By Joe Kort
(Corrected Edition)
As the years go by, a growing number of cartoon characters have been forcibly "outed." I am amazed that anyone would be concerned about the sexual and romantic orientation of any imaginary two-dimensional figure?
First it was poor Bert and Ernie of "Sesame Street". These two beloved American figures were minding their own business, taking baths together, singing silly songs together (probably Broadway tunes), sleeping in the same twin beds — with a picture of them both together over the headboard. Best buds they were! Bachelors at best. And then in 1990, the Reverend Joseph Chambers, a Pentecostal minister from Charlotte, North Carolina, decided that they’re a gay couple.
"They’re two grown men sharing a house — and a bedroom!" bellows Chambers, whose radio ministry is broadcast in four Southern states. "They share clothes. They eat and cook together. They vacation together and have effeminate characteristics. In one show Bert teaches Ernie how to sew. In another, they tend plants together. If this isn’t meant to represent a homosexual union, I can’t imagine what it’s supposed to represent."
The Children’s Television Workshop and "Sesame Street" both issued a statement defending the characters saying that these two were, in fact, not a gay couple. Since then, nevertheless, Bert and Ernie have largely kept their distance from each other, onscreen. They are still friends, and my young nephews still say "Bert ‘n’ Ernie" in one breath. But the baths have stopped, and their pictures together are gone.
Then in 1999, Rev. Jerry Falwell outed a Teletubby who was minding his own business and having fun with the other three Teletubbies. But he was purple (lavender!), carried his magic bag (a purse!), spoke in a high voice (effeminate!) and wore a triangle (symbol of gay pride!) on his head. The Itsy Bitsy Entertainment Co. reassured everyone — including good old Jerry — that the Tinky Winky — whom they license as dolls and in many other formats — is not gay.
I was so upset about all of this that in 2000, when my partner and I were married under Reform Judaism, we tied small figures of Bert, Ernie, and Tinky Winky together with a rainbow ribbon with a note that read, "A Perfect Family." Since there was no bride at our wedding, so no bouquet or garter belt available, Mike and I threw big dolls of Bert and Ernie. My nephew, then aged three, thought that all weddings were like that — aimed at him and him alone!
Now James Dobson — founder of Focus on the Family, a right-wing Christian group — has singled out SpongeBob Square Pants, who has his own half-hour cable show on Nickelodeon. SpongeBob’s new video, "We Are Family" calls for tolerance of all people and is to be shown in schools. (That song is a gay anthem, and Diana Ross even appears in the video! — not that makes the video gay!)
Actually, SpongeBob has been under suspicion for a while now and is a gay icon for some. But his creators deny that he is gay, and have also stated that those who think he is should "increase their medications." Too funny — and how clever, to suddenly put the whole argument in an adult perspective!
But why are no female cartoon characters ever outed? Organizations for the Reparative Therapy of Homosexuality and religious organizations for the Ex-Gay movement, and NARTH — the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality — always target males.
Can we talk about Peppermint Patty from the Peanuts comic strip? She is clearly a lesbian, and it’s obvious that she is in romantic love with Lucy, always following her around. She even has a friend Marcie — clearly a lesbian — who calls her "Sir"! And what about Velma from "Scooby Doo"? Her hairstyle is very butch, and she always wears sensible clothes and shoes.
And what about the Power Puff Girls? Those three flying tomboys can throw punches and save the day, one half-hour at a time, better than any man in Townsville!
Why do those who oppose homosexuality make so little fuss about these lesbian cartoon characters, aside from a small uproar on the Internet? Because the vast majority of homophobic and anti-gay attacks are made by sexist patriarchal men — and some women like Women of America (WOA) — who require rigid gender roles. These men will allow women to stray, as long as it is for their benefit and pleasure. Straight men buy and rent DVDs of lesbian sex is for their erotic entertainment. But these same good ole boys get disciplined for not conforming to strict gender roles. Their punishment is to be outed as gay — as if that is the worst insult "a real man" can endure.
If Bert and Ernie, Tinky Winky, and SpongeBob are gay, then I’m glad to be alongside them as a real-life, openly gay man. I can’t wait until Buzz Lightyear, that Muscle Beach spaceman from Toy Story, comes out. Now, he is HOT!
I’m sorry, I thought Dobson never said he thought spongebob was gay. He said plenty else but I thought it was only that first distorted AP story that actually claimed Dobson said spongebob was gay.
