One Million Moms Want Same-Sex Archie Comic Out of Toys 'R' Us

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

Sidiron:
I am really losing faith in the sanity and intelligence of people here, as it has already been said but no one is paying attention.

It isn't about whether the mum's in question should be able to control what their kids are exposed to, but in this day and age and also with this era's laws.

It is ILLEGAL to discriminate against black people/midgets/dwarfs/spastics AND homosexuals in the way such as they are going on about now, showing a gay married (civilly partnered) couple is called keeping up with current affairs, if it was a black couple (oh wait there is a black man on the cover :O) you wouldn't think of causing such a shit storm. And why is that, because most of us have matured past that and it is now something normal to see.

Hopefully this type of thing will be a thing of the past in 5/10/20 years (if not before) but at the moment we can't point out to you nutters, that this is the REAL problem.

No I am not running round in a pink mankini, kissing all the men in the street nor do I snog all the women in the street, so grow up and realise that getting stroppy about two men kissing is just like seeing a black man and a white woman kissing 15/20 years ago, it's weird and you aren't used to it. But it is not something that will cause the world to end.

Chill the hell out!

EDIT: Corrected a sentence.

While I agree with the principle of the matter, I just have a nitpick, so forgive me.

1mil moms is based in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong, but discrimination against homosexuals in the US may be wrong, but it's still legal. There is no law saying you can't discriminate, period. However, it becomes illegal when it's the premise for denying you a job, or getting kicked out of the military, etc.

An anti-homosexuality group that protests against LGBT things is in itself perfectly legal, as it falls under freedom of speech and assembly, unfortunately. After all, the WBC is still around.

Taunta:
While I agree with the principle of the matter, I just have a nitpick, so forgive me.

1mil moms is based in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong, but discrimination against homosexuals in the US may be wrong, but it's still legal. There is no law saying you can't discriminate, period. However, it becomes illegal when it's the premise for denying you a job, or getting kicked out of the military, etc.

An anti-homosexuality group that protests against LGBT things is in itself perfectly legal, as it falls under freedom of speech and assembly, unfortunately. After all, the WBC is still around.

I will readily admit that as a Brit, I cannot fully speak on matters of US legality, however I was under the impression that the repeal of Don't Ask/Don't Tell, all the same-sex marriage acts passing, and diocese condemnation of a minister for refusing to give communion to a lesbian, were all due to the fact that discriminating against anyone based on their gender or orientation is illegal.

And is also the reason why the religious groups are getting aerated over anywhere that religion and sexuality approach one another since they can use freedom of expression to justify their ideas, and it is this muddying of the rights and laws that is causing problems.

It just freaks them out. Kids ask question and most parents really don't want to answer why two Daddies got married. Not sure exactly why. A simply they love each other and want to be together would seem significant, but as someone who has no kids maybe its more complicated than that.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions until you can talk to someone who has an issue with it. To find out why.

Right so can we just say QQ moar to the mums and move on with our lives until they get a grip on reality.

Sidiron:

Taunta:
While I agree with the principle of the matter, I just have a nitpick, so forgive me.

1mil moms is based in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong, but discrimination against homosexuals in the US may be wrong, but it's still legal. There is no law saying you can't discriminate, period. However, it becomes illegal when it's the premise for denying you a job, or getting kicked out of the military, etc.

An anti-homosexuality group that protests against LGBT things is in itself perfectly legal, as it falls under freedom of speech and assembly, unfortunately. After all, the WBC is still around.

I will readily admit that as a Brit, I cannot fully speak on matters of US legality, however I was under the impression that the repeal of Don't Ask/Don't Tell, all the same-sex marriage acts passing, and diocese condemnation of a minister for refusing to give communion to a lesbian, were all due to the fact that discriminating against anyone based on their gender or orientation is illegal.

And is also the reason why the religious groups are getting aerated over anywhere that religion and sexuality approach one another since they can use freedom of expression to justify their ideas, and it is this muddying of the rights and laws that is causing problems.

I think those are all isolated events.

