movies/tv Gay characters in a kids show?

[Durandal 623]

@,

 

Unless of course that wasn't a pun, then it was just a missed opportunity.

 

Anyways, I believe gay characters should show up much more often in media in general, kid's shows included. Why? Because if homosexuality wants to become accepted, it needs to be taught from an early age that it's just like heterosexual relationships. There's absolutely nothing wrong with kids being exposed to it, as the concept is no different from heterosexual relationships, regardless of whether you consider it a choice or not.

 

As for parents complaining about what to tell their child, I think Louis C.K. summarizes my response quite nicely.

 

"I dunno, it's your shitty kid, you fuckin' tell 'em! Why is that anyone else's problem? Two guys are in love but they can't get married because you don't want to talk to your ugly child for fuckin' five minutes?"

 

Please tell me where I said it's a choice for homosexuals. I never said such thing. You must think I'm blind to the fact where I do not understand homosexual lifestyles. I said "I," not homosexuals.

But are you being ignorant to the fact where heterosexuals have a choice to become homosexual? What really constitutes for someone that is heterosexual to become homosexual? I never said homosexuals don't have a choice.

 

 

 I'm sorry, it's a choice for heterosexuals, but not homosexuals? What, are we two different species, or something? Either people choose what their sexuality is or it's a part of them from the beginning, there's no select group of people that suddenly have control over it, while everyone else doesn't.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Durandal

[John 793]

1. It is not a choice. I am gay. I did not choose to be gay....I am who I am.

 

I really dislike it when people say it's a choice, because quite simply put....it is not. I can choose to act straight though.But where's thepoint in that? I rather just be myself.

 

It depends on what you see as being "gay."

Is it having the urge to act homosexual or is it acting on that urge to act homosexual.

[Party Cannon 876]

 

@ leave Pinkie out of this.

 

As for the subject at hand, homosexuals have been in cartoons longer than you think. Obviously the subtlety has subsided a bit more over time. Nothing new here.

 

I am not the kind of person to tell people how to live their life, so homosexuality doesn't bother me. Just because I don't hate something, doesn't mean I have to support it though. I don't hate rap music, but it don't love it either. I judge on a person to person base, not through group identification. In the case of cartoons, as long as they are entertaining I don't care what they bang.

 

It is a widely agreed upon stat that roughly only 4% of the American population is gay/bi/or transgender. Therefore, I don't think they should be over represented in media as I frankly think they currently are.

 

As for My Little Pony...leave it alone please. I was already hesitant for Twilight Sparkle to have a heterosexual relationship with Flash Sentry. This simply isn't the show for such things, especially as far as the Mane Six are concerned.

 

Lastly, shippers, do what you wanna do, but please try to contain it juuust a smidge.

[Tenshinohana 264]

Hmm, the only TV-show I've seen that has a gay couple, is Sailor Moon. And the other one in the relationship is weirdly transgendered - she's not choosing to be transgendered or anything. It's a relationship that's heterosexual and homosexual at the same time...

 

But I don't really see Sailor Moon as a kids show, since I've read the original manga... Kinda the same as calling every anime "kids show's.

 

 I'm sorry, it's a choice for heterosexuals, but not homosexuals? What, are we two different species, or something? Either people choose what their sexuality is or it's a part of them from the beginning, there's no select group of people that suddenly have control over it, while everyone else doesn't.

 

This has been a fact that people have tried to uncover for a loong, long time. There are facts pointing, that your sexuality is something that you're born with (are you gay or not). And there are facts that support the theory that you decide what your sexuality is.

 

Buuut I myself wouldn't mind, if in a kids show there'd be a moment where a girl crushes on another girl. Or a boy on a boy. It doesn't have to be overly sexual or anything, but since girl-and-boy -relationships is also let in a kids series, then why not this?

 

If no gays, no hetero, I'd say. But if hetero is acceptable, I'd say gay should be acceptable too.

[John 793]

 

 

Anyways, I believe gay characters should show up much more often in media in general, kid's shows included. Why? Because if homosexuality wants to become accepted, it needs to be taught from an early age that it's just like heterosexual relationships. There's absolutely nothing wrong with kids being exposed to it, as the concept is no different from heterosexual relationships, regardless of whether you consider it a choice or not.

