Gay characters in children's cartoons

[ConeFTW]

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?

You know, I just thought of something: if the argument from homosexuals is equality in law (which I think they obviously deserve) shouldn't that equality extend to all sexuality that doesn't harm someone and is consensual? By that I mean if I wanted to legally marry someone with no gender, I should be allowed to, right? I don't think such laws exist for someone to even be genderless.

Man, this whole thing is like a damn ice-burg.

I completely agree with you on this, the law needs to be more accommodating to everyone including those who are asexual, transsexual etc.

 

[ConeFTW]

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.

...Wait, what?

I've posted my thoughts on this discussion, but how does someone even go about researching that? I mean, feel free to change my view, but that sounds like you made it up.

It sounds made up but I did say to some degree. Despite what most people think sexuality isn't a black and white subject, it's more of a scale. Most people who call themselves heterosexual or homosexual are to some degree a mix of both but maybe not to an extent that they would be willing to get into a relationship with a member of the same/opposite gender.
Sorry if I confused you.
But the 6 billion people thing is true. Nearly 7 billion now I think...

 

[Dino_B]

Acceptance I think always begins with parenting and upbringing, and the sooner children begin to be acceptant of others the better. As for homosexual characters in cartoons I think that it is just something that should be done, but not in a way that comes on too heavy handed. The problem, and I am speaking almost exclusively of the West here, is that witch hunts arise when this happens. Think about Tinky Winky and his purse, or the whole Patrick scandal. This is stupid, why shouldn't TW have a purse or Patrick be pink, it's fine on its own and then gets blown all out of proportion when certain individuals bring this whole 'corrupting the youth' BS into play. In other words, leave it alone--I still don't by the whole controversy surrounding the two characters, they may or they may not be, but left on their own without anybody pointing to them is fine and without the need for direct in-your-face influence children can learn to be more accepting naturally. My bro and sis watch the Fairly Odd Parents and man do I really like that show, it's hilarious. The character of Cupid is awesome, he is extremely effeminate and could by all means be a homosexual, but to have the deity of love in the show who makes all manner of characters fall in love with one another be ambiguous with his sexuality just teaches kids that love in fact has no boundaries, and while that saying is all cute and fluffy I still think that it's an important lesson that kids who watch this show are being exposed to.

 

[presidentjlh]

EVERYTHING MUST BECOME DIVERSE. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a cartoon having gay characters (provided their sexual orientation is shown in a tasteful manner, of course, but that's not hard to do if you have an semblance of intellect), I just don't see it as a big issue. Granted that's just me.

 

[presidentjlh]

Yes, conservatives will bellyache as they often do with anything good.

*Sigh*, we're not all the same, a lot of conservatives, including myself, don't give a darn about homosexuality, and I'd actually consider myself a member of the Religious Right to some extent, being that I'm a devout, traditionalist Catholic for the most part and am conservative on the majority of social issues. (I'm more economically conservative than socially conservative, however).

In addition, not everything liberals/progressives/whatever generalizing label stand for are always good things. I understand that as a conservative, I can be wrong plenty of times, but it doesn't mean we're wrong all the time.

 

[ConeFTW]

I think it's important to have proportional representation but homosexuals only make up 1-2% of the population. It's entirely possible that you could have a main-cast of 10 characters with reasonably only a 1-in-10 chance that any of them are gay. And I mean gay as in exclusive interest in same gender, insignificant interest in opposite gender.

Just so you know your statistics are wrong. 5-10% of the population are homosexual and probably around 80% are to some degree bisexual, even if it's only slightly. Also if it was a 1-2% population and you had 10 characters then there would still be a 1 in 100 chance of one being gay.
Anyway, rant about statistics over I agree with what you're saying. Bisexuals sometimes have to deal with worse than homosexuals as some people refuse to believe it exists and they still have to put up with the same hatred for liking the same sex.
You're also right in the fact that it should be weaved into an interesting part of the plot of side plot or else it's pointless and damaging to the entire argument.

No, 10% of the population have frequent homosexual relations.

But the definition "gay" commonly means exclusive homosexual relations, with incidental to insignificant heterosexual relations.

A Bisexual man has "homosexual"(adjective) relations, but he is not "a homosexual"(noun) as he also has relations with women. He IS bisexual!

You are right that a large part of the population are somewhere on the bisexual spectrum but it they never act on their same-sex or opposite-sex attractions then it's hard to ever get a metric of it as it's all so fleeting and subjective.

