Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/3/05 06:20 PM, madzakk wrote: 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.

What the fuck does south park have to do with this discussion at all.............

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

But Arthur isn't trying to impress imposing views of sexuality on children.
It is showing the diversity of families-- not the sexuality aspect of it.

If I recall, I've seen various episodes, all of them heterosexual couples (save the single parents).

And they don't show the sexuality of heterosexualism.
They look past that and concentrate the diversity of family house holds, their ethnic orgins and histories, and etc.

If two lesbian mothers seem sexual,
that is only because that's the impression adults have.

Otherwise,
children are just looking at a kid being raised by two women-- and that's all.

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

The idea is to comfort kids that live in homes with two parents of the same sex. They're not trying to enforce the idea upon everyone that homosexuality is ok, they're just making sure that those kids know that there's nothing wrong with them.

What do you want them to do, tell the kids that it's not ok to live in a family like that?

There's an aspect to this topic that I'm not so sure has been addressed, thoroughly.

Regardless of the television's show (and the network's) intentions, no one is 'forcing' anything on anyone. This doesn't step on the toes of parents. This doesn't force knowledge on a child, without the parents intent.
A parent should monitor a child's television viewing. If a parent feels that some fucking cartoon isn't the best way to teach their children about the ways of the world, they can change the channel. Don't want your kids to have some animated dog-thing teach them about same-sex households? Then don't. It's that simple.

One could say that 'G-String Divas' tries to teach the population about homosexuality, too. But we're all capable of changing the channel when that comes on, too.

And why did the topic starter use the word lesbianism? Is that even a fucking word? Wouldn't a better topic name have been 'Telling kids about Homosexuality'?

At 8/5/05 04:46 PM, _FLAGG wrote: There's an aspect to this topic that I'm not so sure has been addressed, thoroughly.

Regardless of the television's show (and the network's) intentions, no one is 'forcing' anything on anyone. This doesn't step on the toes of parents. This doesn't force knowledge on a child, without the parents intent.
A parent should monitor a child's television viewing. If a parent feels that some fucking cartoon isn't the best way to teach their children about the ways of the world, they can change the channel. Don't want your kids to have some animated dog-thing teach them about same-sex households? Then don't. It's that simple.

Yeah but Flagg that would require parents to actually <gasp> well parent. But yeah I agree with you totally right there, no one is forcing them to watch it, and its a program that is designed for children but doesnt' mean a child has to watch it. But then again I think the same thing about nudity and cursing and such on normal TV, no one is forcing someone to watch it.

One could say that 'G-String Divas' tries to teach the population about homosexuality, too. But we're all capable of changing the channel when that comes on, too.

And why did the topic starter use the word lesbianism? Is that even a fucking word? Wouldn't a better topic name have been 'Telling kids about Homosexuality'?

I think that Telling kids about homosexuality would make a much better topic title.

I've always thought that little kids shows like that should be about the kid watching it having a good time and enjoying himself, not learning about life or being introduced to reality. Let them just enjoy being kids, they'll figure out all that kinda stuff when they're old enough.

At 8/5/05 04:46 PM, _FLAGG wrote: There's an aspect to this topic that I'm not so sure has been addressed, thoroughly.

Regardless of the television's show (and the network's) intentions, no one is 'forcing' anything on anyone. This doesn't step on the toes of parents. This doesn't force knowledge on a child, without the parents intent.
A parent should monitor a child's television viewing. If a parent feels that some fucking cartoon isn't the best way to teach their children about the ways of the world, they can change the channel. Don't want your kids to have some animated dog-thing teach them about same-sex households? Then don't. It's that simple.

One could say that 'G-String Divas' tries to teach the population about homosexuality, too. But we're all capable of changing the channel when that comes on, too.

And why did the topic starter use the word lesbianism? Is that even a fucking word? Wouldn't a better topic name have been 'Telling kids about Homosexuality'?

NO because the word homo can be misinterpreted for man instead of same. So instead of talking about gay men and women, you'd be talking about heterosexual women and gay men. Because homosexual can mean those sexual attracted towards men as it can also mean does sexually attracted to just the same sex.

I think we should have specific words that can't be misinterpreted.

Dranigus--

Homosexuals is applied to both women and men.
A woman who sexually likes other women are homosexuals (Lesbians).
A man who sexually likes other men are homosexuals (men.)

If you're interested of the etymology--
There are 3 morphemes (smallest meaning of words) in the word "homosexual". Homo-/ sex/ -al. (Adding the 'u' for the sake of euphonism)

'Homo-' is the Greek prefix meaning 'same'.
Sex... well you know what it is.
-al makes the word into an adjective.

