The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[BHRxRacer]

Are there?

Yes.

Why does the discussion always go right to gay people having sex? When there's a married, straight couple on TV it doesn't mean anything other than them being married. When it's a gay couple suddenly the fact that gay people have gay sex means that it's an issue even if the show doesn't remotely cover that.

You just answered your own question. How would you know they're not two straight friends that can't have kids of their own, adopted kids to raise them? How would you show they're gay without sex?

Why? If you don't like the message in what your kids are watching, change the channel. Have a discussion about it.

Oh I agree with the whole changing the channel thing. I'm all for free TV and internet, but not without warning of their content, and not EVERYWHERE.

Well I wasn't advocating showing people having sex during a children's show. You wanted intimate relationships shown as friendship.
.

Intimate? It doesn't have to be "intimate".

I understand what you just said, but not how it relates to what we've been talking about.

I don't understand how it's not related. Let's leave it for now.

All topics are controversial. Whether or not the earth is flat is controversial to some people. At some point you have to say forget it and talk about what matters

Which is?

 

[Danoff]

Which is?

That what matters is the content of the minds and hearts of the people around you, not their gender, race, or sexuality. You can't get that across without being open about gender, race, and sexuality.

 

[BHRxRacer]

That what matters is the content of the minds and hearts of the people around you, not their gender, race, or sexuality. You can't get that across without being open about gender, race, and sexuality.

So 79% of the members here were exposed to affirmative action media, and that's the only way they didn't grow up to be bigoted assholes?

 

[Danoff]

So 79% of the members here were exposed to affirmative action media, and that's the only way they didn't grow up to be bigoted assholes?

Nope, but they might be bigoted assholes if they never saw a black person on television and nobody in media talked about the fact that black people existed.

 

[Joel]

Yes.

Well that's news to me. I have not once heard of parents thinking porn is OK for 6 year olds. It's also irrelevant to this discussion, nobody thinks the Wiggles should be a gay orgy for kids to watch.

You just answered your own question. How would you know they're not two straight friends that can't have kids of their own, adopted kids to raise them? How would you show they're gay without sex?

The same way that straight couples are shown to be in love in virtually every show, with words, gestures, and an acknowledgement that they're married or together.

 

[Exorcet]

If by love you mean sex, yes. But you can show love without that.

With a loving husband and husband, yes?

 

[BHRxRacer]

Nope, but they might be bigoted assholes if they never saw a black person on television and nobody in media talked about the fact that black people existed.

That's down to the parents, buddy.

You need affirmative action media not to be a bigoted asshole, just as much as you need religion to be a decent person.

The same way that straight couples are shown to be in love in virtually every show, with words, gestures, and an acknowledgement that they're married or together.

Sigh. What is "in love"? I've seen bromance that better fits the description than in married couples. Matter of fact, it is more often than not, true.

With a loving husband and husband, yes?

With two human beings that show compassion towards each other and the kids. They don't have to be gay/straight, married/unmarried.

 

[Danoff]

That's down to the parents, buddy.

You need affirmative action media not to be a bigoted asshole, just as much as you need religion to be a decent person.

I believe I said "nope" to your question about whether "affirmative action media" was needed to avoid being a bigot.

 

[Exorcet]

With two human beings that show compassion towards each other and the kids. They don't have to be gay/straight, married/unmarried.

They don't have to be bland 2D cut outs either. I see mom & dad as pretty interchangeable with dad & dad. Dad & dad or mom & mom can show compassion toward each other and the kids without a hint of sex, so it should be OK on TV.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I believe I said "nope" to your question about whether "affirmative action media" was needed to avoid being a bigot.

Yes, you changed it from 100% to "some". I still find that rather offensive and a little hypocritical. If you think it's that necessary for homosexuality to be shoved down people's throats otherwise "some" will turn out to be bigots or intolerant people, you're overstepping it.

They don't have to be bland 2D cut outs either. I see mom & dad as pretty interchangeable with dad & dad. Dad & dad or mom & mom can show compassion toward each other and the kids without a hint of sex, so it should be OK on TV.

