Children used in pro-gay indoctrination

Remove all ads!

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

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.

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...

 

I agree!

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

 

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.

 

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! Penguins!

 

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.

 

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

 

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 I get my hair cut less frequently now 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>

1. gays are cute - preposterous, ever heared about bears? Besides, they get old, too.
2. gays are smart - I rather that they are pretty much representing the average of society, from hi-IQ to imbecile.
3. gays are sensitive - same as above. Ever known a gay who went through his outing phase? Geez. Two words: *self absorbed*
4. gays are affluent - in my experience they rather spend a lot, big difference.
5. 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'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.

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:

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:

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:

What makes you think it's really his life, let alone that he wrote the song?

@Equester:

I agree! Salvation comes through grace!

@Rags:

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.

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.

I disagree with the first statement to an extent on religious grounds, but let's not discuss theology here. 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:

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".

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?"

 

Chev, please ...

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.

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'.

 

"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.

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 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.

 

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.