 

As for parents complaining about what to tell their child, I think Louis C.K. summarizes my response quite nicely.

 

"I dunno, it's your shitty kid, you fuckin' tell 'em! Why is that anyone else's problem? Two guys are in love but they can't get married because you don't want to talk to your ugly child for fuckin' five minutes?"

 

 

You say Homosexuality needs to be taught from an early age.  What if they people you are subjecting to this dictation happen to believe that homosexuality is spiritually impure?  Forcing this on them seems to be just as wrong as Heterosexuals forcing their beliefs.  You can teach your children to accept something, but that does not mean you have to teach them that it is right.  Otherwise, everyone loses in the end.

Edited June 26, 2013 by John

[Tenshinohana 264]

You say Homosexuality needs to be taught from an early age.  What if they people you are subjecting to this dictation happen to believe that homosexuality is spiritually impure?  Forcing this on them seems to be just as wrong as Heterosexuals forcing their beliefs.  You can teach your children to accept something, but that does not mean you have to teach them that it is right.  Otherwise, everyone loses in the end.

I think that quite a bit of "no homosexuality" -people would think the other way if they'd learn it's natural. The fact is that people see this as highly unnatural, which it is actually not.

 

If the children see heterosexual couples in a kids show, why not gay? It's just the same basic thing, after all.

 

I don't really get the fuss around "gay" things. I understand that conservatives don't like it, yeah, but I just see it as a natural thing, even tho it'd be gay.

[Fox 5,330]

 

 

 I'm sorry, it's a choice for heterosexuals, but not homosexuals? What, are we two different species, or something? Either people choose what their sexuality is or it's a part of them from the beginning, there's no select group of people that suddenly have control over it, while everyone else doesn't.

So, if you read what Flutter Dash said. Then you would be well aware what I'm addressing. If you want to discuss if gays can make a decision or not. You'd probably have to take it up with the other people that say it's not a decision. I'm not sure if gays can make a choice or not~  You say they can, but  Flutter Dash says it's not a matter of choice. 

 

 

1. It is not a choice. I am gay. I did not choose to be gay....I am who I am.

 

I really dislike it when people say it's a choice, because quite simply put....it is not. I can choose to act straight though.But where's thepoint in that? I rather just be myself.

Added quote*

Edited June 26, 2013 by Fox

[Ferret Girl 2,642]

 

@ leave Pinkie out of this.

 

As for the subject at hand, homosexuals have been in cartoons longer than you think. Obviously the subtlety has subsided a bit more over time. Nothing new here.

 

I am not the kind of person to tell people how to live their life, so homosexuality doesn't bother me. Just because I don't hate something, doesn't mean I have to support it though. I don't hate rap music, but it don't love it either. I judge on a person to person base, not through group identification. In the case of cartoons, as long as they are entertaining I don't care what they bang.

 

It is a widely agreed upon stat that roughly only 4% of the American population is gay/bi/or transgender. Therefore, I don't think they should be over represented in media as I frankly think they currently are.

 

As for My Little Pony...leave it alone please. I was already hesitant for Twilight Sparkle to have a heterosexual relationship with Flash Sentry. This simply isn't the show for such things, especially as far as the Mane Six are concerned.

 

Lastly, shippers, do what you wanna do, but please try to contain it juuust a smidge.

Did you honestly not understand what I was trying to do or are you just joking around... because I can't tell, and I'm slightly irate.

[John 793]

I think that quite a bit of "no homosexuality" -people would think the other way if they'd learn it's natural. The fact is that people see this as highly unnatural, which it is actually not.

 

If the children see heterosexual couples in a kids show, why not gay? It's just the same basic thing, after all.

 

I don't really get the fuss around "gay" things. I understand that conservatives don't like it, yeah, but I just see it as a natural thing, even tho it'd be gay.

