Poll of the Day > Conservatives are OUTRAGED over this video on NICKELODEON!! Are you Mad too??

(+) Yeah! (+)

Ok, I finally have time to adequately respond. Work has been bananas this week. Social issues are inherently political issues as unfortunate as that can be. Anyway, I'm fully in support of the LGBT community. I have no problem with whatever lifestyle people wanna live if it isn't hurting others. I just don't think this stuff has any place on nickelodeon. Kids under 10, by and large, don't really understand this stuff. We shouldn't be pushing sexuality on kids that young at all imo. I understand pushing for acceptance but I don't think that's how to do it really.

Also, while I personally don't have anything against drag queens or LGBT, I can understand parents taking issue with that kind of stuff on a kids TV network. To some degree, it can be considered adult content as kids don't really understand that stuff and really shouldn't be faced with understanding these things at a very young age imo

You know that many LGBTQ+ people report knowing they were that way as young children? Why shouldn't they have relatable characters on shows to guide them like other children? Saying kids shouldn't be exposed to it isn't really supporting you believe it's normal and should be accepted.


---

Jen0125 posted...

You know that many LGBTQ+ people report knowing they were that way as young children? Why shouldn't they have relatable characters on shows to guide them like other children? Saying kids shouldn't be exposed to it isn't really supporting you believe it's normal and should be accepted.

What I said doesn't conflict with having gay characters in a show

OhhhJa posted...

I just don't think this stuff has any place on nickelodeon. Kids under 10, by and large, don't really understand this stuff.

---

OhhhJa posted...

I just don't think this stuff has any place on nickelodeon. Kids under 10, by and large, don't really understand this stuff. We shouldn't be pushing sexuality on kids that young at all imo. I understand pushing for acceptance but I don't think that's how to do it really.

So kids need to reach a certain age before they're made aware of the existence of queer people? That's the "agenda" you're worried about?

There's a pervasive attitude that saying "being gay is okay" actually means "you should be gay," and I really don't know where that comes from. Nobody's pushing sexuality on kids (no more so than most media already does with heterosexuality, anyway). What is being pushed is the idea that it's okay that LGBTQ people exist, and frankly, anyone that thinks that agenda shouldn't be pushed is garbage.

---

OhhhJa posted...

I just don't think this stuff has any place on nickelodeon. Kids under 10, by and large, don't really understand this stuff. We shouldn't be pushing sexuality on kids that young at all imo. I understand pushing for acceptance but I don't think that's how to do it really.

As a gay man, I disagree. I feel like I would have felt a lot better knowing this stuff at a younger age...
---

OhhhJa posted...

Kids under 10, by and large, don't really understand this stuff.

kids actually have no problem whatsoever understanding this kinda stuff when it is taught to them

its many adults that seem to have a lot of resistance to the idea of some people being different from one another and it being okay

---

Mead posted...

its many adults that seem to have a lot of resistance to the idea of some people being different from one another and it being okay

Resistance which, in many cases, is because that idea conflicts with what they learned as children and they have trouble adapting to the new information. Expose them to the idea as children, and it becomes a lot less unfamiliar.

---

LinkPizza posted...

As a gay man, I disagree. I feel like I would have felt a lot better knowing this stuff at a younger age...

Didn't you know Link, gays don't exist until they're adults.

---

Wow that's disgusting. I think it's unethical to present this content to children. Only childless people would disagree.

Kegran posted...

Wow that's disgusting. I think it's unethical to present this content to children. Only childless people would disagree.

Or people who see literally no issue with it. Kids can be gay. Get over it.

---

Jen0125 posted...

Or people who see literally no issue with it. Kids can be gay. Get over it.

You're responding to a never before seen account from 2002 with only 6 posts. Probably some coward that won't post on their main. Its pretty funny though how all these people act like gay children aren't real.

---

MeteoricBurst posted...

You're responding to a never before seen account from 2002 with only 6 posts. Probably some coward that won't post on their main. Its pretty funny though how all these people act like gay children aren't real.

Nah, I just don't come here much anymore. I got distracted while looking up PAR codes for 7th Saga. Seeing the same egoism on Gamefaqs you see on Twitter is odd so I got pulled in. It probably won't last long.
If gay children are real let them figure out they'll be net non-contributing members of society for their entire lives by themselves. No parent wants their child to be gay. No parent should have to explain to their young child about gays. It's unethical to promote objectively toxic alternate lifestyles to children.
Jen0125 posted...

Or people who see literally no issue with it. Kids can be gay. Get over it.

