Including just so tiny ones that are almost still toddlers. You don't believe? Here's the link:

http://wiadomosci.o2.pl/?s=258&t=309793

Scroll all the way down to the YouTube clib. There are English subtitles as well.

It should be illegal to use children like that. There's just no stop of its own to the promotion of gay lifestyle unless one is put there by the law. Some people will do anything to promote their sick ideas.

[ December 30, 2006, 16:08: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

I remember watching Kinderen voor Kinderen when I was young, it was never about forcing ideas into children, it always about children telling about things in their lives. The whole idea behind the show is to promote tolerance and understanding between children.

When I was still watching, songs where about different religions, cultures, dreams and refugees. Nowadays the shown still reflects things that play in the lives of children. Yes there are children with gay parents, so why should they be silenced?
It's not like singing about gays makes a child homosexual, and it's not like this was meant to promote the gay lifestyle, since that is already socially accepted.

Edit, the links won't work, here is the main link to the song site (http://kvk.vara.nl/Songteksten.282.0.html)

Edit 2:
Now that I think of it, I remember being exploited once for some moral doctrines. A bunch of christian anti-abortionists came to my school when I was 10 or 11 and showed us some pictures of aborted fetuses and then send us out on the streets to collect money. I think those pictures where more traumatizing than any gay-lifestyle song could be.

Wow, I expected something worse. :bad:

I don't see anything objectionable insofar as freedom of speech goes. I mean, we in the US use children in Christmas pageants and plays, the children probably not 100% understanding everything behind Christmas and Christianity, but no one (as a whole) will protest Christmas pageants.

You may think homosexuality is a bad/unnatural/morally objectionable thing, but then again, I think censorship of free speech like this is objectionable. You could argue that it deserves to be censored on the basis of homosexuality being morally wrong, but that's very problematic in its own right.

In a sense, the antidote to bad speech (if you perceive this as bad speech) isn't censorship, but good speech. Of course, there are some things that necessarily have to be censored, e.g. performance art involving bodily injury of bystanders, but I don't see anything close to that in this song. Heck, it's affirmatory, not antagonistic.

Can someone summarise what happens in that clip? 56k and all...

Some people will do anything to promote their sick ideas.I agree! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_EKHK1C2IE)

Boy, that sure doesn't go both ways or anything. :rolleyes:

Aik - Essentially it's a live show with a teen-or-younger-looking audience and a teen-looking boy sings a pop-like song about having two fathers and during the chorus the audience sings along.

Damn homos, trying to make us understand about their lifestyles through the medium of song! How dare they try and challenge our bigotries! I bet every one of those kids is gay now, thanks to that song.


:rolleyes:

I don't see anything wrong with this at all mate.

What 'sick ideas' are you referring to Chev?

I remember an even worse, and much more devious gay propaganda, it featured something as innocent looking as penguins (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15764474/)! Penguins! :p

I see nothing wrong with some guy singing about his life.

Seems like a perfectly well rounded kid. I guess the question on everyone's mind is "Is he gay also?"

Sorry, Chev, but I can see nothing wrong with the video or with the fact that the child is fine with having two homosexual fathers.

It should be illegal to use children like that. There's just no stop of its own to the promotion of gay lifestyle unless one is put there by the law. Some people will do anything to promote their sick ideas. yea does gay people are soon as sick and twisted as the religous people, indoktrinating children with thier sick and twisted ideas about supperiority and salvation trough believe, i sure hope the law does something :rolleyes:

Better two homosexual good fathers than abusive or unstable heterosexual parents.

Your argument rests on the assumption that homo-sexuality is a choice, that people can be indoctrinated to make.

I have my doubts about that. I know a number of homo-sexual people, most of them colleagues. A few gave me the impression they did choose, but I doubt they're really gay but rather that they like the lifestyle. Others are gay. Others are bi-sexual. Others are really fagots, or worse, immature and just outed fagots. Others are ALPHA-male. One guy I know is ALPHA male, but amusingly gets all sissy when he meets his sisters. I don't much care about what they do as long as they end up being mentally stable and healthy persons rather than guilt-ridden or, worse, hypochritical closet cases.

My new hair-dresser is gay. I liked his predecessor better. He keeps telling me straight I'm going to be bald in a decade. She had nice cleavage and this way of resting my head against it, asking if everything's satisfactory :roll: :spin: I get my hair cut less frequently now :bad: A male colleague at work is permanently flirting with me. So now I know I got nice legs. Some folks feel they have to tell me in detail what they do at the weekend. Thank you all. That are usually creepy things I don't want to know, irrespective of the messenger being hetero- or homo-sexual. I let them know. If they don't get it, well, in private life you can choose your company.

