The Ties that Bind

[TigerintheShadows]

Well, I'm sure you can give us a truly captivating analysis of each show's emotional resonance in your life.

[Marvin D.]

Disney Channel is what I watch when there's no other option. Most of the shows make me want to hit my head on something hard.

***

PF, I was homeschooled as well. My entire life. My parents are missionaries, we've been to close to 200 churches over the years, been to countless youth groups, homeschool meetings, Sunday school groups, etc. I work with kids at VBS here in Ghana, in the Caribbean, and in the States. I think I have at least a little knowledge on the issue. You and Christian seem to seriously underestimating your prototypical conservative Christian evangelical, assuming that they're all uber-sheltered, mega-conservative fundamentals, which, frankly, is anything but the truth. Have you been to the Whit's End site anytime over the last few years? If AIO were really as conservative as you and Christian are making it out to be, then the show would never have featured that commercial back in 2006(?) for that missions trip featuring the all-female Christian *rock* band Barlow Girl. Because, you know, the MAJORITY OF THE LISTENERS are anti-rock. And of course, they'd never have had a woman have a "real job" outside of the home. .except, oh wait. There's Connie. Since 1987. Working at Whit's End. And Mandy, who wants to be a writer. Same with Liz. Oh, and there's Katrina, who's strong and independent. Oh, and Emily, too. Odd.

See, you're making it out to be something that it isn't. You're creating and trying to define the listeners in a way that the majority of them aren't, and then embellish and dramatize a fairly straightforward issue that doesn't need to be treated like such a taboo topic.

Why, in the name of all that's holy, is talking about homosexuality so off-topics? We don't need to get PG-13 or sit down for a talk on the birds and bees: from the very start of the show, we've had kids with crushes, so far back as in Family Portraits when that kid had a crush on Officer David Harley. Talk about the *gasp* CONTROVERSY! Let me spell it out for you, the topic of homosexuality: there are boys who like boys. There are girls who like girls. *boom* That's it. No more, no less. You don't even bring up the topic of sex. In Album 53, we were treated to several painful scenes where Emily was so obviously crushing on Buck, but that's apparently not inappropriate or off-limits. But no, hyper-religious parents have too often subverted the topic of homosexuality and transformed it into something that will "forever tarnish a child's innocence." Uh, what? So can lying, and stealing, and cursing. Spoiler: that's all common. And it's becoming even more.

Then again, maybe that's okay. Maybe in another decade or so, some people will realize the lasting effects by the time their kids are 12 and have a few gay friends at school and picked up random information through the grapevine. I mean, that's how it's always been: parents underestimating children's resourcefulness and uncanny savvy. It's probably for the better, even. Perhaps then they'll learn.

[Pound Foolish]

Now, it has become expected of entertainment aimed at children that it allow for the positive representation of LGBT characters—especially if the creators want to get some Progressivism Brownie Points™ out of it. Outside of entertainment, kids are being imbibed with LGBT propaganda—kids come out as young as elementary school-age. What you or I could have known about prior to age thirteen and what the current members of the target audience of this show get faced with prior to thirteen are already vastly different, and will continue to become more so with even short passage of time. =/

You exaggerate the amount of entertainment for children that is pro-gay. Marvin took Good Luck Charlie as an example. My family and I are big Charlie fans. Big as in big. As in only the best junk-food, everyone must be present for every episode, the world is on hold for one half hour big. Even so, when the gay couple came along, my parents came up with an ingenious solution. We skipped those episodes.

Another interesting note: the gay couple made news. You know about them because it is a well known fact. In other words, it got people's attention and surprised them. It's not the norm. It's Disney's first openly gay coupe ever. In a few episodes of the last one or two seasons of one show, one their many shows. Yet, it's the only show submitted so far to show gays are common in children's media!? Again, people all know about the gay couple precisely because it's something unusual enough to be worth reporting and talking about. Otherwise, the news wouldn't report it and people wouldn't talk about it. Besides, you speak as if we have no control over what comes into our homes. We decide which TV shows we watch, for Pete's sake. It doesn't magically force us to watch it. Besides, many Christian families don't even get TV. *raises hand* My family included.

Tiger, you sited Gobber's rather vague remark, which the movie simply moves on and never elaborates on. Frankly, if Plugged In hadn't spelled it out for me, it mightn't gone right over my head. PI even noted it would be over many parents' heads. Again, an instance of just how carefully children's media is handling this so far.

As I say, I don't think I'm paranoid to speculate that there will soon come a point where parents really won't have much of a choice about when to have that conversation, unless they want to insulate their children entirely.

Do you really mean to submit your speculation about what may likely happen in the future as a reason to change what we teach kids in the present?

You and Christian seem to seriously underestimating your prototypical conservative Christian evangelical, assuming that they're all uber-sheltered, mega-conservative fundamentals, which, frankly, is anything but the truth. Have you been to the Whit's End site anytime over the last few years? If AIO were really as conservative as you and Christian are making it out to be, then the show would never have featured that commercial back in 2006(?) for that missions trip featuring the all-female Christian *rock* band Barlow Girl. Because, you know, the MAJORITY OF THE LISTENERS are anti-rock. And of course, they'd never have had a woman have a "real job" outside of the home. .except, oh wait. There's Connie. Since 1987. Working at Whit's End. And Mandy, who wants to be a writer. Same with Liz. Oh, and there's Katrina, who's strong and independent. Oh, and Emily, too. Odd.

