movies/tv Cartoon Network UK censors lesbian dance scene in Steven Universe

[Ponies4Bronies 394]

If those beliefs involve trying to stop an entire group of people from being given the same rights and privileges as everyone else even when they are not aiming to do so under your religious umbrella then I would say yes. That is a fair assessment. You are entitled to have your religion, you are not entitled to make your religious rules into law and govern other people's lives by it. That is what our country was founded on.

Understandable, but our country was also founded on the right to have an opinion and ignoring the fact that marriage was and still is a holy bond is not right either. Pressuring people into something that was not meant for them is not right. That is where the judge comes in and can sign you as a "legal partnership" and you get the same tax benefits. 

[Guest]

Understandable, but our country was also founded on the right to have an opinion and ignoring the fact that marriage was and still is a holy bond is not right either. Pressuring people into something that was not meant for them is not right. That is where the judge comes in and can sign you as a "legal partnership" and you get the same tax benefits. 

Marriage in this country is not strictly a holy bond though. We have marriages that are completely religion free, I got married without any religious ceremony, so no one is being pressured into anything. It's just people are trying to "own" the term marriage, when they do not own it. Christians, Muslims, Hindus all have marriage and not a single one of them "own" the term because that would mean that we can not call the others "marriage" because it's unfair to the others.

 

Calling it something else is basically "separate but equal" and we all know how that worked.

[Dark Qiviut 22,491]

Please, homosexuals have far worst things to worry about than a cartoon.

@@Key Sharkz already called you out for your fallacy, but I'll do it here. Presenting same-sex couples on the same playing field as opposite-sex couples is extremely important in media, especially child-friendly media. Representation matters. CN UK erased their representation by censoring the scene.

 

Homosexuals aren't being oppressed in western culture.

You and the people who brohoofed your post are wrong. Homosexuals are still being opposed in the west.

1. Every top-level Republican Presidential candidate — Carson, Rubio, Trump, Cruz, Florina — is squarely against SSM.
2. Alabama judge Roy Moore ordered the stop of same-sex marriage in his state last week.
3. Last year, Indiana passed a "religious freedom bill" in order to legalize oppression of the LGBT community in spite of threat of income loss by several organizations speaking out against it. After Bobby Jindal advocated his anti-LGBT bill and then enacted his homophobic executive order, IBM canceled opening its service center.
4. In late November, a Dallas neighborhood was put on lock-down in response to twelve anti-gay hate crimes in three months!
5. Just a few days ago, this man was convicted of a hate crime: ethnic intimidation for threatening to kill every gay person and ally in the gym he was banned from. He faces up to a year in jail.
6. A few months ago, musician Azealia Banks was chewed out for calling a flight attendant a "faggot" and then got chewed out again for attempting to defend it and comparing the LGBT community to the KKK.
7. The Atlah church in Harlem is led by a fear-mongering, racist homophobe.
8. Kim Davis refusing to sign marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
9. The Klein family from Sweet Cakes by Melissa was fined $135,000 for discriminating against a same-sex couples and causing distress after Melissa's husband doxxed them.

These homophobic actions all occur(red) in the United States, and there are plenty more out there. Look up sites like LGBTQ Nation, Think Progress, Towleroad, Slate, and Huffington Post. They cover a lot of these stories.

 

And, yes, censoring Pearl and Rose's dance is homophobic oppression for the reasons stated already.

 

If a celebrity got on stage and claimed they were against it, you bet people would lose their sh*t over it.

Yet, at the same time time, these bigots will get followers to swoon over them because "they're not being politically correct" or some other bullshit. Look at Donald Trump. His blatant racism against Latinos and Muslims skyrocketed his popularity in the Republican nomination. Bill Maher is also very popular, and he's one of the most overt Islamophobes.

 

It was stupid that they removed alittle clip like that I'm not saying it wasn't and I'm not siding with Cartoon Network UK because I think what they did was alittle homophobic but you have to see it from both sides of the argument.

The "other side" has no valid points at all. It's not a little homophobic. It's VERY homophobic: Censoring the dance tells us as a people that LGBT+ people shouldn't exist. Every second carries a lot of weight, and the Crewniverse dedicated a few seconds showing their affection for one another.

 

So having religious beliefs now makes you a bigot, huh?

You're tossing a strawman. Nobody, under the lazy guise of "religious freedom" or not, is entitled to oppress a minority.