Then of course things are mixed up by society. Back in the 1980's Elton John married a woman, though the marriage didn't last one most consider how at the time it was legally impossible for him to marry a man nor even adopt a child. People do as best they can with the limitations their environment (including society/laws) place on them.

First off, I am a bisexual man so please don't lecture me on my own sexuality I'm pretty sure I already figured it out. Secondly, 10% may have frequent homosexual relations BUT sexuality isn't defined by relations it's defined by gender preference. I myself have only had relationships with females, however I am still bisexual. Also if you'll re-read what I actually posted I stated that 5-10% were homosexual. Not all of these people will be in a position to have relations with people of the same gender as the social pressures of their society may not accept it (see your example of Elton John) or they may be in somewhere like Uganda where they will be killed if they come out.

 

[Iwata]

Come again? How exactly did my "argument" do ANY of the things you just said? You assume a lot from a couple of sentences, don't you? My point, if I ever made one, is this: these are pointless, because they're never arguments. They're a bunch of people agreeing on something pre-established, until someone disagrees and everyone can pile in on them. It's what this thread has seen, and it's how all these "debates" on these topics go.

Like I said: enjoy your High Horse.

You said, "why the need to represent all facets of society on a kid's show? Shows already cater to multiculturalism enough as it is."

That's a pretty heavy idea. You stated that as a question, so don't feign surprise and distress just because I responded to it. I'll level with you: I don't much care for the mindsets at work behind isolationism, or xenophobia, or privilege, or the concepts themselves. Don't expect people to be. I'm not going to treat you with kid gloves. If you're mature enough to form a social observation and old enough to be able to understand multiculturalism as something you can question, then you should be ready to defend your opinions.

You entered your thoughts and ideas into a discussion and I responded to them with my own. That's how a forum works. If you didn't want people to reply, then posting is probably a bad idea.

But if you have an opposing position, then voice it, don't wet yourself and scream "UNCLE" as if I've wounded you.

And re: High Horse: I will enjoy it, and brudder, I can see for miles.

Wow... like I said, you deduce a LOT from

Also, if I may ask, why the need to represent all facets of society on a kid's show? Shows already cater to multiculturalism enough as it is.

If you'd given me a valid reply and actually answer my question, instead of going all Sir Sarcasm and Lord Indignant, I MIGHT'VE listened to you. As it is, given your bullshit reply, I'll just notch you down as someone who loves to hear himself talk.

 

[Treblaine]

I think it's important to have proportional representation but homosexuals only make up 1-2% of the population. It's entirely possible that you could have a main-cast of 10 characters with reasonably only a 1-in-10 chance that any of them are gay. And I mean gay as in exclusive interest in same gender, insignificant interest in opposite gender.

Just so you know your statistics are wrong. 5-10% of the population are homosexual and probably around 80% are to some degree bisexual, even if it's only slightly. Also if it was a 1-2% population and you had 10 characters then there would still be a 1 in 100 chance of one being gay.
Anyway, rant about statistics over I agree with what you're saying. Bisexuals sometimes have to deal with worse than homosexuals as some people refuse to believe it exists and they still have to put up with the same hatred for liking the same sex.
You're also right in the fact that it should be weaved into an interesting part of the plot of side plot or else it's pointless and damaging to the entire argument.

No, 10% of the population have frequent homosexual relations.

But the definition "gay" commonly means exclusive homosexual relations, with incidental to insignificant heterosexual relations.

A Bisexual man has "homosexual"(adjective) relations, but he is not "a homosexual"(noun) as he also has relations with women. He IS bisexual!

You are right that a large part of the population are somewhere on the bisexual spectrum but it they never act on their same-sex or opposite-sex attractions then it's hard to ever get a metric of it as it's all so fleeting and subjective.

Then of course things are mixed up by society. Back in the 1980's Elton John married a woman, though the marriage didn't last one most consider how at the time it was legally impossible for him to marry a man nor even adopt a child. People do as best they can with the limitations their environment (including society/laws) place on them.

First off, I am a bisexual man so please don't lecture me on my own sexuality I'm pretty sure I already figured it out. Secondly, 10% may have frequent homosexual relations BUT sexuality isn't defined by relations it's defined by gender preference. I myself have only had relationships with females, however I am still bisexual. Also if you'll re-read what I actually posted I stated that 5-10% were homosexual. Not all of these people will be in a position to have relations with people of the same gender as the social pressures of their society may not accept it (see your example of Elton John) or they may be in somewhere like Uganda where they will be killed if they come out.