 

I see where your coming from, but in all honesty:

I don't think you can make that judgement until you know for sure.  You shouldn't subject others to your assumptions.  Also, it IS natural in one sense but may be considered unnatural in others.  From a, "can you be born that way" perspective, the answer is "yes you can."  You can also be born predisposed to cancer which, in this sense, technically is natural.  For the sake of procreation, however, homosexuality can be considered to be unnatural.  Nature often has quirks and mishaps.  Nonetheless, we should respect people for who they are on a human level and never deny them any right to anything.

[Durandal 623]

You say Homosexuality needs to be taught from an early age.  What if they people you are subjecting to this dictation happen to believe that homosexuality is spiritually impure?  Forcing this on them seems to be just as wrong as Heterosexuals forcing their beliefs.  You can teach your children to accept something, but that does not mean you have to teach them that it is right.  Otherwise, everyone loses in the end.

 

If we're assuming it's the parents that believe such, then they're wrong. I'm sorry, but they are. They're not allowing their children to be exposed to homosexuality, so they're blinding them to that portion of the human race. As a parent, you're allowed to steer your child down a certain path, that's fine, however if you shield your child to confirm your bias, that's when it's wrong. The child should be able to choose what he does and doesn't believe - if your ideals don't hold up to scrutiny, you have no right to force it on your kid if he disagrees. Our obsession with the fact that somehow parents have a monopoly on what their kids think is misguided.

 

Not only that, but how is it forcing it on them? Homosexuals are on TV now, so what? They aren't shoving it down your throat, they're simply on the screen. Now, if you took my statement as meaning actual education, then see the previous paragraph.

 

 

So, if you read what Flutter Dash said. Then you would be well aware what I'm addressing. If you want to discuss if gays can make a decision or not. You'd probably have to take it up with the other people that say it's not a decision. I'm not sure if gays can make a choice or not~  You say they can, but  Flutter Dash says it's not a matter of choice. 

 

I believe it's not a choice, however that's totally irrelevant to my argument. My argument was that either we all choose or we don't, there is no specific group that has the ability to choose, or not choose.

 

Also, what does Flutter Dash have to do with my statement? You're the one saying heterosexuals can choose while homosexuals can't. Flutter simply said it isn't a choice.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Durandal

[Party Cannon 876]

Did you honestly not understand what I was trying to do or are you just joking around... because I can't tell, and I'm slightly irate.

 

What I call a "gay food fight" is going on right now, so it was both.   It was delivered in jest and with uncertainty as what you meant. Nontheless, wouldn't want Pinkie Pie to get caught in the verbal crossfire. Love dah Pinkie.

 

I agree, the current use of the word gay in the English language is historical yet unwise.

 

Fun fact: Bringing Up Baby (1938) was the first film to ever use the word in such a way.

 

[John 793]

If we're assuming it's the parents that believe such, then they're wrong. I'm sorry, but they are. They're not allowing their children to be exposed to homosexuality, so they're blinding them to that portion of the human race. As a parent, you're allowed to steer your child down a certain path, that's fine, however if you shield your child to confirm your bias, that's when it's wrong. The child should be able to choose what he does and doesn't believe - if your ideals don't hold up to scrutiny, you have no right to force it on your kid if he disagrees. Our obsession with the fact that somehow parents have a monopoly on what their kids think is misguided.

 

Not only that, but how is it forcing it on them? Homosexuals are on TV now, so what? We aren't shoving it down your throat, they're simply on the screen. Now, if you took my statement as meaning actual education, then see the previous paragraph.

 

 

 

I believe it's not a choice, however that's totally irrelevant to my argument. My argument was that either we all choose or we don't, there is no specific group that has the ability to choose, or not choose.

 

Also, what does Flutter Dash have to do with my statement? You're the one saying heterosexuals can choose while homosexuals can't. Flutter simply said it isn't a choice.

 

Here we go; now your stating that you are right and they are wrong.  There's no surefire way for anyone to really know the truth.  Nonetheless, you should respect anyone with these religious beliefs.  If its not teaching to hate or oppress gays, you should have no problem with it.  Hell, if that's a "bias" then almost everything you teach your kids is a bias.  It is good to have respect for the religious beliefs of others.  I don't know what gives you the idea that sexuality is more important than religion.

