|
|  | | | | Nickelodeon To Air Gay Parent Special | | | | | found on: The Arizona Republic
written by JET24, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ]
posted Mon 17 Jun 2:22pm | | | | |
 | "Nickelodeon is ignoring over 100,000 e-mails and phone calls and going ahead with plans to air a special on gay parents. Nickelodeon says the program isn't about sexuality but about curbing hate. The Traditional Values Coalition thinks otherwise and is protesting the airing of the special on a children's network," JET24 writes. "If Linda Ellerbee can host a special on Nickelodeon about the Monica Lewinsky scandal and make it tasteful, don't you think she'll be able to do the same here? Or is this program as inappropriate for children as the Traditional Values Coalition says it is?"
| |
[ more plastic... ] |
| | | | | | | 1. Judging by my time in internet chatrooms...
| | | | by dirty sanchez |  | | | at Mon 17 Jun 2:35pm | score of 2.5 succinct | | | | | | |
... I would say they were correct about the 'fag' epithet being the most used against other people.
I can't abide people who go on about traditional values. Are these the values that forced children to work down coal mines; create back street abortionists that killed many young women; force intolerance to those who have different class/colour/creed?
What's the big deal? In a world of ever increasing tension anything that can take away some of the hate we see has got to be good.
Living the Mexican dream; to marry an American woman
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 6. Re: Judging by my time in internet chatrooms...
| | | | by TheMCP | | | | at Mon 17 Jun 3:28pm | score of 2 interesting | | in reply to comment 1 | | | | | |
... I would say they were correct about the 'fag' epithet being the most used against other people. Yes... and the sort of people who use it as an insult are so ingrained with the idea that it's a bad thing that if you don't treat it as such, they can't cope.
Every once in a while I'll be in a gay chatroom and a clueless basher will come in and start calling everyone fags. My general response is "yeah? so? You can't insult us by telling us we are what we're telling you we are." They don't know how to handle it because I'm simply failing to be insulted by what they consider an insult. They sort of go to pieces and sputter for a while, trying to come up with something nasty to say. Usually they eventually try to call me a "cocksucker," to which my response is "I bet I'm better at it than your girlfriend." Shortly after that they go away in a confused huff.
End of line.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 9. Gay Bashers are Easy Targets
| | | | by dirty sanchez |  | | | at Mon 17 Jun 3:52pm | score of 1 succinct | | in reply to comment 6 | | | | | |
I suffered similar abuse at university. I am heterosexual, but I do have homosexual friends, and I thought too that the only way to confront it was similar.
I am of the belief, and I'm sure I will be backed up in this, that homophobes are that way because they are confused in their own sexuality.
Living the Mexican dream; to marry an American woman
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 37. Re: Judging by my time in internet chatrooms...
| | | | by puppeteer | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 8:17am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 6 | | | | | |
Usually they eventually try to call me a "cocksucker," to which my response is "I bet I'm better at it than your girlfriend."
The worst part is, 9 times out of 10, you're probably right. :) I think the world would be a much better place if every one of these "traditional-values" fundies would just politely ask their friendly-neighborhood gay man to teach their wives how to properly go down on them.
After all, aren't they really just pissed off that someone else is getting some?
If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck it is probably just a tool of the conspiracy.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 19. Re: Gay Bashers are Easy Targets
| | | | by stankow |  | | | at Mon 17 Jun 9:00pm | score of 3.5 astute | | in reply to comment 9 | | | | | |
I am of the belief, and I'm sure I will be backed up in this, that homophobes are that way because they are confused in their own sexuality.
As much as we'd like to believe that it's so easy, it's not always true. Just like not all racists are envious of those they despise, so are not all homophobes conflicted about their own latent feelings. Some are just morons who honestly think sexuality is a choice and that homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals have chosen to be weird and sick and perversions of nature's and/or God's laws. And telling them that they're sublimating their own lusts only reinforces their misguided belief that "the gays" are recruiting.
I prefer to believe that people aren't as stupid as they seem sometimes, too. Unfortunately, sometimes a idiot is just a idiot.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 48. Re: Gay Bashers are Easy Targets
| | | | by DrVital | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 9:03am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 19 | | | | | |
I think it pretty much is that easy.
While I can agree that the casual racist/homophobe sitting out there in TV Land, making the occasional offhand remark.\, is just misinformed, when you get down to the flag waving screamers, it's fairly obvious that their anger comes from an inability to deal with their own visualizations and emotions.
Not that they're necessarily gay, but they have so little control of their own internal reality that they're reduced to the impossible task of trying to make sure that it doesn't happen anywhere, anymore, ever.
*****************
I am not content.
*****************
bodymix.net
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 2. Go Nick!
| | | | by KingDead | | | | at Mon 17 Jun 2:53pm | score of 2 astute | | | | | | |
Although I doubt this will completely curb the use of "fag" and it's ilk as a playground insult, it's still a big move. Ideally, this will show kids that a kid with same-sex parents are no different than traditional families.
I have to know what the hell is the Traditional Values Coalition's deal. If they care about children so much, then why are they have thier special-religious-underwear in a twist? I mean, the kid has a family, right? The Coalition is more concerned about the sexuality of the parents then they do about the well-being of the kid. It's ridiculous.
So, in short, props to Nickelodeon.
a.k.a John (Plastic)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 14. Re: Go Nick!
| | | | by TLMoM | | | | at Mon 17 Jun 6:23pm | score of 3.5 helpful | | in reply to comment 2 | | | | | |
I have to know what the hell is the Traditional Values Coalition's deal. If they care about children so much, then why are they have thier special-religious-underwear in a twist? I mean, the kid has a family, right?
Actually, if you see things from the Coalition's point of view, he doesn't.
The Coalition is more concerned about the sexuality of the parents then they do about the well-being of the kid.
Again, from their point of view they do care about the well being of the kid, wanting to get him out of a family that they think will harm him.
Not that I agree with them, but keep in mind that not everyone in the world thinks in eaxtly the same way.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 44. Re: Go Nick!
| | | | by DeaconDoWrong | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 8:52am | score of 2 compelling | | in reply to comment 14 | | | | | |
You were correctly modded with a +.5 nuanced, but still, do you think the Traditional Values Coalition would appreciate that kind of nuance themselves?
Doubtful. I can't picture these people sitting around at their meetings, saying:
"Hold on Bob, from their point of view at least the child has a family, you know. And I'm not saying I agree with them, but they think we're more concerned about sexuality than the well-being of the child."
Or even: "Just because I think one thing doesn't mean everyone does- Let's thank the Lord for diversity of opinion and for granting me the strength to see that all of God's creatures think in different ways. Oh, and for condeming fags to hell, of course".
Anyway, of course everyone thinks differently but that doesn't mean it's all relative and equally correct.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 3. Can't Count...
| | | | by funchords | | | | at Mon 17 Jun 2:54pm | score of 3 funny | | | | | | |
...because now the Traditional Values Coalition says 250,000 people have contacted Nickelodeon to complain.
I love this quote from the article:
Of O'Donnell, [Andrea Sheldon Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition] is openly, and rather personally, critical, calling her a "coward" for waiting until she was ready to retire from TV to acknowledge her homosexuality, and accusing her of denying her children the father they want.
"Her own children desire something she can't or won't give them," says Lafferty. "How selfish can that be?"
Heh. Both my kids want cars -- I'm not buying them. I guess I'm selfish, too.
- -Born Free! (Except for the $15 co-payment.)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 43. Re: Reductio Ad Absurdum
| | | | by waldeaux | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 8:52am | score of 3 brilliant | | in reply to comment 11 | | | | | |
... and God forbid what if the parent DIES!?
