Should Bert and Ernie be married?

Well, there is a petition here and it is about the characters from Sesame Street Bert and Ernie and whether they should get married or not. The petition doesn't seem to becoming a reality...however it is an interesting topic.

What do you think? Is this appropriate for kids to learn? Should a gay marriage be featured on a children's show?

Any ways post your thoughts.

Personally, I don't think this is a good idea. Homosexual or Heterosexual, a topic like this isn't appropriate for children watching Sesame Street.

Note: Please have a reasonable argument or perspective on the issue before voting. Thanks :)

I remember there was a T.V show here (A kids T.V show) that got massivly flamed because a child had 2 "mothers".

Probably isn't a good idea to make them get married.

I also think it wouldn't be a good idea :/

Stupid idea is Stupid. Don't teach innocent kids that gay is the norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drags111

Stupid idea is Stupid. Don't teach innocent kids that gay is the norm.

---

Surely, your ignorance is clearly showing.

Yes, they should. They've been together for so long on Sesame Street and its CLEAR they are gay.

Yes, marry them!

.. in a non-religious ceremony!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nava2

Surely, your ignorance is clearly showing.

Yes, they should. They've been together for so long on Sesame Street and its CLEAR they are gay.

Yes, marry them!

.. in a non-religious ceremony!

---

Ignorance... Yes, I think homosexuality is against nature and everything that a species survives for, so that makes me ignorant. Your ignorance is the one you should be afraid of. But I don't want to get religion mixed into the matter here...

http://www.motivationalposter.us/wp-.../08/unique.jpg

Love is love, who are you to say otherwise?

they should :)

That's not love.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drags111

That's not love.

---

define it.

Don't confuse children's minds with controversial topics. Make them learn about it after they have matured.

I agree with drags.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by litoris

Don't confuse children's minds with controversial topics. Make them learn about it after they have matured.

---

This..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drags111

Stupid idea is Stupid. Don't teach innocent kids that gay is the norm.

---

^This sums up my opinion on the issue.

It's an interesting question, but also not a very useful one. The amount of kids who actually pay attention and take something from sesame street is probably lower than how many adults take something from it. And why have tv try to teach issues like these, rather than schools? Or parents, as if that would ever actually happen (there are an awful lot of Bill O'Reillys out there).

But I sort of agree with drags in a sense. I've been a strong believer that homosexuality, while I have nothing wrong with it, is unnatural. I place it under the category of drug use, self harm, etc.. I have never once met someone, heard about someone, or know of any instance where someone with no traumatizing events for the worse that were never dealt with one way or another does drugs, hurts oneself, has interest in homosexual behavior, or the like. (lolrunonsentence)

I don't think it's wrong at all, though. It's not their fault. They went through something awful and are effectively 'stuck' at that age emotionally. I don't think it's fair to say they are wrong for that, but more that they need help. This has been bugging me for awhile, because I once was a pro-drug, pro-whatever kid. Now that I've gotten help and done an awful lot of pondering, I just don't know. Part of me thinks people should be able to do whatever they please however they please as long as they don't harm others, but another part of me thinks that rehabilitating people would be a much better option.

Also, I don't think it's right at all to just keep information from children until they're older.. It's incredibly backwards in my mind. School does this and it just doesn't make any sense. But that's another issue.

So, no. TV shouldn't be teaching kids these lessons. It's only going to spark controversy and all other stuff I touched on.

Also, there was a bunch of people talking a little about SpongeBob and Patrick being gay and not wanting it on TV. And that wasn't even 'official.' :p

I think not.

I'm not against the mariage itself, but Bert and Ernie? They are just best friends, not a love relationship :)
But a good call for attention for gay rights.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...161337077.html

i feel like the desperate desire, that gay people have, to integrate their belief - that homosexuality is ok - into children's minds is sorta sad. it seems like many children shows are now being pressured by the gay community to condone ONLY one side of a highly controversial belief.

and really, spongebob? come on.

/me organises a massive attack soundclash

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drags111

Stupid idea is Stupid. Don't teach innocent kids that gay is the norm.

---

I don't see how "marrying" one couple in the entirety of children's television equals the norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drags111

Ignorance... Yes, I think homosexuality is against nature and everything that a species survives for, so that makes me ignorant. Your ignorance is the one you should be afraid of. But I don't want to get religion mixed into the matter here...

