logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> SpongeBob.....GAY Pants?, Group claims Bob promotes homosexuality
DaffyGrl
post Jan 21 2005, 07:52 PM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Sponsor
November 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,758
Member No.: 2,889
Joined: April-10-04

From: California
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



OK, now I know the "right" side of this country has gone completely off the deep end. A "Dr. James Dobson" of "Focus on the Family", actually stood up at one of the presidential inaugural events and solemnly intoned "Does anyone here know SpongeBob?"

Why, yes, Dr. Jim, the kids love him...

I guess the rabid folk have targeted SpongeBob as the latest "gay" cartoon character "promoting homo-SEX-yew-alitee among our youth". dry.gif sour.gif A video, entitled "We Are Family" stars SpongeBob and other cartoon characters. According to the video producers:
QUOTE(Salon)
Mr. Rodgers said he founded the We Are Family Foundation after the Sept. 11 attacks to create a music video to teach children about multiculturalism. The video has appeared on television networks, and nothing in it or its accompanying materials refers to sexual identity.

What is going on here????? It's Mr. Rodgers, fercryinoutloud!!! wacko.gif

First teletubbies (they are disturbing, but not for the reasons Falwell frothed about), now SpongeBob. Next thing you know, those righteous folk will be saying Bugs Bunny and Daffy are gay (after all, Bugs is a cross-dresser). mad.gif

Salon
LA Times (Both sites require registration, but Salon allows you a free day pass, and LA Times registration is free.)

Is it unreasonable to project sexual characteristics onto a children's cartoon character (excluding Jessica Rabbit, and any other adult-oriented cartoons)?

Is SpongeBob just the latest boogeyman in the religous fundamentalists' "moral" crosshairs?

What do you think about FOF's attack on SpongeBob?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Bill55AZ
post Jan 23 2005, 04:28 PM
Post #21


*******
Five Hundred Club

Sponsor
June 3, 2003

Group: BANNED
Posts: 771
Member No.: 769
Joined: June-2-03

From: Dry Heat, Arizona
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Republican



What I think about the attack?
Dobson, Robertson, Falwell and others use the pulpit for their own agenda, beliefs, goals, etc. I think that they hope to influence their faithful followers into more financial support of the moral majority leadership.
All the time that I was growing up a Baptist, I readily accepted the teachings of Jesus that involved tolerance and acceptance of those who were percieived to be unworthy, or unclean, by the local religious establishment. The Rabbis were good at excluding so many, while Jesus wanted to include them. Early on I became confused because the Sunday School teachers were saying one thing in the children's classes, while the preacher had a different message over the pulpit.
I suspect a lot of people have turned their backs, and their wallets, away from such as Dobson, Robertson, and Falwell. But there are still so many who follow these false shepherds.
Is SpongeBob just the latest boogeyman?
If it works for them, I suppose so. But again, many will see through this idiocy and "fall away" from accepting the Moral Message of the 3 not-so-wise men whose names have been connected with this kind of thing. Only the truly brainwashed will remain loyal. Sadly, there are more than enough of those around to sustain the momentum of the moral majority.
Projecting sexuality?
I can only wonder what kind of dirt is lodged in the minds of those who are constantly looking for "evil". It is like taking offense when none is intended.
You just end up looking foolish. On the other hand, it seems to provide a good living for some.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Jan 23 2005, 04:37 PM
Post #22


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Jan 23 2005, 10:22 AM)
  
As far as I am concerned, this amounts to hysteria. It is unfortunate that these people failed to get as "up in arms" when NO weapons of mass destruction were found after Bush preemptively invaded a country because he was certain they were there and they were such a "threat" to the United States. Forget the fact that over 100,000 Iraqis died as a result and U.S. troops are experiencing losses every day where the mission had supposedly been accomplished.  
  
What the hell is going on with these people? ermm.gif  
*
  

I agree with you PE, in that it's hysteria, hype and a colossal waste of time. But how exactly does the war in Iraq have anything to do with Spongebob?????????
I can understand that some people are single issue demagogues, but insinuating that the hysteria is ridiculous because these people may or may not have been up in arms over the war in Iraq (as you blanket them with this statement), just brings up as strawman that has no place in this thread.............IMHO whistling.gif

Though it is interesting to see the spread of talking points and propaganda:
QUOTE
Forget the fact that over 100,000 Iraqis died

Somewhat similar to a reverend preaching to his flock....the righties get their undies in a twist over a fallacious sponge/gay issue, and the lefties do the same, but are somehow more holier than thou about it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Jan 23 2005, 04:45 PM
Post #23


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



In your "humble opinion," DTOM, and I accept it as such, the religious people apparently should not be upset about the cost of lives, even though their God has taught that man was created in His image! Excuse me if I think otherwise, because I don't remember in Sunday School hearing that Jesus preached against homos, but "Thou Shalt Not Kill" was brought up more than a few times!

