Mr. Ratburn Comes Out In Arthur Season Premiere

[ZariusTwo]

The season premiere of the latest runs sees Arthur's teacher Mr. Ratburn get married, and come out.

https://tvline.com/2019/05/13/arthur-mr-ratburn-gay-wedding-episode/

[Utrommaniac]

The rumor come out, does Mr Ratburn is gay?

But like...not that much of a surprise, tbh...

[Autbot_Benz]

The rumor come out, does Mr Ratburn is gay?

Game Grumps reference I Love it you get a gold star

[Utrommaniac]

Ah, the whole article is a thing of magnificence right down to the author's name, but it seems to have disappeared from the internet

[Allio]

hardly anything special, Arthur has always been pretty progressive and mature with it's theme. The cancer and alzheimer's episodes really stick out.

[Utrommaniac]

So, I watched the episode, and it was pretty much just the kids thinking he was marrying Jane Lynch until the very end, and trying to stop the wedding because they thought she was an absolute harpy, and thought she'd be bad to him. So they try to get her to call off the wedding in increasingly "haha look what these crazy eight year olds are getting up to" ways to the adults.

Turns out she was the wedding planner/officiate/older sister.

Husband's a baker, who owns his own confectionery shop, which was just...of course Ratburn would marry a baker with how much he loves cake :lol:

[Voltron]

I'm thrilled they're still making Arthur. But Ratburn coming "out" isn't news. The dude's as fabulous as one can comfortably get on a kids' show.

Now, if DW dies in every episode this season, you'll have my ass glued to the TV. That's the direction this show should be taking.

[Leofan26]

I'm thrilled they're still making Arthur. But Ratburn coming "out" isn't news. The dude's as fabulous as one can comfortably get on a kids' show.

Now, if DW dies in every episode this season, you'll have my ass glued to the TV. That's the direction this show should be taking.

Than it'd be focused on her character and every one crying over her, why would you want that? : (

I didn't think of the teacher in that way, I always just thought he was a cool guy and fun to watch teach the class, than when your little ages 8 - 10 you don't think much about it with these types of shows. Later shows as in tween or teens or young adults you start thinking maybe?

This show is starting to reach these stories, that's cool.

[Voltron]

In my version, every episode would end with a huge party celebrating her grizzly demise.

The best episode ever was when Arthur punched her in the arm.


As for characters, it's fun to see the diversity in the show. Every so often, they drop some hint to a character's background and it's always fun to be shocked in that way.

For example, I think The Brain's parents are from Ethiopia. That was a cool little tidbit they through in.

[Refractive Reflections]

This progressive kid's show now needs to show polyamorous and incest romantic relationships of consenting adults, otherwise they are hypocritical bigots.

...Because after all "love is love", right?

[Candy Kappa]

This progressive kid's show now needs to show polyamorous and incest romantic relationships of consenting adults, otherwise they are hypocritical bigots.

...Because after all "love is love", right?

https://media.giphy.com/media/OSf7gDM2d8OJQkNzy3/giphy.gif

[KROW]

This progressive kid's show now needs to show polyamorous and incest romantic relationships of consenting adults, otherwise they are hypocritical bigots.

...Because after all "love is love", right?

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v521/BJKROW/Screenshot%202019-05-15%20at%204.22.31%20PM.png

[Turo602]

I once joked they should do a school shooting episode where George is the shooter and one where Binky gets molested... I'll let myself out.

[Allio]

This progressive kid's show now needs to show polyamorous and incest romantic relationships of consenting adults, otherwise they are hypocritical bigots.

...Because after all "love is love", right?

I mean there are plenty of animals that that has incest

[sdp]

Arthur only began in 1996? I never liked it as a kid since it felt like a very early 90s cartoon whenever I first saw it on tv, surprised it's still running since I probably thought they were already reruns when I was a kid. I was more of a Franklin guy.

Anywho if the episode was done tastefully I don't see much of a problem. A simple, "some people marry even if they're the same sex" message is digestable enough for kids. I felt in other kids shows it's been done far more forced or random. Also isn't this a political thread?

[Candy Kappa]

Also isn't this a political thread?

Arthur is politics?

[sdp]

Arthur is politics?

You could argue the same points to most of Andrew's threads and sure he baited far more than this topic did but there has to be consistency.