What are you saying?

Are you saying if a homeschool group or what have you didn't address gay marriage, it would be made of ultra-conservative Christians? Of the sort that object to even Christian pop music and oh-so-Biblically insist they know how long skirts should be to the inch? *shudder* That's stereotyping.

Or are you saying Christian and I are ultra-conservative Christians, and so presume that people in general don't talk about gay marriage? Experience says Christian isn't much like that. As for me, the idea is nauseous. *turns on Selena Gomez* With respect to those Christians, that's not me.

Are you saying AIO knows its audience well enough to know what they want to hear, and they want more explicit explanations about gay marriage? You're right. They do know their audience, as you say. And Paul McCusker himself does not think the majority of that audience wants what you say it wants.

[Dave]

I think you all have interesting points about whether The Ties That Bind was too vague or not and what children can handle. Maybe what it shows is that there are many kinds of families that listen to AIO--some which approach tough topics at earlier ages with more detail, and others which chose to ignore them almost completely until their children are teenages (it is possible for homeschooled, no-TV families to avoid anything LGBT-related). AIO took the less-risky approach to a risky subject--which, considering their somewhat diverse range of listeners, I find it hard to blame them for.

Here are a few thoughts on this issue that I wrote a while back (maybe I'll eventually write a full review, who knows):

Bringing up the controversial topics of gender and sexuality in a program aimed at children is surely cause for concern. When FOTF loudly complains about an episode of a Disney Channel program having a scene or two with a child with two moms, it seems strange to devote a whole AIO album to the characters talking about such arrangements (of course in as vague terms as possible). It's not so much the perspective on the issue/ situation; to me it's the fact that a lot of young people in sheltered Christian families (who probably don't watch The Disney Channel, much less the gays and lesbians on ABC and The CW) have no idea what homosexuality and same-sex marriage is. And, whether right or wrong, those parents want to keep such concepts away from their children until they're older. I'm pretty sure that my parents wouldn't have been happy with me listening to an album that has any references to homosexuality as a child (even if they are quite veiled). I also would've been heart-broken if my parents hadn't let me listen to all these episodes (in daily broadcast terms, that's almost three weeks of missing AIO). Yet another way that The Ties That Bind risks alienating listeners.

[TigerintheShadows]

My only problem with that conclusion, though, is something that I was thinking about the other day after relistening to Part 12 (a minor point of frustration is that the titles are all the same, which makes it a lot harder to remember which episodes had which thing happen in them, although I'm not sure if individual titles would have helped that much more). In that episode, they address the topic of transgender people without using the words "transgender", "cisgender", "transsexual", "cissexual", or anything else—yet they specifically discuss the idea of changing one's gender. What I'm wondering is why the idea of changing one's gender is considered to be perfectly okay for a child to handle, but the idea of men marrying men or women marrying women is so taboo when this show has openly discussed God's design for marriage in the contexts of divorce and unequal yoking. (I'm not even trying to be critical here; I'm genuinely curious—what about transsexuality is considered okay to talk about that the topic of homosexuality does not have?)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: We who ask for more explicit language are not asking for AIO Sex Ed, and we're not asking that they go into every nitty-gritty little tiny detail, use all the buzzwords, and describe every facet of the gay marriage debate. We're asking that they actually address the topic of homosexuality, that they not muddle it with nebulous terms like "tolerance and inclusivity". I should be clear about my stance on not wanting to be explicit about the topic—I get it, I completely get it. What PF is saying about children's innocence does have merit—losing your innocence sucks—but I still really disagree with it, mostly because I don't think that keeping a child innocent and sheltered is more important than letting them know what the world is going to throw at them, at least if you do it in a way that is still tasteful.

Do you really mean to submit your speculation about what may likely happen in the future as a reason to change what we teach children in the present?

I mean to submit an educated prediction based on the objective direction in which society is traveling. All trends indicate to me that if Christians wish to engage with the culture at all, they will end up facing this issue earlier and earlier, and in increasingly blatant ways that do not always involve the media that children consume (it really won't have to; the LGBT movement is making strides far beyond simply what is being shown on TV or discussed in books). Engaging with culture should involve changing how we teach children (not "what", how); God's word does not change, but being a light where you are involves knowing how to meet people where they are, and having a teaching tool like AIO to help demonstrate how that works is definitely helpful in that regard.

[jennifertwt]

This doesn't have much to do with our discussion, but I was relistening to part 12 today when Whit is talking to Matthew about Ms. Adelaide's essays and teaching style, and he talks about how if you can change the way people think about gender, you can change the way people think about marriage, family, and even their humanity. I doubt Paul knew he was doing it, but I think AIO just accidentally alluded to otherkin (the idea that you were born the wrong species—no, seriously). I'm...weirdly amused, though I'm also aware that the more likely interpretation is that Whit is speaking instead of simply redefining what it is to be a human being.

