The Religious Right's New Target: Spongebob Squarepants
- Thread starter ZarathosNY
- Start date
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
Your link requires us to signup, granted it's free but I'm lazy.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
Is it like something else I saw, where they're complaining spongebob is nude?
ZarathosNY
CAGiversary!
For those who don't want to do the free sign-up
Conservatives Pick Soft Target: A Cartoon Sponge
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: January 20, 2005
WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 - On the heels of electoral victories barring same-sex marriage, some influential conservative Christian groups are turning their attention to a new target: the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants.
"Does anybody here know SpongeBob?" Dr. James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, asked the guests Tuesday night at a black-tie dinner for members of Congress and political allies to celebrate the election results.
Advertisement
SpongeBob needed no introduction. In addition to his popularity among children, who watch his cartoon show, he has become a well-known camp figure among adult gay men, perhaps because he holds hands with his animated sidekick Patrick and likes to watch the imaginary television show "The Adventures of Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy."
Now, Dr. Dobson said, SpongeBob's creators had enlisted him in a "pro-homosexual video," in which he appeared alongside children's television colleagues like Barney and Jimmy Neutron, among many others. The makers of the video, he said, planned to mail it to thousands of elementary schools to promote a "tolerance pledge" that includes tolerance for differences of "sexual identity."
The video's creator, Nile Rodgers, who wrote the disco hit "We Are Family," said Mr. Dobson's objection stemmed from a misunderstanding. Mr. Rodgers said he founded the We Are Family Foundation after the Sept. 11 attacks to create a music video to teach children about multiculturalism. The video has appeared on television networks, and nothing in it or its accompanying materials refers to sexual identity. The pledge, borrowed from the Southern Poverty Law Center, is not mentioned on the video and is available only on the group's Web site.
Mr. Rodgers suggested that Dr. Dobson and the American Family Association, the conservative Christian group that first sounded the alarm, might have been confused because of an unrelated Web site belonging to another group called "We Are Family," which supports gay youth.
"The fact that some people may be upset with each other peoples' lifestyles, that is O.K.," Mr. Rodgers said. "We are just talking about respect."
Mark Barondess, the foundation's lawyer, said the critics "need medication."
On Wednesday however, Paul Batura, assistant to Mr. Dobson at Focus on the Family, said the group stood by its accusation.
"We see the video as an insidious means by which the organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids," he said. "It is a classic bait and switch."
Conservatives Pick Soft Target: A Cartoon Sponge
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: January 20, 2005
WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 - On the heels of electoral victories barring same-sex marriage, some influential conservative Christian groups are turning their attention to a new target: the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants.
"Does anybody here know SpongeBob?" Dr. James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, asked the guests Tuesday night at a black-tie dinner for members of Congress and political allies to celebrate the election results.
Advertisement
SpongeBob needed no introduction. In addition to his popularity among children, who watch his cartoon show, he has become a well-known camp figure among adult gay men, perhaps because he holds hands with his animated sidekick Patrick and likes to watch the imaginary television show "The Adventures of Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy."
Now, Dr. Dobson said, SpongeBob's creators had enlisted him in a "pro-homosexual video," in which he appeared alongside children's television colleagues like Barney and Jimmy Neutron, among many others. The makers of the video, he said, planned to mail it to thousands of elementary schools to promote a "tolerance pledge" that includes tolerance for differences of "sexual identity."
The video's creator, Nile Rodgers, who wrote the disco hit "We Are Family," said Mr. Dobson's objection stemmed from a misunderstanding. Mr. Rodgers said he founded the We Are Family Foundation after the Sept. 11 attacks to create a music video to teach children about multiculturalism. The video has appeared on television networks, and nothing in it or its accompanying materials refers to sexual identity. The pledge, borrowed from the Southern Poverty Law Center, is not mentioned on the video and is available only on the group's Web site.
Mr. Rodgers suggested that Dr. Dobson and the American Family Association, the conservative Christian group that first sounded the alarm, might have been confused because of an unrelated Web site belonging to another group called "We Are Family," which supports gay youth.
"The fact that some people may be upset with each other peoples' lifestyles, that is O.K.," Mr. Rodgers said. "We are just talking about respect."
Mark Barondess, the foundation's lawyer, said the critics "need medication."
On Wednesday however, Paul Batura, assistant to Mr. Dobson at Focus on the Family, said the group stood by its accusation.
"We see the video as an insidious means by which the organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids," he said. "It is a classic bait and switch."
DrJustinRamone
CAG Veteran
Well, when more kids care about a tv show where a talking sponge is the main character over your preferred book full of talking donkeys, lying snakes and deities that turn people into salt, you've gotta bring yourselves back to the forefront somehow.
Huh, again the bible thumpers are trying to attack children's programs. This reminds me of a catholic priest who forced all the children to come to a sunday mass in which he put a pikachu doll on the alter and stab a sword through it and called it the devil....
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
Ahhhh yes, sounds like the classic "they're recruiting homosexuals!". America needs more science.
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
Wait I'm confused...There is or is not a sexual identity video for elementry schools? Either way the group is stupid. Yet I don't totally know if the idea of sexual identity should really be introduced to kids that young, at least not in schools, I just don't totally see a 1st or 2nd grader totally grasping the concept. And I dunno if cartoon characters should bring home the message either.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Wait I'm confused...There is or is not a sexual identity video for elementry schools? Either way the group is stupid. Yet I don't totally know if the idea of sexual identity should really be introduced to kids that young, at least not in schools, I just don't totally see a 1st or 2nd grader totally grasping the concept. And I dunno if cartoon characters should bring home the message either.[/quote]
It sounds like they were teaching tolerance. We teach 1st graders to accept blacks, asians etc., this shouldn't be any different. The point is to stop people from becoming bigots, if you wait until jr high or high school it's likely too late.