[Candy Kappa]

Oh sure, by the likes of The Usual Suspects™, just being queer and exist we are political

[ZariusTwo]

I didn't intend it to be political, it's just a nice wrinkle to a childhood favourite is all.

[sdp]

Oh sure, by the likes of The Usual Suspects™, just being queer and exist we are political

There has never been a thread about Arthur here before, because it's not a forum about arthur and no one has ever wanted to discuss Arthur, the only reason this is a topic is because it's political. If it were April being a lesbian then it's relevant and not political in nature necessarily, hell even Batwoman is something discussed here and it's not political.

I didn't intend it to be political, it's just a nice wrinkle to a childhood favourite is all.

The OP wasn't baity like say Andrew's threads but counting the history of political threads and only now clearing up somewhat I do think it's best avoided, you already have Candy Kappa being outraged for pointing this out.

[Candy Kappa]

bitch please, get out with the "outrage" BS. Your comment was eyerolling at best

[Allio]

Oh sure, by the likes of The Usual Suspects™, just being queer and exist we are political

I think the problem is that it’s those that makes it bigger than it seems, especially in news outlets trying to get those clicks (both pro and against are equally bad about this.)

For me equality is about creating the status quo, but those people make it out to be the “exception.” Hell once again Arthur does it the best with Ratburn, showing it isn’t a grad thing as it’s treated as part of the norm, but then you have those websites that had to ruin it and make it something bigger than it is.

[ZariusTwo]

The OP wasn't baity like say Andrew's threads but counting the history of political threads and only now clearing up somewhat I do think it's best avoided, you already have Candy Kappa being outraged for pointing this out.

On your bike. This was not intended to be political, and now you're trying to make it political.

[snake]

Not gonna lie that motherf*cker was always pretty gay

[Allio]

I want to say he is bi-, I mean I believe there was an answer about him and Buster’s mother.

[sdp]

On your bike. This was not intended to be political, and now you're trying to make it political.

Very true, I started it by casually mentioning it at the end of my post but I wasn't the one who completely derailed the thread making it all about that. So yeah in a way it all needed one person to get outraged by one comment for it to turn to trash like say the Andrew threads which ironically was what I was trying to point out.

[Leo656]

Slanderous filth. Andrew is an institution.

[Autbot_Benz]

This progressive kid's show now needs to show polyamorous and incest romantic relationships of consenting adults, otherwise they are hypocritical bigots.

...Because after all "love is love", right?

https://i.imgur.com/87yEXzq.jpg

[Utrommaniac]

I want to say he is bi-, I mean I believe there was an answer about him and Buster’s mother.

Not really. She pretty much shut down all of Buster's concerns that they were dating in one episode.

[Allio]

Not really. She pretty much shut down all of Buster's concerns that they were dating in one episode.

okay, I could not remember. I think I had only watched a handful of episodes since I originally stopped watching it. Which of course were the three big ones, the one where Binky babysits Emily (cute episode) and a couple of the post-season 15, just to clarify if flash animation was really a mistake.

my only problem with this episode is I feel like at least Ratburn's husband should have appeared in a previous episode. It just feels like he is here just because of the wedding punchline (that Ratburn isn't marring the person the kids didn't like, but the one they do like.)

[Utrommaniac]

I think it was a classic episode?

Buster found out his mom was dating, but didn't know who, and somehow came to the conclusion that Mr Ratburn was dating his mom. Which he catastrophized as meaning his life would be Constant School Hell (as they always seem to do for some reason, despite the constant evidence that he's a Normal Dude outside of work).

And while he was down on his knees begging his mom to not marry Mr Ratburn, her reaction came down to "what makes you think I'm dating him???"

[ZariusTwo]

Alabama PBS stations are refusing to air the episode

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48350023

[Vegita-San]

i find it interesting that this post is allowed, but some of andrews posts aren't. 'combative' or not.

it's one side of the political spectrum that's trying to politicize these types of things, and that's why these types of posts should probably fall under the same banner.

if it where not for that, I agree that it should be open for discussion.
it's almost impossible not to talk about tv shows these days without it. look at the new she-ra.

[Autbot_Benz]

i find it interesting that this post is allowed, but some of andrews posts aren't. 'combative' or not.

it's one side of the political spectrum that's trying to politicize these types of things, and that's why these types of posts should probably fall under the same banner.

if it where not for that, I agree that it should be open for discussion.
it's almost impossible not to talk about tv shows these days without it. look at the new she-ra.