No really - the family values people actually penalize kids of one-parent families, not only because of divorce, etc. but because of DEATH. I've read accounts where kids were turned away from events coming with a male guardian (uncle, grandparent, etc.) because "this is a father-son event and we're trying to promote traditional family role models"...
What galls me is that attitude that non-heterosexuals are by nature anti- or
without families. Where do you think they
come from? Hatching? Alien pods? Every non-heterosexual as far as I know of, has parents, most have siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.
MANY of those families ARE accepting and aren't trying to convert them or are kicking them out of the house. Funny that it's the people advocating "traditional family values" that seem to have the hardest time with love, prejudice, tolerance, and the like.
What IS missing from today's society is the interaction of the extended family. These days everyone is very spread out - all over the planet, which makes it harder for kids to have adult role models around. In decades past, these were the people who were around when Dad or Mom were dead (usually from working 16 hour days, 6 or 7 days a week), or away for an extended period of time (like at war). The "traditional family" people don't seem to recognize this. For them, the reality switch is constantly tuned to reruns of Leave it to Beaver 24/7. I really pity them.
Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 51. Re: So, by my count...
| | | | by bigstevec | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 9:08am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
...if 250,000 people have protested the show then roughly 286,750,000 haven't.
Props to Nickelodeon for going with the majority. Too many others are too quick to grease the squeaky wheels.
"These are my principles. If you do not like them, I have others." Groucho Marx
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 4. A Few More Things...
| | | | by funchords | | | | at Mon 17 Jun 3:04pm | score of 2 clever | | | | | | |
A Few More Things...
...thanks to the Traditional Value Coalition, this protest is making national news. So now, due to the publicity, many more people will tune in to Nick's broadcast than otherwise would have tuned in. I know I set my TiVo to record it only after hearing of the TVC protest.
And, one more tasty quote:
Proof that the producers were acting on a pro-gay agenda, [Andrea Sheldon Lafferty, executive director of the TVC] says, can be seen in their selection of adult guests.
...which appears after this mention...
Adult guests on the show will include conservative evangelist Rev. Jerry Falwell...
You know, the guy who thinks Tinky Winky is gay!
- -Born Free! (Except for the $15 co-payment.)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 39. Falwell-bashing
| | | | by stankow | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 8:23am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 16 | | | | | |
Asked how he reconciled his participation in the show with a call not to air it, Falwell said, "I've often said I would preach in hell if they promised to let me out."
Okay, I tried not to post this, but I just can't resist. What kind of half-ass missionary theology is this shit?
A -- Either people in Hell are forever damned, in which case he'd just be self-aggrandizing Below as he does Above, or they can be saved, in which case his precious God is one mean motherfucker for not providing some other out.
B -- He believes that Satan, Prince of Lies, Most High Evil Bastard In The Universe, would honor a promise to let him out?
C -- What the hell kind of condition is that? Sure, I'll try to help people, but only if it's safe for myself. Good thing he didn't feel any calling to become a fireman.
What a fuckwad. He's an easy target, but still... what a fuckwad.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 84. Re: A Few More Things...
| | | | by joeytsai | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 4:22pm | score of 1.5 informative | | in reply to comment 4 | | | | | |
You know, the guy who thinks Tinky Winky is gay!
Ugh. Let's put this myth to rest, please?
Firstly, Falwell never said he thought Tinky Winky was gay. The rumor came about because of an article that appeared in the National Liberty Journal, which Falwell publishes. When asked about the show, he said he's never seen the Teletubbies and doesn't know if Tinky Winky was gay or not.
Secondly, the only reason why the writer of the article thought Tinky Winky was gay was because he was already "outed". When an earlier article appeared in the Washington Post reported that Tinky Winky the gay teletubbie was all the rage, I didn't see anybody getting excited. But, when it appears that ol' Jerry Falwell is getting upset again, the media ostracizes him.
Hey, I'm all for making fun of doofs who say stupid stuff, but lets at least be fair here.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 7. Coming out of the Clamshell
| | | | by Zi | | | | at Mon 17 Jun 3:28pm | score of 2 clever | | | | | | |
Finally, SpongeBob can declare his long hidden relationship with Patrick, without fear of retribution from Mr Krabs or Plankton.
I won't even speculate about Squidward.
So it goes. - Kurt Vonnegut
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 8. Don't Hate Hate
| | | | by wrestler | | | | at Mon 17 Jun 3:44pm | score of 1.5 intriguing | | | | | | |
Nickelodeon says the program isn't about sexuality but about curbing hate.
I don't get the whole idea of turning hate into a taboo emotion. Seems to me that it's perfectly appropriate to hate some ideas or behaviors, for instance the widespread hatred of gays. Wouldn't a hatred of hatred of gays be a healthy thing, motivating people to do something about it, like airing Gay Parent Specials on Nickelodeon?
Maybe enlightened people should just be tolerantly miffed at the hatred of gays. But that seems less likely to get people to act.
I guess that people rant against hate really mean to rant against a list of politically incorrect hatreds, and that my problem is really with their sloppy use of language.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 10. Re: Don't Hate Hate
| | | | by smokeanoog | | | | at Mon 17 Jun 5:02pm | score of 3 nuanced | | in reply to comment 8 | | | | | |
>> Seems to me that it's perfectly appropriate to hate some ideas or behaviors, for instance the widespread hatred of gays.
Ok, hate all you like, nobody will care. What people rally against are the products of such hate: violence, abuse, and intimidation. Nobody cares what you're thinking, they care what you're doing. Rampant hate creates a situation in which thoughts more easily become actions. People wish to expunge hate from society because hate rarely has a positive affect on anyone.
>> I guess that people rant against hate really mean to rant against a list of politically incorrect hatreds, and that my problem is really with their sloppy use of language.
What's a politically correct hatred? Who can you say "Yeah, I really fucking hate " and everyone around you will give you a big ol' thumbs-up and say "Yeah! Hate on!"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 12. Re: Don't Hate Hate
| | | | by Anonymous Idiot |  | | | at Mon 17 Jun 5:43pm | score of 0.5 succinct | | in reply to comment 10 | | | | | |
>> What's a politically correct hatred? Who can you say "Yeah, I really fucking hate " and everyone around you will give you a big ol' thumbs-up and say "Yeah! Hate on!"
Nazis.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 13. Re: Don't Hate Hate
| | | | by TLMoM | | | | at Mon 17 Jun 6:16pm | score of 1.5 intriguing | | in reply to comment 12 | | | | | |
Nazis.
Also, "White Trash." One can insult and rant about poor, lower-class whites as much as they like, and the same people who have a fit when they hear someone use the word "fag" will just smirk and nod.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 50. Bigotry vs. dialogue
| | | | by Anonymous Idiot | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 9:07am | score of 1 astute | | in reply to comment 29 | | | | | | |
I got about halfway through the essay before I lost my patience. Intolerance toward someone's unchangeable features (race, origin, skin color, religious background) is one thing, but intolerance toward their ridiculous opinions is something else. It's not bigotry to mock the bigoted opinions of people who continue to walk through the world with their ears and eyes closed. There is nothing more deplorable in human behavior than wilful ignorance, and that's exactly what the Christian Right engages in -- deliberate and calculated rejection of any evidence or logic that would sway them from their opinion that some people are unfit to be Real Americans. I get where he's going with the bumper-sticker thing -- I personally have long believed that a bumper sticker is too small to hold anything but small-minded thoughts. But "doing my part to piss of the religious right" is not bigoted, sorry. The religious right, and all of its associated public members, have chosen to wrap themselves in the flag of intolerance, and to publicly hold ridiculous opinions that are clearly the result of what they refuse to know or acknowledge. They deserve every bit of ridicule they get, because they have chosen to engage in a dialogue about something they do not know and will not learn the true facts about. It is not hateful to tell them how wrong they are.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 33. Re: Don't Hate Hate
| | | | by davidpalter | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 7:42am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 8 | | | | | |
There is a significant difference between hatred and disapproval. If I hate homophobes, then my inclination is to do them harm, perhaps to kill them, if my hatred is sufficiently virulent. If I disapprove of homophobes, my inclination is to help them to understand why homophobia doesn't really make sense, enabling them to overcome that particular delusion and to become better people. And even in the case of a completely psychotic individual who is beyond the reach of reason, it is possible (though admittedly difficult) to feel pity for his illness, rather than hatred, and in that case the inclination is to put him away in a mental institution where he will not be a danger to others or to himself.
