Re: The Ties that Bind
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2015 12:51 pm
Well, I'm sure you can give us a truly captivating analysis of each show's emotional resonance in your life.
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.TigerintheShadows wrote: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. =/
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?TigerintheShadows wrote: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.
What are you saying?Marvin D. wrote: 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.
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.Pound Foolish wrote: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 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.TigerintheShadows wrote: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.
(The New Testament also contains references to homosexuality, for the record, and in all cases it is condemned as well.)jennifertwt wrote:And what does one do with the old testament where such behavior is condemned?
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.)jennifertwt wrote:I can remember my Presbyterian pastor saying that Jesus was silent on the issue.
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.TigerintheShadows wrote: 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?)
Granted, you're not asking for a PG-13 rated conversation. However, you are still saying the episode should have been more specific.TigerintheShadows wrote: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.
How does it remedy the world throwing something at a child by throwing it yourself?TigerintheShadows wrote: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.
So... you're speculating. Unless you've seen the future.TigerintheShadows wrote:I mean to submit an educated prediction based on the objective direction in which society is traveling.
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.TigerintheShadows wrote: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.
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?Pound Foolish wrote: 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?
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.Pound Foolish wrote: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.
. .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.Pound Foolish wrote: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'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.Pound Foolish wrote: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.
. .and this is just ignorant. I don't know even. But I'm going to humor you.Pound Foolish wrote: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 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.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.
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.jennifertwt wrote: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.
And yet it is unwise to not bother to lay out traps if you know the mice are coming.Pound Foolish wrote:There is no use buying mouse traps if you as of yet have no mice.
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.Marvin D. wrote:In Part 12, Mr. Whittaker fairly explicitly addresses the transgender issue when he says "If gender is something we can choose for ourselves [...],"
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.Marvin D. wrote: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.
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.Marvin D. wrote: 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).
Again, I am not a conservative of the description you provided, nor do I think of aio listeners as predominantly conservative.Marvin D. wrote: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.
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.TigerintheShadows wrote:. .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.
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.Marvin D. wrote: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.
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.Marvin D. wrote: 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.
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.TigerintheShadows wrote:And yet it is unwise to not bother to lay out traps if you know the mice are coming.