All of Andrew's political posts are right wing bait posts this one is talking about an episode of a children's TV show that is showing gay marriage its not that hard to understand :roll:

[KROW]

In a statement, Mr McKenzie said "parents trust that their children can watch APT without their supervision", and that children "younger than the 'target' audience" might watch without parental knowledge.

There's the problem, right there.

Seriously, this whole thing should be a non-issue. Gay people exist; grow up and get over it. If they want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, let 'em have at it. There's really no harm in it. It can even be a beneficial. I mean, married couples sometimes file taxes jointly, sometimes putting them into a higher tax bracket and therefore sometimes paying the government more. You'd think it'd be encouraged. Win-win. But, alas, some state governments have to hide behind the Holly Bibble and prevent progress. It's a shame, really.

You wanna talk about spectrums... I have a cousin who's gay. He's married and is helping raise a child, meaning he's technically a stepfather. He also goes to church. The three of them went to Seaworld recently and had a great time. I saw the pictures. Kid had a blast and was all smiles. I'm happy for them. I also have a gay friend that I've known for almost 30 years. He's single, goes clubbing, and dresses like a weirdo. I'm happy for him, too. They're both living their best life and I'll be damned if I'd see it change for the worse. They deserve it just like everyone else.

That said, Alabama is f**king stupid. And that's not even an opinion; it's statistically true.

[Autbot_Benz]

There's the problem, right there.

That said, Alabama is f**king stupid. And that's not even an opinion; it's statistically true.

agreed facts for days. they refuse to join us in the 21st century

[ProactiveMan]

Wait, wait, wait a minute?! They're still making new episodes of Arthur?!

[sdp]

Alabama PBS stations are refusing to air the episode

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48350023

Censorship comes from either extreme.

[Refractive Reflections]

https://media.giphy.com/media/OSf7gDM2d8OJQkNzy3/giphy.gif

https://i.imgur.com/87yEXzq.jpg

Are we really going to get on a hypocritical moral high horse here? One form of marriage/relationship seems tolerable now in the West (when it wasn't and was seen as abhorrent 1-2 generations ago), while another is seen as just as repulsive today even if all parties are consenting?

I mean if people object to consenting adult incest relationships and polyamorous marriages, then I guess it reflects how closed-minded, and possibly racist they are too (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_in_the_Middle_East) if the foundation of the gay marriage argument is: all in the marriage are consenting adults and "love is love". Because there are other cultures in the world, where that argument of marriage can apply as well with polygamy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy), polygyny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny), polyandry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry), and first cousin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage) marriages.

Talk about double standards from those in the LGBT community and its advocates. I guess redefining marriage is only suitable, when it's for their idealized view, and not for any greater form of marriage equality. Congratulations on them for now being the same marital bigots that they criticized (criticizing those advocating only monogamous, heterosexual relationships) less than 5 years ago.

So it's time for this cartoon to reflect these other forms of love expression, and show the diversity of romantic relationships from other cultures!

[ProactiveMan]

You're not giving the show enough credit there, it was also an inter-species union.

[Voltron]

I didn't close this thread initially for a couple of reasons:

1. It seemed like nice news, and I was hoping there would be no controversy associated with it on the boards. As far as news goes, this is pretty bland.

2. We have a LGBTQ board members, and we do strive to be inclusive here. Strides towards civil rights should be celebrated, not derided. I believe civilized and sane people have had enough of the divisive bickering and mud slinging of bigots.


Equating homosexuality to incest is a false equivalency. There's plenty of things two consenting adults can't do to each other. One can't kill the other, for example. Expecting total anarchy to follow after two men get married is absurd.

What worries me more is the bizarre focus ON incest in the counter argument. It's worrying that someone is that adamant to have sex with their relatives and/or pets.

Now, I try not judge. However, if you've got the hots for Aunt Mom or Uncle Dad, there's a good chance that family services need to be called. May god have mercy on your brother son and sister daughter.

[Candy Kappa]

Are we really going to get on a hypocritical moral high horse here? One form of marriage/relationship seems tolerable now in the West (when it wasn't and was seen as abhorrent 1-2 generations ago), while another is seen as just as repulsive today even if all parties are consenting?