Kids don't know what the hell is going on with sexuality until they hit puberty. Even so, normal lifestlyes should be promoted in the media for the good of society.

Kegran posted...

If gay children are real let them figure out they'll be net non-contributing members of society for their entire lives by themselves. No parent wants their child to be gay. No parent should have to explain to their young child about gays. It's unethical to promote objectively toxic alternate lifestyles to children.

---

Kegran posted...

Kids don't know what the hell is going on with sexuality until they hit puberty. Even so, normal lifestlyes should be promoted in the media for the good of society.

Lmao this is scientifically false.

---

Metalsonic66 posted...

Things you don't agree with aren't trolling. Just because you can't produce an argument against what I said doesn't mean you can just dismiss it as trolling. What's wrong with you?

Jen0125 posted...

Lmao this is scientifically false.

In NAMBLA circles, surely.

Lmao there's no reason to try to actually argue with you because you're a bad faith actor.

---

Jen0125 posted...

Lmao there's no reason to try to actually argue with you because you're a bad faith actor.

No, I'm not. Deal with it. Presenting media which affirms adult's homosexuality in children's media is unethical. Enjoy.

---

Jen0125 posted...

I like this keep laughing. Let's put gays in cartoons, you know, for the kids. What an amazing idea. It's hilarious that we live in an age where adults are advertising their deviant lifestlyes in children's media. It's not for the kids, it's for the gay adults which is weird. It's like putting a condom in a cereal box instead of a toy.
Stay classy LGBT.

Enjoy your warning for your little homophobic rant, @Kegran

---

Full Throttle posted...

Newsmax Host, Grant Stenchfield, oopsa a poo, i mean Stinchfield

lmfao

---

BobbyButthurt posted...

Enjoy your warning for your little homophobic rant

It's not homophobic, you just can't deal with it so you need to silence it. I'll enjoy it if an actual mod warns me.

Kegran posted...

If gay children are real let them figure out they'll be net non-contributing members of society for their entire lives by themselves.

Gay people don't contribute to society? You legitimately think that's a defensible position?

---

adjl posted...

Gay people don't contribute to society? You legitimately think that's a defensible position?

Yes I do. Do you think you'll be able to go toe to toe against my position without calling it homophobic to immediately dismiss it?
Gay people have no investment in the future. There's no interest to leave a better society for their children. It's all about the here and now.
"But, what about small number of gay people who adopt or otherwise have children!?"
It's an unsurprisingly insignificant amount.

Kegran posted...

Let's put gays in cartoons, you know, for the kids

I'm glad we agree

---

How do you feel about child free people and infertile people? Should they be shunned from media as well?

---

Jen0125 posted...

I'm glad we agree

You only agree to satisfy your own egoism. You knew I was being facetious just like you know that I'm right about gays in children's cartoons.

Kegran posted...

Yes I do. Do you think you'll be able to go toe to toe against my position without calling it homophobic to immediately dismiss it?
Gay people have no investment in the future. There's no interest to leave a better society for their children. It's all about the here and now.
"But, what about small number of gay people who adopt or otherwise have children!?"
It's an unsurprisingly insignificant amount.

WWII was all but single-handedly won by a gay man.

---

Jen0125 posted...

How do you feel about child free people and infertile people? Should they be shunned from media as well?

Excellent question. Kind of, yes. Childless 30 something women especially seem to be the least aware of how to continue an enduring culture that favors the next generation. And no I'm not just knocking women here, but you generally see them favor things like immigration, homosexuality, "social justice" and other stuff that wears down the fabric of a stable cohesive culture.
Men who are childless tend to just fizzle out and become weirdos or jailed predators.

adjl posted...

WWII was all but single-handedly won by a gay man.

Turing? Not to minimize, but Germany was screwed either way, but that's a different story.
I don't think I have the words to describe how this isn't what I mean at the moment. I'll try with "society is absolutely not one man it's the exact opposite". I think on this more so I might be able to explain the thought better in the future.
It's not like I believe gay people are stupid and can't invent things or figure stuff out.
I'm even for gay marriage so I don't disagree with any rights or anything.

Plenty of gay men have children though so that argument falls apart. And I don't mean children from adoption. Ironically your assertion that they don't carry forward society with children would be more true if what you didn't want to happen (them being taught to accept themselves early) actually happened. As it is, that doesn't really happen despite these fake outrages. So very many end up forcing themselves to be with women and have children regardless. Most of the gay men I know irl are like that.

---

Kegran posted...

Turing? Not to minimize, but Germany was screwed either way, but that's a different story.