Clinton had actually wanted to repeal DADT when he was president, but the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the general public was against it. Since then public attitude has changed, and the new head indicated that he would be for it, so Obama is basically just picking up where Clinton left off.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "all same-sex marriage acts passing", because if you mean that same-sex marriage is now allowed in all states, I'm afraid that's not true. You can find which states it's currently legal in here.

As for the condemnation of the minister, it really depends on the denomination of the church. Some denominations (including the one I am a part of) have been accepting of LGBT people from the beginning, and some are still adamantly against it. So it's definitely not indicative of the whole of Christianity in the US.

Unfortunately, there will never be a Supreme Court ruling or amendment that declares all discrimination of LGBT people in general illegal. Just like there's no law saying discrimination against other races is illegal. It's too broad of a ruling. Now if we're talking strictly about the workplace, for example, then yeah it's definitely illegal, but they can't infringe upon freedom of speech.

Groups like 1mil moms and the WBC can hide behind freedom of speech even though they're being bigoted, because speech is free as long as it doesn't cause unlawful behavior, or it doesn't inhibit anyone else's basic rights. So, for example, if you could prove that I vandalized someone's house the very moment after or during a homophobic rally, and it was directly incited by said rally, then you could get both me and the protesters arrested, because it's speech promoting illegal behavior, and therefore illegal. Just standing around and waving hateful signs? Legal.

But I'm pedantic. I hope that clarified a little.

What is that guy marrying a negar.Damn those neggro loving comic buck writers.BAN this Filth! mean don't those people have any moral values left.

image

What was this thread about anyway....Oh, moving on then.

Taunta:
I think those are all isolated events.

Clinton had actually wanted to repeal DADT when he was president, but the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the general public was against it. Since then public attitude has changed, and the new head indicated that he would be for it, so Obama is basically just picking up where Clinton left off.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "all same-sex marriage acts passing", because if you mean that same-sex marriage is now allowed in all states, I'm afraid that's not true. You can find which states it's currently legal in here.

As for the condemnation of the minister, it really depends on the denomination of the church. Some denominations (including the one I am a part of) have been accepting of LGBT people from the beginning, and some are still adamantly against it. So it's definitely not indicative of the whole of Christianity in the US.

Unfortunately, there will never be a Supreme Court ruling or amendment that declares all discrimination of LGBT people in general illegal. Just like there's no law saying discrimination against other races is illegal. It's too broad of a ruling. Now if we're talking strictly about the workplace, for example, then yeah it's definitely illegal, but they can't infringe upon freedom of speech.

Groups like 1mil moms and the WBC can hide behind freedom of speech even though they're being bigoted, because speech is free as long as it doesn't cause unlawful behavior, or it doesn't inhibit anyone else's basic rights. So, for example, if you could prove that I vandalized someone's house the very moment after or during a homophobic rally, and it was directly incited by said rally, then you could get both me and the protesters arrested, because it's speech promoting illegal behavior, and therefore illegal. Just standing around and waving hateful signs? Legal.

But I'm pedantic. I hope that clarified a little.

Well as I said I am not the best person to comment on what is legal/illegal in the US, however there is the issue of what is really acceptable behaviour to be passing onto the next generation, but we shall keep that discussion for another day.

In regards to who is passing it, doesn't frankly interest me, it is just pleasing to see that the US isn't going to call gays unpatriotic. I am fully aware that it is not all states that have legalised marriage, and I did in fact say "all the same-sex marriage acts passing" as a figure of speech indicating that there has been a number of states legalised (and some repealling and flip-flopping).

This case although the link has escaped my grasp at present, was a minister being taken to task by his higher ups over the issue, and they said it was unacceptable.

And for good or bad, we have laws in this country (Blighty, UK) that have made merely the act of spreading hate in a speech to be illegal, mainly due to the fact that we have a more concentrated need for integration of different religions and outlooks etc. So groups like Westboro Baptist etc would have a harder time setting up here and staying in operation.