[Ponies4Bronies 394]

Marriage in this country is not strictly a holy bond though. We have marriages that are completely religion free, I got married without any religious ceremony, so no one is being pressured into anything. It's just people are trying to "own" the term marriage, when they do not own it. Christians, Muslims, Hindus all have marriage and not a single one of them "own" the term because that would mean that we can not call the others "marriage" because it's unfair to the others.

 

Calling it something else is basically "separate but equal" and we all know how that worked.

That makes a lot of sense.

[Dawning Demon 950]

The "other side" has no valid points at all. It's not a little homophobic. It's VERY homophobic: Censoring the dance tells us as a people that LGBT+ people shouldn't exist. Every second carries a lot of weight, and the Crewniverse dedicated a few seconds showing their affection for one another.

Your saying the whole "LGBT shouldn't exist" thing not Cartoon Network UK, I'm not defending them but your not looking at the reasons why they did it but your creating reasons like what I just pointed out before.

Of course they shouldn't have removed it and I apologies for using the word "little" but your showing just as much ignorance by saying that they have no valid points from their side and their viewpoint.

[Ponies4Bronies 394]

The "other side" has no valid points at all. It's not a little homophobic. It's VERY homophobic: Censoring the dance tells us as a people that LGBT+ people shouldn't exist. Every second carries a lot of weight, and the Crewniverse dedicated a few seconds showing their affection for one another.

Saying the other side does not have any valid points at all just makes you sound like you cant defend your argument and invalidates your argument to a point, it's almost like saying "Oh yea? Well your just a dumb face!"

[Black Sabbath 2,486]

Saying the other side does not have any valid points at all just makes you sound like you cant defend your argument and invalidates your argument to a point, it's almost like saying "Oh yea? Well your just a dumb face!"

Then please, show us one of these valid points then. 

[Gestum 2,493]

Saying the other side does not have any valid points at all just makes you sound like you cant defend your argument and invalidates your argument to a point, it's almost like saying "Oh yea? Well your just a dumb face!"

Well then you could perhaps bring up those points, otherwise it's almost like saying "No, you're the dumb face".

[Ponies4Bronies 394]

Then please, show us one of these valid points then. 

 

Well then you could perhaps bring up those points, otherwise it's almost like saying "No, you're the dumb face".

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/ten-arguments-from-social-science-against-same-sex-marriage

Heres 10 valid reasons,

1. Children hunger for their biological parents.

Homosexual couples using in vitro fertilization (IVF) or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father. Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the following:"Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?" "Can I write him a letter?" "Has he ever seen me?" "Didn't you like him? Didn't he like me?" Elizabeth Marquardt reports that children of divorce often report similar feelings about their non-custodial parent, usually the father.

Kyle Pruett, Fatherneed (Broadway Books, 2001) 204.

Elizabeth Marquardt, The Moral and Spiritual Lives of Children of Divorce. Forthcoming.

2. Children need fathers.

If same-sex civil marriage becomes common, most same-sex couples with children would be lesbian couples. This would mean that we would have yet more children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.

What is fascinating is that fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. This study, along with David Popenoe's work, suggests that a father's pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, that a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends.

* Ellis, Bruce J., et al., "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?" Child Development, 74:801-821.

* David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1999).

3. Children need mothers.

Although homosexual men are less likely to have children than lesbians, homosexual men are and will be raising children. There will be even more if homosexual civil marriage is legalized. These households deny children a mother. Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence. Stanford psychologist Eleanor MacCoby summarizes much of this literature in her book, The Two Sexes. See also Steven Rhoads' book, Taking Sex Differences Seriously.

Eleanor MacCoby, The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together (Boston: Harvard, 1998).

Steven Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (Encounter Books, 2004).

4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.

A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are "no differences" between children raised by homosexuals and those raised by heterosexuals. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on the issue of same-sex civil marriage, offered this review of the literature on gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian court considering legalization of same-sex civil marriage:

Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.

This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to launch a major family experiment.

Steven Nock, affidavit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding Hedy Halpern et al. University of Virginia Sociology Department (2001).

5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.

Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy, it does suggest that children raised by lesbians or homosexual men are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. Judith Stacey-- a sociologist and an advocate for same-sex civil marriage--reviewed the literature on child outcomes and found the following: "lesbian parenting may free daughters and sons from a broad but uneven range of traditional gender prescriptions." Her conclusion here is based on studies that show that sons of lesbians are less masculine and that daughters of lesbians are more masculine.

She also found that a "significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers ... reported having a homoerotic relationship." Stacey also observes that children of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic attractions.

Her review must be viewed judiciously, given the methodological flaws detailed by Professor Nock in the literature as a whole. Nevertheless, theses studies give some credence to conservative concerns about the effects of homosexual parenting.

Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review66: 159-183. See especially 168-171.

6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.

One of the biggest threats that same-sex "marriage" poses to marriage is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. In the first edition of his book in defense of same-sex marriage, Virtually Normal, homosexual commentator Andrew Sullivan wrote: "There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." Of course, this line of thinking--were it incorporated into marriage and telegraphed to the public in sitcoms, magazines, and other mass media--would do enormous harm to the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage.

One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity.

Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon, Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology, 2003.

David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, The Male Couple (Prentice Hall, 1984) 252.

7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.

Traditionally, marriage and procreation have been tightly connected to one another. Indeed, from a sociological perspective, the primary purpose that marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a society. Now, however, many Westerners see marriage in primarily emotional terms.

Among other things, the danger with this mentality is that it fosters an anti-natalist mindset that fuels population decline, which in turn puts tremendous social, political, and economic strains on the larger society. Same-sex marriage would only further undercut the procreative norm long associated with marriage insofar as it establishes that there is no necessary link between procreation and marriage.

This was spelled out in the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, where the majority opinion dismissed the procreative meaning of marriage. It is no accident that the countries that have legalized or are considering legalizing same-sex marriage have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. For instance, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada have birthrates that hover around 1.6 children per woman--well below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1.

For national fertility rates, see: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html

For more on the growing disconnect between marriage and procreation, see:http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU2003.pdf

8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.

The divorce and sexual revolutions of the last four decades have seriously undercut the norm that couples should get and stay married if they intend to have children, are expecting a child, or already have children. Political scientist James Q. Wilson reports that the introduction of no-fault divorce further destabilized marriage by weakening the legal and cultural meaning of the marriage contract. George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate and an economist, found that the widespread availability of contraception and abortion in the 1960s and 1970s, and the sexual revolution they enabled, made it easier for men to abandon women they got pregnant, since they could always blame their girlfriends for not using contraception or procuring an abortion.

It is plausible to suspect that legal recognition of homosexual civil marriage would have similar consequences for the institution of marriage; that is, it would further destabilize the norm that adults should sacrifice to get and stay married for the sake of their children. Why? Same-sex civil marriage would institutionalize the idea that children do not need both their mother and their father.

This would be particularly important for men, who are more likely to abandon their children. Homosexual civil marriage would make it even easier than it already is for men to rationalize their abandonment of their children. After all, they could tell themselves, our society, which affirms lesbian couples raising children, believes that children do not need a father. So, they might tell themselves, I do not need to marry or stay married to the mother of my children.

James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem. (Perennial, 2003) 175-177.

George A. Akerlof, Janet L. Yellen, and Michael L. Katz, "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States." Quarterly Journal of Economics CXI: 277-317.

9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.

If same-sex civil marriage is institutionalized, our society would take yet another step down the road of de-gendering marriage. There would be more use of gender-neutral language like "partners" and--more importantly--more social and cultural pressures to neuter our thinking and our behaviors in marriage.

But marriages typically thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical ways and are attentive to the gendered needs and aspirations of their husband or wife. For instance, women are happier when their husband earns the lion's share of the household income. Likewise, couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning, as University of Virginia psychologist Mavis Hetherington admits.

E. Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly, For Better or For Worse. (W.W. Norton and Co., 2002) 31.

Steven Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously (Encounter Books, 2004).

10. Women and marriage domesticate men.

Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home.

If the distinctive sexual patterns of "committed" gay couples are any indication (see above), it is unlikely that homosexual marriage would domesticate men in the way that heterosexual marriage does. It is also extremely unlikely that the biological effects of heterosexual marriage on men would also be found in homosexual marriage. Thus, gay activists who argue that same-sex civil marriage will domesticate gay men are, in all likelihood, clinging to a foolish hope. This foolish hope does not justify yet another effort to meddle with marriage.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Rainbow Dashe

[AEDAZ 176]

You're tossing a strawman. Nobody, under the lazy guise of "religious freedom" or not, is entitled to oppress a minority.

That itself is a strawman.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Aedaz

[Guest]

@@Rainbow Dashe, I appreciate you bringing some counter points to the table, however I must rebuttal as there are some flaws in your source's argument:

 

 

 

1. Children hunger for their biological parents.

 

 

2. Children need fathers.

 

 

3. Children need mothers.

 

All three of these are assuming same-sex marriage = child rearing, which it does not. Many people get married and never have children. Not to mention this also argues against adoption, and single parenthood just as much as it argues against homosexuality. Not to mention if you look at their sources, they are from studies conducted almost over 15 years ago. We have had major break throughs in psychology, brain studies and understanding of homosexuality since then. A lot of these "studies" may not even be valid anymore, and there are plenty of studies out there debunking them as well.