Most likely, but he was the reason Europe and America remained dominant instead of having the Soviets steamroll the Nazis and keep moving west to pick up what they left behind of the rest of Europe. His contribution really cannot be understated, which makes it even more disgusting that he was treated so poorly.

Kegran posted...

I don't think I have the words to describe how this isn't what I mean at the moment.

Oh, I know exactly what you mean. You believe that, without children to directly benefit from their contributions, people are less motivated to do anything meaningful with their lives that might make for a better future, and that non-reproductive lifestyles therefore should be discouraged during children's formative years to maximize their motivation to be productive.

Of course, that's a belief you could substantiate, if there were any merit to it. Randomly select a sample of a few dozen people that have made major contributions to the betterment of humanity throughout history, find out whether or not they've had children (preferably before making their contributions, but that data may be tricky to come by), and compare that to contemporary statistics for the general population to see if there's actually a significant difference in reproductive rate between those that contribute significantly to society and those that don't. If you want to make this claim, go do that so you have some actual data to back you up.

To save you some time, though, I'll point out that people are perfectly capable of caring about people that aren't their own children, and most people have already commited to the careers that ultimately lead to them making major contributions by the time they actually have kids. There's very little reason to suspect that having children is a prerequisite for making contributions to society. In turn, there's very little reason to believe that having more people reproduce would change much about the fact that the vast majority of people (parents or no) will never make particularly significant contributions to society. I encourage you to test your hypothesis regardless, since science rules and whatnot, but I don't expect you to find a significant trend there.

Kegran posted...

I'm even for gay marriage so I don't disagree with any rights or anything.

You just don't think that media should present anything other than reproductive heterosexuality as being legitimate, which would inevitably have serious negative effects on the treatment and rights of gay populations because it would reinforce the idea that they're bad and shouldn't exist. Didn't really think that one through, did you?

---

MeteoricBurst posted...

Plenty of gay men have children though so that argument falls apart.

A statistically small number of gay men exist who have children. Obviously no one knows how many gay men have children, but the estimates are 37% of the 5.5% of gay men. The argument stands just like with the 4-ish or something percent of gay couples who adopt.
Y's trend is not disproven by the outlier X. Why do people believe that it should be?
MeteoricBurst posted...

As it is, that doesn't really happen despite these fake outrages. So very many end up forcing themselves to be with women and have children regardless.

It's not a fake outrage. This is unethical.
MeteoricBurst posted...

Most of the gay men I know irl are like that.

Do they enjoy having children? Do they believe they need to make the world a better place for their children? If so, then why is promoting deviant sexual behavior important to them in children's media? Do you think people who do meth push for more meth use in children's cartoons?

Kegran posted...

Things you don't agree with aren't trolling. Just because you can't produce an argument against what I said doesn't mean you can just dismiss it as trolling. What's wrong with you?

lol, troll harder bro

---

Kegran posted...

If so, then why is promoting deviant sexual behavior important to them in children's media?

Because they're going to be homosexual whether you tell them it's okay or not. Telling them it's okay just makes them less likely to kill themselves than if they spend their lives being told that the feelings they've developed are wrong and evil.

---

Kegran posted...

A statistically small number of gay men exist who have children. Obviously no one knows how many gay men have children, but the estimates are 37% of the 5.5% of gay men. The argument stands just like with the 4-ish or something percent of gay couples who adopt.
Y's trend is not disproven by the outlier X. Why do people believe that it should be?

Those numbers are dodgy to begin with. Regardless your whole argument is that gays don't have biological children (false) and thus don't contribute to society going forward (false). You mentioned supporting gay marriage which is a much smaller percentage than the ones who have children on the down low. Gay marriage isn't even legal in many countries. And where it is most don't opt for that because they are not out in the first place. The other part of your argument is that teaching this stuff shouldn't occur because it encourages negative behaviour. That's why I said its ironic because its NOT teaching this stuff that encourages negative behaviour not the other way round.

---

adjl posted...

Randomly select a sample of a few dozen people that have made major contributions to the betterment of humanity throughout history, find out whether or not they've had children (preferably before making their contributions, but that data may be tricky to come by), and compare that to contemporary statistics for the general population to see if there's actually a significant difference in reproductive rate between those that contribute significantly to society and those that don't. If you want to make this claim, go do that so you have some actual data to back you up.

