Even before newly appointed Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, was officially sworn in, she has made her presence felt by condemning lesbian themes in the PBS Kids cartoon
"Postcards From Buster."

The episode in question has Buster, a cartoon bunny visiting Vermont. There a little girl introduces him to her mother and her mother's lesbian partner.

According to USA Today, Spellings told PBS that she had "very serious concerns" about the episode, and suggested that funding for future programming could be in jeopardy. PBS has since pulled the episode, and is concerned that this decision signals a tough new attitude on values in children's programming.


From Teletubbies to Postcards From Buster, these cartoons are beginning to push homosexual and lesbian themes. This is very unfortunate, and the children are the victims. Back when I was a child, you never had to be concerned about the content of cartoons, but now, parents really need to monitor what cartoons the kids watch.

I'm sure the reason PBS took the show off was because they are funded solely by contributions, and they were afraid to lose contributors. I'm sure if it was CBS, NBC, or ABC, the shows would continue on.

Other television stations should follow PBS's lead, and pull all programming that is promoting homosexual and lesbian activity in childrens' cartoons.

Even before newly appointed Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, was officially sworn in, she has made her presence felt by condemning lesbian themes in the PBS Kids cartoon
"Postcards From Buster."

The episode in question has Buster, a cartoon bunny visiting Vermont. There a little girl introduces him to her mother and her mother's lesbian partner.

According to USA Today, Spellings told PBS that she had "very serious concerns" about the episode, and suggested that funding for future programming could be in jeopardy. PBS has since pulled the episode, and is concerned that this decision signals a tough new attitude on values in children's programming.


From Teletubbies to Postcards From Buster, these cartoons are beginning to push homosexual and lesbian themes. This is very unfortunate, and the children are the victims. Back when I was a child, you never had to be concerned about the content of cartoons, but now, parents really need to monitor what cartoons the kids watch.

I'm sure the reason PBS took the show off was because they are funded solely by contributions, and they were afraid to lose contributors. I'm sure if it was CBS, NBC, or ABC, the shows would continue on.

Other television stations should follow PBS's lead, and pull all programming that is promoting homosexual and lesbian activity in childrens' cartoons.


I'm sure that's exactly what the children were thinking. :rolleyes:

There is a fundamental difference in the modes of thinking of the two groups in opposition here: Secularism vs. Religion. As long as there are folks pushing either side, the two modes of thinking will clash on side issues like abortion, capital punishment, and homosexuality. The side issues won't be resolved either.

For what it's worth, I don't want my tax dollars funding programming that expresses a support for homosexuality.

There is a fundamental difference in the modes of thinking of the two groups in opposition here: Secularism vs. Religion. As long as there are folks pushing either side, the two modes of thinking will clash on side issues like abortion, capital punishment, and homosexuality. The side issues won't be resolved either.

For what it's worth, I don't want my tax dollars funding programming that expresses a support for homosexuality.

To my knowledge, it didn't "support" it as you said. The program simply acknowledged that it occured and attempted to explain it to children. Does the fact that your Christian interpretation of homosexuality as it relates to morality wasn't included offend you?

If the cartoon was geared toward young children, why the heck do they feel it is necessary to add that kind of content before a child even knows what sexuality is??

And you don't have to be a christian to realize that homosexuality isn't conducive to the human race. :)

If the cartoon was geared toward young children, why the heck do they feel it is necessary to add that kind of content before a child even knows what sexuality is??

And you don't have to be a christian to realize that homosexuality isn't conducive to the human race. :)

But the fact is that there are kids out there with "two mommies". It's a subject worth investigating from a child's point of view. It's not like there was a lesbian porno scene where one female rabbit wore a strap-on or something (sorry, was that too graphic?)

But the fact is that there are kids out there with "two mommies". It's a subject worth investigating from a child's point of view. It's not like there was a lesbian porno scene where one female rabbit wore a strap-on or something (sorry, was that too graphic?)

LOL

Yeah I understand your point, but why not leave it to the 'two mommies' to explain things rather than the cute little cartoon? The target audience of children with two mommies is almost nil.

LOL

Yeah I understand your point, but why not leave it to the 'two mommies' to explain things rather than the cute little cartoon? The target audience of children with two mommies is almost nil.

Why have any TV at all that tries to explain unfamiliar situations to children?

The only reason this is drawing criticism is because there are bigots out there that wish that their morality be made the law of the land (and often, lately, they've had their way).

"The only reason this is drawing criticism is because there are bigots(I'm sure you meant to say moral people) out there that wish that their morality be made the law of the land."

:Lies: We're not bigots, but you can call us what you want. I guess we could live in your world where morals would not matterhttp://www.okctalk.com/images/Smailies%2001-28-08/fighting30.gif .



"(and often, lately, they've had their way)."

Totally incorrect

"The only reason this is drawing criticism is because there are bigots(I'm sure you meant to say moral people) out there that wish that their morality be made the law of the land."

:Lies: We're not bigots, but you can call us what you want. I guess we could live in your world where morals would not matterhttp://www.okctalk.com/images/Smailies%2001-28-08/fighting30.gif .



"(and often, lately, they've had their way)."

Totally incorrect

big·ot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Don't know what your definition of bigot is, but as far as I can tell, you're being pretty intolerant of someone who differs with your religios interpretations.