It sounds like they were teaching tolerance. We teach 1st graders to accept blacks, asians etc., this shouldn't be any different. The point is to stop people from becoming bigots, if you wait until jr high or high school it's likely too late.
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Wait I'm confused...There is or is not a sexual identity video for elementry schools? Either way the group is stupid. Yet I don't totally know if the idea of sexual identity should really be introduced to kids that young, at least not in schools, I just don't totally see a 1st or 2nd grader totally grasping the concept. And I dunno if cartoon characters should bring home the message either.[/quote]
It sounds like they were teaching tolerance. We teach 1st graders to accept blacks, asians etc., this shouldn't be any different. The point is to stop people from becoming bigots, if you wait until jr high or high school it's likely too late.[/quote]
High scool maybe, but not jr. high. And how exactly can you teach tolerence of sexual idenity without throughly making sure the kids understand something? It doesn't seem that much different to you or me but we aren't 7 years old. It's kind of an issue talking to kids about sex, or at least somewhere along the same lines in the eyes of a parent. How does one explain the concept of homosexuality without telling them about an attraction to the same gender? Race tolerence is a bit easier to understand, and when kids don't understand what they are being told it usually makes things worse. If I had a 6 year old, as a parent I dunno that would be an apporiate time to introduce the conept of sexuality in any form to him or her. IMHO it's kind of a similar arguement about when to teach kids sex education, but that is never really taught to 1st and 2nd graders.
It sounds like they were teaching tolerance. We teach 1st graders to accept blacks, asians etc., this shouldn't be any different. The point is to stop people from becoming bigots, if you wait until jr high or high school it's likely too late.[/quote]
High scool maybe, but not jr. high. And how exactly can you teach tolerence of sexual idenity without throughly making sure the kids understand something? It doesn't seem that much different to you or me but we aren't 7 years old. It's kind of an issue talking to kids about sex, or at least somewhere along the same lines in the eyes of a parent. How does one explain the concept of homosexuality without telling them about an attraction to the same gender? Race tolerence is a bit easier to understand, and when kids don't understand what they are being told it usually makes things worse. If I had a 6 year old, as a parent I dunno that would be an apporiate time to introduce the conept of sexuality in any form to him or her. IMHO it's kind of a similar arguement about when to teach kids sex education, but that is never really taught to 1st and 2nd graders.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Wait I'm confused...There is or is not a sexual identity video for elementry schools? Either way the group is stupid. Yet I don't totally know if the idea of sexual identity should really be introduced to kids that young, at least not in schools, I just don't totally see a 1st or 2nd grader totally grasping the concept. And I dunno if cartoon characters should bring home the message either.[/quote]
It sounds like they were teaching tolerance. We teach 1st graders to accept blacks, asians etc., this shouldn't be any different. The point is to stop people from becoming bigots, if you wait until jr high or high school it's likely too late.[/quote]
High scool maybe, but not jr. high. And how exactly can you teach tolerence of sexual idenity without throughly making sure the kids understand something? It doesn't seem that much different to you or me but we aren't 7 years old. It's kind of an issue talking to kids about sex, or at least somewhere along the same lines in the eyes of a parent. How does one explain the concept of homosexuality without telling them about an attraction to the same gender? Race tolerence is a bit easier to understand, and when kids don't understand what they are being told it usually makes things worse. If I had a 6 year old, as a parent I dunno that would be an apporiate time to introduce the conept of sexuality in any form to him or her. IMHO it's kind of a similar arguement about when to teach kids sex education, but that is never really taught to 1st and 2nd graders.[/quote]
They understand that men and women marry and live together without understanding sexuality, therefore they can understand two men living together as well. You don't attach sex to the first one, you don't have to attach it to the second scenario. If I were to write a childrens book and instead of putting a husband and wife as parents I put two men, there would (and usually is) a backlash. Even if I don't mention anything else, there's just two guys as parents, I would get attacked for it.
This isn't a debate about sex education, it's about acceptance. We don't concern ourselves with the reaction of racist parents when teaching children, we shouldn't concern ourselves with homophobic parents either.
It sounds like they were teaching tolerance. We teach 1st graders to accept blacks, asians etc., this shouldn't be any different. The point is to stop people from becoming bigots, if you wait until jr high or high school it's likely too late.[/quote]
High scool maybe, but not jr. high. And how exactly can you teach tolerence of sexual idenity without throughly making sure the kids understand something? It doesn't seem that much different to you or me but we aren't 7 years old. It's kind of an issue talking to kids about sex, or at least somewhere along the same lines in the eyes of a parent. How does one explain the concept of homosexuality without telling them about an attraction to the same gender? Race tolerence is a bit easier to understand, and when kids don't understand what they are being told it usually makes things worse. If I had a 6 year old, as a parent I dunno that would be an apporiate time to introduce the conept of sexuality in any form to him or her. IMHO it's kind of a similar arguement about when to teach kids sex education, but that is never really taught to 1st and 2nd graders.[/quote]
They understand that men and women marry and live together without understanding sexuality, therefore they can understand two men living together as well. You don't attach sex to the first one, you don't have to attach it to the second scenario. If I were to write a childrens book and instead of putting a husband and wife as parents I put two men, there would (and usually is) a backlash. Even if I don't mention anything else, there's just two guys as parents, I would get attacked for it.
This isn't a debate about sex education, it's about acceptance. We don't concern ourselves with the reaction of racist parents when teaching children, we shouldn't concern ourselves with homophobic parents either.