If Dobson did in fact say that Spongebob was gay, would Mr. Kort, or perhaps anyone else, be willing to provide the source? I really don’t think Dobson ever actually said what people say he said. But I agree with Mr. Kort that it’s unfortunate that so many have mischaracterized children’s characters as being gay. It was a good article, thank you Mr. Kort for writing it.
Dobson merely accused SpongeBob, or maybe his creators, with “promoting the gay agenda” – and has proudly continued claiming that on his web site.
It was one of the men who works for Focus on the Family who said that Spongebob was gay. Not Dobson, but an underling.
Peppermint Patty is only a lesbian if you buy the tomboy=lesbian theory. It’s Charlie Brown she’s crushed out on, not Lucy. Marcie, on the other hand, clearly has a largely unrequited crush on Peppermint Patty.
“But just as being a different color, ISN’T a different race, but all people are the SAME race-teaching that homosexuality is normal and similarly neutral when it comes to morality and conscious choice , hopefully won’t take as long.
The beauty part is that the parents of gay kids should be compelled to LEARN this reality, just as they had to about color and ethnicity.”
Most people already agree that homosexuality, that is HAVING same sex attractions, is something that appears in the population and is largely not a choice (though we don’t all agree on why it appears).
I have a problem with people being “compelled” to agree that the choice to pursue a same-sex sexual relationship is morally neutral.
We know, for example, that an Indian child has little choice in growing up with Indian parents, having brown skin, etc. I have some friends who hail from that sub-continent. But most of us have decided that widow-burning is morally wrong, despite coming largely from Indian culture of the past. The same could be said of Chinese people and the practice of foot-binding. But it is a challenge to embrace someone who refuses to be embraced unless particular actions of theirs are celebrated.
The words often used to condemn the “immorality” of gays go beyond the generic “sinner, like everyone else” to “abomination”, with reference to the Old Testament death penalty. Escalation of language promotes the notion that gays are less than human, and that violence against gays is a lesser issue than violence against heterosexual churchgoers. I daresay most gays don’t care if a given person disapproves of them, as long as their safety and rights are not put at risk.
I have a problem with people being “compelled” to agree that the choice to pursue a same-sex sexual relationship is morally neutral.
Then nathan, I am sorry to say it, you have a problem with the Constitution of the United States. I personally have a problem with the idea that anyone would reject scientific and rational thought for religious superstition and myth – in fact that is a very real “lifestyle choice” my own aunt and uncle have made – but I have no right to demand that the existence of Southern Baptists be hidden from children.
The government MUST be neutral on religious matters, and schools should teach respect for all, not just those approved of my Mssrs. Dobson and company.
It is also fascinating, getting back to the topic at hand, that the “gay agenda” seems to be so aggressively pushed by non-gay people. Dobson and his cronies have long argued that gay people are “only” 0.5%, or 1%, or 2% of the population (so our rights don’t matter, apparently), but somehow we have managed to get the medical, legal, social work, psychiatric, psychological and now entertainment communities behind us. For mentally ill, immoral “selfish hedonists” (thanks to Alan “I just threw my lesbian daughter out” Keyes for that phrase) we are pretty powerful 🙂
The truth is that Dobson and his ilk have to see conspiracies behind all of this pro-gay activity, because they cannot allow the alternative idea to win – that gay people are being embraced more and more by society because society is coming to understand we are not horrible, evil, destructive people. We are simply human beings. That is what tolerance teaching should and must be all about.
No one has to believe that being gay is “moral,” but in this country people must give the respect and dignity that all humans deserve to gay people, and our friends and family members, as well.
“I have a problem with people being “compelled” to agree that the choice to pursue a same-sex sexual relationship is morally neutral.
Then nathan, I am sorry to say it, you have a problem with the Constitution of the United States.”
For goodness sake, CPT_doom, I wish you wouldn’t twist my meaning. Not all decisions have to be agreed upon to be morally neutral. You want everyone to agree that having same-sex sex is a good choice for someone with same-sex attractions. I’m sorry but I don’t agree on that point. Are you going to arrest me with your Karma Police (apologies to Thom Yorke)? “This is what you get… when you mess with us.”
I have never said that gay people are horrible, evil, or destructive (at least, not more so than the general population).
regan:
“Until then, I’ll never believe that the decision to change was made freely and without pressure.”
Do you believe that my decision was made freely and without pressure? I believe it is for many. I’m sorry you can’t accept that.
Nor did I equate foot-binding or wife-burning to the issue of homosexuality. I was giving examples of cultural phenomena which we don’t necessarily want imposed on our kids. I’m keen for kids to learn that it’s wrong to beat up other kids who may have same-sex attractions. I am not happy for them to be taught that the best thing for them to do is go out and get a same-sex partner. That’s all I’ve ever said. I’m beginning to think that we have been splitting hairs, and that we essentially agree. Discrimination and the threat of violence is not on.
