'Gay' romance appropriate for children?

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by jimnyc
That line gets drawn when our children are involved. We can monitor our infant children, but kids between the ages of 8-14 might flip channels and watch whatever looks interesting to them. I don't want my son accidentally tuning in and seeing a couple of queers kissing.

Far enough, but what would you do if you say them say watching WWF wrestling or any variety of violent-realistic cartoon?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Far enough, but what would you do if you say them say watching WWF wrestling or any variety of violent-realistic cartoon?

Don't get me wrong, I don't my son watching violence either. Sometimes some levels of violence are unavoidable. At that point I would discuss things with my son and make sure he learned from what he saw, and make sure he understands it is wrong. I'd really rather not get into a conversation with a child about 2 guys kissing.

Entering gays onto TV is still controversial amongst adults. I'm not sure we are anywhere near ready to start introducing such controversial topics to our children.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Don't get me wrong, I don't my son watching violence either. Sometimes some levels of violence are unavoidable. At that point I would discuss things with my son and make sure he learned from what he saw, and make sure he understands it is wrong. I'd really rather not get into a conversation with a child about 2 guys kissing.

Entering gays onto TV is still controversial amongst adults. I'm not sure we are anywhere near ready to start introducing such controversial topics to our children.

I'm afraid jim, i don't see why you think there is a difference. If you think violence is wrong and have a discussion with a child, why can't you do the same if find homosexuality wrong. I mean there are many "valid" reasons from many different perspectives (not that i agree with them mind you).

My argument is that if violence is allowed on TV and is controversial, but tolerated, why can't homosexuality?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I'm afraid jim, i don't see why you think there is a difference. If you think violence is wrong and have a discussion with a child, why can't you do the same if find homosexuality wrong. I mean there are many "valid" reasons from many different perspectives (not that i agree with them mind you).

My argument is that if violence is allowed on TV and is controversial, but tolerated, why can't homosexuality?

My son is 3 years old now and I've already had many discussions with him about violence, and hitting people because he saw me do it or saw it on television. The other is sexual perversion in my eyes, and not in any way suitable for a child. Keep the queers on primetime where adults can better monitor the situation.

They teach kids about football in schools. I certainly don't want them teaching my son about queers next.

 

[Moi]

Noggin is a channel, by their own admission, specifically for children ages 2-12. I can't imagine anyone out there who thinks it's acceptable for children of those ages to deal with controversial things such as homosexuality and violence. No one would think twice about saying that the Sopranos don't belong on that channel; nor, I doubt many parents would appreciate a story line showing someone using the toilet although that's one of the most natural acts on earth. Why in the world would it be okay to show homos.?

I might add that I've seen Degrassi and I've watched it many times. I think that many of the topics that they show are no longer appropriate for the age group they are targeting on that channel. If someone wants to have the homosexual and violent channel aimed at kids 2-12, I for one wouldn't pay for it nor let my child watch. However, to slip it in in such a sneaky way is slimy.

As far as allowing cartoons to be violent, let's not kid ourselves. There is a distinct difference between the cartoonish violence on children's shows and expressions of homosexuality. Most of the violence on cartoons still has an underlying message of good versus evil or only foolish people resort to violence or some such. The message portrayed by Degrassi is that homosexuality is okay and that if it is against your moral code there is something wrong with YOU. That's not a message that I think is appropriate to address on a childrens channel nor at all hours of the day or night.

No one can convince me that homosexuality isn't a perversion. To me and many others, it is. As so many people have stated on this board there are certain sexual behaviours they believe are perversions...How would they feel if such groups were targeting their children? I doubt they would approve.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by janeeng
depends on the channel to though mtnbiker!!!!

I agree, I was just being absurd.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Moi
Noggin is a channel, by their own admission, specifically for children ages 2-12. I can't imagine anyone out there who thinks it's acceptable for children of those ages to deal with controversial things such as homosexuality and violence. No one would think twice about saying that the Sopranos don't belong on that channel; nor, I doubt many parents would appreciate a story line showing someone using the toilet although that's one of the most natural acts on earth. Why in the world would it be okay to show homos.?

I might add that I've seen Degrassi and I've watched it many times. I think that many of the topics that they show are no longer appropriate for the age group they are targeting on that channel. If someone wants to have the homosexual and violent channel aimed at kids 2-12, I for one wouldn't pay for it nor let my child watch. However, to slip it in in such a sneaky way is slimy.

