The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Excellent. We eliminated Ann Coulter right off the bat.

While poetic and colorful, I think the answer is that some things people feel they can influence and somethings they can't.

Average Americans have no hope of stopping terrorism. It is out of their control. They see terrorists as a disease and know their is only one cure; extermination. If that means underhanded/illegal things need to be done, do them, but don't let anyone know you are doing it. Once people find out, the law must be upheld because its what seperates us from the terrorists. It's what keeps us from becoming the terrorists. The single biggest mistake this administration has made is not keeping a lid on media coverage.

Seeing a cartoon depiction of a lesbian couple is something average Americans think they can do something about. A moral community standard if you will. As much as the enlightened people in the country (most people here for example) have no qualms regarding homosexuality, some find it repulsive and offensive. It goes against what they were taught and what they wish to teach their kids. Group think takes effect and next thing you know, cartoon lesbians are not on the air. As much as we (I) do not like it, America still has many puritanical value systems running it.

So, have no fear of America dissolving into a land of torturers, the law will be upheld in the end no matter who the president is. It just takes longer sometimes. In the end though, Lady Liberty will have her say and the right course of action will be followed.

McG great god almighty McG you have seen the epsiode in question and can tell us what it contains? All I know is what I read in the papers which consists of introducing 2 real live children and mom and another lady by name but obviously you have seen the program and give us the real lowdown about the lesbian sex stuff. Who do you have to know to get this information? I'm really impressed.

The thing is, I think if that cartoon was teaching a clear message that the best families have a mommy and a daddy who work and play and go to church together and that's what you should strive for, many of you so adamently defending the program would likely want it taken off the air.

My understanding was that there was no value judgment made, only that a kid was shown that had two moms. If they were teaching that the best parents are gay, I'd be on your side on this one, Fox.

And now for something completely different: according to McG, what separates us from the terrorists is our willingness and ability to cover up our misdeeds.

In other articles, some of the dialogue in the episode is cited and while the episode does not dwell on or focus on this same sex couple, there is no mistaking the implication. As CNN said, the Education Dept provides the funding for the program and they can insist on the conservative bang for their buck. The Education Dept has not banned the program, but has requested that it not be shown. Apparently many PBS affiliates are happy about it. Those who choose to defy the request can do so.

In the final analysis, it all comes down to what Lash and JW and I have said. When it comes to the issue of sexuality, and it is sexual preference that defines homosexuality, many if not most parents want to choose the time, place and method for how this is introduced to their children.

Does the idea bother me personally? No it does not. Would I have allowed my preschool children to watch? I honestly don't know. Would depend. Would I have wanted to be able to see the episode before letting them watch. Yes I would.

Bunny Flap: PBS Yanks Cartoon Featuring Lesbian Couples
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
January 27, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - A homosexual advocacy group says President Bush's new education secretary is promoting ignorance about families headed by same-sex couples. The education secretary says PBS is going too far in featuring same-sex couples in kids' cartoons.

The flap involves a "PBS for Kids" cartoon called "Postcards From Buster." An upcoming episode, called "Sugartime!", has Buster the cartoon bunny traveling to Vermont at maple sugar time, where he meets the (real-life) children of two (real-life) lesbian couples.

According to press reports, the episode focuses on farming.

But after some PBS affiliates complained, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings agreed that the episode was inappropriate for kids. Press reports on Thursday said she has asked PBS to refund taxpayer dollars that were spent on the "Sugarland!" episode.

(Funding for the "Postcards from Buster" cartoon program is provided by a literacy grant from the U.S. Department of Education.)

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) condemned Spellings for trying to prevent government-funded programs from presenting "inclusive images of same-sex families."

"For the Department of Education to try to prevent television programs from depicting gays and lesbians should raise serious concerns for all Americans," said GLAAD Executive Director Joan M. Garry in a press release.

"Secretary Spellings' attempt to create and enforce a policy of invisibility for gay and lesbian families is a profoundly offensive display of intolerance, one that imposes on our children an agenda of ignorance under the guise of 'education.'"