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Wait I'm confused...There is or is not a sexual identity video for elementry schools? Either way the group is stupid. Yet I don't totally know if the idea of sexual identity should really be introduced to kids that young, at least not in schools, I just don't totally see a 1st or 2nd grader totally grasping the concept. And I dunno if cartoon characters should bring home the message either.[/quote]
It sounds like they were teaching tolerance. We teach 1st graders to accept blacks, asians etc., this shouldn't be any different. The point is to stop people from becoming bigots, if you wait until jr high or high school it's likely too late.[/quote]
High scool maybe, but not jr. high. And how exactly can you teach tolerence of sexual idenity without throughly making sure the kids understand something? It doesn't seem that much different to you or me but we aren't 7 years old. It's kind of an issue talking to kids about sex, or at least somewhere along the same lines in the eyes of a parent. How does one explain the concept of homosexuality without telling them about an attraction to the same gender? Race tolerence is a bit easier to understand, and when kids don't understand what they are being told it usually makes things worse. If I had a 6 year old, as a parent I dunno that would be an apporiate time to introduce the conept of sexuality in any form to him or her. IMHO it's kind of a similar arguement about when to teach kids sex education, but that is never really taught to 1st and 2nd graders.[/quote]
They understand that men and women marry and live together without understanding sexuality, therefore they can understand two men living together as well. You don't attach sex to the first one, you don't have to attach it to the second scenario. If I were to write a childrens book and instead of putting a husband and wife as parents I put two men, there would (and usually is) a backlash. Even if I don't mention anything else, there's just two guys as parents, I would get attacked for it.
This isn't a debate about sex education, it's about acceptance. We don't concern ourselves with the reaction of racist parents when teaching children, we shouldn't concern ourselves with homophobic parents either.[/quote]
You think that kid is going to sit there and not ask a teacher or parent why two men are living together instead of a man or a woman. A book like you suggest stops short and leaves the explanation up to someone else, the book teaches little tolerence whatsoever.
It sounds like they were teaching tolerance. We teach 1st graders to accept blacks, asians etc., this shouldn't be any different. The point is to stop people from becoming bigots, if you wait until jr high or high school it's likely too late.[/quote]
High scool maybe, but not jr. high. And how exactly can you teach tolerence of sexual idenity without throughly making sure the kids understand something? It doesn't seem that much different to you or me but we aren't 7 years old. It's kind of an issue talking to kids about sex, or at least somewhere along the same lines in the eyes of a parent. How does one explain the concept of homosexuality without telling them about an attraction to the same gender? Race tolerence is a bit easier to understand, and when kids don't understand what they are being told it usually makes things worse. If I had a 6 year old, as a parent I dunno that would be an apporiate time to introduce the conept of sexuality in any form to him or her. IMHO it's kind of a similar arguement about when to teach kids sex education, but that is never really taught to 1st and 2nd graders.[/quote]
They understand that men and women marry and live together without understanding sexuality, therefore they can understand two men living together as well. You don't attach sex to the first one, you don't have to attach it to the second scenario. If I were to write a childrens book and instead of putting a husband and wife as parents I put two men, there would (and usually is) a backlash. Even if I don't mention anything else, there's just two guys as parents, I would get attacked for it.
This isn't a debate about sex education, it's about acceptance. We don't concern ourselves with the reaction of racist parents when teaching children, we shouldn't concern ourselves with homophobic parents either.[/quote]
You think that kid is going to sit there and not ask a teacher or parent why two men are living together instead of a man or a woman. A book like you suggest stops short and leaves the explanation up to someone else, the book teaches little tolerence whatsoever.
This will clear things up:
http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=1&id=5907
Basically, they just got it all wrong and got huffy and puffy for nothing - a couple of seconds of brain-using would have cleared it up too.
http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=1&id=5907
Basically, they just got it all wrong and got huffy and puffy for nothing - a couple of seconds of brain-using would have cleared it up too.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Wait I'm confused...There is or is not a sexual identity video for elementry schools? Either way the group is stupid. Yet I don't totally know if the idea of sexual identity should really be introduced to kids that young, at least not in schools, I just don't totally see a 1st or 2nd grader totally grasping the concept. And I dunno if cartoon characters should bring home the message either.[/quote]
It sounds like they were teaching tolerance. We teach 1st graders to accept blacks, asians etc., this shouldn't be any different. The point is to stop people from becoming bigots, if you wait until jr high or high school it's likely too late.[/quote]
High scool maybe, but not jr. high. And how exactly can you teach tolerence of sexual idenity without throughly making sure the kids understand something? It doesn't seem that much different to you or me but we aren't 7 years old. It's kind of an issue talking to kids about sex, or at least somewhere along the same lines in the eyes of a parent. How does one explain the concept of homosexuality without telling them about an attraction to the same gender? Race tolerence is a bit easier to understand, and when kids don't understand what they are being told it usually makes things worse. If I had a 6 year old, as a parent I dunno that would be an apporiate time to introduce the conept of sexuality in any form to him or her. IMHO it's kind of a similar arguement about when to teach kids sex education, but that is never really taught to 1st and 2nd graders.[/quote]
They understand that men and women marry and live together without understanding sexuality, therefore they can understand two men living together as well. You don't attach sex to the first one, you don't have to attach it to the second scenario. If I were to write a childrens book and instead of putting a husband and wife as parents I put two men, there would (and usually is) a backlash. Even if I don't mention anything else, there's just two guys as parents, I would get attacked for it.
This isn't a debate about sex education, it's about acceptance. We don't concern ourselves with the reaction of racist parents when teaching children, we shouldn't concern ourselves with homophobic parents either.[/quote]
You think that kid is going to sit there and not ask a teacher or parent why two men are living together instead of a man or a woman. A book like you suggest stops short and leaves the explanation up to someone else, the book teaches little tolerence whatsoever.[/quote]
Yes, because they love each other. The same reason we give for why a man and a women live together. If you are to treat homosexuality and heterosexuality as equal, and not one as inherently dirty, then what is the difference? Also, that book I suggested was just an example of how people overact. It wasn't an example of teaching tolerance, just an example of how just including gays causes a reaction, even if you say nothing about it.
