Gay characters in children's cartoons

[Typhon1388]

All mammals have homosexual members

Any references or sources that prove all mammal species have homosexual members, or that homosexual wild animals reproduce?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Wikipedia is not the best place for solid information but just follow the links in the article's Bibliography to confirm what it states.

That page also mentions Roy and Silo. The 'gay' penguin males who raised an egg together, then separated after 6 years with one of them moving onto a heterosexual pairing. Fairly solid proof for a lot of the questions being asked in this thread.

That is hardly all mammal species (I'd guess less than 0.01% if I had to pull a random number that sounds small, lol) and those penguins aren't homosexual. No more than two men living together and raising a baby are gay. Homosexuality means being sexually attracted to solely the same sex as yourself.

Scientific research needs proper funding. There will never be the money to research the sexual orientations of all 5000+ mammalian species.

Instances like this are as close as you will get to identifying it. Bisexual behavior consists of homosexual behavior and a pedantic stance over language doesn't further the debate. I doubt the time and money will ever be devoted to prove any animal (including humans) was 'purely' homosexual throughout its life span.

 

[Akalistos]

I think you guys are over shooting this. Being straight is biologically normal. Should we not present that as a norm? Yes, homosexuality is a part of life, but we dont need to stuff it into entertainment for the hell of it. Especially a kid's show. If a kid is going to be gay, let them find that out for themselves instead of doing it because this character from this show is gay.

Edit: Plus, i dont want to have to explain ANYTHING about sex to my children. Keep it simple.

So a guy (or girl) is shown to be romantically interested in other guys (or girls). How is that any different than all the children's shows and movies that show a male and female character being interested in each other?

Right, so we should only have characters that fit within a very specific "Social Norm". I guess that means no more villains in kid's shows since they don't seem to care so much for societal norms either.

In his misguided totally wrongly explanation, there's some truth to be had. Why do we need to put Sexuality into cartoon. They are, at the base, intended for children. Kid between 4 to 10. At this stage of life, they don't really have sexuality and they don't care. The sexual "revelation" come later when the body start to change. At this point, they would prefer Tween show from both side, and not cartoon. So, Like that, Why should we force kid that still doesn't understand or care to pay attention and choose their orientation. Couldn't we just let them develop like intended by nature? I think J.K. ROWLING did it best with Dumbledore when she reveal he is gay without shoving it into the people's faces. It's good to know that it's not enforced on the child and is only intended as a wink for the older crowd.

Cartoon isn't the place to showcase sexuality in any ways. It should be handle by material intended to the teen demographic.

 

[Pegghead]

Wouldn't it be better to simply show kids that it's good to accept the differences of other people as a whole?

 

[ConeFTW]

I tried, I really really tried to read through all of this before responding, but I keep seeing one argument that I just cannot help but respond to.

Argument: Well, it's impossible to show a homosexual so homosexuals cannot be represented in a kids show!

Response: a) care to tell me how you show a heterosexual person?
b) ACTIONS people ACTIONS! What defines Hetero- or Homo- sexuality is someone's ACTIONS! Watch any kids show around valentines day and chances are you'll see the main character fretting and worrying about how he should confess/display his love for an opposite-sex character. THIS IS A DEPICTION OF HETEROSEXUALITY IN A CHILDRENS SHOW! What, may I ask, would be so wrong with having a sideplot, hell, I'll settle for 5 seconds of background screentime with a guy handing a valentine to a guy? or a girl to a girl? THIS WOULD BE A DEPICTION OF HOMOSEXUALITY! It doesn't have to be about sex! A girl blushing after another girl compliments her and then no comments being made, a piece of chocolate being given in the valentines day special. It is incredibly easy to point to depictions of chaste heterosexuality in children's shows, you just have to swap the gender of one of the characters in that depiction to make it of chaste homosexuality. THAT IS ALL YOU HAVE TO DO AND IS ALL THAT IS BEING ASKED FOR!

/rantmode

A character holding a same gendered characters hand
A character having a crush on a same gendered character
You have now been told 2 ways.
And actions make no difference in sexuality, feelings do. For example a homosexual man will like men and a heterosexual man will like women (and a bisexual man has the best of both worlds, winning...). I'm pretty sure those are not actions...

I've just realised I've misread your entire argument but I'm going to leave the previously written statement up just for giggles.
Also, you're totally right. And awesome.

 

[BrEnNo1023]

But you do realize that creating this show may prompt parents to talk with their children at an earlier age about this sort of thing, and perhaps get their children to believe what they do, right? Under the right conditions, this could hurt your cause more than help it.

No one who would allow their kid to watch this show would be against gay rights, which leads me to think that it would be pointless.

If a kid sees a pair of ponies walking through a forest on a 'date' (Okay, so i watched an episode of My Little Pony...as a case study ), whether they are of opposite sexes or of the same sex, if the parents are prejudiced toward the same-sex couple, this is the only problem. Episode 26 sees one of the girls with her very own Prince Charming who is actually a selfish, vain coward. The actual moral of the story is that you don't need a high-life to have a good time but it also portrays that hetero relationships are just as destructive as some prejudiced homophobes claim same-sex relationships are.

