You're all saying more or less the same thing, so I'll give a little clarification here.
Before I do, I have a question. Are okay with allowing children watching pornography? If not, why?
Issue 1: Having to mention sexual orientation or anything sexual on children's TV. It doesn't really matter if it's hetero or homo. The reason I pointed this out, is because everyone these days seems to want homosexuality promoted*, even to kids. I find that absurd. I'm not saying you should stay in the closet, but don't take your religion, sexual orientation or any of that **** in public and rub it in kids' faces. It doesn't help. As an adult I can deal with it, but I wouldn't want my kids to. Even for the sake of adopted children with gay parents. What if the kids with biological parents ask "how come they have two dads/moms?"? You can be nice about it all you want, but some kids might see that as a way to look down on others in school and bully them. Let's not pretend all children are fun loving angels.
Issue 2: "Love". The difference between two gay dudes loving each other, and for example how my brother and I feel towards each other, is sex. This is why it's always the topic when someone says "boyfriend" or "gay".
*promoted doesn't imply you can change your sexuality if you wanted to.
He specifically used the word "might" with the black people example and also clearly said "nope" to needing media to avoid being a bigot.
I suggest you read his previous post.
This is completely different. I didn't ask if the gay couple's sexual activity was left unexplained. I asked if they were left unexplained. The heterosexual analogue of this would be a totally unexplained heterosexual couple. A show with such a depiction of a family would feature child, random man, and random woman instead of child, father, and mother. The homosexual version of the latter would be child, father, and father or child, mother, and mother. Would those last be acceptable for TV in your opinion?
If they were referred to as fathers, yes. That has nothing to do with them being gay though, just the fact that they're not "real" fathers. They can use the term foster parents or something.
(and Lion King is in on it too)
I don't see any sexuality depicted in the toy story clips. In Lion king, it shows two animals loving each other. My cats are like that. You're looking at this from an adult's point of view, not a child's.
So if someone says "Hi, I'm Lisa and I'm a lesbian", that's not showing their sexuality? Perhaps "showing" isn't the best verb there, but it's definitely communicating their sexuality, even though it's not visual.
There's no need to show a dude plowing another dude to communicate that they're homosexual.
........When did I say that? Of course if they mention they're gay, they're gay. They shouldn't do that, period. I was talking about ways of SHOWING it through context while maintaining subtlety.
Children need to be loved, supported, to feel that those things happen and to be part of a loving family unit. If the sex-life of the parents is any sort of issue in that then there's a serious problem that goes beyond their orientation.
What, being adopted? Or having gay parents? You don't
need to make a TV show for them to feel loved and cared for.
@
BHRxRacer: Hi, I get the feeling that you don't know what homosexuality is.
A person is gay when he/she can only be attracted to people of the same sex. Just like you are (probably) only attracted to the opposite sex. You never chose to be straight, like a gay person never chose to be gay. It is not some fetish. This means that a gay man can fall in love with another man and I'm talking real love with all the associated feelings: Joy when the person is close, feeling pain when he is gone and of course sometimes lust. Gay sex is a side effect of being gay, not the other way round.
Am I making any sense?
Yes. I don't see how that's relevant to my stance though.
Same way you show that any two people are a loving couple. I recall being very clear on the fact that, oh let's say the parents in Calvin and Hobbes, were married, even without Bill Watterson drawing pictures of them banging in full-page, full-color Sunday edition glory. Are you really that dense?
No, are you? There's a difference between showing (making use of the visual medium) and telling (exposition).
Intimate can mean a lot of things, many of them not sexual at all. I'm not sure if you, in fact, know that and are just using that as a strawman, or if you really don't have any concept of people feeling a deep connection for reasons other than sex.
There's a reason I put quote marks.
Again, are you really that dense?
No but apparently you are.
If a pair of biological entities (humans, non-humans) are shown with signs of "love" and compassion, kids and adults alike don't think sex. They just see two creatures caring for one another. It doesn't matter if it's male/male, female/female or male/female. We only think about sex if either we see them engage in it, or it's verbally told.
I am 15 and I've not done any "sex acts". What sexuality am I?
I don't know, you tell me. If you've hit puberty, you should already now who you're attracted to.
You know, when I was a kid (I'm talking probably 8-10 here), I remember seeing gay/lesbian couples and thinking not much more of it than they were together just like mom and dad were, or grandpa and grandma. I didn't totally understand how two guys or two girls could be together, but at the same time my mind didn't go straight to what tiny info I had about sex.
I'll do you one better. Whenever I heard people use "fagga" (Arabic slang, derived from f@g), I had no idea what it actually meant. I thought it just means a feminine-acting male.
I remember when the movie Paranorman had its controversy over one of the teenagers saying he had a boyfriend, and some of the argument against that was because it implies sexuality towards kids, amongst other arguments. Now let's look at movies like The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Finding Nemo, or even Cars. All of those movies are rated G, yet all show more interaction between straight couples than Paranorman did about a gay couple with its little snippet at the very end.
Hey, that's hollywood. Not me. Read my issues/thoughts above.
For whatever reason, most people are still completely hung up on the idea that because two guys or girls are together it instantly implies sexuality.
Most people? I disagree. Maybe where you live, there's a lot of real anti-gay people. Only people here that act like that are horny ****ers that can't stop thinking about sex regardless of what they see on screen.
Off topic: In Arab countries, It's actually (and sadly), as I'm sure most people in the world are aware by now, standard practice for men to smooch