It may not be humanly possible to reach the ideal of not hating anyone, but that is still the ideal, for a truly enlightened person. --dp
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 15. Bravo to Nickelodeon
| | | | by jayladdin | | | | at Mon 17 Jun 7:16pm | score of 1.5 succinct | | | | | | |
As someone who grew up on Nickelodeon, I have rarely been prouder of this network. If you live in NYC, you may have seen the ads on bus-stops touting Nick as being one of the highest-rated networks for children. This undoubtedly means that Nickelodeon has some very "important" shareholders to answer to, but they haven't forgotten what's important. What's important to Nickelodeon is the same thing that's always been important to them: providing quality program that both entertains and educates. I'm sure they were met with internal opposition on this one, and they didn't back down. I can't wait to see it.
jayladdin, your pungent plastician.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 40. Re: Bravo to Nickelodeon
| | | | by slutmonkey | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 8:33am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 15 | | | | | |
educates? have you gone mad? i havent seen the network in a while, but do you recall the likes of "wild and crazy kids", "double dare (and its evil spawn)", and "you cant do that on television"? "camp onowana"? those were all pretty much garbage TV...
apostrophes are for wimps
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 17. Huh?
| | | | by zgh | | | | at Mon 17 Jun 8:29pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Don't get me wrong, I'm for Nick airing this special, but how can you have a special on gay parents and not bring up sexuality? Just not using the "Sex words" doesn't mean you aren't bringing up sex issues.
Liberty not only means that the individual has the burden of choice; also he must bear the consequences of his actions.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 22. Re: Huh?
| | | | by mrjeff3000 | | | | at Mon 17 Jun 10:51pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 17 | | | | | |
Well, they're not going into the mechanics of who sticks what where. I became aware of the idea of homosexuality (thanks, "Three's Company"!) well before I learned where people put things, gay or straight. And, of course, most of what I learned came from my peers on the playground.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 45. Re: Huh?
| | | | by waldeaux | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 8:56am | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 17 | | | | | |
Quick thought experiment:
Substitute the word "heterosexual" for "gay" in your posting. Are you bringing up "sex issues"? Is it any less/more appropriate? If so, why?
A large part of the problem is with institutionalized heterocentricism.
Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 96. Re: Huh?
| | | | by zgh | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 10:36pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 45 | | | | | |
No, you aren't bringing up sex issues.
-The special is about "different" family configurations.
-Kids don't know why the family configuration is "different"
-Therefore sex issues have to come up to explain to them why this special is even on.
Liberty not only means that the individual has the burden of choice; also he must bear the consequences of his actions.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 108. Re: Huh?
| | | | by jennyroo | | | | at Wed 19 Jun 1:40pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 96 | | | | | |
-The special is about "different" family configurations.
-Kids don't know why the family configuration is "different"
-Therefore sex issues have to come up to explain to them why this special is even on.
Uh, nooo... you dont have to talk about sex or sexual configurations when explaining why Johnny has a mommy and a daddy. Mommy and Daddy are together because they love each other VERY MUCH!
The collorary, Mommy and Mommy are together because they love each other VEry MUCH! What's so sexual about that? I understand that gays and lesbians are stereotyped into hypersexualized roles by those who dont know better, but intercourse has nothing to do with a couple's function of raising a child.
Neeples. Big pink ones.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 20. Bitch, Please (Part SIx)
| | | | by Prairieman |  | | | at Mon 17 Jun 9:02pm | score of 5 astute | | | | | | |
1. Linda Ellerbee will be able to handle the topic of gay parents with the same amount of professionalism and humanity as she has handled the Lewinsky case, breast cancer and anything else she has reported on. Why? Because she is a reporter of the highest caliber.
2. The Traditional Values Coalition does not want this to air for precisely that reason. The last thing they want is someone handling this subject with intelligence and humanity.
3. They also do not like the fact that Ms. Ellerbee is most likely very unwilling to bend down and kiss the rings of those who would be the Popes of the Western World for any reason. She's defeated Breast cancer. Do you really think that she's afraid of a bunch of holier than thou church ladies who get their panties in a wad whenever the word homosexual is even mentioned?
4. The show is needed, if only to promote discussions between parents and children. We've been fortunate. Before I joined this family, the implications of having two dads living together was discussed with the kids and their mother. We were all three very up front with what could happen, the insults and everything else. And the kids have the option of moving in with mom and her new husband if things get crazy. While you don't want it to happen, you have to realize that it can, and you have to make provisions. Also on that list is making sure that they know how to handle themselves and how to defend themselves.
5. Is it easy? Not all the time. Teaching the parents that we a just couple of bourgeois shlumps and not reprobates is the toughest part. As for the kids, they handle it well. And in some circles, we are the cool parents, no doubt because it allows some kids to press their parent's buttons. Kinda of like going over to the Addam's Family house, no doubt.
"News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress. Everything else is publicity." --Lord Northcliffe.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 26. Re: Bitch, Please (Part SIx)
| | | | by HerbieTheElf | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 6:14am | score of 2 compelling | | in reply to comment 20 | | | | | |
Well put comments you had there. What amazes me about the anti-gay-family movement is how, in so many ways, it seems to contradict the arguments for a two-parent household. [Warning: Here's where I unleash my own prejudices.]
To me, the most absurd and frustrating part of contemporary society has nothing to do with homosexuality, but rather the schizophrenia we have about single-parent (usually mother) households.
There are those who praise Jodie Foster and Rosie O'Donnell among others for - at least in the public eye - choosing to have and raise a child without a father/second parent. (Ever notice you don't see many fathers choosing to adopt and raise a child without a mother?) As a very dedicated and involved father who spent a good few years studying family dynamics, I can't help but be insulted that my role in the family is relatively disposable.
The hypocrisy continues because, while we applaud professional single women who choose to have a child without a partner, we decry against the men who impregnate teenaged girls for not standing up to their responsibility. Basically, society wants men to take responsibility for their children only when it's convenient.
No study will convince me that, more often than not, two heads are truly better than one when raising a child. Developmentally, I simply cannot believe that giving a child the experience of two adult mentors and guardians is not healthier and more beneficial than just one. You know, unless one of the two parents is abusive in some serious way, which makes them a shitty parent even in a four-parent household.
I'm not saying single parents aren't often courageous - 90% of the time it's not much of a choice. "When life hands you lemons, make lemonade." I'm merely fighting against the very popualar societal inference that my role in the dynamic is disposable.
To the gay or lesbian partners who tackle the task of raising children, I say best of luck and you have all the vocal support I can muster. Two heads, two personalities, two worldviews are most often better than one.
"You never ask questions when God's on your side." -- Bob Dylan
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 47. Re: Bitch, Please (Part SIx)
| | | | by Anonymous Idiot | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 9:01am | score of 0.5 interesting | | in reply to comment 26 | | | | | |
(Ever notice you don't see many fathers choosing to adopt and raise a child without a mother?)