Let's say that it's the parents' duty to give their children the ideals they see fit. However, whether the parents choose to talk, or choose to avoid the 'talk', ultimately it's still the kids' decision to make for themselves, and if the show gives a positive portrayal of a same-sex couple then there's no harm done by the show. The children would see no 'difference' because they were not taught to see any difference.

If the world grew up like this, considering no difference between same- and opposite-sex relationships, then the institutionalised discrimination is gone from their minds, and they'll defend against those who were taught by their parents that homosexuality is wrong. Irrelevant, but still the same idea, is religion. Religion is influenced upon the child mostly by elder family members and peers. But let's not bring a religious war into a sexuality war :S

So...under the right conditions, the child can be hurt, yes, not by the show, but by their parents' potentially intolerant reaction to the show.

 

[ConeFTW]

This is an absolutely stupid idea. Honestly, you want to be gay. Be gay, somewhere else. Stop trying to invade everyone else's life and just LIVE YOUR OWN!

Do the same with your heterosexuality and homophobia please.
You don't like it, don't look.

 

[Pyrokinesis]

As to the question of "natural" or not, something doesn't have to be productive to the species, the individual, or even the gene to be natural. Natural simply means it occurs in nature. Science makes observations, not judgments. And, here's a page I like to show to anyone who says homosexuality doesn't occur in nature. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals] There is plenty of homosexual activity in animals, and that makes it pretty natural to me.

You do realize all you did was argue to the intent of the word natural with me?

So ill make my end of the bargain clear, by natural my intent of the word is "Designed for" or "Intended to" not "Occurs in nature" because we all know nature is just a game of bumping into walls until 1 of the species finds the door and opens it for everyone else. Theres not a whole lot of logic or perfect reasoning too it all so quite frankly giving a monkey a screwdriver and thinking he will use it the way it was naturally intended is just foolhardy.

On the topic of soul-ology that you have dismissed right off the bat, yes its not scientific, neither was gravity when it was first being thought of. The more correct term for the category is refereed to as Solipsism but it branches out.Its simply a theory and probably not a very wide spread one, its only legit concept reference is to that of Mass Effect 2's Thaine Krios sadly.

So its not just crazy barking like im sure you want to beleive there is some thought behind it.

So to sum it up:
Yes homosexuality Occurs in nature
No We were not designed for it
There are different theories of why it happens
Dont let a text-book written by the person before you close off yourself to new ideas, salt is all you need.

 

[ConeFTW]

Is it a problem if there are more homosexual characters? No, not at all.


However, it should not be imperative for shows to include them.

I think I speak for almost everyone arguing for this point that you're right it shouldn't be in every show but at least a few would be nice.

 

[AngloDoom]

I just don't understand what's so hard about standing two male or two female characters next to each other in the show and saying they love each other.

We didn't see heterosexual couples force themselves on each other to get the message that they're together and love each other, so why is there some crazy illusion that to show two characters of the same sex as being a part of each other's live you have to make them fuck.

Making homosexuality a casual norm in children's TV is a huge step in acceptance. If there's nothing wrong with being gay then there's no real reason not to depict a homosexual character in children's cartoons if there's any two characters shown as being in love.

We don't need entire episodes about love to get the message. Just stand Ted the Baker next to Stan the Butcher and make them hold hands. That's all we need.

 

[ConeFTW]

BUT... from the Nature point of view, a homosexual being would be considered a failure, if it would live his sexual orientation out. A homosexual could not reproduce which is the measurement for how successful a being is, Nature-wise.

You are wrong. If you're going to use science, you should get it right.

Homosexuals exist in nature - all mammals have homosexual members. And those members REPRODUCE. Even before Sperm Banks, gay individuals would still "take one for the team" and have children the old fashioned way. It's a preference, not a rule.

Homosexuality is a desire - it doesn't prevent us from getting pregnant (or from getting someone pregnant) - we just prefer the alternative.

Do research on homosexual animals in the wild. They reproduce.

So please, do not try to spread intolerance or ignorance in the guise of weakly researched science.

Those words that you said right there, thank you for them.
You have no idea how good it feels to have someone else argue this point through science, at least partially.

Well if your definition of homosexuality is "someone who has sex with both genders", than your logic is entirely correct.

Personally I would call that bisexual.

Not necessarily. Someone who is attracted to both genders is bisexual but someone who is only interested in the same gender is homosexual. There is also a difference between sex and love. You can love someone of the same gender and have sex with someone of the opposite gender and still be homosexual, as long as the sex is only for reproductive purposes. This is basically how homosexual people (who didnt want to be killed) lived up until probably the early 1900s and quite a few kept living that way due to the social stigma attached to being gay. (I should point out the year there will probably be wrong but I can imagine it being around then)

 

[ConeFTW]

Or perhaps its just a childrens show and this sort of stuff doesn't belong there. Just because there are gay people doesn't mean we need to start educating people at the age of 3 about it.

Would you say the same of heterosexuality? Because otherwise, Small Waves is right. Your argument is not that gay people shouldn't get "special treatment," it's that straight people should continue to get it.

