TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Lesbian Mums Depicted in Kids TV Show
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Lesbian Mums Depicted in Kids TV Show

Reaction from conservative drongos refreshingly predictable:

quote:

Angry family groups accused the ABC of using taxpayer money to indoctrinate toddlers in radical politics, effectively turning Play School into Gay School. "I'm paying for it, every other parent in Australia is paying for it," Australian Family Association spokesman Bill Muehlenberg said. "Taxpayers have the right to know their two or three-year-old kids can turn on Play School and get some basic learning skills without political indoctrination being rammed down their throats."

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/co...255E421,00.html

Hard to believe that people could get so angry about normal human beings being depicted as normal human beings. Political indoctrination or a healthy, realistic view of the world as it is?

who calls dibs on the first gay marraige to be broadcast on network TV?

It seems that people want to leave television for things that seem unreal. and putting them face to face with the facts or what *could* very well happen scares them, if you ask me. Saying that a show or whatever is trying to push views on people is unrealistic. it seems people would rather live in a fantasy bubble where these things will never come near them rather than have their children have knowledge and understanding for "different" situations

I'm not so sure the issue is about the content, but about the fact that it's controversial content to many and they don't want their tax dollars funding something that they view as controversial.

Actually lines up nicely with something on Hannity & Colmes last night. Philadelphia now has a TV ad, paid for in part by tax dollars, which seeks to invite gays to Philadelphia. The argument was not that the ad was wrong, but that if it's being paid for by tax dollars and it's controversial, then there will be some backlash. Hannity made a very good point that instead of just targeting one group for tourism purposes, it would make a lot more sense if they simply targeted all groups as potential tourists because it benefits all. Who cares if gay people go to Philadelphia? The point is that they should promote general tourism by all groups.

I don't care what people do in their private lives in the bedroom--it's none of my business. However when taxpayer dollars get diverted to special interest groups you start to walk that slippery slope.

You can buttfuck in your bedroom, but don't use my money to pay for the bedroom that you buttfuck in, and for gods sakes don't buttfuck in front of me or my kid.

quote:

Originally posted by ambs It seems that people want to leave television for things that seem unreal. and putting them face to face with the facts or what *could* very well happen scares them, if you ask me. Saying that a show or whatever is trying to push views on people is unrealistic. it seems people would rather live in a fantasy bubble where these things will never come near them rather than have their children have knowledge and understanding for "different" situations

Unreal to me is a homosexual couple raising a child together. Sure it may happen if one of em has had a child in a past heterosexual adventure, and the other natural parent is unable/unwilling to raise their offspring but seriously this form of family is as rare as pigshit in a pharmaceutical factory when compared to the conventional socially accepted family.
There's no reason for homosexuality or any sexuality to be in the face of a 4 year old especially if it isnt a common occurrance. Kids can deal with homosexuality when theyre mature enough to make their own minds up. I dont want someone telling my kids its actually normal for a kid to have 2 mums or dads. I dont want any messages given to my child that homosexuality is normal.
Dont get me wrong cos when i have kids i'm not gonna preach hatred for gays to em but at the same time i'm not gonna tell my son its quite normal and acceptable to wanna suck ur mates dick!
Playskool is such a dissapointment for me atm. I grew up wanting to bone noni hazelhurst when i was 5(maybe not to that extreme but i did have a crush).

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't care what people do in their private lives in the bedroom--it's none of my business. However when taxpayer dollars get diverted to special interest groups you start to walk that slippery slope.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Exactly how many 'special interest groups' are there with regards to parenting combinations - and are there any with as many members as the gay community? If not, then I don't see how you can use that line of reasoning. To finish off, I present you with a admittedly idiotic parody of your above post. Pay no attention if it makes no sense.

'What people eat in their own homes is their own business - but when my tax dollars start to get diverted to pander to special interest groups (read: people who eat grass instead of nice normal vegetables), you start to walk that slippery slope!'

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen You can buttfuck in your bedroom, but don't use my money to pay for the bedroom that you buttfuck in, and for gods sakes don't buttfuck in front of me or my kid.

Out of curiosity, what does buttfucking have to do with the depiction of two lesbians on a television show?

quote:

Originally posted by Spankster Unreal to me is a homosexual couple raising a child together.