No way. It's because society wouldn't LET them. Sorry, but we live in an extremely anti-male society. It's automatically assumed the single father will be a child molester, but the signle Mom is praised out the wazoo, thanks to our matriarchal society.
"I simply cannot believe that giving a child the experience of two adult mentors and guardians is not healthier and more beneficial than just one."
How about three? Or a village full? You know, the whole "two parents-child" thing is very modern. Plenty of societies raised children as a village.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 90. an extremely anti-male society (rolling eyes)
| | | | by hexane | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 5:36pm | score of 1.5 compelling | | in reply to comment 47 | | | | | |
Oh please. Sucks to be a man under a male god where men own and run everything. Whoa is he.
Single mom praised out the wazoo? Yeah, maybe in a woman's studies class in Massachusetts. Do you really believe this? For every liberal PC type there are at least 3 people telling us everyone is a liberal PC type.
Aside from that, you do have a good point about men and children. If you're a man and want to raise children you are screwed (unless your wife leaves you or dies - in which case you are a total Saint). It's a shame - more kids need love in their lives. At the same time, there are a lot of molesters who use this technique to gain access to children. I don't know what the answer is.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 30. Re: Bitch, Please (Part SIx)
| | | | by Petronius | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 7:37am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 20 | | | | | |
....Ms. Ellerbee is most likely very unwilling to bend down and kiss the rings of those who would be the Popes of the Western World for any reason...
She will, on the other hand, apparently kiss the ring of Rosie O'Donnell, the most annoying person on TV, gay, straight or indifferent.
What rescues us from insignificance is the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. Carl Sagan
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 49. Re: Bitch, Please (Part SIx)
| | | | by Prairieman | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 9:05am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 30 | | | | | |
True, Rosie is about as entertaining and pleasant as a hemorrhoid, but unfortunately, Jodie Foster refuses to come out to the public, so you got to go with what you have.
"News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress. Everything else is publicity." --Lord Northcliffe.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 104. Re: You're 4 for 5
| | | | by umami bhavanga | | | | at Wed 19 Jun 10:45am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 100 | | | | | |
You're still harping on that tempest in a coffee pot from 1989??
I'm glad that Ms. Ellerbee did whatever was necessary to keep Lucky Duck Productions alive. I understand the fact that some people 13 years ago thought it perhaps unseemly that a respected journalist would appear in a Maxwell House commercial. But the ad is long gone and Ms. Ellerbee's continued efforts to shine journalistic light on important and interesting topics goes on. Bless 'er.
By the way, it now seems that CNN has about as much journalistic balance as Fox News (which is to say none).
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 106. So next time she's a little short on cash...
| | | | by Brian Jones | | | | at Wed 19 Jun 11:32am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 104 | | | | | |
...then what? She sold her credibility once, she can do it again (though there's a decreasing return on sale the more she does it - hello, Joan Lunden!).
When it comes to journalism, it takes a long time for the stains to come out. So yeah, I am harping on that. And David Brinkley humping ADM products. It's slimy.
It's one thing to go from commercial programming into news, like Mike Wallace did -- he started with a blank slate as far as news credibility goes.
But to build credibility as a reporter, then jump into the advertising hot tub with both feet using that trust as leverage -- that leaves a scar.
Again, I think this is a good program she's doing -- but let's not overstate the case and pretend she's neutral, or sell her as the second coming of Cronkite.
Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 23. Nick Needs Controversy Like I Need a Rash
| | | | by mckoonts | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 12:56am | score of 1 obnoxious | | | | | | |
The decision to air this special shines some light on Nickelodeon's political agenda. I hadn't given it much consideration until now, but I would wager that there is a lot of crossover between Nick's and MTV's audiences. MTV has taken on a very "pro-gay' stance of late and it wouldn't be hard to imagine the management at Nick eager to follow the lead. The only hitch may be that Nick is at heart a children's network and, therefore, held to a certain "higher standard." It seems to me that it should strive to be much more apolitical in order to widen its base demographic. This latest move feels like dangerous territory for a channel that doesn't want to alienate a significant sector of the population, specifically, the children of traditional Christians that may get wind of this.
Free Speech is the Right to Burn a Crowded Theater
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 71. Re: Nick Needs Controversy Like I Need a Rash
| | | | by Bearpaw | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 12:04pm | score of 1.5 compelling | | in reply to comment 23 | | | | | |
There's rarely really such a thing as "apolitical". Apolitical in this context essentially means not rocking the boat, and supporting the status quo.
Welcome to the 21st century. There are families with gay/lesbian/bi parents and/or gay/lesbian/bi kids, there are people with friends in such families, and people who live next door to such families. With this show, Nick basically stops pretending that such families don't exist.
I wish to hell I'd seen something like this growing up; instead I got Anita Bryant trying to "protect" children from reality. Gee thanks, Anita, you "protected" some of us by making the US public even more hostile toward us.
Proud member of the reality-based minority.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 27. Lafferty must've been a weird little kid
| | | | by peanutfish | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 7:01am | score of 3.5 clever | | | | | | |
"It is a cover for promoting homosexuality for kids," said Andrea Lafferty, the coalition's executive director.
Lafferty said, "They keep saying it is not about sexuality. It is about sexuality."
What is with this woman? I remember being 7 years old when a friend's older brother "described" sex (10 year-olds seemed knowledgeable on the subject at the time). I was just as grossed out as he intended me to be. When I got home and asked my mom if it was true I was pretty shocked - no matter how much she explained that it was about love and that someday I'd understand.
Does anyone else remember being a child? For the next several years, sex was something you snickered at, not something you wanted.
My point is that even if Nickelodeon were intending to discuss the particulars of sex, I find it hard to believe that this would be some kind promotional activity for sex of any proclivity. It's ludicrous to believe children are going to be recruited by the show. Kids are interested in the actual details of sex the way they're interested in worms -- for the shock value. They're quite good at separating feelings of love and a loving home from actual sexuality, if anything it's what they want to do.
By the time sex of either stripe sounds good, believe me, kids already know the mechanics. -- Unless, of course, you can convince me that playgrounds have become more naive since I ran around on them in the 70's/80's...
Some mistakes are too much fun to make only once.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 73. Re: Lafferty must've been a weird little kid
| | | | by nme! | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 12:34pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 27 | | | | | |
Does anyone else remember being a child?
Nice. This is the crux of the goddamn matter if you ask me. Most people, having forgotten completely, are unable to distinguish between what kids think, and what they think kids think.
I know 2 or 3 teachers, and their general attitude is that kids will suprise the fuck out of you (with intelligence and insight; or complete naivety, of course) if you let 'em.
As for me, I'm trying hard to not forget, because i'd like to be a good parent someday.
-nme!
Virgo: (Aug. 23 - Sept. 22) It's all over but the shouting, but don't worry: It's going to be great shouting.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 31. "It's not about..."
| | | | by Brian Jones | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 7:38am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
...is a phrase that makes me cringe.
That's because of the truism that whenever somebody, especially somebody in the public eye, says that "it's not about (money/sex/whatever)", that's exactly what it is about.
As a journalist, Linda Ellerbee is supposed to be familiar with choosing the correct descriptive phrases to fit a situation.
So it would've been nice to hear something from her along the lines of mentioning that the show is only peripherally about sexuality, and that the birds-and-bees aspect is best discussed at home.
No need to give the fundie-loons even the slightest bit of ammunition.
Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 63. Re: "It's not about..."
| | | | by umami bhavanga | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 10:40am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 31 | | | | | |
As a journalist, it's not Linda Ellerbee's job to tippy-toe around the issues in hopes of not offending the Baptist soccer moms.
Ms. Ellerbee is a highly respected journalist who has consistently been associated only with programs of the highest caliber of journalistic ethics and innovation.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 74. It's not about tippy-toeing
| | | | by Brian Jones | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 12:54pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 63 | | | | | |
And by "it's not", I mean precisely "it's not".