As far as allowing cartoons to be violent, let's not kid ourselves. There is a distinct difference between the cartoonish violence on children's shows and expressions of homosexuality. Most of the violence on cartoons still has an underlying message of good versus evil or only foolish people resort to violence or some such. The message portrayed by Degrassi is that homosexuality is okay and that if it is against your moral code there is something wrong with YOU. That's not a message that I think is appropriate to address on a childrens channel nor at all hours of the day or night.

No one can convince me that homosexuality isn't a perversion. To me and many others, it is. As so many people have stated on this board there are certain sexual behaviours they believe are perversions...How would they feel if such groups were targeting their children? I doubt they would approve.

I know i'm not going to convert anyone on the idea of accepting homosexuality and I'm hardly trying to do so. I believe your wrong in your beliefs, but like many things moral, it's perfectly okay to disagree. I was also not aware that Noggin is for 2-12. Frankly at that age relationships, sex, violence, drugs or whatever shouldn't be brought up. It should just be a display of shiny things, puppies and all things innocent for all i'm concerned.

However, indulge me if you will and take this to a context where the audienceship would be more appropriate. You find that homosexuality is a sexual perversion, I find that violence on TV is social perversion (which in many respects I do indeed believe that). Why can you say that one is worse than other? Why can one be shown and one not.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock


However, indulge me if you will and take this to a context where the audienceship would be more appropriate. You find that homosexuality is a sexual perversion, I find that violence on TV is social perversion (which in many respects I do indeed believe that). Why can you say that one is worse than other? Why can one be shown and one not.

I don't know what it is like in your country, but here we have prime time. Traditionally, there have been standards applied during those hours limiting the types of things that are allowed. It was a case of, if it's on at that time, you could assume it's safe for a family. The problem is that there's been a complete degradation of what's acceptable these days. When I was growing up, it was not acceptable to curse, show graphic sex or nudity OR violence. That means that the Sopranos wouldn't be shown nor would something like Debbie Does Dallas. Nowadays, shows are pushing the boundaries.

How are parents supposed to figure out what programs are acceptable? How am I supposed to know that something like that would be on during family viewing hours on a channel, that by it's very admission, targets children 2-12? The ridiculous attempt at self-grading that we've allowed the television industry is laughable.


If a rating on a movie is clearly "R" I wouldn't let my 12 year old watch it. Why is it permissible to have content like this accessible to children in their own homes? With the advent of cable television and 24 hour programming, it's difficult to prevent children from watching inappropriate shows. That's why I ordered the "kids" channels like Noggin, Disney and pbskids.

I am not opposed to Sex and the City and such or other people watching naked men writhing on a bed simulating sex (not that I think Degrassi has shown that) as viewed by adults. I am, however, opposed to the same acts on a TV channel which claims to be for children 2-12 and plays such shows during the afternoon, evening and good Ole prime time.

And disagree with my opinion about gays all you want, I am not the one desirous to change anyone's mind. However, it's the message apparent in Degrassi that if you are morally opposed to homosexuality there is something wrong with YOU that I have a problem with. If you don't think that's the message than I challenge you to tell my why the only character opposed to gays is Spinner the Cretan? He's portrayed as an arrogant, misogynist, violent, troublemaker on all sorts of issues. Not all people who oppose homosexuality are Neanderthals. We don't go around beating up gays and suppressing their right to live and breath. You wouldn't even know my stance on the issue if it weren't for the in your face attitudes of gays.

I'll notice that you did not address my contention that there are acts which others might deem unacceptable to be showing on a children's channel. Would you want your children to see shows which portrayed drug use in a positive light? Would you relish your children being taught that sadism is just another life style choice? Or how about necrophilia? Want them viewing that? Or how about the "Toilet Bowl Overflow Challenge"?

Regardless of our need for political tolerance of differences in society, that doesn't mean that it's appropriate for children to see things on TV.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Moi
I don't know what it is like in your country, but here we have prime time. Traditionally, there have been standards applied during those hours limiting the types of things that are allowed. It was a case of, if it's on at that time, you could assume it's safe for a family. The problem is that there's been a complete degradation of what's acceptable these days. When I was growing up, it was not acceptable to curse, show graphic sex or nudity OR violence. That means that the Sopranos wouldn't be shown nor would something like Debbie Does Dallas. Nowadays, shows are pushing the boundaries.