Sorry, but it is real - it happens, and it's going to continue to happen, with increasing frequency too. The show was simply depicting reality.

quote:

Sure it may happen if one of em has had a child in a past heterosexual adventure, and the other natural parent is unable/unwilling to raise their offspring but seriously this form of family is as rare as pigshit in a pharmaceutical factory when compared to the conventional socially accepted family.

Have you read any ABS statistics recently? Not only are more and more gay people having kids, but the 'traditional family unit' that you speak of is fast disintegrating, and is fast on the way out.

quote:

There's no reason for homosexuality or any sexuality to be in the face of a 4 year old especially if it isnt a common occurrance.

Out of curiosity, why shouldn't it be 'in the face of' a 4 year old?

quote:

Kids can deal with homosexuality when theyre mature enough to make their own minds up.

In what way is this show preventing them from making their own minds up?

quote:

I dont want someone telling my kids its actually normal for a kid to have 2 mums or dads.

First off, what exactly do you mean by normal? Secondly - this show isn't telling them that, it's simply showing them that it happens. As to whether young children are even capable of understanding what a lesbian is, I honestly don't know.

quote:

I dont want any messages given to my child that homosexuality is normal.

Again, I'd like to know exactly what you mean by the word normal. I've seen people use it to mean that 'it happens', that 'it's alright and/or acceptable', and that 'the majority do it'.

quote:

Dont get me wrong cos when i have kids i'm not gonna preach hatred for gays to em

Good to hear, as that's the impression that I'd gained after reading the first half of your post. Glad to see that I was wrong.

quote:

but at the same time i'm not gonna tell my son its quite normal and acceptable to wanna suck ur mates dick!

Okay, in what way is it unacceptable? What, in your opinion, is bad/unacceptable about it?

quote:

Playskool is such a dissapointment for me atm. I grew up wanting to bone noni hazelhurst when i was 5(maybe not to that extreme but i did have a crush).

Haha - I took the odd 'fancy' to some of the presenters as well.

i don't see the big deal..

thank god conservatives are not the status quo in australia

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Out of curiosity, what does buttfucking have to do with the depiction of two lesbians on a television show?

Just another twist to the alltime favourite "I don't hate gays, just don't bring that shit anywhere near me" I assume.

i think once again it has been blown out or proportion. Kids who watch this tv show are generally 3-5 personally i dont think a kid at this age can comprehend what was actually happening as the child said "this is me with my two mummies"
Now, if the child were to realise and say something along the lines of why does she have two mummies and the parents didnt want to tell the truth.
A simple solution would to say "one is the real mum, the other is the step mum."
Problem solved, no need to make a big deal out of it.

Lest we forget how impressionable young children are.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic I'm not sure I agree with that. Exactly how many 'special interest groups' are there with regards to parenting combinations - and are there any with as many members as the gay community? If not, then I don't see how you can use that line of reasoning. To finish off, I present you with a admittedly idiotic parody of your above post. Pay no attention if it makes no sense.

Easy, anytime a particular group is targeted, even if it's just 1 out of 5 possibilities(straight marriage, gay male union, gay female union, single mother, single father--did I miss anything besides transgender?), it's targeting a special interest. Look at how bad California's budget problem got. Hell, look at the U.S. deficit. Pandering to special interest groups is a big part of wasted tax dollars. If a private organization/individual wants to spend money on special interest, then by all means spend away. However, when tax dollars are diverted to special interests, the slippery slope comes into play.

quote:

'What people eat in their own homes is their own business - but when my tax dollars start to get diverted to pander to special interest groups (read: people who eat grass instead of nice normal vegetables), you start to walk that slippery slope!'

Sorry, I think you'll have to think of a better analogy. This one doesn't make any sense to me!

Renegade, seriously, who would want these kinds of issues to be displayed in front of 2-3 years old...

who's to say these issues will be recognized by 2-3 year olds. Maybe i'm a little different, but i'm pretty sure that when i was two, i didn't concern myself with the morality of the stimuli placed in front of me. The time for sheltering our children from the realities of the world in which we experience is long gone, and i pitty your future children, malek.

I can't say that i've seen this show, but i'll assume that it isn't trying to portray the lifestyle depicted is the new status quo. To try to justify it's cancellation based on a few closed minds' interpretation of its invasion of their own personal norm is absurd and these people are the ones who need to watch it the most.