I finally got around to being able to read through most of the recent posts. I think this is where the slippery slope begins. If you change the way you feel about gender, you change the way you feel about marriage and family, and if you accept that homosexual behavior (note not "being homosexual" or any of the other acronomyms) is sinful, then gay marriage can then be used as a way to "justify sin". I do not expect everyone to agree and that is okay. I am still struggling with defining my feelings about these topics and I am a generation older than most of you. I also have problems with "transgender" and those that say they were born in the wrong body. If that is true, then one must admit God makes mistakes and I am not quite ready to go there. My cousins argues that none is here by mistake and with that I agree........it is quite a tangled web. And what does one do with the old testament where such behavior is condemned? I can remember my Presbyterian pastor saying that Jesus was silent on the issue.

To bring this back to the episodes, I too would have liked to have heard more arguments from the bible for both sides if applicable. I am also interested in we have any LGBT people here in their opinions. I have been witnessing to a bisexual friend through AIO, she loves radio drama and I gave her the Novacom saga for Christmas. Knowing she is bisexual, I have not even dared tell her this album exists. '

And can someone please tell me what was up with the Zombies? I found that plot line totally irrelevant unless it is just a nod to the Zombie craziness that is so popular right now.

[TigerintheShadows]

And what does one do with the old testament where such behavior is condemned?

(The New Testament also contains references to homosexuality, for the record, and in all cases it is condemned as well.)

The main thing is that what the Bible says about homosexuality does not preclude Christians showing kindness and love to the LGBT community. You don't have to welcome in someone's lifestyle in order to welcome the person into your life. We ourselves do some pretty detestable things, so we really don't get to take a moral high ground above any sin. The idea that God alone has the right to judge is often used to justify doing whatever a person wants, but to the Christian it means that we don't run around condemning people, even though we do acknowledge that we consider what they are doing to be sinful behavior.

I can remember my Presbyterian pastor saying that Jesus was silent on the issue.

Not really. What Jesus said was "A man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. What God has joined together, let not man separate". He basically defines what marriage is here, and He makes no allowances for an alternative in those verses; I sincerely, sincerely doubt that he wouldn't have used more vague language if homosexuality was actually okay all along. Instead he only uses "man and wife", and tells us not to separate what He joined together. (This is, of course, the backbone behind the oh-so-clever "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!!1!!1" argument, but I think that that paticular argument tends to trivialize what is actually not unreasonable thinking.)

And even if you do not accept the above argument, it is worth pointing out that it really doesn't matter if the physical manifestation of Jesus that walked the earth used his actual larynx, lips, tongue, and teeth to say anything about it—not if you believe that the Epistles were divinely inspired. I wasn't aware that "All scripture is breathed out by God" suddenly does not apply if it wasn't spoken by the physical mouth of Jesus while He was on earth.

Re: the zombies, I think it was to discuss the portrayal of homosexuality in media, what with the discussion between Emily, Matthew, Jay, and the TV exec and the ensuing conversation between Matthew and his parents on the subject. Not really sure why Jay being an actor was played up, though, since, again, it has nothing to do with family and just gave Jay something superfluous and funny to do.

[Pound Foolish]

In that episode, they address the topic of transgender people without using the words "transgender", "cisgender", "transsexual", "cissexual", or anything else—yet they specifically discuss the idea of changing one's gender. What I'm wondering is why the idea of changing one's gender is considered to be perfectly okay for a child to handle, but the idea of men marrying men or women marrying women is so taboo when this show has openly discussed God's design for marriage in the contexts of divorce and unequal yoking. (I'm not even trying to be critical here; I'm genuinely curious—what about transsexuality is considered okay to talk about that the topic of homosexuality does not have?)

Because they didn't use the term "transgender." You insist the episodes were too vague. They should say transgender and gay etc. But no, they shouldn't, and didn't.
Also, they didn't exactly talk about being transgender. Emily speculated that some poeple live the lives of the oppostite gender. So far, they're just talking about being gay. Then Camilla says something to affect of, "Hey look, a spork. I guess if they can change spoons into forks, why not boys into girls?" They never actually address that some people actually go through an operation to give them the physical characteristics of the opposite gender. That's quite another thing. It's another example of the excellent storytelling here. If you're a kid who doesn't know (about transgender people) and Camilla's line catches your attention, you can ask your parents. If the kid is ready the parents can explain in their way. If you are are older, you know what the episode is hinting at, smile at how cute Camilla is, and hopefully the conversation gets you thinking.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: We who ask for more explicit language are not asking for AIO Sex Ed, and we're not asking that they go into every nitty-gritty little tiny detail, use all the buzzwords, and describe every facet of the gay marriage debate. We're asking that they actually address the topic of homosexuality, that they not muddle it with nebulous terms like "tolerance and inclusivity". I should be clear about my stance on not wanting to be explicit about the topic—I get it, I completely get it.

Granted, you're not asking for a PG-13 rated conversation. However, you are still saying the episode should have been more specific.

What PF is saying about children's innocence does have merit—losing your innocence sucks—but I still really disagree with it, mostly because I don't think that keeping a child innocent and sheltered is more important than letting them know what the world is going to throw at them, at least if you do it in a way that is still tasteful.

How does it remedy the world throwing something at a child by throwing it yourself?

