SpongeBob Queerpants?
Conservative Christian groups are attacking a video for children made by the We Are Family Foundation. Favorite children's characters such as SpongeBob, Big Bird, Winnie the Pooh, and Barney appear in the film, singing "We are Family". The video was made to encourage a sense of unity, love, and healing after September 11th and is to be sent to 61,000 schools in the U.S. in March.
The Christian groups are claiming that through the use of cartoon characters, the We Are Family Foundation is promoting homosexuality acceptance in the youth of the nation. Why? To my knowledge, it's not something in the movie; it's a pledge on the foundation's website, requesting respect towards people of all races, cultures, and sexual identities. Apparently, even tolerance is a sin to these people. Here's site that sums it up a little better than I can. Plus it gives some more details like what exactly some of the Christian activists are saying. http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/0...onge.bob.reut/ |
That's ridiculous. The only bad thing SpongeBob does is melt your brain. The show is idiotic, but not vile, as these people are saying.
Whatever. I already saw this on another forum. |
Weird.............
|
Homophobic Bastards...
|
F*cking fascists.
|
The Bible reads:
"Love thy neighbour" Judging by Christian attitudes, it should read: "Love thy neighbour. Unless he/she is gay, in such a case please discriminate against them and ruin their lives as that is what God wants". |
You've hit it right on the nail there Rich. lol
|
:
|
Lol, Spongebob used for spreading pro-gay propoganda (sp?)
Say it out loud. |
Hah, I don't even think the video had anything related to tolerance of homosexuality. The only connection between the video and it is the pledge I mentioned on foundation's site.
And they are saying it's "pro-gay", but wouldn't that mean the foundation is encouraging people to be homosexual? |
Amber, that's exactly what these Christian groups mean. Most of them believe that there is an intricate, left-wing conspiracy to turn everyone into massive polesmokers. This is, as I'm sure everyone can tell, ridiculous.
|
Ugh. If there were ever people who I wanted to take a rifle to their head, it would be these type of fundamentalists idiots. Most of all, I couldn't believe the nerve this guy had when he said:
:
Oh, and I absolutely love SpongeBob. I know how stupid it is, but I always end up laughing when I watch the show :D I plan to see the movie in the next couple of days too :) My brother says it was a great laugh, so it should be good. Alcar... |
:
|
I'm back to continue my interupted (By other stuff) thoughts.
Please people, do not call all of us christians homophobic fascists. Basically, this is nothing more than a mis-comunication. These people saw something the creator had not intended. As such, this was all just a misunderstanding, and should be dropped. It's like Sam and Frodo. As an certain quote goes, "Before, we were soliders...but eight days in Hell made us brothers," or something like that. Thats basically what was going on in the movie. But in todays society, all someone needs to see is two guys holding hands and what's the first thing that jumps into their head? You guessed it. Peter Jackson denied it, and Tolkien who wrote it was a Christian (So you can guess his standpoint). Thus, those who said, "Frodo and Sam are gay," had got it wrong. End of story. Same thing here with SpongeBob. These people have said something, and the creator of the cartoon denies it. As it is his creation, and every episode probably has to be approved by him, I think we can trust him. This is all a misunderstanding. That should be the end of the story. I think this whole thing has just sprouted from the fact that gay men in America hold SpongeBob up as a sort of icon or whatnot ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4190699.stm). This might also stem from the, "Tolerance, not approval," thing of the Bible. Again, whatever. |
Yeah, these people give Christians a bad name. They should just shut up.
|
I don't think anyone claimed so generally that Christians are homophobic fascists. But homophobic fascists certainly use Christianity to try to justify their hatred of homosexuals.
A miscommunication? I honestly don't think so. I think these people were just looking for an excuse to attack an organization that supports something they're vehemently opposed to. I'm so sick of this stuff. It never f*cking stops. If they have a problem, screw them. They need to be forced to accept some things, and if they can't, they can just bite their tongues. |
:
:
|
Not all Christians are bad people. Just these f*ckers. Gays/Lesbians are people too, ya'know.
Spongebob the movie... Good times, good times. Its just so stupid that its funny. I mean, whats with the slapping knee bit? Thats just weird! |
I've never really liked Spongebob. I've always found him a vile character, with a disgustingly annoying voice and a God-awful nose.