It must be hard to run a fear engine when the ones you teach the fear of are being portrayed in a real light. Is the general public so insecure that they cannot see a new perspective without reatracting for fear of their own conversion? I personally see my own path, and any new perspectives offered only further reassure myself to my direction.

The problem here is the fact that gay people ARE NOT normal. Only something like 6% of all humans are gay. They are a perversion by the very fact that a penis is meant to fit in a vagina and that is how a baby is created. Kids should be taught that a NORMAL familily consits of a father and a mother and this is essential for the growth of the human species.

Lesbian mums are perverts and have no place entertaining our children. The TV station should yank them immediately.

What the hell is this, the monthly homophobe society of TA meeting? (with the possible exception of Shakka )

quote:

Originally posted by malek Renegade, seriously, who would want these kinds of issues to be displayed in front of 2-3 years old...

When I have kids, this is exactly the type of segment that I'd like them to see.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Easy, anytime a particular group is targeted, even if it's just 1 out of 5 possibilities(straight marriage, gay male union, gay female union, single mother, single father--did I miss anything besides transgender?), it's targeting a special interest.

Let's assume that I concede the point. What's the problem, in this particular instance, with 'targeting' a special interest? I really don't see what the problem is. The fact is that lesbian and gay families exist, just as single parent families exist. Since shows such as this exist to reflect what's going on in the community, in my opinion they should be depicted.

quote:

Look at how bad California's budget problem got. Hell, look at the U.S. deficit. Pandering to special interest groups is a big part of wasted tax dollars.

Not really knowing anything about California or it's budget, I can't really follow the analogy you're constructing here, sorry.

quote:

If a private organization/individual wants to spend money on special interest, then by all means spend away.

This program wasn't made at the insistence of gay and lesbian lobby groups, it's hardly pandering to them. Having being a regular viewer of the show in question when I myself was a tot, it's there to reflect the diversity of family structures in Australia. That includes race, religion, sexuality and so forth. The ABC is a public broadcaster- it's there to represent all of Australia. Honestly, this overly restrictive social conservative movement wants nothing more than for us all to stick our heads in the sand. The purpose of the segment in question is to depict real life family structures. in the past it's showed immigrant families, and single parent families which have either one father or one mother. Buddhist, Hindu & Sikh families have been featured, as have Muslim families. I have a sneaking suspicion that what the social conservatives would like is for every segment to show the nice, white devout Christian family, with three kids in tow. Nevermind the fact that that isn't the reality of the situation.

quote:

However, when tax dollars are diverted to special interests, the slippery slope comes into play.

Now, I'm well aware that the slippery slope refers to both an argument (that I've never been inclined to take very seriously), and to a common logical fallacy. In this case, I think that you're utilizing the slippery slope fallacy - simply because there just aren't enough family structures around for any perceived 'slippery slope' to come into effect. The purpose of the segment, as mentioned, is to depict different types of families - not just the traditional 'white picket fence' family structure. You're probably not familiar with the current in Australia with regards to the make-up of families, but ABS data has been pointing the the death of the two parents, two or three kids make-up for quite awhile now. This segment reflects that.

Let's be honest here, what exactly is it that you and other social conservatives want? Do you want us to pretend that lesbian families don't exist? Should we simply not depict them on TV and pretend that they'll go away?

quote:

Sorry, I think you'll have to think of a better analogy. This one doesn't make any sense to me!

Well, it didn't make any sense to me either, but i thought that i'd post it anyway just to look like a rambling idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen The problem here is the fact that gay people ARE NOT normal.

Right. Intelligent people aren't normal either, should we stop showing them on television as well?

quote:

Only something like 6% of all humans are gay.

Once again, only 5% or 6% of people have an IQ over a certain threshold as well. A vast minority of people behave in an ethically defensible manner the majority of the time. Should we cease depicting these people on television, simply because they aren't normal?

quote:

They are a perversion by the very fact that a penis is meant to fit in a vagina and that is how a baby is created.

A penis fits in an ass as well. A penis fits in a mouth. Hell, if you're that way inclined, a penis fits in any number of animals. What exactly is your point?

You might also want to note that there are other ways of having children - adoption, IVF and so forth. Unless of course you're putting forward the argument that nature is always right and that any deviation from nature is wrong. If you are, why then are you using a computer?

quote:

Kids should be taught that a NORMAL familily consits of a father and a mother and this is essential for the growth of the human species.