---

I'm confused as to what part of our daily life is natural. We sleep in artificially produced beds, eat processed/unnaturally made and/or collected foods etc etc. If you are against homosexuality because it is against nature/survival of the species, then I suggest you try reading The Selfish Gene as species aren't things that survive (not a biologist, but I believe the gene and individual view are basically the only two accepted levels at which natural selection acts.) Similarly, are you opposed to contraception, oral/anal sex? How about IVF (helps people get pregnant) since that's certainly not natural and is really more dangerous to the future of human survival than homosexuality (after all, homosexuals don't pass on genes unless they use surrogates, but people with infertility problems can pass on their genes, possibly infertility genes in an ironic twist!)

Or, an even more accepted idea that is just as "unnatural": vegetarianisms and veganisms. Humans are evolved to eat an omnivorous diet, yet they consciously decide not to eat meat (or any animal products) and can get very riled about the issue. Whether or not you believe/think/assume homosexuals have a choice as to who they find attractive, you must believe that most vegetarians could eat meat if they wanted to but choose not to for moral reasons. Then again, is it that moral reason that makes vegetarians "acceptable" while homosexuals only have "quirks" of brain chemistry to support their life choice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drags111

That's not love.

---

[Does include previous post, but thought it silly to include both]
Normally, love is not sufficient for marriage or equivalent. In some cases it is sufficient and in some cases it is not even necessary. However, any view of love and marriage should be symmetrical around sexuality unless there is rigorous and conclusive research to the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by litoris

Don't confuse children's minds with controversial topics. Make them learn about it after they have matured.

---

The problem with this approach is determining when it is acceptable. Also, I don't see why it is a "controversial topic" except for that some people decide it is. This isn't like the use of torture to extract useful information where there can be leeway or anything like that since homosexuality is legal and a part of cultures. I'm not really that sure why it would be a problem to tell a child "These are two men/women and they love each other."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x[Warrior]x3500

i feel like the desperate desire, that gay people have, to integrate their belief - that homosexuality is ok - into children's minds is sorta sad. it seems like many children shows are now being pressured by the gay community to condone ONLY one side of a highly controversial belief.

---

[Apply a bit of the above here too.] I would say there reason why there is pressure for it (although I'm not sure where that pressure is coming from since there has only been one petition for one show brought up in this topic, so I assume you have a secret stash of sauces for your stated fact) is that the only way to beat homophobia and discrimination against homosexuals is to have children grow up with the unconscious knowledge that homosexuality is a valid life choice.

Out of personal interest, are you also someone who opposes the Christians trying to get religion taught as fact (and in the process denying evolution) or do you just oppose this because you have the unconscious knowledge that homosexuality "isn't normal" and so shouldn't be taught to children as "normal" (that is normal as in acceptable, not preferable.)

That last little line also brought a point I'd like to make: telling children that homosexuality is acceptable is not the same as telling children to be homosexual. I doubt any one (ignoring those silly few people who ruin general statements) wants to teach children that they should only love people of the same sex.

On a final note, I would like to ask: would all of you criticising this for being controversial to teach to young children still be opposing this if a heterosexual marriage was proposed? I put my money on "no" but I'd say it's silly to ask now since if you agreed with my money then you would be pointing yourselves out as hippo critics, so I won't hold out for confirmation but will appreciate honesty.

Reading this Reminded me of something heard years ago about one of my local liverpool radio dj's Pete Price who volunteered for electric shock treatment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3258041.stm

Atleast this guy tried to cure him self.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CRU1Z1N

Reading this Reminded me of something heard years ago about one of my local liverpool radio dj's Pete Price who volunteered for electric shock treatment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3258041.stm

Atleast this guy tried to cure him self.

---

Not sure if troll or stupid considering the article lists the torturous conditions some people thought were acceptable if it led to a change in sexual orientation yet only ended up resulting in mentally scarred individuals.

Okay, for one, Bert and Ernie are brothers.



(EDIT: Or did they drop that part?)
(EDIT: I assume they are still brothers. WTF, guys.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R0b0t1

Okay, for one, Bert and Ernie are brothers.



(EDIT: Or did they drop that part?)

---

If they are.. I revoke my previous agreement with their marriage.

they already act like they are married.. so I voted yes

probably wouldn't change anything rofl

@ Mixter: Homosexuality is not natural. Sleep is natural, what we sleep on isn't. Your argument makes no sense. If you use that logic then computers are part of nature. They aren't they are man made. Materials come from nature but are altered and gone through immense changes to get to the form they are now. A species whole goal is to survive, to reproduce, and to continue for generations. Anything that cannot reproduce is considered a non-living organism.

