Poll: Should There be Gay Characters in Kid's Shows/Films?

[BlumiereBleck]

If you can convince every parent of a child in the age range of 4-10 then maybe.

Just... get rid of the dirtbags that say no.

Sounds like an "cleansing" of population there.....and thats bad

 

[Alexias_Sandar]

When I watched Card capture's I never noticed or associated any odd/gay relationships, I don't know what you're talking about?!

Shaoran has a crush on Yukito for a while. Tomoyo is clearly interested in Sakura but willing to keep quiet to let her be happy with her own love. Yukito and Toya are in a relationship. Of course, Toya is bi, not gay, considering his first relationship was with Kaho.

Now, if you just watch Card Captors, the horrible English translation and mangling, and not Card Captor Sakura, with all the episodes and without the plot removed, you'll likely miss much of this. If you watch Card Captor Sakura and read the manga...it's quite clear.

 

[CactiComplex]

While I do agree that homosexuality is nothing a society in general should be ashamed or afraid of and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, after thinking about this issue for a while I found myself thinking that despite the fact that I wouldn't mind my kinds ultimately becoming homosexuals, I don't think I would want them to be exposed to homosexual themes in day-to-day things like television shows.

This may sound incredibly wrong to some of you but from a scientific/biological/evolutionary point of view, this will make insanely much sense: Humans learn everything by copying or trial and error. The latter, however, does not actually account for a lot of our perceptions. Thus kids will imitate what they see (be it their parents or on TV) and it is simply not desirable to give kids the impression that homosexuality is just as normal and natural as heterosexuality. While many studies have shown that homosexuality is something that does occur in nature, they have also shown that nevertheless these only make of a very small percentage of the actual behavior. So while I would encourage my child to accept homosexuality as a choice once it has matured to a point that it can consciously deal with the issues, I would not put it as a part of the daily routine in things like television while the child is still in a subconscious developmental phase. The first things a child should learn about sexuality should come from the parents and thus by design me heterosexual. Because, biologically and evolutionarily speaking, homosexuality is not desirable at all and will by the simple fact of its nature, cause the genetic material that has such tendencies to parish.

Bottomline: I wouldn't make an outrage of one gay couple among 100 princesses and princes, I would not allow my kid to watch a show that has an equal distribution between heterosexuality and homosexuality because it isn't and it SHOULDN'T be that way in real life.

Edit: This in no way means that I think that homosexuals are not equal in a social or humane way!

Ok, as much as it really irks me to say, on a strictly biological/scientific level I can't argue with you that much, although I will say humanity wouldn't suffer if hetero and homosexuality were of more equal proportions, not by a long shot. I also don't think homosexuality will die out either.

There are some things that I would like to disagree with though:

it is simply not desirable to give kids the impression that homosexuality is just as normal and natural as heterosexuality

Why? I mean, really, why? Doesn't the fact that homosexuality exists in nature make it both normal and natural occurrence? And how do you define degrees of normality anyway? By numbers, which to me is the only way I can see that you've come to the conclusion one can be 'more' normal than the other.

So while I would encourage my child to accept homosexuality as a choice once it has matured to a point that it can consciously deal with the issues, I would not put it as a part of the daily routine in things like television while the child is still in a subconscious developmental phase

Are your views on all sexual issues, violence, and such like the same? If so, fine, I don't see why that isn't a reasonable argument. If not, then how is homosexuality more of a threat to a child's development than violence is?

As for those people saying your sexuality is a choice, well... I don't have the words for how utterly stupid that is or how angry that makes me to hear it. No one actively decides their sexuality. Yes, you do get people who will have sex with anyone regardless, but it comes down to who you are attracted to, and you can't force that. Common sense, people, common sense.

 

[LCP]

Hell no... It's too messed up... Sorry but teaching "being gay is an alright choice" Doesn't sit well with me.

Anyway why the hell is there sexuality in a kids show?

IT. IS. NOT. A. CHOICE.

Probably get flamed for this but, if it isn't a choice it's a mental discrepancy.

 

[KiraTaureLor]

When I watched Card capture's I never noticed or associated any odd/gay relationships, I don't know what you're talking about?!

Shaoran has a crush on Yukito for a while. Tomoyo is clearly interested in Sakura but willing to keep quiet to let her be happy with her own love. Yukito and Toya are in a relationship. Of course, Toya is bi, not gay, considering his first relationship was with Kaho.

Now, if you just watch Card Captors, the horrible English translation and mangling, and not Card Captor Sakura, with all the episodes and without the plot removed, you'll likely miss much of this. If you watch Card Captor Sakura and read the manga...it's quite clear.

OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I watched Card capture the English version, holy shit I missed so much. I was a kid back then, I was more focused on the cards than the relationships, I need to watch the original ASAP, Thank you for enlightening me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ceil-Sama]

It SHOULD be, but I don't think people are ready for homosexuality being exposed to their kids. Too much prejudice against the LGBT community from "family-friendly" groups. I think that people just aren't ready for their kids to know about the world.

Of course, when one of those kids, taught to be as straight as a metal pole, finds out he's gay (or worse, others finding out) and blows his brain out for being "different." People will change their mind.

