I dont think it is the fact that there were gay characters, although I bet there is alot of people who dont like shows that do gay characters. The anger arose that public money was being spent showing these lesbian characters (I would really like to see how the lesbian characters were shown). When there are gay characters in the aforementioned shows, people could change the channel and lower viewership and thus they are helping to not finance the show. In the case of the PBS show which gets money from the department of education, public money they are financing it.

I dont see it as promoting homosexuality unless they said, "homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality," "or this is an acceptable style of life." or "Gay marriage should be allowed" (I AM NOT SAYING IT ISNT ACCEPTABLE STYLE OF LIFE). This would amount to presenting one point of view using public money, even though it is a message of tolerance, it wouldnt belong there anymore than what Nobody Home mentioned "What's next Elmo saying 'Get out of Iraq'" But I am sure that is not what went on here.

People who are intolerant of Gays (A large percentage of Americans are against Gay marriage and a signficant percentage are intolerant of Gays, although this is a sad fact for America) want the chance to teach their kids that being gay is evil or wrong before they get a chance to see that being gay doesnt matter, as the show probably presented it. Meaning that it is a difference that isnt that important and should be accepted just like any difference like different hair color or skin color.

That said I have no opposition to a lesbian couple being showed in the show, homosexuality is part of life, and kids should learn about it, and the parents should have to answer any questions the show would raise. Maybe they think homosexuality will just go away. Maybe these teen shows showing gays as main characters is part of the reason that people under 25 are more tolerant towards gays than those older than 25.

Although I think it would be ok even if they said that we should be tolerant of homosexuality and that it is ok to be different, I would get worried that other views might be mentioned to indoctrinate kids to a certain view point. I believe scenes or ideas promoting tolerance and acceptance, especially of a group that is subject to a high amount of discrimination, should absoutely being shown in shows targeted towards kids. It may be contraversial to show tolerance of gays, but tolerance and acceptance of all forms and to all groups should be taught to children.

I would also appreciate if people would stop finding ways to just simply bash or insult Bush, Republicans, the South, and those who voted for Bush in every thread in the POOP forum, especially if it is an unrelated topic.

In this case it is warrented to bash Bush. It was his newly appointed Secretary of Education that denounced the show.

And I know the title of this thread is a bit misleading, but PBS didn't create this lesbian couple for the purpose of the show. The show has one of their characters (a bunny named Buster) interviewing real kids about their lives. PBS chose a real little girl who had gay parents to talk about her farm in Vermont and how syrup is made. From what I've read, they don't even talk about being gay at all in the show.

The idea that a 3 minute clip of some people who just so happen to be gay working on a farm is an insidious political message is a little....far fetched to me. As is the idea that children should be protected from anything that adults see as controversial. There are some issues that should only be broached with older children, because younger ones wouldn't understand... But saying that television shows for kids should avoid any and all things that some sizeable chunk of the population sees as controversial in any way? There wouldn't be much left that would be politically correct to everybody.

Should children's shows avoid all depictions of magical/supernatural events because some parents think this is promoting "witchcraft"?

Should children's shows avoid showing any lumberjacks or hunters so as to avoid offending conservationists? (Elmer Fudd.) On the flip side, should 'Captain Planet' never have been made because some Americans loathe messages of environmentalism?

Should Beakman's World avoid references to evolution, seeing as half the adult population of America doesn't believe in it?

Should children's shows avoid any references to soldiers or war because that's controversial? Even if children themselves have relatives in the armed forces?

Should they avoid showing children with single or divorced parents? Plenty do.

Should there never be a homeless person on a children's show? (There was one in 'Ghostwriter' years ago, aimed at 7 - 12 year-olds. Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends has with homeless, abandoned imaginary friends.)

Should Sesame Street in the 1970s have avoided having a mixed-race cast?

Should children's shows never address issues of death or loss?

How about all the random violence kids see on TV? Why is that less controversial than random gay people doing ordinary everyday things?

Yes your right, in this case criticism of Bush is warranted, I am talking about flat out bashing and insulting Bush, Republicans, the South, etc. And I know they didnt create the characters just to present lesbians, and I pretty much believe all it did was show gay parents which shouldnt be contraversial in the slighest.

Kea, you make alot of important points, there are so many issues that are contraversial, and that isnt enough not to present the issue especially if they are not taking sides. As long as one view point is explicitly spoken for then they should present contraversial issues, or else we become an insanely politically correct world, where you cant say anything that could possibly offend someone.

Here's a pickle to gnaw on: the stated mission of Postcards from Buster is "to help children understand and respect differences and learn to liev in a multicultural society."

I think the show was doing it's job. How about the rest of you?

Bah, I wish I had a bit more time to type this, but I must rush away to my Spanish class instead, so I'll just post a link. Bottom line: it's airing anyway.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/02/tv.pbs.lesbians.ap/index.html

Only 21 out of 349 stations are airing the episode....that really doesn't count. Also airing in New York, LA and San Fran where communities are already quite diverse and there are more likely to be gay parents isn't really going to help broaden the minds of youngsters around the country.