I mean to submit an educated prediction based on the objective direction in which society is traveling.

So... you're speculating. Unless you've seen the future.

You still have not explained why we should change how we teach kids here and now. There is no use buying mouse traps if you as of yet have no mice.

All trends indicate to me that if Christians wish to engage with the culture at all, they will end up facing this issue earlier and earlier, and in increasingly blatant ways that do not always involve the media that children consume (it really won't have to; the LGBT movement is making strides far beyond simply what is being shown on TV or discussed in books). Engaging with culture should involve changing how we teach children (not "what", how); God's word does not change, but being a light where you are involves knowing how to meet people where they are, and having a teaching tool like AIO to help demonstrate how that works is definitely helpful in that regard.

Do you or do you not agree that issues like being gay and transgender are tough? Should we sit every six and seven year old down and tell them about rape, incest, and-- ahem, yes, well, that's enough of that. This conversation is getting awfully adult. I shan't site more examples. The point is, there most definitely are nasty things that go on in the world that we shouldn't tell kids about. So why isn't gay marriage one of them? Isn't it bad enough? Isn't the sexual twisting of one of the fundamental assumptions that that make us who we are a serious thing to lay on a child's shoulders? Perhaps your willingness to tell kids about it has less to do with its fittingness for children's ears and more to do with you being accustomed to it.

But you submit we should tell children about gay issues because kids will run into those issues anyway. Then when it's pointed out and demonstrated that parents do in fact make it so that kids don't learn about gay issues until the parents know the time is right for their child, you and Marvin object that means the kid is "sheltered." But keeping gay marriage out of a kid's head negates your claim that kids will come "across it anyway"! If they won't come across it anyway, what is it that necessitates telling them?

The only benefit you've given so far is that parents and AIO provide a "tasteful" source to learn about gay marriage. But as demonstrated, they will not learn about gay marriage from an tasteless source and they will still learn eventually from a tasteful source.

Meanwhile, the drawbacks of this knowledge include loss of innocence and possible questioning of one's own gender identity. After all, that guys marry girls is one of the fundamental understandings a child's world. Transforming from one gender into another isn't even a temptation, not an imaginable option. Taking that away is big for them. Don't imagine it's easy. It changes things.

Are the drawbacks worthy of consideration?

Yes.

[jennifertwt]

Tiger, I am not good at cutting and pasting, so suffice is to say that I wholeheartedly agree with your first paragraph and is the summary of what my cousin and I have been discussing about family members and in particular what to say to her 7 year old son on these issues. And I totally missed what the zombies had to do with anything in that last paragraph. I might listen again one day if I am really really bored..........maybe. Aside from the topic, I found this album so convoluted as to make it difficult to follow. Once the Perilous Pen was revealed, to me it was over until the surprise ending. I suppose there is a Place for it in our listening lives, we usually avoid all outside media during Stockholm Pride, but I am not in a hurry to purchase it. I am still unsure I will purchase any future albums at all until the OAC's are available for purchase.

[Marvin D.]

In Part 12, Mr. Whittaker fairly explicitly addresses the transgender issue when he says "If gender is something we can choose for ourselves [...]," which seems to be a rather accurate reflection of many people's attitudes towards the LGBT movement. They tend to ignore that some men are gay, that some women are lesbian, and that some men and women are bisexual and rather flippantly lump them all together under the whole "gender-benders." Of course, the exception tends to take place when it comes to the neckbeard-type who address all males who fail to conform to their aggressive standards of macho-heterosexuality by explicit pejoratives that would best go unmentioned. Still, Tiger's and my point still stands: there's virtually no difference between the T and the L, G, and B of the LGBT movement; trying to draw a line proves to be ridiculously arbitrary. If you can mention people who want to or actually change genders, there's absolutely no conceivable reason why one can't mention gay people. They very frankly introduce the idea of--let the concept sink in--CHANGING. GENDER. How on earth is that less confusing or more appropriate than the other? If anything, it's far more difficult to understand--there's a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to trannsexuals and transvestites and drag queens. It's ridiculous. Unequal yoking brought up? Check. Divorce? Check. Transsexualism? Check. All well-handled. You're on tenuous ground, offering little, if any solid support for your shaky claims about AIO's glaring stereotypes, caricatures, misportrayals, and blatant omission and poor handling of homosexuality.

Now, I'm going to be straightforward and blunt, because I think I speak for Tiger as well when I say that we are both tired of repeating ourselves, and I'm starting to seriously wonder if you are deliberately being obtuse or this is some sort of trolling in respect to certain points. I'm going to address everything one final time.

Do you really mean to submit your speculation about what may likely happen in the future as a reason to change what we teach kids in the present?

This part--and another quote I will reference shortly--is what troubles me the most. I'm astounded and deeply disturbed that you are essentially advocating the sin of omission, fabricating a grand conspiracy all in the name of ostensibly protecting a child's innocence. It's deception, it's denial, it's hatred and and it's fear and a plethora of negative emotions and misconceptions (which, again, I will address in due time). It's difficult for me to believe that you're ignoring all the mountains of evidence that make it very clear that there should be no doubt about the direction in which society is moving. Sexuality, violence, drugs, "alternate" sexuality, and language are totally accessible to anyone in the present day; the censorship of a mere half-century ago is almost incomprehensible from where we are now. You want proof? Let's take It's a Wonderful Life. We've all heard of it: a fun, very family-friendly holiday film. Nothing controversial, right?

