviant, something to be hidden. It's not just that it was unfamiliar, it was stigmatized. The effect of that stigmatization on our emotions is probably slower to change than our intellectual positions.

This is why I say I wouldn't judge someone who felt uncomfortable seeing expressions of homosexuality in television. (And, as an aside, I realize straight sex scenes can feel super awkward as well, but I'm only talking about discomfort related specifically to the fact that a scene is gay.) But I think if you realize both that the source of that discomfort is related to enculturation and that it will be diminished by greater familiarity, then I think you end up at the conclusion that there is value in media portraying gay couples. It's helping to de-program, if you will, some of that stigmatization. Does that mean that all media portrayals should be gay? No, of course not. Does it mean that anyone should be forced to portray gay people in any particular way? No. I'm treating this phenomena opportunistically, not trying to mandate it. But I think you might come to the conclusion that it's good to have the experience of seeing these things even when it makes you slightly uncomfortable, because in the future you may feel more comfortable.

I get it. I agree with you. However, like it or not, their are people out there who don't think homosexuality is normal and question why it should be pushed into the mainstream. This is not saying it's a good thing or bad thing, just not normal. We could certainly argue what is normal. It seems obvious to me that a man is supposed to procreate with a women. I am aware and accept that men are attracted to men and women are attracted to women sometimes. They should not be judged for this. I think same sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states very soon. I think politicians attempting to stop this are wasting their time and our money.

If I was gay I would be fighting to improve my status in life. There are things that I believe in or do that wouldn't be considered "normal". I get the struggle.

I am not the enemy. The real villians are Countries like Iran or Russia. Places that dismiss the idea that gay people exist in their country. Radical Islam killing people because of their sexual preference. I'm simply a guy who has an opinion. I don't wish harm on anybody. I hate people on an individual basis. I know how I feel about things. Maybe this will change and maybe it won't. Everybody has their idea of what is normal.

In regards to HOC, It just felt forced to me.

I thought it was fantastic for the first 4 seasons. Season 5 was boring, cheesy, and just seemed to try to hard. It appears the series will continue but I think it has warn its welcome out. I'd be curious what others think.

This is definately not a show you can passively watch or zone out while watching. There is a lot going on.

No one ever accused mongidig of being the sharpest tool in the shed

I seriously thought there were only like 3 states it was legal.