It was a great idea for Good Luck Charlie to incorporate a same- sex marriage couple.
Debate Rounds (5)
Firstly, I agree that Disney is not just for children and adults can and do watch it too. However the primary viewers are children and they should not be taught about such things until they are older. Now I am not anti same sex couples but showing such things to kids is not good neither is any of the " "way worse" " stuff as my opponent mentioned. Showing same sex marriage on a predominantly kids TV channel is not good because it is teaching children that it is ok to have same sex couples. And we all know how young minds are influenced by media these days. Since kids will want to be " just like that cool guy on TV! " a good amount of those kids will become homosexual who obviously will not want to reproduce. In an extreme scenario, this can become a trendy thing and eventually the world population will decline. Though this is not likely, it is better not to encourage such a thing to kids in the first place who are, in general, too young to do reasoning and they will just blindly follow whatever is shown on TV.
My opponent mentioned that kids will want to be " just like that cool guy on TV! " a good amount of those kids will become homosexual who obviously will not want to reproduce. It does not entirely make it impossible to have children (ie. Good Luck Charlie). Although it does make it untraditional. How do we know what children are thinking? When children see these things do they truly look immediately towards where babies come from when they see them? Innocent minds, do they understand reproduction in the first place to even qualify to ask such questions?
Many fear that the moment a child sees a homosexual couple that it will influence their children right off the bat to also be homosexual. As many can attest, most kids do not have to see the media to wake up one morning and say "Mommy I like this boy" or "I like this girl". Innocent and untampered minds who were taught immediately that love is man and woman. That extreme situation, I would be forced to disagree. Science and doctors have made artificial insemination, not mention as well as adoption.
In Good Luck Charlie, you saw to mothers drop off their daughter for a play date. Nothing else to it. No serious signs of affection, unless you want to count the introduction "Amy, this is Taylor's other mom Susan.". Immediately after that the characters showed no sign of discrimination. They treated the situation as if it were normal. In reality, once it's understood for what it truly is, it will be seen as such. Hopefully.
I am not against Homosexual relationships (but I would honestly still prefer if everyone was Hetero, but I do understand the Homos and they have my support for gaining the rights they deserve as human beings). I am against showing homosexuality on children's TV
I agree with my opponent that it should not be taught that homosexuality is wrong on children's media. But it should not be shown that it is right either. The children's media should be neutral about such adult matters. And this is indeed an adult matter.
My opponent mentioned that even if homosexuality becomes trendy, people can always do artificial insemination. But then there is a problem. Would a lesbian really want her wife to be pregnant from someone else? It is comparable to a married straight woman being impregnated from a man she is not married to. The parent who was not involved with the process is basically a step parent. If people are fine with that then they can go right ahead. But as my opponent mentioned the young innocent minds know nothing of reproduction. So if they turn homosexual and then fall in love with someone in the same sex but then in the future, they realize that they need artificial insemination to have kids, then the argument stated above could become a problem. Again, some people might be fine with that but there will inevitably be some who do not want to do that but still desperately want children. They will have to turn Heterosexual which is against their wishes or live without children, also against their wishes. Not to mention the emotional problems they will go through acknowledging the fact that they can not have a 'true family' with their 'true love'.
What is best is that homosexuality is taught in a high school age since that is the time where people will be able to make their choice between the hetero or homo. By high school they should have gotten the ability to reason properly and to make their best individual decision by weighing all options and pros and cons and using ration and emotion in equal measure. Young kids are obviously more emotional than rational even their emotions fluctuate constantly and the last thing we need is such kids making biased judgements on what is perhaps one of the most important decisions in their life. Whether Homosexuality is normal or not, it is a big decision to make and it should never be taken lightly
I do not understand this argument you have given, kindly explain and/or reword this. Thank you in advance
"As many can attest, most kids do not have to see the media to wake up one morning and say "Mommy I like this boy" or "I like this girl". Innocent and unhampered minds who were taught immediately that love is man and woman. That extreme situation, I would be forced to disagree."
