The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Your 3 year old asked question about wedding pictures in a newspaper? Very precocious that one. It would not have occurred to my kids I think and they're pretty bright.

It isn't a matter of right and wrong. It is a matter of parental discretion about what is best for one's children. I have my point of view and you have yours. I would not presume to tell you how to raise your children and I expect to raise my children as I see fit.

0 Replies

Just saw the new sentence... eh? So how does this work? As nimh says, you just mightily hope that your child/ grandchild never runs into a real-life gay/ lesbian couple? And if there is one in the vicinity, what on earth do you do?

Again, what we're talking about is just a kid with a couple of moms. They don't show the moms engaging in sex. There is no more specifics about sex than there is in showing any heterosexual family.

A better analogy would be whether the wishes of a lesbian family should be respected and their kids shouldn't be allowed to even see or be made aware of the existence of any heterosexual families.

Meanwhile, my child already knows that there are people who believe in God, go to church, etc. I don't withhold the information -- I provide the information, following her interest, and expect her to make up her own mind on these things.

0 Replies

But you don't think the Buster episode should run, right? (And if not, what are we arguing about?) If you think it shouldn't run, you ARE presuming to tell a lot of people how to raise their children. (We watch "Postcards" all the time, cool show, and I'd so let her watch it.)

Oh and that reminds me -- a recent show we watched was about Orthodox Jews. (I learned a lot.) By your reasoning, it seems that as an agnostic I would want to shield her from it.

0 Replies

Quote:

But to force the issue on very young children, serve no purpose other than indoctrination, intended or unintended, and I think it inappropriate at that age.

I don't see anything about sex in the concept that a child may have two parents of the same sex. Your use of the word indoctrination reveals your bias, Foxfire. I won't say homophobia.......but I'm thinking it.

Anyway, what about my preference to teach my children my beliefs about god? We've had this discussion before, but the shoe was on the other foot at the time. Remember, you thought it didn't violate their rights (or mine) to have to repeat "under god" every morning at school. I agree with Soz, it's you that wants to teach my children what you think fit, not the other way around.

Now I'm waiting for the next contortion.

0 Replies

There is nothing preventing the Buster episode from running. It would be illegal to prevent it from running. But in my opinion it is also perfectly legal to withhold funding for a program deemed inappropriate for very young children. So I support the Dept. of Education on this issue.

You see my gay friends appreciate that they had a mother and father to raise them and they understand that young children don't need to know about heterosexuality and homosexuality. We have even discussed that in the not so distant past. There is no way they would presume to educate my children (or anybody else's) on that subject. For PBS to 'spring' it unexpected on parents is not appropriate.

If you see no problem with it, fine. I'm not going to tell you you're wrong. It would be wrong for me and mine however. Anyhow I have to go to work now. Everybody have a great day.

0 Replies

So your gay friends think that gay people shouldn't adopt? I see.

Again, this isn't about homosexuality and heterosexuality in the textbook, Human Sexuality sense. It's about kids have lots of kinds of families. "Sex" per se doesn't enter into it any more than in a show where a kid has a mom and a dad. Or a grandma who's doing the parenting. Or whatever.

Would you call on the Department of Education to withhold funding for a program that shows a kid who is being raised by his grandma?

0 Replies

Quote:

I know a lot of fancy dancers,
people who can glide you on a floor,
They move so smooth but have no answers.
When you ask "Why'd you come here for?"
"I don't know" "Why?"

0 Replies

Foxy, you may have a point you are trying to make and are obviously having trouble doing so. But, I think it is adult bias that assumes a 3 year old seeing a couple on tv jumps to conclusions about what they do in the bedroom... heterosexual or homosexual. Kids don't think that way unless we adults make it an issue either through being overly open (ie if the lesbian couple were to kiss on the cartoon show) or secretive about it (ie shielding them from any and everything sexual).

0 Replies

squinney!!! I'm agast, really!!! two women kissing? unheard of!!!!! must be some kind of porn!!!(well we all know about the French-even the faggot men kiss and them Italians OMG) We can't have that kind of **** here in america!

0 Replies

By the way I went back to the original article we're discussing, and it seems to go beyond withholding funding:

Quote:

Consider the course of recent events. Spellings somehow learned that an unaired episode of "Postcards from Buster" features the cartoon's title character visiting Vermont, where he encounters lesbian couples and learns about maple sugaring. The education secretary declared that "many parents would not want their young children exposed to the lifestyles portrayed in the episode." Presumably she meant lesbianism, not maple sugaring.