QUOTE
Somewhat similar to a reverend preaching to his flock....the righties get their undies in a twist over a fallacious sponge/gay issue, and the lefties do the same, but are somehow more holier than thou about it.

Yes, I do get my panties in a twist about non-fallacious issues. It doesn't indicate that *I* am holier than anybody; if that were the case I wouldn't have suggested that Dobson (or Falwell) needs to get some gratification. It does indicate that some of us remember the Ten Commandments, and that the actions of those "placed in authority" over us do not square with those Ten Commandments, and that's what these church celebrities should be concerned about!

So sue me.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Jan 23 2005, 04:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Jan 23 2005, 04:59 PM
Post #24


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE
In your "humble opinion," DTOM, and I accept it as such, the religious people apparently should not be upset about the cost of lives, even though their God has taught that man was created in His image!

Hmmmm.....not sure where I had said that....so I'm at a loss as to where you dreamed it up. I however, can differentiate the issues of a cartoon sponge and a war, two totally unrelated debate topics. It is apparent that you cannot. That's fine.......feel free to weave an imaginary thread between the two, if that will somehow get your point across........but why didn't you bring up the anti-spongebob crowds' stance on the price of gas, or human rights in China or Starbucks recent change regarding free trade coffee???

QUOTE
Yes, I do get my panties in a twist about non-fallacious issues.

Yes I'm sure you do, my apologies.......but since you referenced the debunked Lancet article/left wing talking point......fallacious was the first thing that came to mind.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ultimatejoe
post Jan 23 2005, 05:04 PM
Post #25


Group Icon

********
Studley Do-Right

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,329
Member No.: 497
Joined: February-14-03

From: Toronto, Ontario Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Other



:Ahem: Lets stay on topic here folks. We're talking about Spongebob Squarepants. (My fingers didn't want to type that last sentence.)

The questions for debate are:

Is it unreasonable to project sexual characteristics onto a children's cartoon character (excluding Jessica Rabbit, and any other adult-oriented cartoons)?

Is SpongeBob just the latest boogeyman in the religous fundamentalists' "moral" crosshairs?

What do you think about FOF's attack on SpongeBob?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DaffyGrl
post Jan 23 2005, 05:48 PM
Post #26


********
Millennium Mark

Sponsor
November 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,758
Member No.: 2,889
Joined: April-10-04

From: California
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(carlitos whey)
Both of these are opinion pages, which is pretty much why we are hearing about this story.

And that's why I attempted to put it in Casual Conversation, but it was closed by the mods as being a "serious debate". I found it hilarious that the latest bogeyman was a freakin' cartoon character. I wanted the conversation to be in that vein, but oh, well, that's how it goes.

The very silliness of a man standing in front of a bunch of congressman and other DC bigwigs complaining that an animated sponge was being used to "indoctrimate our children" is absolutely hysterical and surreal! The fact that he did it is not an opinion, it's what happened at a "Values Victory Dinner". sour.gif

And, oh by the way, BoF posted a link to a non-opinion site back a few posts. And there are 948 articles on Google News...I'm sure many of them are "hard" news...if you can call the whole insanity "news". laugh.gif

Edited to add: I was mistaken about "Mr. Rogers"...it was the writer of the song "We are Family", Nile Rodgers, who is responsible for that "homosexuality-promoting" video. blush.gif

This post has been edited by DaffyGrl: Jan 23 2005, 05:52 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wertz
post Jan 23 2005, 06:23 PM
Post #27


Group Icon

*********
Advanced Senior

Sponsor
January 2003

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 3,235
Member No.: 181
Joined: October-23-02

From: Franklinville PA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



With all due respect, Bikerdad, I would like to submit that your "analysis" is not particularly "objective". Your use of terms like "pansie [sic]", your resorting to stereotypes (the black muscle shirts), your reference to demonstrating that a character is straight as a "defense", and your characterization of a plea for tolerance as an "attack" on heterosexuality imply, to me, that your "analysis" is more than usually subjective.

Perhaps you meant your entire post as an extended joke, but some of us - say, those who have had friends beaten to death by the likes of Dobson - don't find bigotry, hatred, and intolerance all that amusing.

