>Miss Piggy doesn't have a sexual orientation, with her >chasing of Kermit? > And Miss Piggy is NOT a Sesame Street character -- so Randy McDonald's point is moot. Kermit the Frog is a "cross-over" character who for years appeared on Sesame Street while also starring as Emcee of the popular "The Muppet Show", a program aimed at the entire family and not just a pre-school PBS audience. Miss Piggy was introduced to most Americans in that long-running series. To my knowledge Miss Piggy NEVER appeared on Sesame Steet. So whether or not the porcine puppet actually had a "sexual orientation" on a prime-time television program is irrelevant to Sesame Street and the Children's Television Workshop, which never employed the pushy porker.

I wanted to make two points. I disagree with the petition, not least since a lot of the confusion stems from our culture's lack of much of a vocabulary for platonic friendship between men and tends to conflate all intimate relationships. But two points popped out at me. "I personally liked Sesame Street's response that because Bert and Ernie were, in fact, puppets, they did not have a sexual orientation." Miss Piggy doesn't have a sexual orientation, with her chasing of Kermit? Or would she have a sexual orientation if she chased after Janice, instead (too)? "Reminds me of a book that there is always a lot of flack about - "And Tango Makes Three" - about a penguin that was raised by a pair of male penguins. Not that penguins don't have sexual orientation but the authors truly took huge literary license in implying that because these male penguins took care of a penguin chick they were somehow gay." Inasmuch as the story deals with a pair of mated male penguins who raise a chick together, it's difficult to see how this wouldn't relate to a gay sexual orientation among penguins. Do we really need to read their minds to deduce that?

*blushes* I posted the above comment too soon. (Aug-28-2011, 5:34 PM) The last paragraph should read: Of course as a adult child you would not view Barbie... I also forgot to sign it. That was my post.

I understand your point about platonic friendships and actually agree with it. Sometimes a roommate is just a roommate. I also am uncomfortable with child's television as an agent of social change - young kids are just too impressionable. That said, I'm not sure why realizing that Bert and Ernie are sexual beings should be creepy. Would you have a problem sleeping with (say) a Barbie doll or a Santa Claus plushie? The latter is married, the former is in a romantic relationship. They are sexual beings. All adults are (well, except for asexuals, people who just aren't interested in sex.) But most adults don't relate sexually to children. That's called pedophilia, and homosexuals aren't any more subject to that tendency than heterosexuals. Of course as an adult you would not view Barbie or Santa Claus as a sexual creature - but neither would a four year old exposed to a married Bert and Ernie today. At that age, marriage of any kind isn't about sex, it's about being the mom/dad of a family. I worry that saying we should be creeped out by a married Bert and Ernie feeds into the lie that gay marriage (or just homosexuality full stop) is somehow creepy, whereas straight-marriage and heterosexuality isn't.

[Hi, CT. Recently spotted the following while webbing.] The Jesus-Predicted Steamroller Jesus warned that just before His return as Judge, there will be a strange, spontaneous, mind-twisting fad - a global steamroller notable for its speed, boldness, violence, and impudent in-your-face openness. In Luke 17 He called this worldwide craze the repetition of the "days of Lot" (see Genesis 19 for details). By helping to fulfill this worldwide mania quietly coordinated by unseen spirit beings, gays are actually hurrying up Christ's return to earth! What's really scary is the phrase "reprobate mind" found in Romans 1:28. One can ignore one's conscience so much that God finally turns that person over to the "reprobate mind" of the most diabolical leader of evil in the universe. When this happens it's almost as if the brainwashed human being has signed a statement saying "I don't ever want God and don't care if I end up in Hell!" The entire first chapter of Romans explains why God is forced to eventually and sorrowfully abandon certain individuals who constantly choose evil over good and ignore their conscience! If you're laughing at this message, you may have almost reached the point of no return. Be sure to keep on laughing when God allows entire cities to be suddenly destroyed. Revelation 16:18-19 describes the greatest earthquake of all time which will level the "cities of the nations" - a quake that's never achieved this in the past. There's only one thing that can destroy America - no matter who becomes President - and that's a four-letter word: EVIL. Change the letters and you can become totally VILE (and thus do your part to force God to send America even more disasters). Or better yet, you can turn to Christ (He's the "Creator" that America's founders referred to). And He's alive (after having been killed) and promises to reveal Himself to you if you will just pray to Him in your own words and tell Him what you need! If you decide to partner with Him, He can change the letters in EVIL and show you how you can really LIVE - and you'll kick yourself for not checking Him out sooner! Remember, He loves EVERY person and can forgive and erase from His records ANY sin - even murder - since He's the only Saviour who can do this! I write this in the spirit of love because I care for the part of you that will live forever in either Heaven or Hell!

Did anyone miss what one writer said about the sin that the church seems to overlook while maintaining its hard line again homosexuality, namely, adultery? Seems as if the church has adopted the view that as long as the sexual sin isn't same-sex, it's to be tolerated because, presumably, it's not the "greater sin." And is it any wonder that the Apostle Paul found it necessary to write not just Romans 1 but also Romans 2?

Thank you for this article. Growing up, and even now, I always thought that Bert and Ernie were brothers or friends like on "The Odd Couple". The way they bickered and bugged each other was like the antics me and my brother did to each other. I never in a million years thought they were gay. I also thought that they were kids, not grown ups. Why can't we just let kids be kids and let muppets be muppets instead of bringing in political beliefs?

I agree with the position the Sesame Workshop has taken, and I think their position is the best one all things considered. I also agree with the reasoning of this article's author... As a transgender person, I must say that I also oppose the creation of a transgender puppet as well (something the petition suggested too). I am concerned that including a trans-puppet would elevate transgender issues above issues that are more important to children this age. However, I do think that it would be in keeping with Sesame Street to have an *occasional* visitor who is transgender so that children can see that we are every bit as nice and human as other more conventional people. (Such could even be a useful example for parents because most trans people don't generally mind answering honest questions about themselves, and children, rather than adults, are more apt to ask what is on their mind.)

Thanks for addressing this. I personally liked Sesame Street's response that because Bert and Ernie were, in fact, puppets, they did not have a sexual orientation. Reminds me of a book that there is always a lot of flack about - "And Tango Makes Three" - about a penguin that was raised by a pair of male penguins. Not that penguins don't have sexual orientation but the authors truly took huge literary license in implying that because these male penguins took care of a penguin chick they were somehow gay.

...so if they got married do our kids need to next watch them go through a heart-wrenching divorce?