As far as your question to my religious outlooks: Yes I believe the bible is more fact than fiction, but not to the point of saying evolution doesn't exist. Of course it does and theres plenty of proof for it. However what most religions don't have are the doctrines that are held by the Mormon faith. With these cleared up versions of many books and teachings twisted by men overtime to their liking. In those are more truths about existence and God's workings. It's hard to explain what we believe to people who are anti-religious but if you would like to know just contact me on irc.

Here's my 2 cents on the whole gay thing: gays will never be fully accepted because being gay isn't "right". Morals and religion be damned, being gay still completely defies nature's intentions and is therefore "wrong". I challenge anyone to come up with an argument saying that homosexuality complies with nature's reproductive intentions; humans cannot propagate unless one man and one woman are involved in the process. Smashing two sperm or two eggs together won't do a thing (except make a mess).

In short, children shouldn't be taught to defy nature. We don't teach them to pollute water sources and we don't teach them arson.

Do I gave a problem with people who are gay? No. I have no problem with anyone who doesn't have a problem with me.
Is it right to be gay? No. See above.
Should Bert and Ernie be married? No. The petition was made by attention whores.

As for the whole Bible thing: I'm a God-fearing man, but I also think the Bible shouldn't be taken at face value. It's supposed to teach morals and life lessons, and some of the stories may be exaggerated and/or simply fabricated to make a point. Take the story of King Solomon and the two women arguing over the baby. Even if the baby isn't yours, no one would agree that cutting it in half is 'fair'; the story was exaggerated to demonstrate the senses of justice and problem solving people should have. Likewise, Jesus may or may not have been able to perform superhuman miracles; nonetheless, he is the role model that all should aspire to be like.

@Mixter: With proper protein sources like legumes and nuts, a vegetarian/vegan diet is a perfectly viable way to live. In fact, most vegetarians/vegans are an order of magnitude more healthy than those of us who eat red meat regularly. Since you seem to think being a vegetarian/vegan defies nature, here's a thought experiment for you: Take two communities of equal size in similar locations. One is comprised of mixed-gender vegans (the 'straight vegans'), the other of a single gender eating a mixed diet (the 'regular gays'). Both can maintain their own food and water supplies without external influence. In 300 years' time, which will have survived? Spoiler alert, but the gay community dies out in the first generation due to an inability to reproduce; the vegans can live well on their diet and can reproduce.

@ Mixter, pt.2: If the petitioned marriage was a heterosexual one, I'd have no problem at all. That is a union as nature, religion, and the law intended. Saying one thing is right, and that the opposite is wrong, does not make me a hypocrite; quite the opposite, it makes me someone who is forward with what he believes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R0b0t1

Okay, for one, Bert and Ernie are brothers.



(EDIT: Or did they drop that part?)
(EDIT: I assume they are still brothers. WTF, guys.)

---

I believe they are. Proof positive that the petition is just plain stupid, unless certain people wants us promoting homosexual incest now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R0b0t1

Okay, for one, Bert and Ernie are brothers.



(EDIT: Or did they drop that part?)
(EDIT: I assume they are still brothers. WTF, guys.)

---

WTF, then why the hell did 8715 people sign that damn petition :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smarter Child

WTF, then why the hell did 8715 people sign that damn petition :confused:

---

Lol this might come true..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drags111

Stupid idea is Stupid. Don't teach innocent kids that gay is the norm.

---

You aren't taught to be gay... It's not a choice. Being hipster for example is, as far as we can choose anything in our lives. You can't teach kids gay is the norm, but you can teach them to respect each other's opinions and lifestyles.

Live and let live.

As for the topic, I found it funny and wouldn't oppose to them marrying, but I agree it is a bit silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drags111

@ Mixter: Homosexuality is not natural. Sleep is natural, what we sleep on isn't. Your argument makes no sense. If you use that logic then computers are part of nature. They aren't they are man made. Materials come from nature but are altered and gone through immense changes to get to the form they are now. A species whole goal is to survive, to reproduce, and to continue for generations. Anything that cannot reproduce is considered a non-living organism.