Likewise, the National Stonewall Democrats issued a statement accusing the Bush administration of trying to censor and hide "gay families."

"Our families are the normal neighbors of millions of fellow Americans," said Dave Noble, NSD executive director. "Yet, in an episode that does not even mention gay issues, the portrayal of an actual family is viewed as a shameful threat by this White House.

He accused the Bush administration of trying to "segregate our families" in law and in the public mind as well.

PBS has decided not distribute the "Sugartime!" episode, but WGBH, the Boston public television station that produces "Postcards from Buster," said it would air "Sugartime!" and make the episode available to other PBS stations that want to air it.

In a letter to the PBS president, Spelling reportedly wrote, "Many parents would not want their young children exposed to the lifestyles portrayed in the episode."

She added that Congress and the Education Department never intended to fund programs that "introduce this kind of subject matter to children, particularly through the powerful and intimate medium of television."

The Associated Press quoted Lea Sloan, the vice president of PBS media relations, as saying the network pulled the program because "we recognize this is a sensitive issue, and we wanted to make sure that parents had an opportunity to introduce this subject to their children in their own time."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200501\CUL20050127b.html

It's about LOVE. A straight man falls in love with women, a gay man falls in love with men. Thats pretty much about it. Sex is no more the fundamental basis of what a gay relationship or being gay is about than it is of what a straight relationship or being straight is about. It is no more a necessary element of explanation either. ("Those two men live together because they love each other. Kinda like your daddy loves your mum." See? No sex involved. I doubt one's five-year old would go, "oh do they have sex like you two do, mommy?")

What was the implication, exactly?

That, as you implied in your earlier post, "the cartoon was teaching a clear message" that the best families have a mommy and a mommy and that's what you should strive for?

I dont see any sign of that in the article you bring. The episode is merely described as one in which "an actual family" is portrayed the way "our families are the normal neighbors of millions of fellow Americans".

Merely "normal" - not "best", or something you should "strive for". Just normal.

Whats wrong with that? Is a gay couple not normal, not just as normal as a single mother or an interracial couple or a couple of redheads? All exceptions to the statistical rule, but not abnormal, right? Why is it a big deal for some gay people to appear and be, well, people, cooking together and stuff?

it's just not "normal"

I still dont understand. Not on a conceptual level, obviously, but also simply not on a practical level. How do you go about these things? I mean, if your gay friends can/could come round (apparently) without it necessitating teaching your young children about heterosexuality and homosexuality - I mean, if they can somehow see your gay friends arrive together, leave together, act like any other visiting couple, without having to be explained any "sex ed", how would them seeing a gay couple in a cartoon constitute "sex ed" being forced upon them?

If you have nothing against the episode being shown, Lash -- and it sounds like you don't, really -- I don't think we have any substantial argument. I say it sounds like you don't because while I haven't seen this episode, I've seen lots of "Postcards" episodes and can pretty much predict what would (and wouldn't) be shown. The emphasis is heavily on the kids. The conceit is that Buster (who is animated, from the "Arthur" series), is "behind the camera" -- the camera is at kid level and the kids address the camera while talking to "Buster" (a regular kid, I guess.) (I assume a kid rather than a short person because the kids being filmed are always very natural and kid-to-kid in their affect). Buster isn't ever shown except for in animated segments in between. It's all a kid's eye view.

So while they may show parents in the background doing parenty things -- their arms around each other as they proudly watch their kids do something, whatever -- the focus is on the kids.

So... while I think there isn't any substantial disagreement on the core issue here -- whether PBS should show it or not -- I do take exception to several things you've said.



Again, how does acknowledging the fact of gay and lesbian parents take away a sweet and safe worldview? As several of us have pointed out, there is nothing more intrinsically about sex about gay/lesbian couples as hetero couples.