No you misunderstand what I believe a contribution is. A contribution doesn't have to be substantial or something invented or achieved. And normally I wouldn't present something I can't explain properly, but, as you can see, it's usually dismissed as "homophobic" outright so I've never been able to use the words I need.
Let me try again. A society is a collection of people with a similar culture. A contribution is passing your culture down to the next generation. Homosexuals statistically do not have a next generation despite outliers, and have no need or use to contribute to the continuation of a culture.
adjl posted...

You just don't think that media should present anything other than reproductive heterosexuality as being legitimate, which would inevitably have serious negative effects on the treatment and rights of gay populations because it would reinforce the idea that they're bad and shouldn't exist. Didn't really think that one through, did you?

You know, we're talking about children's media, right? Do gays really need to be presented in children's media and why? Do you truly believe you'd lose something if you didn't have representation in cartoons? We're not talking about Game of Thrones here just so you're aware.

adjl posted...

Because they're going to be homosexual whether you tell them it's okay or not. Telling them it's okay just makes them less likely to kill themselves than if they spend their lives being told that the feelings they've developed are wrong and evil.

No, children's media not representing gays does not explicitly mean telling anyone they are wrong or evil. Why would you believe this?

I don't like it as a person who's idea of their gender identity and sexuality changes multiple times over the course of a day.

Its more overall I think its a complicated situation, the ideal one is to have it normalised in the sense its neither given a lot of attention, but not ignored either.

As a kid around 10 years old I saw gay/bi characters on tv in sitcoms and such who I knew were dating but as I was so young I didn't think about anything sexual or past the idea they were just 2 people who were in a relationship.

Why does gay identitity and such still mostly get shown to be flamboyant, and its not straight people who do this its actual gay people who just roll with stereotypes?

Theres no right way but I think so many wrong ways that end up doing more damage than good.

I have a "offensive" view that I think sexuality and gender identity is complicated and not automatically label, indirectly someones preference can be affected by factors in life, by preference I don't mean someone can't be born gay or straight but a butterfly effect can have effects on their personalities and judgement, over recent years many people I have spoken to who labelled themselves seem to be more like a tick box exercise and very often because the media tells them they fit these stereotypes therefore they must be a certain way, especially when it comes to teenagers and kids.

The most common is, teenagers we know feel like outcasts due to things like their changing hormones and becoming young adults, but they are the first to be told if they have feelings for say the same gender they must automatically be gay or bi, when the reality like pretty much everything theres a broad range of things and no one size fits all, its more damaging to say they tick boxes so thats all they can be.

---

It doesnt outrage me at all, but my kids dont watch Nickelodeon, so *shrug*. And honestly, Nick has shittier programming than Cartoon Network and Disney Channel. 90s Nick was alright, and Nick Jr. is fine, but my 5 year old daughter is into Yu-Gi-Oh!, Sailor Moon, Pokmon, and Ghibli films. Not this trash. LOL

---

Kegran posted...

No, children's media not representing gays does not explicitly mean telling anyone they are wrong or evil. Why would you believe this?

Depicting a certain slice of the population consistently without alternatives (in this case sexuality, and straight people have TONS of representation in the media), often leads to an "othering" of those alternatives, leaving those people to feel abnormal about who they are.

A lot of "gamers" are so heavily indoctornated by this. They cry and complain about some SJW agenda because the main character is either

White or "Political"
Man or "Political"
Straight or "Political"

If you have a problem with children seeing representation of other sexualities, but have no issue with them seeing heterosexual affection, maybe you should think about why you feel that way.

Kegran posted...

No you misunderstand what I believe a contribution is. A contribution doesn't have to be substantial or something invented or achieved. And normally I wouldn't present something I can't explain properly, but, as you can see, it's usually dismissed as "homophobic" outright so I've never been able to use the words I need.
Let me try again. A society is a collection of people with a similar culture. A contribution is passing your culture down to the next generation. Homosexuals statistically do not have a next generation despite outliers, and have no need or use to contribute to the continuation of a culture.

Protip: If your position is based on something vague, undefinable, and impossible to measure, and somebody asks you if you consider your position to be defensible, the answer is "no." What you have is a hunch: a vague sense that there might be a problem here, though you're not sure exactly why and you're doing your best to come up with an explanation that fits that hunch. That's not a defensible position. That's you trying to reconcile the cognitive dissonance between the intellectual realization that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, and a homophobic gut reaction that says it must be wrong to show gays to children.

Furthermore, generational culture transfer happens on a far, far greater scale than just between parents and their children. It happens in schools, it happens between adults and their friends'/families' children, it happens through the media... The notion that somebody not having kids means they can't pass on their culture is very obviously nonsense. Even if you could come up with a way to make that measurable so you could test your hypothesis, there is no reason to believe that you'd find a significant difference.

