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

[CleverCover]

Again, what about those of us that don't think homosexual marriage is the same thing as heterosexual marriage? Why should we have children's material deal with this subject if we don't want to have them exposed to it?

....You're trolling all of us aren't you. That's it. That's what you're doing!

I figured it out! Wow, I'm upset it took me so long to figure it out. It's so obvious. It's the only way I can see someone willingly saying that on a website like this and defending it.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Faux News accusing Mass Effect 1 of being a sex simulator.

Seriously? Fuax News? That isn't clever, it's doesn't even make sense.

Faux is a French word for "false." Describes Fox News' rhetoric well enough
Most puns and wordplays aren't clever anyway. Don't complain about small stuff.

Also the sentence "it's doesn't even make sense" in fact, does not make sense.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Again, what about those of us that don't think homosexual marriage is the same thing as heterosexual marriage? Why should we have children's material deal with this subject if we don't want to have them exposed to it?

....You're trolling all of us aren't you. That's it. That's what you're doing!

I figured it out! Wow, I'm upset it took me so long to figure it out. It's so obvious. It's the only way I can see someone willingly saying that on a website like this and defending it.

It was a legitimate perspective I had, chill out and go to comment #162

 

[artanis_neravar]

Faux News accusing Mass Effect 1 of being a sex simulator.

Seriously? Fuax News? That isn't clever, it's doesn't even make sense.

Faux is a French word for "false." Describes Fox News' rhetoric well enough
Most puns and wordplays aren't clever anyway. Don't complain about small stuff.

Also the sentence "it's doesn't even make sense" in fact, does not make sense.

It is also not pronounced anywhere similar to "fox", no is the spelling similar. A pun is exploiting multiple uses of a word, or multiple words that sound the same or similar for a humorous effect, Which Faux News is not.

 

[azukar]

Holy moley, 13 pages and this Volf character still hasn't given up... I guess that's one way to hit a four-digit post count. The only reason people are against marriage between people of the same sex is a cultural bias derived from a religious one.

I guess ultimately, nothing about this story is news.
Some guys want to marry guys, not news.
A major comic brand publishes a comic including a marriage, not news.
People are prejudiced because it's something they disagree with, definitely not news.

Is anyone else weary of people and their prejudices?

Also:

I still say the magazine should have stayed out of political issues like this.

I, on the other hand, wish for a day when who is having sex / in love with who isn't a political issue...

You sum this argument up very nicely.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Faux News accusing Mass Effect 1 of being a sex simulator.

Seriously? Fuax News? That isn't clever, it's doesn't even make sense.

Faux is a French word for "false." Describes Fox News' rhetoric well enough
Most puns and wordplays aren't clever anyway. Don't complain about small stuff.

Also the sentence "it's doesn't even make sense" in fact, does not make sense.

It is also not pronounced anywhere similar to "fox", no is the spelling similar. A pun is exploiting multiple uses of a word, or multiple words that sound the same or similar for a humorous effect, Which Faux News is not.

Visually I found it humorous, stop being so damn incorrigible. In the hopes of not straying off-topic, I'll leave it at that.

 

[triggrhappy94]

I think this sums it up nicely


Seriously are we still unable to understand that people of all orientations just want to be able to marry?

I love Louie. This made me want to go watch some of his stand-up. Unfortunately, I live with people who get upset when I watch some of the more risque stand-up.

 

[harvz]

oh no, we must protect the kids from 'THE GAY'!!!

these mums need to sit down, relax and maybe learn to count past 10 without taking their shoes off at some point. then perhaps someone needs to give them a slap and tell them that homosexual people have just as much right to be miserable as heterosexual people.

ok, a bit more serious, i get the feeling that this is fueled more by homophobia then 'protecting the children from exposure to homosexual marriage', either way, 44k "moms", stfu

 

[Wookie 1]

oh no, we must protect the kids from 'THE GAY'!!!

these mums need to sit down, relax and maybe learn to count past 10 without taking their shoes off at some point. then perhaps someone needs to give them a slap and tell them that homosexual people have just as much right to be miserable as heterosexual people.

ok, a bit more serious, i get the feeling that this is fueled more by homophobia then 'protecting the children from exposure to homosexual marriage', either way, 44k "moms", stfu

Why? they have the right to free speech too. Unless of course you want to supress people's freedoms in this regard, (maybe next you'll find another group to censor, ironically rather like people seem to accuse here).

Holy moley, 13 pages and this Volf character still hasn't given up... I guess that's one way to hit a four-digit post count. The only reason people are against marriage between people of the same sex is a cultural bias derived from a religious one.

There are other justifications than religion, lots of them. Particularly that of it making no evoloutionary sense whatsoever that this would have any natural advantage (after all they are less likely to reproduce than the norm).