As far as your question to my religious outlooks: Yes I believe the bible is more fact than fiction, but not to the point of saying evolution doesn't exist. Of course it does and theres plenty of proof for it. However what most religions don't have are the doctrines that are held by the Mormon faith. With these cleared up versions of many books and teachings twisted by men overtime to their liking. In those are more truths about existence and God's workings. It's hard to explain what we believe to people who are anti-religious but if you would like to know just contact me on irc.

---

Thank you for disregarding all my other points (IVF, vegetarianism as the two main) and twisting my pointing out of our unnatural lifestyle to conform with your opinion. I really wasn't saying that computers were natural: I was saying they were unnatural.

You also missed my point about species: natural selection does not work at the level of a species. A species does not strive to survive, but individuals or genes do. For the "non-living", look down a spot at my list of people in addition to homosexuals who can't reproduce.

As far as the Mormon books go, I have no idea. However, I find it hard to believe that they would dismiss enough to make evolution a viable fact while treating the Holy Book as fact. Even if they do though, if they still include the discussion of homosexuality, then, as far as I know, it must be in the context of stoning them to death, which links up with far down yonder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tlachtli

Here's my 2 cents on the whole gay thing: gays will never be fully accepted because being gay isn't "right". Morals and religion be damned, being gay still completely defies nature's intentions and is therefore "wrong". I challenge anyone to come up with an argument saying that homosexuality complies with nature's reproductive intentions; humans cannot propagate unless one man and one woman are involved in the process. Smashing two sperm or two eggs together won't do a thing (except make a mess).

---

Of course no one can come up with an argument about compliance with reproduction because homosexuals can't. However, people are awfully fond of this crazy thing called contraception - should we ban it? After all, that doesn't comply with nature's reproductive intentions. How about people who can't "naturally" conceive - should they be forbidden from marriage since they can't make babies? What about people with cancer that results in their sexual organs being compromised? Should people with HIV/AIDS be allowed to conceive since it's "natural" even though their children would experience a very abnormal life?

Further on topic of "defying nature", there is homosexuality in animals (wiki wiki) so does that mean it's only "defying nature" in humans and not everything else? Then there's harems and caste systems (worker ants etc) where there's large amounts of an animal that don't reproduce yet the species doesn't die out.

More importantly, in our complex lives, why is reproduction the goal? It's biologically wired into us, but so are animal instincts that we suppress to conform with our view of civilised. Why aren't we unnatural for those yet we are for being free with our choice of who we find attractive? Is it acceptable to "defy nature" and adopt children and raise them to be good, moral people?

On a meta note, marriage is a human construct - there's not "natural" about it. So, why is being "natural" a requirement for it?

Quote:

---

In short, children shouldn't be taught to defy nature. We don't teach them to pollute water sources and we don't teach them arson.

---

If you think homosexuality is on par with polluting water sauces and arson, then you have serious issues with the comparison operators in your brain. I prefer vegetarianism as a comparative for homosexuality since both are "lifestyle choices" that go against nature, some people think they are stupid for being it and it doesn't affect other people much.

Quote:

---

Do I gave a problem with people who are gay? No. I have no problem with anyone who doesn't have a problem with me.
Is it right to be gay? No. See above.

---

I would say calling them unnatural is saying you have a problem with them, but then again maybe that's not a "real" insult and I'm just overreacting,

Quote:

---

Should Bert and Ernie be married? No. The petition was made by attention whores.

---

I would say "attention whore" requires something more than creating an online petition, especially considering the requirement for being an attention whore on the internet nowadays.

Quote:

---

As for the whole Bible thing: I'm a God-fearing man, but I also think the Bible shouldn't be taken at face value. It's supposed to teach morals and life lessons, and some of the stories may be exaggerated and/or simply fabricated to make a point. Take the story of King Solomon and the two women arguing over the baby. Even if the baby isn't yours, no one would agree that cutting it in half is 'fair'; the story was exaggerated to demonstrate the senses of justice and problem solving people should have. Likewise, Jesus may or may not have been able to perform superhuman miracles; nonetheless, he is the role model that all should aspire to be like.

---

Jesus was pretty great: he told people to love and let live, yet the Old Testament tells you to stone gays to death, non-virgin wives, both people who sleep with animals AND the animals. So, as far as logic is concerned, you either accept the Old Testament and that homosexuality is wrong and bad, as well as sexism and bigotry and hundreds of other quirks, or you accept only the New Testament and that it is not your place to judge but to love. Also, Jesus kind of spent a lot of time with guys and not a lot of time with girls. Just saying.

