Telling kids about lesbianism?

[thynameisconor]

A few months back there was an Arthur(the little kids show), with Baxter traveling around the world finding different families. In it he said that the little girl had to mommies and no daddy. And also saying that it's ok to have two mommies or daddies and no mother or father figure. Now im not a homophobe but, you can't tell a little 4-6 year old kid what is and what isnt wrong. Let them find out by themselves and let them decide. Whats your opinion? Is it good to teach kids that? Or let them learn on their own?

[Maus]

Or maybe they aren't trying to sugarcoat everything. It's reality. I do believe they also covered single parent families as well as nuclear families in that show.

[SkyCube]

I don't see why not? lesbian and gay couples exist, there is no point in hiding that fact. You might as well teach kids to be tolerant of them, since it's not like they're going to go away.

[Reverend-Kyle]

If it wasn't discussed, wouldn't that being telling the kid it isn't 'natural' or that it is 'wrong'? I don't think discussing 'it' is actually saying anything positive or negative about it -- and it shouldn't. Being gay or straight is not good or bad, right or wrong. Like (almost) everything else, it just is.

Of course, if someone with 'power' interprets something as being bad or wrong and is able to preach that and have people believe it, 'it' will become bad and wrong.

...yep.

[Zen444]

It's a kids show. WHO CARES?!

[revexe]

At 8/3/05 01:35 PM, thynameisconor wrote: stuff

That´s why homosexuals shouldnt adopt childrens.

[ChibiChii]

I do think it's odd that it was on Arthur of all things.. o.O That show has nothing but randomness, and all of a sudden they're making a political message?

Ah well, I agree that they didn't do anything wrong by putting such a message in the show. I mean, there may be some little girl out ther watching with two mommies and no daddy, and they're telling her that it's okay and kids don't have a right to make fun of that.

[Kimmm]

I don't think they should have shows telling kids, I think the parents should do it themselves. I mean, they will find out someday, and it isn't like it is a horrible tragedy or anything.

[fli]

It wasn't just saying gay parents are right because they're gay families proponents, but are illustrating that several kinds of families are right. Including families with one parent, no parents, grandparents, godparents, foster parents, etc...

Buster was saying, "Hey-- they're all kinds of families, not just only one kind."

It's the most simpliest way of explaining one aspect of homosexuality to children, without going into confusing details such as love, sex, and relationships. A broad concept in the fewest words is all what they need to know for the meanwhile, and until their minds are a little bit more mature.

In Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite has perhaps the most simpliest way of explaining what gay means. From the book, gay means "...just one more kind of love."

How more simplier can it this be for a 5 or 6 year old?

[Empanado]

At 8/3/05 02:38 PM, revexe wrote: That´s why homosexuals shouldnt adopt childrens.

Because they could be presented by Baxter the Bunny?

OH NO THE HUMANITY

[Maus]

At 8/3/05 02:34 PM, Zen444 wrote: It's a kids show. WHO CARES?!

...

People that have children care. Really, put some more thought into your posts in this forum, I tire of reading your inflammatory garbage posts.

At 8/3/05 02:38 PM, revexe wrote: That´s why homosexuals shouldnt adopt childrens.

That's why we'll continue to have them naturally.

[revexe]

That's why we'll continue to have them naturally.

Same thing.

[Me-Patch]

you know I am all for gay marriages and gay rights, but when the subject of same sex parents comes up I just can't condone it, I simply don't think it's a healthy environment for a child. Of course I'm not saying that all hetro couples are good parents or anything like that and I'm sure that their are alot of loving and safe same sex families out there, but I don't think that that kind of an environment is a healthy place for a child to be rased, not to mention the ridicule that he would face from his peers. The lack of a father or mother figure could cause some irreversable damage. But thats all just my opinion, not like it really means anything to anyone.

[ReiperX]

So its wrong to teach and promote acceptance of others for their differences? <Sorry the word for it is on the tip of my tongue and can't remember it for the life of me>. But no its not wrong to teach that in my opinion, if you don't learn that everyone is not the same, and its not a bad thing to be different then you are probally going to have a much higher chance of not accepting those people, and thats how racism and other things such as that occur, through ignorance.