Luckily, Spellings spoke out in time, and PBS does not intend to distribute the episode.

0 Replies

I SEE the light! I do I do! maple sugar causes homosexuality!!!! Please someone, notify the FDA. we gotta get maple sugar(ing) banned and probably maple tress as well (we all know how resourceful them commie pinkos can get when there are maple tress about in OUR land. Protect our kids now before maple suger(ing) turns them all into blathering queers and probably demmunists as well. Leave no child without cane and/or beet sugar (does anyone have any info about "brown sugar?)

0 Replies

Info on brown sugar? Just that it reminds me of a song, dys.

(BTW, I meant making out kinda kissing earlier, not a friendly peck on the cheek kinda kissing.)

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

By the way I went back to the original article we're discussing, and it seems to go beyond withholding funding:

Quote:
Consider the course of recent events. Spellings somehow learned that an unaired episode of "Postcards from Buster" features the cartoon's title character visiting Vermont, where he encounters lesbian couples and learns about maple sugaring. The education secretary declared that "many parents would not want their young children exposed to the lifestyles portrayed in the episode." Presumably she meant lesbianism, not maple sugaring.

Luckily, Spellings spoke out in time, and PBS does not intend to distribute the episode.

I think it goes beyond withholding funding. It's censorship. But more than that, I think it's the finger in the wind test. The Bush admin is checking to see how far they can go with pushing PBS around. There were a lot of rumors before the election that funding would be cut for public broadcasting. It will be interesting, if frightening, to see how far they can go.

And Dys.......I'm so glad to hear you've been saved. You've inspired me to never eat a pancake again. (No maple syrup, no pancakes for me.) Who knows, Foxy's uncle tom homosexual friends might support a ban on bacon and eggs next.

But Fox has still not answered my question about the shoe being on the other foot. I'm waaaaaaaiting. I'm looking for a houdini.

Quote:

What the world needs now is love, sweet love. That's the only thing that there's just too little of..........

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

How is kids seeing a reflection of the reality of family life around them on TV sex education being taken out of the hands of parents????

Will you try to shield them from seeing same sex couples in the supermarket? Rush them from the cinema if a same sex couple have kids at the show?

It seems to me that some of you are, in reality, asking that TV censor family reality, beyond what one expects them to censor in kids TV - like blatant sex and violence - while you think you are asking them not to expose your kids to stuff.

Given that family reality DOES include same sex couples, can you really not see that point? I know that some of you are not anti-gay - especially you Lash - I am not actually attacking your general stance, just your logic on this one.

I will try one more time--because I'm pretty sure most of the more shrill posters here aren't really interested in 'why'--they're more interested in trying to turn opinions that differ to theirs something evil. But this question seems sincere.

I sheilded my children from a lot when they were very small. Profanity, violence, displayed anger, animals that may bite them, water that was too hot, news that told sad stories, screaming, boisterous people at football games, too much sugar, swimming pools, if their dad bounced a check or came home drunk--I didn't let them know. When I left dad for a week or so--"We were visiting Grandma." I wanted to provide them the luxury of a few years thinking the world was sweet and safe.

You may snicker and think this is a backward way of raising children. I am very pleased with the results, and if given the chance, I would do it exactly the same.

As I said previously--I think small children should be given a grace period of at least a couple of years, where the most difficult aspect of their life is eating vegetables. Homos--a term of endearment <Hell, if I say it to them, I can damn well say it here> may seem to be viewed negatively by me, based on the collection of other stuff they're sort of lumped in with.

It is merely because of the questions it would bring--and the realization that their little life is not secure. I guess it equates with a loss of innocence. Its something new. Something they don't understand. Something they have no point of reference for--and something that may think there are other things which may impact them, which they don't know about. Its about the AGE.

And, gay is sex. No matter how you want to deflect it. It defines how (with whom) someone has sex. There's no getting around it.

Despite how nicely nimh documented a few of my responses--he did leave out the one that stated if all these women are doing to denote gayness is to dress like the Indigo Girls, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Its just that they were described as two lesbians--making one wonder if they were introduced that was ...a la John Kerry, "...ask Mary Cheney, who by the way is a lesbian..." Or if they had their tongues down each others' throats... I doubt it--but I haven't seen it yet.

