It was reported in today's news that New York's same sex lobby, fresh from victory over gay marriage in New York, have placed pressure upon the creators of Sesame Street, to validate the relationship of Bert and Ernie, by marrying them.

The creators of Sesame Street have responded by saying that "Bert and Ernie don't have a sexual preference. Bert and Ernie are puppets".
Of course they are exactly right.

Too my mind this raises questions about motivations of the NY Same Sex Lobby, in that, I ask,
"is it the view of the NY SS Lobby that the concept of sexual preference should be introduced into the life of an infant of say 3 to 7,
along with the numbers and letters etc?".

If so why ?. Why can't Bert and Ernie just be left alone to be friends?.

And "what reason (other than the promotion same sex relationships and lifestyles) is there, for introducing such concepts to infant entertainment?.

And finally "why shouldn't we at least we wait until physiology kicks in , say about 11 to 13 before we introduce such concepts as sexual preference,
into the lives of the young?.

Dear Thinker 2,

Bert and Ernie and sexual preference?

It is a bit bizarre. Why not make
"Bananas in Pyjamas," same sex preference.
Or "Peter Pan," and all those children?
That has various connotations.

Sesame Street should not be politicised in
this way by any group. What about making Oscar
the Grouch - a "homelss character?" He does live
in a garbage bin afterall - and the list could go
on and on. There's so many characters that could
be used for various agendas - but where would it
stop?

Still, I suppose - if you were to look up the
history of "Punch and Judy," you might get a few
surprses with those characters. And Grimms Fairy
Tales also had their own messages - right?

Interesting thread.

Just another back door attempt to justify playing in the garbage disposal unit in preference to the fun parlor.

This is clearly bizarre. I am young enough to have watched Bert and Ernie and sexuality was the last thing on my mind. They were just Bert and Ernie who lived in the same house. People can live together without any sexual relationship as well, I did it for many years before marriage.

There are no married puppets in Sesame Street from my memory. Sesame Street is aimed at very young children and anything sexual should be reserved for an older age group.

I support SSM and people's rights and freedoms to choose and the world is finally waking up to their prejudices but let's not involve politics into children's shows. Leave Bert and Ernie alone, they are sick of people making judgements about their platonic house-sharing arrangements. :)

Lexi,
Bert & Ernie are mates, the Bananas in Pyjamas are highly likely of the gay variety.
Bert & Ernie wouldn't be voting ALP that's for sure.

...Childhood stories like childhood dreams all eventually go "POOF" as children mature into adults!...

Dear Individual,

You state that Bert and Ernie "wouldn't be
voting ALP," anyway.
Are you implying that puppets vote
Liberal?
Naughty man.

I just watched 60 minutes about the Wiggles. No wives mentioned, gay connotations ?

While we're on the subject, I always had my doubts about Bill and Ben - I mean they were "Flowerpot Men" - dead give away!

I think Humphrey batted for the other side as well...

Interesting use of words, thinker 2.

>>It was reported in today's news that New York's same sex lobby, fresh from victory over gay marriage in New York, have placed pressure upon the creators of Sesame Street, to validate the relationship of Bert and Ernie, by marrying them.<<

As far as I can tell, there is no "same sex lobby" involved here. Nor any "pressure".

It was a petition, published on change.org by "Illinois resident Lair Scott", that set this particular ball rolling. In a period of seven days, 1,137 folk had "signed" up. It would be interesting to now how many of those were "gay activists" in a "same sex lobby", and how many thought it was a joke.

http://omgwire.com/2011/08/10/sesame-streets-bert-and-ernie-online-push-for-their-wedding/

If there is such a thing as a "same sex lobby" in New York, they have managed to find a way to shoot themselves comprehensively in the foot with this piece of nonsense. However, having dug a little deeper, I think it might just have been the work of a bored UK journalist, frustrated at having no phones to hack, filling the pages of his - somewhat conservative - newspaper.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024510/Online-push-Bert-Ernie-gay-wedding-Sesame-Street.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Aaaahh, the Daily Mail. Gotta love yer work. Still, it does get the old buffers harrumphing into their kedgeree of a morning...

Pericles

Methinks you have discovered the underwhelming truth.

Long for a world, were such headlines wouldn't even cause a raised eyebrow because sexual orientation is simply a part of being human like having brown eyes or blue.

Or one green and one blue...

Attempting to divert from the serious questions I raise with flippancy, doesn't change the fact that at least one gay lobbyist thinks it appropriate that very young children be indoctrinated/ educated with SS propaganda.

My question is how many gays etc think this appropriate because even one is too many, particularly if we are thinking of providing Same Sex couples with children for nurturing purposes.

Is the motivation nurturing or indoctrination?.

If one does not believe in the existence of a gay gene, and I do not, then it becomes possible Same Sex preference is a learnt or taught behaviour.

In the total absence of proof that homosexuality or lesbianism is a genetic trait (despite numerous interest groups attempting to prove the existence of such a gene) I cannot and will not compare same sex preference to being born with multi color eyes.

May I also remind posters that it is for the welfare of children that I feel the need to seek reassurance that my community would not support introducing sexual politics into pre-school education.

I also repeat that I believe doing so would only serve the purposes of the gay and lesbian community and be of no benefit to the children.