Well, morals do matter to me by the way. Just not your particular version of morals. I believe morals are a very personal thing. The highest order of morals for me as far as law is concerned is that of property or harm. I feel that you should be able to do whatever you want as long as no harm is done to me or my property.

Therefore, if two mommy bunnies want to raise a baby bunny on a cartoon show on PBS, it doesn't effect me, or really anyone else. I'm sure your children are well instructed on the merits of bigotry. They should understand how you'd want them to filter this horribly pernicious information.

Why have any TV at all that tries to explain unfamiliar situations to children?

The only reason this is drawing criticism is because there are bigots out there that wish that their morality be made the law of the land (and often, lately, they've had their way).

That's the problem today. We expect TV to raise our children.
TV shouldn't be the method for teaching children about these things. Leave it to the parents.

I'm shocked there has been no mention of Spongebob Square Pants in this thread...

That's the problem today. We expect TV to raise our children.
TV shouldn't be the method for teaching children about these things. Leave it to the parents.

I'll bet there were offended parents in Alabama back in the 70's when Scooby, Shaggy and company didn't make the Harlem Globe Trotters ride in the back of the Mystery Machine.

Yes... but this is just the trend of segregation. Nothing blacks did back then was immoral for the day, or today. Everything today's queers do IS immoral, by then and nows standards.

Yes... but this is just the trend of segregation. Nothing blacks did back then was immoral for the day, or today. Everything today's queers do IS immoral, by then and nows standards.

By your standards.

Of course, then in the South, it was immoral for a black man to walk on the same sidewalk as a white man, drink the same water, etc. They were just supposed to accept the fact that they were a 'lesser people'. Of course, by today's standards, that stance was not only immoral, it was downright evil.

Even religion had its tie-ins to racism. The Klu Klux Klan, for example, claimed that they were doing God's work. Just as Christians today march against things like homosexual marriage.

I think in years to come, we will come to similar realizations -- the majority has been wrong before, and today, they are wrong. Time will tell, history will be the judge.

Again, your standard of morality is not shared by all.

Bravo Midtowner. Well spoken.

I'd like to add that when "we were kids, things are purer" argument isn't a good one. Shaggy and Scooby were stoners, Bugs was a cross dresser, who really liked his red lipstick and violence abounded. Further back, there was much race bigotry by people who thought they were morally right...aka Walt Disney. Regardless of times, someone will be outraged by what they see, whether it be homosexuality or something else. Fact is, homosexuals exist, its a way of life for many. And many have children. Is it right to make the children feel isolated, alone and just strange? That they are morally corrupt? Just knowing this is a lifestyle for many and they aren't the only ones, might help them feel better about themselves. Besides that, while some might feel they are immoral, I, for one, do NOT agree that homosexuality is immoral. And if anyone can find true love and make a relationship work, and on top of all that, provide a loving home for a child...MORE POWER TO THEM!

There is no justification for tormenting any child, they are all of god. These gay men conduct themselves in ways that are morally unspeakable, reaming themselves whenever, in fact I'll bet that over half the people in line for a dab of *****cillan (sp?) are queers. And, do you wish to debate the morality of homosexers? (yes, I'm using quotes from SNL, lol)

There is no justification for tormenting any child, they are all of god. These gay men conduct themselves in ways that are morally unspeakable, reaming themselves whenever, in fact I'll bet that over half the people in line for a dab of *****cillan (sp?) are queers. And, do you wish to debate the morality of homosexers? (yes, I'm using quotes from SNL, lol)

Which part is from SNL?

Actually, since the thread is about a monogomous lesbian couple, they have a lower incidence of STD's than do straights. They are statistically the cleanest, most disease free group out there. As for male homosexuals and bi's, there are monogomous and then there are some that are very promiscuous. But then again, many straights are extremely promiscuous, yet you're not so quick to condemn them???

Your argument relies on a lot of assumptions. Assumptions that are about as well-thought out as saying something like "Blacks are good at basketball" or "Asians love math". Nothing more than bigotry wrapped up in a shroud of religion.

-- disguising bigotry with religion... now THAT is a sin.

Which part is from SNL?

Actually, since the thread is about a monogomous lesbian couple, they have a lower incidence of STD's than do straights. They are statistically the cleanest, most disease free group out there. As for male homosexuals and bi's, there are monogomous and then there are some that are very promiscuous. But then again, many straights are extremely promiscuous, yet you're not so quick to condemn them???

Your argument relies on a lot of assumptions. Assumptions that are about as well-thought out as saying something like "Blacks are good at basketball" or "Asians love math". Nothing more than bigotry wrapped up in a shroud of religion.

-- disguising bigotry with religion... now THAT is a sin.

The whole point to stop gay marriage is to preserve and restore moral marriage. I don't really understand why they can't get civil whatsitcalleds, b/c Uncle Sam has always been knee deep in liberal crap since Theodore Roosevelt. SNL did a skit a while back pretending Bush would come out w/ a "de homosexer" to stop the "homosexing", and so on. A machine to turn people straight. Wouldn't that be the end of our misery... but, you understand that conservatives are also against marriages outside of the church period. B/c, as I said our nation is so backed up with BS, there are people who aren't Christian who deserve to be married, there is no way in hell to stop those wonderful, Las Vegas style marriages. You don't think the same people are scoffing every time Brittany Spears get's married?