Except, let's take a look at the problems the executives had with the "racy script." Phrases like "I wish to God" or "I was out all night" (since we all know that even vaguely insinuating a woman took part in a small town's night scene is SCANDALOUS!) were simply unnaceptable. Using the word "impotent" twice had to be scratched, and words such as "jerk" and "lousy" also had to go. (Need a source? Here you go: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/2 ... 75120.html) Another fun fact: Hitchcock's 1960 movie Psycho was the first movie to have a scene that included the flushing of a toilet. That's right, up until then, even showing a toilet in mainstream film was unnaceptable. And that was just barely five decades ago.

2000 brought Queer as Folk, one of the most explicit politically-tinged, gay-themed shows of all time. To this day, much of its content still remains unrivaled. There was constant, explicit strong language, frank portrayals of characters using various drugs, scenes where characters were involved in sexually explicit situations, and very, very vivid sexual content. David Fincher's 1995 movie Se7en is full of disturbing violent content based on the seven deadly sins; his recent hit movie Gone Girl has very gory content intermingled with sexual content. Martin Scorcerce's 2013 film Wolf of Wall Street was over-the-top and wildly lauded by critics with hardly any backlash. There were over 500 uses of the f-word, nonstop nudity and sexual content and hardcore partying. Totally accepted.

Even G-rated Disney shows like Jessie are riddled with sexual innuendo and less-than-positive portrayals of adult figures. Most people's complaints have virtually nothing to do with that. Your saying that society "may" move forward towards more explicit content reeks of denial and/or ignorance. I want to believe you know better.

Are you saying if a homeschool group or what have you didn't address gay marriage, it would be made of ultra-conservative Christians? Of the sort that object to even Christian pop music and oh-so-Biblically insist they know how long skirts should be to the inch? *shudder* That's stereotyping.

Or are you saying Christian and I are ultra-conservative Christians, and so presume that people in general don't talk about gay marriage? Experience says Christian isn't much like that. As for me, the idea is nauseous. *turns on Selena Gomez* With respect to those Christians, that's not me.

Are you saying AIO knows its audience well enough to know what they want to hear, and they want more explicit explanations about gay marriage? You're right. They do know their audience, as you say. And Paul McCusker himself does not think the majority of that audience wants what you say it wants.

The only stereotyping I saw was your depiction of "the majority of AIO listeners" as the sort who are sheltered, homeschooled conservatives (again, the website speaks differently) that don't know anything about homosexuality or never bring it up, and that AIO is a show that panders and caters shamelessly to said group. In turn, I said that if that were so, then there would have been no independent women on the show who forge their own educational and career paths in line of thinking with your typical highly-sheltered kid. I disagree.

Because they didn't use the term "transgender." You insist the episodes were too vague. They should say transgender and gay etc. But no, they shouldn't, and didn't.
Also, they didn't exactly talk about being transgender. Emily speculated that some poeple live the lives of the oppostite gender. So far, they're just talking about being gay. Then Camilla says something to affect of, "Hey look, a spork. I guess if they can change spoons into forks, why not boys into girls?" They never actually address that some people actually go through an operation to give them the physical characteristics of the opposite gender. That's quite another thing. It's another example of the excellent storytelling here. If you're a kid who doesn't know (about transgender people) and Camilla's line catches your attention, you can ask your parents. If the kid is ready the parents can explain in their way. If you are are older, you know what the episode is hinting at, smile at how cute Camilla is, and hopefully the conversation gets you thinking.

. .no. As stated earlier, Mr. Whittaker explicitly references changing gender. And frankly, leaving it so open-ended is bound to spark a series of questions for kids because "BUT MOMMY I'M A BOY, HOW CAN I CHANGE INTO A GIRL IS MAGIC REAL?!" is going to come out. Your point is moot.

Granted, you're not asking for a PG-13 rated conversation. However, you are still saying the episode should have been more specific.

How does it remedy the world throwing something at a child by throwing it yourself?
So... you're speculating. Unless you've seen the future.

You still have not explained why we should change how we teach kids here and now. There is no use buying mouse traps if you as of yet have no mice.

I'm headdesking so hard here. So. Very. Hard. Your adamant refusal to even try to admit that the secular environment has an influence on one's children, and your dogged insistence on spinning a deceptive conspiracy of omission and sheltering terrifies me, because there's no reason on God's green earth not to even broach the topic in very neutral, child-friendly terms. Divorce is huge, touchy issue. But it's real. And AIO has dealt with it, and I didn't hear many complaints. I'm sounding like a broken record at this point, and I'm really peeved here, because I fail to see why you keep on rationalizing like this. Tiger and I have clearly explained that, if you are of the belief that living an active lifestyle like the LGBT community does, it is one's responibility to equip one's children with at least an incipient knowledge of such an important social issue. You're painting the issue with emotionally-charged, sensational language as if telling a child that some men marry men is the end of an era, their entire world perspective will forever be changed and they will wander off the straight-and-narrow path, doomed to live a life of Dionysian debauchery. I'm going to be blunt here: if you are so against bringing up such an issue because you fear that a 10-year old won't be able to understand it, then maybe you shouldn't be morally opposed to the movement if you can't find a proper defense for it and instead resort to skulking and skirting around the issue.