A lot of homophobia is IMO born of insecurity, and lack of exposure (as in: What doesn't kill you only makes you, err, tougher). Sure, some gays are usually pains in the ... well, are annoying. If you got a problem with gays that's probably your problem. And as for ideological cases against gay propaganda: When you know gay people you simply laugh your ass off about anti-gay propaganda. And iIf they go to burn in hell, it's not your problem, but theirs. Homosexuality is not a PR transmitted infectious desease.

While I'm at it, my semi-informed take on the first few urban myths about gays that come to my mind:</font> gays are cute - preposterous, ever heared about bears? Besides, they get old, too. gays are smart :lol: - I rather that they are pretty much representing the average of society, from hi-IQ to imbecile. gays are sensitive - same as above. Ever known a gay who went through his outing phase? Geez. Two words: *self absorbed* gays are affluent - in my experience they rather spend a lot, big difference. gays are cultivated - society average again, and when they are vulgar they're IMO plain gross

[ December 22, 2006, 12:39: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

It would seem chev is overreacting a bit. Indoctrination? Puh-lease. As Morgoth said, the show is about kids singing about things in their lives, not some propaganda for anything.

Besides what's so sick about gays? And what the hell is a gay lifestyle? I've known (and know) several gay people, but they're just normal people like you and me.

Morgoth:

I remember watching Kinderen voor Kinderen when I was young, it was never about forcing ideas into children, it always about children telling about things in their lives. The whole idea behind the show is to promote tolerance and understanding between children.

When I was still watching, songs where about different religions, cultures, dreams and refugees. Nowadays the shown still reflects things that play in the lives of children. Yes there are children with gay parents, so why should they be silenced?I'm sure the, "two real fathers, two real fathers," line didn't come from the kids themselves. Promoting tolerance apparently includes telling children what to sing.

Now that I think of it, I remember being exploited once for some moral doctrines. A bunch of christian anti-abortionists came to my school when I was 10 or 11 and showed us some pictures of aborted fetuses and then send us out on the streets to collect money. I think those pictures where more traumatizing than any gay-lifestyle song could be.Too bad they are not so traumatising to women who have abortions and doctors who procure them. Or maybe they are. I remember women who had had abortions having problems with being shown such images. If they did it, why shouldn't they be shown the results? Anyway, they shouldn't have made you go collect money.

@Oaz:

You may think homosexuality is a bad/unnatural/morally objectionable thing, but then again, I think censorship of free speech like this is objectionable. You could argue that it deserves to be censored on the basis of homosexuality being morally wrong, but that's very problematic in its own right.If it were an adult singer singing for adult people, I wouldn't really care. But there's a problem with making such crap with children and for children. Imagine what would happen if Christians used children in, "a child needs a mum and a dad," kind of campaign. Which wouldn't be remotely as bad as using innocent little children to indoctrinate people into supporting something unnatural and morally wrong.

@Aik: A kid singing, "I have two fathers, two real father," and other kids replying, "he has two fathers, two real fathers," and then the kid sings, "who would make up for my mum better [than they]?" and something about both of them being able to do as a mum if need be. Some of the kids are almost still toddlers.

@Death Rabbit: That clip looks sectarian. It's not my kind of Christianity.

@Clixby:

Damn homos, trying to make us understand about their lifestyles through the medium of song! How dare they try and challenge our bigotries! I bet every one of those kids is gay now, thanks to that song.Let them sing their songs on their own instead of making young children sing wishful-thinking-based things about how great it is to live in a gay "family".

@Barmy:

Sick ideas such as letting gay couples adopt children so that they could make statements by that and prove to themselves they can be like a normal couple. Which they can't and all the hassle with and emphasis on proving it is self-evident, apart from the fact no one cares for those orphaned children but just for the gay couples who want adoption rights.

@Abomination:

I see nothing wrong with some guy singing about his life.What makes you think it's really his life, let alone that he wrote the song?

@Equester:

yea does gay people are soon as sick and twisted as the religous people, indoktrinating children with thier sick and twisted ideas about supperiority and salvation trough believe, i sure hope the law does somethingI agree! Salvation comes through grace! :p

@Rags:

Better two homosexual good fathers than abusive or unstable heterosexual parents.That kind of statement leads to the idea that heterosexual parents are often abusive or unstable, whereas gay ones are "only" gay. In reality, that's not so, and the fact that they are gay and there's no mother or father is an overwhelming disadvantage.

A few gave me the impression they did choose, but I doubt they're really gay but rather that they like the lifestyle.That's "worse". Homosexual inclination is not per se immoral, but acting on it or choosing it is a different matter. All the media hype and the pro-gay campaigns and indoctrination lead people to behaving like gays without really being gay. Or perhaps they are gay but they are not in fact homosexual. More like it.

