Grover on marriage

That clip looks old to me. I'm guessing this is going to ignite the conservative blogosphere, but then it will come out the clip is from 1975 or something.

A bit of Googling shows that this clip comes from Season 19, which first aired in 1987.

Does this actual segment worry you? Or are you worried about a future, yet-to-be-filmed, more explicit segment? I assume you, as the adult, are concerned about the motives of the producers, and not any of the content actually presented?

I think there's a difference between gently recognizing the real world - in terms broad enough to avoid value judgments and include as many children as possible - and gently reinforcing the norm. You'd prefer the latter, of course, because you're IN the norm. Makes sense!

Sure, Sesame Street doesn't have to go there at all, and will likely live to regret this if it's picked up broadly. I'm down with that - they took the risk. I hope at some level you can acknowledge that your fears of rampant conversion to homosexuality (& sin) if constant institutionalized suppression is relaxed, are based on nothing: no data from the last 35 or so years, and certainly no real-world experiences from the countless happy families who happen to have a gay member or two. Kids are much more likely to pick up the sins of violence and drunkenness, and we have data to prove it.

My nieces and nephews, and my friends' nieces, nephews, and children, are all happily heterosexual (and, in some cases, devout) despite adoring, respecting, and accepting their gay relatives and those relatives' boyfriends, girlfriends, and, yes, spouses. The gay just doesn't rub off, whether it's accepted, ignored, admired, or prayed for; if my niece prays for me to turn from my sin, I'm OK with that. I pray she stops hanging around with that little slutty girl who gives me the creeps.

If nothing can remove the inherent stain, however; if no amount of commitment or altruism or stability counts in gay relationships; if no amount of support for or integration with the community can earn respect; if a puppet describing gay marriages, however obliquely, as including kissing and helping is insidious indoctrination, then yes, we are at a stalemate with traditionalists, sadly.

SSM *is* new and scary - I'll acknowledge that and encourage everyone to move slowly. But 25 years ago, no kid would ever meet a playmate with two male parents and few kids would know anything about Uncle Bart except that he is secretive, lives far away, broke Grandma's heart, and is fun to play with. How then to include today's Uncle Bart in my niece's happy family? He isn't secretive, miserable, or distant; Grandma's happy and loves him; and his 'friend' is fun and helps make holidays special.

Are you worried that Sesame Street might help some kid with a strange 'marriage' in his family feel a bit less weird, or are you actually worried that I might stop trying to turn from MY sin? For the trad, it seems that gay relationships are either irredeemable, or worthy of some degree of pitying tolerance (love the sinner), but cannot even be neutral. That's unfortunate, but I understand. Given your choice of how you know and evaluate "truth," it makes sense; how can any relationship built on sin become neutral or better? It's a dead end. :-(

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sesame_Street

"Sesame Street's producers and writers began to use their cast member's personal lives and real-life experiences to cover issues they wanted to address on the show. For the 1988 and 1989 seasons, the topics of love, marriage, and childbirth were addressed when they created a storyline in which the characters Luis and Maria fall in love, marry, and have a child, Gabi. Sonia Manzano, the actress who played Maria, had married and become pregnant; according to the book Sesame Street Unpaved, published after the show's thirtieth anniversary in 1999, Manzano's real-life experiences gave the show's writers and producers the idea.[90] Research was done before any scripts were written to gain an understanding of the previous studies about preschoolers' understanding of love, marriage, and family. The show's research staff found that at the time, there were very little relevant research done about children's understanding of these topics, and no children's books had been written for children about them.[84] Research was also conducted by Sesame Street in order to target the areas in which children's knowledge was the weakest. Studies done after the episodes about Maria's pregnancy aired showed that as a result of watching these episodes, children's understanding of pregnancy increased."

Season 19 went over into 1988, so I'm guessing this
clip was just part of the writers' exploration of the
meaning of love and marriage in terms young children
could understand.

I guess they should have been promoting the "traditional" version of marriage as put forth in the Bible; one man, any number of women and a passel of concubines. But don't mix the races because God doesn't like that.

"You can't very well accuse "Sesame Street" of openly promoting same-sex marriage" said the bloggiste, clearly accusing "Sesame Street" of openly promoting same-sex marriage. And from a 1989 episode, no less.

Rod, no offence, but your 'journalism' standards are slipping, have been slipping for some time now.

Have you ever thought of writing fewer posts and giving due diligence to those you put before the public? I, too, am asking seriously.

Those gay blogs have no reason to "feel really stupid". They've actually captured the essence of the message far better than you (or Erin) ever did.

From the first link: "What is marriage?" "They kiss, they hug, they live together, they help each other. That's what two people in a marriage do. How could Grover and this little boy be smarter than all the Maggie Gallaghers in the world combined?"

The second link had no editorial comment whatsoever, nor did the 3rd, apart from the headline "Sesame Street's definition of marriage mentions nothing about 'traditional'" - which it doesn't.

"I'll feel really stupid "

Again, no offence, but this makes you look really stupid.

"I thank the reader for"

Um, doing your job?

"what politicized morons we are."

I don't think the reader said that. They're your words, Rod. And they're apt, sadly. Sorry if that seems harsh, but it's my observations.

But this post is going into your (ever growing, it seems) Hall of Shame. Some of your gay comboxers are surely going to comment 'Obsess much?', and I can't say as I'll blame them.

By itself, this clip rings true. From such a young child as this, the conversation seems believable. The puppet’s interrogation appeared properly respectful and gentle. Without more context for the clip, further criticism seems groundless.

To bend this all to some political end seems a bit like communism, sixty to eighty years ago. Sad, horrid, and reprehensible. But really, have not some long considered children as property, to be shaped according to one’s ends? But children are persons. They do not belong to us. There will be an accounting.

Sorry for the rant. Ultimately my concern is for the child, politics be damned. Speak the truth, appropriate to the child’s level of comprehension. No more.

But Alan, with respect, I don't think that's what marriage is. I don't think Grover gets it right.

I feel obliged to leave the comments open so I can take my licks for thinking the Grover thing was a contemporary clip, but I've already had to knock down some troll commentary, and I am not particularly interested in having to wake up in the morning and take down 20 or more comments. So, sorry trolls. People who cite Grover as an authority on marriage are being ridiculous, and so are people like me who thought Sesame Street was trying to mainstream a particular definition of marriage. There, I've said it myself: I jumped the gun on this one, and was stupid to have done so. End of thread.