Also, why do we bother teaching children religion? They can't fully comprehend it, yet we feel its important to teach them young so they develop faith and good morals.
It sounds like they were teaching tolerance. We teach 1st graders to accept blacks, asians etc., this shouldn't be any different. The point is to stop people from becoming bigots, if you wait until jr high or high school it's likely too late.[/quote]
High scool maybe, but not jr. high. And how exactly can you teach tolerence of sexual idenity without throughly making sure the kids understand something? It doesn't seem that much different to you or me but we aren't 7 years old. It's kind of an issue talking to kids about sex, or at least somewhere along the same lines in the eyes of a parent. How does one explain the concept of homosexuality without telling them about an attraction to the same gender? Race tolerence is a bit easier to understand, and when kids don't understand what they are being told it usually makes things worse. If I had a 6 year old, as a parent I dunno that would be an apporiate time to introduce the conept of sexuality in any form to him or her. IMHO it's kind of a similar arguement about when to teach kids sex education, but that is never really taught to 1st and 2nd graders.[/quote]
They understand that men and women marry and live together without understanding sexuality, therefore they can understand two men living together as well. You don't attach sex to the first one, you don't have to attach it to the second scenario. If I were to write a childrens book and instead of putting a husband and wife as parents I put two men, there would (and usually is) a backlash. Even if I don't mention anything else, there's just two guys as parents, I would get attacked for it.
This isn't a debate about sex education, it's about acceptance. We don't concern ourselves with the reaction of racist parents when teaching children, we shouldn't concern ourselves with homophobic parents either.[/quote]
You think that kid is going to sit there and not ask a teacher or parent why two men are living together instead of a man or a woman. A book like you suggest stops short and leaves the explanation up to someone else, the book teaches little tolerence whatsoever.[/quote]
Yes, because they love each other. The same reason we give for why a man and a women live together. If you are to treat homosexuality and heterosexuality as equal, and not one as inherently dirty, then what is the difference? Also, that book I suggested was just an example of how people overact. It wasn't an example of teaching tolerance, just an example of how just including gays causes a reaction, even if you say nothing about it.
Also, why do we bother teaching children religion? They can't fully comprehend it, yet we feel its important to teach them young so they develop faith and good morals.
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Wait I'm confused...There is or is not a sexual identity video for elementry schools? Either way the group is stupid. Yet I don't totally know if the idea of sexual identity should really be introduced to kids that young, at least not in schools, I just don't totally see a 1st or 2nd grader totally grasping the concept. And I dunno if cartoon characters should bring home the message either.[/quote]
It sounds like they were teaching tolerance. We teach 1st graders to accept blacks, asians etc., this shouldn't be any different. The point is to stop people from becoming bigots, if you wait until jr high or high school it's likely too late.[/quote]
High scool maybe, but not jr. high. And how exactly can you teach tolerence of sexual idenity without throughly making sure the kids understand something? It doesn't seem that much different to you or me but we aren't 7 years old. It's kind of an issue talking to kids about sex, or at least somewhere along the same lines in the eyes of a parent. How does one explain the concept of homosexuality without telling them about an attraction to the same gender? Race tolerence is a bit easier to understand, and when kids don't understand what they are being told it usually makes things worse. If I had a 6 year old, as a parent I dunno that would be an apporiate time to introduce the conept of sexuality in any form to him or her. IMHO it's kind of a similar arguement about when to teach kids sex education, but that is never really taught to 1st and 2nd graders.[/quote]
They understand that men and women marry and live together without understanding sexuality, therefore they can understand two men living together as well. You don't attach sex to the first one, you don't have to attach it to the second scenario. If I were to write a childrens book and instead of putting a husband and wife as parents I put two men, there would (and usually is) a backlash. Even if I don't mention anything else, there's just two guys as parents, I would get attacked for it.
This isn't a debate about sex education, it's about acceptance. We don't concern ourselves with the reaction of racist parents when teaching children, we shouldn't concern ourselves with homophobic parents either.[/quote]
You think that kid is going to sit there and not ask a teacher or parent why two men are living together instead of a man or a woman. A book like you suggest stops short and leaves the explanation up to someone else, the book teaches little tolerence whatsoever.[/quote]
Yes, because they love each other. The same reason we give for why a man and a women live together. If you are to treat homosexuality and heterosexuality as equal, and not one as inherently dirty, then what is the difference? Also, that book I suggested was just an example of how people overact. It wasn't an example of teaching tolerance, just an example of how just including gays causes a reaction, even if you say nothing about it.
Also, why do we bother teaching children religion? They can't fully comprehend it, yet we feel its important to teach them young so they develop faith and good morals.[/quote]
Last I checked religion was only taught in relgious and bible schools, it's not a universal thing in the least, Public elementry schools go out of the way to keep religion away. Teaching relgion is left up to the home. Maybe tolerence should be taught at a young age, but I don't think it's entirely right for schools to decide when that is, I'm sure some parents agree with that view.
It sounds like they were teaching tolerance. We teach 1st graders to accept blacks, asians etc., this shouldn't be any different. The point is to stop people from becoming bigots, if you wait until jr high or high school it's likely too late.[/quote]
High scool maybe, but not jr. high. And how exactly can you teach tolerence of sexual idenity without throughly making sure the kids understand something? It doesn't seem that much different to you or me but we aren't 7 years old. It's kind of an issue talking to kids about sex, or at least somewhere along the same lines in the eyes of a parent. How does one explain the concept of homosexuality without telling them about an attraction to the same gender? Race tolerence is a bit easier to understand, and when kids don't understand what they are being told it usually makes things worse. If I had a 6 year old, as a parent I dunno that would be an apporiate time to introduce the conept of sexuality in any form to him or her. IMHO it's kind of a similar arguement about when to teach kids sex education, but that is never really taught to 1st and 2nd graders.[/quote]
They understand that men and women marry and live together without understanding sexuality, therefore they can understand two men living together as well. You don't attach sex to the first one, you don't have to attach it to the second scenario. If I were to write a childrens book and instead of putting a husband and wife as parents I put two men, there would (and usually is) a backlash. Even if I don't mention anything else, there's just two guys as parents, I would get attacked for it.