And iIf they go to burn in hell, it's not your problem, but theirs. Homosexuality is not a PR transmitted infectious desease.I disagree with the first statement to an extent on religious grounds, but let's not discuss theology here. :p I disagree with the second statement so long as we consider all the people who have homosexual relationships, as opposed to those who are really homosexual. Gay PR makes people seek experiences or even try how it is, then some of them like the lifestyle.

@henkie:

It would seem chev is overreacting a bit. Indoctrination? Puh-lease. As Morgoth said, the show is about kids singing about things in their lives, not some propaganda for anything.The kids are singing that song for a certain specific purpose which does not come from them. It's about convincing people that gay parents can be great and are "real".

Besides what's so sick about gays? And what the hell is a gay lifestyle? I've known (and know) several gay people, but they're just normal people like you and me.Homosexual carnal activity, feminised behavioral patterns in men, masculinised behavioral patterns in women, using children to prove their relationship is like a normal human family, without giving a single thought to the children's welfare. "I want to adopt because that's my right no matter what you think of it and I don't care about the good of the child. I don't want to think of it. And I can still be a great parent. You have a problem with this?" :rolleyes:

Chev, please ... Better two homosexual good fathers than abusive or unstable heterosexual parents.That kind of statement leads to the idea that heterosexual parents are often abusive or unstable, whereas gay ones are "only" gay.I am making a lawyer-ish 'dependes on the circumstances' argument, as you probably know very well. Good upbringing is characterised by loving, caring parents. What counts is what's the best for the child. It is not so that by default homo-sexual parents cannot love or care for a child.

In a divorce case the silly bit is always the question who gets the child. Imagine a divorcing couple where both sides love their single child. Usually the mother has an advantage as for the question of sole custody. Now the twist: What if she's lesbian and her ex-husband to be gay. Both are moving to their new partners they love. You would have to give the child into a home because all of a sudden it's unacceptable for it to live with such perverts.

Don't be mistaken, I'm conservative in that I don't consider a homo-sexual union as equal to a marriage. It's a different thing. But I'm also a realist. Homo-sexual union is a legal response for the call for regulation of a social phenomenon. Those who call for equality are IMO misguided.

As for homo-sexuals being allowed to raise children, I try to be realistic, too: I don't see an obstacle of homo-sexual male and female couples bringing up a child. As long as they love it and they're up to it, it's ok with me. That, however, puts on them a burden of proof, as hetero-sexual parents are not required to pass that sort of test. I'm uneasy with that.

You should well know that people don't take the decision of sexual orientation lightly. People who swing both ways are also an exception within a fringe group. Chev, you inflate the importance of 'issues' like gay marriage or homo-sexual couples raising children. All are fringe phenomenons. There will never be a stampede to the civil registry office for gay marriage. Just like homosexual parents will be an exception within a fringe group, and certainly not spread like a wildfire. Keep things in proportion. Gay PR makes people seek experiences or even try how it is, then some of them like the lifestyle.Get real. The prohibition didn't make America abstinent. Those who want it, or who are curious, would and do try it anyway. You just wouldn't notice because it would be off your radar, or 'in the closet'.

Let them sing their songs on their own instead of making young children sing wishful-thinking-based things about how great it is to live in a gay "family".
"Making them"? I'm sorry, but any one of those kids could have left if they felt uncomfortable. And, also, what's wrong with saying that you enjoy living in a gay family?

All these people were doing was raising awareness of homosexual families. It's like when those kid's shows bring handicapped people in to tell the kids about their illness(es). It's just raising awareness. I doubt anyone was made gay by this program, and if anything those kids that DID have two fathers now feel a bit more secure in their families, knowing that there are other kids like them.

Gay PR makes people seek experiences or even try how it is, then some of them like the lifestyle. So? How is that your, or for that matter anyone else's problem?

I have to agree with Chevalier here. Using kids for any type of propaganda is disgusting, especially for propaganda like this. Unfortunately, it is a common practice. Recognizing gay "rights" is one thing. Nobody should be persecuted for what they believe or what lifestyle they choose. However, the campaign for gay "rights" has morphed into an all out PR campaign to legitimize the gay lifestyle and push it upon the general population. If gays are really such a small percentage of the population then why are they so prevalant on television and in the media in general? A large percentage of television shows have gay characters, hosts, etc.

Here in California, Kindergarden kids are being given sex surveys in public school. Some of the questions are about homosexuality. Kindergardeners!?! The propaganda sure starts early. Also, a law recently passed that textbooks used in public schools need to highlight the achievements of gay Californians. If someone achieved something of significance why does sexual orientation need to be mentioned at all? Isn't it the achievement that matters? No, not when there is a campaign to force people to accept a lifestyle that is repugnant to most.