 

 

 

4. Evidence on parenting by same-sex couples is inadequate.

 

If you actually read the piece they use to support that theory the only thing they are saying is that a lot of the studies were done by same-sex marriage advocates and that they are questioning the legitimacy of them. From there is states that there is no conclusive research that it believes. In other words, it's not saying "we have proven same-sex couples can not rear children properly" it's saying "We are questioning the proof of same-sex couples ability to rear children properly, but offering no proof counter to that point." So in other words they are not proving this statement at all, they are just suggesting that the research that says otherwise is somehow flawed or wrong, but offer no evidence to support it.

 

 

 

5. Evidence suggests children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.

 

This literally means nothing and proves nothing. Not to mention it ignorantly refers to homosexuality as a "sexual disorder". We have proven that homosexuality is not a disorder, so I question the credibility of this woman conducting this study. Furthermore here study only really proves that children of gay parents are not as anal about gender roles and are more likely to feel comfortable enough with their sexuality to admit it rather than trying to pretend to be straight when they are not. This study literally proves nothing.

 

 

 

6. Same-sex "marriage" would undercut the norm of sexual fidelity within marriage.

 

I absolutely love how this argument starts with "probably" undercut. Meaning it's a slippery slope argument. Also part of their source is from 1984, so to say that our society holds the same standards and values from almost 30+ years ago is kind of silly. Not to mention that surveys can be gamed to better suit the outcome of the person conducting it.

 

 

 

7. Same-sex "marriage" would further isolate marriage from its procreative purpose.

 

No it wouldn't. To top this off we have more children in the world than parents willing to take care of them. Gay people adopting some of those children would be a big part of a solution.

 

 

 

8. Same-sex "marriage" would further diminish the expectation of paternal commitment.

 

People staying married solely for children is not a good thing anyways. This is attempting to argue that people need to be forced to stay together for the sake of children and that if they are not, then they will not stay together. That is an issue with marriage itself if people need to be forced to stay married. Not to mention it specifically states that it "suspects" this would be the case and never verifies. Notice the language. "Might", "Plausible", "More likely", and there is no evidence presented.

 

Heterosexual couples hold the record for most divorces, and I'm pretty confident they will continue to hold that record.

 

 

 

9. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.

 

Not only is this 100% false it's also sexist. Sexism is not helping marriage, it's just trying to revert us back to the 1950s where spousal abuse was common. Gender-typical roles is more or less promoting the idea that "woman should be in her place, man be the bread winner and women should not have careers or aspire to leave the house." Many marriages today are failing because people are trying to push gender-typical roles onto their spouses.

 

It's literally just a pathetic argument to say "men should be manly and women should be girly", I find it ironic that you post that here of all places, on a site about cartoon ponies in a show where a majority of the users are male.

 

 

 

10. Women and marriage domesticate men.

 

 

I can't even contain my laughter. This is completely sexist, and a horrible mentality to have. Domesticate? Are men animals now? I also question how spending more time attending religious services is a plus? It's neither a plus nor a negative,  it's a moot point. To top if off I would like to see where their statistics come from beyond these two sources they list, one of which from 1998 which was almost 17 years ago. Also I am confident that it is not taking in all the facts when making this argument because it fails to mention:

 

• You are more likely to be murdered by your spouse than anyone else.
• Women are more likely to initiate divorce than men.
• A majority of marriages end due to unrecoverable differences. AKA: We can't get along because we're not alike and I refuse to change for them, which blatantly proves that marriage does not domesticate men.
• Married men are not more sexually faithful. Studies show over 70% of men cheat on their spouse.

This all once again uses that slippery slope language too. "Maybe", "possible", "points to", "is unlikely", "in all likelihood".

 

FACTS. PROOF. EVIDENCE. RELEVANT RESEARCH. SOURCES FROM MORE MODERN STUDIES.

 

None of this proves anything because it's either riddled with slippery slope fallacies, based on old as hell research that is no longer relevant, incorrect research that is just flat out wrong, sexist sources, and is all conduced by the Family Research Council who identify as conservative christian lobbyists. The Southern Poverty Law Center classified the group as an anti-gay hate group in 2010.

 

So naturally their arguments are more or less bogus.