Oh wait.

 

[Gladiateher]

I don't think that there should be gay characters of any sort in childrens shows. I also don't think that there should be any straight characters who are attracted to one another. I'm all for equality but this is a kid's show were talking about nothing in it should be even remotely sexual or even barely related to sexuality. That's my opinion ne ways.

 

[The Gnome King]

Stuff!

The thing is, the two sides of the major active debate aren't "Homosexuality is wrong" and "heterosexuality is wrong." They are "homosexuality is an action/a mental state/a temptation" and "homosexuality is normal/natural/genetic." So heterosexuality has nothing to do with it.

There is a large contingent of the population - myself included - that believes that homosexual behavior is a sin and a temptation - in much the same way that we believe that premarital sex is a sin. That was the idea I was aiming for, although I see where you have a problem with the comparison. Sadly for the sake of discussion, most controversial moral decisions do concern sex - I imagine you'd have just as much of a problem with a show that portrayed lying as a good thing as I would - so finding a decent comparison is a bit hard.

The problem I see with portraying a homosexual character in a children's show - no matter whether he is shown positively, negatively, or completely neutrally - is that implicit in his presence is the concept of "it's normal." It's not the same as showing a Christian in the show for the simple reason that the question isn't "are Christians normal?" but "are Christians right?" The unanswered question at the heart of this debate is "what, exactly, is homosexuality?" and including gay characters in a children's TV show is conditioning them to think "that's normal."

On to a final few points:

First, I must say that I hold any "Christian" parents who abandon their child in about as much regard as I do Fred Phelps. Also, while (and I mentioned this earlier) such people do exist, they are no more than a minute fraction of Christendom. Cries of "homophobic" by rights should be directed at people such as this, who obviously consider homosexual behavior to be an intrinsically damning condition - to direct it at any opponents of homosexuality in general is as harmful to your efforts to help the true victims as it is to me.

Finally, it is interesting that you make that assumption concerning me, as, while I do consider myself heterosexual, I have struggled for years with a desire to be female. But - and this is crucial - I do not for a moment believe that I was born "a woman in a man's body," as some put it. I know that this is an issue, a temptation, a mental problem I possess. I hope someday to fix my errant desires and take up a normal life, and I find it amusing that people - not you, per se, but others I have encountered - blindly assume that I am ignorant of "the real truth" - that, if I only felt the same thing they do, I would be on their side.
I do, but I'm not.

And that is that.

Thanks for talking, as opposed to raging, by the way. Opportunities to actually discuss the issues at hand are truly rare on the Net.

There is no reason to rage on the internet. I'm out to change hearts and minds, or hopefully at least become a little more enlightened through the process of communication if I fail in that. I studied theology in college for years, religion fascinates me. Your wordplay with right/normal, however, is a bit of a false scenario - some folk find Christianity to be anything but normal. Christians are persecuted and even attacked in parts of the world, just as homosexuals are. Christianity is seen as "normal" in America because it is simply the dominant religion here. In many parts of Europe, being overly religious in this day and age is considered a bit odd. In the Muslim world, being Christian certainly isn't considered normal. Etc.

I would also point out that some psychologists consider anybody with a strong religious/supernatural/spiritual belief system to be just as "afflicted" as psychologists used to consider homosexuals in America - one day we might live in a world where believing in God is considered as odd (and as abnormal and potentially damaging) as we used to consider homosexuality, say, in 1950's America. Please note that *I* am not saying these things, just that as time goes on the definition of "normal" (and what constitutes mental illness) changes. I would never presume to call a Christian mentally ill or afflicted in any way, but sadly, many Christians have no problem calling homosexuals both of those things.

I do not make any assumptions about your sexuality; your life is your own and if you choose to see your inclinations as a "mental problem" that is your choice - but I hope you can see how many, many transgendered and genderqueer people out there would be highly offended if you choose to consider *them* afflicted with a "mental problem" - I suppose we are all in some way put in the position of having to make up our own minds about what is normal and healthy and what is not.

Me, I've had many, many Christians try to use the "you're not wrong, you're just sick" argument on me, and I find it offensive. Bisexuality as an "illness" doesn't fit any natural definition of illness - it's doing nothing to curtail my lifespan or my happiness in life; in fact, accepting my bisexuality these past 10 years has done nothing but open doors for me. Illness, by definition, causes harm to oneself or in some cases, others.

I found I was bringing far greater harm to myself and to others when I denied the parts of myself that love both men and women.

Homosexuality causes no harm to anybody; it's societal and religious attitudes towards homosexuality that cause the harm.

Thanks for the interesting conversation, and for being so open about yourself. We can agree to disagree.

 

[The Gnome King]

It SHOULD be, but I don't think people are ready for homosexuality being exposed to their kids. Too much prejudice against the LGBT community from "family-friendly" groups. I think that people just aren't ready for their kids to know about the world.

Of course, when one of those kids, taught to be as straight as a metal pole, finds out he's gay (or worse, others finding out) and blows his brain out for being "different." People will change their mind.

Oh wait.

