by the way, AMEN.

Don't you think homophobia might be reduced significantly if kids are taught that it ISN'T such a complex social issue anymore? God there are so many gays out there! Accept it for god's sake and stop assuming it's a completely different form of sexuality. It was around in ancient Greece, it has been rampant in our history, and it's been shown in many animals as well. Religion and bigotry have been its two greatest opponents.
Besides, they aren't hurting anyone. They are deserving of human kindness, and quite frankly, acceptance from this approach leads directly to that.

But God says it's a sin, and jesus christ died for those sins.

I'm not the one with the over-inflated ego. You've been on your high horse from day 1. I've seen you admit that you might be wrong to a comment from someone else that I made minutes earlier. You are just being an arrogant prick, and I refuse to argue with you any farther.

Your contradiction was plain: you said that the program was either pro-homosexual or anti-fag. I said it wasn't black or white and you claimed that you hadn't made such a claim. You had. But you won't see that, so I refuse to answer any comment you make post this one.

Cheers brainfart.

That's funny, I thought he died for pissing off the Romans.

You know I want to agree with you, but this is where folk like tweedyburd have the edge up on us. It IS partly about sex. You're trying to make the case that acceptance of homosexuality is on level with the acceptance of racial minorities, women, the handicapped or any other group who has been treated like second class citizens, but actually it's different than that. Like you said there are people who are black or are disabled, but it was easier to abolish discrimination against these traits because these traits are far more rigid and defineable than homosexuality. Homosexuality is more complex than that, and it goes beyond just physical traits and into behavior. I'm definitely "pro-gay" (whatever that means) in all aspects of the issue, but I can also keep an open mind and sympathize with parents who want to keep the issue away from their children and I can understand and accept people who have the "gays are fine with me as long as they keep it in the bedroom" attitude. It's understandable because it is just as much about behavior and sex as it is a social issue along the lines of racism and sexism.

You make sense, Julio, but homosexuals don't have to flaunt their attraction for each other in front of other people's kids to be two great and loving parents. If they demonstrate love for their child, then they're doing more for the neighbourhood kids than most people are these days.
I guess my point is: Keep it in the bedroom if that's what society demands, but don't let kids not see two great parents, regardless of them being the same sex.

Stop making it sound like tweedyburd is some Bible belt bigot. He never said anything about rejecting homosexuality. I'm liberal too, but you don't need to spout your bleeding heart rhetoric like that. We might be on the same side of the issue here but I definitely wouldn't want you representing my team here.

Well I definitely wouldn't argue with that.

He's being right wing in that he denounces an issue without introducing a better idea. There is no question that homosexuality is more complicated than 'share and be good', but we MAKE it more complicated than it has to be! Besides, we're taught that we should forgive and be good to everybody, yet we publicly bash everyone who is different. Gay bashing is done all the time. I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that regardless of whether homosexuality SHOULD be accepted, it needs to be to avoid the violence and persecution that has resulted FROM the bigotry and lack of acceptance.

I'm not afraid of my future kids becoming gay if they watch that show or one like it; that's their choice, and if one show changes their entire future beyond giving them a little more of an open mind, then i'm not doing my parenting right, now am I?

Edit: I wasn't implying homosexuality was something negative in that last paragraph http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

[This message has been edited by kypper (edited 06-18-2002).]

Yes. Yes, we should. It's the behavior that some people display as a result of those beliefs that we need to be wary of. Intolerance of a way of thought? Where does that get us? As uncomfortable as it is to think about, people who do awful things to other people do so for what generally seems to be a very good reason to them. I mean, Hitler ordered the extermination of an entire religious culture. So he wasn't about to win Humanitarian of the Year award. But it made sense to him at the time. For every nutcase and extremist who acts out on their opinions, there are hundreds, probably thousands who take them to their graves without ever once acting out. Sure, it's disturbing to know there are people like that out there, but we have to allow for differing opinions across a broad spectrum. It's BEHAVIOR that needs to be controlled for the good of a society, not ideology.

