The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Should homosexuals be on kid shows?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/22/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 952 times Debate No: 71545
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




This argument is about how gay and lesbian couples should be featured on television shows for 8+. That is around the Disney channel age and when kids should know that gay people exist. There will be 4 rounds in this debate.

Round 1. Acceptance

Round 2. Opening arguments (no rebuttals)

Round 3. Rebuttals/New arguments

Round 4. Closing statements/Counter rebuttals (no new arguments)

So their will be no bias to vote you have to comment and message me so I know you have Bo opinion on the subject of gay marriage. Then I will allow you to vote for the person with the best argument.


I accept this debate challenge and will be providing the Con side arguments that it is in the interest of children's show channels like Disney to keep homosexuality out of their show's when possible. I will also make an effort to argue it's in the interest of other people in general as well but I must point out that voters should not consider it necessary that I prove every single groups best interest are served by keeping it out of children's show's, I need just prove at least one to negate the resolution.

Because suppose by the end of the debate you are convinced by the arguments that it is in society or cultures interest to keep this element out of entertainment but not in the interest of the TV show companies. The resolution is negated isn't it in at least one way right?

or suppose it's the other way around and your convinced the arguments that it's in the companies interest but not cultures. It's still negated right?

I believe Pro, being the one defending a positive affirmation of the resolution must be considered to have Burdon of Proof between the 2 of us, so both cases in the interest of Culture and in the Interest of the Company must be proved by Pro. Because otherwise this leaves them arguing for something that is not in all parties mutual interest and thus the debate ends up turning into one about Government overreach into media outlets or something like that.

Pro's arguments must affirm the resolution as if it were a stand-alone issue that does not require you to have a particular position on other political debates to determine your position on this one. Pro's arguments must convince you whether you are a die hard fascist, communist, libertarian, capitalist, republican, or democrat. It should not matter.

That said I look forward to a respectful debate and wish good luck to all.

I await Pro's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Kids who are exposed to same sex couples at an age they are young enough for it to sink in to their brains but old enough to understand. There are no proven studies that hanging around or watching gay people will turn you gay. It is simply ridiculous to think that you can "catch" a sexuality. So kids who watch homosexual relationships will not "turn gay". Children who are exposed to something will be more likely to understand it. If they see gay and lesbian couples in the same way straight couples are represented then they will see it as normal. If this happens and children get this kind of exposure it is more likely that they will not bully someone due to their sexual orientation and it will be easier for their kids and generations after to come out to their parent until being gay is not a problem.

Some parents think that seeing gay couples will confuse the child but it really doesn't. My child found about gay people when she was 6. She watched a video called kids react to gay marriage. Of course as all kids were she was shocked but she is not messed up or confused in any way. This video shows kids that know and do not know about homosexuals. You can clearly see that the interpretation on which children learn of homosexuals influences their thoughts on them. One child does not agree with homosexuals because that's what their parents taught them but like the other kids if you are exposed to it in a different light then it will cause no confusion and kids will have no problem with it. No one is born homophobic. It is taught.


As per the Round 1 rules I will not offer any rebuttals to Pros opening arguments but will do my best to contain myself to just my own opening case.

As I hinted at in round 1 I will be making a distinction between the different parties who's interest are affected by the resolution.

The first and primary party of importance is the children's channel company itself.

