It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why am I not surprised?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   
www.cnn.com...




WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's new education secretary denounced PBS on Tuesday for spending public money on a cartoon with lesbian characters, saying many parents would not want children exposed to such lifestyles.

The not-yet-aired episode of "Postcards From Buster" shows the title character, an animated bunny named Buster, on a trip to Vermont -- a state known for recognizing same-sex civil unions. The episode features two lesbian couples, although the focus is on farm life and maple sugaring.

A PBS spokesman said late Tuesday that the nonprofit network has decided not to distribute the episode, called "Sugartime!," to its 349 stations. She said the Education Department's objections were not a factor in that decision.

"Ultimately, our decision was based on the fact that we recognize this is a sensitive issue, and we wanted to make sure that parents had an opportunity to introduce this subject to their children in their own time," said Lea Sloan, vice president of media relations at PBS.


In a country that lauds itself as the bastion of light in the free world, intolerance towards homosexuality still seeps through the doors. These are episodes funded by the government which obviously believes Homosexuality to be 'wrong' and 'immoral' as is evident in thier approval of this non-sensical ban on one episode reared to spread tolerance.



Deep

[edit on 27-1-2005 by ZeroDeep]




posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I'm suprised that they have time to care about something as boring and non-progressive as this. Shouldn't they be focusing on more pressing issues at this time? Like say, how to push their agenda without hiring columnists?



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Hmm..........No replies. Not a good sign of future development of intellectual thought on this news story.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   
With the recent votes to make same sex marriages illegal, I am not surprised at this. Yes it is unfortunate that we are making them second class citizens. I may not agrees with thier lifestyles but, as long as it does not harm, my family or myself, I will support their decision to live thier life as they wish, I do support the decision of corporations such as Walmart and Disney to at least allow benefits to the mates of it's employees who are lesbian / homosexual.
There was a time when the rights of these people were supported and at the time seemsed to be going the way of the women's sufferage, but the times and beliefs of our country are changing again against them. Hopefully, soon their rights will be upheld once again.
Here in my son's school, there are books with stories of children that have either 2 fathers or 2 mothers but, then again, they ban such books as "Where the Buffulo Roam, Tom Sawyer, Red Badge of Courage.
It makes you think.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
And history repeats itself again, just in a eccentricly fabulous fashion.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Division Bell
And history repeats itself again, just in a eccentricly fabulous fashion.


Someone please suprise me by replying about my witty comment?



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I really don't enjoy havign to explain to my children what a lesbian is. Let's keep people's sexual preferences out of children's televions, toleration is one thing, but proliferation is another issue entirely. Sexual connotations, regardless of the nature of them, have no place in programming marketed directly to children. Can they not just have a cartoon girl without making her a lesbian? Do I have to explain cunnilingus to my five year old just so homosexuals feels they can be accepted and equated in society? I don't care if the cartoon girl is a lesbian, I do care that my child is being subjected to programming that portrays very adult concepts that have no place in a children's market. Fred Rogers for example, might or might not have been a flaming homosexual, but he never once made the slightest inuendo or connotation of his sexuality, ever. What a homosexual, or a heterosexual does in the privacy of thier bedroom is not a matter for children's television to discuss or portray. I think the PBS spokeman said it all...


"Ultimately, our decision was based on the fact that we recognize this is a sensitive issue, and we wanted to make sure that parents had an opportunity to introduce this subject to their children in their own time," said Lea Sloan, vice president of media relations at PBS.

Here here!



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
hmmm....................Maybe its that whole identity problem complex that they have....we should just provide free counseling for homosexuals instead of ruining television to help them fit in.



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I really don't have a problem with homosexuality, but what I don't like is that it would seem to me that they are looking to create a minority status out of a sexual preference. They are using sexual preference to force an agenda, and it pisses me off. What's next, equal rights for foot fetish junkies? Laytex lovers marches? Grants and legislation for bondage or MILF lovers? You going to explain to your children that Sado Bert and Maso Ernie are acceptable standards for their entertainment? What goes in your bedroom, or any one elses bedroom for that matter is not a political entitlement, and it is certainly not an acceptable matter to be portrayed in material which is marketed to our children. Sexuality is an adult matter, they put a lesbian or even a heterosexual reference in a program which is marketed to children, then somebody needs to sue their arses off and put a stop to it.



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Sexuality is an adult matter, they put a lesbian or even a heterosexual reference in a program which is marketed to children, then somebody needs to sue their arses off and put a stop to it.



I wish we could see the episode.

How exactly were they portrayed, I wonder. I mean, how do we know they were lesbians? Were they holding hands, making out, standing uncomfortably close to one another?

Is a hug crossing the lines of sexuality towards children?



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 03:40 AM
link   
The bottom line is that any thing of a sexual nature should not be involved in a childrens program. Just because it suports the homosexual agenda does not make it right. Besides, what the hell is public money being spent on this for? Public funds should not be spent on things that the majority of parents in the country will find offensive.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join