Dear Thinker,
Perhaps you didn't know that if a Mother has, say, 3 male babies, the genes will automatically, in some cases, help the body of the mother manufacture a girl rather than a boy. However, having said that, sometimes not enough genes are manufactured in the body, and another Male is born, lacking enough in male genes that the end result is a male in a female body., that is one way, the genes behave, google 'what makes homosexuals',or how does homosexuality occur, and you will/might be surprised by what you read.
Often it is the Mother, desperately wanting a girl, who sexualises the male, towards the female trend/behaviour.
There are also the 'younger' kids, who 'adopt' homosexuality, just to rebel and shock their parents. Sometimes Nature is stronger and fickle beyond our comprehension, we shouldn't judge these people....as for Bert and Ernie, like most people say, they are just puppets.
NSB

Dear Thinker
What I did want to emphasise in my post was that no matter what sexual persuasion people indulge in, it is none of any body else's business, it is a private matter to those concerned, after all, as mere humans'
who are we to judge others.
I think the next generation(s) will not be too fussed about same sex marriages, most of todays generation are only absorbed with their own needs and wants. But as my best friend says "I don't care if people do rude things to owls at night, as long as they leave me alone", live and let live is what my philosophy is.
Have a good evening,
Cheers, NSB

Dear Thinker 2,

I'm sorry that you think people have been
trivialising your thread. I think that most
people have found the entire matter just to
bizarre - and haven't taken it seriously
as a result.

I don't think any one would
seriously consider presenting sexual inclinations
as a suitable subject for tiny tots or pre-schoolers.
That would fall under the heading of inappropriate or
just plain stupefying

I share a view with your friend NSB, but I would go a little bit further and say that I am not really concerned if people want to have sex with consenting bullfrogs and long as I (or my family) don't have to watch that on television.

I also agree that such matters are of of a private and also adult nature. Your reasoning about mothers, sounds like a plausible evolutionary theory NSB. I agree that this is possible.

I suppose I was really trying to draw attention to the fact that childhood can be a wonderful thing without complicated concepts like questioning your sexuality.

If we were to consider other forms of media, like Rockstars etc and other forms of influences during prime time media, even ads, (on display for the young too absorb), we see an over representation if you like, of images and behaviour of a sexual nature.

If one was too argue that this media barrage doesn't effect the viewpoint of children, and even introduce problems of self image as a result, then I would think it would be easy to prove a case to the contrary.

I see plenty of evidence of indoctrination, but little or no evidence at all of a connection between sexual preference and genetic disposition in the case of same sex relationships. As for the exploitation of children now occurring in the media by all kinds of interested commercial stakeholders, I think this a further disgrace.

I hope I have not put my views too strongly NSB , but I do think it's important.

And thanks Lexi and of course your right.

Ammonite
Sexual preference shouldn't raise an eyebrow and in the future I believe it will be perfectly 'normal'.

However I cannot see the point in one lobby group or one person (it doesn't really matter which) using a long standing children's to push their barrows.

"Aaaahh, the Daily Mail. Gotta love yer work. Still, it does get the old buffers harrumphing into their kedgeree of a morning...
Posted by Pericles"

And the self-appointed commentators from the sidelines. :)

Dear Pelican

One day people will not need to utilise such poor methods to be treated with dignity and respect.

That was my point. I did not wish to add any further fuel to this topic.

Of greater concern is the Christian Lobby's protest outside parliament campaigning for what they consider to be "natural marriage".

Apparently love is only natural for Christian heterosexual people. No-one else need apply.

http://australianchristianlobby.org.au/2011/07/national-marriage-day-rally/

Dear Thinker,
Like Lexi, I too would not trivialise your post, I am with you, I think the sad part about any child is that parents do not let their children be kids for long enough. The disgraceful show of children (girls) being in these appalling so-called beauty pageants is nothing more than child abuse in the extreme. Kids need to be kids, to explore the wonders of life seen through their eyes, let them eat a hand full of dirt once a day, pick up Mum's freshly planted flowers and smell them, roll around with the family dog etc.
With the same sex partnerships, if they love each other enough to spend their lives together, then that is a good thing....Love is the most powerful emotion of all, and tempered with respect, is second to none.
Most same- sexers are usually private about their relationships, what sticks in my craw is the sometimes offensive gestures/dresses in the Mardi-Gras parades, an event which we studiously ignore.....it just trivialises love between couples/people.
Enjoy your day thinker 2
Cheers,
NSB

Ammonite
No argument from me - I did not mean to fuel any particular viewpoint only to say think it a bad idea.

"One day people will not need to utilise such poor methods to be treated with dignity and respect."

Sometimes the tactics used to further a cause often do more harm or miss the point. I know it myself having been involved in various political causes in my youth that some people think the rules and standards they apply to others don't apply to them. Some politicians still think like that :).

I am comforted more by my children's generation who don't think twice about sexuality and where students at my daughter's school accept that sexuality is as variable as any other 'natural' phenomenon. Indeed there is very little uniformity in nature.

Speaking with many other parents their experiences are the same. The children of the baby boomer generation will shape the world long after we are all dead and buried. Maybe even the obsession with culture and ethnicity will fizzle when we all recognise that human beings all originate from the same human tribe.

>> Maybe even the obsession with culture and ethnicity will fizzle when we all recognise that human beings all originate from the same human tribe. <<

:D

I always look forward to reading your posts, Pelican - whether or not we agree, I know you will give me something worthwhile, be it a deeper understanding of an issue or simple reassurance that there are still Pelicans. Long may you continue to soar.

Not sure I deserve the praise Ammonite but thank you for the positive comments. We do mostly agree on the essentials even if not always in the detail. :)

You know, I got to laugh:) When at 7 billion, who says sex is not the animal in all:)...Bert and Ernie and sexual preference?. This has to be human-nature at its best..lol...Dont you people have something better to do?....I though, poor ert and Ernie.....I left out the capital in Bert, just that I thought he was the bitch) lol....Man! some of you people need to get a life....whoops! this is your lives.....and I still cant stop laughing..........WOW any point to give pointless lives, some sort of meaning...lol

OH dear:)

LEAP)