 

Like someone said above, gays are a smaller portion of the human race.  Because of this, it would not be politically correct to assert their presence in everything and anything just to make a point about how "they exist."  

[Sugar Pea 2,682]

In my opinion (deal with it) it's shoving homesexuality down a child's throat. They are too young to be learning about it, and too young to know what it is, which is why I think they should be taught about it in a later age. Homosexuality isn't genetic, it's a choice, since that's the excuse some like to bring up nowadays. But only they can decide their sexuality. Please no hate responses

Edited June 26, 2013 by Pandah-Sama

[CobraCommando 37]

Hey guess what, If it's a choice why pick it nobody outside those with above 90 IQ like it. So why in the hell chose it, Hell i would be gay on Saturday and become straight for church or some shit anyone who say's "Being gay is a choice" is a cultist in my opinion because that's how they operate. Uneducated and teaching them thing's are wrong at an early age (Brain washing is something different) it's how all Cultist organisations of history operated and today is no exception and it's stupid to think people have a choice in what they like sexually if that was the case then why not always be both? 

 

Logic is flawed at that point, Being both is better then limiting you're self to one as it's a better chance at getting someone you like in life not something you hate and you can pick and choose from a larger pool of people then a straight person or a gay person could pick from. 

 

Just my opinion after all.

 

Anyway gay people in a kid's show, How would you tell outside of him saying "Hey, I'm gay" i for one don't care, Only way that should matter is if i'm dating them or have an interest in such a thing. so in my opinion don't care if it make's it more compelling sure?

Edited June 26, 2013 by CobraComando

[Durandal 623]

For the sake of procreation, however, homosexuality can be considered to be unnatural.  Nature often has quirks and mishaps.  Nonetheless, we should respect people for who they are on a human level and never deny them any right to anything.

 

Then there's the argument about it being unnatural. My only question is, what is unnatural? Natural is something you see in nature. The natural world, the physical world. If something is observed in nature, there is no possible way it's unnatural. It makes no sense. Philosophy is unnatural, its an abstract idea. It has no shape or form in our environment, it comes from our heads.

 

Though I understand it's semantics, it does a lot to discredit arguments, as natural tends to be used as a stand-in for socially acceptable. In this case, it fails again - no entity has a monopoly on how socially acceptable something is, it just doesn't work that way. What is acceptable in the United States might not be acceptable in Uganda, or China, so it's a moot point.

 

All this leaves us with is 'I personally do not approve of this form of behavior, action, object, or topic, and may or may not be backed by the people of my locale due to social norms.' This sort of reasoning is invalid - things are not the way they are because you think they are.

 

Here we go; now your stating that you are right and they are wrong.  There's no surefire way for anyone to really know the truth.  Nonetheless, you should respect anyone with these religious beliefs.  If its not teaching to hate or oppress gays, you should have no problem with it.  Hell, if that's a "bias" then almost everything you teach your kids is a bias.  It is good to have respect for the religious beliefs of others.  I don't know what gives you the idea that sexuality is more important than religion.

 

Like someone said above, gays are a smaller portion of the human race.  Because of this, it would not be politically correct to assert their presence in everything and anything just to make a point about how "they exist."

 

Yes, I am stating that they're wrong, because sometimes people are wrong. It happens.

 

Also, yes there is. In any form of objective debate, the truth can be discerned by an application of the scientific method. In any form of subjective debate where people are affected (social, political, economic, etc.), the truth can be discerned by analyzing both sides of the argument, and picking the side that most respects natural rights of human beings.

 

Now, I will grant that not all subjective arguments have a right answer. Sometimes they are up to things such as personal preference, or a utilitarian outlook (what is the most morally right, to me, and in general?). For example, in your own argument, you explained that they considered homosexuals spiritually impure. If they do not not infringe on another person's rights, they aren't morally wrong. I'd argue that that position is arrogant, and makes the assumption that the believer feels they have some form of moral highground over homosexuals, however as long as they don't try to force that belief on anyone they haven't done anything wrong, per se.