This isn't a debate about sex education, it's about acceptance. We don't concern ourselves with the reaction of racist parents when teaching children, we shouldn't concern ourselves with homophobic parents either.[/quote]
You think that kid is going to sit there and not ask a teacher or parent why two men are living together instead of a man or a woman. A book like you suggest stops short and leaves the explanation up to someone else, the book teaches little tolerence whatsoever.[/quote]
Yes, because they love each other. The same reason we give for why a man and a women live together. If you are to treat homosexuality and heterosexuality as equal, and not one as inherently dirty, then what is the difference? Also, that book I suggested was just an example of how people overact. It wasn't an example of teaching tolerance, just an example of how just including gays causes a reaction, even if you say nothing about it.
Also, why do we bother teaching children religion? They can't fully comprehend it, yet we feel its important to teach them young so they develop faith and good morals.[/quote]
Last I checked religion was only taught in relgious and bible schools, it's not a universal thing in the least, Public elementry schools go out of the way to keep religion away. Teaching relgion is left up to the home. Maybe tolerence should be taught at a young age, but I don't think it's entirely right for schools to decide when that is, I'm sure some parents agree with that view.
David85
Banned
Well Sponge Bob is gay and they will attack anyone that has anything do do with being gay, that's their job.
Sponge Bob and his starfish friend are going a little more than just being "friends" in the sea..
But a "study/poll" last year said that 40% ofthe people that watch Spongebob are gay men over the age of 40.
Sponge Bob and his starfish friend are going a little more than just being "friends" in the sea..
But a "study/poll" last year said that 40% ofthe people that watch Spongebob are gay men over the age of 40.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Wait I'm confused...There is or is not a sexual identity video for elementry schools? Either way the group is stupid. Yet I don't totally know if the idea of sexual identity should really be introduced to kids that young, at least not in schools, I just don't totally see a 1st or 2nd grader totally grasping the concept. And I dunno if cartoon characters should bring home the message either.[/quote]
It sounds like they were teaching tolerance. We teach 1st graders to accept blacks, asians etc., this shouldn't be any different. The point is to stop people from becoming bigots, if you wait until jr high or high school it's likely too late.[/quote]
High scool maybe, but not jr. high. And how exactly can you teach tolerence of sexual idenity without throughly making sure the kids understand something? It doesn't seem that much different to you or me but we aren't 7 years old. It's kind of an issue talking to kids about sex, or at least somewhere along the same lines in the eyes of a parent. How does one explain the concept of homosexuality without telling them about an attraction to the same gender? Race tolerence is a bit easier to understand, and when kids don't understand what they are being told it usually makes things worse. If I had a 6 year old, as a parent I dunno that would be an apporiate time to introduce the conept of sexuality in any form to him or her. IMHO it's kind of a similar arguement about when to teach kids sex education, but that is never really taught to 1st and 2nd graders.[/quote]
They understand that men and women marry and live together without understanding sexuality, therefore they can understand two men living together as well. You don't attach sex to the first one, you don't have to attach it to the second scenario. If I were to write a childrens book and instead of putting a husband and wife as parents I put two men, there would (and usually is) a backlash. Even if I don't mention anything else, there's just two guys as parents, I would get attacked for it.
This isn't a debate about sex education, it's about acceptance. We don't concern ourselves with the reaction of racist parents when teaching children, we shouldn't concern ourselves with homophobic parents either.[/quote]
You think that kid is going to sit there and not ask a teacher or parent why two men are living together instead of a man or a woman. A book like you suggest stops short and leaves the explanation up to someone else, the book teaches little tolerence whatsoever.[/quote]
Yes, because they love each other. The same reason we give for why a man and a women live together. If you are to treat homosexuality and heterosexuality as equal, and not one as inherently dirty, then what is the difference? Also, that book I suggested was just an example of how people overact. It wasn't an example of teaching tolerance, just an example of how just including gays causes a reaction, even if you say nothing about it.
Also, why do we bother teaching children religion? They can't fully comprehend it, yet we feel its important to teach them young so they develop faith and good morals.[/quote]
Last I checked religion was only taught in relgious and bible schools, it's not a universal thing in the least, Public elementry schools go out of the way to keep religion away. Teaching relgion is left up to the home. Maybe tolerence should be taught at a young age, but I don't think it's entirely right for schools to decide when that is, I'm sure some parents agree with that view.[/quote]
One of the reason you said we shouldn't teach tolerance for homosexuality at a young age was because they wouldn't understand it, religion was an example where parents teach something that the child does not fully understand, because, even lacking full understanding, it is viewed as beneficial and increases the chance they will believe it later on in life. But as far as I'm concerned teaching tolerance for homosexuality is just as important as teaching tolerance for other races. No sexual education is needed, the children do not know about or understand heterosexual sex, they need not know about homosexual sex.
