AL.com: Alabama Public Television refuses to air Arthur episode with gay wedding

[Zguy28]

4 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

And some people find it immoral that a group of humans are forced to hide themselves and their existence is considered something that should remain hidden. What's so hard to comprehend about that?

Aren't you one of the guys who always gripes about "whataboutism"?

 

By the way, I totally comprehend the position, even if I believe homosexuality itself is wrong. Subjective morality has multiple sides. You just happen to be on the side that is gaining the most adherents.

[No Excuses]

21 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

Aren't you one of the guys who always gripes about "whataboutism"?

 

By the way, I totally comprehend the position, even if I believe homosexuality itself is wrong. Subjective morality has multiple sides. You just happen to be on the side that is gaining the most adherents.

 

There are plenty of things that we some of us don't like, but we accept that they are part of society and maybe sometimes when we turn on the TV or our entertainment devices, we or our children will see them.

 

The solution of banishing cultural representation in media of a lifestyle you don't agree with is some authoritarian nonsense.

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

The solution of banishing cultural representation in media of a lifestyle you don't agree with is some authoritarian nonsense.

 

But it’s not being banished in media. 

 

It’s being banished from an educational young kids network in one state. 

[No Excuses]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

 

But it’s not being banished in media. 

 

It’s being banished from an educational young kids network in one state. 

 

This is nothing but a lame attempt at marginalizing a group of people that bigots don't like. There is absolutely no greater ideal of parenting involved in this. It's Alabama doing Alabama ****.

 

[twa]

6 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

 It's Alabama doing Alabama ****.

 

 

So no choice for Alabama?

 

[bearrock]

3 minutes ago, twa said:

 

So no choice for Alabama?

 

 

No, we're saying that Alabama PBS made the wrong choice, not that they don't have a choice.

[No Excuses]

6 minutes ago, twa said:

 

So no choice for Alabama?

 

 

They certainly have a choice of always being the last state to accept civil rights advancements and social progress.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Alabama is well within their rights here.  They’re also completely full of ****.

 

 

 

 

[Berggy9598]

8 hours ago, Zguy28 said:

Simply because lots of people still believe homosexuality is immoral. And that people have a subjective view of what's immoral. What's so hard to comprehend about those facts?

Yeah but your belief doesn’t mean a hill of beans when it comes to their right to be treated equally. Your belief doesn’t mean their existence should be looked at as taboo or immoral. What if a PBS station in San Francisco decided not to air an episode in which all the characters go to church on account of its too soon to expose kids to religion?

 

You have every right to believe anything is immoral and you have every right to express it, but condemning an entire group of people simply based on who they’re attracted to isn’t the other side of the coin to that group demanding to be treated with equality. You don’t get to have the same attitude that leads to persecution and all of a sudden be diplomatic when confronted. 

[tshile]

Also would be against religion being introduced. 

[Vilandil Tasardur]

I haven't been able to read all 5 pages of this thread yet, but I do have a few thoughts:

 

I vehemently disagree with anyone bringing this up within the context of "the talk", sex ed, or any larger issues of sexuality in this context. You can easily discuss with an elementary schooler that "some people have two mommies instead of a mommy and a daddy" without EVER talking about sex, procreation, how babies are made, etc. 

 

To me, this is a fundamental core part of the issue at hand. Homosexuality does NOT have to have anything to do with sex. You can talk to a 5 year old about family units and how they're made up without having to talk about the birds and the bees...

[Berggy9598]

3 hours ago, Vilandil Tasardur said:

I haven't been able to read all 5 pages of this thread yet, but I do have a few thoughts:

 

I vehemently disagree with anyone bringing this up within the context of "the talk", sex ed, or any larger issues of sexuality in this context. You can easily discuss with an elementary schooler that "some people have two mommies instead of a mommy and a daddy" without EVER talking about sex, procreation, how babies are made, etc. 

 

To me, this is a fundamental core part of the issue at hand. Homosexuality does NOT have to have anything to do with sex. You can talk to a 5 year old about family units and how they're made up without having to talk about the birds and the bees...

Couldn't have said it better. Not only do kids not get sheltered from the idea of marriage until they're old enough to understand it, in some cases it even gets idealized before they're old enough to understand it. 2019 homophobia at its finest. 

[PleaseBlitz]

I certainly think this is the wrong choice, but I also think parents should have a ton of leeway in raising their kids.  If this is what Alabama parents demand, I understand why the TV station is doing it.

 

In other news, I am very much looking forward to bringing my 3 year old to the DC Pride parade this year. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

13 hours ago, Vilandil Tasardur said:

I haven't been able to read all 5 pages of this thread yet, but I do have a few thoughts:

 

I vehemently disagree with anyone bringing this up within the context of "the talk", sex ed, or any larger issues of sexuality in this context. You can easily discuss with an elementary schooler that "some people have two mommies instead of a mommy and a daddy" without EVER talking about sex, procreation, how babies are made, etc. 

