The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

OCCOM BILL wrote:

sozobe wrote:
So, why is dislike of homosexuals rational, Bill m'dear?
You're asking the wrong guy, darlin. I don't get the hang up about sex out of wedlock either, but that's not my ideology.

Then your little "opposition" fit above is baseless. You have to have determined that something is in fact rational before getting all het up about someone calling it irrational.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
sozobe wrote:
So, why is dislike of homosexuals rational, Bill m'dear?
You're asking the wrong guy, darlin. I don't get the hang up about sex out of wedlock either, but that's not my ideology.

Then your little "opposition" fit above is baseless. You have to have determined that something is in fact rational before getting all het up about someone calling it irrational.

Nonsense. I don't have the slightest understanding of homosexuality, either, but I'll get my knuckle bloody defending an irrationally victimized homosexual. I don't have to share a belief to recognize someone else's right to it. I have yet to encounter a religion that doesn't strike me as irrational.

I've never seen a shred of proof anywhere that proved pot smoke harmed anyone, ever. You're ducking a well-made point. The kid's who's parents smoke suffer no undue exclusion because they're parents aren't represented in children's programming. Your agenda isn't one of tolerance or you'd be satisfied with no opposing messages. Rather, your agenda is one of promoting increased acceptance and those ideologically opposed to this are not necessarily irrational for being so opposed. Were I forced to choose a side, it would probably be yours, but that too is irrelevant.

0 Replies

Since smoking is harmful and pot-smoking is illegal, they don't compare to homosexuality. Someone objecting to these two things being portrayed in a children's educational show would be on more solid ground.

0 Replies

First, I thought you were talking about smoking in general, like Marlboros. (That was your first sentence, and I'm tapping these out quickly between several other things.) I think that kind of smoking is an especially bad analogy with homosexuality. Pot smoking I'm less sure of, would have to do research as to whether it is harmful. It's smoke, smoke in lungs ain't good no matter what. But the data is less overwhelming/ available than with cigarette smoking.

Second, note that I didn't say anything about whether I thought pot smoking (or any smoking) should be taken off the airwaves. Sozlet sees the bunny here smoking and asked me about it. ;-)

Thirdly, potsmokers are all over the place, sure. There's a show we watch called "Out of the Box" with a very sweet, mellow and dreadlocked host. Does he light up on camera? No. Do Buster's friends' two moms do the horizontal mambo on camera? I'd really doubt it.

There is what people ARE, and what they do, and some things are more private than others.

I also already talked about the "opposing message" that I tolerated happily in the Orthodox Jew episode.

Meanwhile, what does your "nonsense" paragraph have to do with anything? I was making a specific point about it doesn't quite work to get your back up about me calling something irrational if you're not sure if it's irrational or not yourself.

Again, someone can believe whatever they want, and I've never said otherwise. It's how those beliefs translate to actions.

0 Replies

(And good points FreeDuck.)

I've been enjoying the closest equivalent possible to the face-to-face conversation that I mentioned wanting earlier -- following up and redirecting before things go off on tangents. But kid's getting more and more impatient, so will probably have to come back to this later.

0 Replies

Soz, if I were a bible-thumper, opposed to homosexuality cause my preacher and the good book told me so, I'd find it pretty offensive that you reduced it to "irrational" thought. I need not actually be one to see that.

Instead of looking for ways the smoking example doesn't fit, why not look at the ways it does. For instance, consider the parents who smoke (anything) as it would relate to your post about hand-walkers/gays. If you try, I think you'll see you were really just rationalizing your desire enlighten the ignorant bigots you disdain (not unlike my desire to share my morality in the ME). Substitute smoking parents for gay parents and I think you'll see how relatively harmless not addressing it is.

0 Replies

Bill, that's how analogy-making works. You make an analogy, and see how it fits or it doesn't. How does the racism analogy not fit?

For the record, I think pot should be legalized so I won't even go into the "promoting something which is illegal" angle. But the analogy doesn't hold up for a lot of reasons. I already gave a big one -- DO vs. ARE. I personally -- and since your point here seems to be hypocrisy, that seems to be the only thing that is pertinent -- wouldn't particularly mind if in an episode of "Postcards from Buster" he went to Jamaica and hung out with a family in a house with lots of smoke wafting around. Again, horizontal mambo/ lighting up. Some things are more private.