Then nathan, you would be fine if, for instance, the stat of Massachusetts refused to allow any discussion of the Mormon lifestyle within schools, even by people who chose that lifestyle, because discussion of non-Christian religions was offensive to the majority of the residents? That is the slippery slope you are trying to walk down.
The point is that the government, including the schools, cannot assume that a “lifestyle” is destructive and dangerous, particularly based on partisan myths and stereotypes, and refuse to allow any MENTION of its existence. In fact, in the “Postcards from Buster” show, the only thing being shown to children was the existence of a family headed by two women. No discussion of the women’s relationships to one another was mentioned. This is what we have to “protect” children from?
“Then nathan, you would be fine if, for instance, the stat of Massachusetts refused to allow any discussion of the Mormon lifestyle within schools, even by people who chose that lifestyle, because discussion of non-Christian religions was offensive to the majority of the residents?”
Certainly not. The issue, of course, is how individual teachers approach the teaching of religion and values. For example, I would be happy for my children to be given the facts about the pillars of Islam or what people believe about the events in the early life of the Buddha. I myself did a research assignment on Taoism while studying Ancient History in school. It would be different if an Imam or priest came in and began proselysing to the students.
Parents should have the right to call in and ask for their child to be excluded from a particular lesson or course.
As a secondary school teacher myself, I have decided to avoid using scripture even for motivational purposes with my students. (eg. “turning the other cheek”), but I hope that my own standards and personality reflects what I believe in such matters.
Similarly, I don’t have a problem with students learning that some people live in gay relationships (it should be pretty obvious anyway – just turn on the tv, or take your kids down to the local gay district). This does not entail telling the kids that it’s a good or bad thing to do. What I would have a problem with is someone telling a child who may have confused emotions that the only way they can be happy is in the arms of someone of the same sex. I know this is not usually not official curriculum, but these courses and programmes are often driven by idealogues.
“What I would have a problem with is someone telling a child who may have confused emotions that the only way they can be happy is in the arms of someone of the same sex.”
Has it ever occurred to you that each and every person is different, and no one should set limits on what is best for parents to tell their children? If you have a problem endorsing homosexual relationships, then that is a big problem; but it is YOUR problem, not everyone else’s.
I notice that heterosexuals don’t seem to have a problem in endorsing THEIR relationships, and demanding that everyone else agree with them, to the point of making other kinds of relationships illegal.
“What I would have a problem with is someone telling a child who may have confused emotions that the only way they can be happy is in the arms of someone of the same sex.”
If you are even handed you should also suggest that they ought not be told that the only way they can be happy is in the arms of someone of the opposite sex.
However, you realize that is what society, the RR and the ex-gay movement generally DOES tell them.
And, woe to that opposite sex person for the most part.
“Has it ever occurred to you that each and every person is different, and no one should set limits on what is best for parents to tell their children?”
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here? I’ve been making the case that parents SHOULD have the right to do this.
“I notice that heterosexuals don’t seem to have a problem in endorsing THEIR relationships, and demanding that everyone else agree with them, to the point of making other kinds of relationships illegal.”
Yes, there are some rather selfish individuals. I’m not sure how you make a *relationship* illegal though.
“However, you realize that is what society, the RR and the ex-gay movement generally DOES tell them.”
Yes, I’m not a huge fan of that either. Our society is rather obsessed with the search for the perfect partner in life.
“I’m not sure how you make a *relationship* illegal though.”
There still are sodomy laws on the books in some states. No one who was around at the time is likely to forget what happened in Georgia in 1986.
And yes, in my mind a relationship does involve sex–big bad nasty old gay sex, which I suspect is the real issue here.
“And not bothering…. that’s not natural.”
Regan, I realise that you believe I’m trying to speak for millions of other people, but aren’t you speaking for millions of other people with that statement? Even using the word “natural” is a philosophical quagmire, and possibly even a theological one. Just what is natural? According to biological/psychological inclination only? According to some ontological position on the nature of human beings? Is it how we are, or how we “should be”?
Of course sexual orientation is acceptable – it’s not like we can change it easily once set in place. The question is whether all actions that proceed from a free, decision-making, human mind must be acceptable.
As a young gay person myself, I allways beleived Ernie and Bert where a gay couple when I was growing up watching them on ‘the street’, without being told that they ‘where’ by anyone else.
This also was long before I even considerd myself as being gay.