Do you or do you not agree that issues like being gay and transgender are tough? Should we sit every six and seven year old down and tell them about rape, incest, and-- ahem, yes, well, that's enough of that. This conversation is getting awfully adult. I shan't site more examples. The point is, there most definitely are nasty things that go on in the world that we shouldn't tell kids about. So why isn't gay marriage one of them? Isn't it bad enough? Isn't the sexual twisting of one of the fundamental assumptions that that make us who we are a serious thing to lay on a child's shoulders? Perhaps your willingness to tell kids about it has less to do with its fittingness for children's ears and more to do with you being accustomed to it.

. .and this is just ignorant. I don't know even. But I'm going to humor you.
Yes, being gay is difficult. It is difficult because of twisted portrayals of the movement, the homophobia, and the hatred. It is difficult because people try to pretend they don't exist because they are "innocence-wreckers."
What is not difficult is bringing up the issue, and right now I'm at an utter loss of words because what you're claiming is utterly ridiculous and so totally unrelated to the issue at hand I'm hoping you're just trolling. How on earth does homosexuality being introduced to a child lead to discussing NSFW topics like rape and incest? This, right here, is the definition of homophobia. PF, you're spreading egregiously false and damaging misconceptions about the LGBT movement, as if one's being gay is essentially equated to deviant, twisted expressions of sexuality. That is fear, that is hatred, that is internalized disgust manifested in your false preconceptions and paper-thin reasons for your systematic marginalization of an already greatly-misunderstood social movement. By your own logic, we shouldn't even bring up heterosexuality, because . . . if anything, I believe that rape is usually thought of as a heterosexual perversion of consensual relations (in fact, an alarming majority of the population denies that male-on-male rape is even possible, so it's almost strictly perceived as heterosexual.) Genital mutilation? Ah, yes. ISIS. Virulently anti-gay. Very heterosexual. And. .it's even a horrific ritual. Yeah, let's not talk about that, either. Incest? Again, for a long time a predominantly heterosexual affair. If anything, it is that we shouldn't talk about. Those are the "innocence-wreckers." Not a loving "family unit" of two fathers with an adopted family. Your implications are insulting.

And no, it is not what I am "used to hearing"--it is something I very passionately believe should be brought up *regardless of one's stance on the issue.* You seem to be viewing the world through rose-tinted, self-deluding glasses and ignoring the reality of how the world's perception of the LGBT movement is changing. More on that in a moment.

But you submit we should tell children about gay issues because kids will run into those issues anyway. Then when it's pointed out and demonstrated that parents do in fact make it so that kids don't learn about gay issues until the parents know the time is right for their child, you and Marvin object that means the kid is "sheltered." But keeping gay marriage out of a kid's head negates your claim that kids will come "across it anyway"! If they won't come across it anyway, what is it that necessitates telling them?

The only benefit you've given so far is that parents and AIO provide a "tasteful" source to learn about gay marriage. But as demonstrated, they will not learn about gay marriage from an tasteless source and they will still learn eventually from a tasteful source.

Meanwhile, the drawbacks of this knowledge include loss of innocence and possible questioning of one's own gender identity. After all, that guys marry girls is one of the fundamental understandings a child's world. Transforming from one gender into another isn't even a temptation, not an imaginable option. Taking that away is big for them. Don't imagine it's easy. It changes things.

. .and this is just ridiculous. Again, you're propogating ignorant assumptions and assuming that everyone is born straight and it's impossible to feel such attractions. I wish I could say I haven't heard that before: what a huge insult to the entire community of LGBT teenagers who've committed suicide after begging to be straight for years, after hiding their feelings since pre-adolescent years. (Here, read this Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_am ... or_Project). Those kids suffered from unwanted feelings they knew that, if revealed, would lead to their alienation and insufferable ridicule. Some of those kids were 13. Thirteen. To end one's life at such an age is a sobering, horrible prospect. You have no right to insinuate that they would choose to "go gay" only after having heard about it from, say, their parents. Temptation? Unimaginable? What sort of drivel is this? The only fundamental assumption that needs changing is the one where you seem to think that the default is cis-gender heterosexuality and anything else is a willful act of defiance once the topic was introduced. That is the most ridiculous proposition I've heard in my entire life and one that sparks an unmitigated fire in me each time I hear it.

There is no loss of innocence. There is no questioning one's gender identity as a possibility only once it is raised. (If that's so, then why is Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's daughter requesting that she be called John and dresses in conventionally masculine clothing at such a young age? >_>) There is no pretending that the tide isn't changing when it comes to the movement. (Look no further than a Dublin priest announcing that he's gay. In Mass. What happens? Standing ovation. http://www.irishcentral.com/news/politi ... ation.html) The only thing that is lost is a chance to understand the LGBT movement. To cast aside your preconceptions and homophobia. To realize that aggressive displays of heterosexuality take one nowhere. To bridge the ever-widening gap between you and the Other. That is what's lost.