:fighting3

big·ot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Don't know what your definition of bigot is, but as far as I can tell, you're being pretty intolerant of someone who differs with your religios interpretations.

Then that makes two of us.


Well, morals do matter to me by the way. Just not your particular version of morals.

Which morals are more moral?


The highest order of morals for me as far as law is concerned is that of property or harm. I feel that you should be able to do whatever you want as long as no harm is done to me or my property.

What's to stop someone from believing the highest moral concern is to actually destroy others' property? Again, which morals are more moral?

The whole point to stop gay marriage is to preserve and restore moral marriage. I don't really understand why they can't get civil whatsitcalleds, b/c Uncle Sam has always been knee deep in liberal crap since Theodore Roosevelt. SNL did a skit a while back pretending Bush would come out w/ a "de homosexer" to stop the "homosexing", and so on. A machine to turn people straight. Wouldn't that be the end of our misery... but, you understand that conservatives are also against marriages outside of the church period. B/c, as I said our nation is so backed up with BS, there are people who aren't Christian who deserve to be married, there is no way in hell to stop those wonderful, Las Vegas style marriages. You don't think the same people are scoffing every time Brittany Spears get's married?

:fighting3

So in other words, they are lesser people and you look down on them.

Sounds very much like something Strom Thurmand would say Circa 1956 about another group, but I digress...

I'm conservative as heck (refer to poll, I am to the right of Atilla the Hun on fiscal matters), a registered Republican, etc. I am all for gay marriages. I work in a family law practice. We divorce people for a living here. I can't think of a single one of our clients that didn't go into their marriages seriously. Many have lasted 20+ years. They dissolve for the simple fact that the two people fell out of love. That's the society we live in. You can hearken back to the 'good 'ol days' when people who hated eachother continued to tolerate eachothers' presence unto death, but that won't get you very far when your soon to be ex serves you with divorce papers.

Of course, my solution to all of this would be to take marriage out of the hands of the state. Put marriage in the hands of the church. Allow the state to issue civil unions to any two people over the age of 18 that want it, and be done with it.

I was always taught in my religious Ed classes that Marriage is a compact between the two people and God. Why does the state even have the right to issue a marriage license then?! Where is the righteous Christian outrage over that issue?

Then that makes two of us.
Which morals are more moral?


A question that philosophers have been working on since organized society began. Perhaps another thread?



What's to stop someone from believing the highest moral concern is to actually destroy others' property? Again, which morals are more moral?

Then they're faced with a dilemna. After that, they will be faced with a lawsuit for property damage. Then, a jury of their peers or a judge (they get to choose which) decides.

As far as you accusing me of not tolerating others beliefs, no, I tolerate them. I'm stating my disagreement. I wouldn't go so far as to try and pass legislation to ensure that you couldn't practice a religion that condemned what I believe is okay. See the difference?

^You can't do that. I have and will say it again, America is too politcally correct. we have athiests that may want to get married to. We have satan followers who may want a marriage, etc.

And, if you really want marriage to be WHAT IT IS, then why do you so vehemently support queer marriage?

The original topic was about whether or not cartoons should be teaching kids about homosexuality.

It shouldn't and definitely not with taxpayers money. This is a subject that should be taught to the children by their parents, not a rabbit.

As far as homosexuality goes, who knows how the children in these families will grow up. AFAIK, this seems to be a relatively new development in what comprises of 'family'. Maybe the kids grow up with well adjusted values, maybe not. My problem with the whole situation is that the child has ZERO choice in the matter. Whether its invitro, adoption or whatever - are you really doing whats right for the kid?

Well put. Especially the first part.

Does the fact that your Christian interpretation of homosexuality as it relates to morality wasn't included offend you?

Yes.

I don't mind the fact that my tax money supports the education of our youth. But seriously, there is a lot better content (like science, math, english, history...) that hardly anyone would have issues with showing children. My money shouldn't be funding anything as controversial as (merely) showing a same-sex relationship on TV. I would say Christians are more prevalent than homosexuals, yet I don't know of any PBS program showing a Christian family sitting around a dinner table praying for a meal. Not endorsing, no... just showing that "Hey children, you may run into Christians (and there are a lot of them out there). So don't get freaked when you see them." Which is undoubtedly what they're trying to do with kids by showing a same-sex couple on TV even though they're not "endorsing" it, per se.

But the fact is that there are kids out there with "two mommies". It's a subject worth investigating from a child's point of view.

Using that logic, we should have a couple beating each other as regulars on a cartoon, because sadly, that is pretty common out there too. And "hey, you know those ladies who don't wear much on the side of the street? What's that all about, mommy?"

The government isn't supposed to use my tax dollars to educate my kid on moral issues. Teach them the basics. It's parents' job to discuss with their children controversial issues like homosexuality and things of that nature.

Yes. Our schools are brimming to the point of combustion with open mided kids. Too bad they are idiots b/c they are only being tought how to have an open mind, and not USING a mind, open or closed.