...That's what I said. They can show compassion without being called "dad and dad" or "mom and mom". Why is it necessary to make it obvious to kids they're gay?

 

[Azuremen]

...That's what I said. They can show compassion without being called "dad and dad" or "mom and mom". Why is it necessary to make it obvious to kids they're gay?

Because why does it matter if kids know they're gay?

 

[Joel]

If you think it's that necessary for homosexuality to be shoved down people's throats

Fnarr.

otherwise "some" will turn out to be bigots or intolerant people, you're overstepping it.

Bigots and intolerant people are the only reason why it has to be "shoved down people's throats" in the first place. When gay rights become law it stops being a big deal, a month ago we elected a lesbian as premier of Ontario and it wasn't a story. The funny part is that people voted for her in part because they found her competitors to be so distasteful and immoral that they couldn't vote for them.

Your entire argument is plucked from 60 years ago with "gay" replacing "interracial".

...That's what I said. They can show compassion without being called "dad and dad" or "mom and mom". Why is it necessary to make it obvious to kids they're gay?

Because gay couples are gay couples. They aren't just friends, in a bromance, or uncles. It shouldn't be difficult. If your kid asks why the two men are holding hands, explain that it's because they're in love.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

...That's what I said. They can show compassion without being called "dad and dad" or "mom and mom". Why is it necessary to make it obvious to kids they're gay?

Better question is why is it so upsetting that they do know? I mean you're dancing around the subject and you're obvious stance on it without saying it outright to save face.

 

[Exorcet]

Who is arguing that it is necessary? Who is paired with who is up to the person writing the show. Why is this even up for discussion if you agree. You seem to think that it's better if everyone is a bland 2D cut out, or at least that every couple is so that it's convenient to move gays out of the picture completely.

Edit - I was attacked by tree ninjas.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Because why does it matter if kids know they're gay?

Why does it matter if they're not?

Bigots and intolerant people are the only reason why it has to be "shoved down people's throats" in the first place.

There is no justification for shoving anything down anybody's throat. You're being like them.

Your entire argument is plucked from 60 years ago with "gay" replacing "interracial".

..What?

Because gay couples are gay couples. They aren't just friends, in a bromance, or uncles. It shouldn't be difficult. If your kid asks why the two men are holding hands, explain that it's because they're in love.

I don't see your point. And the hand part, really? I hold my nephew's hand when I walk him somewhere public. Am I in love with him?

Better question is why is it so upsetting that they do know? I mean you're dancing around the subject and you're obvious stance on it without saying it outright to save face.

If you're going to start your argument against me with an accusation like that I won't bother replying.

Who is arguing that it is necessary? Who is paired with who is up to the person writing the show. Why is this even up for discussion if you agree. You seem to think that it's better if everyone is a bland 2D cut out, or at least that every couple is so that it's convenient to move gays out of the picture completely.

Edit - I was attacked by tree ninjas.

@Danoff was arguing that. As for the show, when did I say they should be bland 2D cut outs? That's the 2nd time you say that. I just don't see why there HAS TO BE homosexuality in children's shows. So that the adopted kid with gay parents not feel bad? How about an Asian kid watching white parents and their white kids? You think he won't feel left out? You can't make a kids show pleasing everyone.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@BHRxRacer Then don't, it's a simple question with a simple answer. If someone is that offended or worried about kids having that info, then that's pretty reflecting on their state of affairs when it comes to homosexuality or even sexuality in general. If you're going to hold issue because of prior debates I'd rather you not respond to me, the amount of people against you doesn't warrant me saying anything further.

 

[Danoff]

Yes, you changed it from 100% to "some". I still find that rather offensive and a little hypocritical. If you think it's that necessary for homosexuality to be shoved down people's throats otherwise "some" will turn out to be bigots or intolerant people, you're overstepping it.

That was not the point I was making.

 

[BHRxRacer]

@BHRxRacer Then don't, it's a simple question with a simple answer. If someone is that offended or worried about kids having that info, then that's pretty reflecting on their state of affairs when it comes to homosexuality or even sexuality in general. If you're going to hold issue because of prior debates I'd rather you not respond to me, the amount of people against you doesn't warrant me saying anything further.