It sounds like they were teaching tolerance. We teach 1st graders to accept blacks, asians etc., this shouldn't be any different. The point is to stop people from becoming bigots, if you wait until jr high or high school it's likely too late.[/quote]
High scool maybe, but not jr. high. And how exactly can you teach tolerence of sexual idenity without throughly making sure the kids understand something? It doesn't seem that much different to you or me but we aren't 7 years old. It's kind of an issue talking to kids about sex, or at least somewhere along the same lines in the eyes of a parent. How does one explain the concept of homosexuality without telling them about an attraction to the same gender? Race tolerence is a bit easier to understand, and when kids don't understand what they are being told it usually makes things worse. If I had a 6 year old, as a parent I dunno that would be an apporiate time to introduce the conept of sexuality in any form to him or her. IMHO it's kind of a similar arguement about when to teach kids sex education, but that is never really taught to 1st and 2nd graders.[/quote]
They understand that men and women marry and live together without understanding sexuality, therefore they can understand two men living together as well. You don't attach sex to the first one, you don't have to attach it to the second scenario. If I were to write a childrens book and instead of putting a husband and wife as parents I put two men, there would (and usually is) a backlash. Even if I don't mention anything else, there's just two guys as parents, I would get attacked for it.
This isn't a debate about sex education, it's about acceptance. We don't concern ourselves with the reaction of racist parents when teaching children, we shouldn't concern ourselves with homophobic parents either.[/quote]
You think that kid is going to sit there and not ask a teacher or parent why two men are living together instead of a man or a woman. A book like you suggest stops short and leaves the explanation up to someone else, the book teaches little tolerence whatsoever.[/quote]
Yes, because they love each other. The same reason we give for why a man and a women live together. If you are to treat homosexuality and heterosexuality as equal, and not one as inherently dirty, then what is the difference? Also, that book I suggested was just an example of how people overact. It wasn't an example of teaching tolerance, just an example of how just including gays causes a reaction, even if you say nothing about it.
Also, why do we bother teaching children religion? They can't fully comprehend it, yet we feel its important to teach them young so they develop faith and good morals.[/quote]
Last I checked religion was only taught in relgious and bible schools, it's not a universal thing in the least, Public elementry schools go out of the way to keep religion away. Teaching relgion is left up to the home. Maybe tolerence should be taught at a young age, but I don't think it's entirely right for schools to decide when that is, I'm sure some parents agree with that view.[/quote]
One of the reason you said we shouldn't teach tolerance for homosexuality at a young age was because they wouldn't understand it, religion was an example where parents teach something that the child does not fully understand, because, even lacking full understanding, it is viewed as beneficial and increases the chance they will believe it later on in life. But as far as I'm concerned teaching tolerance for homosexuality is just as important as teaching tolerance for other races. No sexual education is needed, the children do not know about or understand heterosexual sex, they need not know about homosexual sex.
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']
One of the reason you said we shouldn't teach tolerance for homosexuality at a young age was because they wouldn't understand it, religion was an example where parents teach something that the child does not fully understand, because, even lacking full understanding, it is viewed as beneficial and increases the chance they will believe it later on in life. But as far as I'm concerned teaching tolerance for homosexuality is just as important as teaching tolerance for other races. No sexual education is needed, the children do not know about or understand heterosexual sex, they need not know about homosexual sex.[/quote]
Hahaha, spoken like someone who wasn't taught religion for 14 years of his life. Trust me, getting an early start on religous teaching doesn't help you be anymore religious in the future, though I could see where that may a common concept. And you're right (though the religion taught to kids is far from the complexity we know now), but one of my points is that schools are making the decision for parents, that's not the case in religion. Also, I don't think you give kids enough credit these days, I'd wager despite most efforts an 8 year old knows at least a little about sex.
One of the reason you said we shouldn't teach tolerance for homosexuality at a young age was because they wouldn't understand it, religion was an example where parents teach something that the child does not fully understand, because, even lacking full understanding, it is viewed as beneficial and increases the chance they will believe it later on in life. But as far as I'm concerned teaching tolerance for homosexuality is just as important as teaching tolerance for other races. No sexual education is needed, the children do not know about or understand heterosexual sex, they need not know about homosexual sex.[/quote]
Hahaha, spoken like someone who wasn't taught religion for 14 years of his life. Trust me, getting an early start on religous teaching doesn't help you be anymore religious in the future, though I could see where that may a common concept. And you're right (though the religion taught to kids is far from the complexity we know now), but one of my points is that schools are making the decision for parents, that's not the case in religion. Also, I don't think you give kids enough credit these days, I'd wager despite most efforts an 8 year old knows at least a little about sex.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Next thing you know, the Religious Right will want women to wear black hoods that cover their entire body and the only book that will be avaiable to read will be the bible.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='alonzomourning23']
One of the reason you said we shouldn't teach tolerance for homosexuality at a young age was because they wouldn't understand it, religion was an example where parents teach something that the child does not fully understand, because, even lacking full understanding, it is viewed as beneficial and increases the chance they will believe it later on in life. But as far as I'm concerned teaching tolerance for homosexuality is just as important as teaching tolerance for other races. No sexual education is needed, the children do not know about or understand heterosexual sex, they need not know about homosexual sex.[/quote]
Hahaha, spoken like someone who wasn't taught religion for 14 years of his life. Trust me, getting an early start on religous teaching doesn't help you be anymore religious in the future, though I could see where that may a common concept. And you're right (though the religion taught to kids is far from the complexity we know now), but one of my points is that schools are making the decision for parents, that's not the case in religion. Also, I don't think you give kids enough credit these days, I'd wager despite most efforts an 8 year old knows at least a little about sex.[/quote]
That's not true. I attended sunday school throughout elementary, recieved communion, and attended a catholic junior high and high school. My mother is also a catholic who was going to be a nun until she met my father. I also never said it always leads to increased belief, just usually. Either way though, what kids know and do not know really isn't important, you should deal with homosexual relationships the same way they are taught about heterosexual ones, with the exception of the parents being the same sex, don't treat them as any different. Either they know about sex or they don't, the school isn't teaching it at that age. Also, schools already make the decision to teach racial tolerance to children, without any concern over what the parents think. Unless you want to argue that schools shouldn't teach children to accept people of other races, then I fail to see how that is a good argument.