Join Date: 01-12-2005
Total PostsTotal Posts: 401 (19.99 posts per day)
Last Post:
PBS crosses the line
02-01-2005 05:30 PM
Points: 6365.70 (Donate)

Actually, your tax money doesn't fund this program, or really anything on PBS. In '94, PBS just about got axed completely as far as federal funding goes. The myth that your tax dollars support it is simply not true. Most of the money comes from private donations and charitable foundations. Unless you donate money to PBS, you have absolutely no right to tell them what to air and what not to air.



Using that logic, we should have a couple beating each other as regulars on a cartoon, because sadly, that is pretty common out there too. And "hey, you know those ladies who don't wear much on the side of the street? What's that all about, mommy?"


Believe it or not, domestic violence is something that is discussed with children in schools. Perhaps social worker mistipetal can fill us in on exactly what. And as far as the scantily clad ladies across the street, what do you mean exactly?

Join Date: 01-12-2005
Total PostsTotal Posts: 401 (19.99 posts per day)
Last Post:
PBS crosses the line
02-01-2005 05:30 PM
Points: 6365.70 (Donate)

Isn't he banned yet?


[quote]Believe it or not, domestic violence is something that is discussed with children in schools. Perhaps social worker mistipetal can fill us in on exactly what. And as far as the scantily clad ladies across the street, what do you mean exactly?

It's not material that belongs in schools. If the parents aren't queers or innable, or uncomfortable for that matter, then they should take care of it.

It's not material that belongs in schools. If the parents aren't queers or innable, or uncomfortable for that matter, then they should take care of it.

Please restate. Use proper sentence/grammar structure. What you said makes no sense.

The parent's should deal with that. I don't want my parenting to be undermined, or exploited by some teacher, who must not be doing her job, if this was the society we lived in.

Actually, your tax money doesn't fund this program, or really anything on PBS. In '94, PBS just about got axed completely as far as federal funding goes. The myth that your tax dollars support it is simply not true.

:Lies:

For the year 2004, about 15% of the revenues for PBS came from various federal grants and from the CPB (a non-profit company which receives the federal grants and distributes them to PBS stations).

http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/content/annualreport/2004/FY04FinHighlightsPublished.pdf

Are you sure they want that on their website, lol?

Since PBS is partially funded through federal dollars as Patrick mentions, it becomes public record.

When PBS is pushing a homosexual agenda, I have issues with it because I'm paying for it.

Well, I am just angered that they ARE pushing ANY agenda besides the general education & purification of our kiddos. Obviously they aren't even pushing that good agenda.

Since PBS is partially funded through federal dollars as Patrick mentions, it becomes public record.

You can control 15% of the programming then.

The other 85% which is funded through private money leaves programming choices up to PBS.

If there is programming that challenges our values and makes us reevaluate our positions, I think it's definitely for the betterment of society.

Y'all are very worked up about this. I guess your hatred and intolerance is pretty strong, eh?

You can control 15% of the programming then.

The other 85% which is funded through private money leaves programming choices up to PBS.

I guess that's how I have to look at it, then. If GLBT organizations donate to PBS (which I don't know if they do), then perhaps PBS feels obligated to throw them a bone.

Note to self, email Focus on the Family to donate to PBS.


Y'all are very worked up about this. I guess your hatred and intolerance is pretty strong, eh?

I guess that's the easy way out. Look at an opposing argument as hatred and intolerance. You may be speaking of someone else though.

We're, apparently, just as "worked up" as you are. You've responded to nearly every one of our arguments. However, I understand it's your moral obligation to defend the views that you have, as you're doing. Likewise, I'm defending mine...hopefully in a respectful way.

From what I have read, it seems like MidTowner is the one that is getting all worked up about this. His hatred and intolerance toward others that have differing opinions is very evident. That's right, blame the Christians and all the other moral people for raining on YOUR parade. Luke is right. You have argued every point that has been made on just about every post you have replied to. I don't know if it is because you think you know it all, or you just want someone to pay attention to you, or if you are naturally arrogant. You see, it takes a lot to get under my skin, with all that I deal with on a daily basis, so I can handle it.

Your arrogance, sarcasm, and rudeness, towards others on this forum reveals your unprofessionalism and insecurity. Your posts are only rebuttals, that are actually not worthy of print. I don't care if you do work in a law office, you are no better than anyone else on this forum. You may think you are really funny, witty, and quick to the draw, doing your best to intimidate other people, however, many posters on this forum are cool, calm, and collective. They realize that all you want to do is argue, disrespectably.

I do expect a arrogant, sarcastis, reply, so give it your best shothttp://www.okctalk.com/images/Smailies%2001-28-08/elmer3.gif . BTW, back to the topic. I agree that PBS should take off any programming that condones homosexuality in any way, form, or fashion.

From what I have read, it seems like MidTowner is the one that is getting all worked up about this. His hatred and intolerance toward others that have differing opinions is very evident. That's right, blame the Christians and all the other moral people for raining on YOUR parade. Luke is right. You have argued every point that has been made on just about every post you have replied to. I don't know if it is because you think you know it all, or you just want someone to pay attention to you, or if you are naturally arrogant. You see, it takes a lot to get under my skin, with all that I deal with on a daily basis, so I can handle it.