What we're dealing with here is an all out campaign to force people to accept the flamboyant gay lifestyle. Those of us who won't accept it are labeled as homophobes who suffer from some underlying insecurity which makes us "hate" homosexuals when in fact it simply is a matter of morality. It looks very much like classic propaganda to me. Eventually those who don't fall into line and continue to reject the propaganda will be the ones who are stigmatized, not the minority fringe group. That's the way it works with politically correct causes.

Dinsdale, nobody will ever force you to marry a gay person if that is any comfort. You will also never be forced to have that flamboyant gay lifestyle yourself. All it takes is to go on and ignore it, maybe shake your head. As I said before, homo-sexuality is not PR transmitted infectious disease. So no fear, you won't catch it even if you pass by close, or read the New York Times.

The point in educating kids about the reality of gay parents (because wishful thinking can't make them go away) is certainly sensible to prevent kids raised by gay couples from being ostracised on the schoolyard or in Kindergarten. "Johnny ain't have no ma, but two faggot daddies ... na-na-na na-na-na." Minor point.
Of course that can be interpreted as 'gay propaganda' but it needs a little paranoia for that I suppose. If you don't like it because it makes your kids too tolerant in this regard, well, they got you to correct that. I feel you're up to the job.

If it were an adult singer singing for adult people, I wouldn't really care. But there's a problem with making such crap with children and for children. Imagine what would happen if Christians used children in, "a child needs a mum and a dad," kind of campaign. Which wouldn't be remotely as bad as using innocent little children to indoctrinate people into supporting something unnatural and morally wrong.
If you're implying that using children to promote causes that they don't reallly understand -- that's fine, but it seems like you have the greater issue with the cause being homosexual than children being "used" in the "indoctrination". Otherwise, you would have objected earlier to parents having their kids becoming child actors in commercials and the like. And of course, there's no saying (unless you do have proof) that the kids didn't like being on that show. What is the difference (besides homosexuality being icky/wrong/unnatural) between a bunch of children clamoring to have a role in the school play and a bunch of children clamoring to get to sing in that song?

But to the point of gay parents: I want to see some proof -- as in an actual academic paper, not secondhand anecdotal evidence -- that children who are raised in homosexual families exhibit significantly more problems than ones raised in normal families.

All these people were doing was raising awareness of homosexual families. It's like when those kid's shows bring handicapped people in to tell the kids about their illness(es). It's just raising awareness. I doubt anyone was made gay by this program, and if anything those kids that DID have two fathers now feel a bit more secure in their families, knowing that there are other kids like them.I agree wholeheartedly with Clixby here. I feel the makers of the show made the song to make children with gay parents feel more secure. The show is about children, not their (gay) parents.

I see nothing wrong with some guy singing about his life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What makes you think it's really his life, let alone that he wrote the song?What makes you think he didn't? :rolleyes:

The kid singing it obviously isn't a moron. He understands what he's implying and the very nature of the relationship mentioned.

His life or no, his song or no, the whole thing is about promoting tolerance of children with homosexual parents. None of the children there have been strongarmed into singing about it and if they have then its illegal, that's called slavery.

Some kid has fag dads. He's happy with it. His fathers love him. He doesn't appear to have been abused as a child, they feed him well, I can't comment on his level of intelligence but I imagine he isn't an imbicile... in the end unless you can point out something wrong with the child then I can't see there being any negative effects of having homosexual parents.

What should they do? Hide the reality and be ashamed of their fathers? And what should gay people do? Should they hide in their homes so we shouldn't see them and know what they are? If freedom of speech is speaking if majority of people agrees with you, not speaking and not getting seen if your ideas are seen as "sick" by majority of people, religion,... our country is one of the most free countries in this world. :rolleyes:

Something that needs to be asked, do the kids on the stage really "have two fathers" or are they ringers just used to act out the song. The other question I have is why 5 year olds (aprox) asked to sing along like it was audience participation night if it was just a kid singing about his life instead of indoctrination as seems to be intended?

Dinsdale, nobody will ever force you to marry a gay person if that is any comfort. You will also never be forced to have that flamboyant gay lifestyle yourself. All it takes is to go on and ignore it, maybe shake your head. As I said before, homo-sexuality is not PR transmitted infectious disease. So no fear, you won't catch it even if you pass by close, or read the New York Times. Wow, that's the most rational and sensible thing I have ever read from Ragusa!

I have is why 5 year olds (aprox) asked to sing along like it was audience participation night if it was just a kid singing about his life instead of indoctrination as seems to be intended? Actually the kids say "He has two fathers" they're not singing about themselves they're singing about him.

Oh dear. Gays are fine Chev, meet some. I expected better from you, me old mucka! This is the kind of thing I'd expect from Gnarff.