I mean if people object to consenting adult incest relationships and polyamorous marriages, then I guess it reflects how closed-minded, and possibly racist they are too (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_in_the_Middle_East) if the foundation of the gay marriage argument is: all in the marriage are consenting adults and "love is love". Because there are other cultures in the world, where that argument of marriage can apply as well with polygamy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy), polygyny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygyny), polyandry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry), and first cousin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage) marriages.

Talk about double standards from those in the LGBT community and its advocates. I guess redefining marriage is only suitable, when it's for their idealized view, and not for any greater form of marriage equality. Congratulations on them for now being the same marital bigots that they criticized (criticizing those advocating only monogamous, heterosexual relationships) less than 5 years ago.

So it's time for this cartoon to reflect these other forms of love expression, and show the diversity of romantic relationships from other cultures!

It's your snidely post that warranted the gif, I have no issues with polygami and now that you specified what you mean with incest; first cousins are not usually considered incest.

As a legal term Incest means having sexual relation with a person too close to in family bond be it biological or adopted. So, it depends on the law. In Norway, first cousins marrying is not incest and I find it really weird that only 19(?) states in the US allows first cousins to marry. But sure, first cousins relationships being prohibited by law is hella weird and it's interesting to read what other courses ban it too.

And by the by, I've never met a single queer person that's against polygamy.

[Zulithe]

Gay Dromer checking in. I'm only pointing it out because I know how invisible we can seem in some areas of life... such as within a Ninja Turtles online fandom :lol: But there's plenty of us LGBT+ fans around if you were only made aware of it.

I've seen the wedding episode. I know there are people making comments like "well it's obvious such and such character was gay all along, so this isn't news/noteworthy/important" but I think it deserves more credit than that.

It's not enough to have characters the audience might guess are gay. If they are gay, have the courage to show it in some form. It can be as simple as a very innocuous and brief wedding scene like in this episode. What matters is showing gay characters and lives as ordinary and a part of every day life... which they are.

Honestly I think it was probably too underplayed for my liking, but in keeping things age-appropriate I think it was fine. My appreciation to the creative team behind Arthur.

[Allio]

Personally I don’t find this news worthy as Arthur isn’t new to being diverse.

I mean the show doesn’t treat it as a spectacle, it’s shown as the status quo which is what equality is.

[ProactiveMan]

Ok but step back for a minute. We're talking about a rat! A rat who is bigger than an aardvark. How seriously do you want me to take this?

[Utrommaniac]

They go by these animal rules

https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/aMjXRwx_700b.jpg

[Xav]

Equating homosexuality to incest is a false equivalency.How so? Are they not both sexual acts considered to be unusual? It is completely appropriate to equate the two, much like it is appropriate to compare the two with pedophilia and heterosexuality. If you want to support one and not the other, then you definitely need to provide reasoning for that and no just say that it is a ' false equivalency'.

[snake]

How so? Are they not both sexual acts considered to be unusual?

Strap in, boys.

[Candy Kappa]

much like it is appropriate to compare the two with pedophilia and heterosexuality.

Please do elaborate on how homosexuality is comparabel to raping underage children

[Xav]

They are both similar categories; they are both sexual deviancy/perversion.

[Candy Kappa]

Woof.

I hope you’re just anti-gay and not turns out you’re Gobo 2 Eletric Boogaloo with your "reasoning"

[Xav]

I'm not anti anything. I'm just stating facts. You can compare different types of sexual attractions. That doesn't necessary mean they are all equal or that you support them.

[Voltron]

I'm not anti anything. I'm just stating facts. You can compare different types of sexual attractions. That doesn't necessary mean they are all equal or that you support them.

Comparison and equation are not the same thing, Xav. .

[Xav]

I never said they were, and you still failed to answer the question.

[Voltron]

You're so wrong that I wouldn't know where to begin, Xav.

On top of that, even if I DID do all the foot work to show my reasoning, I'm willing to bet you'd dismiss it outright.

Suffice to say:

1. A false equivalence is when two things share a similar trait, so someone argues that they're the same. Which you totally did when you said that it's appropriate to equate the two.

Here: I even looked up the definition for you to show that I'm right. (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/245/False-Equivalence)

2. You then went on to use a flimsy comparison to equate the two. Both involve sex and considered unusual, ergo both are the same. That's like saying dogs and cats have four legs and tails, ergo they're the same.