How are parents supposed to figure out what programs are acceptable? How am I supposed to know that something like that would be on during family viewing hours on a channel, that by it's very admission, targets children 2-12? The ridiculous attempt at self-grading that we've allowed the television industry is laughable.


If a rating on a movie is clearly "R" I wouldn't let my 12 year old watch it. Why is it permissible to have content like this accessible to children in their own homes? With the advent of cable television and 24 hour programming, it's difficult to prevent children from watching inappropriate shows. That's why I ordered the "kids" channels like Noggin, Disney and pbskids.

I am not opposed to Sex and the City and such or other people watching naked men writhing on a bed simulating sex (not that I think Degrassi has shown that) as viewed by adults. I am, however, opposed to the same acts on a TV channel which claims to be for children 2-12 and plays such shows during the afternoon, evening and good Ole prime time.

And disagree with my opinion about gays all you want, I am not the one desirous to change anyone's mind. However, it's the message apparent in Degrassi that if you are morally opposed to homosexuality there is something wrong with YOU that I have a problem with. If you don't think that's the message than I challenge you to tell my why the only character opposed to gays is Spinner the Cretan? He's portrayed as an arrogant, misogynist, violent, troublemaker on all sorts of issues. Not all people who oppose homosexuality are Neanderthals. We don't go around beating up gays and suppressing their right to live and breath. You wouldn't even know my stance on the issue if it weren't for the in your face attitudes of gays.

I'll notice that you did not address my contention that there are acts which others might deem unacceptable to be showing on a children's channel. Would you want your children to see shows which portrayed drug use in a positive light? Would you relish your children being taught that sadism is just another life style choice? Or how about necrophilia? Want them viewing that? Or how about the "Toilet Bowl Overflow Challenge"?

Regardless of our need for political tolerance of differences in society, that doesn't mean that it's appropriate for children to see things on TV.

As I said before in my last post I was not aware Noggin was a channel for 2-12 year olds and it that respect I can completely understand your position and agree with it wholeheartly. We don't get that channel here in Canada.

As for the portrayal on that show of people who oppose homosexuality, well I can't entirely blame them. Let me be clear about this when I say this too. I don't think you, Jim or anyone who opposes homosexuality are untillegient, neanderthals or bigots by any respect of the words. I am interested in your opinions and you seem like good people.

I have stated by beliefs towards homosexuality many times and so have you. However in addition to that, I do firmly that believe that tolerance, understanding and dialogue is essential towards homosexuals, where as from what I read, you don't and I do have to admitt, I find that idea, well, dated.

So it that means having a teen show (on a teen channel i should hope) which happens to push what I believe to be right in that everyone should have tolerance and understanding, well I'm quite sorry, but I think that's a positive message. I honestly feel that calling it a subversive act is morally wrong, but that's my moral system and you have yours.

By the way I hardly think gays have been using aggressive tactics, but that's my opinion, not a fact.

 

[Big D]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I'm afraid jim, i don't see why you think there is a difference. If you think violence is wrong and have a discussion with a child, why can't you do the same if find homosexuality wrong. I mean there are many "valid" reasons from many different perspectives (not that i agree with them mind you).

My argument is that if violence is allowed on TV and is controversial, but tolerated, why can't homosexuality?

I think one guy porkin another guy in the cornhole is a act of violence.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Big D
I think one guy porkin another guy in the cornhole is a act of violence.

We were just discussing a kiss though.

 

[Moi]

***As for the portrayal on that show of people who oppose homosexuality, well I can't entirely blame them.***

Well, I can. I don't think that everyone who doesn't agree with my morals deserves to be portrayed in the worst of lights. You don't see me favoring a television story line that portrays gays as aids infected, child molesting perverts, do you? No, because there is validity on all sides of this argument. Do I think gays should be beaten up? Hell no. Do I think that I should be exposed to them? Hell no.


***Let me be clear about this when I say this too. I don't think you, Jim or anyone who opposes homosexuality are untillegient, neanderthals or bigots by any respect of the words. I am interested in your opinions and you seem like good people.