One of the reason you said we shouldn't teach tolerance for homosexuality at a young age was because they wouldn't understand it, religion was an example where parents teach something that the child does not fully understand, because, even lacking full understanding, it is viewed as beneficial and increases the chance they will believe it later on in life. But as far as I'm concerned teaching tolerance for homosexuality is just as important as teaching tolerance for other races. No sexual education is needed, the children do not know about or understand heterosexual sex, they need not know about homosexual sex.[/quote]
Hahaha, spoken like someone who wasn't taught religion for 14 years of his life. Trust me, getting an early start on religous teaching doesn't help you be anymore religious in the future, though I could see where that may a common concept. And you're right (though the religion taught to kids is far from the complexity we know now), but one of my points is that schools are making the decision for parents, that's not the case in religion. Also, I don't think you give kids enough credit these days, I'd wager despite most efforts an 8 year old knows at least a little about sex.[/quote]
That's not true. I attended sunday school throughout elementary, recieved communion, and attended a catholic junior high and high school. My mother is also a catholic who was going to be a nun until she met my father. I also never said it always leads to increased belief, just usually. Either way though, what kids know and do not know really isn't important, you should deal with homosexual relationships the same way they are taught about heterosexual ones, with the exception of the parents being the same sex, don't treat them as any different. Either they know about sex or they don't, the school isn't teaching it at that age. Also, schools already make the decision to teach racial tolerance to children, without any concern over what the parents think. Unless you want to argue that schools shouldn't teach children to accept people of other races, then I fail to see how that is a good argument.
Fine, let's just quote the morons.org article:
Focus on the "Family" and the American "Family" Association have a new target in their never-ending war on gays: Spongebob Squarepants. Yes, they're bound and determined to oppose a cartoon sponge. James Dobson told the guests at a formal dinner to celebrate the election results that the cartoon sponge had been enlisted in a "pro-homosexual video" that was planned to be mailed to thousands of elementary schools promoting a "tolerance pledge" that included a reference to "sexual identity."
Now this is where a normal person might start to question assumptions. A cartoon sponge? Elementary schools? Sexual identity? Elementary school kids, at least when I was a boy, don't even know what "sexual identity" is, let alone know enough about it to pledge to be tolerant of it.
But Dobson and crew, as we know, are not normal people. It turns out that his gang confused the makers of the video featuring the cartoon sponge, known as the We Are Family Foundation, with another organization called "We Are Family," which supports gay youth. We Are Family Foundation founder Nile Rodgers (who wrote the disco tune "We are Family") said the video "is intended to help teach children the values of co-operation and unity." Nothing in the video mentions sexual identity.
There is a copy of tolerance.org's tolerance pledge on the We Are Family Foundation's web site, but it does not appear in the video.
When informed of their error, Focus on the Family spokesman Paul Batura stuck to his story, despite its obvious falsehood, and said "We see the video as an insidious means by which the organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids."
Yeah, they're brainwashing kids to make them homosexuals using a video of a disco song featuring, among others, a cartoon sponge. A cartoon sponge who lives in a pineapple under the sea is going to make your kids gay.
WAFF lawyer Mark Barondeso said, and we certainly agree, that anyone who thought the video promoted homosexuality "needs to visit their doctor and get their medication increased."
Focus on the "Family" and the American "Family" Association have a new target in their never-ending war on gays: Spongebob Squarepants. Yes, they're bound and determined to oppose a cartoon sponge. James Dobson told the guests at a formal dinner to celebrate the election results that the cartoon sponge had been enlisted in a "pro-homosexual video" that was planned to be mailed to thousands of elementary schools promoting a "tolerance pledge" that included a reference to "sexual identity."
Now this is where a normal person might start to question assumptions. A cartoon sponge? Elementary schools? Sexual identity? Elementary school kids, at least when I was a boy, don't even know what "sexual identity" is, let alone know enough about it to pledge to be tolerant of it.
But Dobson and crew, as we know, are not normal people. It turns out that his gang confused the makers of the video featuring the cartoon sponge, known as the We Are Family Foundation, with another organization called "We Are Family," which supports gay youth. We Are Family Foundation founder Nile Rodgers (who wrote the disco tune "We are Family") said the video "is intended to help teach children the values of co-operation and unity." Nothing in the video mentions sexual identity.
There is a copy of tolerance.org's tolerance pledge on the We Are Family Foundation's web site, but it does not appear in the video.
When informed of their error, Focus on the Family spokesman Paul Batura stuck to his story, despite its obvious falsehood, and said "We see the video as an insidious means by which the organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids."
Yeah, they're brainwashing kids to make them homosexuals using a video of a disco song featuring, among others, a cartoon sponge. A cartoon sponge who lives in a pineapple under the sea is going to make your kids gay.
WAFF lawyer Mark Barondeso said, and we certainly agree, that anyone who thought the video promoted homosexuality "needs to visit their doctor and get their medication increased."
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Spongebob is a sponge - IE he reproduces asexually. Consequently, the poor guy doesn't have the equipment to swing either way.
Now everything will be OK if noone tells the religious right that his method of procreation is similar to cloning...
http://biology.about.com/library/weekly/aa090700a.htm
Now everything will be OK if noone tells the religious right that his method of procreation is similar to cloning...
http://biology.about.com/library/weekly/aa090700a.htm
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan']Spiderman will make you gay.[/quote]
we all know what that web is really made of
we all know what that web is really made of
judyjudyjudy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 35 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']Spongebob is a sponge - IE he reproduces asexually. Consequently, the poor guy doesn't have the equipment to swing either way.
[/quote]
They showed a clip of the video on Today. As the article eldad9 quoted said, it's just a montage of popular kid TV show characters dancing to "We Are Family". Very non-offensive, not even "gay". I guess they just focused on Spongebob because it's so popular? I don't really get it.