You question whether or not Dobson was implying that Mr. SquarePants is gay and, by extension, question those who feel that Dobson is a homophobe. Come on, Bikerdad, why do you think that Dobson opened his remarks by asking "Does anybody here know SpongeBob?" There are a hundred characters involved in this video, why single out SpongeBob SquarePants? Since 2002, there have been reports that Mr. SquarePants is possibly meant to be gay. Do you think Dobson was unaware of this? Put yourself in his place: imagine for a just moment that you are homophobic. If you were about to condemn a video which preaches the Christian virtue of tolerance, would you not go for a character which was already "controversial"? In decrying a video which some even go so far as claiming is an "attack" on heterosexuality, would you not cite a character already linked to homosexuality? Were I a homophobic bigot, I know I would. It makes good rhetorical sense. To try to pretend that Mr. SquarePants was randomly chosen because - what? he's "hot"? - makes no sense.

Unlike you, I have never seen SpongeBob SquarePants (and can't vouch for how "hot" he might be whistling.gif ), but I have read about the purported "sexual orientation" of this cartoon sponge off and on for two years. Dobson and Co. don't have to accuse this character of being gay - their ilk presumes that he's already been so characterized and uses this presumption to underline their idiotic claim that this video somehow promotes homosexuality or attacks heterosexuality.

Yes, it is unreasonable to project a sexual orientation onto cartoon characters when there is no evidence to back it up. Yes, SpongeBob is yet another fundamentalist boogeyman. And Dobson's attack on this character and this video are absurd, pointless, counter-productive - and par for the course.

This post has been edited by Wertz: Jan 23 2005, 06:31 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carlitoswhey
post Jan 23 2005, 06:35 PM
Post #28


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,094
Member No.: 3,059
Joined: May-8-04

From: chicago
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Jan 23 2005, 11:48 AM)
QUOTE(carlitos whey)
Both of these are opinion pages, which is pretty much why we are hearing about this story.


The very silliness of a man standing in front of a bunch of congressman and other DC bigwigs complaining that an animated sponge was being used to "indoctrimate our children" is absolutely hysterical and surreal! The fact that he did it is not an opinion, it's what happened at a "Values Victory Dinner". sour.gif
<snip>
And, oh by the way, BoF posted a link to a non-opinion site back a few posts. And there are 948 articles on Google News...I'm sure many of them are "hard" news...if you can call the whole insanity "news". laugh.gif

I hear you flowers.gif

However, as one of these conspricacy theorists I say that the "hard" news is often completely biased due to the opinions of the reporter. My broader point was that the initial news story should have been focused on the video, which "used" cartoon characters to make its point, not the characters themselves. Spongebob is definitely a bit of a camp gay character, and some reporters no doubt know this and it skewed their coverage a bit. And I truly believe that some righteous right-wingers clicked the wrong website, fanning the flames with the GLBT group at waf.org.

But "if" someone were going to indoctrinate your kids into some belief that you disagreed with, who better than a cartoon character? It's not so far-fetched, when we remember that Mickey Mouse was used for propaganda purposes in WWII. Just a thought.

Updated to add:
QUOTE(wertz)
Unlike you, I have never seen SpongeBob SquarePants (and can't vouch for how "hot" he might be  ), but I have read about the purported "sexual orientation" of this cartoon sponge off and on for two years. Dobson and Co. don't have to accuse this character of being gay - their ilk presumes that he's already been so characterized and uses this presumption to underline their idiotic claim that this video somehow promotes homosexuality or attacks heterosexuality.

Yes, it is unreasonable to project a sexual orientation onto cartoon characters when there is no evidence to back it up. Yes, SpongeBob is yet another fundamentalist boogeyman. And Dobson's attack on this character and this video are absurd, pointless, counter-productive - and par for the course.

Wertz, I agree that much of what groups like Dobson's do is counter-productive, but could we perhaps talk about what complicates the issue and prevents intelligent debate just a bit. Dobson "and his ilk" haven't characterized Spongebob as gay, the gay community has embraced him themselves. Even the NY Times reported this accurately in their first article on this.

Spongebob is a cult icon in the gay community. He just is. Here is a write-up from December, 2002 from OutSmart magazine.
QUOTE
Toon Out

In the queer tradition of Tinky Winky, the purse-toting Jerry Falwell bete noire, SpongeBob SquarePants has emerged as a homo cartoon icon. The star of the Nickelodeon series, the squishy yellow fellow has tweaked gaydar since his 1999 debut. Now the Wall Street Journal reports that SpongeBob merchandise is flying off the shelves of queer emporia across the nation. Why not? He lives alone in an undersea burg called Bikini Bottom. Bob and his best chum Patrick, a shirtless pink starfish, occasionally hold hands. His only gal pal is beefy daredevil stunt-squirrel Sandy Cheeks. Once in a while, Bob (drawn by Stephen Hillenburg and exuberantly voiced by Tom Kenny) even prances around in his tighty-whities. You figure it out.

