Is Homosexuality Family Friendly?

Vote & Discuss.

I don't see why not. Better for them to get used to it from when they're young because it is something that will happen more and more often as the society and the structure of the family is changing.

I don't see why not, seeing as it is a happening thing nowadays...

The only thing that isn't family friendly is your face.

Blank

I voted 'no' and not because I don't believe in free speech but because I think it's a poor representation of healthy child-rearing.

There is such a thing as masculinity and femininity. Sexual dimorphism is a wonderful thing and men and women are perfect complimentary life partners if they each embrace this. I think hetrosexual children will be deprived of the crucial parental models they need to develope if they don't have a Mother and a Father figure. Gay children would obviously get the same benefits but I suppose it is possible that they could thrive with alternative gender parents.

Bardan wrote:I voted 'no' and not because I don't believe in free speech but because I think it's a poor representation of healthy child-rearing.

There is such a thing as masculinity and femininity. Sexual dimorphism is a wonderful thing and men and women are perfect complimentary life partners if they each embrace this. I think hetrosexual children will be deprived of the crucial parental models they need to develope if they don't have a Mother and a Father figure. Gay children would obviously get the same benefits but I suppose it is possible that they could thrive with alternative gender parents.

So are you just as opposed to single-parents as you are homosexual parents? How about where there's both parents, but they're abusive and unloving towards each other? Is that better, or worse than homosexual parents who love and raise their child well?

So are you just as opposed to single-parents as you are homosexual parents?

That would be consistent with the principle I have, yes. Indeed, I've managed to eliminate one. But remember we're talking about aesthetic opposition here, not moral opposition to homosexual parenting. This is a thread about art.

How about where there's both parents, but they're abusive and unloving towards each other? Is that better, or worse than homosexual parents who love and raise their child well?

I think it's pretty clear that a cartoon that represents family as loving and supportive is better than unloving and abusive.

As you bring it up, there is a cartoon my family watches called Family Guy that does represent exatly what you describe. Both parents, but abusive and unloving toward each other and their children. In the last few months I've realised that I'm acting against my chosen values by watching this show and have stopped doing it. That was hard because the social insight, the satire, parody, and pop references are attractive to me and the kids love to watch it too. And they still do.

That would be consistent with the principle I have, yes. Indeed, I've managed to eliminate one. But remember we're talking about aesthetic opposition here, not moral opposition to homosexual parenting. This is a thread about art.

Oh OK, I must be a little confused then, it's just that when I read "Would it be OK for a character on a cartoon to have homosexual parents", and the thread title was "Is homosexuality Family Friendly?", I kind of assumed it was a thread about homosexual parenting using the example of a childrens show characters.

Now I realise it's purely a thread about the aesthetic appeal about a cartoon show. My mistake.

____ wrote:

That would be consistent with the principle I have, yes. Indeed, I've managed to eliminate one. But remember we're talking about aesthetic opposition here, not moral opposition to homosexual parenting. This is a thread about art.

Oh OK, I must be a little confused then, it's just that when I read "Would it be OK for a character on a cartoon to have homosexual parents", and the thread title was "Is homosexuality Family Friendly?", I kind of assumed it was a thread about homosexual parenting using the example of a childrens show characters.

Now I realise it's purely a thread about the aesthetic appeal about a cartoon show. My mistake.

I lol'd.

To clarify, it is intended to be about homosexual parenting, rather than aesthetic appeal.

Waireka wrote:

____ wrote:

That would be consistent with the principle I have, yes. Indeed, I've managed to eliminate one. But remember we're talking about aesthetic opposition here, not moral opposition to homosexual parenting. This is a thread about art.

Oh OK, I must be a little confused then, it's just that when I read "Would it be OK for a character on a cartoon to have homosexual parents", and the thread title was "Is homosexuality Family Friendly?", I kind of assumed it was a thread about homosexual parenting using the example of a childrens show characters.

Now I realise it's purely a thread about the aesthetic appeal about a cartoon show. My mistake.

I lol'd.

To clarify, it is intended to be about homosexual parenting, rather than aesthetic appeal.

are both mothers hot?

Donkeycheese wrote:

are both mothers hot?

An important question I failed to raise, myself. LOL raise.

____ wrote:

Donkeycheese wrote:

are both mothers hot?

An important question I failed to raise, myself. LOL raise.

just to advance the next important question

If both mothers are hot, can they adopt me (please)?

Great way to teach girls and boys how not to get pregnant.

Ah, well then its' my mistake. I was responding to the poll question not the intentions behind it.

Still, I think it's a good poll that would also be worth reflecting on for those sexually secure enough to do so.


--
Now I realise it's purely a thread about the aesthetic appeal about a cartoon show. My mistake.

To clarify, it is intended to be about homosexual parenting, rather than aesthetic appeal.

Without references for adult to pick up, how can I ever be interested in cartoons? Most of the best cartoons ever made have had references for adults. Spongebob is considered gay (though I disagree).

I reckon the best cartoon was Captain Pugwash. What with Seaman Staines and all.