Now there is 'homo', which is Latin for 'man'.
Now according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word 'homosexual' uses the Greek affix 'homo-' instead of Latin 'homo'.

This is why gay women (also known as lesbians), and not straight women, are homosexuals.

To call call straight women homosexuals is to misuse the word.

At 8/5/05 04:46 PM, _FLAGG wrote: And why did the topic starter use the word lesbianism? Is that even a fucking word?

I think it's a word. Didn't Howard Stern use that word?

At 8/5/05 04:46 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Don't want your kids to have some animated dog-thing teach them about same-sex households? Then don't. It's that simple.

You know Flagg, I always had a degree of respect for you up until this post.

This truly shows your ignorance of important issues, and your inability to cope with the real world.

Arthur is an AARDVARK, silly!

At 8/5/05 11:02 PM, Dranigus wrote: NO because the word homo can be misinterpreted for man instead of same.

The word for man is 'anthro.'

At 8/5/05 11:02 PM, Dranigus wrote:

At 8/5/05 04:46 PM, _FLAGG wrote: One could say that 'G-String Divas' tries to teach the population about homosexuality, too. But we're all capable of changing the channel when that comes on, too.
And why did the topic starter use the word lesbianism? Is that even a fucking word? Wouldn't a better topic name have been 'Telling kids about Homosexuality'?

NO because the word homo can be misinterpreted for man instead of same.

You're an idiot. 'Homosexual' only means one fucking thing.

I think we should have specific words that can't be misinterpreted.

Yea. Like 'homosexual'.

At 8/5/05 11:52 PM, Ovalshine wrote:

At 8/5/05 04:46 PM, _FLAGG wrote: And why did the topic starter use the word lesbianism? Is that even a fucking word?

I think it's a word. Didn't Howard Stern use that word?

I trust Stern's vocabulary as much as I trust Draningus'. Which, of course, is very fucking little.

At 8/6/05 12:03 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 8/5/05 04:46 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Don't want your kids to have some animated dog-thing teach them about same-sex households? Then don't. It's that simple.

You know Flagg, I always had a degree of respect for you up until this post.
This truly shows your ignorance of important issues, and your inability to cope with the real world.
Arthur is an AARDVARK, silly!

Dog-Thing, Aardvark, monkey, rhinocerus, Dick Cheney...what's the difference?

Wow...*blink...blink* I'm half surprised noby's ranted about a plot by the feds yet. Heh. Anyway...to answer the original question...I would need morals...which I have...but the rest of the world seems to have dumped off in a nearby river somewhere..they'll all meet at the ocean and cause the cataclismic flood that will destroy us all...however...back to rality for a second...

We live in an immoral world with immoral people who hold immoral views...this is a fairly simple concept to grasp...now, this in mind...why would you ask such a question? About 200 years ago that question wouldn't have even needed to be brought up. (not just because they didn't have TV) The thing is, society used to be mostly morally founded...now its not...this is made evident by significant rises in crime...teen pregnancy...and the outstanding number of poloiticians who aren't hanged on the spot for lying to the American(or whatever nationality) public.

I am, thusly unable to answer this question...I should probably leave before people start asking about defining morality and crap...I hate going into that kind of unnecessary banter.

Cross Out.

~Zeh Black Cross

It should also be noted that kids that are in the target age for this television show probably don't think in terms of sex when thinking about parental figures. Just a thought.

Hey guys, don't buy the homogenized milk at the grocery store, because we all know it's actually man-milk :/

did u get this from that comdian on comedy central? anyway why sheild children from sex they're going to have to do it one day if they want to fufill their life purpose so why not tell them and basiclly to a kid lesboism is really just gunna be about the sex between 2 women

At 8/3/05 05:32 PM, -BAWLS- 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 a science. You can't scientifically prove morals. Those are two completely different things.

At 8/6/05 02:03 AM, xXxBlackCrossxXx wrote: Wow...*blink...blink* I'm half surprised noby's ranted about a plot by the feds yet. Heh. Anyway...to answer the original question...I would need morals...which I have...but the rest of the world seems to have dumped off in a nearby river somewhere..they'll all meet at the ocean and cause the cataclismic flood that will destroy us all...however...back to rality for a second...

Sure it will.

We live in an immoral world with immoral people who hold immoral views...this is a fairly simple concept to grasp...now, this in mind...why would you ask such a question? About 200 years ago that question wouldn't have even needed to be brought up. (not just because they didn't have TV) The thing is, society used to be mostly morally founded...now its not...this is made evident by significant rises in crime...teen pregnancy...and the outstanding number of poloiticians who aren't hanged on the spot for lying to the American(or whatever nationality) public.