[/poorly-worded, self-righteous rant]

------------------
"Yeah, he's a retard, but he's free ...
Sort of a ... freetard ..."

You made a good point.
But, as you probably well know, that above will get you flamed to no end http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/wink.gif

damn. this is a good thread.

i dont know what "make post this one" means, but ill try anyways. and i hate letting you derail a really good topic like this, but just so you'll shut the fuck up and stop whining

06:54 PM Delta: but it will be pro-gay, because if there was even a possibility that it was anti-gay every left-wing group and half this board would be going nuts. i dunno, maybe it will be somewhat balanced, we wont know til they air it. if it does turn out to be balanced then ill take back everything ive posted in this thread and admit that i was wrong, but until then im going to remain somewhat leery of the idea

dumbed down translation: chances are, this show will either be pro-gay or anti-gay. it may be balanced, tho i doubt it, and we'll need to wait til it airs to find out. if it is balanced ill admit im wrong

06:55 PM kypper: The world isn't black and white here. It can be neither and simply be accepting that it is.

translation: i still have no fucking clue

07:04 PM Delta: a) what relevance did that have to the post you quoted?

b) duh. everyone *else* in this thread realized this wasnt a black and white issue and that there were two conflicting moral issues here. but i suppose you'd like a gold star for pointing out the obvious?

c) if you're going to try to post something profound you should try to keep your grammar above the 6th grade level. its more convincing that way

translation: self-explanatory

07:07 PM kypper: (quoting my first post *again*) You make it a black and white issue, asshole. If you having a fucking problem with me, then come to ottawa and let me rip out your heart and feed it to my dog. In the meantime, stop being such a prick unprovoked.




i believe i see the problem here. you started ranting about "black and white... black and white...", which you meant to use to refer to some partial comment i made that was only tangental to the original point, but which you felt the need to challenge me on anyways. if you had more than a 6th grade command of the english language i suppose that would have been more clear.

and anyways, if you bothered to read past the first sentence of that post you'd have seen that i acknowledged the possibility that the show would be balanced, before you said anything about "black and white". but again, this is still beside the point i was making, that i thought it was unethical to try to feed kids a polarized view of a complex issue

this is why i seem to frequently get into arguments with you: you make absolutely no fucking sense. do you even know what it means to be right wing?

I can't see why there's even a debate about this.

How could anything bad come from this?

(I don't really think it will help us make much progress either though)

We're not debating whether teaching tolerance to kids is wrong or right (even though this is getting derailed on that), we're debating the means by how we teach kids tolerance and how it reflects the current gay-straight environment.

I really don't think the means are all that important.

But what do I know?

(Answer: very little)

I'm not denying that there's more to it, and that it is partly about sex. I guess I'm just doing the argument for basic tolerance and not worrying too much about the specifics inside of that, because the fact that people are against basic tolerance is what really bothers me.

Yes, homosexual rights is a much more complicated issue than the issue of womens' rights or minorities' rights. It's more complicated because it connects to a wider range of other social issues. I do completely understand that the idea of homosexuality to begin with makes some people uncomfortable, which is excusable, as a lot of people have homophobic tendencies drilled into them from birth. I'm perfectly fine with people being tolerant towards homosexuals but not wanting it right in their faces. I can totally understand that. Depending on the way this program goes, I might disagree with some of their methods of promoting tolerance.

However, what I'm basically arguing here is that there are good intentions behind the idea, it doesn't seem to be in the least bit forceful or liberal-preachy, and I don't think there's anything wrong with letting it air.

You don't dignify any more reply than this.

Although, as usual, our own personal biases are usually more than self-evident, and are clouding the argument.

This is basically different than the race issue because it is a relatively new argument. It took 100 years after the Civil War to get actual legislation to end racial segregation. We have now had an entire generation live with these laws and attitudes in place. Whereas the homosexuality issue has really only been in the mainstream for about 10-20 years. This is a basically more disturbing issue for a larger section of society, making the race comparison weaker. If this was 1963 and the issue was 'My Parents Are Different Colors' or something similar the backlash would be the same. We've simply had less time looking at the homosexuality issues. People inherently don't like change, no matter how much sense it makes.