The Companies: It is without a question that for the sake of at least the children's channels (I don't necessarily extend this argument to apply to adult channels) that it is not in their interest to include controversial topics of any kind whatsoever wherever possible and wherever it is not necessary. Sesame Street is just trying to provide to wholesome simple entertainment for kids that can help them distinguish between number and letter the episode was brought to you by
For the non-profit companies do you believe they only want the children of Liberal parents to learn how to save their allowance long enough to buy a skateboard? Of course not, they are just out to make children literate. Issues like Abortion, Sexual Relationships (hetero and homo), the Death Penalty, and Monetary Policy are all issues that they can learn later.
But perhaps I should not have chosen Sesame Street as an example. My opponent did specify in their definitions shows that are for those children that are 8 and older. my nieces are 8 years old and they are still watching Sesame Street before school. So lets take something else as our example like Princess Sophie. Are the objectives really all that different before these children become Teenagers. The central themes are a little bit heavier than 'a triangle has 1.....2....3 sides ah ah ah' but they are still not in the ball park teaching children about the birds and the bee's, either homo or hetero. And what few relationships exist are not of enough substance to say they come close to entering controversial territory. It would be unnecessarily alienating to just start inserting political and social controversies in their very uncomplicated storylines just to make some sort of statement on this one issue when they do no such thing to teach children about good and bad monetary policy. Until I see Mike Moloney come on Sesame Street to explain to Elmo where currency comes from and what the difference is between money and currency I say putting homosexual relationships in the content is a double standard that is out of character for the purposes of the show
-----For Profit-----
This one probably does not need explained but their is a large enough market of consumers who don't care for homosexual relationships that the Princess Sophia dolls stand to sell better if these people are buying them for their children too knowing it is one of the few shows they don't have to worry about their children watching. In fact passion for these values in terms of how profitable it is for companies to cater to it are quite high regardless of what you may have heard on MSNBC. A few years ago the CEO of Chick Fil A made comments about his beliefs on homosexuality and while gay rights activist were quick to boycott the company made record breaking sales from the show of Christian support it got after words. They "had a 29.9 percent spike in sales" and if I recall correctly I remember it being on the radio that some restaurants just had to tell people they could not sell them anymore chicken because they were completely out!

from a For Profit industries perspective, that's a lot of money to look at and think about throwing away for a social crusade that is not their responsibility and which everyone does not believe in. In fact you could that's a lot of money to throw away for a non-profit, because they still need to make enough money to break even.

suppose for a second we suspended consideration of the only peoples who's concerns should be considered in this matter, the TV companies, and consider what should be done in the interest of society as a whole. Lets pretend we live in the book 1984 and we, being members of the big brother government, are in charge of deciding what content is right or wrong for others to watch considering what propaganda best supports that which interest the state or society as a whole.

Kids Shows are not for Controversies
Then in this area to it is not in societies interest to cause so many children to miss out by turning children's shows into propaganda machines made for the purpose of ridiculing their families faith or for undercutting it. It is not right to leave their parents forced to make a choice on whether or not these children shows are fit for their family anymore when the ultimate purpose behind the shows was not political social crusades in the first place. Has Mickey Mouse weighed in on the Treyvon Martin Controversy? the riots in Ferguson? No? There's a reason for that. That is not what the shows are their for. In the kids Teenage years their will be plenty of time for them to watch older entertainment that includes all of these types of things but for those 8-12 years it's not been the place of any other controversy to fight out and that ought not to change.

Lets Do Propaganda Anyway
And suppose we were to change it though, suspending that point saying "I don't care what they have not been for before this is 1984 blast it! and Propaganda is our job!"

Well then the only propaganda we should approve for our children if we must approve of any is that which teaches good moral values. the values that say homosexual acts (not the desires themselves) are a sin that goes against God's will, the only adequate source for Good moral values being the creator and source of all Truth.

Now suffice it to say I am not going to turn this into 'Is God real' debate. I'm only going to choose to make my case from that perspective for the point reflecting the large demographic that shares it. The appeal to Biblical passages like Romans chapter 1 only has sway with the Christians who read my arguments and I accept that. I will not purely rely on the Bible when discussing the morality of homosexual acts, but those arguments will have to wait for when I can give them in context with the claims my opponent has already made when I have the opportunity to provide rebuttal later next round.

That's it for my opening arguments, please read them with the understanding that I put them in descending order of which points I wish to emphasize for this debate. In Summary my Key point is it is not in the interest of the companies to give cause to chunks of its audience to quit watching their show over social crusades and political content and it is not in their interest to lose those viewers money either.
Debate Round No. 2


ThatLezChick forfeited this round.


