Soap Star Leaves When His Character Turns Gay

Michael Muhney replaces Chris Engen on “The Young and the Restless.”

Chris Engen left the daily soap, The Young and the Restless, because he was supposed to kiss another man. He refused to play a gay character and preferred to quit, according to PerezHilton.com. Michael Muhney, best known as Sheriff Lamb on Veronica Mars, will step in as Adam Wilson on the long-running daily soap.

The Suds Report quoted sources last week, saying that Engen bolted because “he [allegedly] refused to kiss [his same-sex] co-star Yani Gellman [Rafe].”

They added, “Chris hasn’t been happy for a while. He doesn’t like the dark direction his character is taking. He’s called in sick a lot recently and has been taking a slew of meetings with Y&R’s [top brass] to discuss his future on the show. Chris is still under contract — and Y&R is seriously thinking of taking legal action.”

Now it seems that instead of a lawsuit they decided to go the usual daytime soap route of just replacing the actor. Michael Muhney has already started working on set.

Muhney apparently doesn’t have a problem with playing a gay character. He didn’t comment on the reason for his predecessor’s leaving but mentioned about his new gig on his Web site.

“My first day on the set was crazy and fun and quite a wild ride,” he wrote. “I had to hit the ground running at full speed. I think I need a new pair of shoes, but in these economic times I’ll just have my shoes resoled :wink: I’m honored to be a part of such an iconic piece of work and I can’t wait to sink my teeth into this thing.”

URL: thecelebritycafe.com/features/27838.html

WE ARE LIVING IN SODOM AND GOMORRAH!!! :(:(:frowning:

One of the biggest questions I have for supporters of gay marriage is on what they see as objectively perverse.

If adult consent alone justifies a lifestyle, then what is wrong with orgies or legally recognizing “plural marriages”? Personal choice does not validate every sexual action.

I wonder if Sodom and Gomorrah came about by way of letting everyone do what they felt was natural :frowning:

Congratulations to Chris Engen for showing some courage!:thumbsup:

Well, if one wishes to have orgies, that is legal. I don’t think it’s especially great, but if adults want to engage in protected sex acts with multiple other adults, that’s their choice.

Plural marriages I think have a good legal argument to be recognized, and I don’t think they should be prosecuted while a man who lives with two girlfriends or a wife and a mistress does not. But I don’t really worry about them getting legal recognition since it would be a mess in terms of divorce, custody, benefit and other issues, and no one wants to try and figure it out.

Personally, I think consenting adults should be allowed to engage in whatever non-dangerous sexual acts they wish to. it doesn;t mean I approve of those acts or would engage in them myself, but I respect their decision as long as they take appropriate precautions.

I applaud this man for taking a stand for what is right! Good for him! :thumbsup:

even though i have never seen him or the show i agree. good for him.

quoted sources last week, saying that Engen bolted because “he [allegedly] refused to kiss [his same-sex] co-star

It continues to boggle my mind how Hollywood and the tv/movie industry get away with sexual harrassment of their workers. The industry requires it the workers to “perform” by kissing (and sometimes removing clothing. etc., etc.)

Society once had higher standards of what was allowed on tv and in the movies. About the same time that sexual harrassment laws began protecting workers in other industries, the tv and movie industry began requiring actors, cameraworkers, lighting crew etc. to perform and watch actions that would get other employers in serious legal trouble.

No, we never had higher standards. We just had different standards. The time was when racial cariciatures were acceptable in movies and television; they are no longer. The times were when you didn’t see a non-white face in many movies and television; that is also no longer the case. One has replaced the other.

What the heck does race have to do with this? Why do you bring it in? Do you have some strong and severe unconscious racist stereotypes? Sexual harrassment and forcing gay activity on set has nothing to do with race!!! :eek::eek::eek:

I think her point is that a lot of people see things like this and immediately talk about the “good old days” where homosexuals “weren’t around”, or certainly not accepted. Yeah, maybe abortion and gay marriage weren’t around a while ago, but there was a whole set of other IMO way more terrible issues at the time. It wasn’t so much that the people of those times took an admirable stand for morality (although some did), it was more than people were so uninformed and traditional that they were closed minded and did not allow any types of change even when the way things were was no better than today.

I agree if a man is uncomfortable with this type of scene, he should leave, and he did. But he is an actor - if he didn’t know this could happen and he broke contract, that’s his fault. No one should be forced into something that makes them uncomfortable, but soaps contain many different pairings on a regular basis, and if you accept a job, you accept what might come along with it.

Is it possible to stick to the subject in discussion or is it necessary to drag in politically loaded topics to unleash racial guilt and force people to accept the unacceptable? Can these topics be argued by logic and moral values or must they be justified by vague emotional and strange associations? Evil, Sin, Perversion that puts ones immortal soul in jeapordy. Why is it politically acceptable to compare opposition to gay sexual activity to racism and not to opposition of other forms of deviant sex anyways? Is it because some certain people believe that being of a certain race is equivalent to freely choosing to engage in deviant sex? Do those people who participate in other forms of deviant sex willing choose their preference or do they willingly choose their “act”?

