I'll respond to the censorship first.
This is done by the parents controlling what is on their TV and creating a market for certain programs. This is not done by censoring TV in general. By cutting out sexual orientation from kid's TV shows you're trying to control what they can and can't see. OK for your kids, but not for everyone else's.
Yeah, so look up what's on TV and what the content is. If the only way someone can know what's on TV is to censor it to the point of no content, that doesn't sound like successful parenting.
Then control what's on your TV. Don't control what's on other people's TV. And I don't see why sex would even enter the picture if there is a gay couple on TV. It's completely unrelated.
Weird, I'm a parent and actively participate in my daughter's TV viewing. She never watches anything I don't want her to or don't think she is ready for and she isn't watching TV without an approved adult watching her.
You're the parent. Your kid winds up seeing things you don't approve of, I don't think you can blame the large corporations. You are in charge. Act like it.
And by the time they are of the age to find ways around your monitoring I hope they know what sex and homosexuality is.
For the last time, I'm against censorship. What I would like TV companies to do, is give warnings as to what the content of the programs are. That would include sexuality-indicating acts. That way I can avoid letting my kids watch them.
As for public, I typed it above below. Keep reading.
Which would mean pretty much any depiction of mom and dad is gone. So, couples can't be shown on TV and can't be allowed to walk the streets? That makes no sense to me.
I don't see how this is hard to understand. You can show parents, gay or straight. As long as they don't show excessive signs of compassion (groping, etc). TV or public.
Sexual orientation has nothing to do with pornography, this is why you're point isn't getting across. I have no idea how you can respond with "precisely". If a kid happens to ask why mom and dad live together, should they respond that they just woke up in the same house one day?
Seeing what I defined as "sex acts"
COULD act as micro-pornography to kids or prompt them to ask questions. This is what I think we should try to avoid.
Which is fine. Incidentally, there's not that much that's different.
What's fine, them asking questions? I'd rather have them enjoy an innocent childhood as long as they can. And yes, it's not different between straight/gay.
And whether or not kids should be exposed to human relationships (no, that's not sex).
Relationships is a loose term here, but from how you define it, yes.
What does that have to do with storks? It's pretty much a real world answer.
If you're going to tell your kids babies come from storks, your answer would work. Otherwise, like I said 10 times already, it might prompt extra questions that I wouldn't like answering until the kid is much older.
It doesn't matter when or how they discover those differences.
That's what I said. Ignore this, it's off topic.
It has nothing to do with that or even kids at all. It's what different between the you-your brother relationship and a gay men's relationship. Two gay men are probably going to look more like your mom and dad than you and your brother.
Ahh, but I don't think my mom and dad should look like my mom in dad in public either
How exactly does the awareness that a couple is gay require you to "prematurely teach your kids about sex"?
Keep up. I answered this before. Here:
It might prompt the kid to ask what the difference is between homo/hetero.
..
Yes.
Unless you're trying to claim that people should (but don't) behave in such a way that the status of the relationship should be unreadable. Which is an entirely different thing. Nobody in the western world lives in that culture, nobody in the western world has lived in that culture for decades (probably centuries, really, if ever), and it's unlikely to happen any time soon.
Are you pro-public nudity, by any chance?
You can stick your kid in a bubble and control what they learn and how they learn it, or you can prepare them for the world they're eventually going to have to live in. If you believe that relationships should be obscure, you're not only going to have to establish the benefits for doing so for an entire culture, you're also going to have to explain why the benefits are so great as to overturn an entire social system based mostly on people being honest about who they are and how they feel.
I'll prepare them when they're old enough. I don't think they should be prepared for anything related to sexuality until they hit puberty. I don't see how that's a big deal.
I'm glad you're seeing that. That's exactly how I feel.
You don't want other people to force their opinions on you, so you're dictating to the general public what is acceptable viewing matter on a public television channel and in public spaces?
I think there should be common ground, then build up on that. Public behaviour should be accepted by
everyone, if you think there's something extra you'd like to be doing but can't do it in public, do it in private. Everybody wins this way. You think I wouldn't like making out with my girlfriend on a table in public? Of course I would. However I feel that it's my duty to respect what other people might NOT want to see happen in front of their kids. "Get a room" is there for a reason.
Capitulating to bullies gets you nowhere. In my secondary school, swastikas were a common form of graffiti on tables, on walls and in the bathrooms, and these were often accompanied by badly-spelled anti-immigrant slogans. Should that mean that there should be separate schools for immigrants?
Ginger-haired students were also a target for bullies. Does that mean that gingers should be in separate schools too?
You don't combat bullying fuelled by bigotry by removing the targets. You confront the bigotry itself.
When on earth did I suggest having separate schools for anything? What the ****?
I
KNOW bullying will happen no matter what. It was someone else that suggested having gay TV shows will decrease bullying. I don't agree with that. That's it.
People refer to the person who raises them as their father... after all that's the person in the role. If you have two fathers, then it's because they both raised you. Whether that's because you have a biological father and a step father, or because you have a biological father and your biological father's male spouse, or because you have two adoptive male fathers.
This is off topic. I wish we could continue to the main point, rather than discuss other things.
Hate to sound like a tree hugger, but shouldn't we embrace love of all kinds, we don't need to question if a man loves a man or a woman loves a woman.
Who's questioning it?
If you think keeping intimate acts out of public is the end of the world, I feel bad for you.
What I get from most of your posts is this;
When you see couples you immediately think of how they have sex.
That's the only explanation I can think of for the things you say. The majority of other posters don't seem to have problems divorcing an adult couple's sex life from their part in the family. You seem to, again and again. Get over it dude
Far from it, but explaining again would be beating a dead horse.
Straight people, please, please. You don't have to do all this arguing me little old me. It's flattering, but please, I mean, I'm actually gay and don't spend this much time worrying about it.
This is one of the things that bothers me. A lot of heterosexual hippies take this activism **** farther than who they're trying to fight for would, or think necessary.
If people are afraid /don't want to see gay stuff, that's fine, let them whine about it and move on, it's not worth anyone's time to argue back, because they aren't arguing, they're just spiteful/hateful/afraid. Ignore them, and you won't have to listen to the silly little things they say. And you wont have to try to reason with anyone who says
That's not a very nice thing to say about a person, is it?
**** you? Maybe TV and love on TV aren't as bad as the language their dad uses?
So according to this logic, just because certain dads are assholes that use bad language, beat up their kids, rape their daughters, it should be allowed on children's TV?
Or that he's trying to mold them into his own carbon-copy, bubble-loving form? My dad doesn't love that I'm a furry, he's creeped out by it. But he lets me be a furry, he doesn't do anything to stop me from being one. Know why? He's a dad, not a dictator.
Who's trying to stop anybody being gay?
This was posted in 2003 but I know a lot of people think it, deep down inside, or we wouldn't still have the same stupid debate over ten years later. I cannot tell you how sick these types of things make me, on either front. Stop trying to reason with these stupid, stupid, hateful people, you will never get anywhere because they're locked into a mindset that it's not a discussion, it's some kind of war. Ignore them and the 'problem' will eventually get older and shut up, or die. Vulgar yes, but is there really any way they'll start listening?
And what does 'cure the problem' mean? *fakes vomiting* I'm done with this thread, that totally screwed up my day. But I'm glad they'll be able to go back and watch Bill Riley or whatever the h*** it is they do.
You better not think I'm one of those people, or you're no different from them
edit
I think I see where some confusion might have come from regarding parenting. What I mean by I wouldn't like preparing the kids for sex is, I'd rather they don't ask these questions until a later age. I didn't mean I wouldn't answer them if they ask.
