# Same-sex relationships in cartoons aimed at kids **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 27, 2016, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854 "2016-05-27T21:08:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![GulfTiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e79b87/32.png) [@GulfTiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GulfTiger)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/62 "2016-05-30T14:46:45Z")
We should be tolerant and fair to LBGT persons. I’m just saying that celebrating their lifestyle is not helpful, because they add no value to any culture. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/63 "2016-05-30T14:48:55Z")
> [@GulfTiger](#): > > I’m just saying that celebrating their lifestyle is not helpful, because they add no value to any culture. Sure they do – they work just as hard as anyone else, they work as doctors and teachers and engineers, they contribute greatly to the creative arts, and they raise children and have families. They contribute to society and culture in pretty much the same ways as straight people do. Were you under the impression that gay people do nothing but have gay sex? ---
**Author:** ![GulfTiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e79b87/32.png) [@GulfTiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GulfTiger)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/64 "2016-05-30T15:15:57Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Sure they do – they work just as hard as anyone else, they work as doctors and teachers and engineers, they contribute greatly to the creative arts, and they raise children and have families. They contribute to society and culture in pretty much the same ways as straight people do. > > Were you under the impression that gay people do nothing but have gay sex? I meant _solely because_they are gay. You don’t have to be gay to be a doctor, teacher or engineer. For the sake of argument I’ll agree that gay is a genetic trait. What value does that trait, alone, add? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/65 "2016-05-30T15:22:22Z")
> [@GulfTiger](#): > > I meant _solely because_they are gay. You don’t have to be gay to be a doctor, teacher or engineer. Yu don’t have to be straight, either. What value does _that_ trait add to culture? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/66 "2016-05-30T15:42:27Z")
> [@GulfTiger](#): > > I meant _solely because_they are gay. You don’t have to be gay to be a doctor, teacher or engineer. So? No one benefits society and culture solely by being straight, either. Reproducing doesn’t benefit society and culture unless the offspring is raised to be a contributing member of society. > [@](#): > > For the sake of argument I’ll agree that gay is a genetic trait. What value does that trait, alone, add? The same as being straight – nothing on its own. When matched with hard work, compassion, honesty, and other positive straights, then both traits can add much to society. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/67 "2016-05-30T15:47:44Z")
> [@GulfTiger](#): > > I’m just saying that celebrating their lifestyle is not helpful, because they add no value to any culture. And what value do homophobic bigots add to any culture? ---
**Author:** ![epbrown01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ba0ec/32.png) [@epbrown01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/epbrown01)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/68 "2016-05-30T16:03:21Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > When _was_ the first clearly implied normalized gay or bisexual relationship in an American kid’s cartoon? The first I recall was **Superman: The Animated Series.** When the commissioner of Metropolis’ police force was injured, her girlfriend was at the hospital. I’m not sure a kid would have picked up on that, though. ---
**Author:** ![ShinyAeon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@ShinyAeon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShinyAeon)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/69 "2016-05-30T23:25:24Z")
> [@Tzigone](#): > > BTW, interestingly in my Justice-League-watching days, I did see the objection that inter-racial relationships should not be on kids’ shows after Hawk Girl and Green Lantern kissed the first time. I was kinda surprised, to be honest. You mean, between humans and extraterrestrials, right? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![GulfTiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e79b87/32.png) [@GulfTiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GulfTiger)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/70 "2016-06-03T18:23:19Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > And what value do homophobic bigots add to any culture? you should find one, and ask her/him ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/71 "2016-06-03T19:08:04Z")
> [@GulfTiger](#): > > For the sake of argument I’ll agree that gay is a genetic trait. What value does that trait, alone, add? Well, taking the question at face value, there’s a bunch of research on human evolution that suggests that **low but nonzero prevalence of homosexuality in early human societies may have helped us survive as a species** , because it provided a minority of adults who had close family ties with the offspring of other adults but were not diverting resources to support offspring of their own. So there’s that. The more important underlying question, though, is **Why should a particular trait have to “add value” in order to be represented in a TV show?** There are cartoons that depict people with mustaches or sandals or glasses, for instance: what “value” does the trait of having a mustache or wearing sandals or wearing glasses add? Homosexuals, like glasses-wearers and fat people and tall people and old people and beautiful people, should be represented in some subset of fictional characters **merely because those people exist and are part of the world**. A screenwriter doesn’t need any alleged “value” in any particular trait to justify **simply depicting a diverse population of people the way they happen to be**. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/72 "2016-06-03T19:51:46Z")