'In 1999 conservatives claimed handbag-carrying Teletubby Tinky Winky, an import from the UK, was a bad role-model.' That was rumoured over here as well, but we laughed at it more than anything. There was this whole thing about Dipsy being the Black. Tinky-Winky being the Gay. La-La being the druggie and i can't remember what they said about Po. Anyway, the whole Tinky-Winky is Gay thing is just sillyness. His fur is purple and his handbag is red! Everybody knows that Gays match their accessories! I'm intrigued to the Christian belief of "Hate the Sin. Not the Sinner." as taking away tolerance would surely breed intolerance which would inevitably lead to us "Sinners" being hated. WWJD? He'd support it. |
Right on.
I think Po would have to be the Asian one. Mmmyep. SpongeBob is pretty horrible. The very first episodes were hilarious if you could get over the main character (which I did, I laughed my ass off at that cartoon) but then it just sort of lost the funniness and kept the stupidness. So. Yeah. And I can so see how people might think he's gay. I don't think a cartoon character can be gay, but if they could, I think he would be. |
Doesn't he fancy that Beaver thing though?
|
Spongebob has, for the most part, gone down the drain, as Nickelodeon slowly but surely lowers their target age group. Which really, really sucks, when you do compare something like an old episode of Rugrats to a new one. But anyways, Spongebob is a decent show, but hardly promotes anything except for poor humor and subpar merchandise.
Nitpicking the selection of "sexual identities" and claiming it crosses a "moral line" is laughable. The video, or whatever it is, promotes tolerance. However, the individual examples listed on the website probably won't even find themselves read by the children actually watching the video, so it's not like the video itself is a disguise for an attempt to turn the child population gay. And even at that, I fail to see how tolerating a man loving a man is any different than tolerating a black man walking down the street next to a white man. Or something like that. When will these silly conservative groups learn that bringing forth such minor issues to the greater light of media does nothing but hurt their cause? They lose credibility, if religious are brought in Christianity will usually be mocked, and it will only rally more aggresive support on the side supporting homosexual tolerance. |
Indeed.
She's a squirrel. Beavers don't live in trees. And I think the answer is no. |
I don't get why they've attacked Spongebob and let Big Bird, Winnie the Pooh, and Barney off scot free. What's so special about the 'Bob that makes him a magnet for controversy?
|
Maybe it's the way he acts? Just a wild guess.
|
:
:
Merely for the sake of argument, let's assume that homosexuality is wrong and not natural. Again, this is only for the sake of argument. Basically, if two guys go gay, then they have the free will to do that. There is no national law saying two people cannot share a house or cannot have sex without marriage. As much as I might hate homosexuality, the homosexuals themselves can and do have the free will do choose whatever path they want, and the bible condemns people who force their beliefs (Which is different than sharing your beliefs and such). Anyway, there is a point were tolerance ends and approval begins, and it seems to be these people were egar to stop what they say as approval (That's a guess, by the way). A few might think we arn't tolerant enough. Some may even think we are too tolerant. Me...I revert to the above paragraph. Some people think Jesus would have been more sexually tolerant. Actually, he was somewhat even stricter than most of the people of his day. If memory serves me correctly, he was the guy who taught, "Even having impure thoughts of someone counts as sexual sin." Oh, and Jacob...this may be nitpicking, but don't compare blacks to gays. Gays were never enslaved or counted as 3/5ths of a person, or any of that in America. Finally, sorry if anyone here is now extremely ticked off at me. Just tossing in my two cents. *Despite Rich's assurance, Nepharski ducks (Yet again) back into his old bunker.* |
Gays don't have as long a history of abuse in the U.S. as blacks, but they certainly have endured quite a lot of discrimination.
Feh. Having impure thoughts is as natural as breathing. I think that portrayal (I say portrayal because nothing written in the Bible was written by Jesus himself) is a little heavy on the "this is sin, that's sin" type of thing. People can't control their thoughts. If tolerance is good, would not promoting tolerance be just fine? Would it not be better, in fact? In my mind, promoting tolerance is nowhere even close to approval. So I honestly don't see the big deal. Even if I had a problem with homosexuality. Which I don't. |
:
So, allow me to appologize for this, on behalf of my more...paranoid brothers in Christ. |
Ahh, there we go then.