 

To me, this is a fundamental core part of the issue at hand. Homosexuality does NOT have to have anything to do with sex. You can talk to a 5 year old about family units and how they're made up without having to talk about the birds and the bees...

 

And it's your right to disagree with how a parent would prefer to address any topics with their child, but at the same time I think you should respect their views/decisions, regardless if you disagree or not. 

 

I support same sex couples/marriage and accept it as part of everyday life and I don't believe the station should have not aired that episode.  There was (still is) a lot of things in life, that I personally would have preferred to discuss/educate my daughter on at certain points in her life (based on her age, maturity level, etc.) unless she was introduced to those topics naturally in the real world.

 

Key words "preferred" and "unless".  It's not like we sheltered our daughter and didn't take her out places in fear of her being exposed to X, Y, Z.  We didn't and anything she was exposed to and questioned, we handled and discussed it with her in the way that was best suited for her at the time.

 

As for the TV shows we watch (wife and myself), we tried our best to not let her see those because a lot of times you wouldn't know what was going to happen (language, violence, sex scenes, straight couples making out, gay couples making out, etc. etc. etc.).  

 

My daughter is 11 now, has questioned and been educated on the topic of same sex couples/marriage, had the sex ed talk, etc., so this really doesn't impact me or her at all.  And those talks happened at age 8 and after with her.  To be honest, I understand both sides views on this topic and respect both.  

 

 

 

[Going Commando]

36 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I certainly think this is the wrong choice, but I also think parents should have a ton of leeway in raising their kids.  If this is what Alabama parents demand, I understand why the TV station is doing it.

 

There needs to be a good, non-dogmatically sourced reason for a government to enforce a taboo.  "Think of the children" is not one in this instance.  And TBH, it's not that big of an evolution beyond "Think of the children" being the past justification from shaming/banning gays from other public spaces.

 

Thinking that children need sheltering from the concept of gay marriage, while no such sheltering from the concept of straight marriage is necesarry (or even exists) is wrong.  It places/reinforces a taboo on a fundamental part of gay peoples lives, where no taboo is rationally justified.  What's more, the fact that this taboo exists justifies the cartoon's normalization of gay marriage as necessary.  We need a lot more normalization, especially in third-world crapholes like Alabama.

[Berggy9598]

6 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

There needs to be a good, non-dogmatically sourced reason for a government to enforce a taboo.  "Think of the children" is not one in this instance.  And TBH, it's not that big of an evolution beyond "Think of the children" being the past justification from shaming/banning gays from other public spaces.

 

Thinking that children need sheltering from the concept of gay marriage, while no such sheltering from the concept of straight marriage is necesarry (or even exists) is wrong.  It places a taboo on a fundamental part of gay peoples lives, where no taboo is rationally justified.  What's more, the fact that this taboo exists justifies the cartoon's normalization of gay marriage as necessary.  We need a lot more normalization, especially in third-world crapholes like Alabama.

No such shelter could even be a bit of an understatement. Not sure how it is now but as far back as I can remember marriage was presented to kids as an indication that their life is going according to plan, and that if they do the right things they will one day get married. This happens at ages in which they cannot possibly understand why. 

[Berggy9598]

29 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

And it's your right to disagree with how a parent would prefer to address any topics with their child, but at the same time I think you should respect their views/decisions, regardless if you disagree or not. 

 

I support same sex couples/marriage and accept it as part of everyday life and I don't believe the station should have not aired that episode.  There was (still is) a lot of things in life, that I personally would have preferred to discuss/educate my daughter on at certain points in her life (based on her age, maturity level, etc.) unless she was introduced to those topics naturally in the real world.

 

Key words "preferred" and "unless".  It's not like we sheltered our daughter and didn't take her out places in fear of her being exposed to X, Y, Z.  We didn't and anything she was exposed to and questioned, we handled and discussed it with her in the way that was best suited for her at the time.

 

As for the TV shows we watch (wife and myself), we tried our best to not let her see those because a lot of times you wouldn't know what was going to happen (language, violence, sex scenes, straight couples making out, gay couples making out, etc. etc. etc.).  

 

My daughter is 11 now, has questioned and been educated on the topic of same sex couples/marriage, had the sex ed talk, etc., so this really doesn't impact me or her at all.  And those talks happened at age 8 and after with her.  To be honest, I understand both sides views on this topic and respect both.  

 

 

 

Why does the simple concept of marriage, something which nobody thinks kids should be sheltered from, get mixed up with cussing, violence, sex scenes, making out, etc?...Why do these things only become houses in the same neighborhood when the topic is gay marriage? How do you understand a view that espouses the simple act of two consenting adults tying the knot is the same as exposing kids to sex and violence?

[Going Commando]

21 minutes ago, Berggy9598 said:

No such shelter could even be a bit of an understatement. Not sure how it is now but as far back as I can remember marriage was presented to kids as an indication that their life is going according to plan, and that if they do the right things they will one day get married. This happens at ages in which they cannot possibly understand why. 