Given the description of the show in the first post, I can't see how it's a bad idea. The fact is, there *are* gay parents out there, and this is rarely represented in children's programming. Families often feature on kids' shows, but how often do you see a gay couple? You can say 'oh, they only make up a tiny proportion of the parenting population, it's realistic to never show them' - but if they're never shown, then as far as the kid knows they don't exist. And when a kid meets another child, whose parents happen to both be of the same sex... it's alien, unnatural and they don't know how to deal with it. These things rarely resolve themselves without education - but some parents will either refuse to talk about it, or will force their own agenda on the child. Look at it this way - is any child educated solely through tv? Do you not think their own parents' beliefs and views on a subject will hold more sway over young children, than a tv show? If their parents disagree with the views, they will have no problem putting their side across. And at least then, the child has heard something from both sides - which is pretty conducive to forming a balanced opinion, right? If anything, not allowing kids to watch one half-hour show because it puts across ideas you don't agree with smacks more of indoctrination.

I think we should start with re-runs of My Two Dads

No, no child is solely educated through TV. Yes, many--most--children are educated if not primarily through TV, then to a great extent.

However, I am absolutely sick of arguments which claim that the messages absorbed in television are superceded by parental supervision. Note that I didn't say "can be." I said "are." Too often, they are not. Parents work two jobs. Sometimes they send their kids off to day-care, sometimes they leave them with a babysitter at home, or with a relative, perhaps. Half the time in this country, with the way it's run, parents have no fucking clue what's going on in their kids' lives, at least on a personal level. (Knowing that your son or daughter has a soccer game does NOT merit knowing what's going on in his/her life.) If my parents didn't go out of their way to ask me, they'd have no idea what's going on in mine, and I'm 18 years old.

Point being: never underestimate the power of television. If it's not as important as parents, it's getting up there quickly, and I think that's one of the main reasons why people in this thread are wary of it being aired.

Can you make a good argument for the show's airing? Of course. And lots of people have done that. But you can't do it by trying to downplay the importance that watching a program such as this will have on kids. It's way more important than you think, and that's why it's so important that Nickelodeon does its best not to take sides. And like Julio said, in the past, they've done a pretty good job with that.

I hate to say it, but Nick News is better than 75% of all television news I've ever seen. It's pretty damn good, and I have confidence that they will (have? I don't even know when the damn thing airs) pull it off.

Edit: So apparently it ran last night. What did everybody think?

[This message has been edited by sawdust restaurants (edited 06-19-2002).]

I totally agree with that, but not to the extent of one single half-hour show. The most that will do is put ideas into their heads - make them think. Unless we're talking completely manipulative propaganda, no kid is going to be indoctrinated that quickly and easily. And they'll start to ask questions - which is where the parents come in. And if a parent doesn't have time to answer their child's questions (especially these important ones) then, whatever the circumstances may be, they aren't doing their job as a parent. This isn't a crack at people who have to work 2 jobs to support their kids, it's an unfortunate fact that part of their role as a parent isn't being fulfilled. And it isn't TV's role to provide a surrogate in these circumstances. If your child is getting all their knowledge from TV, and you don't like what TV is telling them, some reassessment is in order.

http://www.fantasysexy.com/gayezine/053102/03.jpg

Since when is suppressing opinion and the process of conditioning not a social phenomenon?

Defensive? That's completely relative. Everyone in this thread is defensive in that they're defending their arguments. And it's ALL rhetoric.

C'mon. It's like Delta said--any program like this is obviously going to be biased in its execution. You don't have to call it a political agenda to still have a bias.

But you're right in the sense that I really don't know how the show is/was exactly, but then again all arguments in this thread have been more about a larger issue rather than what the show specifically entailed.

I missed that. I apologise.
I disagree to some extent, but still, I was wrong in assuming you hadn't put forth an idea that you feel would be more appropriate for children.