I have a spongebob hat and a gay friend has teased me about it before. Along with cartoon super-hero themes, this is just harmless fun and no one outside the "in the know" gay community would probably ever notice it. But when they do, it kind of freaks out fundamentalist types.

Things like using a kids cartoon character as a fashion statement offer a lot of easy ammo to the "homophobes" out there. I don't know what the answer is, but embracing children's cartoons as gay-friendly doesn't make it any easier to have an intelligent conversation on the subject. I'm not saying that it's wrong, but it does complicate things, when there is a group out there that firmly believes that gays "want to indocrinate our children" or whatever.

This post has been edited by carlitoswhey: Jan 23 2005, 07:25 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quarkhead
post Jan 24 2005, 12:11 AM
Post #29


Group Icon

********
Original Sufferhead

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,180
Member No.: 328
Joined: December-11-02

From: Spokane, WA
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



I believe it is correct that this video (as opposed to Spongebob on its own) is an attempt to indoctrinate schoolchildren to be tolerant of diversity. But obviously, The fundamentalist right is not opposed to indoctrinating children - they are merely opposed to this particular indoctrination.

Of course, I would rather have my children "indoctrinated" with a message of acceptance and tolerance than many other examples I can think of.

What is D.A.R.E. but indoctrination? What is Church, for that matter?

We indoctrinate our high school kids with a whitewashed story of our nation's history. We indoctrinate our kids with the inherently cruel and unsound "reality" of Hayekian (to coin a phrase, perhaps) economics. We allow television to indoctrinate our kids into thinking that consumerism and medication are natural states of being.

It's just a bit disingenious to decry this indoctrination, which is in reality very positive, while ignoring the very many negative ways we greedily influence our children.

To me the question isn't whether this is indoctrination or not; the question is, why is this sort of indoctrination negative (or conversely, why is it positive)?

I am using the word "indoctrinate" a bit flippantly. We are all indoctrinated every day in so many ways, most of which we are unaware; the word is practically meaningless in a world where we are constantly spoonfed propaganda of all types.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jenreiautter
post Jan 24 2005, 12:29 AM
Post #30


******
The Green Goddess

Sponsor
March 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 275
Member No.: 1,600
Joined: October-31-03

From: Salt Lake City
Gender: Female
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Green Party



Is it unreasonable to project sexual characteristics onto a children's cartoon character (excluding Jessica Rabbit, and any other adult-oriented cartoons)?

I remember first coming across this idea in the early 90s when there was frothing at the mouth over Ernie and Bert. For me it was "What the??" I'm a liberal person with a healthy attitude towards sex, and it had never occured to me to consider these puppets I'd grown up watching as sexual.

When it happened again over the Teletubbies, it only served to convince me that the probelm is definitely with those religious folks. It goes to show how the suppression of natural drives like sexuality in fundamentalists warps the brian. They must project these warped thoughts on to puppets and cartoon characters.

Is SpongeBob just the latest boogeyman in the religous fundamentalists' "moral" crosshairs? Yup. Not likely to be the last, either.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hayleyanne
post Jan 24 2005, 12:40 AM
Post #31


*******
Five Hundred Club

Sponsor
June 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 831
Member No.: 4,135
Joined: December-22-04

Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Republican



First I just want to say that I am astounded at the level of hateful rhetoric leveled at the religious right in some of the posts in this thread. It spans the spectrum-- from attempting to paint Dobson as a bufoon by mischaracterizing what he said to grouping him with murdering bigots: "Perhaps you meant your entire post as an extended joke, but some of us - say, those who have had friends beaten to death by the likes of Dobson - don't find bigotry, hatred, and intolerance all that amusing." (Wertz)

I agree with Quarkhead's point that the real question involves the indoctrination being presented through the video (not the character of spongebob) and whether it is negative or positive:

QUOTE
It's just a bit disingenious to decry this indoctrination, which is in reality very positive, while ignoring the very many negative ways we greedily influence our children.

To me the question isn't whether this is indoctrination or not; the question is, why is this sort of indoctrination negative (or conversely, why is it positive)?


I think that issue is well worth looking at. A teaching guide on the We Are Family Foundation (WAFF) website is interesting to consider and was quoted by bikerdad. I am not sure if it is specifically to be used in conjunction with the video but clearly it represents the views of the WAFF, the organization responsible for distributing the video at issue. It states as a goal in the classroom:

"Introduce the concepts of homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality. Analyze and discuss the effects these forces exert in students' lives."