My opponent has made no effort to communicate with me in anyway since I accepted this open debate challenge or respond to my messages, but they did seem to have time to change their profile picture 2 days ago.

Disheartening as it is to have ones opponent quit and forfeit the debate before it rebuttals are given, I will press on and give a response this round anyway for the select few who bother to read this debate in the future.


1) "It is ridiculous to think that you can "catch" a sexuality. So Kids who watch homosexual relationships will not "turn gay".

I agree, that is ridiculous. This is why I do not defend this strawman. Only in the most indirect way would I ever argue that watching gay relationships would lead them to growing up to be gay. Like playing the video game "Hatred" will not make you want to go out and kill people, but it's normalizing the idea is hard to argue against be a contributing factor should you one day grow the desire to kill people for other reasons. But it still would not be that video games fault would it? So likewise the concern among Christian parents is not that their child is going to 'turn gay' because they watched gay boys make out on the newest version of Hannah Montana, but rather that when a TV show treats something immoral like it is a normal acceptable thing, the kids will grow up with the idea implanted in their head that their is nothing immoral about it. Is that a valid concern? Well you tell me, do tweens from the 90's who grew up watching every episode of 'Friends' come to accept 'having a baby is no reason to get married'? Did most people believe it was a reason to get married before the show aired? A moral compass may be an abstract concept but it is never the less important we ensure our children grow up with a good one. And to numerous Christian families a good compass is defined by understanding sodomy to be a sin against God's will.

Your own arguments argue from the premise that TV shows will normalize homosexuality if its shown on it so I obviously don't need to argue that with you though. What I will point out though is the fact that something CAN BE normalized does not mean that it SHOULD BE normalized no matter what your liberal sociology professor told you. Domestic Violence and abuse of women can be normalized, but that doesn't make the book "50 Shades of Grey" a good thing for our culture. Or to go back to the "Hatred" video game example. You could normalize sadistic gory homicide and mass shootings by having children play a game where they will be a sociopath killer that does nothing but that....but we should still not want the Disney Channel to advertise that game even if it could normalize it.

2) "If this happens and children get more exposure it is more likely that they will not bully someone due to their sexual orientation"
Your right, after all the Disney Channel having normal kids with freckles as stars caused the bullies at my school to leave me alone growing up.....oh wait no such effect occurred at all. They called me "Freckle-Freak" until middle school. Then my name was just any old name like "Loser" "Freak" "Stupid" "Retard", etc.....until at some point in high school it became "Bird Man".
Kid's that are bullies do not quit sucking no matter what the Disney Channels programming. Find me some actual data where the Disney Channel's change in programming reduced bullying in other respect.

3) "Some parents think that seeing gay couples will confuse the child...."
I would normally ask you to source this should you ever choose to come back and finish the last round of this debate, but it really does not matter because I do not argue the Con side from this angle in anyway.

4) "My child found about gay people when she was 6. She watched a video called...."
I'm just going to just leave that as the heading for the rest of your arguments because it really all about the same point. how you have chosen to teach your kid these values on your own through resources you have available on YouTube. And that's your choice. And your right. No matter what I might think should TV shows actively fight the values you want to teach your children because of that? Of course not, not if they want your money anyway. And that proves my point because that token works both ways because I am a valid Dish/Direct TV customer too. You might argue 'it does not matter that I'm a customer like anybody else is matters because I am a human like anybody else' and that too would be a token that works both ways. I also am a human, an American, someone who has a right to teach there children a moral set a values I approve of for them like anybody else. And right now both you and I are equally able to do exactly that. Well I take that back because it's hard to deny that Hollywood overall has a pro gay leaning culture, but as long we are pretending this is a social change that has not already taken effect in television I will for the sake of argument pretend we have a even playing field in the media. Because you know something we both have separate YouTube videos that we can each show our children. We each could direct them to different websites we approve of that would educate them on the topic. We do not need the Disney Channel to intervene and fight our battles for us or to take a side, we can educate our kids just fine.