And the way you're going, I'm wondering if it can ever be regained.

[TigerintheShadows]

And I totally missed what the zombies had to do with anything in that last paragraph. I might listen again one day if I am really really bored..........maybe.

It was a lead-in to the entertainment storyline, although they did play up the whole zombie thing quite a bit, so your frustration is understandable.

There is no use buying mouse traps if you as of yet have no mice.

And yet it is unwise to not bother to lay out traps if you know the mice are coming.

[Pound Foolish]

In Part 12, Mr. Whittaker fairly explicitly addresses the transgender issue when he says "If gender is something we can choose for ourselves [...],"

Good point. But that's not the only conclusion. It sounds like the same thing Emily and Matthew were saying. Namely, that some people decide they want to be the opposite gender and live like them. They'd already addressed that. One may gather that people do in fact change into the opposite gender. Again, that's the whole point. If they do, they can talk to their parents. But again, they never actually say the term transgender or go at all far into it.

Now, I'm going to be straightforward and blunt, because I think I speak for Tiger as well when I say that we are both tired of repeating ourselves, and I'm starting to seriously wonder if you are deliberately being obtuse or this is some sort of trolling in respect to certain points. I'm going to address everything one final time.

Ooh, my first accusation of trolling. Nope, ask anyone on the SS. I'm no troll. Ah, but that's just what a troll would say.

This part--and another quote I will reference shortly--is what troubles me the most. I'm astounded and deeply disturbed that you are essentially advocating the sin of omission, fabricating a grand conspiracy all in the name of ostensibly protecting a child's innocence. It's deception, it's denial, it's hatred and and it's fear and a plethora of negative emotions and misconceptions (which, again, I will address in due time).

How is it deceptive? A lie is withholding information when someone wants it. if a child asks a question, for goodness sakes, answer and do it truthfully. If they don't, then don't answer unless the parent feels it's necessary. A lie is also deliberately creating a false perception of reality. You're not creating one, your letting preconcptions of the world continue. And they are fairly accurate preconcptions. That boys marry girls isn't somehow false because one percentage of US does otherwise.
Without quoting what you said next as it's a bit lengthy, just know you're perfectly right. Of course entertainment is getting looser, and in too many instances downright evil. Entertainment will continue to get more explicit.That doesn't mean it will continue to go downhill in this specific area to the extent you assume. if gay acceptance in kiddy entertainment keeps going in the direction it is, kiddy entertainment will have flagrant gay themes eventually. Meanwhile, by and large it doesn't, despite your earlier claims which you seem to have abandoned. By the time it is unavoidable, this generation of young Christians may be 12 or thirteen or older.

The only stereotyping I saw was your depiction of "the majority of AIO listeners" as the sort who are sheltered, homeschooled conservatives (again, the website speaks differently) that don't know anything about homosexuality or never bring it up, and that AIO is a show that panders and caters shamelessly to said group.

Again, I am not a conservative of the description you provided, nor do I think of aio listeners as predominantly conservative.
So again, what do you mean? If you think I am conservatively Christian because I was raised unaware of gay marriage, or that I think aio listeners are or some such nonsense, you are indeed stereotyping.

. .no. As stated earlier, Mr. Whittaker explicitly references changing gender. And frankly, leaving it so open-ended is bound to spark a series of questions for kids because "BUT MOMMY I'M A BOY, HOW CAN I CHANGE INTO A GIRL IS MAGIC REAL?!" is going to come out. Your point is moot.

That's the whole point. They can ask their parents, who decide if the child is old enough. Rather than be hit over the head with clear definitions of the finer points of being gay or transgender by a radio show, however young they may be.

Again, for a long time a predominantly heterosexual affair. If anything, it is that we shouldn't talk about. Those are the "innocence-wreckers." Not a loving "family unit" of two fathers with an adopted family. Your implications are insulting.

Good point! Gays are often lovely people. I've run into a couple. And an acquaintance of mine who I don't know too well but I am terribly fond of is bisexual and she's a lovely person.

However, love the sinner hate the sin. The sin is what we must consider alone. It's not our place to judge anyway. And gay behavior is about as nasty a sin as any of the ones you listed. In fact, it goes deeper. Rape invovles misusing sexuality, genital mutilation violates it and does physical pain. But just because they are flagrantly traumatic for the person experiencing it doens't make them worse. The thing is, the victims are obviously victims and the situation is so obviously tragic, but with being gay, everyone may well be happy. But people's happiness is irrelevant to the weight of sin.

Again, a gay lifestyle goes deeper. It twists the very foundation of sexuality: what your sex is in the first place, rather than misusing or hurting it.

It is perhaps an even graver matter.

Those kids suffered from unwanted feelings they knew that, if revealed, would lead to their alienation and insufferable ridicule. Some of those kids were 13. Thirteen. To end one's life at such an age is a sobering, horrible prospect. You have no right to insinuate that they would choose to "go gay" only after having heard about it from, say, their parents. Temptation? Unimaginable? What sort of drivel is this? The only fundamental assumption that needs changing is the one where you seem to think that the default is cis-gender heterosexuality and anything else is a willful act of defiance once the topic was introduced. That is the most ridiculous proposition I've heard in my entire life and one that sparks an unmitigated fire in me each time I hear it.