Even His Holiness Pope John Paul II says it is a perversion. In Love and Responsibility, p. 105, he says, * "specifically, we are concerned with a sexual value, connected above all with the body of a person of the other sex (we ignore for the moment those perversions in the context of which a sexual value may be connected with a person of the same sex, or not with a person at all but with an animal or an inanimate object.) *

I agree if a man is uncomfortable with this type of scene, he should leave, and he did. But he is an actor - if he didn’t know this could happen and he broke contract, that’s his fault. No one should be forced into something that makes them uncomfortable, but soaps contain many different pairings on a regular basis, and if you accept a job, you accept what might come along with it.

So no religious freedom anymore, no moral standards anymore, no conscience clause anymore, lower yourself to the lowest common denominator because you signed a contract. It doesn’t matter if the contract is perverse, immoral, or evil, do it anyways, put your immortal soul in jeaporday because of a contract. Just like abortion. Now people argue that being a doctor means you should be required to perform and provide abortions. Homosexauls often argue that homosexuality is not like SODOM and GOMORRAH because they aren’t forcing people into activity like the SODOM and GOMORRAH people, but now we see that societal values have declined to the point that it is okay to do that as long as it is a movie. :(:(:frowning:

Let me re-phrase my previous point to say there was a time when society had higher standards regarding the sexuality allowed shown on tv and in movies. As the sexual standards dropped, sexual harrassment laws began affecting other industries. Current sexual harrassment laws somehow don’t apply to the entertainment industry.

The subject of racism in the entertainment industry is a different topic.

I’m so proud of Chris Engen, I could - eh, figuratively speaking - kiss him! :thumbsup:

Indeed. I think that the actor thinks of this sort of thing as a kind of pornography. Fact is when he signed on, the character was quite different. He just didn’t want to turn into a whore.

Ditto to that, but there is nothing ‘natural’ about homosexual acts.

Read the letters of Saint Paul!

No, but it does have everything to do with our standards changing, as opposed to dropping. We went from sexual morality and racial/ethnic immorality to racial/ethnic morality and sexual immorality; can we say that our standards have really declined?

Is extramarital sex and nudity more immoral than a man dancing around in blackface or the “yellow peril”?

I hope you understand the point I’m trying to make; we’ve always had severe immorality in movies, but now we have a different kind.

Is it possible to stick to the subject in discussion or is it necessary to drag in politically loaded topics to unleash racial guilt and force people to accept the unacceptable? Can these topics be argued by logic and moral values or must they be justified by vague emotional and strange associations? Evil, Sin, Perversion that puts ones immortal soul in jeapordy. Why is it politically acceptable to compare opposition to gay sexual activity to racism and not to opposition of other forms of deviant sex anyways?

You didn’t understand my point. To long for the good old days of movies is pointless, because those good old days were immoral in their own way. Instead of longing for the good old days, we should work for the good days yet to come. It is not an effort to “unleash racial guilt”, its an effort to make the point that Hollywood was never really a beacon of morality.

This is a straw argument. Any film made in the 1940s, 50s, or even early 60s (and please leave the race-baiting out of it) reflected DECENCY.

“Immorality is un-American and a threat to national security.” - Father John Corapi

And you didn’t understand my point. I fully recognize that sin has always been with the human race since the Fall–I have not delussions about the “good ole days”. I didn’t simply bring up sin–I brought up US laws against sexual harrassment. **Sexual harrassment at work is not only sinful–it is ILLEGAL! **

Somehow the entertainment industry can demand its employees kiss other employees and remove clothing. In most every other industry if an employer did that, lawsuits would fly and the company would likely pay heavily in lawyers feeds, court cost, restitution, punitive damages, etc., etc. But the original post says Y&R considered a lawsuit against this actor for breaking *his *contract??? Why do actors have to put up with sexual harrassment as part of their employment contracts?

I’m not asking why Hollywood sins–I know that answer from studying my Catechism and Genesis. I’m asking why US laws against sexual harrassment don’t apply to the entertainment industry.

That is a very good question and something maybe the courts should test. I would expect that many other actors would then feel justified to litigate as well, especially when they are allegedly expected to play the couch scenes with the powers that before they can even gain employment. Sad state of affairs and I feel very badly for the legitimately interested actors who feel they have a natural talent for acting.

I’m with you on this one, for sure. DECENCY was definitely the norm, not the exception. And most definitely on TV in the 50s & 60s. Having said that, there are definitely areas where film & TV has made some improvements. For example, drinking and smoking was “pushed” by advertisers in film & TV in the 50s & 60s. Portraying the black family as professionals living the middle American dream started with the Bill Cosby show. So I do see some good trends, but they don’t compensate for the bad trends.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.