 

That's the issue, though. The parents are enforcing a belief on their kids, and disallowing them any means to scrutinize or judge the belief. They can tell their kid homosexuals are spiritually impure, however if they do not allow them to see homosexuals for themselves - to allow their children to judge for themselves if a homosexual is impure or not, then they are trespassing over their child's right to his opinion. He has a right to know both sides of the debate, and to decide for himself what he believes in. That is the only proper way to form healthy viewpoints on the world.

 

Also I never said they should be everywhere, don't put words in my mouth. I want homosexuals to be recognized, I don't want special treatment.

 

And finally... Sexuality determines whether you can procreate, religion is a way to answer 'why are we here?' and how we view the world. So yeah, according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs (oh and reproduction), it kinda is more important.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Durandal

[Fox 5,330]

You're the one saying heterosexuals can choose while homosexuals can't. Flutter simply said it isn't a choice.

  

 

 I never said homosexuals don't have a choice. 

 I never said homosexuals don't have a choice. 

 I never said homosexuals don't have a choice. 

 

Go read post 48 again, which is NOT EDITED.

 

( http://mlpforums.com/topic/64750-gay-characters-in-a-kids-show/page-3#entry1595387 ) <-- Quick Link

 

I don't care if someone makes a choice or not. It's their decision if they want to consider it a choice or not. (which I said in my post if you read it correctly the first time, [not to be rude]). Not my problem because we are supposed to be talking about a gay character being featured in a show... in this thread. Not a thorough thread discussion about homosexuality. :V

[~Lawful Jordo~ 2,066]

I find nothing wrong with he concept of homosexuals in television, but It would be hard to portray in a children's show without shoving it in your face. 

 

Sexuality in general is very much downplayed in kids shows, and it's not hard to figure out why. 

[John 793]

I don't mean to offend you in any way.  That's not what I'm here for.  So be a friend and try to understand where i'm coming from and I'll do likewise.

 
Then there's the argument about it being unnatural. My only question is, what is unnatural? Natural is something you see in nature. The natural world, the physical world. If something is observed in nature, there is no possible way it's unnatural. It makes no sense. Philosophy is unnatural, its an abstract idea. It has no shape or form in our environment, it comes from our heads.

That's what I was asking in my previous response.  And for human society, because we have developed minds and are destined to make philosophical assumptions, I would argue by your definition of what is natural, philosophy too is natural.
 
Though I understand it's semantics, it does a lot to discredit arguments, as natural tends to be used as a stand-in for socially acceptable. In this case, it fails again - no entity has a monopoly on how socially acceptable something is, it just doesn't work that way. What is acceptable in the United States might not be acceptable in Uganda, or China, so it's a moot point.

 

Yes.
 
All this leaves us with is 'I personally do not approve of this form of behavior, action, object, or topic, and may or may not be backed by the people of my locale due to social norms.' This sort of reasoning is invalid - things are not the way they are because you think they are.

 

The ending of this phrase was worded funny.  I had trouble understanding what you meant by invalid.  

No.  Its not only about social norms.
 

 
Yes, I am stating that they're wrong, because sometimes people are wrong. It happens.

 

How do you know your not wrong?  Hell, anyone could be wrong so its best to not shut people down.  Just maybe someday you will learn you were wrong.  Who knows?
 
Also, yes there is. In any form of objective debate, the truth can be discerned by an application of the scientific method. In any form of subjective debate where people are affected (social, political, economic, etc.), the truth can be discerned by analyzing both sides of the argument, and picking the side that most respects natural rights of human beings.

 

Due to the fact that this argument involved the humanities, It would be foolish to categorize it as an objective argument.  (I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to do.)

 

I see you assuming that all humans have natural rights.  I'm assuming this comes from some subjective moral philosophy of yours.  What makes yours more important than anyone else's?
 
Now, I will grant that not all subjective arguments have a right answer. Sometimes they are up to things such as personal preference, or a utilitarian outlook (what is the most morally right, to me, and in general?). For example, in your own argument, you explained that they considered homosexuals spiritually impure. If they do not not infringe on another person's rights, they aren't morally wrong. I'd argue that that position is arrogant, and makes the assumption that the believer feels they have some form of moral highground over homosexuals, however as long as they don't try to force that belief on anyone they haven't done anything wrong, per se.