Quote:

---

@Mixter: With proper protein sources like legumes and nuts, a vegetarian/vegan diet is a perfectly viable way to live. In fact, most vegetarians/vegans are an order of magnitude more healthy than those of us who eat red meat regularly. Since you seem to think being a vegetarian/vegan defies nature, here's a thought experiment for you: Take two communities of equal size in similar locations. One is comprised of mixed-gender vegans (the 'straight vegans'), the other of a single gender eating a mixed diet (the 'regular gays'). Both can maintain their own food and water supplies without external influence. In 300 years' time, which will have survived? Spoiler alert, but the gay community dies out in the first generation due to an inability to reproduce; the vegans can live well on their diet and can reproduce.

---

Yes, people can live as vegetarians and yes people can live as homosexuals. I wasn't saying vegetarians would die off, simply that they defy nature. It's simple: they do. Natural selection and evolution has made us omnivores and they are being herbivores. Your thought experiment is also pointless for the reason that if you base "obeying nature" simply on surviving and reproducing, in which case it is "natural" to eat every even child that is born, that incest is natural, basically that anything that doesn't prevent producing the next generation is natural no matter how damaging or morally wrong it is.

On another point, how about discussing some of my other points I brought up? Is IVF "evil" and should be banned? After all, as I alluded to, we could end up with a population of people who struggle to conceive "naturally" and so would go extinct if something happened.

Quote:

---

@ Mixter, pt.2: If the petitioned marriage was a heterosexual one, I'd have no problem at all. That is a union as nature, religion, and the law intended. Saying one thing is right, and that the opposite is wrong, does not make me a hypocrite; quite the opposite, it makes me someone who is forward with what he believes.

---

You missed the qualifier which was that it was a question to people who believed that marriage shouldn't be exposed to the children as they're too young or similar.

Inb4 you turn out to be gay yourself, and then ask why you can't get married with the man you love.

If a man loves a man, than marriage is ok. There is no argument against this from the ' gay haters' except they believe it doesn't exist. But I don't see why two brothers have to get married. I still believe incest is just plain wrong.

edit: They aren't brothers.

edit: edit:
The response from the creators of Sesam street was:

Quote:

---

Bert and Ernie are best friends. They were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves. Even though they are identified as male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics (as most Sesame Street Muppets do), they remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation.

---

I think this boils down to whether or not you think being gay is a choice, or something that just happens. I think it is a choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cause

I think this boils down to whether or not you think being gay is a choice, or something that just happens. I think it is a choice.

---

If it is a choice, should you not be free to make that choice?

I don't think it's necessarily a 'choice,' however I don't think that one is born gay or straight.

Having talked to a gay friend myself, it is a choice. He was teased a lot for being feminine in school for years till eventually he just decided. And for the record I am not against anyone, be it straight, gay, bi, terrorist, religion, whatever. I am however against some of their actions, but I think there is a reason why everyone does everything, and many times it isn't their fault, many times it is a conscious decision they have made. I'm done on the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drags111

Ignorance... Yes, I think homosexuality is against nature and everything that a species survives for, so that makes me ignorant. Your ignorance is the one you should be afraid of. But I don't want to get religion mixed into the matter here...

---

Just had to one thing to this: homosexuality is not against nature. Nature uses it as (I.E) a form of protection against over-population

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

If it is a choice, should you not be free to make that choice?

---

Am I also free to commit crime? We can do anything we want, however consequences differ between actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cause

Am I also free to commit crime? We can do anything we want, however consequences differ between actions.

---

Well, according to the law gays have equal rights (except in a few state, but the whole world is working on that), criminals commit actions against the law. If you can point me to a law article that prohibits taking it up the butt, please link me. (I suppose a lot of straight people will have committed a crime then too)

About the Bert/Ernie getting married: Definitely not. NO ONE else on the show, be it humans or puppets are married/in love/in a relationship or ANYTHING! It's a children's show, to teach them about educational topics. It's kind of annoying to me that people are pushing so hard for this when the show has nothing to do with the topic at all.

About Homosexuality: I think (for most people) is NOT a choice. No one CHOOSES their sexual orientation, you are born with it. I guess some people can go against their 'genes' and do what they please. Also I am 100% NOT against homosexuality let everyone love who they want and just be happy. If you are not a homosexual, then why let it bother you?

@YoHoJo: It doesn't bother me till they start doin crap like this.