Here's how they define those terms:
Definitions
Homophobia: Thoughts, feelings, or actions based on fear, dislike, judgment, or hatred of gay men and lesbians/of those who love and sexually desire those of the same sex. Homophobia has roots in sexism and can include prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and acts of violence.

Compulsory heterosexuality: Thee assumption that women are “naturally” or innately drawn sexually and emotionally toward men, and men toward women; the view that heterosexuality is the “norm” for all sexual relationships. The institutionalization of heterosexuality in all aspects of society includes the idealization of heterosexual orientation, romance, and marriage. Compulsory heterosexuality leads to the notion of women as inherently “weak,” and the institutionalized inequality of power: power of men to control women’s sexuality, labor, childbirth and childrearing, physical movement, safety, creativity, and access to knowledge. It can also include legal and social discrimination against homosexuals and the invisibility of or intolerance toward lesbian and gay existence.
They then urge the students to critique "your religious milieu" in light of these definitions.
James Dobson and Don Wildmon are right. This video is a trap, and its producers do intend to undermine traditional values--and religious teachings in particular.


Two points:

As to the definition of homophobia-- clearly, the Dobson crowd is going to object to their children being taught that "homophobia" means thoughts, feelings or actions based on a judgment of gay men and lesbian. Dobson and his followers believe in the bible which does pass judgment on homosexuality. I can see why they might object.

Second, take a look at the definition of that odd term "compulsory heterosexuality". What on earth is that supposed to mean. It is reminiscent of the old feminist rhetoric of the 70s. Whatever this term means-- it is not good as it
among other things -- "leads to the notion of women as inherently “weak,” and the institutionalized inequality of power" . . and it leads to the "power of men to control women’s sexuality, labor, childbirth and childrearing, physical movement, safety, creativity, and access to knowledge". What on earth does this mean. I am not at all sure that we can assume that this is a good message to indoctrinate into our children.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Jan 24 2005, 01:17 AM
Post #32


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,832
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



[QUOTE]I guess the rabid folk have targeted SpongeBob ... - Daffygrl [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]I think the guys with the nets should be chasing Dobson down. If not, I’ll gladly volunteer for the job. - BoF[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Yes, and I think it represents a kind of delusional illness in some way associated to seeing communists hanging around every corner. -AuthorMusician[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]The problem is that this is a whacko who was invited to speak at a presidential - Daffygrl [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]I wouldn't go as so far to say that, at least for longer than the fifteen minutes those kooks have been allotted. - Titus[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Personally, I think you've got to be some kind of nut to waste all that time and energy trying to catch a cartoon in a compromising moment, but obviously Dobson thinks it's time well spent. - Nighttimer[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]I'm for free speech. Let square pants do what he wants, let the hate-mongers say what they want. Just don't ban anything, even cartoons. - Tim-Mello[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]That someone probably glanced at the Times at breakfast, saw an easy right-wing wacko saying something stupid, had 400 words to write, and whammo - easy opinion column for the day.

I'm sure that a few right-wing nut jobs clicked on this site and went off the deep end before the disclaimer went up...
- Carlitoswhey[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Dr. James Dobson, who is as full of himself as the Reverend Jerry Falwell is, needs to chill out and perhaps get some gratification himself. -Paladin Elspeth[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]I suspect a lot of people have turned their backs, and their wallets, away from such as Dobson, Robertson, and Falwell. But there are still so many who follow these false shepherds.

Only the truly brainwashed will remain loyal.

I can only wonder what kind of dirt is lodged in the minds of those who are constantly looking for "evil". - Bill55AZ[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE]With all due respect, Bikerdad, I would like to submit that your "analysis" is not particularly "objective". Your use of terms like "pansie [sic]", your resorting to stereotypes (the black muscle shirts), your reference to demonstrating that a character is straight as a "defense", and your characterization of a plea for tolerance as an "attack" on heterosexuality imply, to me, that your "analysis" is more than usually subjective. - Wertz [/QUOTE]

Given the stereotyping that has already gone on in this thread, which I've conveniently quoted above, your sudden dismissal of it is remarkably hollow. But hey, don't take my word for it that Patrick is a pansie, sissie, wimp, etc. Just read Nighttimer's post. As you probably know, NT and I don't exactly share the same Ask 100 children who have watched SpongeBob if Patrick is a sissy, and 95+ will say "yes."

[QUOTE]There are a hundred characters involved in this video, why single out SpongeBob SquarePants?[/QUOTE] Gee, maybe because he's the hottest (as in most popular) cartoon character out there right now? Nah, that couldn't be it...