It's about finding the correct words for a phrase, not the close-to-correct words or the good-enough-for-Nick words, especially when the commentator does have a history her critics can jump on.
It seems like a perfectly fine show she's hosting, but let's not try to spin Linda Ellerbee as impartial.
Now, you were saying:
Ms. Ellerbee is a highly respected journalist who has consistently been associated only with programs of the highest caliber of journalistic ethics and innovation.
Where does shilling for Maxwell House fit in with that whole high-caliber-of-ethics thing?
Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 103. Re: It's not about tippy-toeing
| | | | by umami bhavanga | | | | at Wed 19 Jun 10:16am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 74 | | | | | |
Thanks for the links to the 13 year old articles in support of your contention that Linda Ellerbee is an unethical shill.
Cal Thomas is always such a joy. He does the dispeptic reactionary old fart thing so well. I also enjoyed the fundamentalist anti-evolution site. I now understand your position clearly.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 107. Why give the old fart ammo, is what I'm saying
| | | | by Brian Jones | | | | at Wed 19 Jun 11:42am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 103 | | | | | |
All she had to do was be scrupulously honest.
It's only peripherally about sex.
And she'd be home free.
Instead, she went to the "it's not about" cliche, and left an opening for the fundies.
That's why she's not quite of the highest caliber.
That and she got too old for the suits' tastes, but that's another matter entirely.
To paraphrase Elwood Blues - she didn't lie, she bullshitted.
Now for an admission of my own: since I cover sports for a living, I've got a sensitive ear for cliches like "it's not about...". Jocks say that all the time, and it sets off my BS detector.
Believing her professions of absolute neutrality is akin to believing a slogan like...well, "We report, you decide".
Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 32. Heather has Two Mommies and a Nielsen Box
| | | | by mrwarmth | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 7:40am | score of 2.5 brilliant | | | | | | |
While I applaud Nickelodeon's chutzpah, I can only condemn the way they let cowardice creep in at the very end. To say 'this isn't about sexuality, it's about curbing hate' is just wimping out. It is about sexuality, it is about sexuality, it is about sexuality. Because that is what is hated - a particular sexuality. It's appalling to me that Nickelodeon would try to slink back from the very subject it is trying to address in this way. It's also sad to see them trying to pretend they aren't making a moral point about the rightness of homosexuality, when clearly they are. I don't think they would have a special about interracial parenting and feel the need to say it wasn't about race.
Gag me.
-Niall
Where is Ratko Mladic?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 38. Re: Heather has Two Mommies and a Nielsen Box
| | | | by CaptainLiberal | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 8:22am | score of 1.5 succinct | | in reply to comment 32 | | | | | |
What they are trying to say is that it isn't about sexualizing children, or pushing a particular sexual agenda. The "family values" people, and the far right have been frothing at the mouth for some time about public schools, television channels, and various government organs pushing a "homosexual agenda" on their children.
While I think they're pretty much deluded, many of them feel that the government and media are trying to indoctrinate children into a "gay lifestyle".
The Nick people are trying to reassure their core viewers (Jane and Joe Middleclass) that they aren't trying to "turn" their children to the rainbow side.
Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 41. Re: Heather has Two Mommies and a Nielsen Box
| | | | by mrwarmth | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 8:39am | score of 3 brilliant | | in reply to comment 38 | | | | | |
Your post confirms my worst fears, because it shows how even liberals have so absorbed the conservative agenda that they have become apologists for it. Why should the Christian Right define the terms on which issues of gay sexuality is discussed? They shouldn't. To allow the Christian Right to capture and define the meaning of "pro-gay" as "trying to converty your children" is to give them power over the discussion as such. What is preventing the pro-gay media from defining pro-gay correctly: as affirming that homosexuality is just as moral as heterosexuality, and that gay people are every bit as good as straight people. Why is that so hard?
We shouldn't have to carefully pitch every pro-gay piece as somehow not being pro-gay, but being "uh, well, we're not trying to convert anyone, but, uh, please don't hate us, not because we're right or anything, but because, uh, it's better, somehow, than hating us."
Again, I don't see the KKK's agenda on race informing how race issues are portrayed on television. Why should Jerry Falwell's?
Again: Gag.
-Niall
Where is Ratko Mladic?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 46. Re: Heather has Two Mommies and a Nielsen Box
| | | | by CaptainLiberal | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 8:56am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 41 | | | | | |
I wasn't actually apologizing for them, and I don't think Nick is either.
Nick is a business. They have customers. Those customers have the ability to negatively effect their bottom line by threatening advertisers with boycotts. This has been done successfully before.
The "family values" groups, in particular, like this tactic and have used it effectively.
That Nick is even putting this show on the air shows a reasonable amount of bravery, since they were perfectly aware that it would drag these people out from under their rocks. I don't have a problem with a business putting a little spin on something they're going to do anyway, to decrease they amount of money they lose.
And I don't think trying to keep customers happy is necessarily apologizing for an agenda they clearly don't agree.
They know that many middle of the road parents will see commentary from these groups and believe them without watching the show to see if it's true. They're simply combatting negative spin from the "family value" groups.
Those bad evil corporate media giants!
Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 54. Re: Heather has Two Mommies and a Nielsen Box
| | | | by zgh | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 9:10am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 41 | | | | | |
Discussing sexuality should be on the parent's terms. A mom that sits her kid down to watch Spongebob Squarepants and then goes to the kitchen to make dinner, shouldn't have to be broadsided by little six-year-old Billy asking questions about sexuality when she gets back.
Any way that you spin this one, it is inappropriate to talk about sexuality on a channel whose target audience is 7 and younger.
Liberty not only means that the individual has the burden of choice; also he must bear the consequences of his actions.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 55. Re: Heather has Two Mommies and a Nielsen Box
| | | | by mrwarmth | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 9:11am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 46 | | | | | |
This is becoming hilarious. Every attempt you make to prove your point you merely reinforce mine. I believe my argument was that Nickelodeon is chickening out and hiding the true message it is trying to get across to appease the Christian Right. You respond by saying they are doing this to appease the Christian Right and its supporters.
How exactly is this a disagreement with me? Please advise.
-Niall
Where is Ratko Mladic?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 56. Re: Heather has Two Mommies and a Nielsen Box
| | | | by CaptainLiberal | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 9:20am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 55 | | | | | |
They aren't hiding their true message, because their true message isn't "we want your children to be gay". They are simply clarifying that, in response to spin from the "family values" guys.
Every dream turns into something on a T-shirt -- Shriekback
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 57. Re: Heather has Two Mommies and a Nielsen Box
| | | | by mrwarmth | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 9:25am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 56 | | | | | |
The hilarity continues. The "true message" is that gay parenting is good. For you to think that the true message is "we want your children to be gay" shows how much your mind is controlled by right-wing propaganda, even when you are ostensibly criticizing it.
-Niall
Where is Ratko Mladic?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 58. Re: Heather has Two Mommies and a Nielsen Box
| | | | by mrwarmth | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 9:29am | score of 1.5 funny | | in reply to comment 54 | | | | | |
But Nickelodeon isn't inserting such messages into its normal programming. It's creating a program whose explicit subject matter is gay parenting. So no parent can be surprised if they watch it.
Your comment is also quite humorous in its horror at the thought of children asking questions about sexuality. As if children don't ask questions about sex all the time. What are you going to do when your kid asks you where babies come from? Are you going to run shrieking out the door and call for the SWAT team to collect your demon seed?