You keep taking this "gotcha!!" tone on things that are kind of self-evident. Yes, I want to enlighten ignorant bigots. (Whom I define here as those who think that blacks and homosexuals are bad.) Again, why that is seen as a negative thing or something I've been denying or need to rationalize? The closest I've gotten to getting a tattoo was the sanskrit symbol of a thunderbolt which destroys ignorance. It's been a big part of my professional life, talking people out of their ignorant prejudices (usually about people with disabilities.)

So, gosh, you've backed me into a corner, I'll admit that I think it is wrong for ignorant bigots to impose their ignorant bigotry by acting to get a harmless episode of a harmless children's show off the air.

(Have I been saying anything else?)

0 Replies

Soz - I read a couple of days ago that quite a few PBS stations plan to go ahead and air the episode.

I so wish this hadn't morphed into a "bigot" thread, though. Do we know for sure that was Ms. Spellings motive? That she's homophobic?

0 Replies

I read that too while looking some stuff up earlier -- wrote to my local station right away and said I hope you will show it! (Haven't gotten a response.) If they do, I'll watch and fill you in best I can.

I dunno about Spelling. What do you think her motive was? Blatham's quote seems rather unambiguous to me -- certainly not very accepting of gay and lesbian parents, no matter what epithet we ascribe to her.

Meanwhile, before I go for while, the analogy thing reminded me of the unanswered question out of many unanswerered questions I've asked here that I'm most interested in a response to -- what does it mean that "the jury is out" on homosexuality (but "in" on racism)?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

My use of the word 'deviant' by the way is in the same context as is used by psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists and others studying human behavior and it in no way is associated with anything perverse or even negative. That the rest of you see it as negative (homophobic?) is probably from your conditioning. But thank you so understanding that the No. 1 definition is the context and intent.

Actually, that is not so.

Serxual deviance, for instance, is used to describe the stuff like paedophilia - (and the paraphilias) - for psychologists and psychiatrists, at least in this country, homosexuality is no longer considered deviance - and "treatment" for it is considered unethical.

Where you are more correct is in sociology - where studies of "deviance" have no overtone of judgment.

I quoted the other meanings because these are meanings generally included in the definition and I was attempting to explain to you, Fox, why people (including myself) were reacting so strongly to your use of the word - given that you were saying, in the same breath, that you did not consider homosexuality "wrong".

I think your definition is unusually restricted - but I am not arguing that your use of the word was not confined to that definition.

0 Replies

Oh and one last thing! :-) I really am not in the least concerned with offending people if I think the cause is just. If a bible-thumper back then had tried to get an iterracial family off the air, I'd happily offend them... because I'd think they were wrong. Same here.

If everyone took care not to offend people with prejudices, we wouldn't ever get anywhere.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

sozobe wrote:
Ah, so you don't mind if kids are exposed to left-handed people, redheads, and gay/ lesbian folks. Right?
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.

Heterosexuality also has sex built into it - and it is every parent's right to decide when sexuality should be discussed.

We had better ban showing of ANY couples to pre-schoolers, had we not?

Gonna be hard for parents in any kind of relationship of course. But we must all sacrifice for the kiddies' rights not to be exposed to sex - oh - and those rabbits and guinea pigs and such have to go - and the dogs - they copulate in the damn STREET, you know!

I guess all the daddies and mumies ought to be living in separate homes - and no associating anywhere pre-schoolers might be - or indeed, 16 year olds, if their parents have decided not to introduce sexuality to them...

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:
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.

Sadly, it is not in the LEAST amazing, Dys.

0 Replies

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

I am at the point of blaming the schools, or something.

For people to CONTINUE to pair homosexuality with such things, while brightly denying that they see "anything wrong with it" , defies logic to a point that is leaving me gasping in stunned amazement.

Thing is - I have no problem with the - (what appears to be unconscious) - negative attitude expressed by some on this thread.

They all seem to have perfectly decent politics and such on homosexuality - we all have prejudices - I would never ask that we cease to have them (it is great if we can!) - only that we manage them and do not act on the basis of them. But - having consistently uttered these words - to deny that some of you have an underlying negative view of homosexuality that leaks out in this discussion - well....

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I read that too while looking some stuff up earlier -- wrote to my local station right away and said I hope you will show it! (Haven't gotten a response.) If they do, I'll watch and fill you in best I can.

I dunno about Spelling. What do you think her motive was? Blatham's quote seems rather unambiguous to me -- certainly not very accepting of gay and lesbian parents, no matter what epithet we ascribe to her.

Meanwhile, before I go for while, the analogy thing reminded me of the unanswered question out of many unanswerered questions I've asked here that I'm most interested in a response to -- what does it mean that "the jury is out" on homosexuality (but "in" on racism)?