A proposal which I would guess you would respond "But I am not interested in educating my kid, I am after the ability to control and educate yours. Your Guns, Kids, and Bible need to be confiscated from you ASAP to others more fit to raise and control them" To which I say "Pry the first from my cold dead hands, risk your own dead hands by attempting to kidnap the second, and you can have one copy I have others."

Oh and on one last point to rebut
5) "No one is born homophobic, it's taught"
No one is born with any particular morally set compass. we have to teach our kids all of their morals. We have to teach them not to lie, steal, and according to feminist we have to teach them rape is not acceptable either right?
Debate Round No. 3


Sorry can we restart this debate I have been without my computer for the past few days. I'm still intersted in participating in this debate but you win by default.


Sure, why not? We all need second chances sometimes. I'm honestly interested to see how you rephrase or choose to refocus your opening arguments knowing the particular route I plan to debate having seen me already post my arguments here on time already.

My only conditions are the rematch be set to 3 rounds instead of 4 with no need to waist a round on acceptance this time. Send me the challenge to the new debate whenever you have it read, and if you wish to change or clarify any conditions to the debate or definitions in light of my arguments you have seen PM about the changes first (for example while I plan on keeping the debate not focused on the moral question of homosexual sex or relationships perhaps you want that issue to be a more central component of the debate)

I sign off the final round of this debate thanking my opponent for coming back for at least of these rounds to forfeit in person
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Marauder 3 years ago
Sorry I'm pushing the time requirements to their max. I have had more demands on my non-work hours time than I thought I would.

I'll have time tomorrow though so don't worry. I make this post from my phone during lunch break so that's why I'm not posting now
Posted by Marauder 3 years ago
Voters can't vote unless they message you first and you approve? that's an option on this site now? So much has changed since I've been gone for a few months
Posted by CentristX 3 years ago
This is how it goes: Society chooses who ends up on TV or not, and ultimately there is always a left wing liberal party who complains and claims that they have a lack of rights, OR, some group of conservative Christians come out and say that their religious liberty is threatened, when all they have to do is *turn the television off*
Posted by G-g-ghost 3 years ago
Ppl are so uptight thay should be introducing all the view points thay can to their children not at just 8+ but from birth. Love is love and it deserves our repect in all forms!
I see no reason to halt/hinder evolution we have come so far in such a relatively short time it's going to be the normal and on tv eventaly .. More improtantly your kids don't care why would thay , welcome to 2015
Posted by Reeseroni 3 years ago
They'll just find out eventually. It really is not as big of a deal as people act it up to be.
Posted by Stefy 3 years ago
they should be allowed to be on shows geared towards ages 0+. Strait couples are. Its not like they're going to go into graphic detail about their sex lives. They would just act like any other couple in a kids show/movie.
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 3 years ago
I see that the pro's main argument is that at the age of 8+ children should learn that homosexuals exist. The only problem with this argument is that it doesn't explain why it has to be on kids TV shows. If it was so necessary for kids to know about homosexuality, shouldn't the school teach them? Personally didn't know it was a TV shows job to show kids stuff that exist.
Posted by StalinIncarnate 3 years ago
8 is much too young. I argue for the ages of at least 14.
Posted by Jonnykelly 3 years ago
I know that accepting this debate would be a death trap, and I would certainly lose and be labeled a homophobe. So I won't accept it. But, putting that sort of thing on kids' TV is just a bad idea. All morals aside, all it will do is attract a bunch of flack from the right, cause a lot of hate mail, and cause boycotts of things like Disney Channel. It's just unwise for them to do that.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EAT_IT_SUKA 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: CON argued and refuted all of PRO's arguments...