I hope you didn't believe I was attacking you, was just being pedantic, as you said. :)
Because although the (il)legality of the matter helps show the outdated ideas being proffered here, it still is rather distasteful, that over a century after women were fighting for equality we still have certain groups being treat like heretics or degenerates. But hey we humans do seem to thrive on the differences.

Akalabeth:

bringer of illumination:

Akalabeth:

If the human psyche was fully understood your statement would have some merit, but as it's not, you don't really have any basis for making that claim.

If by applying your logic I could make a "reasonable" argument that ANYTHING is harmful for a child to know.

There is nothing that points to the fact that knowledge of the existence of homosexuals is more harmful to a child than any other knowledge.

That depends upon your definition of harmful. As I said in a previous post, homosexuality is not in itself harmful, but homosexuality as a widespread phemonenon would obviously have a tendency to reduce propagation leading to less new children being born in each successive generation. Birth rates are already considered a problem in the developed world by some people, to promote a further decline can indeed be construed as harmful.

That's not to say I necessarily agree with their viewpoint. But to dismiss something as not harmful when the phenomenon of a thing is not fully understood is an error I believe.

I was never talking about the effects of homosexuality on birthrates or society at large, I was saying that your argument made the case that "because the human psyche wasn't fully understood" that it is reasonable to assume that it is harmful for a child to know about homosexuality.

What I was saying is that that argument logically could apply to ANY knowledge that a child had, I could use the exact same argument to say that it's reasonable to assume that knowing about how pasty is made is harmful for child.

But no, that's a load of horseshit, there's absolutely no reason to assume that knowledge of the existence of homosexuals is any more harmful than any other knowledge.

Akalabeth:
Similarily, your previous post in which you attacked the mother's viewpoint for their belief that concept of gay marriage is too difficult to understand is likewise erroneous. Children do not understand what is involved in a mature adult relationship, in the same way that young adults and adolsecents do not understand. There is a reason why maturity plays a factor in one's selection of a mate, and it's because the necessities of a relationship change over time. What an 18 year old understands as a relationship is not the same as what a 30 year old understands, assuming that both have matured at a rate relative to their age.

So even the concept of love between two partners is foreign to a child and cannot be understood, whether those partners are straight or otherwise.

For a child love is probably just a word, a word which is only understood in the context of the relationship between that child's parents. And sure a child can superimpose that same relationship on the relationship of two men, but when you get to the subject of where babies come from then what? If a man and a woman come together out of love to make a baby, why then do a man and a man come together?

The overall point is that the image does raise more complex issues than what you have represented it to be. And for these mothers, they apparently are of the viewpoint that such complex questions should be approached at a later age where the individual can better appreciate the reasons why things are as they are.

This argument that you are making never mentions homosexuality explicitly, you only argue that "mature relationships" might be too complex for children to understand, but guess fucking what, THAT ISN'T WHAT THIS IS ABOUT! Going by your argument, this group should be protecting children from any depiction of relationships, be it straight or gay, but it's seem perfectly acceptable to fill the mind of fucking 2 year old with Happily-ever-after marriage fantasies.

This isn't about "mature relationships" this about the mere fact that two people can have a relationship at all, there's nothing complex about homosexual marriage, you just tell the kid; "It's just like a normal marriage, only with two men", that's not very fucking complex now is it?

Sidiron:

Taunta:
I think those are all isolated events.

Clinton had actually wanted to repeal DADT when he was president, but the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the general public was against it. Since then public attitude has changed, and the new head indicated that he would be for it, so Obama is basically just picking up where Clinton left off.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "all same-sex marriage acts passing", because if you mean that same-sex marriage is now allowed in all states, I'm afraid that's not true. You can find which states it's currently legal in here.

As for the condemnation of the minister, it really depends on the denomination of the church. Some denominations (including the one I am a part of) have been accepting of LGBT people from the beginning, and some are still adamantly against it. So it's definitely not indicative of the whole of Christianity in the US.

Unfortunately, there will never be a Supreme Court ruling or amendment that declares all discrimination of LGBT people in general illegal. Just like there's no law saying discrimination against other races is illegal. It's too broad of a ruling. Now if we're talking strictly about the workplace, for example, then yeah it's definitely illegal, but they can't infringe upon freedom of speech.