Couldn't care less about pooftery, male or female. So long as it's not made compulsory.

What consenting adults get up to, in private, is no ones business but their own. But I do note, the child prating the Libertarian line, is not so liberal as the philosophy he espouses. Why am I not surprised.

I reckon the best cartoon was Captain Pugwash. What with Seaman Staines and all.

Urban myth. Never happened. You never saw the show in your life.

the Libertarian line, is not so liberal as the philosophy he espouses

How's that?

I voted yes because there is a certain need to represent all family make-ups and cultures so that the children do not feel devalued through lack of representation.

However, I do believe in the mother and father being a benefit that (ideally) should be available for all children.

I've watched a few shows like this. I'm perfectly okay with this.

I voted yes because there is a certain need to represent all family make-ups and cultures so that the children do not feel devalued through lack of representation.

Well then if there's any real families out there that resemble Family Guy or American Dad those kids are going to feel valued through representation..I guess?

Yay.

What about other fucked up families? Do they get TV representation too for the same reason? Verbally and physically and sexually abusive family environments should be affirmed by Hollywood?

You appreciate my curiosity over your principle here, I trust.

Bardan wrote:I voted yes because there is a certain need to represent all family make-ups and cultures so that the children do not feel devalued through lack of representation.

Well then if there's any real families out there that resemble Family Guy or American Dad those kids are going to feel valued through representation..I guess?

Yay.

What about other fucked up families? Do they get TV representation too for the same reason? Verbally and physically and sexually abusive family environments should be affirmed by Hollywood?

You appreciate my curiosity over your principle here, I trust.

Artistic freedom should be fully free, artists should be free to approach any situation. Leave the great script writers alone. The most disgusting and detestable premises have drawn out some of the greatest artistic works I've ever seen.

Bardan wrote:I voted yes because there is a certain need to represent all family make-ups and cultures so that the children do not feel devalued through lack of representation.

Well then if there's any real families out there that resemble Family Guy or American Dad those kids are going to feel valued through representation..I guess?

Yay.

What about other fucked up families? Do they get TV representation too for the same reason? Verbally and physically and sexually abusive family environments should be affirmed by Hollywood?

You appreciate my curiosity over your principle here, I trust.

I would be willing to wager a considerable amount of money that there are no families that have the same make-up as Family Guy or American Dad... so lets just leave that one be... okay?

Maybe those kids need representation as well... but these are two different kettles of fish. We are talking about a T.V show that casts homosexual parents, bringing their children up in a completely safe and positive environment, in a show for children. You take a strange turn and start talking about violence and sexual abuse... how are these things related?

As to representing sub-cultures that are involved with abuse or even bigotry... well, there are ways that television can help here. I walked around for years ashamed of myself for taking the abuse that I did... perhaps (a big perhaps) if I had viewed a show that had raised my issues, and placed a value on people like me, I would have spoken for myself.

Perhaps.

there is a certain need to represent all family make-ups and cultures so that the children do not feel devalued through lack of representation.

All family make-ups great and small? All family make-ups violent and nurturing alike? Josef Fritzl on TV2 and the Brady Bunch on TV3? So that no child who is abused, nor not, need feel devalued through lack of air time?

You take a strange turn and start talking about violence and sexual abuse... how are these things related?

Because you said that all family make-ups and cultures need to be represented and that's why gays make the list. But I think that's an absurd criterion given the extreme and horriffic range of family make-ups.

I walked around for years ashamed of myself for taking the abuse that I did... perhaps (a big perhaps) if I had viewed a show that had raised my issues, and placed a value on people like me, I would have spoken for myself.

I'm sympathetic and I appreciate your being so open about that. Shows healing.

My objection is not that a show may have these themes but that the artist represents these value judgements about what makes a good family wrongly. Family Guy does so and hence my objection. Likewise, I think a show that put up a single parent or a gay paradigm as paragon is the sort of thing we should vote against in online polls the producers will never read about.

Three.5 Men is anti-maternity.

Steve Guttenberg, Tom Selleck, and Ted Danson are of course Satan's little helpers.

All family make-ups great and small? All family make-ups violent and nurturing alike? Josef Fritzl on TV2 and the Brady Bunch on TV3? So that no child who is abused, nor not, need feel devalued through lack of air time?

You now make your arguments based on the semantics of my argument rather than dealing with it in the spirit it was meant. Namely, that all healthy, safe and legal family sub-cultures should be represented in order that a child not be devalued by lack of representation.

I didn't say that though. Using semantics, you are right, I am wrong.

I'm sympathetic and I appreciate your being so open about that. Shows healing.

My objection is not that a show may have these themes but that the artist represents these value judgements about what makes a good family wrongly. Family Guy does so and hence my objection. Likewise, I think a show that put up a single parent or a gay paradigm as paragon is the sort of thing we should vote against in online polls the producers will never read about.

First, you are patronising fuck. Said, and done.

The rest is knee-jerk sensitivity to a non-issue. "Two and a half men" is just another chauvinist sit-com in a long line of the same. It makes no judgements, it makes penis jokes. As does family guy.