[ReiperX]

At 8/3/05 03:33 PM, The_Tank wrote: you know I am all for gay marriages and gay rights, but when the subject of same sex parents comes up I just can't condone it, I simply don't think it's a healthy environment for a child.

Most of the studies I've read say otherwise.

Of course I'm not saying that all hetro couples are good parents or anything like that and I'm sure that their are alot of loving and safe same sex families out there, but I don't think that that kind of an environment is a healthy place for a child to be rased, t to mention the ridicule that he would face from his peers.

Have you been to school in the recent years, it doesnt' matter you are going to be made fun of for some reason or another its part of life. Personally I don't think it would be as bad as some people make it out to be, only places I could see it being a huge deal is like the bible belt where unfortunately in some areas of it there are still extreme prejiduces. Hell my wife was called a <insert racial explative here because it won't let me post the word> lover because she used to go to a school with black kids in Atlanta before her parents moved to Alabama and the school was all white. Kinda sad.

The lack of a father or mother figure could cause some irreversable damage. But thats all just my opinion, not like it really means anything to anyone.

So you are saying that single parents aren't fit to raise a child?

[BigBlueBalls]

My father probably contributed to my view of lesbianism and homosexuality.

When he mentioned male homosexuals, he'd act disgusted and even locked out the show Queer As Folk from our television. He taught me that tolerance is ok, but you don't have to like watching it.

Now when I brought up lesbianism... he started drooling like Homer Simpson thinking about pork chops.

[thecrimsonsidewalk]

well i would say that if a was a parent but when they ask i justt tell them the truth

[madzakk]

At 8/3/05 03:17 PM, Mick_the_champion wrote: It should be complusory

I hate that word! It's no undemocratic and anti-freedom and free choice.

[Jimsween]

Hmm.. I think the real issue here is that are we willing to accept being gay as okay. I don't think we are, there is still a sizeable minority in this country that does not believe being gay is okay. So then its really just an opinion.

So in that sense, Arthur would be promoting a cause (acceptance of homosexuality) that is still being debated. A lot like a lobbyist group.

[Devenger]

I'm not particularly fond of the idea of same-sex families and/or marriage, but everyone should respect everyone else's choices. As said before, it's not as if it's "right" or "wrong".

[fli]

At 8/3/05 03:33 PM, The_Tank wrote: you know I am all for gay marriages and gay rights, but when the subject of same sex parents comes up I just can't condone it, I simply don't think it's a healthy environment for a child.

You mean you can condone it--

Of course I'm not saying that all hetro couples are good parents or anything like that and I'm sure that their are alot of loving and safe same sex families out there, but I don't think that that kind of an environment is a healthy place for a child to be rased, not to mention the ridicule that he would face from his peers. The lack of a father or mother figure could cause some irreversable damage. But thats all just my opinion, not like it really means anything to anyone.

What are some of those irreversable damages? There are several children in the world that aren't raised by both genders. For example, single parents. Many of them do good, many do bad. Same results as bi-gendered raised children.

There's already been a whole generation of children who have grown in homosexual house hould, and they'r doing fine-- many of them married (a lot to heterosexual partners), and other perfectly normal things like that.

Sure it's been difficult, but it's not the stagnation of trial and tribulation as most gay parenting opponents have made it out to be. It's a regular part of growing up-- not able to choose who is in your family.

And really, if the kid is going to be messed up I can tell you, it's not the gay parenting, but as you said, the people who stick their noses into it that messes the kids up.

[BAWLS]

At 8/3/05 04:17 PM, Jimsween wrote: Hmm.. I think the real issue here is that are we willing to accept being gay as okay. I don't think we are, there is still a sizeable minority in this country that does not believe being gay is okay. So then its really just an opinion.

So in that sense, Arthur would be promoting a cause (acceptance of homosexuality) that is still being debated. A lot like a lobbyist group.

I suppose teaching evolution would be "lobbying" as well, since it's still being debated and is opposed by a sizeable minority.