Your arrogance, sarcasm, and rudeness, towards others on this forum reveals your unprofessionalism and insecurity. Your posts are only rebuttals, that are actually not worthy of print. I don't care if you do work in a law office, you are no better than anyone else on this forum. You may think you are really funny, witty, and quick to the draw, doing your best to intimidate other people, however, many posters on this forum are cool, calm, and collective. They realize that all you want to do is argue, disrespectably.

I do expect a arrogant, sarcastis, reply, so give it your best shothttp://www.okctalk.com/images/Smailies%2001-28-08/elmer3.gif . BTW, back to the topic. I agree that PBS should take off any programming that condones homosexuality in any way, form, or fashion.

I guess we have different views on what arrogance is. To me, the epitome of arrogance is to claim you know a sin better than God. To me, arrogance is claiming that you have the right to judge others for their lifestyles. If to you arrogance is pointing out the arrogance of others, then I guess that just makes us all arrogant!

I do not blame the Christians. I just feel it is my place to point out the hipocrisy that many Christians participate in when decrying the sins of others. If you think what I'm doing is wrong, please, examine your own actions first.

I know a lot of police officers have temper problems. I've had very good friends of mine put in the hospital because a police officer was having a bad day. I guess I should feel lucky that you don't have a temper problem.

As far as replying to everything, please do not accept that as an indication of anything. Truth is, if someone tells me I'm wrong, I have the right to reply to them. On this board, all but one person so far has stated I am wrong, therefore, I have replied an awful lot.

The rest of your message is a pretty inappropriate and inaccurate personal attack, but I guess that's the way you operate :rolleyes:

There was no personal attack on you, but if you read it that way, then so be it. My entire post was accurate and appropriate. There were no names called, just stating the facts. So, if you are offended by what I said, then, OH WELL.

All but one person has proved you wrong? You don't read much, do you? Most everybody disagrees with everything you say, but you come back with your sarcastic attitude, so they realize they are beating a dead horse. Oh, by the way, I didn't call you a dead horse, that was just an expression:tiphat: .

By the way, what do you call a personal attack? That I called you arrogant, rude, and unprofessional? That's not an attack. That is a true assessment of your character. I bet you aren't this toughhttp://www.okctalk.com/images/Smailies%2001-28-08/fighting30.gif and wordy when it comes to talking to someone face to face, but then, of course, many people tend to hide behind the internet.

Sorry, guys, I didn't mean to get off topic. I just like to expose problems. It's in my blood;)

there is a lot I'm wanting to address since I last logged on. I'm starting with page two and will reply to that and then continue on. Forgive me as I'm going to try to reply to each person's post in order, and I might repeat myself.

SoonerRiceGrad: You reveal your intolerance and bigotry with your posts. You say you want a "moral marriage" but what you don't seem to see is that you are not the only person with an idea of what marriage is about and there is zero reason that your definition should be the "correct" one. You imply that there is something wrong with queers and they have need for penicillin, then you go further on to say atheists and satan worshippers are in the same group and shouldn't be allowed to marry, nor anyone in Las Vegas I guess. Last time I checked, there was (at least in theory) freedom of religion. The Christian Right should not be allowed to dictate what we watch on tv and whom should be allowed to marry.

Luke and Midtowner: regards whose morals are better. I think the point is that we all have different ideas of morals and we should be free to follow those morals to our extent, so long as we don't physically harm others (that last part was my caveat) I don't think that either are wrong ...its a matter of different priorities. The problem lies in that Midtowner, myself and others do not wish certain sects to dictate how we live our lives. I hope I haven't over spoken for you there Midtowner, lumping you in with me and the "others"

Floating adrift: My interests are in the best for the child. Perhaps you don't realize, but children who live in these situations are affected by them. Some are mocked, some are tolerated and I believe the message behind the cartoon allows a child to have some sort of acceptance of their situation. They didn't create the situation, they live in it. And whether their parent's choices are moral or not, the children shouldn't have to suffer for it. It's incredibly easy to damage a child and if a television program reaches some child and allows them to feel less alone, then why not let them watch it? It's available. If you object to the moral of the teaching and want to address it to your child, then don't let them watch the program. Simple as that.

Luke: I don't know about PBS, but I do know there are shows with Christians and christian themes. Those shows are available, they even have their own network. PAX TV. there are also programs about beaten children. They are issues that need to be addressed, with kindness and sensitivity. Have you no memories of the "after school special" maybe that was before your time. I'm not sure when shows like that air any longer, but they are still out there. I've run into them from time to time. There are programs that address abuse, drug use, and other problems and recommendations on getting help. They even have commercials for it.

The scantily clad ladies mean hookers. Using that open mind is also something that parents should address, I believe. Schools are in danger of drowning simply by trying to teach the basics to children who have parents who neglect them. PBS is attempting to bridge the gap. A constant theme in our home is using the brain you have and making sensible choices. I have always told my child that I'm there for her and will support her, but I can't make her decisions and she needs to use what she knows to keep herself out of trouble. And I use those scantily clad ladies as examples when needed.