Spellings said:

"The episode is inappropriate for preschoolers. We are funding an education program for preschoolers, and one would be hard-pressed to explain how this serves as educational material for preschoolers. It's up to parents to decide for their children, not the government in a taxpayer-funded video for preschoolers."

She didn't offer any of her own personal views on homosexuality, so to assume she's homophobic would be a leap. If no federal funds were involved or, if there was a grandmother in the episode in question instead of the two moms, I doubt you'd have heard a peep out of her.

If this episode was available for rent on video and parents wanted to use it as a teaching tool (at their own expense) and at the TIME of their choosing, no one would have a probem with that. Maybe some parents would choose it for their toddlers and others would wait until the kids were older - 5, 8, 10 or whatever. It sounds like a good choice for that purpose.

Just on a personal level, I want total control on when I'll decide to teach these things to my children and I don't want the government involved period. I would also feel the same in teaching them about racial bias, death, or any controversial social issue.

The "Buster" series sounds adorable and instructive and perhaps as you say, there will be a disclaimer at the beginning of the episode, although that sounds rather ominous for a preschooler's program.

As to your "jury" questions...dunno. For me the jury's in on both. There should be no bias for skin color nor for sexual orientation.

0 Replies

The notion of the hermetically sealed against anything nasty childhood that is coming up here is worth commenting on, too.

Reminds me of Siddhartha's parents' attempt to not allow him to see anything unfortunate, too.

Thing is, only in very recent times, in very select places, can such a thing even be dreamed of.

For most of humanity still, the notion of shielding against knowledge of death and disease and such would be a very odd idea - and - given the exigencies of life, the people trying to do the shielding here would accept that luck would have a big part to play.

Ok - not rubbing kids' noses in stuff I accept - but not allowing kids to see mental retardation and illness - HUH??!!!!!

These things are normal parts of human experience.

Ought little kiddies to be shielded from the awfulness of seeing my dear friends' severely cerebral palsy affected son, Isaac? Ought he not to be allowed to be taken out, lest he introduce wee sheltered kiddies to the notion of illness and ill fortune?

For generations over the millenia death was a normal part of human and children's experience.

I, for one, am very glad that I was encouraged in my interest in animals - to the extent that babies and death were very familiar concepts to me as soon as I was old enough to have concepts.

I think it did me no harm to live until 8 with a dying sister.

This is LIFE!!!

I know you people are not actually saying that kids ought to live in a hermetically sealed environment - but your logic is going that way.

0 Replies

What - JW - is your response - given you want total parental control of such things - to situations where parents do no such thing? Where they do NOT teach about sexuality? Many parents do not, believe me.

I have had clients having babies with no damned idea of how they got in there.

0 Replies

Racism seems to have been rather thoroughly eradicated from the church. Homosexuality remains in limbo. Until such time as the churches adapt to homosexuality as they have racism, I'll continue to consider it out of line, for you to label all those who oppose homosexuality, bigots. Hence, the distinction. There's no shortage of God-fearing people who're guilty of nothing more than following the teachings of their church, who do not deserve to be labeled bigot.

I admire the certainty of your conviction but that is no measure of accuracy. Your desire to enlighten the ignorant masses is no different the Christians, the Muslims or anyone else's. To maintain a happy medium, none of your messages should be subliminally sent to preschoolers. Now, I realize you're certain your opinion is right, but which motivated theist isn't? Convincing me the church suffers from some mindless bigotry, hell, you had me at hello but that doesn't change the fact they're well within their rights to disagree. Thus far, it appears to be a majority of Americans who disagree with your take, and right or wrong in your opinion or mine, that is the bottom line.

0 Replies

What of parents who use their total control to teach hatred for blacks - or of Americans - or of Islam - or of homosexuals.

Would you EVER see the state as having a right to intervene in parents total control?

I assume you would in cases of physical or sexual abuse - what else?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

What - JW - is your response - given you want total parental control of such things - to situations where parents do no such thing? Where they do NOT teach about sexuality? Many parents do not, believe me.

I have had clients having babies with no damned idea of how they got in there.

I don't want to get involved in a discussion on how to solve the world's problems as it relates to bad parenting. This thread re-opened with a discussion of PBS rightly or wrongly airing controversial programming for preschoolers (2, 3 and 4 year-olds). Lash, Foxfyre and I were commenting on that issue before it got to be about religion, racism and homophobia.

I'd be happy to contribute or participate on a thread of that nature if one comes up, though.

0 Replies

The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know