[Ponies4Bronies 394]

@Key Sharkz Marriage is a religious bond, a bond that all those religions say is between a man and a woman. Have they ever heard of civil unions? Those bring the same legal benefits as marriage does. They don't need to ruin marriage to be "equal" to heterosexual couples. They can vote, they have the same rights as anybody else keep marriage holy please.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Rainbow Dashe

[cider float 2,539]

This is what we like to call "dismissing the argument". Essentially you're attempting to claim that because worse problems exist that smaller problems should be completely ignored. It's a fallacy and brings nothing to the table nor does it provide a sound argument defending CN UK's decision. In other words it's the equivalent of saying "I have no argument" because you are not really adding anything to the discussion.

 

 

 

 

In comparison to some cultures, you would be right, however in comparison to how heterosexuals are being treated, it is definitely oppressive. We are not talking about "in comparison to the rest of the world" we are talking about having the same rights, privileges, and treatment as everyone else in the same location. So broadening the argument to encompass the whole world is kind of a cop out to try and make the problem seem less important by increasing the scale.

 

The fact remains though that if one group of people in a country is treated lesser than another group based upon something that should be irrelevant to other people it is still oppression.

 

 

 

 

That is untrue. There are many areas where people still openly oppose gay marriage and are met with little to no opposition. People still find it acceptable to down talk homosexuality and use it as a joke to insult people. It is widely used even in New York which is one of the most liberal states in the US. It is still incredibly common for people to use "you're gay' or "that's gay" as an insult and it's rarely attacked.

 

The fact that there even IS gay marriage opposition shows that there still is discrimination. No one is rallying to oppose straight marriage, that's for sure. Just because the numbers have dropped does not mean the oppression has vanished.

 

 

 

 

And yet just as many would support it. Donald Trump is running for president and he has 30% of the polls and he is opposed to gay marriage.

 

 

 

 

Not true either. Many people still will express their disapproval of people supporting gay marriage to the point where they will not even let their children watch those celebrities. Disney saw a huge surge of people who said they would stop allowing their children to watch Disney Channel after showing a same sex couple in a show.

 

 

 

 

Many people call Donald Trump "brave" for speaking his mind and he actively speaks against gay marriage, Mexicans, and Muslims. All of which are discriminatory, and yet the man has a good shot at being president. People are STILL being praised for homophobia. Hell one of the cast members of Duck Dynasty had a ton of fans defend him for his homophobic remarks and the show's ratings shot up.

 

So no, homosexuals are still being oppressed in western culture. Until they have the exact same rights and treatment as heterosexuals, this will always be true.

No Key Sharkz that is what I'm explaining what I meant about "mild homophobia" it's addressing my previous statement that I wanted to elaborate on the previous post.

[Guest]

@Key Sharkz Marriage is a religious bond, a bond that all those religions say is between a man and a woman. Have they ever heard of civil unions? Those bring the same legal benefits as marriage does. They don't need to ruin marriage to be "equal" to heterosexual couples. They can vote, they have the same rights as anybody else keep marriage holy please.

 

So what about heterosexual couples who do not want to be married under a religion? Must they call their marriage something else to so not to "ruin" marriage?

 

And actually civil unions do not bring the same benefits, and calling it something else is saying that marriage "belongs" to a certain religion and it does not. Many religions allow same sex marriage and it is still called marriage. To force them to change it to something else is to go against THEIR religion.

 

Not to mention to say they would "ruin" it is saying there is something wrong with them like they are tainted.

 

Marriage is hardly holy in the US anyways.

 

Britney Spears married a man whom she divorced in 55 hours. Michael Jackson a multiple accused child molester was married. Donald Trump has been married 3 times. Hugh Hefner at age 89 is married to a 29 year old and he has had 3 wives and several "Partners". Hugh Hefner also has always married women almost 20 years younger than himself and divorces them when they get too old for him.

 

Polygamist cults have been discovered right here in America that claimed it was their religious right to do so.

 

So when does the holy part come in? By the way, all the marriages I listed were done so under God and under a branch of Christianity.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Guest

[cider float 2,539]

@@Key Sharkz already called you out for your fallacy, but I'll do it here. Presenting same-sex couples on the same playing field as opposite-sex couples is extremely important in media, especially child-friendly media. Representation matters. CN UK erased their representation by censoring the scene.

 

You and the people who brohoofed your post are wrong. Homosexuals are still being opposed in the west.