3. After Candy Kappa called you out on it, you hastily retreated and said that they are similar, which does not mean equal. That suggests a comparison can be made, which is exactly what you did. You made a comparison and called them equal when they clearly are not.

One is two family members engaging in sex, often times with abuse and coercion involved. It leads to a number of genetic abnormalities in the offspring produced and psychological damage for the victims. And I say victims because, again, nature has demonstrated that this is unhealthy.

Another is between two consenting adults. Some people can consider it unusual, but public opinion doesn't stack up against hemophilia, clubfoot, and hapsburg jaw.

Here's the wikipedia page talking about how primates avoid inbreeding. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Genetic_disorders)

Here's the wikipedia page talking about how homosexuality has been observed in all primates. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)

I mean, I don't want to embarrass you, but even monkeys know this.

Consider your question answered.

Now I'll throw the ball in your court, Xav. Please explain to us how homosexuality and incest are the same thing? After all, you can equate the two! Walk us through this minefield. I'm sure it'll be an enlightening experience.

[Xav]

Here's the wikipedia page talking about how primates avoid inbreeding. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding#Genetic_disorders)

Here's the wikipedia page talking about how homosexuality has been observed in all primates. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals) Wikipedia is an organization/website that anyone can edit & change at their leisure.

Even you.

Nice FAIL. Moron.


Now I'll throw the ball in your court, Xav. Please explain to us how homosexuality and incest are the same thing? After all, you can equate the two! Walk us through this minefield. I'm sure it'll be an enlightening experience.

Every argument used in favor of homosexuality can also be used in favor of incest. "They are all about love", "they don't do anything bad to you", "why should you care about what other people do", "it's very common in nature", "it existed forever". The demented kids problem is easily bypassed with sterilizing one or both partners so if your argument is gonna be "incest is wrong because demented kids are born from it", then you'll have to accept that if you eliminate the possibility of children being born, everything else is perfectly fine. When presented with this argument, every honest pro gay person had to conclude that incest is just as OK as homosexuality.

[Candy Kappa]

It's okay to be a motherlover, just don't **** your own mom.

[Turo602]

Every argument used in favor of homosexuality can also be used in favor of incest. "They are all about love", "they don't do anything bad to you", "why should you care about what other people do", "it's very common in nature", "it existed forever". The demented kids problem is easily bypassed with sterilizing one or both partners so if your argument is gonna be "incest is wrong because demented kids are born from it", then you'll have to accept that if you eliminate the possibility of children being born, everything else is perfectly fine. When presented with this argument, every honest pro gay person had to conclude that incest is just as OK as homosexuality.

So you like incest? You'd be okay with your kids f*cking eachother? That's healthy to you? Or are you just saying stupid sh*t to dismiss gay people by equating it to incest because you can make similar arguments even though you can literally do that with anything?

[Voltron]

Every argument used in favor of homosexuality can also be used in favor of incest. "They are all about love", "they don't do anything bad to you", "why should you care about what other people do", "it's very common in nature", "it existed forever". The demented kids problem is easily bypassed with sterilizing one or both partners so if your argument is gonna be "incest is wrong because demented kids are born from it", then you'll have to accept that if you eliminate the possibility of children being born, everything else is perfectly fine. When presented with this argument, every honest pro gay person had to conclude that incest is just as OK as homosexuality.

Do you listen to yourself? You've taken two guys getting married in a children's cartoon and made it about forced sterilization. What the hell is wrong with you?

And the kids aren't demented. Dementia was not mentioned. Dementia is something totally different and wholly unrelated.

Also, I posted a link that shows it ISN'T COMMON IN NATURE.

I pointed out that we very often care about what other people do, and for good reason. We care about murder. We care about theft. We care about arson. We care about tons of things. Domestic abuse between a couple doesn't directly affect me, but I still don't like to see it happen.

[Xav]

So you like incest? You'd be okay with your kids f*cking eachother? That's healthy to you?I don't have kids so that's irrelevant.
Do you listen to yourself? You've taken two guys getting married in a children's cartoon and made it about forced sterilization. What the hell is wrong with you? I'm not the one who brought up incest or inbreeding. I'm just offering a solution.

[Turo602]

I don't have kids so that's irrelevant.
I'm not the one who brought up incest or inbreeding. I'm just offering a solution.

Whether you have kids or not is irrelevant. Would you be okay with it? Not a hard question to answer.