> [@GulfTiger](#): > > For the sake of argument I’ll agree that gay is a genetic trait. What value does that trait, alone, add? You can just as easily ask what value does opposite sex pair bonding add? These days scientists are finally starting to be a bit more honest and unbiased about reporting what they observe in nature, and it turns out scientists have been denying or censoring anything that didn’t conform to the idea that opposite sex pair bonding was somehow crucial to a species’ fitness. Sexual reproduction is one thing, pair bonding, in species the have it, is all over the place. Here’s an [interesting documentary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYdcvRe7ox8) I watched the other day on YouTube about it. In nature, it’s perfectly acceptable for males and females to hate or ignore each other, get together once a year to bang out a kid, and go back to ignoring each other. Lots of species see no particular value in being straight, or forming mommy daddy pair bonds. The human species could carry on just fine with no straights. Being straight doesn’t provide any intrinsic value to a species. Being gay or straight doesn’t determine your value, nor should it have to prove it does. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/73 "2016-06-03T20:14:14Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > These days scientists are finally starting to be a bit more honest and unbiased about reporting what they observe in nature, and it turns out scientists have been denying or censoring anything that didn’t conform to the idea that opposite sex pair bonding was somehow crucial to a species’ fitness. This ridiculous conspiracy theorizing really doesn’t add credibility to your view. It is a _popular_ misconception that all traits must have some adaptive explanation. No _scientist_, even the most diehard adaptationist, thinks that. Were you under the impression that if evolutionary biologists acknowledged the existence of LGBT behaviors in humans or other animals, without being able to provide an adaptive account, that somehow the theory of evolution by natural selection would be in jeopardy? Or that the prevalence of anti-LGBT bigoty among scientists is higher than in the general population (it’s lower). It’s certainly _interesting_ if LGBT traits are or were adaptive. But nothing whatsoever hinges on that for our society. Ancestral evolutionary fitness is not our metric for what is good or bad, desirable or undesirable, acceptable or unacceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/74 "2016-06-03T21:02:07Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > This ridiculous conspiracy theorizing really doesn’t add credibility to your view. I don’t think there’s any “conspiracy theory” element to it. It’s well known that [early biological studies had a tendency to ignore or discount same-sex behavior in animals](http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521864466&ss=exc) as a pointless aberration or unseemly irrelevance: > [@](#): > > Earlier studies of animal behaviour tended to dismiss occurrences of same-sex sexual behaviour as mere quirks or such instances were classified as pathological manifestations. The use of caged subjects was prevalent and meant that these interactions were invariably characterized as abnormal products of captivity, unlikely to be found in ‘nature’. As early as the 1700s biologists such as George Edwards (1758–64) were speculating on the causes of such behavioural ‘abnormalities’. […] > > Research conducted throughout the 1890s purported that an absence of opposite-sex partners and artificial confinement could ‘force’ individuals to choose same-sex mates. It is interesting to note that the same researchers who reported such findings showed that pigeons (Columbia livia) will participate in same-sex sexual interactions even if they are housed in mixed-sex groups. Moreover, some researchers even demonstrated that certain same-sex pairs stopped their homosexual activity upon being isolated from their opposite-sex group mates. For example, Whitman (1919) stated that ‘a number of pairs of mature males were isolated; some of these were observed for several months, but no real matings resulted from any of these cases’. He then went on to conclude, however, that ‘confinement will thus force matings which would not otherwise occur. Pairings between like sexes are secured in this manner’. Clearly, such an interpretation is more reflective of the opinions of the observer than an objective observation of the behavioural phenomenon under investigation. > > It was not long before fieldworkers, confronted with evidence of homosexual behaviour in ‘nature’, were integrating this perspective into their lexicon and summarily dismissing such interactions as idiosyncratic pathological manifestations or worse (for example, Mute swans: Ritchie, 1926). Studies of domestic livestock that followed asserted that the ‘artificial’ effects of domestication produced homosexual behaviour. The economic benefits associated with livestock reproduction may have further promoted the view that homosexual behaviour is an undesirable ‘problem’ (for example, domestic chickens; Guhl, 1948). > > Later research in the domain of behavioural endocrinology sought a causal link between the perinatal hormonal environment and adult homosexual behaviour in a variety of species, including rodents and primates. This work, too, may have inadvertently contributed to the perspective of animal homosexual behaviour as a disordered condition (for example, Phoenix et al., 1959; Pomerantz et al., 1986). > > Nevertheless, more and more detailed studies of animals in their natural environments made it increasingly difficult to discount all sexual interactions in animals among members of the same sex as exceptions, as idiosyncrasies, or as pathologies. Slowly, but steadily, a quite different picture emerged. I think that’s all **levdrakon** meant by saying that scientific reporting on same-sex behavior nowadays is more “honest and unbiased” than earlier interpretations which were heavily influenced by preconceptions that such behavior was automatically “unnatural” or undesirable. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/75 "2016-06-03T22:04:30Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I don’t think there’s any “conspiracy theory” element to it. > I think that’s all **levdrakon** meant by saying that scientific reporting on same-sex behavior nowadays is more “honest and unbiased” than earlier interpretations which were heavily influenced by preconceptions that such behavior was automatically “unnatural” or undesirable. From the article that you cited, > [@](#): > > An evolutionary perspective on the topic of animal homosexual behaviour was first articulated in a landmark paper by the ethologist Wolfgang Wickler (1967) So your point is well taken, but let’s be clear that we’re talking about the cognitive bias of scientists in **prior centuries** , up until maybe the 1950s. **From the 1960s** , the _scientists themselves_ began to realize that they had been wrong to dismiss LGBT behavior in animals as a simple aberration. Think about where general social attitudes were in 1960 - it’s not as though evolutionary biologists were diehard reactionaries while the rest of the world embraced LGBT diversity! Based on the timeframe of examples cited in your article it was extremely misleading for **levdrakon** to say: > [@levdrakon](#): > > **These days** scientists **are finally** starting to be a bit more honest and unbiased about reporting what they observe in nature, and it turns out scientists **have been denying or censoring** anything that didn’t conform… ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/76 "2016-06-03T22:13:41Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Based on the timeframe of examples cited in your article it was extremely misleading I see. I keep forgetting that for you youngsters the last third of the twentieth century doesn’t count as part of “these days”. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/77 "2016-06-03T22:31:35Z")
> [@AtomThought](#): > > There has been no tokenism or quota fitting, and no one here is saying there should be. Even if there was, and I’m certainly not saying there should be, wouldn’t tokenism be better than having no LGBT characters at all? Kids seeing LGBT characters represented in their favorite shows discourages bigotry and better prepares the kids for a world where they will most likely encounter LGBT people. Also, LGBT kids seeing characters like them might make them feel better about who they themselves are. People like to complain about “tokenism” and “pandering”, but they’re often complaints levied at the notion of representation at all. Like directors and writers need to do a survey of other media and get an exact tally of whether the characters in modern media adhere exactly to their country’s demographic breakdown. Tokenism is far better than a group of people not being represented, even if it brings with it some stereotyping (i.e. the token gay is often a lisping, fashion obsessed, femmy guy of some flavor). The pandering complaint that often goes with the “tokenism” one\* is far worse, though, if for no other reason than entertainment media is pandering **all the damn time**. All those empty rom-coms? All those forgettable military movies you can’t remember the title of? All those gruff wish-fulfilment characters? Those are all pandering to common moviegoing demographics. And the thing is, outside of isolated genre-specific problems, these “pandering” characters aren’t really bad. The only problem with “pandering” to gay people is gatekeeping, it’s invisible to most of the complainers that they’ve seen plenty of stuff designed to pander to them. Not to mention that there are plenty of LGBTQ+ identities and archetypes that aren’t represented **at all** , let alone positively or “tokened in”. I mean, I’m sure you can find most of them represented in a film that got a small debut to little acclaim at a queer film festival in Toronto or something, but not in anything anybody has ever heard of. - I didn’t see anyone making this specific complaint in this thread, but it happens frequently enough I want to address it. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/78 "2016-06-03T22:33:31Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I see. I keep forgetting that for you youngsters the last third of the twentieth century doesn’t count as part of “these days”. 😉 Oh no, I’m right there with you peering over my bifocals to monitor suspicious activity in the vicinity of my lawn. ---
**Author:** ![nearwildheaven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90db22/32.png) [@nearwildheaven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nearwildheaven)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2016, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/79 "2016-06-03T22:52:57Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > OP, you seem to be using “valid reason” to mean a non-religious reason–which shows a great deal of bias and bigotry on your part. > > But putting that aside, I can think of one possible reason. Most surveys show that only a very small percentage of people call themselves homosexual. So if a lot of shows show same-sex couples, children very well may get the impression that homosexuality is much more common than it actually is. 1980s sitcoms definitely made widower-headed families appear much more common than it actually was. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2016, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/80 "2016-06-04T01:11:43Z")
> [@nearwildheaven](#): > > 1980s sitcoms definitely made widower-headed families appear much more common than it actually was. And '60s sitcoms greatly exaggerated the number of witches, genies, martians and talking cars. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2016, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854/81 "2016-06-04T01:24:54Z")
Childerns cartoons usually just have child characters. Homosexual relationships, at least obvious ones, would show couples kissing and such. So wouldnt work out. They already show kids being close friends and anyone can guess about Peanuts Peppermint Patty and Darcy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/same-sex-relationships-in-cartoons-aimed-at-kids/755854.md?page=5)