Who's claiming that the video is an attack on heterosexuality? Not I. I'm saying that it is part of an agenda that is attacking it. If you think that the concept of "compulsory heterosexuality" isn't an attack ...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Jan 24 2005, 04:01 AM
Post #33


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jan 23 2005, 01:50 AM)
The only projection that has occured is that of ACCUSING others of charging SpongeBob as gay.  In short, hatefulness, intolerance and bigotry are being projected onto Dobson and FoF, and its being done in a kneejerk fashion without any examination of the issue.  Based on my experience at AD, that's about par for the course.

QUOTE
And how do Dobson, Robertson, Falwell and the rest of the Bible-thumbers not go ballistic about The Flintstones having a "gay old time?" - Nighttimer
Anybody with a shred of historical sense knows why they don't go ballistic. Only someone without such sense would wonder why.


If there's one thing I'm certain of it is my sense of history, Bikerdad, but it appears that an appreciation of sarcasm is not among the strengths of the defenders of Dr. Dobson.

How about reading comprehension. Though you invoke my post to support your remark that the cartoon charter Patrick is a "pansie" (your word, not mine), the only thing I said was that Patrick gave me a "funny vibe." That isn't exactly the same thing as saying he probably flies a rainbow flag on his front porch.

Regarding "any examination of the issue" I visited the Focus on the Family website and here is an excerpt explaining Dr. Dobson interest in the whole SpongeBob imbroglio: "...Dr Dobson is concerned that these popular animated personalities are being exploited by an organization that's determined to promote the acceptance of homosexuality among our nation's youth."

http://family.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/family....p?p_faqid=17669

Okay, that sounds reasonable. Doc Dobson is trying to stop SpongeBob from being exploited by a pro-gay organization. Hooray for him.

What I also found interesting was a article that appars on CitizenLink, the political arm of Focus on the Family entitled: "The Unhappy Truth of Being Gay."

As believers, we are called to love the homosexual -- and we should treat gays and lesbians with respect and dignity. We should also ask God to give us compassionate hearts for those who are struggling with homosexuality. But I also believe God would have us stand up against the very real evil that is represented by the gay activist movement. As I mentioned, gay activist organizations regularly engage in deception, manipulation and strong-arm tactics to achieve their political goals.

Scripture tells us that Satan is the great deceiver and the father of all lies. I believe that Satan uses the gay activist movement to further his goals here on Earth. Satan would love nothing more than to destroy the traditional family. And if our government redefines marriage to include same-sex relationships, I am certain Satan would be just delighted. So, I think, as believers we always have to differentiate between that homosexual individual -- whom God loves so dearly and who is made in His image -- and the gay activist movement, which I believe is a tool of Satan.


http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0032908.cfm

or from an article entitled, "Q&A: The Homosexual Agenda"

Q. You mentioned lies. Isn't one of the lies that homosexuals really want marriage?

A. That's one of the biggest lies. Actually, what they have said at conferences — including one international conference in London in 1999 — is that they really don't want marriage, they want the destruction of marriage. Basically, once they get marriage, they want to redefine it — they call the concept "monogamy without fidelity." In other words, marriage would mean that you could be with a person but say, "I can go ahead and have sex with anybody else I want, but my spouse and I live together."

One homosexual activist said, "We can now dethrone the (traditional) family based on blood relationships, in favor of the families that we choose."

Another activist said: "We need to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits. Once granted, (we need to) redefine the institution of marriage completely (and) debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. The most subversive action that gay men and lesbians can undertake, is to transform the notion of family entirely."

They don't just want marriage. They want to destroy marriage — and the family — as we know it.


http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0027070.cfm

For all your rhetoric Bikerdad that "hatefulness, intolerance and bigotry" are being directed toward Dobson and Focus on the Family, in my view you're trying to claim victim status for the wrong side. Nice try though.

This entire farce about SpongeBob Squarepants is just a distraction from the larger issue which is nothing more than right-wing Christians fighting the advancement of gay rights. There is nothing new in the least about this.

Scratch a little bit deeper past the religious posturing and what you find is homophobia in its ugliest and rawest form. It's part of the right-wing spin to peddle homophobia under the banner of religious expression, but it's still homophobia all the same. Accusing Dobson of wallowing in hatefulness, intolerance and bigotry isn't defamation of character. It's the definition of his character.
dry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Jan 24 2005, 09:00 PM
Post #34


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican





To Everyone:

Please refrain from the disparaging comments about the beliefs of others. Address the topic for debate and do not make insinuations about other Members.