Actually you could probally relate the rise in teen pregnancy and such more towards the making sex a bad dirty thing that you don't talk about, and the fact that the population is much more dense now. As someone had posted before Japan and other countries where sex isn't so hush hush and a bad thing teen pregnancy is quite low. Rise in crime is also caused for multiple reasons, more people less space is one of them.

There was an issue about this in Australia a year or so back. There's a kids show that's for 3 - 7 year old kids that shows how to make things, teaches kindergarten basics and shows the lives of people.

There was one part where a child said 'my mummies'. The camera screened to him riding on a carosel (sp) and two women waving at him. This caused considerable uproar yet it seemed the children had no idea what happened.

Personally, I thought the situation was a bit silly, partly because most children watching would not have considered anything deeper. Onto the topic of lesbianism, it all depends on the family situation.

If you are a lesbian family, I think the child has a greater right of learning this when younger. For families that don't have any form of this, I feel it best to let them learn about it themselves, like I. But everyone is different and I think self knowledge is the best way.

You can't let a 4-6yr old find out by themself. Odds are, anyway, that they'll find out from a friend making a dirty joke they go from a show or older sibling. I say that their better off finding it out from a show that desensitizes them early and when they finaly hear some joke on it later it won't screw them up as much.

Take it from someone who knows what "Not knowing" can do to a child. It does more harm than good not to talk to your kids or introduce them to the world at an early age.

I don't think the show should have done it, but at least it was a step in a direction. Opening up new thoughts and ideas on how to deal with problems and make thing better. It's the only way we learn, That show just so happend to fall when it took it's first step.

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?

i back you upthe tank, MY MOM is a single parent, she just became one right now, and shes a great motherso what do you mean by that? besides me and my sis have done great without my step dad, no irreversible damage here =p in other words youre theorie is wrong.o btw ull probably come up with something like financial troubles so let me post it right out, u know thatt commercial with the duck that says aflac? my mom is very high up in that company thank you no financial troubles.

At 8/5/05 03:36 AM, fli wrote: But Arthur isn't trying to impress imposing views of sexuality on children.
It is showing the diversity of families-- not the sexuality aspect of it.

The primary problem here is that it's promoting a set of beliefs that people may object to. Obeying the law, or charity would be different, since any minority that is opposed to them is insignificant, and their beliefs are far from being in the interest of their nation.
The morality being propagated here is not in line with what an overwhelming majority of people in those countries in which it is broadcast believe, nor is it neccessarily in the interest of the nations in which it is broadcast.
There are plantly of people who object to having their children's beliefs influenced, at an early age, by touchy-feely political correctness.

While the sexual aspect of the relation ship isn't on shows, it is something that they will eventually learn to associate with the relationship they were shown. Something that is going to have a potentially undesirable effect on a child's perception of normative influences has no place in a show whose remit does not extend far beyond entertainment.

Umm, i really don't think kids shows need to be disscussing sexuality issues. Come on, let the kids grow up before discussing homosexuals.

At 8/6/05 03:47 AM, ReiperX wrote:

Actually you could probally relate the rise in teen pregnancy and such more towards the making sex a bad dirty thing that you don't talk about, and the fact that the population is much more dense now. As someone had posted before Japan and other countries where sex isn't so hush hush and a bad thing teen pregnancy is quite low. Rise in crime is also caused for multiple reasons, more people less space is one of them.

And yet...for whatever reason its caused...crime is still immoral, that's all I was poionting out was the increase in immorality since days long past. and you can't expect me to cover EVERY aspect of it.
Cross Out.
~Zeh Black Cross

I think it is better to wait until a child is older before discussing such topics, as certain children can be highly impressionable at an early age.

-D

Kids need to be able to ask their parents any number of question. Kids should learn to be tolerant, then the question of sexuality can be answered honestly. I think the worry is that kids will learn racist or sexist actions are OK if their parents or true educator, TV, tells them otherwise.

At 8/6/05 11:18 AM, xXxBlackCrossxXx wrote:
And yet...for whatever reason its caused...crime is still immoral, that's all I was poionting out was the increase in immorality since days long past. and you can't expect me to cover EVERY aspect of it.
Cross Out.
~Zeh Black Cross

No, not all crimes are immoral.
Otherwise Jesus, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Ceaser E. Chavez, etc. would be considered criminals and thus... immoral.

Homosexality, while some people don't like it, is inherently, not a good or bad thing. Just as how heterosexuality isn't a good or bad thing, it's just one aspect of peoples' identities.