[Refractive Reflections]

It's your snidely post that warranted the gif, I have no issues with polygami and now that you specified what you mean with incest; first cousins are not usually considered incest.

As a legal term Incest means having sexual relation with a person too close to in family bond be it biological or adopted.So, it depends on the law. In Norway, first cousins marrying is not incest and I find it really weird that only 19(?) states in the US allows first cousins to marry. But sure, first cousins relationships being prohibited by law is hella weird and it's interesting to read what other courses ban it too.


...But what is considered too close though? It's all cultural relativity, just like the moral relativity of relationships/marriage. Besides the same language can be applied here: "People hate what they don't understand or fear!", "How can people hate love that is so pure!", "Love is love!" The contradictory reasoning is hilarious in the responses: "We need to support all adult consentual relationships, but.... that is disgusting! Law enforcement needs to called! They are mentally ill!" Gee, no difference than 50 years ago with homosexuality, right?

Because if we are going just on the potential of "risk of birth defects" for the children of the potential incest couple. Then what would be wrong with homosexual incest between siblings or parent-adult child relationship? Or heterosexual incest couples that are unable to procreate?

There's a movement for first-degree relative incest:
https://www.thecut.com/2015/01/what-its-like-to-date-your-dad.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/23/adult-incest-and-the-law/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.421a5590ddf3
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sibling-incest-should-be-legal-says-danish-professor-of-criminal-justice-et

...And polygamy acceptance:
https://www.wnd.com/2014/01/gays-move-over-here-come-polygamists/


And by the by, I've never met a single queer person that's against polygamy.

"Never met a single queer person against polygamy"... well, here's a Politico rant against polygamy, but supporting gay marriage (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/polygamy-not-next-gay-marriage-119614). Or an article not carrying about the issue, saying it's the polygamists fight, and not the LGBT community's concern (https://www.queerty.com/if-youre-for-consenting-adults-committed-relationships-do-you-support-polygamy-20110712).

------------
...And besides with everyone so concerned about polygamy and incest relationships, they need to relax their hatred, because it will melt away soon enough and be accepted. I mean if mainstream society was able to accept homosexual relationships with Will & Grace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_%26_Grace#Cultural_impact), and how society was against that form of a relationship being depicted beforehand, it shouldn't be too difficult for the entertainment industry to fight against such hate for these other forms of loving adult consentual relationships!

[Zulithe]

If you bring up incest, bestiality, inter-species marriage in an argument opposing homosexuality in any way, you have already lost. Well-known fallacies that aren't taken seriously and have been proven false time and time again, and I won't waste time arguing with these people. Neither should you.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

[Voltron]

I'm pretty sure the goal isn't to make a solid argument about screwing animals, it's about trolling people.

[Candy Kappa]

...But what is considered too close though? It's all cultural relativity, just like the moral relativity of relationships/marriage. Besides the same language can be applied here: "People hate what they don't understand or fear!", "How can people hate love that is so pure!", "Love is love!" The contradictory reasoning is hilarious in the responses: "We need to support all adult consentual relationships, but.... that is disgusting! Law enforcement needs to called! They are mentally ill!" Gee, no difference than 50 years ago with homosexuality, right?

What is too close... sure that is a valid question. I'd say anything closer then first cousins is too close. Sibling, parent, grandparent and uncle/aunt sexual relationships will have a huge power imbalance and can compromise consent, heck it might be grooming.

[Zulithe]

I'm pretty sure the goal isn't to make a solid argument about screwing animals, it's about trolling people.
Then they should be banned, as it is against the rules.

Far too much of it is allowed on this board. A thread about positive gay representation where it is seldom witnessed allowed to derail into a back and forth about incest. It's shameful. And this kind of behavior occurs in far, far too many threads here.

[Voltron]

I agree. I have a lot of friends in the LGBTQ community who have suffered greatly due to societal prejudices, misconceptions, and outright malice towards them. It would be a lot easier if we could just enjoy the news of acceptance without having it muddied by people hell bent on maintaining the status quo and using one person's struggle for their own political ends. Sad.

[snake]

We’re all gay on the Technodrome Forums.

[Candy Kappa]

We’re all gay on the Technodrome Forums.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/2b54d013be45c170032fc47d51de06d3/tenor.gif?itemid=10261507

[FredWolfLeonardo]

A thread about positive gay representation where it is seldom witnessed allowed to derail into a back and forth about incest.