Questions for debate:

Is it unreasonable to project sexual characteristics onto a children's cartoon character (excluding Jessica Rabbit, and any other adult-oriented cartoons)?

Is SpongeBob just the latest boogeyman in the religous fundamentalists' "moral" crosshairs?

What do you think about FOF's attack on SpongeBob?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rzebro2005
post Feb 2 2005, 04:54 AM
Post #35


*
New Member

Group: New Members
Posts: 5
Member No.: 4,440
Joined: January-31-05

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Nile Rodgers, the man behind We Are Family Foundation, has said in the news that the only part of WAFF that had any sexual reference was the "tolerance pledge". One of the things on The We Are Family Foundation website is teacher lesson plans. The lesson plans contain subjects such as:

- Help students examine assumptions about the "natural order" in gender relationships.
- Write the first sentence in a description of the term "lesbian"
- Specify the characteristics that learners think define a person as homosexual.
- Talking About Being "Out"
- Uncovering Attitudes About Sexual Orientation
- Introduce the concepts of homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality

This and other material was removed from the WAFF website when this controversy started. You can see the electronic papertrail with Google. For example, doing a Google search:

site:www.wearefamilyfoundation.org "section i"

Using the Google "cached" link will show you Section I of the lession plan. It links you to PDFs that have also been removed.

And there is more material.

The WAFF video is innocent and cute. My question is what does WAFF stand for. Obviously they took a position on LGBT and have chosen to hide it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hayleyanne
post Feb 2 2005, 01:28 PM
Post #36


*******
Five Hundred Club

Sponsor
June 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 831
Member No.: 4,135
Joined: December-22-04

Gender: Female
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(rzebro2005 @ Feb 1 2005, 11:54 PM)
Nile Rodgers, the man behind We Are Family Foundation, has said in the news that the only part of WAFF that had any sexual reference was the "tolerance pledge".   One of the things on The We Are Family Foundation website is teacher lesson plans.  The lesson plans contain subjects such as:

- Help students examine assumptions about the "natural order" in gender relationships.
- Write the first sentence in a description of the term "lesbian"
- Specify the characteristics that learners think define a person as homosexual.
- Talking About Being "Out"
- Uncovering Attitudes About Sexual Orientation
- Introduce the concepts of homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality

This and other material was removed from the WAFF website when this controversy started.   You can see the electronic papertrail with Google.   For example, doing a Google search:

site:www.wearefamilyfoundation.org "section i"

Using the Google "cached" link will show you Section I of the lession plan.  It links you to PDFs that have also been removed.

And there is more material.

The WAFF video is innocent and cute.   My question is what does WAFF stand for.  Obviously they took a position on LGBT and have chosen to hide it.
*



Rzebro-- you are absolutely right. The video may be innocent enough, but the teaching plan certainly is not! The definitions that they provide for homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality are downright scary. They are quoted in full in prior posts. I also think it is AWFUL the way the Dr. Dobson was painted by the media as some fool saying Sponge bob is gay. I heard him interviewed and he was very clear that his position was against the agenda and teaching notes of the WAFF that distributes the video. He said he had never been so misquoted in his life. THAT is scary, how the media can just take off on something and twist it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robert B
post Feb 2 2005, 01:54 PM
Post #37


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 162
Member No.: 3,557
Joined: August-31-04

From: Austin TX USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Feb 2 2005, 08:28 AM)
I also think it is AWFUL the way the Dr. Dobson was painted by the media as some fool saying Sponge bob is gay.  I heard him interviewed and he was very clear that his position was against the agenda and teaching notes of the WAFF that distributes the video.  He said he had never been so misquoted in his life.  THAT is scary, how the media can just take off on something and twist it.
*



From what I can tell, I agree with you, hayleyanne. This looks like the kind of irresponsible, sensationalistic "journalism" that benefits noone.

This is the kind of thing that undermines truly responsible journalism and gives credence to the mistrust and claims of liberal bias in the press that we hear about so often.

This post has been edited by Robert B: Feb 2 2005, 01:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Feb 2 2005, 03:59 PM
Post #38


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,378
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Robert B @ Feb 2 2005, 08:54 AM)
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Feb 2 2005, 08:28 AM)
I also think it is AWFUL the way the Dr. Dobson was painted by the media as some fool saying Sponge bob is gay.  I heard him interviewed and he was very clear that his position was against the agenda and teaching notes of the WAFF that distributes the video.  He said he had never been so misquoted in his life.  THAT is scary, how the media can just take off on something and twist it.
*



From what I can tell, I agree with you, hayleyanne. This looks like the kind of irresponsible, sensationalistic "journalism" that benefits noone.