 

You're right.  There is no mainstream taboo on straight marriage.  It's positively reinforced to an overwhelming degree.

[tshile]

55 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

while no such sheltering from the concept of straight marriage is necesarry (or even exists) is wrong.

Has Arthur done weddings before? Straight weddings?

 

[Berggy9598]

17 minutes ago, tshile said:

Has Arthur done weddings before? Straight weddings?

 

If it has, you wouldn’t know about that it via public outrage. The point isn’t whether this particular kids show has touched on the subject of marriage, the point is it’s not something kids are typically sheltered from. Only gay marriage gets tied in with exposure kids aren’t ready for. 

[Going Commando]

32 minutes ago, tshile said:

Has Arthur done weddings before? Straight weddings?

 

 

I don't know, I don't watch the show.  It doesn't really matter if they have.  Cartoon depictions of weddings shouldn't be taboo.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

1 hour ago, Berggy9598 said:

Why does the simple concept of marriage, something which nobody thinks kids should be sheltered from, get mixed up with cussing, violence, sex scenes, making out, etc?...Why do these things only become houses in the same neighborhood when the topic is gay marriage? How do you understand a view that espouses the simple act of two consenting adults tying the knot is the same as exposing kids to sex and violence?

 

I was just providing examples of other topics that I would have PREFERRED she not see in the shows my wife and I watched.  I was speaking to my specific situation with my child, that would have occurred years ago.  I never equated same sex marriage to violence, etc. so stop twisting what I'm saying and putting words in my mouth.  We didn't want her seeing straight couples making out either, which was stated and obviously ignored.

 

I also stated that this particular scenario never impacted our daughter in any way, she's 11 and already had most of those talks to some degree the past 3-4 years.  And I've stated plenty already in here that I DISAGREED with the network not airing the show.  But I do believe that it should be up to the parents as to when they would PREFER any topic be exposed to their child along with what platform is used to introduce (TV show, cartoon, movie, real life, etc.) those topics (probably gotta spell this out for you too - I'm generally speaking here).

 

I also have stated more than once that when my child was growing up we did not shelter her from anything (outside of not watching our TV shows that were not appropriate for a young child to watch anyhow) and let her experience everything in life naturally as it occurred.  As for the topic of gay marriage, gay couples holding hands or kissing, showing PDA, our daughter wasn't introduced to that until she was 8 years old and it was addressed and she was educated that it was ok for two people regardless of being both male or female to love one another and get married.  

 

 

 

 

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

Has Arthur done weddings before? Straight weddings?

 

 

The very first season

 

https://www.metacritic.com/tv/arthur/season-1/episode-25-dw-thinks-big-arthur-cleans-up

Quote

#12501"D.W. Thinks Big" 
D.W. finds Aunt Lucy's wedding ring after her stuck-up cousin Cora causes it to get lost it at Lucy's wedding

 

tshile, I think we're starting to get into the realm of the absurd.  I understand that a reasonable parent may feel that same sex relationships and marriage may require a fuller discussion to give it proper context and requires a certain emotional maturity to properly understand the history behind it (I'm playing devil's advocate in a vague way.  I don't agree with the position because I don't think it requires some in depth historical overview.  But I recognize that reasonable people may disagree regardless of their actual position on same sex relationships and marriage) 

 

But do you really think that Alabama station's decision is not motivated by a certain distaste and animus towards same sex relationship?  That they have a problem with any subject that could even remotely touch on sex or attraction or marriage?  You may want much tamer content in a kid's show than the average population, but do you think that Alabama station had any issue with the myriad of other contents that you would find objectionable (as premature, not necessarily wrong)?  

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

There needs to be a good, non-dogmatically sourced reason for a government to enforce a taboo.  "Think of the children" is not one in this instance.  And TBH, it's not that big of an evolution beyond "Think of the children" being the past justification from shaming/banning gays from other public spaces.

 

Thinking that children need sheltering from the concept of gay marriage, while no such sheltering from the concept of straight marriage is necesarry (or even exists) is wrong.  It places/reinforces a taboo on a fundamental part of gay peoples lives, where no taboo is rationally justified.  What's more, the fact that this taboo exists justifies the cartoon's normalization of gay marriage as necessary.  We need a lot more normalization, especially in third-world crapholes like Alabama.

 

I agree with your reasoning completely.  I just don't think it's in the public interest for PBS to get embroiled in a culture war, especially over people's kids.  Do you think it's better in terms of the normalization of the population of Alabama for (1) the station to refuse to air one episode of Arthur because it is particularly offensive to their sense of bigotry, twisted christianity, conservatism, or (2) for all of Alabama to boycott the station (which presumably often airs programming like Arthur and Sesame Street that constantly preach inclusion) entirely?

[tshile]

51 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

I don't know, I don't watch the show

Ok so you don’t actually know what you’re talking about in regards to normalization and sheltering from straight marriages.