Don't take offence but the testing metric has to go by actual sexual relations rather than subjective feelings or it wouldn't be a reliable enough study. I think it's pretty reasonable that if you only have sex with the opposite gender you fall into 0-1 on the Kinsey scale. Now the limitation on the Kinsey scale is it is dependant on environment but it's reasonable to assume you aren't going to be locked in prison for the rest of you life without any contact with women, only men. You can seek relations with whoever you like.

Apparently you live in the UK (unless you lied on your profile page) and in this country if you wanted to have sex with men you could if you really had that preference. There are gay-dating websites, gay bars, all sorts any kind of homosexual relationship with any level of commitment, and with no pressure at all to make it public. And a few advantages (if you were so objective)

You're perfectly entitled to call yourself bisexual and I don't want to possibly put any pressure on you.

I am somewhat I have a friend who is in a fairly similar circumstance, has fleeting homosexual desires but has never acted on them. Just occasional interest in gay porn but nothing has ever come of it, maybe it is because... err... my friend has never met the right man, or maybe it is just idle curiosity.

Personally I don't like the term bisexual (by itself) but I use it for illustrative purposes in a forum. I don't like it because it causes misunderstandings like you have had. See bisexuality is so broad, varied and continuous with heterosexuality and homosexuality that the phrase loses so much meaning because it cannot be properly defined in terms of its limitations.

And I did explain how "10% are gay" implies exclusive homosexual relations

My mistake was not clarifying that 8% are on the BISEXUAL SPECTRUM(!) but do NOT entirely make up what are bisexuals.

Yes, I shall go back to edit the offending post for clarity, thank you for pointing this out to me.

 

[ConeFTW]

Don't take offence but the testing metric has to go by actual sexual relations rather than subjective feelings or it wouldn't be a reliable enough study. I think it's pretty reasonable that if you only have sex with the opposite gender you fall into 0-1 on the Kinsey scale. Now the limitation on the Kinsey scale is it is dependant on environment but it's reasonable to assume you aren't going to be locked in prison for the rest of you life without any contact with women, only men. You can seek relations with whoever you like.

Apparently you live in the UK (unless you lied on your profile page) and in this country if you wanted to have sex with men you could if you really had that preference. There are gay-dating websites, gay bars, all sorts any kind of homosexual relationship with any level of commitment, and with no pressure at all to make it public. And a few advantages (if you were so objective)

You're perfectly entitled to call yourself bisexual and I don't want to possibly put any pressure on you.

I am somewhat I have a friend who is in a fairly similar circumstance, has fleeting homosexual desires but has never acted on them. Just occasional interest in gay porn but nothing has ever come of it, maybe it is because... err... my friend has never met the right man, or maybe it is just idle curiosity.

Personally I don't like the term bisexual (by itself) but I use it for illustrative purposes in a forum. I don't like it because it causes misunderstandings like you have had. See bisexuality is so broad, varied and continuous with heterosexuality and homosexuality that the phrase loses so much meaning because it cannot be properly defined in terms of its limitations.

And I did explain how "10% are gay" implies exclusive homosexual relations

My mistake was not clarifying that 8% are on the BISEXUAL SPECTRUM(!) but do NOT entirely make up what are bisexuals.

Yes, I shall go back to edit the offending post for clarity, thank you for pointing this out to me.

The problem I have with that is that sexuality isn't just about the relationships a person has, it's about their preference. If you were to judge it any other way, that would be an unfair test and give even more misleading results than taking people at their word.

Yes, I do live in the UK (and yes, it is very creepy that you decided to look that up but we'll ignore that fact for the moment) and if I wanted to have sex with men I could (and have, despite never being in a homosexual relationship, another reason your relationship theory is flawed). I'm not sure how that is at all relevant to the point we were discussing though...

Thanks, I am perfectly entitled to call myself bisexual and why do you think you would pressure me to do anything? I'm genuinely confused by that sentence as not only is it completely irrelevant but it's actually quite insulting that you think I would let my sexuality be influenced, especially by a random person on an internet forum. Never the best source of influence in the world...