Arthur isn't a show about "morals"-- especially one about Christian morals. It does, however, teach good lessons such as what are good friends, what are good table manners, what happens if you lie, etc. Then what is it? Arthur shows the things what most all people share in the moral community. And when I say this, I'm not talking about a code people have based exclusively on religious background, but lessons people have all over the world. And what are they? Be nice to people. Be brave. Share.

Blackcross, everyone has their morals here. And for you to claim that you're the only person to have them shows us that you lack at least one moral: humility. Just remember, "The meek shall inherent the earth."

Arthur's goal isn't to make people gay. Children have no concept of physical and sexual love. But they can understand parental love, even if it comes from a mother and a mother, or a father and a father.

And so what was the goal of Arthur? What was the message that it wanted to give to children who will form the moral community in the future? It wanted to show that children with homosexual parents are not anymore different from you and me. It wanted to show that families come in a variety of people, just as diverse as our skin, ethnic and national orgin, religion, food, and culture. Its goal was to remove fears that a lot of people have of different people that are unlike ourselves, including-- homosexuals.

At 8/5/05 11:21 PM, fli wrote: Dranigus--

Homosexuals is applied to both women and men.
A woman who sexually likes other women are homosexuals (Lesbians).
A man who sexually likes other men are homosexuals (men.)

If you're interested of the etymology--
There are 3 morphemes (smallest meaning of words) in the word "homosexual". Homo-/ sex/ -al. (Adding the 'u' for the sake of euphonism)

'Homo-' is the Greek prefix meaning 'same'.
Sex... well you know what it is.
-al makes the word into an adjective.

Now there is 'homo', which is Latin for 'man'.
Now according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word 'homosexual' uses the Greek affix 'homo-' instead of Latin 'homo'.

This is why gay women (also known as lesbians), and not straight women, are homosexuals.

To call call straight women homosexuals is to misuse the word.

Homo also means man, as with Homo Sapien, Homo Erectus, Homer (which means man).

Please use your head and consider things without such stupidity.

Homo (man) sexual. Sexuality towards men.

It doesn't just means sexuality towards the same gender as in gays and lessies, but it also refers to having just a sexual attraction to just men.

Because Homo also means man, like with Homo sapien and Homer for instance, god you are so stupid.

I mean really, you saying I am wrong, but you don't even try and review your own sources, but I guess I couldn't expect intelligence from someone as meagerly foolish and arrogant such as yourself.

If you want to make a point, try doing so with regarding the facts and leaving out no contradiction.

At 8/6/05 07:13 PM, Dranigus wrote: Please use your head and consider things without such stupidity.

Dude. I've graduated with a B.A. in English--
I've checked the Oxford English Dictionary, the ultimate resource of finding the history of words.

Shut up, and listen what I've said cause I've actually studied this and went to an authortive source.

"Homo-" the Greek prefix that the word "homosexual" uses, means "same".
"Homo" the Latin word for man, isn't part of "homosexual".

...I couldn't expect intelligence from someone as meagerly foolish and arrogant such as yourself.

If you want to make a point, try doing so with regarding the facts and leaving out no contradiction.

I didn't say that "homo" doesn't mean man, HOWEVER-- the sense isn't used in the word "homosexuality". It uses the Greek word, and not the Latin.

As I've said, I've proven it with the Oxford English Dictionary--
And YOu?

Now shut the fuck up, before I pawn you some more.

At 8/6/05 08:20 PM, fli wrote:

At 8/6/05 07:13 PM, Dranigus wrote: Please use your head and consider things without such stupidity.

Dude. I've graduated with a B.A. in English--
I've checked the Oxford English Dictionary, the ultimate resource of finding the history of words.

Shut up, and listen what I've said cause I've actually studied this and went to an authortive source.

"Homo-" the Greek prefix that the word "homosexual" uses, means "same".
"Homo" the Latin word for man, isn't part of "homosexual".

...I couldn't expect intelligence from someone as meagerly foolish and arrogant such as yourself.

If you want to make a point, try doing so with regarding the facts and leaving out no contradiction.

I didn't say that "homo" doesn't mean man, HOWEVER-- the sense isn't used in the word "homosexuality". It uses the Greek word, and not the Latin.

As I've said, I've proven it with the Oxford English Dictionary--
And YOu?

Now shut the fuck up, before I pawn you some more.

Well your english is pitiful so must also be your school, regardless of its fame.

I mean seriously, you don't even recall that Homer which comes from homo, means man.

Try and stop being so arrogant, you bit baby.