Groups like 1mil moms and the WBC can hide behind freedom of speech even though they're being bigoted, because speech is free as long as it doesn't cause unlawful behavior, or it doesn't inhibit anyone else's basic rights. So, for example, if you could prove that I vandalized someone's house the very moment after or during a homophobic rally, and it was directly incited by said rally, then you could get both me and the protesters arrested, because it's speech promoting illegal behavior, and therefore illegal. Just standing around and waving hateful signs? Legal.

But I'm pedantic. I hope that clarified a little.

Well as I said I am not the best person to comment on what is legal/illegal in the US, however there is the issue of what is really acceptable behaviour to be passing onto the next generation, but we shall keep that discussion for another day.

In regards to who is passing it, doesn't frankly interest me, it is just pleasing to see that the US isn't going to call gays unpatriotic. I am fully aware that it is not all states that have legalised marriage, and I did in fact say "all the same-sex marriage acts passing" as a figure of speech indicating that there has been a number of states legalised (and some repealling and flip-flopping).

This case although the link has escaped my grasp at present, was a minister being taken to task by his higher ups over the issue, and they said it was unacceptable.

And for good or bad, we have laws in this country (Blighty, UK) that have made merely the act of spreading hate in a speech to be illegal, mainly due to the fact that we have a more concentrated need for integration of different religions and outlooks etc. So groups like Westboro Baptist etc would have a harder time setting up here and staying in operation.

I hope you didn't believe I was attacking you, was just being pedantic, as you said. :)
Because although the (il)legality of the matter helps show the outdated ideas being proffered here, it still is rather distasteful, that over a century after women were fighting for equality we still have certain groups being treat like heretics or degenerates. But hey we humans do seem to thrive on the differences.

No of course not. My jimmies remain unrustled. (:

And I wish there could be more laws here like that, but oh well.

Taunta:
No of course not. My jimmies remain unrustled. (:

And I wish there could be more laws here like that, but oh well.

I am very grateful that your jimmies are unrustled -Contemplates this new term- :D

And these laws are on the whoe beneficial but like most things they have been abused and are causing other problems to those they are solving, and the UK is facing a rise in religious fundamentalism so things like this will happen again and again, but like everything one hopes that it all gets better as time goes on.

-Crosses his fingers-

Sidiron:

Taunta:
No of course not. My jimmies remain unrustled. (:

And I wish there could be more laws here like that, but oh well.

I am very grateful that your jimmies are unrustled -Contemplates this new term- :D

And these laws are on the whoe beneficial but like most things they have been abused and are causing other problems to those they are solving, and the UK is facing a rise in religious fundamentalism so things like this will happen again and again, but like everything one hopes that it all gets better as time goes on.

-Crosses his fingers-

It's an amazing phrase. Lately I'm trying to slip it into as many conversations as I can.

this is ridiculous. this has to be some kind of "please give us attention" stunt.

I would love to see the moms from onemillionmoms go into a Japanese comic store.

I would argue that it is their right to be offended, furthermore why is a childrens comic playing politics? seriously? this is well above issues to concern children with.

Wookie 1:
I would argue that it is their right to be offended, furthermore why is a childrens comic playing politics? seriously? this is well above issues to concern children with.

They have every right to be offended, however they don't have the right to censor others.

And how is it playing politics? It's a story about two people being in love, which is incredibly common in children's stories. Why should the genders of the two people involved matter?

I love the fact that, boys are supposed to have friends that's boys because if the boy has to many girl (and few male) friends he's gay, but he can't like the male friends he's hanging with to much... Something like that goes also for girls...

Andy Chalk:

Unfortunately, children are now being exposed to same-sex marriage in a toy store. This is the last place a parent would expect to be confronted with questions from their children on topics that are too complicated for them to understand. Issues of this nature are being introduced too early and too soon, which is becoming extremely common and unnecessary."