Domestic violence is usually gently addressed. I don't know what school programs have, as I've never had the oppertunity to be involved in those trainings. Sadly. It's something I would really enjoy doing. In the DHS office, we have buttons with the safe number and there are posters listing signs of abuse and ways to contact for help. When I did child welfare, I would cautiously question the child and try to make them feel safe. If I found reason to continue, I'd definitely set the children up in one of many programs that help children deal with the problems they face. A lot of schools, more often in troubled neighborhoods, have DHS case workers who interact with the children, watch for signs of neglect and make referrals for investigation

Ok, I'm going to the next page now.

Continuing on:

SoonerandRiceGrad: I seriously hope that one can not be banned for an expression of opinion. I mean seriously, look at what you are advocating here. You are stating that because Midtowner disagrees with you, he should be banned. So far that I have seen, he has not used foul language or abuse. He has stated an opinion. Further proving the intolerance point. also, he said the subject of domestic violence is in schools, not homosexuality. Also, not all teachers are female, but I find it interesting that you are blaming the women teachers for not doing a job that belongs to the parents. Nice.

as we are still in the US, differing opinions, values and thought processes are ones that should be addressed. PBS just addressed one some people personally disagree with. They should have the freedom to air education of various sorts. And not feel afraid that a single group will attack them, only because they disagree. You also stated that you feel PBS ought to be pushing an agenda of "purifying our kiddos" That statement reminds of other sorts of "purifying" Is that the next step on the agenda for "queers, atheists, and vegas marrieds"?

Luke: I agree we all have the right to defend our moral position, which is what I'm doing. I will state that I think (and this is my personal opinion based on my reading) that SoonerandRiceGrad is filled with intolerance and hatred, on this subject at least and I don't believe he is the only one. It's coming off his (i think his) posts. You are debating, as am I, and with due respect.

1adam12: It looks to me as though you are responding in a personal way. I'd feel attacked were it me. In this first post I'm reading, I don't see any comments related to the debate at all, only a criticism of another. Ah, wait. The last line. I disagree. Homosexuality is a way of life for a great many. They are entitled to it, and hiding the issue away from children will only cause further problems.

I only wish I'd logged on more often, because on this subject, I agree wholeheartedly with Midtowner. It's funny really. I'm a liberal and based on stereotypes, Midtowner, (Mr. Right of Attila) and I should be in total disagreement. I don't know the guy, in case you are wondering. I'm only offering my own opinion. Which I will happily defend.

Oh, another thing. He has a valid point about working in family law. He sees more than many what families, morals, ect. can really mean. And I can confirm, that more often than not a "moral marriage' ,really isn't.

Sorry for the length of my posts, but I wanted to adress everything. I don't usually log on from home, because I spend time with my child, though some weekends I have time. More often I only get a couple of chances a day to reply. I will be back to respond to those who respond to me. And good for you Midtowner. You did a fabulous job with your replies. Also, No offence meant to any whom I replied to, I'm stating my opinion, not engaging in emotions. :)

As much as you are congratulating MidTowner for his arrogance, immaturity, and unprofessionalism, you two definitely know each other. You have never disagreed with him, and you egg him on, boosting his already fat ego. You are just self righteous and as arrogant as he is, but that's my opinion;) .

As a matter of fact, in your long, boring post, the only one you commended was MidTowner. All you did was criticize everybody else's opinion. That's disrespectful. You told Sooner&RiceGrad that his posts were full of intolerance and bigotry. Unless you have FACTS, you should never accuse anybody of that. He posted his opinion, and you disagreed with him, and attacked his posts. Ok, we all know that you hate Christianity and all it stands for, so just say it. You show your intolerance to others by putting down their opinions. Believe it or not, lady, you ain't always right, and you never will be, contrary to what you believe.

Homosexuality is not a way of life for many people, as you put it. You must not get out much. You are right about one thing. My post didn't have much of anything to do with the subject, however, I apologized (something new for some people), and then gave my opinion on the subject.

1Adam12: No, I don't know Midtowner. Sorry for your presumption. You can consider me self-righteous if you like. I think it has more to do with standing by my opinions. Arrogant. Personally, I'd define someone who thinks they can define others lives as arrogant, but I've been called arrogant before. Doesn't actually hurt my feelings. And yes, you are absolutely allowed to have your opinion. Have fun.

Also, not true, was the only post I commended was Midtowner. I agreed most with Midtowner and said as much, but I also stated that Luke was debating with due respect. I disagreed with his position, but I thought he made well written debate, and I differeniated his posts from the ones filled with intolerance and hatred. And I said that ON THIS ISSUE, SoonerRiceGrad is very much filled with intolerance. I said that opinion was based upon the statements written, which is as factual as an opinion can be, in this circumstanstance. I disagreed with his posts and have stated why. I did not personally attack him, unlike your responses. I've read other things and posted before, and in a different thread on a different matter, I might totally agree with what is said.

I don't hate Christianity. I have family that are christian, my best friend, my nephews, all christians. It's not christianity I hate. It's intolerant pseudo-christians, who believe they can bully others to their will. I believe that needs to be spoken out against. I will continue to do so. I understand that I am not always right. That would make me a deity. By the same token, back at you. Neither are you always right or are you presuming to know the mind of god? Last time I checked I am still entitled to an opinion and do have to right to let my opinion be known. It's people who have a problem with that, which concerns me.

