The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

I know that question makes sense to you Sozobe, but I honestly don't see a correlation and it makes no sense to me.

The correlation is that all one has to say is "there are many different kinds of families" and sex does not have to enter into it at all.

That's fine and if that's all that is said or implied in the cartoon, no problem. If the lesbian couple is portrayed as a 'couple', however, that is a discussion I wish to postpone until later because there is no way to have it without discussing issues that are best left until later.

From what we know, that's all that is said or implied in the cartoon. Well, the show. Buster is animated, but the bulk of the show is live action. Real people.

What is wrong with them being portrayed as a couple, though? If there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, if it is merely a harmless deviance, why would you dislike that discussion more than a discussion of why a right-handed persion and a left-handed person are a couple? The answer is the same either way -- "because they love each other."

I don't know why you like this question so much, Soz. Homosexuality has sexuality built into it... and it's every parent's right to decide when sexuality should be discussed. Pretending the subject is no more awkward than left-handedness or hair color in silly. Kids learn parent's sleep together at a very young age and it shouldn't be up to you to decide when someone else's children learn that some parents are both moms or both dads. Like disease, divorce or mental retardation that's a bridge that need not be crossed until or unless you come to it. Unless you have an agenda, that is.

Just freakin' amazing.

But homosexuality -- in terms of gay/ lesbian parents -- DOESN'T have sexuality built into it. Love, yes.

Disease, divorce, mental retardation, and homosexualiy -- yeah, nothing wrong with it. Sigh.

I'm not pretending it's not awkward -- it isn't awkward. It can be awkward for some people but that's about the people, not some independent subjective fact. I have had several discussions about families with two moms, men getting married to each other, etc., with the kid without a trace of awkwardness from either of us. I don't see anything wrong with that, and by telling PBS not to show the program, it is MY right to parent in that way that is being infringed upon. "Buster" is a very multi-culti, diversity-embracing show -- it's the whole POINT of it. Buster travels around and experiences various cultures and tells his friends back home about it.

I "like" this subject for several reasons. One is that I think exposing kids to gay/ lesbian couples as a fact of life -- same as they are exposed to nuclear families, kids being raised by grandmas, kids being adopted, kids in divoced families, all the rest of it (and they are exposed to these things, all the time) -- helps with acceptance. And I think acceptance of something perfectly natural, loving, and harmless is a good thing.

Another is that I think it's interesting to go into the logical inconsistencies offered here. Foxfyre says there is no way to be confronted with a non-traditional family without issues of sexuality being raised -- what about kids being raised by a grandma? "There are many different kinds of families" is true, harmless, and has nothing to do with sexuality. Certainly no more than the numerous heterosexual couples that a child is exposed to every day.

Foxfyre says she has nothing against homosexuality, it's a harmless deviance. OK, so a right-handed + left-handed couple? What is the difference?

I just saw "unless you have an agenda, that is." Yes, I have an agenda. To raise my daughter to be accepting of and tolerant of good people of all races, ages, genders, and sexual orientations. I don't see that as something to apologize for.

Agenda, bill?

Spellings didn't say the problem was early introduction to sexuality, she said this...

"Many parents would not want their young children exposed to the lifestyles portrayed in the episode," Spellings wrote in a letter sent Tuesday to Pat Mitchell, president and chief executive officer of PBS.

"Congress' and the Department's purpose in funding this programming certainly was not to introduce this kind of subject matter to children, particularly through the powerful and intimate medium of television."

Pretty clear.

But there is a difference between not wanting exposure to a lifestyle to avoid unwanted questions (about sexuality) coming up and not wanting exposure to a lifetstyle because you disapprove of it. I do not know what Spellings intent was here and neither does anybody else on this thread.

And Soz there is a difference between love and sexual attraction. I love many women but I am not sexually attracted to them. If I was a lesbian I very well might be. It is sexual attraction that is the only thing differentiatomg straight and gay no matter whether one approves of homosexuality or not. I think I know Obill well enough by now to think he is not homophobic. I know that I am not. And if that isn't apparent to you, then we really have nothing else to discuss here.

Dys, it's that same agenda tricking you into the logic meltdown you just suffered.

If I said: Like gasoline, kerosene or alcohol, hay can be explosively dangerous.

Would you then assume that I thought hay was a liquid? Just freakin' amazing... what happens when on becomes hyper-PC, isn't it?

(For any to obtuse to understand my point: that my examples share negative connotations as well as being uncomfortable discussion material doesn't make negativity the point. Though, predictably, those with an agenda will often deliberately misinterpret the statement so they can feign indignation.)

Well, what's your intent, foxfyre?

Do you not want exposure to a lifestyle because you disapprove of it or to avoid unwanted questions about sexuality?

If the latter, as I've already said here, no reason for sexuality to come up at all. Squinney already gave the definitive answer -- the highest likelihood is that it would be coasted over in favor of "mmm, pancakes!" After that, there are a zillion possible responses that don't push the envelope. "There are all kinds of different families." "Because they love each other."

EVERYONE has a sexual orientation. There is nothing inherently more sexual about gay/ lesbian parents.

If a kid persists past all of those questions and asks something more specifically about sex, the kid is ready to ask about sex, and would be whether it was that or "how are babies made"?

Foxfyre, when you said that you and your husband love each other, did you break it down for your preschooler that actually, the two of you are sexually attracted to each other, which is a little different from love in general?

Precisely. Some folks believe the bible is correct in saying homosexuality is wrong, and would prefer not to address the reality (that others disagree) with their children until it comes up naturally. This is reasonable. Not wanting to discuss death is reasonable. Just because it's a fact of life doesn't mean we have to go out of our way to expose it to young children. I understand your ideology with no effort at all. Have you tried to understand theirs?

Which ideology? That children shouldn't be so much as exposed to a child with two moms? Just the two moms in the background, being moms?

I gave the response to that a while back. There was a time when people would be saying these same things about a show that portrayed an interracial family. A black man, and a white woman, having sex!!! How can you avoid talking about sex, their mulatto kid right there in the forefront is proof.

I don't think anything would be accomplished by acceding to those people's demands that the interracial family be hidden from view.

My intent is the same as I have stated again and again no matter how many times you ask the question Soz. I wish the right, without harrassment or condemnation, to discuss sexuality with my children at a time and place of my choosing.

Which this show would not affect.

Are you certain? You have seen it? You are certain without seeing it that those who have seen it are wrong? I don't know. I haven't seen it. I haven't read a transcript of the dialogue. I have only seen what others have written about it. Therefore I don't know whether or not I would object to it or not. I would wish to see it before my children saw it however, based on what has been written about it.

True, I don't know the entire show. (I'm so watching it if I possibly can, though.) Do you know anything about whether it WOULD somehow force the subject, though? From what has been written here and what I know of "Buster", I find it vanishingly unlikely. It's a sweet show. Can't imagine there would be anything that "because they love each other" wouldn't answer.