To me, it is much more about the different types of families. I ask you the same grandma question -- would you object to exposing your kids to a family made up of kids raised by their grandparents? Why or why not?



You and Fox keep saying this -- what do you base it on? Do you have any studies? My early childhood education classes and my own experience with my kid show the above to be baseless. How on earth do gay and lesbian parents make a kid feel that their life isn't secure? Kids are not small adults, and all kinds of questions, if-thens, logical conclusions that would occur in an adult brain simply don't in a child's brain.

To me, the much more damaging possibility is to shield a child from certain benign realities (again, benign -- gay and lesbian parents are scary because...?) so that by the time they find out about it it is by definition odd and scary. If they have spent 12 years being taught explicitly and implicitly that a two-parent family is all that is acceptable, thath 12-year-old will react badly when suddenly faced with an "unacceptable" family. Meanwhile, a 3-year-old is utterly blase.

In the 60's, say, would you be arguing that a child shouldn't see an interracial couple? Again, not a treatise on why all people should seek out a member of another race to marry. Not anything about the pros and cons of being an interracial couple, at all. Just the fact of 'em, the interracial parents in the background in a video about their interracial kid who talks about how he grows his champion pumpkins (another "Postcards" episode). They're having sex! They had that kid after all. A black man... and a white woman. WAY too heavy stuff for a preschooler...

...right?

Nimh writes


Well understand that my kids are grown and are quite nonhomophobic. While we had gay friends when they were growing up, they came and went as singles and if my kids knew they were gay, they never mentioned it. There was certainly no reason to bring up the subject any more than there was reason to discuss the sexual orientation of our heterosexual friends.

Now I have great nieces and nephews who come and go and if they happen to be here at the same time as gay friends, they see men and women, not heterosexual people or gay people. A television show that emphasizes that a same sex couple is a married couple however opens up a dialogue I just think is better suited for a later time.

I have no objection if the television show is shown. But I think courtesy and propriety requires that the content of the show be advertised in advance so parents who choose to do so can arrange to have their children to be elsewhere during that time. This would be true of any controversial content that could possibly be unsuitable for very young children.

No matter how carefully I read you both, Fox and Lash, I still see no way that your arguments hold except if you find homosexuality somehow offensive or distasteful in and of itself.

I believe we must simply agree to differ, with mutual respect, on this one.

Well, let me ask you, when is it acceptable to approach your kids with BDSM? S&M? Anal sex? What about bestiality? Masturbating? Foot fetishes? Pedophilia?

Now, this is just a lump sum of various crap some people are into. I want to make the disclaimer that I do not consider homosexuality a perversion, but a choice. However, I want to be the one to explain to my kids about sexuality on my terms when I feel they are ready to understand it.

Do you talk to kids about sexual intercourse when they see a married heterosexual couple? After all, marriage is about sex.

It's really ver simple. There's a couple made up of a man and a woman, there's one of a man and a man, and there's one of a woman and a woman. Any 'why' questions can be answered with 'because they love each other' until such time as you want to talk about their sexual relations.

I'm just so confused about how you guys think this works.

You watch a TV show with your kid. There's this kid making maple sugar. The kid has a couple of moms.

...and?

What earth-shattering thing happens?

The kid asks, "why are there two moms?", maybe. You say, "well, there are lots of different kinds of families."

That might be the end of it.

The kid might say, "I thought only a man and a lady can get married." You say, "most of the time, that happens. Sometimes two men or two ladies get married."

That might be the end of it.

The kid might say, "Why? Why would two ladies get married?" You say, "because they love each other."

No mechanics, no Human Sexuality textbook, all you have to do is talk about love if you even go that far. Do you say that you married the kid's mother because she gave really good head? No, you say you married her because you love her.

I hadn't seen FreeDuck's response, honest!

Yours was way more thorough, soz.

I was talking about the grander issue, not the tv show. If I didn't want my kids to see the show, I would have turned the TV off, not had PBS remove it from the air.

Oh.

Refresh my memory, what's the grander issue?