I’d answer the question, but I don’t want to drag this thread into a discussion about libertarianism. 
I’d say all four were. The Simpsons was not (and still isn’t) a childrens’ program. It’s an animated sitcom.
Restraint and self-discipline: two more virtues I find so admirable in others.
Although I cough don’t recall this ever having happened before, I have to cough actually agree with elucidator on this one. :eek:
Sure PBS is government funded. Those funds come from the pockets of straights, gays, lesbians, transgendered, and every other stripe of taxpayer you can find. My take on the program in question is that the “two mommies” issue would sail over the heads of most kids watching, and if my daughter were to have a question about it, then that becomes a moment for me to communicate with my child informing her of alternative lifestyles and answering whatever questions she might have.
It’s not the government’s job to act as gatekeeper of morality in my home-it’s my job as a parent. I’ll decide what’s inappropriate for my child to see and/or hear.
Gatekeeper of morality? Well, up to a point…
See, a hippy-lefty parent approaches the question from a different perspective. We dont give a rat’s about tits 'n ass. Hippy parents don’t like a bunch of sociopaths running around with large calibre weapons. To our gestalt, a wall spattering .45 is far, far more morally repugnant an image than all the slithering genitalia ever.
When some other parents lather into a froth about seeing some middle aged womans aureole, we are more likely to point out the immorality of paying grown men to injure each other for money.
To our perspective, sexual morality is pretty weak tea. “Do unto others, so that they wake up smiling” pretty much covers it, outside of the obvious matters of responsibility: hygiene, you beget, you raise…that sort of thing.
Nonetheless, I dont think you should shield children from information, any more than you shield adults from information. Open the floodgates and make yourself plain: you can’t do anything you want, but you can find out anything you want. There is no appreciable advantage in raising naive children.
(And, hell, they’re gonna give you attitude anyway, at least you can have more interesting topics?)
Tits, ass, and large caliber weapons don’t get me worked up. Sociopaths-they bother me, and come from both sides of the political divide, no? 
Teach your children well,
Their father’s hell did slowly go by.
And feed them on your dreams,
The one they picks, the one you’ll know by
Wait, wait, wait…
Isn’t Buster Bunny one of the main characters in Tiny Toon Adventures? Is it also a character from Arthur?
Man, I was confused there for a second.
Now you’re talkin! Babs Bunny in a little lesbian scene is entirely worth fighting for.
Did you ever find Bugs Bunny attractive when he put on a dress and played
girl bunny? No? Um, me neither.
I was responding to eleanorrigby’s assertion that a satiric show like Laugh-In or MASH couldn’t be made today.
Neither of them were children’s shows either.
Fine point. But what would you be using your pledge dollars for if PBS suddenly started showing target shooting instructional shows and Waltons reruns?
Grandpa Walton was gay. Well, at the least the actor who played Grandpa was.
I’ve been mulling over this comment and I think I’ve finally figured out what annoys me about it. You, and others on your side of the aisle, seem to think our commitment to free speech is content dependent. A resonable person, though, would recognize that groups like the ACLU defend even the KKK and Neo-Nazis because free speech means nothing if it doesn’t protect everyone. Obviously you have no problem with supressing content, as shown by your defense of the Secretary. Please don’t project your conditional support for the First Amendment onto us.
Mmmm… at the risk of upsetting Homebrew or getting Mr Moto cross by speaking out of turn, I’ve formed the view that his stance is moderate rightist libertarian, and that he’s merely defending the secretary for expressing her opinion, with which he may or may not agree. And I think he’s formed the idea – easy enough to do, based on people’s gut reactions to spoken/written stupidity of all sorts – that liberals’ support of free speech is content dependent. I know that I personally would like to see Ann Coulter doing reports on church socials for the Gopher Prairie Weekly Gazette if she stayed in journalism at all – her disgusting attitudes are anathema for what my forefathers fought to create and preserve in this country. But a part of being an American and a liberal means that I have to defend her right to spray invective, and others’ rights to agree with her crap. Moto seems to be coming at the same point from the reverse direction – Ms. Spelling has the right to object to programming that she disagrees with, and didn’t give up that right when she took a Cabinet-level post. That she’s pushing a particular agenda is unfortunate, and that her comments could be seen as a veiled threat of censorship is truly nasty – but she has the right to speak her mind.
What would your reaction be if PBS aired a weekly series produced by one of the “Ex-Gay” programs designed to “cure” homosexuals and turn them into heterosexuals, a program which claimed success for their efforts in that regard?
Try a daily show like oh say “The 700 Club”, or any of the weekly religious bully pulpit shows out there. They may not be PBS, but they are there.
I heartily disagree. She is using her position as Secretary of Education and including an official threat to funding. That is more than expressing her opinion. This is using the weight of the government to chill free expression and is tantamount to censorship.
John-boy has two grandpas! 
I’d not watch it.
But that would be the extent of your dispproval? You wouldn’t call for it to be stopped as inappropriate for a public broadcasting network subject?
This certainly will be remembered and reviewed at funding time too. Once again it is a “non issue” issue that this administration will use to placate the small vocal number of religious fundamentalists in the Republican party.
The shame of it all is that all this show does is portray a variety of family situations. Families are the ones that will suffer.