<p>Personal opinion: Parents can decide what is and is not appropriate for their children to watch. Material that is universally considered inappropriate for children (for example, disturbing and graphic violence) should not be shown on childen’s stations–but then again, networks should want to listen to their viewers to determine what is appropriate and popular in order to make their profits in the first place.</p>
<p>Well, as Michael Musto of the Village Voice said in 1998 (before Jerry Falwell was made a laughing-stock for “imagining” Tinky was gay): “It’s a great message: kids not only learn that it’s okay to be gay, but also the importance of being well-accessorized.” :p</p>
<p>What I find interesting is that people seem to think that “promotiing” a homosexual lifestyle will cause more people to be homosexual. In fact, people who are gay are gay whether or not they saw a purple creature carry a woman’s handbag when they were 4. People who are straight will not become gay by viewing said handbag.</p>
<p>The only thing this could <em>possibly</em> do is teach TOLERANCE of a homosexual lifestyle, and make it the norm in children’s lives. I’m also in favor, as corranged said above, of parents having the freedom to turn off the TV if they don’t want their kids to see whatever’s on.</p>
<p>I just hope they can keep this up for 30 years or so. When Jerry did his first TinkyWinky number, I told my wife that I wanted a TinkyWinky doll for my birthday (I NEVER ask for, nor receive, a birthday present). I still have it, in mint condition, in a mint condition box, and I am planning to pass it on to my posterity</p>
<p>Well, now that I’ve made you all jealous…;)</p>
<p>Tinky was outed by Newsweek, NYT, Time Mag., WaPo, The Village Voice, and others a full year before Falwell caught on. I guess when that happened, he went back in the closet. Now he’s out again! :)</p>
<p>Okay, I’ll accept the proposition that Tinky Winky is a cross-dresser. But why the assumption that that means that he’s gay? I don’t know any gay cross-dressers, but I do know some straight ones. (And I’m not getting into the whole J. Edgar Hoover thing here, either.) More to the point, are the teletubbies anything-sexual? I’m having a hard time picturing the li’l puppets getting frisky with anyone/anything at all, if you get my drift…</p>
I hope not! :eek: Of course, for American children today, sex cannot exist. Storks drop babies on the doorstep, the names of body parts are “bad words,” and kissing is only to show that two people are very good friends. </p>
<p>What I want to know is why there haven’t been more questions about Ernie and Bert.</p>
Turns out the handbag is a “magic” bag, and there were only episodes made until 2001. Episodes now are re-runs. There are 365 (how interesting) original shows that play over and over again.</p>
<p>Motherdear, you are right that some people don’t believe that homosexuality exists from birth. (It’s pretty evident that it does, though, given that it exists in non-human species whose societies aren’t nearly as complex as ours.) </p>
<p>I’m confused by your logic though. Let me see if I have this right:</p>
<ol>
<li>You say homosexuals are not (necessarily) that way from birth.</li>
</ol>
<p>and </p>
<ol>
<li>Straight people ARE that way from birth, and can’t be swayed to homosexuality by environmental factors.</li>
</ol>
<p>If homosexuality doesn’t exist at birth, and also cannot be made to exist by environmental factors, then how do homosexuals come to be?</p>
<p>I’m still stuck on the idea that believing in something is what makes it true or not. Do rocks fall up if we decide we don’t believe in the theory of gravitation?</p>
Is anybody on this thread talking about their beliefs on the origins of homosexuality as being definitively true? We just don’t know. I strongly believe that one’s sexuality is determined by nature, not nurture. But unlike gravity, there is no conclusive proof. It’s just my belief, and the shared belief of most everyone I know. That still doesn’t make it incontrovertable truth.</p>