What would that state of affairs be?

Oh and you can stop the whole "nobody likes you" crap, it really doesn't bother me . I don't go on the internet to make friends. If I wanted to be loved and accepted like you, I'd at least use social media.

edit

@Danoff what is your point?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

What would that state of affairs be?

Oh and you can stop the whole "nobody likes you" crap, it really doesn't bother me . I don't go on the internet to make friends. If I wanted to be loved and accepted like you, I'd at least use social media.

edit

@Danoff what is your point?

Where do I say no one likes you? Without me you still have five others arguing against you, thus I really don't need to say anything since they'll most likely say it. If that escaped you then good luck, because the point wasn't they "don't like you". Also not sure how you got social media out of this, if I wanted to be loved I wouldn't argue so many people on here...

Anyways, back to the topic at hand, the state of affairs is what ever you feel or haven't answered. If your worried about kids knowing that homosexuals are homosexual and exist...then it is more likely something you can't accept and thus are projecting it on them as this idea of unhealthy or not mature enough to grasp.

 

[Azuremen]

Why does it matter if they're not?

Because you seem to think it is okay for heterosexual couples to be portrayed as couples, but it isn't okay for homosexual couples to be portrayed as couples on television.

Why is this?

 

[BHRxRacer]

Anyways, back to the topic at hand, the state of affairs is what ever you feel or haven't answered. If your worried about kids knowing that homosexuals are homosexual and exist...then it is more likely something you can't accept and thus are projecting it on them as this idea of unhealthy or not mature enough to grasp.

No. If you look closely, my concern is revealing sexuality to kids before they hit puberty. It doesn't matter if it's gay or straight.

Because you seem to think it is okay for heterosexual couples to be portrayed as couples, but it isn't okay for homosexual couples to be portrayed as couples on television.

When did I say that?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

No. If you look closely, my concern is revealing sexuality to kids before they hit puberty. It doesn't matter if it's gay or straight.

Kids aren't stupid, nor are young kids going to jump to the same conclusions of an adult like you did "they have sex". They'll realize they're a couple or together in some capacity with or without help to some extent. So once again as we've all asked, why is it an issue they know?

 

[BHRxRacer]

Kids aren't stupid, nor are young kids going to jump to the same conclusions of an adult like you did "they have sex". They'll realize they're a couple or together in some capacity with or without help to some extent. So once again as we've all asked, why is it an issue they know?

You've got to be kidding me. I won't respond, but I must ask. What do you mean by "kids aren't stupid"?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You've got to be kidding me. I won't respond, but I must ask. What do you mean by "kids aren't stupid"?

How am I kidding you, I mean if you were that oblivious as a child I'm sorry. However, in my experience kids aren't stupid they figure things out to some capacity or another, it's not all that hard of a concept to get.

 

[Exorcet]

Why does it matter if they're not?

That doesn't work when you ask it to someone who isn't making assertions.

You've apparently got something against gay parent couples on kid shows. What's wrong with that? Asking why or someone else is asking you that question isn't an answer. The reason you're being asked questions is that you've said you're against openly gay couples being shown as normal, or something. You haven't shown any similar response to heterosexual couples. Looks heavily biased.

@Danoff was arguing that.

He's arguing that there is no need to pretend gay couples don't exist.

As for the show, when did I say they should be bland 2D cut outs?

You're shooting down every suggestion when it comes to showing open homosexuality. You've also gone on to make links that aren't there, like linking gay couples to sex.

There is also this:

As to your question, you can show it as long as it's not in your face that they're a gay couple. A child can interpret it as they, or their families see fit. They could be two uncles, two friends, or whatever, that adopted a child.

So the two gay parents, are in your opinion, better left never explained?

That's the 2nd time you say that.

It's because I can't escape that conclusion reading your posts.

I just don't see why there HAS TO BE homosexuality in children's shows.