 

You have to stop assuming that all religious people are "arrogant" and want to feel higher than others.  In fact, in many religions, pride itself is a sin.  And yes, they aren't doing anything wrong.
 
That's the issue, though. The parents are enforcing a belief on their kids, and disallowing them any means to scrutinize or judge the belief. They can tell their kid homosexuals are spiritually impure, however if they do not allow them to see homosexuals for themselves, to allow their children to judge for themselves if a homosexual is impure or not, then they are trespassing over their child's right to his opinion. He has a right to know both sides of the debate, and to decide for himself what he believes in. That is the only proper way to form healthy viewpoints on the world.

 

What makes you think a child has the capacity to judge this for  themselves? 

Also I never said they should be everywhere, don't put words in my mouth. I want homosexuals to be recognized, I don't want special treatment.

 

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth.  That was a figure of speech because I didn't know that we we're having a formal debate...
 
And finally... Sexuality determines whether you can procreate, religion is a way to answer 'why are we here?' and how we view the world. So yeah, according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs (oh and reproduction), it kinda is more important.

 

So now your quoting something that can be found in a health textbook and claiming that It has the answer to what is ultimately more important.

 

Reply is in the quotations.

Edited June 26, 2013 by John

[Spring Storm 276]

I honestly don't see anything wrong with putting homosexual romance in a kids' show. I don't see how people can say it'll have a huge influence on kids, when heterosexuality is pretty much paraded throughout tons of cartoons. It's not like there would be anything explicit in the show. If a homosexual couple was to be shown, it would probably be done similarly to how Mr. and Mrs. Cake are shown: a loving couple, but not offensively so. If it's okay for a show to have a straight couple having a baby and another straight couple getting married, I don't see how it isn't okay to show two female or two male characters who have romantic involvement.

 

I'd like to add that sexuality is NOT a choice. I spent over two and a half years trying to date men - I was never that attracted to them, and I would often cry, scream, and feel unhappy with them. My longest relationship with a man lasted for seven months. It was long-distance to boot (though I did date men in person as well), so there was less uncomfortable-ness on my part, and I really, truly loved and cared about him. But as the relationship went on, I grew less and less happy. It got to the point where I was fighting back tears at the mere mention of him. And while he did do some things that made me less happy, I think it was my discomfort with men that really decreased my happiness - it's how I had always felt when I dated men, and it built up even stronger over time. Not long after, I dated a woman online, and for once, I actually felt happy. I was attracted to her and comfortable with her. Never before had I known that a relationship could actually feel good and be stress-free. So I tried for a long time to change, dating a variety of men and having good and bad relationships with them (I even dated a feminine guy and still had the stress!). So, while I technically can choose to date a man, that's choosing who to date, not choosing my sexuality. My brain is hard-wired to only be attracted to and comfortable with women.

 

As far as FiM goes, I highly doubt they'll ever outright show a gay couple. Sure, they drop some hints, like putting Lyra and Bon Bon together, and some FlutterDash-ish stuff, but it's easily missable and not a "for certain, these characters are gay" thing. While I do think FiM could handle the topic of homosexuality incredibly well, I doubt they'll risk upsetting the tons of overly-conservative parents out there. If you think Derpygate was bad in terms of parental outrage, this would be way worse. I do hope we see homosexual couples pop up in kids' shows in the future, but with FiM being so parent-reliant, I doubt it'll be the show to do it.

[Durandal 623]

Please tell me where I said it's a choice for homosexuals. I never said such thing. You must think I'm blind to the fact where I do not understand homosexual lifestyles. I said "I," not homosexuals.

 

But are you being ignorant to the fact where heterosexuals have a choice to become homosexual? What really constitutes for someone that is heterosexual to become homosexual? I never said homosexuals don't have a choice.

 

Please tell me where I said it's a choice for homosexuals.

But are you being ignorant to the fact where heterosexuals have a choice to become homosexual? What really constitutes for someone that is heterosexual to become homosexual? I never said homosexuals don't have a choice.