Kegran posted...

You know, we're talking about children's media, right? Do gays really need to be presented in children's media and why?

Because what we experience as "normal" during our formative years has a huge impact on what we consider to be acceptable as adults. Media is far from being the only influence there, obviously, but it is a major one. The presence of LGBTQ characters in children's media goes a long way toward normalizing it and guarding against homophobic biases that they might otherwise grow into.

Kegran posted...

No, children's media not representing gays does not explicitly mean telling anyone they are wrong or evil. Why would you believe this?

Because when you take away all the sources that say it's okay to be gay, all you're left with are the ones that say it's not okay. Not saying it's okay doesn't explicitly tell people it's not okay, but it does dramatically increase the chances that they end up being convinced of that by the remaining voices that are explicitly saying telling them that.

---

silvergokuZ posted...

I have a "offensive" view that I think sexuality and gender identity is complicated...

It's literally the simplest thing ever unless you're trying to microclassify yourself and tie your entire persona to your sexuality via a gender. There are two sexes, and then there's gay, straight, and bi. Anything else is adding excessive information specifically so you confuse yourself. Your "gender" in the modern sense doesn't matter at all and is useless. Your gender is like someone asking you what you do, and you say "I sell insurance." Having a pansexual panda gender means nothing and you'll still have sex with the same people depending on how you're feeling. I'm not sure why people would bother to struggle with it.
silvergokuZ posted...

indirectly someones preference can be affected by factors in life, by preference I don't mean someone can't be born gay or straight but a butterfly effect can have effects on their personalities

I like this and this is part of my problem with promoting homosexuality in children's media. If homosexuality is a trend, how many were homosexual just to be trendy (I think this is actually why more women identify as LGBT bi since "guys think it's hot"). Though in the end it's not a real problem since it would correct itself over time so meh.

If viewing homosexual content is turning kids gay, then why do gay people even exist with all the heterosexual content out there?

Also, I don't know what to tell you if you think women being attracted to women has anything to do with men.

Kegran posted...

It's literally the simplest thing ever unless you're trying to microclassify yourself and tie your entire persona to your sexuality via a gender. There are two sexes, and then there's gay, straight, and bi. Anything else is adding excessive information specifically so you confuse yourself. Your "gender" in the modern sense doesn't matter at all and is useless. Your gender is like someone asking you what you do, and you say "I sell insurance." Having a pansexual panda gender means nothing and you'll still have sex with the same people depending on how you're feeling. I'm not sure why people would bother to struggle with it.

I like this and this is part of my problem with promoting homosexuality in children's media. If homosexuality is a trend, how many were homosexual just to be trendy (I think this is actually why more women identify as LGBT bi since "guys think it's hot"). Though in the end it's not a real problem since it would correct itself over time so meh.

For me its complicated in the sense that one moment I can be super attracted to a guy then the next have zero attraction to him. and when I say zero I mean don't even register if good or bad looking etc.

Its like a physical thing one moment, and I can have a sort of emotional reaction then nothing when it comes to men.

With women I pretty much never not find them attractive, its more I just don't find an individual as my type but can still be attracted to them in future.

---

IronBornCorps posted...

If viewing homosexual content is turning kids gay, then why do gay people even exist with all the heterosexual content out there?

Also, I don't know what to tell you if you think women being attracted to women has anything to do with men.

Another complicated thing, what is "heterosexual content" is it just content where men and women date, is it when sexuality isn't touched upon at all?

If its say a tv show which has say a dozen main characters and one of them is gay, is that a heterosexual show with a gay character?

---

Kegran posted...

Excellent question. Kind of, yes. Childless 30 something women especially seem to be the least aware of how to continue an enduring culture that favors the next generation. And no I'm not just knocking women here, but you generally see them favor things like immigration, homosexuality, "social justice" and other stuff that wears down the fabric of a stable cohesive culture.
Men who are childless tend to just fizzle out and become weirdos or jailed predators.

holy shit this dude MAINLINED the fucking kool aid just the powder

---

silvergokuZ posted...

Another complicated thing, what is "heterosexual content" is it just content where men and women date, is it when sexuality isn't touched upon at all?

If its say a tv show which has say a dozen main characters and one of them is gay, is that a heterosexual show with a gay character?

yes, heterosexual content includes romance, flirting, and intimate themes both sexual and non sexual.

I think the second question really depends on the show itself. There are certainly straight shows with gay characters in them. There seems to be this idea in show producing that queer people love being the only queer person in a group of straight friends.