There doesn't need to be some gay guy in every kids show. We can all agree. This issue is you're saying it's a problem if there was some gay guy being gay on a kids show. Why?

So that the adopted kid with gay parents not feel bad? How about an Asian kid watching white parents and their white kids? You think he won't feel left out? You can't make a kids show pleasing everyone.

There's more than one kid's show on the air.

No. If you look closely, my concern is revealing sexuality to kids before they hit puberty. It doesn't matter if it's gay or straight.

What does this have to do with gay couples? Also if couples = sexuality, then isn't any show with a family depiction just as bad? You've said nothing about them.

 

[r34love]

I hear what your saying, my own opinion (and it's really only that) is that America is still a very white-Christian nation, just from this forum alone I find that Americans (or at least users who identify themselves as such) don't realise how racist/homophobic/faith-driven their outlook on life is... and that standpoint seems to be considered "the norm".

I'm not including you in that although I know we spar across quite a wide political divide

How does this become about race?

 

[BHRxRacer]

How am I kidding you, I mean if you were that oblivious as a child I'm sorry. However, in my experience kids aren't stupid they figure things out to some capacity or another, it's not all that hard of a concept to get.

I was responding to this:
"Kids aren't stupid, nor are young kids going to jump to the same conclusions of an adult like you did "they have sex". So once again as we've all asked, why is it an issue they know?" -you
Before you edited in an explanation.

I'm not saying that kids won't unfortunately learn about it at school or through friends, I'm just saying it should be avoided when possible.

That doesn't work when you ask it to someone who isn't making assertions.

You've apparently got something against gay parent couples on kid shows. What's wrong with that? Asking why or someone else is asking you that question isn't an answer. The reason you're being asked questions is that you've said you're against openly gay couples being shown as normal, or something. You haven't shown any similar response to heterosexual couples. Looks heavily biased.

I'm not going to look at my previous posts, but just minutes before you said that I said I have a problem with showing sexuality regardless of the orientation. You've jumped to the conclusion I'm bias.

He's arguing that there is no need to pretend gay couples don't exist.

No, he literally said that you must show them gay couples and black people etc otherwise the kids will turn up intolerant people.

You're shooting down every suggestion when it comes to showing open homosexuality. You've also gone on to make links that aren't there, like linking gay couples to sex.

Because the only way to show sexuality, gay or straight, is through sex acts.

So the two gay parents, are in your opinion, better left never explained?

Of course. The same way it's not explained that a male and female are "sexually active".

It's because I can't escape that conclusion reading your posts.

Fixed. I said multiple times, if you want compassion to be shown, you can do it without at all mentioning or hinting at sexual orientation.

There doesn't need to be some gay guy in every kids show. We can all agree. This issue is you're saying it's a problem if there was some gay guy being gay on a kids show. Why?

Like I said before, if by being gay you mean engage in sexual acts, then yes I have a problem with that. I never said, or implied it's exclusive to homosexuals.

There's more than one kid's show on the air.

This isn't the point.

What does this have to do with gay couples? Also if couples = sexuality, then isn't any show with a family depiction just as bad? You've said nothing about them.

No, I'm pretty sure toy story didn't have any sexuality in it. I'm also pretty sure you(are you?) Americans rate shows or movies "PG" or something for sexuality (not nudity). If it's rated G, then it probably doesn't show a distinction between hetero and homo.


Off to bed, I'll reply tomorrow.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I was responding to this:
"Kids aren't stupid, nor are young kids going to jump to the same conclusions of an adult like you did "they have sex". So once again as we've all asked, why is it an issue they know?" -you
Before you edited in an explanation.

I'm not saying that kids won't unfortunately learn about it at school or through friends, I'm just saying it should be avoided when possible.

One why is it unfortunate, and two why is it bad they learn at all that gay couples exist? It sounds to me that if they learn that certain couples exist it may influence how they turn out, at least that's the notion you give in your comments? If that's not the case then please actually explain.

EDIT: Also you don't need (as I said last post) sexual understanding for a kid to know they're a couple. Most kids don't know they're parents have sex or what sex is, they know they're together because they love each other. This idea that it's black and white to you as usual isn't correct.