It is also very different if a family member is gay. The child has grown up around the family member--has acclimated to them--and there would be no reason to sheild them from the topic.

We are talking about preschool children.

So, that is why.

0 Replies

Hold the phone! Indigo girls are gay?!

0 Replies

PBS has pulled an episode of the children's show Postcards From Buster
that includes children with lesbian mothers. The episode was yanked the same day that PBS received a letter from new Secretary of Education
Margaret Spellings condemning the episode and asking PBS to "strongly
consider" returning the federal money that went toward its production.
In the episode, Buster, an animated rabbit, visits Vermont, where he
learns how maple sugar is made and visits the home of real-life children who invite him in for dinner and introduce him to their "mom and Gillian." Sounds sexy to me for sure.(perverted too)

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

And, gay is sex. No matter how you want to deflect it. It defines how (with whom) someone has sex. There's no getting around it.

Yes. Of course. So are puppies, and talking rabbits, and heteros (I prefer "breeders", especially since I am not one) and grandparents and tadpoles and that goddamn Catholic woman down the street with eleven children who just can't seem to figure out the rhythym method and...

Where does 'sex' stop? (Oh yeah, for some I've heard, it's when they get married...)

Lash wrote:

Despite how nicely nimh documented a few of my responses--he did leave out the one that stated if all these women are doing to denote gayness is to dress like the Indigo Girls, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

So what about Birkenstocks? Softball players with mullets?

Where do you draw the line (and shield their little eyes)?

Lash wrote:

It is also very different if a family member is gay. The child has grown up around the family member--has acclimated to them--and there would be no reason to sheild them from the topic.

Ohhhhh. I see.

Rolling Eyes

I want to thank you for posting that. It was by far the best laugh I had all day.

0 Replies

I have a case of the sads today, and I'm going to talk a bit. My justification for proceeding in this manner is best enunciated by Wilde..."One should never listen. To listen is a sign of indifference to one's hearers."

It appears I may have lost another a2k friend. From the cherished category. It is a list grown longer than I find comfortable or easy to understand with much confidence.

These are odd times. When the nation held as the beacon of hope and liberty in human affairs weighs out the likelihood of avoiding prosecution for committing torture institutionally, and concludes that it likely can manage this end and goes ahead and commits torture, and hearing of it, citizen voices rise in cheering support of this decision to torture, it is difficult to avoid concluding odd times have arrived.

Who here ever dreamed this might come to pass? The Kodak moments? Apple pie and light sticks? Flag waving and "...short of organ failure"?

I'm scared. I'm way past 'anxious' or 'alerted' or 'concerned'. I'm really scared. This is Pogo...this is 'we have seen the enemy' and Walt Kelly sketching menstral blood and feces smeared on the turtle and electrodes clamped like pitbull jaws on his testicles and in the house next door, over Kellogg's Corn Flakes, the neighbors support this resolute turn in the artist's sense of community, in his apprehension of reality. And the kids go and turn on the TV and there's a cute animated rabbit helping make maple syrup with a family that has two moms and the government and the parents are outraged at moral decline.

And I'm losing friends because I'm yelling.

0 Replies

at ease Blatham , you never had any friends to begin with.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Lash wrote:
And, gay is sex. No matter how you want to deflect it. It defines how (with whom) someone has sex. There's no getting around it.

Yes. Of course. So are puppies, and talking rabbits, and heteros (I prefer "breeders", especially since I am not one) and grandparents and tadpoles and that goddamn Catholic woman down the street with eleven children who just can't seem to figure out the rhythym method and...

Where does 'sex' stop? (Oh yeah, for some I've heard, it's when they get married...)

Lash wrote:
Despite how nicely nimh documented a few of my responses--he did leave out the one that stated if all these women are doing to denote gayness is to dress like the Indigo Girls, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

So what about Birkenstocks? Softball players with mullets?

Where do you draw the line (and shield their little eyes)?

Lash wrote:
It is also very different if a family member is gay. The child has grown up around the family member--has acclimated to them--and there would be no reason to sheild them from the topic.

Ohhhhh. I see.

I want to thank you for posting that. It was by far the best laugh I had all day.

Glad to help out. The way things have been going for you, you really needed a laugh. Birkenstocks are OK, if the legs are shaved.

No Adam's apple allowed--unless the woman (or wo-Man? in question) ALWAYS wears a turtleneck.

0 Replies

The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know