[madzakk]

Ever see the South Park episode where Chef tells the boys their substitute teacher is a lesbian ('Cause he couldn't score), and then they all try real hard to be lesbians? Human misunderstanding makes great comedy, but tragic consequenses in real life.

[Der-Ubermensch]

Let me first state my personal philosophy as to negate all confusion: if it does not pertain to or influence myself or my family, I couldn't care less what anyone does with their existence.

That being said, I see no wrong in trying to expose children to the truths they'll have to face during their lives. So far as teaching them whether homosexuality is right or wrong... I wouldn't let the idiot box dictate such to them. My upbringing and morality are adamant in the belief that a mentally healthy and prosperous person must have both the influence of mother and father in their life. Whether I or my wife should die, my sons and daughters will be nurtured by the women in my family, protected and made strong by the males.

That's what it comes down to; personal morality. No matter how overwhelming the consensus, my beliefs will not falter.

[The-Dran]

Well here is the thing about lesbianism.

What is wrong with having more than one woman contend to your every need?

Is there such a thing wrong with having two girl friends that are both willing to please you and are both willing to please each other to satisfy you?

So tell me what is really wrong with lesbianism, I mean in my point of view, if you don't like two women kissing and you are a guy, then you obviously have some sexual issues going on, maybe you need to check it out if you are actually a heterosexual and aren't have any turn ons to guys.

Because liking lesbianism is a heterosexual thing.

Oh and about the butch thing, there are more women that are unattractive that are heterosexual than there are that are homosexual or bisexual. And if you don't believe me, then go outside and see for yourself.

[The-Dran]

Here is a joke.

Did you know homo can mean either man or same? Like for instance, homo sapien means man that thinks. Or that word homer which comes from homo, mean man in greek.

Now check this, the term homosexual normally means person whom likes the same sex. Like a guy that likes guys for instance.

Now lets use the other word that homo means. A homosexual, someone that likes men.

That means a heterosexual woman is a homosexual. Because the word homo can mean man.

[Pyrrho]

At 8/3/05 01:35 PM, thynameisconor wrote: Whats your opinion? Is it good to teach kids that? Or let them learn on their own?

Is it good for a public broadcasting station to teach little kids to tolerate all families, regardless of sexual orientiation? Is it wise to teach tolerance to small children? It most certainly is.

[bombkangaroo]

At 8/3/05 05:32 PM, -BAWLS- wrote:

At 8/3/05 04:17 PM, Jimsween wrote: So in that sense, Arthur would be promoting a cause (acceptance of homosexuality) that is still being debated. A lot like a lobbyist group.

I suppose teaching evolution would be "lobbying" as well, since it's still being debated and is opposed by a sizeable minority.

No, evolution is taught as a theory, like everything else in science, and no effort should be made to persuade people that it is an infallible belief.
What happened with arthur however, is the creators attempting to propagate their views and influence the minds of impressionable children. Children who shouldn't be forced to consider things like sexuality at that age.

[The-Dran]

At 8/4/05 07:57 PM, bombkangaroo wrote:

At 8/3/05 05:32 PM, -BAWLS- wrote:

At 8/3/05 04:17 PM, Jimsween wrote: So in that sense, Arthur would be promoting a cause (acceptance of homosexuality) that is still being debated. A lot like a lobbyist group.

I suppose teaching evolution would be "lobbying" as well, since it's still being debated and is opposed by a sizeable minority.

No, evolution is taught as a theory, like everything else in science, and no effort should be made to persuade people that it is an infallible belief.
What happened with arthur however, is the creators attempting to propagate their views and influence the minds of impressionable children. Children who shouldn't be forced to consider things like sexuality at that age.

Evolution is indeed taught as a theory, but it should remain as the only "theory" that is taught in classrooms, since things such as "creationism" should be decided upon by the students later on in their lives if not right then and there if it should exist after contending to the "entire" outlook on evolution.

[necromanceer43]

Evolution is indeed taught as a theory, but it should remain as the only "theory" that is taught in classrooms, since things such as "creationism" should be decided upon by the students later on in their lives if not right then and there if it should exist after contending to the "entire" outlook on evolution.

true very true