Sick ideas such as letting gay couples adopt children so that they could make statements by that and prove to themselves they can be like a normal couple. Which they can't and all the hassle with and emphasis on proving it is self-evident, apart from the fact no one cares for those orphaned children but just for the gay couples who want adoption rights. you are aware the the normal family dosn't excist right?

33%of all Danish children are raised in families with one parrent do to divorses, then we have the orphans, does who are raised, with one parent do to death etc.
these people dont have the normal father/mother relation in thier upbringen, yet turn out "normal". so why is it that children raised by two parents of the same sex shouldn't? thier is no statistic or scientific evidence that shows us children raised by gay couples turn out worse (or better) then other children.

Secondly, you seem to suffer from the religius blindspot, the gay people does nothing in their promovation of thier lifestil, that christianity havent done and still does.

feminised behavioral patterns in men, masculinised behavioral patterns in womenI'd just like to point out that femininity and masculinity aren't clear-cut cases with heterosexuals either. They're defined greatly by the contemporary culture. Making such an ambiguous thing sick is rather problematic.

I do agree that there is a line how far you can go acting a certain way without the risk of making yourself look silly, but there's a lot of silly people and their silliness has little or nothing to do with their sexuality.

To some extent these silly people are required to test the rules of conformity. Otherwise the society would go stagnant.

I'm sure you disagree whether homosexuals are these kind of people that for their part help bring culture and society forward. It is arguable as much as almost anything, especially on religiuous basis.

I don't like using kids for propaganda purposes, if the purpose is something that doesn't help children.

Tolerance for cultural and subcultural differences is a valuable thing. This doesn't mean that you should accept everything however. I'm not that much for rights of homosexuals, but I'm with Equester here, that there isn't such a thing as 'normal parents' or a 'normal family'.

What if a whole set cultural beliefs are bent on making people unhappy? Would that be considered as normal? I think it would. There's a lot of things I'd like to change about beliefs concerning sexuality and gender issues, beliefs that have no proper basis on anything, things that bring too much unnecessary suffering...

[ December 23, 2006, 13:09: Message edited by: Iku-Turso ]

I certainly think that it's strange that a kid would feel the need to sing about having two fathers and that everyone else there wants to sing about it too. It does sound like indoctrination of sorts (I con't imagine that they weren't put up to it by an adult with an agenda), and indoctrination - be it for something that I agree with or not - is a big put-off for me.

That aside - I find the comments by chev to be waaaay over the top and pretty disgusting. I would love to see your reasoning for why homosexuality is a 'sick idea', but I suspect that you're not actually able to give me anything that doesn't add up to 'God said so'.

And yes; 'God said so' is an intellectually bankrupt arguement, and also a morally bankrupt one seeing what other things 'God' has said. But hey - I guess rational thinking was never a prerequisit for bigotry anyway...

I might get banned or warned for this and it might be construed as a personal attack (but really only if one perceives that to be what one is accused of being as something bad). I am starting to be more and more suspicious that Chev is a complete closet case homosexual. Your obsession with homosexuality and sex in general isnt healthy man. I think you would feel a lot better if you shook of the chains you have bound yourself with and let the real chev out and not the 14th century inquisitor your society and upbringing has forced you to become.

Just let it out mate, it cant be healthy to keep it bottled up like this even if your over-compensating on these boards is on a higher level than even a 65 year old man with a small penis driving a red Ferrari and thus slightly entertaining at times you have shown yourself to be a pretty decent fellow in general and I think in the long run you would feel better if you stopped fighting it and embraced what you truly seem to be. :)

I will remember this thread forever.

Interesting issue. The way I see it, the child singing is more an emotional support for the other children that are in his same situation. It would be very difficult for children brought up in a homosexual family, even if it is extremely loving and nurturing, because there will always be a large group of people who oppose.

Generally the childrens peers can be the hardest on them because children can be very mean. Compassion and respect are behaviors that develop later.

Having children with similar situations in a community gathering and hearing another child voicing their own feeling in song should be very therapeutic.

Here (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpstspec.html) are 67 research abstracts from the American Psychological Association regarding gay and lesbian parenting. Read up. (This (http://www.slate.com/id/2156033/fr/rss/) Slate article is where I got the prior ink.)

Time out!

Debate all you want about the topic, but I don't think any of us need to see psychoanalysis of members (whether accurate or complete bunk) as part of this.

So - Chev, you don't need to respond (please don't do it even if you feel like it) and I don't want to see any piling on in any way, shape or form.

PM only on the personal psychoanalysis.