1. Every top-level Republican Presidential candidate — Carson, Rubio, Trump, Cruz, Florina — is squarely against SSM.
2. Alabama judge Roy Moore ordered the stop of same-sex marriage in his state last week.
3. Last year, Indiana passed a "religious freedom bill" in order to legalize oppression of the LGBT community in spite of threat of income loss by several organizations speaking out against it. After Bobby Jindal advocated his anti-LGBT bill and then enacted his homophobic executive order, IBM canceled opening its service center.
4. In late November, a Dallas neighborhood was put on lock-down in response to twelve anti-gay hate crimes in three months!
5. Just a few days ago, this man was convicted of a hate crime: ethnic intimidation for threatening to kill every gay person and ally in the gym he was banned from. He faces up to a year in jail.
6. A few months ago, musician Azealia Banks was chewed out for calling a flight attendant a "faggot" and then got chewed out again for attempting to defend it and comparing the LGBT community to the KKK.
7. The Atlah church in Harlem is led by a fear-mongering, racist homophobe.
8. Kim Davis refusing to sign marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
9. The Klein family from Sweet Cakes by Melissa was fined $135,000 for discriminating against a same-sex couples and causing distress after Melissa's husband doxxed them.

These homophobic actions all occur(red) in the United States, and there are plenty more out there. Look up sites like LGBTQ Nation, Think Progress, Towleroad, Slate, and Huffington Post. They cover a lot of these stories.

 

And, yes, censoring Pearl and Rose's dance is homophobic oppression for the reasons stated already.

 

Yet, at the same time time, these bigots will get followers to swoon over them because "they're not being politically correct" or some other bullshit. Look at Donald Trump. His blatant racism against Latinos and Muslims skyrocketed his popularity in the Republican nomination. Bill Maher is also very popular, and he's one of the most overt Islamophobes.

 

The "other side" has no valid points at all. It's not a little homophobic. It's VERY homophobic: Censoring the dance tells us as a people that LGBT+ people shouldn't exist. Every second carries a lot of weight, and the Crewniverse dedicated a few seconds showing their affection for one another.

 

You're tossing a strawman. Nobody, under the lazy guise of "religious freedom" or not, is entitled to oppress a minority.

Fallacy this, argument that, I'm saying as it is. Bringing out Donald Trump who has nothing to do with this cartoon at all.

 

I'm guessing you're going to pull out a Stalin and Hitler next. Strawman is strawman.

 

Oppression? Are you kidding me? If this is giving you a heart attack (I doubt you're even gay) then watching South Park would put you in a coma for sure.

[Gestum 2,493]

Heres 10 valid reasons,

Was it really necessary to copy and paste the whole article? Also this article is about gay marriage and not about the reasons for removing gay couples from TV.

 

Anyway.

 

1:This one confuse me. It's literally "Kids will be curious". It doesn't mention any negative effects cased by this and I highly doubt that there's any. Can you explain why this is a problem?

 

2 and 3: Okay, maybe it's harder to raise a kid if there isn't a father or a mother. Is this a reason for why gay marriage shouldn't be legal.

 

4: http://qz.com/438469/the-science-is-clear-children-raised-by-same-sex-parents-are-at-no-disadvantage/

 

5: Oh no. Children of same sex parents are more likely to be gay, what horrors.

 

That was sarcasm. My question is: is there any negative effects cased by this?

 

6: Oh no, people are different from each other, what horrors.

 

That was sarcasm and is this really that big of a deal? Let the people who doesn't value sexual fidelity marry each other and no one else has to care.

 

7: This one also confuses me. I mean it's not like gay people have sex for procreation purposes until they get married, so there wouldn't be any more population decline then there already is.

 

8: The hell? I hardly think that this is going to happen. If someone uses gay marriage as a excuse for abandoning their child, then they would just use another excuse if it wasn't available.

 

9: Maybe gay people would be slightly more unhappy with their marriage. But is it really necessary to not allow them to have the chance to marry?

 

10:https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201004/does-marriage-civilize-men

[Clarity 3,094]

@@Rainbow Dashe, 

 

This kinda thinking is pretty reliant on the assumption that everyone should think marriage is a sacred religious bond. Furthermore, each one of those reasons are unsupported by evidence and rather just by blatantly homophobic generalizations. So, uh. Not valid reasons, I'd say. 

[cider float 2,539]

So what does Rebecca Sugar say abou this? 

[Dark Qiviut 22,491]

Your saying the whole "LGBT shouldn't exist" thing not Cartoon Network UK, I'm not defending them but your not looking at the reasons why they did it but your creating reasons like what I just pointed out before.

Wrong. That's exactly what CN UK said. They claimed Rose and Pearl romantically dancing was "inappropriate for children" and violated the U-rating.