EDIT 2: PG has nothing to do with sexuality, and most times sexual things are rated R and higher though PG-13 from time to time has it. However, these are all ages that are acceptable as kids and people knowing what sex is or being comfortable with sexuality in pop culture

 

[FoolKiller]

We're talking adolescents.

But you suggested teaching about sex in preschool. As that is my daughter's age, I am seeing it in that context.

My wife and I go back and forth on how to parent all the time, eventually reaching an agreement that she then breaks. Sex is one of the few things that we don't disagree on. When she starts asking. She understand now that boys have a pee pee and girls have a pee pee hole, sometimes referred to as a hoo hah (I blame my in laws). She has not gone beyond that in questions or curiosity. But she does understand that when she rubs down there it feels good. A predator can use that.

Pedophilia is a different subject that deserves its own thread. I'll just say this about it: Why is it that when we grow older, that we stay being attracted to people our own age (with maybe a wider age range)? Maybe there a process in our body that triggers this process and that this process is defective in pedophiles.

There are also processes that are meant to prevent attraction to genetic family.

Of course that sounds shocking if you try to imagine (automatically) yourself having sex with a child that age. Maybe it is even impossible to imagine if you never had those feelings at that young age.

I can't fathom sexuality at that age. I may have at the time and forgotten because I viewed it differently. The fact that I can't imagine sex without an emotional connection now likely explains are huge differences. And I can't imagine that being cultural because there are guys I grew up with who were doing multiple girls. Hell, my dad even had four girlfriends at one time.

You are making sense. I must stress that I'm talking about adolescents here (something like 10+) and I don't think that there should be a law forbidding them having sex among themselves (voluntarily).

It isn't forbidden here, but it is forbidden for a parent to knowingly consent to it happening, because the law does not view the kids to be of an age of consent at that age. The moment an adult enters the consent equation at all it is viewed negatively, same as a parent letting a kid drink or smoke.

I guess you too were shocked by the nipple?

I sit around arguing for legalization of prostitution and seen as some crazed deviant.

Are you referring to me saying earlier that further discussion is useless?

No, literally the people who expect to make one post about thinking homosexuals are bad or whatever and not be met with a response, and refuse to engage in civil discourse about it.

 

[Exorcet]

I'm not going to look at my previous posts, but just minutes before you said that I said I have a problem with showing sexuality regardless of the orientation. You've jumped to the conclusion I'm bias

Then confirm, is mom & dad is as bad for a kids show as any other couple?

No, he literally said that you must show them gay couples and black people etc otherwise the kids will turn up intolerant people.

He specifically used the word "might" with the black people example and also clearly said "nope" to needing media to avoid being a bigot.

Because the only way to show sexuality, gay or straight, is through sex acts.

What's the likelihood of a gay woman marrying a man (ignore being in denial, forced into it, etc)? Saying that two men are married is a pretty strong hint that they're gay. It's avoid totally devoid of sex.

Of course. The same way it's not explained that a male and female are "sexually active".

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?

Fixed. I said multiple times, if you want compassion to be shown, you can do it without at all mentioning or hinting at sexual orientation.

Which relates to character depth and the 2D cut outs I keep bringing up. So if a family is depicted in a kids show, there can be no mention of mothers/fathers or couples, because that would bring up orientation.

Like I said before, if by being gay you mean engage in sexual acts

No, being gay means being gay, ie same sex attraction. Pretend that sexual acts do not exist for the course of this discussion.

This isn't the point.

You said you can't make a show pleasing everyone. I'm just pointing out that's missing the point.

No, I'm pretty sure toy story didn't have any sexuality in it.

(and Lion King is in on it too)

I

'm also pretty sure you(are you?) Americans rate shows or movies "PG" or something for sexuality (not nudity). If it's rated G, then it probably doesn't show a distinction between hetero and homo.


Off to bed, I'll reply tomorrow.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110357/parentalguide

Apparently Lion King was PG for violence, but not for promoting heterosexual couples.