LOL
-Niall
Where is Ratko Mladic?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 72. KKK's agenda on race
| | | | by Bearpaw | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 12:19pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 41 | | | | | |
Again, I don't see the KKK's agenda on race informing how race issues are portrayed on television. Why should Jerry Falwell's?
That's an great point that I often wonder about.
But to put it in context, it used to be that while the input of KKK members as such weren't sought for discussions/articles on race issues, certainly it used to be much more common to solicit the opinions of people who, by today's standards, were blatantly racist. Someday -- I hope! -- people will look back on the remarks of Jerry Falwell, et al, and cringe, just as so many people now cringe at the statements some public figures made regarding race during the 1950s and 1960s.
Proud member of the reality-based minority.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 82. Re: Heather has Two Mommies and a Nielsen Box
| | | | by TheMCP | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 3:55pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 54 | | | | | |
Discussing sexuality should be on the parent's terms. Given the enormous percentage of parents who never choose to discuss sexuality with their children, I am inclined to disagree.
End of line.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 97. Re: Heather has Two Mommies and a Nielsen Box
| | | | by zgh | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 10:49pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 58 | | | | | |
Your knee-jerk reactions to anything even close to right-of-center are getting ridiculous.
Just because six or seven year old children ask questions along sexual lines every once in a while doesn't mean that we should be encouraging them to ask them when they aren't ready to understand the answers OR giving them answers to questions they wouldn't even have asked.
If I was in the situation of a child of mine broadsiding me like that and he/she was clearly not at an age to understand these complex issues, I would tell them that it is really complicated and I will tell them when they get a little older.
But go ahead. You can let your TV parent your children.
Liberty not only means that the individual has the burden of choice; also he must bear the consequences of his actions.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 105. yes, but
| | | | by DomoSun | | | | at Wed 19 Jun 11:00am | score of 1.5 scholarly | | in reply to comment 41 | | | | | |
To allow the Christian Right to capture and define the meaning of "pro-gay" as "trying to converty your children" is to give them power over the discussion as such.
And of course you're right. And that's why Captain-Liberal [/] Nickelodeon is pointing out the equivocation fallacy. How convenient it would be to just dismiss arguments outright, simply because you think you're right. Unfortunately argumentation doesn't work that way. If it did, the converse would be true, anti-gay arguers would be giving gays power over the discussion simply by providing reasons why their argument is wrong. And that doesn't make any sense. The Principle of Rationality:
Always assume that people have reasons for their beliefs.
[homosexuality is wrong!
Why?
No reason.
In argument, you're free to make whatever claim you want, but you're expected to have reasons.] There is no guarantee you will be given good reasons. In fact, reasons can be impulsive, whatever was thought of first: The principle does not state you will be given the speaker's true reasons or motivation...The real reasons may have nothing to do with the stated reasons. But arguers often hide their real reasons behind other, less embarrassing, reasons -- a process called rationalization that shows how necessary the Principle of Rationality is. We always want to give reasons and, if we don't like the real reasons, we'll make up others. --How to Win an Argument - ch8 - The Principle of Rationality After you hear the claim and its accompanying reason, you attack the reasons, and not the argument or the person itself.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 109. Re: Heather has Two Mommies and a Nielsen Box
| | | | by YCDK | | | | at Wed 19 Jun 3:05pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 97 | | | | | |
Your knee-jerk reactions to anything even close to right-of-center are getting ridiculous.
Yes, if there's anything Niall is famous for, it is his nonstop liberal apologism.
The can knows who to whoop.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 75. Bzzt. Wrong.
| | | | by TheMCP | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 1:28pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 32 | | | | | |
Because that is what is hated - a particular sexuality. Wrong. That's not it at all. What is hated is people who are perceived to have a particular sexuality, regardless of whether or not they actually do.
This isn't about stopping us from having sex, this is about hurting us in any possible way.
The "love the sinner, hate the sin" attitude is a joke. These bigots hate the "sinner". They're mostly just looking for someone to hate because hating someone else makes them feel better about themselves.
End of line.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 79. Re: Heather has Two Mommies and a Nielsen Box
| | | | by malonine | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 2:12pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 32 | | | | | |
But it's not about sexuality. This program is about unconventional families, that is to say, about gender norms and teaching kids that it's perfectly healthy to have two dads or moms. To say being gay is defined by, and thus always about, who you sleep with is disingenuous. It's about the emotional attachments you make. Don't be just as misguided as the Religious Reich folks who can't see past the sexual side of being gay, like some tittering teenagers laughing 'cause someone said "penis". It's easier to denigrate same-sex love if it's based on just f*ck*ng. To admit there is real love involved really negates most of their moral qualms.
-Malonine........................."Even things that are true can be proved." -O.W.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 35. so, there is a time machine
| | | | by colinsky | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 7:50am | score of 2 astute | | | | | | |
so over 100,000 saw the show before it was shown on nickelodeon?
how can you complain about a show you haven't seen? "it sounds like something i won't like?" they don't watch it?
this is just dumb.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 36. Good one Jerry.
| | | | by J Random Loser | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 8:09am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
"Nickelodeon should stay away from endorsing lifestyles that are generally not accepted by the American public," Falwell said. "It turns a children's network into something parents feel a responsibility to edit and carefully filter."
Oh boo-hoo, cry me a fucking river. The whole point of parents is to know what their children are doing. Maybe parents "feel a responsibility" because they ARE responsible (supposedly). So the big bad TeeVee station made it harder to have television raise your kids? Good, you shouldn't be doing that anyway. What the hell kind of family value is that?
Does anyone else get the urge to smack these idiots in the back of the head?
The tragedy of this world is that everyone has their reasons.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 42. Counterpoint
| | | | by 0tim0 | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 8:51am | score of 1.5 astute | | | | | | |
One thing that kinda bothers me, though, is that some people feel that their liberal point of view is a priori correct.
Personally, I say if you're gay, great -- I've got no problems with that. By the same token, I'm also pro-choice. I guess I'm fairly liberal from a social standpoint.
My problem is that I don't think that my opinions about these things are by definition the right ones. They are the views that fit me. I mean I can accept someone else who thinks that abortion is murder. I can certainly agree that they have an argument (It just doesn't convince me, personally).
So, what I guess bothers me, is that I also think that people have a right to think that being gay is wrong or a bad idea or whatever they want. And if that's the lesson they want to teach their children, I think it's their right. (As long as they don't say, teach their kids to murder gays, or whatever -- I think we can all agree that that's wrong.)
Having said that, I have no problems with Nick airing this show. They are a business, they can do what they want. But I also don't mind parents protesting it, they have a right to want their children to be protected from what they consider bad ideas.
Just my $0.02,
tim
"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 52. Re: Counterpoint
| | | | by waldeaux | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 9:09am | score of 1.5 compelling | | in reply to comment 42 | | | | | |
... all well and good, except:
* ... when it interferes with my rights. If someone doesn't like non-heterosexuals, then I won't go to their house, try to join their church (if it's also their church's stance), etc. But when they try to legislate my rights away, create unequal opportunity or enable homophobia/heterocentricism, then they've crossed the lines. The current political climate might be too squeamish still to uphold the Constitution for all of its citizens, but that doesn't negate its principle that we all have inalienable rights.
* ... studies done of gay bashers have overwhelmingly shown that their behavior is rationalized by the climate at home. They were basically brought up with the idea that non-heterosexuals weren't really "people" and therefore could be mistreated at will. By choosing to shelter your kids from the existence of people different than you, you might instill those notions.
* ... the are two knobs on the TV, or two buttons on the remote. One makes the channel change. The other turns off the TV entirely. If you are offended by it, you are not required to watch it!
I realize that you're not expressing your personal views on non-heterosexuality --- I'm also making general comments.
Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 62. Re: Counterpoint
| | | | by 0tim0 | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 10:32am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 52 | | | | | |
Certainly, it's not within someone's rights to take your rights away. I'm not advocating that at all.
But two points about your comment:
I think you should be carefull about generalizing people with studies or statistics like "... studies done of gay bashers have overwhelmingly shown that their behavior is rationalized by the climate at home." These are the same kinds of weapons people use against gays (i.e. "Gay people are more likely to carry HIV, so they are a health risk...", etc). Just because statistics show that an certain innocuous action predisposes someone to another improper action isn't a good reason to outlaw the innocuous action (I think you know what I mean, anyway ;) ).
Also, I agree completely that if someone doesn't like what's on TV, they can change the channel. I've said it many times myself. But they also have a right (duty?) to let the TV station know what they don't want to see. Would you be upset if someone wrote a protest letter to Nick if they wanted to complain about, say a show about teenage sex or drug use?
--tim
"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 60. Point - Counterpoint
| | | | by Zi | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 10:22am | score of 2 compelling | | in reply to comment 42 | | | | | |
What your suggesting is a concept called moral relativism," a philosophical viewpoint stating that morality is only grounded in social custom. This concept has become widely used by left leaning intellectuals and can be seen in your post at several points.
This reliance on moral relativism as a philosophy is derided by those on the right as an indication of the lack of any liberal morality.
And they have a point, conservatives have a way of seeing the world in defined hard and fast rules, where a liberal tends to say, "You have a point, but let's do it this way, instead, ok, please?"
Liberals, who support gay rights, abortion rights, social services etc., should get a backbone and say to the conservatives:
"You know what? Your morality sucks, ours is better, and here's why..."
In this case, liberals should tell the conservatives:
1. It is morally wrong to hate or harm others because they're gay.
2. It is morally valuable to educate children about this harm.
3. Nickelodeon is doing the moral thing by running this program.
4.Take your antiquated notions back to the 1800's and let us run a civilization here.
So it goes. - Kurt Vonnegut
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 64. Re: Point - Counterpoint
| | | | by 0tim0 | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 10:45am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 60 | | | | | |
OK.
But just for the record, I never suggested that it is acceptable to "hate or harm others because they're gay." I only said that I thought it was ok to teach your kids that being gay is wrong if that's what you believe.
Let me illustrate a little further. Some Hasidic Jews believe it is wrong to cut the hair from in front of your ears. I personally do cut the hair in front of my ears. But I have no problem with people who believe that they shouldn't. And I certainly don't think that someone who is Hasidic will hate or harm me because I cut that hair. (Disclaimer: I know almost nothing about the Jewish faith, apologies if my facts are wrong, it's just an illustration.) As long as they are not trying to create a law that says that people with no hair in front of their ears have fewer rights, I'm ok with it.
You obviously feel strongly that there is nothing wrong with being gay. As you read in my post, I feel the same way. The difference is that I'm not trying to force people to feel the same way I do. I think that is a questionable practice no matter which side of the issue you are on.
--tim
"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 66. Re: Point - Counterpoint
| | | | by Zi | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 11:06am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 64 | | | | | |
"I only said that I thought it was ok to teach your kids that being gay is wrong if that's what you believe.
No, it's not ok. It is morally wrong to teach this.
That's my point about moral relativism. Whether you acknowledge it or not, there's a cultural war going on out there, and the far right doesn't hold back.
Pick a side or they're going to pick it for you.
So it goes. - Kurt Vonnegut
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 86. Re: Point - Counterpoint
| | | | by Zi | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 4:47pm | score of 2 scholarly | | in reply to comment 68 | | | | | |
I only said that I thought it was ok to teach your kids that being gay is wrong if that's what you believe.
No, it's not ok. It is morally wrong to teach this.
Prove it.
That's a more complicated directive than it seems.
My statement presupposes that "morality" exists.
You're asking me to prove that morality exists, that my definition of morality is best, and that my statement fits this best morality concept.
What is morality?
Morality is a system of conduct relating to principles of behavior.
Morality implies that there is behavior that is "right" and behavior that is "wrong."
So what is right, and what is wrong.? This is easy for those with a religious faith, they generally have a rule book, and experts on these books to ask if there's a question.
We who are agnostic or atheistic, have to found our morality in more concrete terms, generally from logic or from observation.
I think of myself as a secular humanist.
Here's a quote:
"Secular humanists believe morality and meaning come from humanity and the natural world, not from God or the supernatural. It is our human values that give us rights, responsibilities, and dignity. We believe that morality should aim to bring out the best in people, so that all people can have the best in life. And morality must be based on our knowledge of human nature and the real world. "
So, here's the proof:
Homosexuality is a natural activity, that is, it is prevalent in nature, including human nature. In itself, it hasn't been proven to cause harm to the participants or to others.
So, teaching that homosexuality is "wrong" is factually incorrect. The person who continues to believe, and spread this factually incorrect information, then, is harming society by causing homosexuals, for no good reason, to be denied equal protection and participation in our society.
Spreading this misinformation to children only propagates a factually unsubstantiated bias.
This unsubstantiated bias isn't based on our "understanding of nature or the real world" and lessens a persons ability to pursue "the best in life," and is therefore, immoral.
How's that?
So it goes. - Kurt Vonnegut
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 91. Re: Point - Counterpoint
| | | | by 0tim0 | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 5:59pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 86 | | | | | |
This is just academic for me (probably for you also), but for the fun of it, let me continue to play Devil's Advocate.
I think one could argue the point about homosexuality being prevalent in nature. I've heard studies showing that it exists, but it certainly isn't common. (It's pretty easy to make the Darwinian argument here...)
But according to your logic, teaching your child to be a vegetarian is immoral -- and this is a very common practice in, say, India.
By your definition: eating meat is prevelant in nature; it hasn't proven to cause harm to the participant or others (unless we are including animals as others); therefore teaching your child not to eat meat causes unequal protection for those in our society who do eat meat. (If you want to argue the point about killing animals, then just substitute a person who is taught to only sleep with the person you marry and someone who is promiscuous.)
My main point is (and you seem to agree with me -- except in this issue) that morals are relative.
--tim
"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 93. Re: Point - Counterpoint
| | | | by TheMCP | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 7:45pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 64 | | | | | |
I only said that I thought it was ok to teach your kids that being gay is wrong if that's what you believe. You've got to be taught
Before it's too late
Before you are six
Or seven or eight
To hate all the people
Your relatives hate.
You've got to be carefully taught.
-Oscar Hammerstein II (South Pacific)
End of line.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 94. Re: Point - Counterpoint
| | | | by Anonymous Idiot | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 8:19pm | score of 0.5 interesting | | in reply to comment 91 | | | | | |
Let's not make the mistake of thinking something has to be common for it to be "natural."
After all, if you look at population statistics for the human race, it's not "common" to be white. (Assuming "common" means in the majority.)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 98. Oops -- those last two links aren't quite working
| | | | by Captain Howdy | | | | at Wed 19 Jun 2:57am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 88 | | | | | |
Sorry, I can't figure out how to get the actual articles linked. Just click on the "Issues" sublink and then these:
(1) For the Georgia woman story, click on "Employment" and then "Lambda Responds to 'Disturbing' Anti-Gay Federal Court Decision."
(2) For the gays in the military story, click on "Military" and then "Second Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 99. Re: But,
| | | | by 0tim0 | | | | at Wed 19 Jun 5:06am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 95 | | | | | |
Well, I was just giving my opinion, not making a statement, but I'll give you my reasoning for feeling that way:
Because you wouldn't (and don't) like it when someone does it to you.
There are many belief systems in this world and to think that yours is the only right one is pretty arrogant, don't you think? The Taliban forced their value system on an entire country, did you think that was right? Or was it only wrong because it was their belief system and not yours.