 

CN UK's statement to Pink News is as follows:

“We do feel that the slightly edited version is more comfortable for local kids and their parents.

 

“We have an ongoing dialogue with our audiences and our shows reflect their preferences. Research shows that UK kids often watch with younger siblings without parental supervision.

 

“Be assured that as a channel and network we celebrate diversity – evident across many of our shows and characters.”

 

"Localization" is PR jargon for "you don't deserve recognition." This has been a major problem in media dating back to DiC, 4Kids, and Saban. CN UK is doing it here.

 

Secondly, the U-rating does allow this type of content, including kissing and cuddling. Nothing in the UK's TV content guidelines suggests romantic dancing violates the rating. Heterosexual content as "lewd" as Pearl and Rose's dance wasn't censored. CN UK is lying to the public, and you're falling for it.

 

Of course they shouldn't have removed it and I apologies for using the word "little" but your showing just as much ignorance by saying that they have no valid points from their side and their viewpoint.

Saying the other side does not have any valid points at all just makes you sound like you cant defend your argument and invalidates your argument to a point,

Both of you are objectively wrong. True ignorance is actually believing CN UK has a reason to censor this scene, downplaying the offense and implications, and trying to listen to a side that has doesn't deserve support in the first place. By implicating that same-sex couples and people of minority genders and sexualities don't deserve recognition to "protect the kids," they're pandering to the lowest-common denominator, whether they received complaints or not. CN UK is hurting every single child worldwide — especially in the UK — by defending their homophobia. Nobody has given any valid reasons to defend it.

 

Oppression? Are you kidding me? If this is giving you a heart attack (I doubt you're even gay) then watching South Park would put you in a coma for sure.

I don't watch South Park and don't give a damn about it. The one big difference is South Park bashes bigotry, not support it. Often, they know what they're doing; CN UK doesn't.

 

Damn right the censoring is oppression. Pay attention to the implications. CN UK suggests that gay people shouldn't exist "to protect kids." Unfortunate implications exist, and they're huge here.

 

Thirdly, what does my sexuality and gender have anything to do with it?

Edited January 12, 2016 by Dark Qiviut

[SuperBrony87 506]

Steven Universe is a great cartoon. No one can deny that. One thing it really does well is address same-sex relationships and LGBT politics.

 

One episode featured Rose Quartz and Pearl in a very romantic dance together. It's uncensored in America. But in Britain, Cartoon Network decided to censor the dance and any hint of lesbianism between them in a recent broadcast.

 

You can find the video and Polygon article here.

 

Here's the same video on YT (head to the 1:57 mark):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm2403n3R7Q

 

What does CN UK have to say about it?

 

 

CN UK's statement to Pink News:

 

BULLSHIT!

 

There's nothing lewd about same-sex romance in "kids' programming," especially this one. Thousands of homosexual couples are parents of kids. To bring same-sex romance into a family show like SU (especially because SU is good and family-friendly) tells kids and gay couples, "We know you exist, and we won't hide behind the idea that they don't." There's no such thing as "just" a cartoon. Cartoons and the decisions from the higher-ups influence certain aspects of society. By going all Hasbro-on-Derpy Hooves and whitewashing this powerful scene, Cartoon Network UK panders to conservatism and enforces homophobia and sexism.

 

Why sexism? Because Rose kissed Greg, and CN UK wouldn't censor it if it was a male and female dancing. *sarcasm* Good going, CN UK. */sarcasm*

 

Your thoughts?

Meh... Just meh. I could be in a minority here but was it necessary? It was so brief, that I barely noticed anything. Certainly didn't look "lewd". Well, you could just look at this scene and see nothing much happening now if something say groping or if they kissed at all. Also, I while I don't watch Steven Universe as much as Adventure Time. I don't know much about the situation.

      We're talking about The UK who's censorship makes US censorship look like well this to a cartoon that is rather tame as in terms of "Adult themes". In UK's case... Does anyone remember when The 1987 TMNT was "Teenage Mutant HERO Turtles" in the UK? Well I remember reading that they didn't like the ninja element. Could be too violent or scary for kids. The show has never been more violent or scary whenever I watched it. They traded the dark and gritty and yes violent look of the comics (which at the time was NOT kid friendly ninjas died with like blood and stabbing) and they swapped that for a light, comical, goofy humored show, where the violence is often slapstick at best. The worse the violence goes is busting up robot foot ninjas, because, at least that's acceptable for parents and kids. If they're not fighting humans then it's okay to slice and dice them up. The Censorship system or parental complaints... You decide which is more exasperating?

