I’m pretty sure I’ve seen mild affection (quick kisses and hugs and pecks) between adult couples in children’s cartoons. Not in every cartoon, but in some.
Ellen Degeneres says hi.
What value does being black add? I’d say none. Should we therefore just not have black characters any more?
No. That’s absurd. It simply doesn’t reflect the world we live in. It presents the world in a way that marginalizes a minority group for no reason, and denies them positive representation in the media - which can be kind of a big deal.
But we’re talking about media here. So we have to expand the question to ask, “What value does being gay add to a narrative?” Well, actually, there’s a lot of cultural baggage attached to that, and it says a fair bit. Even if you explicitly construct the narrative so that it doesn’t say anything (such as in the earlier episodes Steven Universe), it not saying anything produces a meta narrative in and of itself! Inserting issues of sex can make your story more poignant, deep, and interesting. There’s value there.
And even ignoring that, you know what value there is? A gay teenager struggling through high school surrounded by homophobes can look at Steven Universe, and realize that the future isn’t all that bleak, and that they are becoming more and more accepted by the mainstream. They see characters like them, who are heroic, brave, strong, and happy. That makes a difference.
Ruby and Sapphire are both ostensibly child female characters. They kiss on screen. No issue there. Pearl and Rose Quartz are both ostensibly adult female characters. They do a lot more than kissing on screen. No issue there.
“Kids shows” have moved forwards quite a bit.
Your statements contradict each other. You debased them by referring to who they are as a “lifestyle” and just declared them to have no value. Those statements are the opposite of tolerance.
You’ve also tried the “appeal to nature” fallacy. It’s natural for humans to rape and murder and steal. Doesn’t mean it’s a good thing, and doesn’t mean we will regress into allowing it again.
And the idea that homosexuality has no value to society and thus will disappear is ignoring reality. Reality is that homosexuality has always existed in society, and ongoing acceptance means that it isn’t going to decrease. Studies have been done to show the value of having caregivers who do not contribute their genes–not that gay people haven’t been contributing for decades–it’s just easier now.
In short, you have offered nothing of value to the discussion and have only revealed your own biases. As I was going to say to the OP–the only reason to leave it out is if you think there is something wrong with it. You clearly do.
And if you can’t explain them without appealing to what the OP mentioned, it isn’t useful.
Melanin protects against skin cancer.
Very valuable in sunny climates.
Is that the only reason we should have black characters in cartoons? If not, then for what other reasons?
Changing subjects seems to be popular here.
Still not one has provided me the utility of the homosexual gene (assuming one is ever found).
What does the “utility” of the homosexual gene have to do with anything? Do you believe cartoons should only portray characteristics that have some sort of intrinsic genetic utility?
As for changing the subject, I’m just trying to nail down what your point is, and what you actually believe. Why is it okay for cartoons to portray black people but not gay people?
I do not know that a “gay gene” has been found (I do not think so) but there are theories as to why homosexuality has not been “bred out” of the gene pool.
First there is the “Gay Uncle theory” which asserts that a gay uncle, not having kids of his own, works to ensure the survival of the extended family which gives them a leg up on the survival meter.
Secondly, there is evidence that a woman (who shares similar genes with her brother of course) is more fecund if her brother is gay. Or rather, it is not that he is gay but whatever genetic soup causes him to be gay also makes her more fecund which is a reproductive benefit.
Whatever the reason we know homosexuality has existed as long as we have recorded history and it hasn’t gone away. One would assume nature has a reason for it whatever it may be otherwise it would have been bred out of the population over time.
Now that is an interesting theory.
Thanks for sharing.
Why is that even remotely relevant to the subject of same-sex relationships in cartoons aimed at kids? Gay people exist. Thousands of years of persecution and murder hasn’t caused them to stop existing. Why should the fact that you see no “utility” in the genes that cause homosexuality (Potholer54 has a great video on this) have any impact on their representation in the popular culture?
because I view the world through the prism of utilitarian philosophy
But even if we don’t know what the utility of homosexuality is, it’s clear that it hasn’t been bred out of the gene pool yet. So if we define “utile” as “won’t be bred out of the gene pool”, then homosexuality must be utile in some way.
That may be the crux of your problem. People don’t have to justify their existence by proving “utility.” This is why I’m not fond of the “gay uncle” theory; it seems to hand the argument over to the utilitarians. But individuals are an end in themselves, and we don’t need a societal justification.
Your version of “utilitarian philosophy” seems to be very selective in it’s targets, unless you are equally concerned about what special contributions left-handed people, gingers or any other such variations bring to the table.
Which I had previously described, although not with the “Gay Uncle theory” nickname, back in post #71.
If you can’t be bothered to read posts responding to you, don’t complain that people aren’t answering your questions.
I am not examining the mere existence of leftys or gingers or homosexuals.
I am examining the observable actions of many artists who are going out of their way to point out homosexuals in their work. If I put a black person in my movie, I’ve depicted a black person. Easy.
But homosexuality is not so open and obvious. You have to go out of your way and do extra work to explain it to the audience.
People normally don’t do extra work for no reason at all. They usually do it out of some sense of importance.
The fact that someone is a homosexual is not important to me.
Why is it so important to these artists?
No you don’t, unless you’re assuming that “extra work” includes every aspect of character presentation other than the character’s basic physical appearance.
Suppose the plot of an episode involves visiting the house of a married couple, as in “we’re going to the Hendersons’ place to see their son Bobby”. Suppose the Hendersons happen to be a same-sex couple. What “extra work” has the scriptwriter “gone out of their way” to do in this case? The plot involved depicting a married couple with a son, and this particular married couple happens to be a same-sex couple. No extra work required at all.
Including gay characters as part of the ordinary population in a cartoon is no different from including left-handed or birdwatching or ex-military or schoolteacher characters. You don’t have to “go out of your way and do extra work” to somehow “explain” them to the audience, you just depict them going about their ordinary cartoon business the same as all the other characters.
going to the Henderson’s who happen to be a same-sex couple looks like extra work to me
but OK.
There are a lot of followers of egalitarian human dignity philosophy here.
Interesting, but off the path of my utilitarian quest.
The ‘gay uncle’ theory is closest and most interesting so far. My apologies for missing it earlier.
This is a nonsensical answer.
The purpose of entertainment is to, well, entertain. If you accept that in utilitarianism, this has value to the point of being worth making, then surely its value must have some connection to how entertaining it is… No? So wouldn’t having gay characters make it better if those gay characters led to more interesting storylines?
You’re better than me.
I get it.