Of course some children question their sexual identity. And of course some are "born" that way. Please don't think otherwise. And this is tragic. It is however, the exception rather than the rule. Unless it is deliberately let into the child's mind. Do you imagine Laura Ingalls lost much sleep over her sexual orientation as a little girl? Naturally, kids can still be gay without being told of gay orientations. But again, most kids are straight.

Though everybody does indeed have gay/lesbian attraction at some point. That's normal! But if you don't know what gay is, you may not even realize you're having them. If you do know about it, such feelings can be quite troubling.

And yet it is unwise to not bother to lay out traps if you know the mice are coming.

And if torrents of mice are coming and will not stop anytime soon, then it is best to simply move house. And avoid the mice altogether.

[Marvin D.]

The mice have come.

Same-sex marriage is legal nationwide.

There's no avoiding it now.

[jennifertwt]

Having struggled with how to relate to these issues for several years now, I have finally come to the conclusion that my job as a Christian is to relate to the people in my life with love and compassion as Christ would have and leave the larger issues to the politicians. Fortunately, I am no longer in church administration, but even when I was the PCUSA had already accepted gay clergy, etc, so I am sure they have no problem with the rulings. I do, however, feel for the political spiral. Here in Sweden, churches are not allowed to refuse to do same sex weddings, and clergy, unless they were ordained prior to a certain year (long past and they are dying out) are not allowed to refuse to perform the ceremony. This is one reason I felt that civil unions were the answer and that marriage should be held separate. It is also a slippery slope once you open the door to being "made that way". HEre in Sweden and in Canada according to a facebook friend, their are lawsuits by pedophiles claiming they attraction is natural and that they were made that way. I am NOT saying that gay people are automatically pedophiles, so please do not read that into it. I am just saying, that the door has been opened a bit broader. The alternative is to take the church out of the wedding business completely as in some European countries, and make marriage a completely civil arrangement.

[JesusFreak777]

Small side note: The zombie story line, Whit's health, and a few others issues are addressed in upcoming episodes.

As for the album as a whole: overall, I enjoyed it, and agreed with many of Christian A,'s points. The only thing I really disliked was Hadley. He drove me up the wall. I LOVED Wooton and Penny in this album, and I can't wait to see where they head. Penny used to grate on me, and she still does from time to time, but it is getting better. I think she and Wooton are good for each other. I also grew to like Buck as well.

Jules: I feel like her character changed a lot from her first appearance to this one. I didn't like her as much in this album, though by the end she was growing on me again.

I've actually run into quite a few people like Ms. Adelaide, but I also know a lot more who aren't like her. She reminds me of Monica Stone in her fighting for other people's causes.

The issue of tolerance and inclusivity. I actually think Focus did a great job with this. Yes, they were dealing with sexual identity issues, but I really think it does go a lot deeper than that, and they were wise to cover it under the umbrella of tolerance. Over the years, we have forgotten the meaning of tolerance and acceptance, and the differences between the two. I can tolerate the rights of the LGBT community without agreeing with them or accepting the behavior as godly. In the USA, everyone has certain rights, and just because I disagree with a lifestyle, doesn't mean I hate that person, nor does it mean I am intolerant of them. I believe they should have the rights granted to everyone else, but in return, they need to recognize that not everyone agrees with them, and not force themselves on those who don't (i.e. forcing pastors or businesses to do their wedding stuff if they disagree with it from a religious standpoint. Civil unions are a different matter, in my opinion).

As Christians we are to love everyone as Christ first loved us. Again, this doesn't mean we accept everything everyone else does as right, but it does mean we show compassion and if we disagree, do so respectfully. It should also be noted, that we should not expect non-Christians to behave like Christians, and that they are not held to the same standard of living as we are. I'm still struggling with the issue of those who are Christians in this manner, as it is still a sin, and throwing out part of Scripture because it is no longer "acceptable" is not right either. That said, we need to be aware that homosexuality is a sin just as divorce is a sin just as pre-marital sex is, just as lying, coveting, getting drunk, gluttony, and a whole host of other things. Sin is sin, and it is all detestable to God. Our focus is to be on being a living sacrifice to God (meaning giving everything up - our rights, or wants, our hopes, our happiness etc in exchange for his - Romans 12:1) and in doing so, a lot of these hot button issues will probably not matter as much in the long. Romans 12:2 reminds us that the world will find us strange for our ideas, and will shun us for them, but the idea is not to be shunned for our hatred. but for our love. Hope that helps shed a little light.

I think it was wise for FOTF to leave it up to the parents to decide how far to delve into the issue of homosexuality. While this is something that permeates our culture, particularly in the media, it does not necessarily reflect the demographic of Americans who actually self identify as part of the community (a recent Gallup poll found that while Americans thought 23/100 Americans were LGBT, the number who actually self-identified that way is less that 4/100 http://www.gallup.com/poll/183383/ameri ... sbian.aspx) . From that perspective, I think it is possible to shelter your kids from these issues if you so chose to, though it may be more difficult than before in our media/smartphone/internet saturated society.