I would also like to provide more insight into the suggestion of pregnancy. Most if not all lesbians who are aware of their options. Adoption or insemination. They have to be aware of what that means. It has to be obvious that two women, or two men even, are not physically capable of carrying a seed from each other. Yes, that does mean that they are pregnant from someone else, but there is more to that that I wish not to bore anybody with. Then again if the couple love each other they would go through with the options available. That is what creates a true family. Nobody is just going to "turn heterosexual". As I do agree that nobody is born homosexual and nobody is born heterosexual, it all comes from attraction.
Homosexuality should not be classified as a subject in school that is "taught". The education system doesn't teach heterosexuality either, that would be awkward for everyone. I do agree with my opponent's statement that "Whether Homosexuality is normal or not, it is a big decision to make and it should never be taken lightly.". That is correct, it should be taken with full force that way it can be understood that it in fact is, but that is just my own opinion.
To elaborate on my statement about children, sorry I was a little vague, there are little boys who wake up one day and want to wear mommy's shoes or hang out with girls and eventually have crushes just like them. Some girls are the same way. Not because their innocent minds were exposed to homosexuality, but because they were inspired to be themselves. For example Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's daughter Shiloh. Isn't Disney's purpose for children to imagine and become inspired? Why do we limit their minds?
Other shows might follow the same path as good luck charlie, and maybe even showing the same amount of affection between a Homosexual couple as would be shown with a Heterosexual couple. This is what I do not want (the reason will be explained later in my argument)
My opponent mentioned "At a young age, it is perfectly okay to promote guns and violence, but a couple can not be the same gender." I do not condone the showing of guns and violence to young children. This statement has nothing to do with any of my arguments or with this debate since both gun violence and homosexuality should not be shown to young children, in my opinion. Perhaps my opponent was trying to state that the guns and violence receives less controversy than homosexuality, well, again, I do not condone either of them. So as far as this debate is concerned it does not matter
I mentioned Homosexuality should be taught in high school, perhaps along with Heterosexuality (in a sex ed class perhaps or psychology class). The differences and similarities can be taught so that the students can make an informed decision on which to choose, this has been explained in the previous round.
My opponent speaks about Homosexuality on the same level as Heterosexuality.
All said and done. Heterosexuality is the natural way.
Let me ask my opponent something. Would you rather be raised by 2 moms (or 2 dads) or by 1 mom and dad?
Before answering, do consider this: Females and Males are not perfect parents on their own, they have their own strengths and weaknesses. (this is all general, not every woman is womanly and not every man is manly).
Mothers can care for her child better (not that a man cannot be caring but woman tend to be more caring, and this is not sexist this is a fact). A father can teach a child to fend for themselves and survive in the real world (again, a woman is able to do this, but a man can do it better). A child needs a balance of both to be able to succeed in this world.
Why are men better at teaching children to be strong and independent? Because they are the hunters in the hunter gatherer society
Why are women better at providing a secure caring environment? Because they were the caretakers of children in the hunter gatherer society
Almost every evolution we have right now is for adapting to the life of the hunter gatherer (which is what humans were for almost the entire history of our species)
But this is not sexist, in the lion kingdom, the women hunt while the men rest and patrol their territory. Is this sexist?
Anyway I am getting sidetracked here, the point is that a child needs both a mother and father to have a better chance at succeeding in this world. The reasons are listed above in case the readers forgot the argument due to the sidetracking.
So it is better that there are less Homosexuals in the first place, to do that, showing same sex marriage couples on children's TV should not be condoned.
sarasmiles forfeited this round.
sarasmiles forfeited this round.
I shall use this round to persuade the voters to vote for me.
Obviously sources are tied because neither pro nor con used external sources. I have not seen examples of bad grammar in any of mine or my opponent's arguments, hence they are tied.
However, my opponent forfeited two rounds, therefore I appeal that the voters vote for me for CONDUCT (since I saw this debate through to the end unlike my opponent) and to vote for me for CONVINCING ARGUMENTS(since pro was obviously convinced by my arguments which resulted in the forfeiting).
(: "Vote for con! :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: I hate it when new people disappear. conduct for con. arguments to con, it does seem like a bad idea to promote other than mainstream lifestyles to little kids like that.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.