Nickelodeon/homosexuality Controversy Heats Up!

[cdouglas76]

From http://www.traditionalvalues.org


4. NICKELODEON/HOMOSEXUALITY CONTROVERSY HEATS UP! Traditional Values
Coalition Executive Director Andrea Lafferty learned that Nickelodeon
will air a pro-homosexual show in mid-June and is being taped on June
5th. Lesbian activist Rosie O'Donnell will host a breakfast for the
children who will be on the show, and she will be involved in a panel
discussion with them.

To read more about this controversy, go to:
http://asp.washtimes.com/printarticle.asp?action=print&ArticleID=
20020529-71335966

Both TVC and the American Family Association have launched petition
campaigns against this pro-homosexual show. More than 170,000 concerned
citizens who have signed these petitions asking that Nickelodeon cancel
production of this show. Please sign our petition at:
http://www.conservativepetitions.com/petition.html?name=stop_nickelodeon

 

[kern]

Good for Nickelodeon. I wonder how much of a hit their viewing audience will take for this -- hopefully not too bad in the end.

-Chris

 

[seebs]

"Pro-homosexual"... That's sort of like saying "pro-interracial marriage", only it's fifty years later.

 

[coastie]

Seebs, you have to admit that there is a little difference their since homosexuality is a sin.

 

[Brimshack]

So, what are the details about this show? It's easy enough to say that it's pro-homosexual, but that could encompass a lot of things. Not much point in debating a conclusionary statement from the show's opposition. What are they actually going to do?

 

[two feathers]

Originally posted by seebs
"Pro-homosexual"... That's sort of like saying "pro-interracial marriage", only it's fifty years later.

??? and interracial marriage is wrong because...

 

[kern]

Originally posted by coastie
Seebs, you have to admit that there is a little difference their since homosexuality is a sin.

Uh-oh.

/me points to the two threads now 800+ posts total about homosexuality

I think that's out of the scope of this thread, probably.

-Chris

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by two feathers

??? and interracial marriage is wrong because...

Because the Bible says so (or at least, said something that was interpreted that way). Look up "Loving vs. Virginia"; the judge's comment that, if God had meant people to intermarry, He wouldn't have put them on separate continents, is eerily familiar.

I spent a *LONG* time reading both sides of that debate. It's not an easy issue; the only thing I can say with certainty is that it's *not* obvious what God's will is about these things.

What *is* obvious is that, sin or no sin, gay people are not inherently any worse than the rest of us. We are *ALL* sinners. They are the outcast, the desperate, and the poor of spirit. They are rejected by their families, and by their former friends. They are among the people it is *MOST* clear that Christ commands us to minister to. Not with rejection and condemnation, but with acceptance and love.

 

[Messenger]

My children won't be watching it....I have told them how wrong the Bible states homosexuality is....Man can't make right what God has said is a Sin.

Love and God Bless

 

[seebs]

I recommend you read the entire "The Issue of Homosexuality and the Bible" thread. To make a long story short, there are substantial reasons to doubt that interpretation of what the Bible says; it is not, in fact, clear. Some translations make it look more clear; others make it look much less clear. The arguments are all well-expressed, on both sides; ScottEmerson and I even switched sides for a bit, just to make sure both sides got fair treatment.

Homosexuality, itself, is a quality of human bodies; it cannot be "wrong" any more than the inability to use a leg can be wrong. If you tell your children that homosexuality, in and of itself, is "wrong", you have told them to hate the outcast and unloved. This is not a good Christian teaching.

 

[PapaSmurf]

Originally posted by cdouglas76
From http://www.traditionalvalues.org


Lesbian activist Rosie O'Donnell will host a breakfast for the children who will be on the show, and she will be involved in a paneldiscussion with them.

Rosie was born in America. That makes here a citizen. Nicleloadian is a privatly owned and funded station. As a result, Rosie is intitled to work and be paid by a private organization. TV's are not designed to handcuff a viewer to a chair and force them to watch. TV's have always had a little item known as a remote.

On the other hand, there was a group of gay activists who were reading changed versions of childrens storys that included same sex endings. Such as Repunsle not choosing the prince but a close female friend at the end. This was done in a public school in LA I believe. This is wrong. Because public schools are full of captive children who have no choice but to be there.

To me this is just as wrong as the Muslims in L.A. who were preforming Muslim religious cerimonies in public school classrooms.

But, some non-christians in L.A., Mulsims, Atheists, ect, were complaining about a giant flag painted on the side of a private building with the words, "God Bless America" under it.

Regardless of my personal opinion that people may be unententionaly, be made to feel excuded by those words, the bottem line is that it is that flag and those words are on private property. And no matter my opinion, as an American, who values freedom. I will always defend your right to display those words on private property, even when the public can see it on public roads.

 

[Ioustinos]

Originally written by Seebs

What *is* obvious is that, sin or no sin, gay people are not inherently any worse than the rest of us. We are *ALL* sinners. They are the outcast, the desperate, and the poor of spirit. They are rejected by their families, and by their former friends. They are among the people it is *MOST* clear that Christ commands us to minister to. Not with rejection and condemnation, but with acceptance and love.

What? If a homosexual or any one at that were poor in spirit (as described by Jesus Christ) it would not refer to one being an outcast of society but it refers to one realizing that they are spiritually poor! That they have a sin debt unto God, and when one realizes that they understand why we are told in 1 Corinthians 6:20 that we have been bought with a price. That price could have not been "paid" by man for man is poor in spirit. So unless the homosexual or sinner is realizing their spiritual bankruptcy then they are not "poor in spirit."