You see, i've always thought that Jesus was all "Love everyone! Be tolerant! Don't throw stones in glass houses!" and obviously he was more akin to "Love everyone, but bummers. Be tolerant to everything but guy-guy love. Don't throw stones in glass houses...throw them at Faggots mincing down the street!" To me, the whole "Gay" debate thing couldn't be more unimportant. And it irritates me vaguely when i see it getting blown out of proportion. What exactly is going to happen if people accept Homosexuality? Will the world crumble? Will Hell fire rain from the skies? Will we all suddenly explode in a mass of semential ruin? If we want to be intolerant about something - we should be intolerant about Blacks breeding. Dirty black fiends. Dirty-DIRTY! 'Oh, and Jacob...this may be nitpicking, but don't compare blacks to gays. Gays were never enslaved or counted as 3/5ths of a person, or any of that in America.' No, but that's because sexuality isn't as obvious as colour. I'm sure if all Homosexuals were a nice shade of Lilac, there'd be EXACTLY the same thing [maybe with more Gays being killed, what with the Bible being so GRRR-ARRRG about it et al]. |
Jacob...stop before you dig your pit deeper.
Jesus, as well as Christianity, is tolerant of everything. However, as I have repeatedly stated before, we do not approve of everything. We are not going to ship gays off to the meat grinders or anything. If two people are homosexual, then that's their choice. However, we are not going to sponser or support that choice with such things as marriage or adoption, etc. As for Blacks vs. Gays in America... Black Hardships in America: -Forced removal from home. -Enslaved. -3/5ths of a person. -Harshly beaten my most of the rest of the population. -Separated from families. -Not allowed to vote for long time. -Justice system discrimination. -Segregation. -Counted as Property. -Racism. Gay Hardships in America: -No marriage. -Sometimes attacked by homophobes. -No military service allowed? (Not sure about this one.) |
Erm - i don't believe i disagreed with you with Blacks having it harder than Gays. I did, however, say that if all Homosexuals were of a different colour, chances are, we'd face exactly the same discrimination that the Blacks did. Since sexuality doesn't affect the colour of ones skin, then it is a lot harder to discriminate, unless somebody is obviously Gay [bone structure, voice etc].
And Neph - i got the impression you were saying that Christians don't tolerate Homosexuals, because of your comment to do with the Sinner and Sin thing. |
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They MUST be put to death".
Leviticus 20:13 Doesn't religion teach us some wonderful lessons in life? |
:
|
:
:
Think of it like this. Suppose your next-door friend smokes, and you don't (Yes, I know smoking is different, but bare with me). You know he smokes, and you disapprove of it, be he does of the right to smoke if he wants to, so you let him. However, if he comes over, asking for money to buy cigarrettes or whatever, you say no because he refuse to support his habit, or anything which might approve of it. I think that's how it works. I'd probably better check, so... :
But, then Christ came and died for our sins as the utlimate sacrifice. As such, true repentance and faith is all that is required to save oneself, no matter how deep into the pit you have gone, you can always climb out. No animal offerings, nor personal, "loss," is required to set you square with the lord. AKA: Homosexuals don't have to pay |
Out of intrigue, and this is directed to all the heavily Religious people who won't accept the evidence brought forth about Homosexuality being nature not nurture.
If there was more proof, that was 100% reliable and 100% Scientifically proven, and everything about it was 100% in support of Homosexuality being nature instead of nurture, then would you all accept that Homosexuality is not a choice or a lifestyle, but something nobody can choose? Also, what exactly makes you all think that people would want to be Gay? |
:
Of the lebsians, a good majority openly admitted to it being a lifestyle choice. Also, I do believe there have been cases of people turning away from that lifestyle, but I need to check this. Although science has never proved it to be natural, some evidence suggests that it is something, for lack of a better word, "branded," into the psyche, usually at a young age I think, and reflects on the child's parenting (Bad parenting could potentially be a cause). Again, I may need to double check. However, if it is, "branned in," that would mean it would have been artificially added, as opposed to something someone was born with. |
:
:
Blacks won their freedoms, despite the still present racism and stuff. Why can't gays do the same? Interestingly enough, at one point, people were lead to believe that not turning in a runaway slave was a sin. As for the list, I'd like to add that gays can't even have a family, unless they're lesbians and one gets artificially inseminated. And the intolerance of their sexuality counts is equal to racism. (Geez, I really didn't mean to get another debate started. Oh well.) Oh, and I must agree with Jacob, if there was some sort of way of telling a person is gay by the color of their skin, they would suffer exactly as the African-Americans do. EDIT: This is directed at Neph's last post. Bad parenting? Come on... All of my gay friends have great parents... except one. |
:
|
Hmm. I really don't think someone could spontaneously choose to be gay. Not that I know much about the topic, but it seems more likely to me that these women were probably gay and chose to embrace their homosexuality. I can't imagine they said "I think I'll be a lesbian" and started being attracted to other women. But those are just my thoughts on the subject.
|
Our president is bombing innocent countries and this is what they find offensive... no wonder God created death.
|