Keep in mind, gay people ARE a minority. Its not racism its just a FACT. There are some things about being a minority you'll just have to accept. Complaining about it at every possible turn, including children's programming. Will not get you anywhere.

So only the majority should be acknowledged?

Gay rights have been acknowledged in the majority of society, atleast around here. After that expecting much more when there is a majority is just stupid. Your talking about human nature here. Your not going to change that, throughout written history. Majority always rules.

Straight couples can get married anywhere in the world.
Gay couples can get married in very select areas of 11 countries.
How have gay right been acknowledged exactly?

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

I dunno. Looking at this purely objectively...

Having a gay character would alienate religious conservatives (and there are a lot of them), reducing ratings. Having a gay character would also probably garner support from the LGBT community, but the problem is that there obviously aren't that many kids within the LGBT community (at least not as many as there are kids from conservative families).

For this reason, if I was an executive producer in charge of a kid's show, I'd probably veto any overt signs of homosexuality. It's not up to a cartoon to lead the fight against religious indoctrination.


Besides, taking the MLP example, the only characters who show any sort of sexual preference throughout the entire series are Spike and Rarity. And Spike is a dragon and Rarity is generally thought to be older. So the other mane pony characters probably haven't sexually matured enough to make that sort of distinction. Leaving it open to speculation.

 

[Calbeck]

There is a very distinct lack of gay characters in children?s cartoons, at least here in America there certainly is, and I think that is because being gay still carries a taboo in this part of the world.

Actually, it's that "teaching kids about sex" still carries a taboo in this part of the world, especially in programming aimed at pre-teens. You're talking about taking a G-rated cartoon and bumping its rating up to PG-13, minimal.

 

[ConeFTW]

Your not going to convert the whole planet. Unless our species is about to blink out like a light and stop reproducing.

Noones trying to convert the entire human race to become homosexual. Although converting them all into accepting people would be nice.

 

[BrEnNo1023]

I think I speak for almost everyone arguing for this point that you're right it shouldn't be in every show but at least a few would be nice.

I think so too Having it be compulsory sounds like a ridiculous idea. If the writers want to put it in, they can do it. As frequently or nearly as frequently as heterosexuality is nuanced in the shows, or even only once or twice a season, why not? As long as the target audience, the kids, are given positive messages in their entertainment, that's the most important thing.

Hate to sound so dreamy and melodramatic in the next paragraph, but...let's face it, the parents won't be the ones gaining important life lessons from the shows. (Hopefully) by the time they've had children of their own, they've gone through that stage of learning already. These positive ideals are for the children so they can grow up and teach their children the tolerance and equality they grew up with

 

[ConeFTW]

When the majority has the same view, then the change takes place. In this particular case there's only so much change that can be taken. Your not going to convert the whole planet. Unless our species is about to blink out like a light and stop reproducing.

...you do know that one doesn't have to be gay to disagree with the special-treatment argument, right? And that gay people do have kids (albeit with third-party assistance), right?

True, but in this particular instance your just not going to convert the whole planet. There's more than 2.5 billion people on the planet and the most of them tend to disagree on alot less personal things than sexuality. You've got a better chance at winning 5 lotteries in a single day ...

You're right there are a lot more than 2.5 billion people on the planet. At least 3.5 billion more. (Yes, that means there are over 6 billion people on the planet...). Ironically at least 80% are at least in some small way bisexual. Unfortunately most tend to pretend to be hetero.

 

[BringBackBuck]

BUT... from the Nature point of view, a homosexual being would be considered a failure, if it would live his sexual orientation out. A homosexual could not reproduce which is the measurement for how successful a being is, Nature-wise.

You are wrong. If you're going to use science, you should get it right.

Homosexuals exist in nature - all mammals have homosexual members. And those members REPRODUCE. Even before Sperm Banks, gay individuals would still "take one for the team" and have children the old fashioned way. It's a preference, not a rule.

Homosexuality is a desire - it doesn't prevent us from getting pregnant (or from getting someone pregnant) - we just prefer the alternative.

Do research on homosexual animals in the wild. They reproduce.

So please, do not try to spread intolerance or ignorance in the guise of weakly researched science.

Those words that you said right there, thank you for them.
You have no idea how good it feels to have someone else argue this point through science, at least partially.

Well if your definition of homosexuality is "someone who has sex with both genders", than your logic is entirely correct.

Personally I would call that bisexual.

Not necessarily. Someone who is attracted to both genders is bisexual but someone who is only interested in the same gender is homosexual. There is also a difference between sex and love. You can love someone of the same gender and have sex with someone of the opposite gender and still be homosexual, as long as the sex is only for reproductive purposes. This is basically how homosexual people (who didnt want to be killed) lived up until probably the early 1900s and quite a few kept living that way due to the social stigma attached to being gay. (I should point out the year there will probably be wrong but I can imagine it being around then)

So you are suggesting these animals only have intercourse with the opposite sex to avoid being beaten up by the other animals? That they don't really "love" their opposite sex partner, and just do it to reproduce?