Can we post psychoanalysis of ourselves? :p

Maybe in Whatnots :lol: - dmc

[ December 24, 2006, 02:43: Message edited by: dmc ]

True, ad hominem does nothing to further one's arguments. :nono:
And this is NOT the first time Chev has expressed his opinion on homosexuality, so don't be acting all surprised. So be it; it's his opinion and even though I disagree with it, it's just as eligible for expression as any other - more power to him!

That said, now it's time to wade into the cut-and-thrust of the debate itself. *rubs hands eagerly*

Some people will do anything to promote their sick ideas.Hear-hear; forcing children to learn and sing "Onward Christan soldiers/ Marching as to war" is pretty reprehensible to me - I've always wondered about the underlying message of that hymm; start a crusade against other religions? Deny them their beliefs and indoctrinate them with yours?


"I want to adopt because that's my right no matter what you think of it and I don't care about the good of the child. I don't want to think of it. And I can still be a great parent. You have a problem with this?" :skeptic: Hmmmm, where are you taking this quote from? It's not exactly an official rule of grammar, but *I* tend to take double quotes as an actual quotation of another person, while single quotes signify paraphrasing or 'putting words in someone's mouth'. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding this...


It should be illegal to use children like that. Rebuttal? Child-'raising' behaviour of Patsy Ramsey.

linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JonBen%C3%A9t_Ramsey)

...her mother, Patsy Ramsey, who enrolled her daughter in a variety of different beauty pageants in several states. In addition, she funded some of the contests in which Ramsey was involved...
...JonBenét Ramsey held a number of child beauty contest titles, including (in alphabetical order) America's Royal Miss, Colorado State All-Star Kids Cover Girl, Little Miss Charlevoix Michigan, Little Miss Colorado, Little Miss Merry Christmas, Little Miss Sunburst, and National Tiny Miss Beauty.And considering she died at the age of six-and-a-half, she was quite an ambitious and determined pre-schooler. ;)

All that furor about her death, and no one thought about charging her mother for the child abuse and exploitation (can you say "living Barbie doll"?) she suffered when alive... feh.

My point being that ALL sorts of groups exploit all sorts of people for all sorts of motives and reasons.

I'm still wondering if the child singing on stage has two fathers and why 5yr olds are asked to sing back if the performance was/is not intended as "indoctrination". If it was a young boy signing about HIS lifestyle it is kind of a different light on what happened even though the audience seems young to understand the details of what is being presented. Does the young boy signing have two fathers or is he a ringer and thus making this indoctrination of 5yr old kids, not sharing of experience that has been lived.

It is useless to try to bring up all kinds of other exploition to ask why someone objects to this particular occurrence as this was the subject brought up. I would like to believe that a group as educated and young (not a put down, you guys are the owners of the next 30 years or so) would offer opinions and question why this was done. I am very interested still in what you think and willing to be convinced and educated further in opinions from all over. Off topic at the end, sorry DMC and all

The thing is, Old One, it must be compared to other circumstances where children sing. The Children's choir at a Catholic Church is a prime example of children being told to sing about something they probably don't understand.

If you look you'll see that the entire audience isn't asked to participate and that the chorus singers are probably from some school choir or something and are playing the role of an instrument to simply make the song sound better. Children are used in choruses all over the world and not just for promoting certain ideals. The corporate music world uses children singers as backups for certain songs and nobody bats an eyelid. The only reason why this event has incurred a reaction is that Christians feel that children should be taught Christian morals _only_, in reality this isn't an objection to the use of children in a song, its an objection to children being taught that homosexuality is okay. The exact same of objection could be turned around and pointed at children being taught religion by those who believe that children shouldn't be indoctrinated at such a young age.

I see a song promoting acceptance and countering baseless fears of homosexual parents. Others see child slavery and brainwashing.

@Abomination
Let my try again, somehow I blew away my finished post and am posting again.

I think we are seeing the same thing from two different views. I looked at the performance again and saw something that I missed first go around, the boy has two dads and is singing what he feels. I missed it due to not having broadband and missed that little segment somehow. It takes a lot to catch everything and this is my only excuse. The boy has a right to act/sing/talk his feelings about his fathers. I believe in freedom of speech and support it. I do not agree an extra father can replace a mother, or that two mothers can replace a father and would not teach my children/grandchildren that but I would not try to shut the boy up or to take his right to speak out.
If the forum of his performance is not a public school or mandatory for children more power to him.
If he is at a public school and kids are made to attend it is wrong! This is parental rights.
I do not think this is the case as the kids were asked if they were there with M/F or if they had two fathers. The parents must have known what the performance was and made the decision to take the kids. That is their right.
I find myself in the strange poisition of agreeing with someone having the oposite opinion as myself. The performer has a right to his performance, and it is indoctrinition in a view I must disagree with!

BA: I considermyself fortunate that I don't find that stuff on my own.