 

Again, my argument is the fact that people either choose or they don't. You, practically, stated 'I never said it's a choice for homosexuals', but then you came back and said 'I never said homosexuals don't have a choice'. Well, is it one or the other? You indicated that heterosexuals can have a choice, so really you're saying homosexuals also have a choice. However, you said prior that you didn't say it's a choice. What are you saying?

 

EDIT: I should note that I've realized I was partially wrong. I had thought you said that homosexuals don't have a choice, while heterosexuals do. Though your post is still contradictory, the way I perceived it was erroneous, and I apologize.

 

 ---

 

 

That's what I was asking in my previous response.  And for human society, because we have developed minds and are destined to make philosophical assumptions, I would argue by your definition of what is natural, philosophy too is natural.

 

No, it is not. An idea has no physical form, it is a result of a thought process, which as far as we know, aren't tangible in themselves. By my reasoning, it isn't natural, because it isn't in the physical world, and it doesn't affect it. Is there anything wrong with this? No. Unnatural means, essentially, abstract. What's bad about that?

 

The ending of this phrase was worded funny.  I had trouble understanding what you meant by invalid.  

No.  Its not only about social norms.

 

What I was saying was that thought doesn't dictate how the world works. Just because you think a skittle is an M&M doesn't make it an M&M. It's still a skittle.

 

Also it pretty much is. Western society grew up believing homosexuality is wrong because a long time ago it became a common opinion. People taught their kids this, so it slowly became a norm that homosexuality is wrong. We could have as easily said 'homosexuality is awesome', and seen the same results.

 

How do you know your not wrong?  Hell, anyone could be wrong so its best to not shut people down.  Just maybe someday you will learn you were wrong.  Who knows?

 

That's actually counterproductive. If you're wrong, civil debate should be able to determine if you are. We're doing it right now - pitting ideas against each other to see who is wrong and who is right. This is why I encourage healthy, civil debate - even if you lose a debate, you learn from it, and incorporate those ideas. It's a slow and steady process of revision, sometimes with no real endpoint.

 

Due to the fact that this argument involved the humanities, It would be foolish to categorize it as an objective argument.  (I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to do.)

 

I see you assuming that all humans have natural rights.  I'm assuming this comes from some subjective moral philosophy of yours.  What makes yours more important than anyone else's?

 

I'm categorizing it as subjective, however I'm saying that a basic system of morals functions in much the same way the scientific method does - it helps us come to an understanding of what is the most correct opinion on a matter.

 

Also, not just my moral philosophy, but a universally understood standard. Every human being has four rights: the right to life, the right to liberty (freedom of agency - I can do what I want to as an individual), the right to property (I can own stuff), and the right to happiness (The pursuit of happiness - I am allowed to do what I want to ensure a happy life for myself, as long as other people aren't harmed). Though these are broad and a more in-depth analysis is required, it works as a universal framework.

 

Why is it universal? Because we all understand that these are desired. Every person wants to be able to speak his mind, act the way he wants, own his own materials and resources, and have the capability of making himself happy. These are universally desired, thus it can be assumed that taking these away from someone else is bad not only for them, but for you. If you kill a man, what say do you have in keeping your own life? Though I do not believe in a Hammurabian viewpoint on justice, couldn't it be said that by taking away a man's right to live, you in the process strip yourself of that right as well?

 

You have to stop assuming that all religious people are "arrogant" and want to feel higher than others.  In fact, in many religions, pride itself is a sin.  And yes, they aren't doing anything wrong.

 

Ehm, where'd I say that? Again, you're putting words in my mouth - I indicated that the belief that homosexuals are spiritually impure is specifically arrogant because it assumes some form of moral highground. I did not say religious people are arrogant, I said that specific belief is.

 

What makes you think a child has the capacity to judge this for  themselves? 

 

They can think logically, can't they? If they are capable of reason, they are capable of judging things themselves.

 

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth.  That was a figure of speech because I didn't know that we we're having a formal debate...

 

Then why bring it up? I never said they should be everywhere, thus it's a moot point.

 

So now your quoting something that can be found in a health textbook and claiming that It has the answer to what is ultimately more important.