[/quote]
They showed a clip of the video on Today. As the article eldad9 quoted said, it's just a montage of popular kid TV show characters dancing to "We Are Family". Very non-offensive, not even "gay". I guess they just focused on Spongebob because it's so popular? I don't really get it.
V
Virtua
Guest
Dobson, or Falwell, or any of those right-wing nuts who just snap on anything popular in order to get noticed and get all their ganados followers to listen and get in a huff about this week's indignity to man should NOT be considered representatives of the Christian faith.
Most of us are not that stupid, and most of us would have done 2 min of research to discover the truth behind this before freaking out. Don't pin the actions of a few misguided individuals on an entire religion. I just very much dislike it whenever one of these nuts comes out and says something rediculous and the reaction is that all christians are a bunch of extremists that agree with them..
Most of us are not that stupid, and most of us would have done 2 min of research to discover the truth behind this before freaking out. Don't pin the actions of a few misguided individuals on an entire religion. I just very much dislike it whenever one of these nuts comes out and says something rediculous and the reaction is that all christians are a bunch of extremists that agree with them..
Scrubking
CAGiversary!
I've never seen spongebob as gay although he is very childish at times.
I think the point you all are missing is that spongebob may not be gay, but gay people are in essence turning him gay by using him for their gay purposes. Spongebob is not the problem, what gays are trying to make him stand for is.
Also for people who want tolerance there seems to be a lot of intolerance for religion, but what do you expect from liberals.
I think the point you all are missing is that spongebob may not be gay, but gay people are in essence turning him gay by using him for their gay purposes. Spongebob is not the problem, what gays are trying to make him stand for is.
Also for people who want tolerance there seems to be a lot of intolerance for religion, but what do you expect from liberals.
ZarathosNY
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Scrubking']I've never seen spongebob as gay although he is very childish at times.
I think the point you all are missing is that spongebob may not be gay, but gay people are in essence turning him gay by using him for their gay purposes. Spongebob is not the problem, what gays are trying to make him stand for is.
Also for people who want tolerance there seems to be a lot of intolerance for religion, but what do you expect from liberals.[/quote]
You obviously didn't read the article. The Spongebob ad had nothing to do with mentioning gays. That was the point of the article. I've seen nothing in this thread about intolerance for religion.
I think the point you all are missing is that spongebob may not be gay, but gay people are in essence turning him gay by using him for their gay purposes. Spongebob is not the problem, what gays are trying to make him stand for is.
Also for people who want tolerance there seems to be a lot of intolerance for religion, but what do you expect from liberals.
[/quote]You obviously didn't read the article. The Spongebob ad had nothing to do with mentioning gays. That was the point of the article. I've seen nothing in this thread about intolerance for religion.
David85
Banned
[quote name='Scrubking']
I think the point you all are missing is that spongebob may not be gay, but gay people are in essence turning him gay by using him for their gay purposes. Spongebob is not the problem, what gays are trying to make him stand for is.
[/quote]
Learn to read dumbass.
Gays aren't making him anything, we have better
ing things to do then going around saying a ing cartoon is gay.
You win the award for biggest dumbest on the Forum!
I think the point you all are missing is that spongebob may not be gay, but gay people are in essence turning him gay by using him for their gay purposes. Spongebob is not the problem, what gays are trying to make him stand for is.
[/quote]
Learn to read dumbass.
Gays aren't making him anything, we have better
ing things to do then going around saying a ing cartoon is gay.You win the award for biggest dumbest on the Forum!
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='jer7583']Dobson, or Falwell, or any of those right-wing nuts who just snap on anything popular in order to get noticed and get all their ganados followers to listen and get in a huff about this week's indignity to man should NOT be considered representatives of the Christian faith.
Most of us are not that stupid, and most of us would have done 2 min of research to discover the truth behind this before freaking out. Don't pin the actions of a few misguided individuals on an entire religion. I just very much dislike it whenever one of these nuts comes out and says something rediculous and the reaction is that all christians are a bunch of extremists that agree with them..[/quote]
I generally agree with this sentiment, however Bush is a christian fundamentalist and one of his primary support bases in the last election was the American religious right. It can't be denied that there is a large extremist christian group that is starting to bring America's policies and laws into line with the teachings of the bible.
It is unfortunate that the segment of moderate christians who don't feel a need to force everyone to live according to their personal moral beliefs will get tarred with the same brush of extremism. The same thing can be said of moderate Muslim people living in the US and other countries.
Most of us are not that stupid, and most of us would have done 2 min of research to discover the truth behind this before freaking out. Don't pin the actions of a few misguided individuals on an entire religion. I just very much dislike it whenever one of these nuts comes out and says something rediculous and the reaction is that all christians are a bunch of extremists that agree with them..[/quote]
I generally agree with this sentiment, however Bush is a christian fundamentalist and one of his primary support bases in the last election was the American religious right. It can't be denied that there is a large extremist christian group that is starting to bring America's policies and laws into line with the teachings of the bible.
It is unfortunate that the segment of moderate christians who don't feel a need to force everyone to live according to their personal moral beliefs will get tarred with the same brush of extremism. The same thing can be said of moderate Muslim people living in the US and other countries.
David85
Banned
This is so ing dumb
"It's not the video itself.......................................................................................... (long puase with his eyes rolling around) it's about the pro homosexuality image that is around the world".
So they don't even care about the video, they are pissed off that people around the world are more open with people different from themselves. They are pissed off because there aren't more bigots in the world.
ing dumb"It's not the video itself.......................................................................................... (long puase with his eyes rolling around) it's about the pro homosexuality image that is around the world".
So they don't even care about the video, they are pissed off that people around the world are more open with people different from themselves. They are pissed off because there aren't more bigots in the world.
MrFriday18
CAGiversary!
could care less, about homosexuals or anybody who supports them
bread's done