I have to agree with both sides on this. Ragusa is right that children ought be protected from abusive and negligent situations, but I don't see having gay parents as better. Parents have an obligation to teach proper morals to their children, and morally I object to Homosexuality (see Homosexuality and Religion 1 and 2). Teaching them that certain deviant behaviours are normal can be just as warping on young minds as abusive or negligent homes. The Ideal solution is to have good heterosexual couples that can take in such children...

I'd like to think that Dragonfly is right about the sing-along part in the chorus, and that the other children were rallying around a child from a different backgroung or familial situation (promoting tolerance of the child while minimizing commentary on the father(s) of the child). ostracizing a child is wrong, and the child has the same right to support as a child who has lost a parent to an untimely death or had their parents divorce.

I do Agree with Old One, that children should not be forced to participate in such sing-alongs, just as children in a church situation are not dragged from the family home to sing for a church group, but participate with the consent of their parents, and usually of their own free will.

I think that it has to be handled carefully that the focus be on the child, not the fact that he has two gay dads. Using that to promote the idea that homosexuality is okay is objectionable.

Using that to promote the idea that homosexuality is okay is objectionable.No, but it's not objectional to use the reverse argument that homosexual fathers are bad for children to make homosexuality 'not okay'. :rolleyes:

If two homosexual parents can bring up a healthy, productive, law-abiding child then all the power to them. What sickens me is the baseless accusations that they can't do this and so they shouldn't even be given the chance to prove the accusations false. If the forum of his performance is not a public school or mandatory for children more power to him.Considering how its televised, the light shows, the quality of the music and multiple camera angles I somehow don't think the performance is being done at a school. Yet even so, if it was then would it be so bad? School is the place where children are taught not only information and skills but social graces and disciple/morals. Religion is allowed no place in public schools, in fact religion is not allowed to interfere with any facet of public schooling just the same way how schools are not allowed to interfere with Church sermons outside of school. On that note Religion can not dictate to schools what can not be taught in schools. If a teacher wishes to express their opinion to children in their class that homosexuality is fine then under what grounds can anyone complain? Would somebody demand that the teacher not be allowed to say that and what would the basis be? That its against religion? But I thought religion has no place in schools. If religion can say what is not allowed to be said in schools then I dare say a slippery slope will form if any lesson in school is against a particular religion then it simply isn't allowed to be taught. Teaching them that certain deviant behaviours are normal can be just as warping on young minds as abusive or negligent homes.Replace 'certain' with 'different' and take out the word 'deviant' since thats merely a matter of opinion then re-examine your statement. You'll see that you'd rather teach children bigotry than acceptance and correct me if I'm wrong but bigotry seems to be a major factor concerning violence.

In the end its obvious that some people think that only their morals should be the ones taught to children and that teaching morals that are opposed to their morals should be disallowed or deemed a crime. I'd love those people to feel the same prejudice unto themselves that they seem to wish upon others.

@Abomination
I think the point of what schools teach is where we differ. School is for reading-writing-math and so on. If the schools would stick to that it would be fine. It is not a place for teachers to teach their opinions on how my (or your) children should believe and think. This is the parents job. I did not say G/L parents should not be alowed to adopt, I did say both a father and a mother are best. This I know from experience. I was raised by two women. I did not realize until i was about mid teens that I was constantly looking for a father and then realized how much I valued any attention from men I respected. I was hired and got my real start in life by a station owner who took a chance on a smart ass kid no one else would. My father figure. Fathers and mothers are both needed if possible. If no one steps to help a youngster except a G/L couple do what is best for the kid. Mom was a great parent but she was mon not dad. Two mothers cannot, repete cannot take the place of a mother and father no matter how hard they try. I think the same would apply for two fathers. They can however I am just as convinced love a youngster very much and try just as hard to give a child a good life.
Back to my point, let me teach my own kids how to live and let the schools stick to academics. Let kids sing or shout or whatever how they feel and listen but do not try to insist on teachers setting what is correct thinking or not.
Never teach hate either, I have left one church over that and moved my kids out of one school when the were young. This is the parents responsibility, not the schools to watch out for and control.

but do not try to insist on teachers setting what is correct thinking or not.But the teachers need to do this at some stage or another. Children must be disciplined and its obvious that not all parents can be relied upon to discipline their children.

For example, if at school the child of a homosexual couple is being ridiculed because of his homosexual parents what should the school do? Telling somebody not to do something isn't enough these days and frankly only soldiers obey commands without needing to know 'why' first. So for the teachers to tell the students to stop picking on the child won't be enough because at some point in time somebody will say "Why? His parents are gay." Then for the teachers to say "There's nothing wrong with being homosexual." then they're overstepping a line because they're exposing children to their opinion? Indeed, if schools are supposed to be places of learning then there should be nothing wrong with telling children that there is nothing wrong with having homosexual parents, since there is no evidence to the contrary.