The technodrome forums has a strange fascination with incest :lol:

[snake]

Is Ratburn pitching or catching here?

[ProactiveMan]

If you bring up incest, bestiality, inter-species marriage in an argument opposing homosexuality in any way, you have already lost. Well-known fallacies that aren't taken seriously and have been proven false time and time again, and I won't waste time arguing with these people. Neither should you.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

I think I brought up inter-species marriage; not really for the sake of arguendo. I was merely amused at the absurdity of fighting over a gay rat.

I'm not opposed to same-sex marriage for the record, or trying to argue against depictions of such in a cartoon. But... Mr Ratburn is a rat, and the yuppie looking dude he married is clearly not a rat; ipso facto inter-species marriage.

[Utrommaniac]

They're all animal people though, so to them it would be an interracial marriage.

[ProactiveMan]

I think you're probably right.

Are there any other mixed-species couples on the show? (I don't remember any.) If so, are there any interesting combinations of children? Crocodile-Goats or something like that?

Arthur was never meant to weather this level of scrutiny.

[Allio]

I do know that DW's friend Emily's father is a monkey and mother is a bunny. She clearly takes after her mother, but seems to have a bigger face like her father

[Refractive Reflections]

If you bring up incest, bestiality, inter-species marriage in an argument opposing homosexuality in any way, you have already lost. Well-known fallacies that aren't taken seriously and have been proven false time and time again, and I won't waste time arguing with these people. Neither should you.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Actually no. That link only discusses adult-child incest, I'm discussing adult-adult incest which falls under the same umbrella of adult consent as the justification for the foundation of homosexual marriage. And as for "genetic defects", are we now going to prohibit those with Huntington's disease from having children, since they have a far greater likelihood of having genetic defects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntington's_disease#Inheritance) than children from incest?

Your post reeks of self-righteous elitism. Funny how so many want to demonize something that uses the same reasoning that they use to legitimize their own romance. Why would your opinion matter on what's considered revolting when all parties are adult and consenting?

I agree. I have a lot of friends in the LGBTQ community who have suffered greatly due to societal prejudices, misconceptions, and outright malice towards them. It would be a lot easier if we could just enjoy the news of acceptance without having it muddied by people hell bent on maintaining the status quo and using one person's struggle for their own political ends. Sad.

...And your victim narrative virtue signaling is right on time.

I'm giving a valid cultural-reflective argument here, and pointing out the hypocritical nature of society wanting to legitimize their own form of romance while demonizing the unpopular when both use the same foundational relationship reasoning ("If all parties are adult and consenting, what's the problem then?"). The cognitive dissonance and elitism in this thread, and in society, are hilarious.

[Candy Kappa]

Do you have a raging boner for your sister or brother, and want it justified? Or is it your mom?

[Voltron]

...And your victim narrative virtue signaling is right on time.

I'm giving a valid cultural-reflective argument here, and pointing out the hypocritical nature of society wanting to legitimize their own form of romance while demonizing the unpopular when both use the same foundational relationship reasoning ("If all parties are adult and consenting, what's the problem then?"). The cognitive dissonance and elitism in this thread, and in society, are hilarious.


No, you aren't. Nothing you say is valid. You're a boob who has no place in this discussion.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

No, you aren't. Nothing you say is valid. You're a boob who has no place in this discussion.

No, you da boob.

[Xav]

If you bring up incest, bestiality, inter-species marriage in an argument opposing homosexuality in any way, you have already lost. Well-known fallacies that aren't taken seriously and have been proven false time and time again, and I won't waste time arguing with these people. Neither should you.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriageIf you bring up wikis that anyone can edit & change at their leisure as your reference you have already lost.

It would be a lot easier if we could just enjoy the news of acceptance without having it muddied by people hell bent on maintaining the status quo and using one person's struggle for their own political ends.Ironic coming from someone who doesn't think marriage should be expanded upon.

You're a boob who has no place in this discussion.Using boob as an insult is misogynist.

[Candy Kappa]

Y'know, maybe Xav and Refractive is right.

Maybe we shouldn't deny a guy to groom his daughter, marry her when she's of age and plaster her insides with baby batter, get a new child with his daughter so that he have a backup spouse when his first child gets too old for him.

It's not incest, it's wincest.

[Jester]

And on that note...I think it long past time this thing was closed.