I think it may be prudent to note at this juncture that your qualification above are unlikely to remove all unscientific reports on the subject. It is not only christians who denounce homosexuality, many secular people do so as well, and often, those secular people get into research position where they can perform studies on the subject.

I've looked at the literature, and for the most part, I've found that a large number of reports show no inherant detrimental effects in children with gay parents. But I've also found a number that do, and considering both sides of the divide typically paint their results to suit their politics, reading the scientific literature will typically provide you with enough information to bolster whatever side you're on, and it naturally will not be enough to convince the other side, because they have evidence too.

While one day I hope that the politik of this issue settles so we can implement some unbiased scientific review, I'm afraid that for the moment, scientific review holds very little weight on either side of the debate.

Which is probably as it should be. The American Psychological Association already states that it doesn't consider Homosexuality to be a mental disorder, because it doesn't impede the ability of a person to lead a normal life, but even this was mostly based on the viewing of social mores at the time (the time being the early 1970s). This is not a debate that pure science will decide, because it's mostly a social issue.

OK, here goes, I grew up in the south. I had no direct contact whatsoever with gays or lesbians (that I was aware of) until I went to college, and surprise, I don't hate gays or lesbains. My parents never addressed the issue with me, one way or the other, and I did go to a southern baptist church for most of my youth. I do have a more conservative view, but I do support gay marriage.
I feel that some people do choose to be gay, as evidenced by a growing population of LUGs (Lesbians Until Graduation) at many all women's colleges and other universities throughout the nation (including the one I attended). I know from personal experience as a mentor that there are now high school girls that kiss each other in the hallways to get the attention of boys by pretending to be gay or bisexual. I'm not saying this is harmful or being caused by the gay and lesbian community, but I am saying that being gay or lesbain is not like skin color for many people living that lifestyle. On the other hand, I know one person I had been friends with since kindergarten who fought being gay his entire life until "coming out" in his last year of college. I don't think he chose to be gay.
These issues have a way of working themselves out. One point you guys could also discuss is this situation:
Molly sees this happy kid with 2 mommies, asks her mother about it (who happens to be a bigot and because of this Molly is the demographic most of you would like to reach). Molly's mother then procedes to berrate her child for asking about something so unwholsome and promptly explains to her how evil gays and lesbians are. Which will stick with Molly more, the 3 minutes of airtime for a happy child with 2 mommies, or her mother's response?
Its just one scenarion of many that could happen, and I know its extreme. Some things will work out on their own, without public funds being spent on something that half of the public doesn't want the government to deal with. growing up here in the south, many of the steereotypes hold true, but you guys may be looking at this with rose colored glasses. Messages given through public TV are not going to change the opinion of people like Molly or Molly's parents. What will likely change their situation would be to actually meet a person who is gayor lesbian and have a positive experience. Short of that, the Molly's of the world have to sort things out on their own.

Okay... so if seeing a gay couple on TV won't change the minds of children with homophobic parents, what's the harm of showing them on TV?

It shouldn't have mattered whether it was on TV or not. It wasn't supposed to be a big deal.

It's not like PBS went and spent money on that TV program that it otherwise would not have spent. If it wasn't tapping trees in Vermont it would've been surfing in California or roller-blading in Central Park or watching bears poo in the woods or whatever. Which may or may not have involved gay, straight, black, white, yellow, short, tall, thin, cheeseburger eating, smoking, loud-shirt wearing, beer drinking, hybrid-car driving, wheelchair using, or x-treme sport playing human beings.

If Postcards from Buster had instead aired an episode where some kid's parents were seen smoking cigarettes (definitely a lifestyle choice there), I could picture the usual anti-smoking lobbies complaining, but I seriously cannot picture the Secretary of Education getting up on TV to denounce the show.

Hey, here's a strange bedfellows moment for you. On "Fox News Watch" last night Cal Thomas (who stands WAY to the right) actually agreed with the liberal point of view on this one! His point, if the VP's lesbian daughter can be shown at the inaguration with her partner, why should this show be a problem?
I don't believe Cal Thomas said this. Maybe there's hope for this country yet.

Before he retired from NOW, Cal Thomas appeared on it with Bill Moyers (who, for those that don't know, is one of the nation's best journalists, though he sits firmly on the left) and had quite the interesting interview. It was more a debate than an interview, but they both remained incredibly civil and calm throughout, despite disagreeing on just about anything. Shortly thereafter, though, Cal Thomas started sitting rather strongly on the Seperation of Church and State side of the issues - for the sake of protecting religion from governmental meddling.

Basically, Bill Moyers made Cal Thomas actually see the merit of some of the left-wing issues (though Cal still makes me tear the paper up in frustration sometimes.)