The morality of homosexuality is currently of social interest and I strongly believe that children should be kept up to date with current events. Many of my morals were learned in school, imparted upon me by my more influencial teachers. Maybe my parents agreed with some, maybe they didn't but the fact is that children will be exposed to many opinions and points of view and to deny the child those opinions will do more harm than good.

Wait... what were we talking about again?

You'll see that you'd rather teach children bigotry than acceptance and correct me if I'm wrong but bigotry seems to be a major factor concerning violence.First, I teach moral purity. do not commit greivous sins like fornication, adultery or homosexuality.

Second, we are to abstain, not to hate or puinish. God is the one that punishes the sinners on spiritual matters, not us.

Third, while we do exclude gays and lesbians, it is only because the benefits of religion require obedience.

This is not bigotry. If that is the case, then so is every rule or law in existence...

In the end its obvious that some people think that only their morals should be the ones taught to children and that teaching morals that are opposed to their morals should be disallowed or deemed a crime. I'd love those people to feel the same prejudice unto themselves that they seem to wish upon others.Why not look into the history of Missouri and especially the "Extermination Order" and see if that doesn't match what you are talking about.

I think people are looking at this song way out of context. It does not look like a single song sung to try and convince people that gay parents are wonderful things, but as part of a (school?) performance as a whole. I could be wrong, my understanding of other languages is very limited, but this IMHO does not smack of "Pro-gay indoctrination." These children all look like they're enjoying themselves!

He's a good singer though, isn't he? :lol:

First, I teach moral purity. do not commit greivous sins like fornication, adultery or homosexuality. that there is religius indoctrination and has about as much home in a school as any other form of indoctrination.

thier is no scientific evidence for homosexuality to be bad, there are no laws against homosexuality, so currently acceptence of homosexuals as equal people is what there should be thought.

the parents, the children and the teachers has all the right to disagree with the view, but its what the children should be thought. the teacher can then point out that some religions oppose this believe, but the teacher may not teach that homosexuality is wrong. Because that goes directly against what the law says, regardles of your religeus believe. Do try to remember that there is a saperation between state and church, which meens that church laws dont apply to other people then does of the religion who willingly chose to ophold them. And that there in public schools wont be favorised one religion.

Secondly if children singing about it being okay to have gay parents is wrong, then children singing about how good any god is, is just as wrong.

Why not look into the history of Missouri and especially the "Extermination Order" and see if that doesn't match what you are talking about.Interesting that you'd bring that subject up. You see, the reason for the Mormon extermination order was that many people thought their system of belief was yucky and wrong and so that type of worship should be removed. Legal steps should be taken to show that the Mormon system of belief/worship is not welcome in that particular state. Because its yucky. And wrong. And a peverse interpretation of the Bible. And yucky. And its putting words in God's mouth. And did I mention yucky? Dare say they think because somebody has a different system of belief they should be exterminated. That's it. The only reason is because they believe something else. I would think that, being a Mormon, you would sympathise with the homosexual plight to be recognised as acceptable and normal in the eyes of the law despite the fact that other religions deem you not so.

You do realise that Mormonisim is shunned by the majority of the Christian religions and deemed a load of bollocks, right? Catholics, Orthodox and Prodestants might not agree on some matters but they certainly agree that Mormons are barking up the wrong tree... on the wrong continent.

Where I'm going with this is that you have people who disagree with you, think your ideals are wrong, are lies, are a sin. But they'll let you preach them. They'll let you be Mormons and frankly they couldn't give a sweet fanny adams what your Mormon beliefs are as long as you don't step on their toes.

So you've felt the prejudice but rather than try to remove the prejudice from the world and wish it on nobody you think that because you've suffered it you now have the right to dish it out?

Equester, my problem is not with indoctrineation, but what is being taught. The reasons for my religious opposition are not simply that "God said so", but that there is a better eternal option that unrepentant homosexuals are excluding themselves from. A position which requires a foundation build here in their mortal life to enjoy.

Abomination: Until I see Homosexuals being killed, I just see them as whining. Even the religions that don't agree with us would still say that homosexuality is bad...

Actually homosexuals have been killed before because of who they are one good example would be the Nazis (there are more).

Equester, my problem is not with indoctrineation, but what is being taught. The reasons for my religious opposition are not simply that "God said so", but that there is a better eternal option that unrepentant homosexuals are excluding themselves from. A position which requires a foundation build here in their mortal life to enjoy.
which is in fact indoktrinating if thought in school, since this eternal place they exclude them self from, by not repenting only excist in certain religions

I bet every one of those kids is gay now, thanks to that song. Heck, I'm gay now thanks to that song. Damn catchy.