Well no, not really. The 'NORMAL' family is fast dying out, single parent families are fast on the rise. And how is it essential for the survival of the human species? Apparently you've never heard of science and IVF type procedures.

Further to that, depicting gays on TV isn't going to turn people into gays, so it wont have any effect on our capacity to reproduce as a species. If you're suggesting that it will, you're going against the grain of current scientific thought, so I'd very much like to see if you've got any evidence to back up what you're saying.

quote:

Originally posted by emander Lesbian mums are perverts and have no place entertaining our children. The TV station should yank them immediately.

As for you, I'm sorry, but unless you're willing to back up what you say (so far you've simply asserted that they have no place entertaining our children � but you haven't said why they should have no place), you're nothing more than a troll. Go away.

I disapprove of lesbians being depicted in kids shows. I mean, what good does it do for them? For christ's sake they're probably too young to realise and appreciate what they're seeing. I say quit wasting lesbian resources on kids shows and start directing lesbianism to shows geared towards me ... the type of person who's going to appreciate it the most! What's wrong with you aussies???

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I disapprove of lesbians being depicted in kids shows. I mean, what good does it do for them? For christ's sake they're probably too young to realise and appreciate what they're seeing. I say quit wasting lesbian resources on kids shows and start directing lesbianism to shows geared towards me ... the type of person who's going to appreciate it the most! What's wrong with you aussies???

Well - one of the commercial stations does show the following: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330251/. See, we get the best of both worlds - clothed mummy lesbians for the little ones, and hot naked lesbians for people like me!

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen The problem here is the fact that gay people ARE NOT normal. Only something like 6% of all humans are gay. They are a perversion by the very fact that a penis is meant to fit in a vagina and that is how a baby is created. Kids should be taught that a NORMAL familily consits of a father and a mother and this is essential for the growth of the human species.

Strange words from someone from the bay area. come out of the closet mate

If you want to discuss the naturalness of this emerging (and growing) lifestyle, maybe you should consider it as nature's way to curb overpopulation. With the three types of established populace (subjugators, innovators, and breeders), maybe the emergance of a non-breeding sector of the population is needed. For example.... homosexuals

With regards to the "normal family unit", i know plenty of people raised in a considered normal environment whom came out of childhood lost and confused. Shouldn't we be teaching the importance of love and respect as the chief indicators of the family? Why should the sex of the parental units matter if they provide and care for their children?

quote:

They are a perversion by the very fact that a penis is meant to fit in a vagina

By that logic, the penis isn't meant to fit in your hand, but i'm sure that hasn't stopped you from jerking off

quote:

Originally posted by ResonantDrag By that logic, the penis isn't meant to fit in your hand, but i'm sure that hasn't stopped you from jerking off

Ah. My right and left hands. Nature's vaginas.

im pretty sure fuzzygreen meant that this is the way mammals (that's us!) reproduce in the natural world. and for the love of all that is good dont give me the argument that science has created ways for homosexual couples to have children. when i see it happening in the wild then ill consider it a natural way of reproducing.

quote:

Originally posted by The Greek im pretty sure fuzzygreen meant that this is the way mammals (that's us!) reproduce in the natural world. and for the love of all that is good dont give me the argument that science has created ways for homosexual couples to have children. when i see it happening in the wild then ill consider it a natural way of reproducing.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a prime example of the naturalistic fallacy? You'll have to come up with a better argument than that I'm afraid. You simply can't derive an ought from an is.

quote:

Originally posted by The Greek im pretty sure fuzzygreen meant that this is the way mammals (that's us!) reproduce in the natural world. and for the love of all that is good dont give me the argument that science has created ways for homosexual couples to have children. when i see it happening in the wild then ill consider it a natural way of reproducing.

I remember reading about a study dealing with children growing up in homosexual families. Anyway, the psychologists found out that the children were in no way influenced by whether they had a daddy and a mommy or daddy/daddy, mommy/mommy arrangement, meaning the ratio of kids going gay in gay families was the SAME as kids going gay in "normal" families.

The study made quite a stir.


Edit: Also, gays are not exclusively human, there's a lot of documented cases of gay animals. I'm serious!!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.