They are among the people it is *MOST* clear that Christ commands us to minister to. Not with rejection and condemnation, but with acceptance and love.

As Christians we are called to minister to all people. Yes we are to minister with love, but with the love of God. And what do you suppose we are to "accept"? If you are refering to their homosexuality, then you are wrong. For Christ continuoulsy called men to repentance, which means he was calling one to turn away from their sinful ways!!!!


Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

The word for abomination used here is the Hebrew word tebel. The word is defined as unnatural, confusion, violation of nature or the divine nature.

So from the original languages of scripture it is easy to see that homosexuality is sin because it goes against nature and divine nature. That God is displeased with homosexuality just as he is displeased with murderers, liers, adulterers, etc. God will only accept a person who comes to him in broken repnetance of their sin and asking for forgiveness.

If this information is not enough I would like to quote:

Romans 1:26-32
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Homosexuality is sin for it is a fulfillment of the lust of the flesh.





Jesaiah

 

[Hank]

Well, I dislike homosexuals. Even while I was still a Christian the United Church openly invited them and offered them the salvation of Christ, and needless to say I strongly disagreed.

I can prove that there are chemical imbalances in the brain of psychopaths. Do we want those people roam the city? I can also prove people are at birth physically challenged. Do we help them to lead a normal life? I hope so! I can prove that homosexuality is depended on DNA code. That code is also responsible for certain disfigured people. Why do we accept homosexuality as normal?

We had a big problem with two (gay) lovers who insisted the Catholic School has to admit both into the prom dance. The judge rules in favor of the lovers, and thereby restricting freedom of religion and forced homosexuality to be accepted in Church.

To me those TV shows are just more propaganda pro unnatural behaviour. Soon we may 'admire' the psychopath on TV as a victim.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Hank

I can prove that there are chemical imbalances in the brain of psychopaths.

So?

Psychologists have spent years trying to find a correlation between homosexuality and anything else that would be considered a "mental disorder". There isn't one. So... if it's a disorder, it's a disorder unlike any other.

I'm not going to bother responding to the various other comments; suffice it to say that the Leviticus thing is a bad argument in a number of ways, all of which have been discussed *to death* in the Homosexuality thread over in General Apologetics.

You're welcome to "dislike homosexuals", just as you're welcome to "dislike blacks". I can't stop you. I can feel sorry for you.

 

[kern]

Homosexuality does not cause harm to other people, I think that's the main reason for the secular (and religious) acceptance of it.

Your opening statement "I dislike homosexuals" says a lot more than the rest of your post, to me.

-Chris

 

[Susan]

It's a sin.
The Bible says it is a sin, and I believe the Bible.
Not to mention it does at the very least cause a lot of inconvenience: now, when someone of the same gender starts being friendly to you in any setting, you have to be aware that they might have more in mind than a simple, platonic friendship.
BTW homosexuality does cause harm. Hasn't anyone here ever heard of AIDS?

 

[chickenman]

"BTW homosexuality does cause harm. Hasn't anyone here ever heard of AIDS?" - AIDS is spread via heterosexual sex too, heterosexual sex causes harm, I say we ban it

 

[tyler4588]

Originally posted by chickenman
"BTW homosexuality does cause harm. Hasn't anyone here ever heard of AIDS?" - AIDS is spread via heterosexual sex too, heterosexual sex causes harm, I say we ban it

It's a pretty well known fact that AIDS was originally a disease that only affected homosexuals, in the early 1980's. It was later thread through bisexuals into the heterosexual community. This is just another reason to be abstinent until marriage.

 

[seebs]

The first documented cases of AIDS were not in gay men. There was a period during which a lot of gay men were very promiscuous... And, since they didn't care about anyone getting pregnant, most of them used no protection of any kind, and a *LOT* of people got AIDS. Still, the earliest documented case in America was a heterosexual female prostitute.

Many "pretty well known" facts are not, actually, facts at all.

As to Susan's comment: It's just as inconvenient right now with people of the opposite sex, which is to say, it's really not a big deal.

 

[Brimshack]

In America AIDS hit the homosexual community first for precisely the reason cited by Seebs. That is not true of other countries. This theme is an example of the shear opportunism of bigotry that we see on this issue. I hope I won't be asked to respect someone's personal 'dislike' as stemming from their faith. Sounds like another word for hatred to me.

It's still not clear what the paramaters of the show will be. A lot of homosexuals are physically assaulted throughout America, and a message asking for tolerance ought to be the least we can allow. If children can be taught to condemn homosexuals at a young age, then they can be taught to accept them as well, if not what they do. But apparently even that is too much. The prospect of having any contact with gays whatsoever seems to be more abhorent to some than all the violence against them. Comparing their sins to murder rather than the garden variety forms of extra-marital sex betrays a hint of bias in itself. I am continually told that no-one is free of sin, and that Chrirstians aren't supposed to judge others, but whenever this topic comes up, sure enough personal judgements abound, and the hatrd for the sinner clous all understanding of the so-called sin.

Can't tolerate them in your church, can't tolerate them in the schools, or on TV, and can't bear to be approached. A simple 'no' will suffice, btw, just like with the opposite sex. Honestly, several of the comments on this thread go well beyond any scriptural condemnation; they are simply expressions of prejudice and that is all.