Next time you see this 'friend', tell him congratulations for actually admitting what most people think or feel but never express (and I do genuinely mean that). That's the point I'm trying to make with most of the population being bisexual, it is a very common occurrence. On a side note I think you your 'friend' would most certainly benefit from telling a few close people around him if he hasn't already.

The term bisexual is a perfectly accurate term to describe it's meaning though, it's someone who likes both male and female. I don't see what's wrong with that at all? It has most certainly not caused a misunderstanding with me, maybe I just haven't made my arguments clear enough. I don't quite understand what you mean by the phrase losing all meaning and being continuous with hetero and homo-sexuality. Personally I believe it's the other too phrases that lose all meaning as there isn't a single person on the planet who is only attracted to one gender entirely. They may be only interested in pursuing a relationship with one gender but if they were completely one way or the other they would be repulsed by even seeing other people. However there has to be a line drawn for those who want to define themselves as black and white.

If they are on the bisexual spectrum then they are by definition bisexual but I'd rather not go into any further detail as of now.

 

[GrizzlyCow]

Your whole argument can be brought down by saying, if there's a all homo tribe, and an all hetero tribe. Guess which will last the longer.

I would like to state the obvious here, dear friend: we're talking about homosexuals in the context of a society consisting of heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, and pansexuals. The existence of either a "homo tribe" or a "hetero tribe" means nothing in this argument.

Your straw man has fallen during its setup, and you have exposed your weak attempt at ridiculing your opponent with a cheap tactic.

 

[LCP]

Your whole argument can be brought down by saying, if there's a all homo tribe, and an all hetero tribe. Guess which will last the longer.

I would like to state the obvious here, dear friend: we're talking about homosexuals in the context of a society consisting of heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, and pansexuals. The existence of either a "homo tribe" or a "hetero tribe" means nothing in this argument.

Your straw man has fallen during its setup, and you have exposed your weak attempt at ridiculing your opponent with a cheap tactic.

My first sentence is unrealistic. Your point? Ignore all the arguments because one is possibly wrong... oops

 

[ryo02]

oh boy 23 pages erm not reading Ill make a point and leave

how do you know they werent gay? werent they limp wristed prancing about all high pitched saying things like FABULOUS and calling everyone DARLING?.

Im just saying theyre gay not stereotypes and I doubt they openly stated their sexuality one way or the other.

(Im not gay so ya my outside oppinion is just that an outside oppinion)

 

[Matt Seegz]

As it is, given your bullshit reply, I'll just notch you down as someone who loves to hear himself talk.

So basically, I was right. You are just putting your tail between your legs and shouting uncle.

Goddamn, man, this isn't hard. Make a statement, statement is challenged by someone, back the statement up.

 

[FarleShadow]

Any sexuality in kids shows is bad. Straight, gay or robosexual.

Although, for awkward points, I'm going to rate 'Grown men arguing the sexuality of a product-tie-in show designed for kids' as what the fuck is wrong with you people.

Are you saying cartoons shouldn't even show ANY family units, like the mom-and-dad, or King-and-queen, or any married couples?

I have heard this argument "NNNOOO sex at all" when it boils down to:

-Hetero-couples = Perfectly OK and acceptable.
-Same-sex couples = OHHH IT'S OBSCENE!

Even though you'd show both couples EXACTLY the same.

If kids learned about same-sex couples the same as hetero-couples that would do a great job of countering to almost ubiquitous prejudice and abuse there is towards homosexuality amongst American youth.

PS: children do NOT need to know about gay-sex to comprehend gay-marriage, just like they can understand a man and a woman getting married without needing the 'birds and the bees' explained to them.

You don't happen to work on a farm, do you? Because you just made a massive strawman argument, oh, we're all just homophobes! That's the answer! You can't have differing opinions to King Treblaine!

Sarcasm aside, the idea of displaying same-sex couples along with hetro couples, to me, is perfectly ok, I didn't consider that particular method, then again, I didn't expect some dickpiston to react to 1/3 parts of my post.

 

[RDubayoo]

Okay, I really don't want to think about a cartoon pony being a lesbian, but $#%@, welcome to the Internet I guess.

The problem with bringing a homosexual character into a kids' cartoon is how you demonstrate that said character is a homosexual. You can't depict them having sex with someone of the same gender, because, you know, kids' show? Even kissing might confuse a really small child.

While it would be a positive lesson to show children that gays aren't horrible abominations from space (well, aside from militant gays), that's the kind of subject matter that should be handled by an adult and not a television show that might convey an unintended message.

