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

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

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.

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

Last edited by arctic on Jun-05-2004 at 10:47

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???

___________________
Retro ...

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!

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

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.

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

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.