 

I think it can be assumed that the need to reproduce is, evolutionarily speaking, more important than religion, yes. Speaking as a sentient being, however, it's a bit more complex than that.

 

 

Totally unrelated, but thanks for friending me! It always makes me happy to know that there are people out there that can debate in a civil manner, and still remain on friendly terms regardless of its outcome!

Edited June 26, 2013 by Durandal

[ReGen 1,466]

*Reads topic title*

 

 

While I absolutely have no problem with my homobros, I don't think our society could handle it.

 

Outraged soccer moms making angry posts on Facebook, religious nuts protesting kids' funerals and WWIII.

 

If someone ever had the grapes to do so, then they get my support.

 

And hugs.

[Mr. Changeling 132]

What about him in powerpuff girls. I am almost positive that he was gay. However, it was the 1990s. Things are much more restricted and different.

[Midnight Blade 80]

Well, a long time ago I watched cardcaptor sakura (third anime I've watched in my life and I still remember) and sakura's best friend (forgot her name) obviously was in love with her but chose not to say anything because sakura obvioulsy wan't into other girls.

 

My point is that it's a show for children but there are still subtle hints of homosexuality in there, it doesn't have to be big but I think it could be implemented in such a way, if not in mlp maybe in another show.

[hawkflame 3,310]

I think it's an idea that will come to pass eventually, and I don't think that's a bad thing.  Homosexuals aren't inherently bad or good; they're just a part of everyday life.  And I think that children's television will eventually grow to reflect that. 

 

Am I in support of characters in MLP coming out as gay?  Well, I'm of two minds on that.  I'm dead set against that becoming canon for any of the Mane Six, but not because of any homophobia on my part.  Right now they're all on equal footing in terms of their relationships with one another.  Making two of them romantically involved with each other would upset that balance and draw attention away from the overall group bond.  Even having any one of them getting really romantically involved with any non-Mane Six character (whether male or female) would similarly be a distraction from the core friendship. 

 

But if they bring in a new character that happens to be gay, or background or supporting character turns out to be gay, that's fine. 

[Sazama Ichida 2,367]

Hold on a minute. I admit I have never seen a full episode of SpongeBob, and I never watched Bert and Ernie, so maybe I'm wrong here. But my issue is this: Why is it assumed that two close friends are automatically gay? This is a bigotry going in the other direction. People are so eager to jump onto the pro-gay bandwagon that they have to stretch their imagination and find "gayness" in everything. It is, by definition, prejudice to assume two characters are gay, merely because of their close friendship. You can care and even love someone as a friend without being gay.

 

Is SpongeBob really gay, in that he has sex with Patrick? I'm going to assume Nickelodeon doesn't portray sex (probably a bad assumption), therefore, we can't possibly know if Spongebob is gay. Two males can be close friends without being gay.

 

Why the obsession with wanting gay characters? How would that be portrayed? Compare and contrast: Cadence and Shining Armor got married, so clearly they are traditional lovers. And obviously sex happens off camera. Otherwise where do little ponies come from? But the key element in the issue is the separation of sex from love.

 

Sex should not be portrayed in a kids' show. The most that should be shown is that a married pony has a baby. Now, once you remove sex, all that is left is platonic love. But is platonic love also gay? I say no. Once you remove sex from the relationship, you are left with deep friendship and caring. Therefore, it is impossible to portray “gay” in a show without sex. You can imply it to a degree: characters live together, care for each other, etc, but it would be illogical to conclude that said characters MUST be gay.

 

It is hypocritical to force this whole “pro gay” issue down everyone's throat (pardon the imagery). On the one hand the pro gay movement says everyone should be free to be who they are. But on the other hand they want to push people in that direction.

 

The whole issue is artificial. There is not nearly the bigotry that people claim there is. It is politically popular to talk about how “pro gay rights” you are. No matter how accepting our culture is, there will always be people who make their living by “hate bating” by finding bigotry that doesn't exist.

 

Well these seem to imply that they're gay anyway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSsnNjIErfU

 

And sometimes Spongebob and Patrick have held hands. And one time Spongebob said: "I like Squidward"