I have stated by beliefs towards homosexuality many times and so have you. However in addition to that, I do firmly that believe that tolerance, understanding and dialogue is essential towards homosexuals, where as from what I read, you don't and I do have to admitt, I find that idea, well, dated. ***

I never said that tolerance toward gays is wrong. I extremely advocate for tolerance. But tolerance for something is an awful distance from advocating on behalf of it and making a value judgment about those who oppose it. No TV show should tell my child it is acceptable behavior if I believe otherwise. Why does tolerance of homosexuality mean that my moral opposition to it should be ridiculed? No one but me and my family should be the decision makers on the subject.

***So it that means having a teen show (on a teen channel i should hope) which happens to push what I believe to be right in that everyone should have tolerance and understanding, well I'm quite sorry, but I think that's a positive message. I honestly feel that calling it a subversive act is morally wrong, but that's my moral system and you have yours. ***

I would doubt that a show such as you describe would be commented on by me. The show is not on a teen channel and it's not teaching tolerance- for tolerance extends to EVERYONE with varying viewpoints on an issue. Not just gays wanting to be thought okay by society. Funny how tolerance is only seen as one way about this. If the show really wanted to educate people and teach tolerance, gays would have been shown as acceptable to some and unacceptable to others. There would be no value judgments about either side. And both sides of the argument would be portrayed as people with varying viewpoints not as one barbarian against the lovable gay guys. But that's not the way it goes. Only gays deserve tolerance it seems.

***By the way I hardly think gays have been using aggressive tactics, but that's my opinion, not a fact.***

I think it's extremely aggressive for one's views toward sexual orientation to be the harbinger of whether one deserves tolerance or not. As I said before, there are many acts which are not acceptable...some to one group some to another. It's laughable that the same groups bitching about tolerance for gays have so little tolerance for those whose morals are inconsistent with theirs. Can't mention the word god anywhere but it's okay to discuss homosexual intercourse? That's in your face (which are the words I used) and I am a bit sick of the hypocritical nature of it all.

 

[Big D]

What I don't understand is,

if a gay guy is supposed to really care and love his buddies, then why would he then go and pop his buddies pooper?

Thats mean.

A guy who cares about his guy friends would not do that to them.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Big D
What I don't understand is,

if a gay guy is supposed to really care and love his buddies, then why would he then go and pop his buddies pooper?

Thats mean.

A guy who cares about his guy friends would not do that to them.

Oh, and Isaac. You would never see this filth coming out of my mouth. Nor, I might add, do I visit the adult or picture sections of the board. I don't believe in "humor" like this. Unfortunately, since this is a freedom of speech message board, there is no intelligence test before posting.

 

[nbdysfu]

Big D is deranged.

Moi I can understand if you don't want that kind of programming for children. Same with Dawson's creek. However I don't entirely agree that gays are in-your face about their lifestyles any more than the rest of us. Every once in a while I find out someone I know is gay and there's no big show about it. I know some who have children, and they are perfectly normal. To say that this show is characteristic of gay intentions is pushing too far. I think we all need to pop some Homocil, especially Big D

 

[Big D]

Would anyone here have a problem if gay groups said that they want to teach kids about there lifestyles so that in hopes more children will explore the gay life when they become adults?

Should children be taught the acts of homosexual sex?

What if homosexual parents were to say that they hope there children turn out to be gay?

If it is OK to be gay then it is OK for homosexuals to do these things.

 

[nbdysfu]

posted by big D
Would anyone here have a problem if gay groups said that they want to teach kids about there lifestyles so that in hopes more children will explore the gay life when they become adults?

That's really pushing it.

Should children be taught the acts of homosexual sex?

I don't know what that would constitute. If you're referring to packing, as a child I learned about that practice through heterosexual rap. Go figure.

What if homosexual parents were to say that they hope there children turn out to be gay?

What if? It's a startling world we live in isn't it. I can just imagine all the repercussions of such an instance. Soon heterosexuals will be coming out of the closet and gay couples will be cloning gay babies

 

[Isaac Brock]

First off i don't lump you at all with Big D. You posts are rational and I respect very much the debate we have and I understand why you have your position from a moral point of view.