This is the kind of thing that undermines truly responsible journalism and gives credence to the mistrust and claims of liberal bias in the press that we hear about so often.
*



Yes, yes, so terrible how the liberal media pushes its agenda into government. That's why we have a liberal President and Congress.

sour.gif

I won't argue that Doc Dobson lost credibility with his way of bringing up the subject, but what does lose it for him is his pattern of foot-in-mouth disease. Also his manipulation of politics. So let's say the sponge dude isn't gay, but it's that darn gay rights agenda we gotta watch out for because they're out to mess up the nuclear family.

Okay, isn't the nuclear family already messed up? Didn't the nuclear family arise from the ashes of the extended family? Haven't we experienced rapid movement from an agrarian to industrial to information economy over a few hundred years?

And now Dobson wants to pin it all on the gay rights agenda?

Maybe he isn't ill, just lacking in gray matter. I look at all this and see scapegoating to the max, plus disturbing trends in denial. That anti-gay and monied interests tend to walk unabashedly hand-in-hand might give a clue as to what is really going on.

Be afraid, very afraid, of the gay agenda. Just don't look at any other agenda that has been, is, and will continue to tear families apart. You know, things like shipping jobs overseas, importing workers, starting wars . . . those things have no effect. But tolerating homosexuality? That will certainly be our downfall.

Not amoral profit reaping.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DaffyGrl
post Feb 2 2005, 05:01 PM
Post #39


********
Millennium Mark

Sponsor
November 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,758
Member No.: 2,889
Joined: April-10-04

From: California
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



I think the best response to all this came from Keith Olbermann himself. He makes a good point; Dobson was looking for publicity, he got it, and now he’s whining about it and blaming the bogeyman (insert spooky echo here) “the l-i-b-e-r-a-l m-e-d-i-a”. So, what does “poor” Mr. Dobson do? Why, he rounds up his frothing-at-the-mouth, presumably hetero, onward Christian soldiers to spam Olbermann. Very mature. dry.gif

QUOTE
His [Dobson's] website asked readers to send emails of protest to me and four other reporters who had covered this foofery - it even provided them with an email-generator with which to do so. But because I responded to nearly all of those missives with something other than “I’m sorry, please don’t send me to hell,” Dobson has determined I need more exposure.

Firstly, you wouldn’t think a member of this group could misspell “Christian,” but sure enough, one of the missives had the word as “Christain” three times. I think just about every word you could imagine was butchered at some point (and we’re not talking typos here - we’re talking about repeated identical misspellings):

Spong, Spounge, Spnge — presumably meaning “Sponge.”

Dobsin, Dobsen, Debsin, Dubsen, Dobbins — presumably Dr. Dobson.

Sevility — I’m not sure about this one. This might be “civility,” or it might refer to the city in Spain.

The best of them was not a misspelling but a Freudian slip of biblical proportions. A correspondent, unhappy that I did not simply agree with her fire-and-brimstone forecast for me, wrote “I showed respect even though I disagreed with you and yet you have the audacity to call me intelligent.”

Well, you have me there, Ma’am. My mistake. Keith Olbermann Blog

w00t.gif w00t.gif Priceless!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robert B
post Feb 2 2005, 05:53 PM
Post #40


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 162
Member No.: 3,557
Joined: August-31-04

From: Austin TX USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Feb 2 2005, 10:59 AM)
QUOTE(Robert B @ Feb 2 2005, 08:54 AM)
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Feb 2 2005, 08:28 AM)
I also think it is AWFUL the way the Dr. Dobson was painted by the media as some fool saying Sponge bob is gay.  I heard him interviewed and he was very clear that his position was against the agenda and teaching notes of the WAFF that distributes the video.  He said he had never been so misquoted in his life.  THAT is scary, how the media can just take off on something and twist it.
*



From what I can tell, I agree with you, hayleyanne. This looks like the kind of irresponsible, sensationalistic "journalism" that benefits noone.

This is the kind of thing that undermines truly responsible journalism and gives credence to the mistrust and claims of liberal bias in the press that we hear about so often.
*



Yes, yes, so terrible how the liberal media pushes its agenda into government. That's why we have a liberal President and Congress.
*



You misunderstand. I don't think the mainstream media is particularly liberal, but because of the way they mishandled this "story" now anti-liberal types can use this as an example of how they are constantly victimized by the "liberal" media. I don't give a **** about Dobson's posturing or his sense of victimhood. I just don't like to see the press distort ANY story (and supply Dobson with anti-"liberal press" ammo to boot).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 18th, 2018 - 10:58 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.