Kids are stupid and/or don't care plus if they get used to seeing "same sex marriage" they probably become less prejudice and thereby happier (less stuff to scare/make you uncomfortable/hate). So I don't see the problem.
Plus it's not the kids that have the problems it's the parents...

This mob is going to love mass Effect 3.

As a journalist by profession, I tend to see both sides of an argument. I may not always agree with one side or the other, but I often get an understanding of where people are coming from, and in this case, I can understand both sides to this debate.

On the one hand, homosexuality is something that people today can't avoid being exposed to forever. Eventually they will encounter it, sometimes at a young age. Every person has the right to live their own lifestyle, just as much as every publication has the right to freedom of speech. So protesting the existence of this particular edition of this comic would appear narrow-minded and bigoted.

On the OTHER hand, sexuality can be a very complicated subject, one that I can imagine a lot of children having a tough time understanding. Explaining the birds and the bees to a child for the first time is something that needs to be approached carefully. Having to do that at the same time as explaining homosexuality is really tossing a kid into the deep end to teach him or her how to swim. So while printing the comic may not be a legitimate thing to complain about, selling it in a toy store could be seen as going a step too far. This is one issue that may have been better to have limited releases.

As Movie Bob said and I quote, "It's 2012, if your child isn't aware of same sex couples by now they're not innocent. They're ignorant!"

That may not be his words exactly but you get the idea.

This is pretty funny.

Especially since this is a pretty transparent attempt by Archie Comics to still look relevant.

Volf:

Realitycrash:

Volf:
I didn't say sheltered, just that parents should be able to control what subjects toy stores expose children to.

Then parents can vote with their wallets and go somewhere else?
If Toys R Us released a new GI-Joe action-figure, why should we allow that? Should parents have a say too? How about an easy-bake oven? Should parents have a say there?

No? Because these things aren't "offensive"? Well, neither is homosexuality.

wrong, some people find homosexual marriage "offensive" when comparing it to heterosexual marriage, they have a right to voice their opinion just as much as anybody else.

Yes, they have the right to voice their opinion just as much as everyone else. As much as EVERYONE else. Meaning that if you want to censor these guys by pulling their comic from the shelves, then everyone can censor their homophobic bigotry spouting hides. As for your 'right' to express your opinions on homosexual marriage and to find it "offensive"? Well here's a newsflash, the pro-homosexual side of the argument aren't doing anything to you, and they're not saying YOUR lifestyle is wrong. You're the ones butting your noses into something that doesn't affect you. Homosexual marriage has a direct effect only on the people involved, and THAT is why THEIR opinion is more important and valid on the subject than YOURS.

By the way

One Million Moms and One Million Dads are both splinter groups of AFA, also known as American Family Association

This is "pro family" .. as in anti gay anti abortion anti sexual education anti.. anti anything to do with real families. We are talking about a pure bred hategroup.. how more know that.. how earlier they will be seen as that cousin from the south.. that nobody wants to talk about.

"This is the last place a parent would expect to be confronted with questions from their children on topics that are too complicated for them to understand."

What about Action Man or GI Joe? Or any military based toy, the morality of killing enemies of the state are pretty complicated for a child to fully understand.

Or what about Barbie in a wedding dress, clearly bringing up the issue of marriage.

Bullshit excuse convinces NO ONE!

PS: Jon Goldwater wins one internetz

Does anyone actually read Archie anymore?

Volf:
Don't see the problem, parents should be able to limit what their kids see.

Why? What if the child IS gay? Surely this sort of media would be beneficial to such a child. In addition, why shouldn't a child be exposed to this, it would help prevent homophobia from an early age.

OT: Suddenly, I have the urge to go to Toys R' Us again.

Jfswift:
Does anyone actually read Archie anymore?

Its like any long running comic book, it has a fairly dedicated following.

Volf:
wrong, some people find homosexual marriage "offensive" when comparing it to heterosexual marriage, they have a right to voice their opinion just as much as anybody else.

Okay, I'll bite, why do they find it offensive, and why should we even listen to them?

Akalabeth:

A better question is what the hell is wrong with you? Your post is more judgemental and intolerant than anything quoted from this organization.