Sadly, a fellow student in one of my theology classes killed himself for this reason. It's why I feel so passionate about the topic. He didn't kill himself because he was gay; he killed himself because he believed he couldn't help but BE gay and he bought the professor's (and his pastor's) mantra of "pray the gay away" - he prayed, the gay stayed, and he ended up dying by his own hand because he thought he was damned.

What was harmful here - his sexuality or his religious beliefs?

 

[cobra_ky]

I don't think that there should be gay characters of any sort in childrens shows. I also don't think that there should be any straight characters who are attracted to one another. I'm all for equality but this is a kid's show were talking about nothing in it should be even remotely sexual or even barely related to sexuality. That's my opinion ne ways.

you don't think kid's shows should have parents in them? Mommies and Daddies are straight characters who are attracted to each other, after all.

 

[Drake_Dercon]

I have been frustrated about this for a while. Often I wonder why it is that family TV seems to portray homosexuals as non-existant. There's a good chance it's contributing to the amount of homophobic teenagers bouncing around (in fact, I'm pretty sure) and it's almost guaranteed that it's helped misconceptions. If the media would show at least something, schools wouldn't need to call in people to talk about it with their students.

But then, conservative America would disagree, wouldn't it.

Edit: that might sound strange. I mean the conservative parts of America, being places like most of it. Most of the larger southern and western coastal states, that is.

 

[interspark]

I say lets keep things simple, natural and innocent for them while we can.

RIGHT THERE! you see? that's what we're talking about here, why should a couple's gender have anything to do with the "simplicity or innocence" of their relationship? you have boys and girls fall for eachother in kid's shows but now you're implying that having gay crushes would be wrong or even immoral?

 

[CommanderKirov]

Only when it is fitting to the shows story and demographic.
I mean Ninja Turtles would be pretty awkward if Donatello and Michealangelo would be gay. I mean, that would kinda ruin the show.

I do not think it would be akward because they would have been gay. It would be more akward because they would be brothers...

Yes, I demand that if there would be gay characters in the show can we also have light incest? Like cousins or something?

Also since we are going with this "Ultra Tolerance vibe"
I think that shows like "Teletubbies" or other things kids watch now days should include:

- Preferance of characters towards bondage.
- Characters believing they are trapped in the wrong sexes body.
- Characters being concerned about liberal parties trying to force socialized medicine upon them.
- Characters having strong attraction towards other characters conviniently wearing animal outfitts.

And so on and so on.


Good grief people, thease are just Saturday morning cartoons. Kid's are not paying attention that the skinny anime boy #1 like skinny anime boy #2 and to the fact that they seem to hold each others hands longer than other characters.

No, they pay attention to the gigantic robots going "PEW PEW" and "FOR CYBERTRON"

Lay off it.


Edit:

Terrible idea. It would infect our children. All butch manly characters on kids TV. Definitely. Mehhhhhhh.

Please do not tell me you put Peppermint Patty in there thinking she is a man... Please?

 

[Sylocat]

Doctor Who is a kids' show, Doctor Who has Captain Jack Harkness, and last time I checked, the UK didn't get any unusual spikes in teen pregnancies or murders circa late-2005.

 

[Kilyle]

Homosexual means "sexual attraction to one's own sex". How can sex not be a part of being gay? If you simply feel a strong connection with someone and 'love them' like a friend, that isn't homosexual. ... Unless you are physically attracted to them in a sexual way... well, there just isn't a gay relationship there.

I do get the feeling I'm not understanding and/or missing something of your point. Help me out?

Actually, I think you got my point pretty well. If there isn't sexual attraction there, it's not homosexuality; but I've come across all sorts of stuff from our modern culture that assumes a sexual relationship between two people just because they're intimate, same-gender, and not blood relatives.

See: David and Jonathan (the Bible), Cecil and Kain (Final Fantasy IV), Bert and Ernie (Sesame Street). I mean, if you can't even have a pair of puppets on a kiddie show without assuming there's something "going on beneath the covers," what has our society come to??

One of my favorite books is "A Strange and Ancient Name" by Josepha Sherman. In it, an elf prince is closely intimate with Alliar, a wind spirit trapped in mortal flesh. The characters take pains to point out that they're not in a sexual relationship ("flesh games" are as foreign to Alliar as "can you smell the color blue?"). I understand why it was pointed out, but it makes me sad that our culture practically requires it if you're to be clear about relationships.

Not to mention that "I don't want to mess around with all this dating nonsense" translates to "you don't like girls hence you must be gay"; case in point: Jughead Jones (who's actually had a few girlfriends over the years, but, in general, stays out of the game). I've also had no fewer than two friends (one male, one female) whose relatives assumed they were gay because they didn't care to date.

Relatedly, I sometimes wonder what could come from a chaste or celibate homosexual character (in an adult piece). Chaste heterosexual characters are rare, and celibate ones even rarer (unless it's a defining characteristic, e.g. a nun), but I don't think I've ever come across a character who was an unashamed homosexual yet deliberately avoided sexual contact. I've debated about writing one.

Oh, and for examples of chaste heterosexuals: Besides Jughead, there's Theo Fobius of Schlock Mercenary. Is it sad that I can't come up with more off the top of my head?