You seem to take the view that what you believe is an absolute moral truth. And maybe it is, but how can you be so sure? Just as you wouldn't want someone to force their beliefs on you, you shouldn't force your beliefs on others.
I think they used to call that "The Golden Rule". But hey, it's just my opinion.
--tim
"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument." -William E. Gladstone
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 110. Long comment:
| | | | by DomoSun | | | | at Wed 19 Jun 5:16pm | score of 1.5 brilliant | | in reply to comment 91 | | | | | |
This is just academic for me.
If by academic you mean wrong?
I think one could argue the point about homosexuality being prevalent in nature. I've heard studies showing that it exists, but it certainly isn't common. (It's pretty easy to make the Darwinian argument here...)
Wrong, it's very common, Just under reported. Look at dolphins, they are bisexual. Males will swim together in groups and 2 males will bond for life, just like human relationships, they will protect and help each other. They will also go around and have sex with other species of male dolphin. Same-sex dolphin companions are common. And they also try to mate with humans.
What is this "Darwinian argument"? That it's bad for the gene pool? It might not have anything to do with genes, and if it did, genes cause disease all the time and paradoxically are not always fatal to a species. If nature was that obsessive, she would have made penises fire only inside vaginas, and asses would have razor sharp teeth.
But according to your logic, teaching your child to be a vegetarian is immoral -- and this is a very common practice in, say, India...By your definition: eating meat is prevelant in nature; it hasn't proven to cause harm to the participant or others (unless we are including animals as others); therefore teaching your child not to eat meat causes unequal protection for those in our society who do eat meat. (If you want to argue the point about killing animals, then just substitute a person who is taught to only sleep with the person you marry and someone who is promiscuous.)
Right, not all things natural are good, or bad. that's the naturalistic fallacy. But you are stretching that analogy since people don't discriminate against those things, for the most part. Nevertheless, in addition to natural and safe, adults are consenting, and there is nothing gays do sexually that cannot occur in straight sex. If willing, my hand, ass, mouth, is no different than a girls.
My main point is...that morals are relative.
Interesting concept, but what do we do when we have a moral dilemma, like this one, and you have to choose one or the other? Slavery is a good example of this.
My problem is that I don't think that my opinions about these things are by definition the right ones. They are the views that fit me.
Good for you. But are your actions justifiable based on that? Like discriminating against gays, media, society, etc.
So, what I guess bothers me, is that I also think that people have a right to think that being gay is wrong or a bad idea or whatever they want. And if that's the lesson they want to teach their children, I think it's their right.
Fine, but what if being gay is not a choice like being left handed? What happens if your child is gay, or left handed and you tell them being left handed is wrong? Do you really think it's appropriate telling kids that it's wrong when they're prepubescent and angstless? Kids are very impressionable and they pick up on that sort of hatred and become phobic. Homophobia is a disorder to their own sexuality, especially if you're gay. Many kids after being lectured on how homosexuality is wrong, immediately commit suicide. You think that's a good thing?
Having said that, I have no problems with Nick airing this show. They are a business, they can do what they want. But I also don't mind parents protesting it, they have a right to want their children to be protected from what they consider bad ideas.
But then isn't that going against your fundamental principle? If I think it's a good idea and you think it's a bad idea, why should it be forced off the air, since you don't think beliefs should be forced on people.
Well, I was just giving my opinion, not making a statement, but I'll give you my reasoning for feeling that way:
How convenient. Your opinion doesn't need reasons? I guess you're never wrong that way? Your opinion is "parents have a right to censor gays," my opinion is that they don't. You win again, genius!
Because you wouldn't (and don't) like it when someone does it to you.
But there are exceptions. I'd like to watch the Nickelodeon TV show. Can I? Why not? You get to watch all 99.99999% of the other tasteless straight sexual media all over society? How is that Do to others blah blah blah?
There are many belief systems in this world and to think that yours is the only right one is pretty arrogant, don't you think? The Taliban forced their value system on an entire country, did you think that was right? Or was it only wread the entire comment...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 92. Re: Counterpoint
| | | | by TheMCP | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 7:29pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 42 | | | | | |
But I also don't mind parents protesting it, they have a right to want their children to be protected from what they consider bad ideas. I mind. You can't "protect" children from ideas. Ideas have a way of going places regardless of the barriers you try to throw in the way. Sooner or later, children will encounter those ideas, and parents can only decide whether their children will encounter those ideas with the parents' presence and guidance, or encounter those ideas away from the home with no foundation of parental guidance about how to deal with them.
It's like all the kids today that parents are trying to shield from all reference to sex: sooner or later they grow up and leave home, and they're unable to behave like adults about sex or think logically about sex because all thought, feeling, and expression regarding sex was so repressed from their lives that they never learned how to deal with it. They may be terrified of sex, or jump into it with no reasonable forethought, or just have no clue whatsoever how it works.
All people, including children, are born thinking for themselves. Parents who try to "protect" their children from ideas are effectively teaching their children not to think, that thinking is bad, because these ideas are somehow able to override their ability to make the right decisions. In my opinion, this is a form of child abuse.
End of line.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 53. The tools of the master
| | | | by NomiMalone | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 9:09am | score of 2 informative | | | | | | |
One of the great things about these family values watchdog sites is that they do all the work - collecting e-mails, customer service numbers and addresses - and I can use them too.
I would like to suggest that next time you hear that one of these groups is planning an e-mail protest campaign against something you either feel to be benign, or actually approve of, head to their website and send a message of your own to the sponsor/network/studio; I like to think that maybe these companies wouldn't be so quick to cave to pressure from the morals and values crowd if they got more positive feedback more often from heathen sodomites like me.
I'm loud, and I'm vulgar, and I wear the pants in the house because someone's got to, but I am not a monster. I'm not!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 59. What a disgrace
| | | | by nlafferty | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 9:34am | score of 2 informative | | | | | | |
"It is a cover for promoting homosexuality for kids," said Andrea Lafferty, the coalition's executive director.
I really wish that she didn't have my last name. Or at least had some damn intelligence.
"Nickelodeon should stay away from endorsing lifestyles that are generally not accepted by the American public," Falwell said.
Later he added "And the same way goes for religion. If you practice a religion that is not practiced by at least 25 percent of the american population it is not generally accepted and should never be endorsed."
Geez. I would love to hear about some good news sometime soon. Between these idiots and this I think I'm gonna loose it.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 61. un-accepted lifestyles?
| | | | by YaleTiger | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 10:25am | score of 1.5 compelling | | | | | | |
"Nickelodeon should stay away from endorsing lifestyles that are generally not accepted by the American public," Falwell said.
I suspect that interracial relationships are not accepted by a majority of the American public (despite what they might say in public to not appear like bigots). Should Nickelodeon not air a program which tries to teach kids not to hate other, multi-racial kids?
What about 40 years ago? If Nickelodeon had existed back then, would it not have been alright for them to air a show teaching kids not to hate blacks or call them names?
If it is indeed true that the American public doesn't feel comfortable about gay parents, and Nickelodeon truly believes that this fear and hatred is wrong, then I think it has a moral responsibility to push for change.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | | 83. Inappropriate? Who Decides?
| | | | by Noexit | | | | at Tue 18 Jun 4:06pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Ok, I don't have kids. I'm not gay. I don't think I have anything to gain or lose from this program. Therefore, I probably won't watch it. Why can't the Traditional Values Coalition (I despise anything with "coalition" in it's title) do the same? If it doesn't correspond to your values don't participate. I'm not sure whether it's appropriate or not, but like I said, I don't have kids and I'm not gay so it's not really for me to decide.
pfffttttt!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| |
| | Member Login | | | |
|