I would also say, back at you on not getting out much. I've worked at DHS, seen many people and families of all sorts. I've worked with many different sorts of people. I'm far from a shrinking violet lost only in the realm of theory. I deal with real world every day. Maybe you turn a blind eye to what is commonplace. I'd have thought the gay pride parades might have clued you in, but its all selective, I suppose.

Not sure who you mean with your apology comment. I did apologize for the length of my post. And I do hope that the people I'm debating with aren't personally hurt. And Luke, if I in some way implied that I thought badly of you in my post, then I do apologize. I was actually attempting to commend you for your debating. 1Adam12, please note. No apology shall be forthcoming.

As much as you are congratulating MidTowner for his arrogance, immaturity, and unprofessionalism, you two definitely know each other. You have never disagreed with him, and you egg him on, boosting his already fat ego. You are just self righteous and as arrogant as he is, but that's my opinion;) .

As a matter of fact, in your long, boring post, the only one you commended was MidTowner. All you did was criticize everybody else's opinion. That's disrespectful. You told Sooner&RiceGrad that his posts were full of intolerance and bigotry. Unless you have FACTS, you should never accuse anybody of that. He posted his opinion, and you disagreed with him, and attacked his posts. Ok, we all know that you hate Christianity and all it stands for, so just say it. You show your intolerance to others by putting down their opinions. Believe it or not, lady, you ain't always right, and you never will be, contrary to what you believe.

Homosexuality is not a way of life for many people, as you put it. You must not get out much. You are right about one thing. My post didn't have much of anything to do with the subject, however, I apologized (something new for some people), and then gave my opinion on the subject.

Facts:

Definition of Bigotry:

The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.

Defintion of Bigot:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

****
More facts:

As to professionalism and courtesy:
1) You referred to my ego and described it as fat -- fact, this is not exactly polite or civil.

2) You accuse me of "arrogance, immaturity, and unprofessionalism". How exactly is that mature, professional and humble? Pot, meet kettle.

3) You said: "Unless you have FACTS, you should never accuse anybody of that." in reference to bigotry. Above, under "Definitions", you have your facts.

4) You said: "Ok, we all know that you hate Christianity and all it stands for, so just say it. You show your intolerance to others by putting down their opinions. Believe it or not, lady, you ain't always right, and you never will be, contrary to what you believe." Whatever happened to turning the other cheek? I guess you're all filled up with Christ's love today! Seriously though, I explained, apparently you either ignored, missed or lacked the capacity to understand what I was trying to get across.

There is a vast difference between not tolerating someone's viewpoint and disagreeing with it. While many here seek to pass laws against gay marriage, gay erm.. relations, etc., I would classify that as intolerance -- the fact of the matter is that you do not want to tolerate gays, so you try to legislate them away. Sort of like Jim Crow laws, but sanctioned in your mind by your religion.

I do disagree with your point of view. I tolerate it. I won't try to make it illegal to be a bigot. That is your right.

ETA: Your attacks on my religious beliefs could be construed as personal attacks. The only reaction you'll get from me is me saying that in my eyes, you have absolutely no idea what Christianity is all about if your version of the religion condones the way you view some people. But let's not turn this into a debate as to who the better Christian is. I'm quite confident that my faith and works will be well rewarded. I forgive your ignorance though.

Luke: I don't know about PBS, but I do know there are shows with Christians and christian themes. Those shows are available, they even have their own network.

Oh, I understand that. I was specifically referring to publicly funded channels like PBS. I understand TBN has "Christian" things and every channel can pretty much put whatever they want on the air. I was saying that I don't like the fact that my tax dollars are going to present gay people to children. (I understand that 15% of the funding is public, so that leaves a lot of "play".)


Using that open mind is also something that parents should address, I believe. Schools are in danger of drowning simply by trying to teach the basics to children who have parents who neglect them. PBS is attempting to bridge the gap.

In my opinion, PBS should mind their own business when it comes to instilling moral issues in America's children. Private funds are a different story, however.

Ok, I think I am post#49, or something like this. Gosh, you guys and gals sure stand firm on what you believe, and that's great. The debate is still on, but let's stick to the subject at hand. Debate the issues, not the people. If you disagree with something, state your opinion and go on. If you want to debate, go ahead and debate, in a respectful manner.http://www.okctalk.com/images/Smailies%2001-28-08/respect.gif

Everybody's opinion counts, just don't get carried away with your words. A few of you are on the edge about this subject, so maybe this would be a good time for you to go to another topic, or start another threadhttp://www.okctalk.com/images/Smailies%2001-28-08/spin.gif .

I agree, Keith. There's no need for disrespect especially on controversial issues like this.

Back on topic: What corporations give to PBS? Maybe then we can determine what THOSE PEOPLE would want, and anyalze their legitimacy.

I would like to make a (I'll try) brief statement about this thread. As I read through the reposnses on this thread, I just felt my stomach sinking lower and lower. It isn't just that the majority of posters on this board seem to have a real hatred of the idea of homosexuality, it's that from what I had (up till today) witnessed on this board was completely thrown out the window by the bitterness and the vitriol I've seen in this post.

Well, guess what folks...here's a simple fact of life you're going to have to learn to live with. Homosexuals exist. They do...and they live in every city and state in the country and in every country in the world. The live next door to you, the work with you and you may never even know it.