 

[GrizzlyCow]

Okay, I really don't to think about a cartoon pony being a lesbian, but $#%@, welcome to the Internet I guess.

The problem with bringing a homosexual character into a kids' cartoon is how you demonstrate that said character is a homosexual. You can't depict them having sex with someone of the same gender, because, you know, kids' show? Even kissing might confuse a really small child.

While it would be a positive lesson to show children that gays aren't horrible abominations from space (well, aside from militant gays), that's the kind of subject matter that should be handled by an adult and not a television show that might convey an unintended message.

This has been talked at length in the thread. Please read through it before replying or posting again because others have provided examples of showing homosexuality without sexualizing the show itself.

I would also like to add that it doesn't matter what some parents think about homosexuality. If parents have a problem with what a cartoon is showing, then they can just forbid their child from watching, so that part of your non-argument doesn't hold up too well. It is "an unintended message" for some is a non-issue for others.

And for the record, if a child has problems with seeing people kissing, then it isn't homosexuality you should be worrying about.

 

[Iwata]

As it is, given your bullshit reply, I'll just notch you down as someone who loves to hear himself talk.

So basically, I was right. You are just putting your tail between your legs and shouting uncle.

Goddamn, man, this isn't hard. Make a statement, statement is challenged by someone, back the statement up.

Sorry buddy, that ship has sailed.

I asked a question, and you chose to be all sarcastic and shit, because clearly you're a better human being than us other, obviously ignorant individuals.

And by the way, acting all condescending at this point doesn't do you any favors. I don't even know why I'm still talking to you. Have fun.

Edit: And I'll reiterate my one and only point, reading back, this is no more a debate than it is a punching bag for anyone who doesn't agree with the obvious answer.

 

[GrizzlyCow]

If all else fails call the opposition a bigot and stupid, well done there champ! *claps slowly* go troll somewhere else

I didn't call you stupid, good gent. I merely implied your opinion on this subject matter was idiotic, as you have done others. All your arguments to me are as stupid as saying gay is normal is to you. And, as for calling you a bigot, I am just stating what you yourself have implied. You admit you find homosexuals disgusting, so I just assumed you were stating a fact.

(I will admit I am a bit of a troll, and also a big meanie, too.)

And now, I have humored you.

Edit: Also, I do really think you are ignorant. I am not quite sure if you are stupid, but ignorant of this subject? Yes. Very much. (I am an honest man, after all.)

 

[LCP]

If all else fails call the opposition a bigot and stupid, well done there champ! *claps slowly* go troll somewhere else

I didn't call you stupid, good gent. I merely implied your opinion on this subject matter was idiotic, as you have done others. All your arguments to me are as stupid as saying gay is normal is to you. And, as for calling you a bigot, I am just stating what you yourself have implied. You admit you find homosexuals disgusting, so I just assumed you were stating a fact.

(I will admit I am a bit of a troll, and also a big meanie, too.)

And now, I have humored you.

I think your opinion is stupid too, don't worry too much about it. I find homosexuals activities disgusting, if someone that acts normal is a homosexual and keeps his things and relationships in his home, hey who should argue against that? If 2 gay guys are making out outside, I will point out it's disgusting. If there are semi naked men in a gay pride parade, I will consider that a "fuck you" to my retinas.

 

[GrizzlyCow]

If all else fails call the opposition a bigot and stupid, well done there champ! *claps slowly* go troll somewhere else

I didn't call you stupid, good gent. I merely implied your opinion on this subject matter was idiotic, as you have done others. All your arguments to me are as stupid as saying gay is normal is to you. And, as for calling you a bigot, I am just stating what you yourself have implied. You admit you find homosexuals disgusting, so I just assumed you were stating a fact.

(I will admit I am a bit of a troll, and also a big meanie, too.)

And now, I have humored you.

I think your opinion is stupid too, don't worry too much about it. I find homosexuals activities disgusting, if someone that acts normal is a homosexual and keeps his things and relationships in his home, hey who should argue against that? If 2 gay guys are making out outside, I will point out it's disgusting. If there are semi naked men in a gay pride parade, I will consider that a "fuck you" to my retinas.

And he complains when I call him a bigot.

I love how you proved 2/3 of what I said about you with just that reply.

Say something else. Moments are fleeting, but the Internet, the Internet is forever.