 

  Also, FU... SION... HA!!! That's from Dragon Ball Z or in case you've been living under a rock. DBZ rules LOL!

[Guest]

Fallacy this, argument that, I'm saying as it is. Bringing out Donald Trump who has nothing to do with this cartoon at all.

 

I'm guessing you're going to pull out a Stalin and Hitler next. Strawman is strawman.

 

Oppression? Are you kidding me? If this is giving you a heart attack (I doubt you're even gay) then watching South Park would put you in a coma for sure.

Actually they do hold relevance if you read them together and keep them in context. When you pull them purposefully out of context like you're doing they become a strawman, but that doesn't make them a strawman by default. You are purposefully picking apart the argument and breaking it into pieces that were not proposed separately like they were in an attempt to discredit the argument.

 

South Park also is satire, the actions of CN UK were not done for ironic purposes at all.

 

 

 

Wrong. That's exactly what CN UK said. They claimed Rose and Pearl romantically dancing was "inappropriate for children" and violated the U-rating.

 

^ He is correct as showing the scene would not have affected the rating at all.

 

 

 

(I doubt you're even gay)

 

 

 

 

Thirdly, what does my sexuality and gender have anything to do with it?

 

I have to agree with that, Cider. That's an ad hominem if I ever saw one.

 

 

 

Meh... Just meh. I could be in a minority here but was it necessary?

 

It wasn't necessary, that's the problem.

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 3,016]

I don't know much about Steven Universe, so if I happened to see this without knowing about the controversy, I don't think I would have noticed anything "off". I understand annoyance in cases when pandering is done for specified group, but I didn't even see that in this scene. I don't know whether they had complaints from excessively sensitive people in the past and/or they're being excessively paranoid about negative backlash, but I fail to see how the censor was necessary (scene wouldn't appear any different if one of the dancing characters was male).

[cider float 2,539]

 

I have to agree with that, Cider. That's an ad hominem if I ever saw one.

 

An ad hominem? Where? I'm merely questioning Dark Qivut's ambition towards this topic. 

 

I figured this isn't in the debate pit so I don't see anything wrong with a question of one's own reason of feeling so strongly about the subject. 

[Guest]

An ad hominem? Where? I'm merely questioning Dark Qivut's ambition towards this topic. 

 

I figured this isn't in the debate pit so I don't see anything wrong with a question of one's own reason of feeling so strongly about the subject. 

I figured you would go that route. Predictable, but what else can I expect but back pedaling to safety?

 

We all know what you were really trying to do, considering you were attempting to call out logical fallacies a little while ago and now when they are called out on you, you feign ignorance. It isn't even really a very well disguised attempt. His ambition towards the topic is totally irrelevant because not being gay or being gay does not suddenly make his opinion/research/presentation anymore factual or non-factual. So to bring it up at all is more or less attempting to either waste time or somehow attempt to use it in your argument (which you are doing despite this not being debate pit as you're trying to counter arguments).

 

Honestly, it would be more respectful if you just owned what you were trying to do rather than try to back pedal out of it the moment you get called out on it. It definitely makes me consider your posts as trolling when you do that because you can't even stand by your own posts when called out upon them.

[cider float 2,539]

I figured you would go that route. Predictable, but what else can I expect but back pedaling to safety?

 

We all know what you were really trying to do, considering you were attempting to call out logical fallacies a little while ago and now when they are called out on you, you feign ignorance. It isn't even really a very well disguised attempt. His ambition towards the topic is totally irrelevant because not being gay or being gay does not suddenly make his opinion/research/presentation anymore factual or non-factual. So to bring it up at all is more or less attempting to either waste time or somehow attempt to use it in your argument (which you are doing despite this not being debate pit as you're trying to counter arguments).

 

Honestly, it would be more respectful if you just owned what you were trying to do rather than try to back pedal out of it the moment you get called out on it. It definitely makes me consider your posts as trolling when you do that because you can't even stand by your own posts when called out upon them.

Except I wasn't even trying to win anything as you believe. You can continue believing that, he doesn't have to answer if he chose not to, it's more of a courtesy if he did rather. 

 

I don't care about the legalization of marijuana because I do not use it. In any logical sense it makes no sense unless there was some kind of ulterior motive towards it but if I did argue for the legalization of it and act so strongly it would make no sense there is nothing for me there. Tell me why would him being gay or not be irrelevant? If we sit and say that is irrelevant than why is he so passionate about it? Is he debating just for the giggles?

Edited January 12, 2016 by cider float