You disagree with the life these people live, but most of them want nothing more than to live their lives and be happy. I'm not certain how that pursuit really harms or threatens you, yet you all seem so afraid that if "the gays" get any more rights or get any more uppity, your world is going to come crashing down around you.

Gay people are not trying to indoctrinate your children. It's not as if they can teach your children to be gay...they wouldn't wish that on any child. Why would anyone want to see s child forced to deal with the hand a homosexual has been dealt. Being called names, unable to be open about who they love and care about. Losing their families over a matter as simple as trying to be who they were born to be.

That being said, If God believes (truly) that homosexuality is a sin, let him deal with that. At the end of time when each of us stands before the judgement of God, you'll have sins that you've committed as well.

The PBS show was not showing a graphic representation of lesbian sex. There was nothing sexual about it. It was simply showing the different familes that DO EXIST IN OUR WORLD. You can disagree with it, but you can't make it go away by ignoring it and acting as if it weren't real.

If you have a child who is in public school (elementary aged) I thinks its reasonable to assume that at some point before they graduate from high school, they are going to have classmates with parents in same sex relationship. Seeing something at a young age, on a children's show...maye they won't give a second thought to the fact that Heather has two mommies. Thos of you who believe that homosexuality is wrong, you will have done your parental duty by then and taught them how evil the homosexuals truly are.

But, if that image gives one second of comfort to a child of same sex parents, a little 8 year old who sees it and realizes that they aren't alone in the world, then it is worthy of being aired.

Yes, the government does fund a portion of PBS' budget. However, the government does a lot of things with our tax dollars that we don't always agree with.

In closing, and I hope to God that this doesn't become my last post on this board, I have something more personal to say.

I have met some truly nice, wonderful people on this board. It's been nice to have a forum where I could make a reference to Kelly Ogle and not have to precede it with a paragraphs explanation.

That being said, I'm something of an anomoly on this board and in Oklahoma. First and foremost I am a Christian, raised by a father who spent twenty years as a pastor in Southern Baptist churches. My faith is as stong as anyone's and I depend on God on a daily basis to get along in life.

I am also a homosexual. I'm the guy you didn't know was gay that lives down the street from you. I 'm not a flamer, I'm not a drag queen. I'm just a regular guy who happens to be gay.

I'm also a guy who had the insult "***got" hurled at me by someone in a very vicious way today...and then I read this thread. And every one of you seemed to be calling me a ***got too.

If that's how you feel, fine. I'll stick to my old forums where people were a bit more open and accepting, back where people understood that religious beliefs don't override common decency and modern decorum. Back to where people don't call names or accuse people of being petty and unprofessional for simply diagreeing.

Thanks to MistiPetal and Midtowner, and also to posters like Luke and Keith who kept the argument rational and did not reach down to the lowest common level of human discourse in a bid to see who could prove their point best by being the meanest.

I'll be away from the board for a few days. I need time to let my feelings heal.

How dare I be so stupid as to think that this great group of "Christian" people could be so intolerant of something that they believe is a sin...while not acknowleding the great amount of sin on their own hands.

We all have our sins, and we aren't avoiding mention of homosexuality liek the plague, we just don't see it as important. Most of us are baptisit or catholic on this forum, I myself being a stickler African American catholic. I am very conservative, I regret not voting for being farther to the right than Attila the Hun. But, I'm not about to call any body a ***got. Maybe b/c of this I just don't realize the threat tothe gay people and the nead to fill our children's minds of that talk. I am not a jerk, I don't think anybody (exceptions*) is a jerk on this forum. We pride ourselves on being very affable to eachother. This is the hottest debate I have ever witnissed on this forum, and a darn good one (some posts weren't so good though). In summary, we can use a "hot topic" every now and then. I also simply do not see why you would be banned here. B/c your gay? Get out of here!

You want a gov't funded program that is abusing our tax dollars? NPR! There.

Hey Underling, I don't think any of us here have anything against homosexuals personally. We were just having a religious dialogue about it. We respect your sexual orientation. By no means do we dislike you because of your sexual orientation.

Sure, all of us have expressed our opinions about homosexuality in general, but it wasn't meant to be taken personally.

I strongly believe homosexuality is a sin....but it isn't like it's the only sin. If I remember right, the Bible states that we have all sinned and come short of His glory. So, we're indeed no different from you.

Hey, I want you to know, we appreciate your input on this forum, and we respect you.

I guess the main thing a lot of us more conservative people get upset with is just how vocal some homosexuals have gotten with their lifestyle. Some homosexuals take it to the extreme, having parades, and the like. It isn't like you see straight parades, straight flags, etc.

I just think sexual orientation should remain a private issue.

By the same token, people shouldn't discriminate against homosexuals. They deserve the same rights any American or Christian deserve. I'm very much against hate crimes and the like.

Underling, we welcome you here, regardless of your sexual orientation. Of course there will be people here that don't agree with the lifestyle, but that doesn't mean they're attacking you.

We appreciate your input on this topic and we respect your opinions and your lifestyle.

I think Patrick said it the best, so I won't dwell any further on it. BTW, Underling, we expect too see more posts by you:wink: .

Well, I suppose I just can't get anything right... I also tried to get back on topic.

I think we've probably beat this topic to death. Let's move onto another topic. I'll start a new thread.