Originally posted by Moi
As for the portrayal on that show of people who oppose homosexuality, well I can't entirely blame them.***

Well, I can. I don't think that everyone who doesn't agree with my morals deserves to be portrayed in the worst of lights. You don't see me favoring a television story line that portrays gays as aids infected, child molesting perverts, do you? No, because there is validity on all sides of this argument. Do I think gays should be beaten up? Hell no. Do I think that I should be exposed to them? Hell no.

I never said, nor believe you had sinister motives like erradication at all and i don't believe that you are demonizing gays at all. I definitely want to get that straight.

***Let me be clear about this when I say this too. I don't think you, Jim or anyone who opposes homosexuality are untillegient, neanderthals or bigots by any respect of the words. I am interested in your opinions and you seem like good people.

I have stated by beliefs towards homosexuality many times and so have you. However in addition to that, I do firmly that believe that tolerance, understanding and dialogue is essential towards homosexuals, where as from what I read, you don't and I do have to admitt, I find that idea, well, dated. ***

I never said that tolerance toward gays is wrong. I extremely advocate for tolerance. But tolerance for something is an awful distance from advocating on behalf of it and making a value judgment about those who oppose it. No TV show should tell my child it is acceptable behavior if I believe otherwise. Why does tolerance of homosexuality mean that my moral opposition to it should be ridiculed? No one but me and my family should be the decision makers on the subject.

I don't believe this show is or any other show is advocating the gay life style. I mean you don't see ads or shows like, "Be gay, it's cool and all your friends are doing it". However you have to understand that many people see anti-homosexualism as one of the many "isms" out thre. That character you describe on degrassi is shown as vile because he is overtly anti-gay to the point of violence and public ridicule (hehe i'm guessing since i "know" his dad from earlier degrassi's). However, on other shows, yes they show people who are anti-gay as bigots and some cases they are and in some cases they aren't.

I do think tolerance means seeing things we don't necessarily agree with in the main stream. It doesn't have to mean agreeing with them, but I think it does mean accepting them for how they are. I know this will be a point of contention between me and you, but that's how I view tolerance. It's like how i don't agree with many facets of muslim life, but i accept them for who they are and expect to see there way of life in my everyday life. It's a tough dilema no doubt and certainly on the ethical fringe.

***So it that means having a teen show (on a teen channel i should hope) which happens to push what I believe to be right in that everyone should have tolerance and understanding, well I'm quite sorry, but I think that's a positive message. I honestly feel that calling it a subversive act is morally wrong, but that's my moral system and you have yours. ***

I would doubt that a show such as you describe would be commented on by me. The show is not on a teen channel and it's not teaching tolerance- for tolerance extends to EVERYONE with varying viewpoints on an issue. Not just gays wanting to be thought okay by society. Funny how tolerance is only seen as one way about this. If the show really wanted to educate people and teach tolerance, gays would have been shown as acceptable to some and unacceptable to others. There would be no value judgments about either side. And both sides of the argument would be portrayed as people with varying viewpoints not as one barbarian against the lovable gay guys. But that's not the way it goes. Only gays deserve tolerance it seems.

Such a good point, and such shaky ethical grounds. To be honest, right now I don't have an answer for this... I'll think about it if you allow me sometime?

***By the way I hardly think gays have been using aggressive tactics, but that's my opinion, not a fact.***

I think it's extremely aggressive for one's views toward sexual orientation to be the harbinger of whether one deserves tolerance or not.

I think that's very easy to say when our own sexually orientation is mainstream. I hardly call it agressive.

As I said before, there are many acts which are not acceptable...some to one group some to another. It's laughable that the same groups bitching about tolerance for gays have so little tolerance for those whose morals are inconsistent with theirs. Can't mention the word god anywhere but it's okay to discuss homosexual intercourse? That's in your face (which are the words I used) and I am a bit sick of the hypocritical nature of it all. [/B]

Yup you are right... it has to go both ways and it doesn't. Somewhere down the lines ethics, tolerance have become one of mutual exculsiveness. I'll think more of this later, but I'm inclined to agree with you right now.

For now sleep!

 

[Big D]

Is their really anyone here who wants to say that for a man to insert his penis into another man anus is a good thing to do?

 

[jimnyc]

"How can a man, look at another mans hairy ass, and say, OHHH, I have to have that!"

-Andrew Dice Clay