This board is rife with individuals who are the first to jump on the parents when some video game child goes awry and acts like a crazy person. The first and most prevalent comment is "where were the parents? Why don't they do a better job?"

And here you have a group of mothers, whose apparent concern is fundamentally not about homosexual relationships, but rather the time and manner in which their kids are educated about such relationships. Ie their concern is not about gays, it's about raising thier kids in the manner they see fit. And there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that.

Why is a parent who doesn't want to expose their kids to sex and violence treated any differently than a parent who doesn't want to expose their kids to the concept of homosexuality?

If you don't want your kids exposed to homosexuality, that's your business. If you want to protect your kids from sex and violence, that's also your business.

Look, I get that it's hard to protect your children from that stuff, especially with the state of media these days. If this was about informing parents about something, I wouldn't have a problem. But it's not about informing people, now is it? No, it's about telling one company that they can't have a gay character in their comic book because it offends them.

If it offends you, don't buy it. Simple. If you think Toys R' Us shouldn't sell it, don't shop there. If you want to inform the public about it and get like-minded parents to stay away from it, that's good too. But if you get on some crusade of "This is not appropriate for *my* child, therefore it should not exist", I'm going to call you on it.

And if you want to avoid exposing your child to homosexuality, you're probably going to have to lock them in the attic.

This is the last place a parent would expect to be confronted with questions from their children on topics that are too complicated for them to understand.

Some men love other dudes. Some women love other chicks.

It's really not that complex an issue, lady.

Unfortunately, children are now being exposed to same-sex marriage in a toy store.

ohnowhateverarewegoingtodo?

What I can't understand is why some people are offended by this, or homosexuality in general.

Skullkid4187:
When did the Escapist become the head of internet politics?

Since everyone on this website started giving a f**k about things unrelated to gaming.

On the homosexual comic book issue with a somewhat questionable organization protesting its existence

....go (imaging which ever side you want to win here)

That CEO deserves a damn medal for that response.

1 million mums shouldn't be mums if they are filled with that kinda of homophobic haterd.

Qitz:
God forbid a parent, you know, be a parent and explain things to their kids.

But it's too complex for them to understand! How on earth could you explain that men can love men and women can love women? What would you say, "Men can love men and women can love men," oh did I just explain it? Sorry OMM, you cluster of conservative overbearing shrews.

Fucking people man, they're just so fucking stupid.

fi6eka:
What is that guy marrying a negar.Damn those neggro loving comic buck writers.BAN this Filth! mean don't those people have any moral values left.

image

What was this thread about anyway....Oh, moving on then.

image
Yeargh! Them Negros ain't dun no good to old uncle Sam since they came to our country from Africa! Them good furrnuthin' music-freaks, with their... Jazz! Jazz ain't no Negro music, it all them Jews' nonsense play it!
I tell ya, things were whole lotta better back at my day, slappin' everybody around being OVERLORD WHITE MASTER RACE!
/hurmphhh

Mortai Gravesend:

Juvenile? Oh I'm so sorry that I don't treat prejudice with the respect it deserves. Oh wait, yes I do. None. His demeanor is quite irrelevant, don't be absurd. Politely treating gays as lesser is still just as fucked up.

Oh and if you don't like how I'm acting... do something about it? Oh wait, you can't. So I'll be a 'condescending ass' to people who act prejudiced all I like and you can go on and pander to them.

And I don't care if someone is so illogical they think it undermines my argument. Their inability to logically evaluate an argument isn't my problem, it's theirs. Deal with it.

God forbid you be the better man and have a civil discussion. No, a holier then thou attitude is definitely the most effective way to convey a point.

jurnag12:
What did you tell your kids when they saw your wedding pictures? Same story.

But...But that's totally different. Heterosexuals are supposed to get married because ponies. Homosexuals aren't supposed to because ponies.

Besides, why should I be exposed to things that are uncomfortable to me?

Man, I can't wait to see the outrage when these people find out there are negro dolls in the same aisle as the white ones....It'll be heck on earth.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here