 

[Galletea]

Are we actually surprised that some angry women want to not have their children exposed to anything in society? I don't see the issue, these people get pissed at everything that means they might have to actually teach their children something. They have a right to spew their bile, and the store can do whatever it pleases, which will probably be to either ignore it or reach a sort of compromise. I'll continue to ignore them and their misguided nonsense.

I do wonder if they go looking for these opportunities to rant just to gain some publicity, but on the plus side it's a bit of free publicity for Toys R Us.

 

[harvz]

Why? they have the right to free speech too. Unless of course you want to supress people's freedoms in this regard, (maybe next you'll find another group to censor, ironically rather like people seem to accuse here).

ever tried walking up to an african guy and asking "Hows the fried chicken? I know you and people love it soooo much" and then just say "its free speech, what are you going to do, suppress my freedom?" the answer is no, because its horribly racist and you will be eating through a straw for at least the next month or two.

i really think its more about knowing where to draw the line and i really believe that topics such as these should be closer to the racist area of sensitivity and not just open to being abused constantly.

also, when i get into power, these are not the only ones i shall deny their freedoms, fox will be joining them too so vote, well, me

 

[saintdane05]

[Most] kids [gay couples] have are adopted from hetero families who didn't want kids.

That is hideously offensive. No doubt unintentional, but you may went to change your language there. The way it reads now, you are saying most adopted children are unwanted accidents by their birth parents, and that is simply not the case. At all. The most common reason for giving a child up for adoption is an inability to care for them.

If I may:

Being the son of a lesbian, I can say the way it works is that it seems that the child is already born by the time the original parent's partner is born. That is what happened with me at least.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

They should all learn the way I did, have your older cousin tell you what it is and go "Er, thats disgusting", think gays are immoral and deserve to die for a few years and then come to a realization that they're just normal people with a different appetite that doesn't bother you because you won't do it yourself.

 

[MasterOfHisOwnDomain]

There are other justifications than religion, lots of them. Particularly that of it making no evoloutionary sense whatsoever that this would have any natural advabtage (after all they are less likely to reproduce than the norm).

Producing less children is a justification for discrimination against people? Why the heck is it of any concern to you how many children someone produces?

Clearly the planet is so underpopulated that those dastardly homosexuals with their less than average reproductive rate will cause some sort of crisis.

 

[targren]

Also, kindly stop using words like "bigot" and "homophobe." You aren't being clever by labelling an entire system of belief in such a negative fashion, you are simply exposing your own "intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs."

Sorry, no. There's not one single rational reason for the position that homosexuals should be denied the same rights as heterosexuals. Attempting to do so anyway is the quintessence of bigotry, as is the schoolyard-level response of "no, YOU'RE being intolerant!"

"Bigot" is an entirely accurate descriptor of such people.

 

[omicron1]

Also, kindly stop using words like "bigot" and "homophobe." You aren't being clever by labelling an entire system of belief in such a negative fashion, you are simply exposing your own "intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs."

Sorry, no. There's not one single rational reason for the position that homosexuals should be denied the same rights as heterosexuals. Attempting to do so anyway is the quintessence of bigotry, as is the schoolyard-level response of "no, YOU'RE being intolerant!"

"Bigot" is an entirely accurate descriptor of such people.

I am not going to go into this argument here, except to say: Redefining "rights" to include whatever you don't feel like defending through debate or research - after all, if it's a human right, what kind of horrible people would even consider contesting it? The monsters! - is a rather rotten way to go about things.

Likewise, attempting to cast one party in a debate in a negative light by means of such a word as "bigot" or "homophobe," and therefore discredit and remove them, is neither just nor right, as the majority of people who do not agree with you on the subject of homosexuality are neither. The exact fallacy on display here is, according to wikipedia, ad hominem->abusive fallacy.

My quote above, meanwhile, is simply the dictionary definition of "bigot." Which is to say, it applies to anyone who detests, hates, despises, and/or cannot tolerate, someone with whom they differ or disagree. Such as, quite apparently, yourself.

 

[Nooh]

There are other justifications than religion, lots of them. Particularly that of it making no evoloutionary sense whatsoever that this would have any natural advabtage (after all they are less likely to reproduce than the norm).

You're not actually serious, are you? Homo-, Bi- and Heterosexuality has been observed in pretty much every single species of animal which has two genders. If it were unnatural or disadvantageous to survival, it would not occur in any species of animals. Please research the subject beforehand...

 

[targren]

I am not going to go into this argument here, except to say: Redefining "rights" to include whatever you don't feel like defending through debate or research - after all, if it's a human right, what kind of horrible people would even consider contesting it? The monsters! - is a rather rotten way to go about things.

Please tell me I'm misunderstanding, and that you're not actually claiming that marriage is a privilege?

You might try your own research: UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16 [http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a16]

Likewise, attempting to cast one party in a debate in a negative light by means of such a word as "bigot" or "homophobe," and therefore discredit and remove them, is neither just nor right, as the majority of people who do not agree with you on the subject of homosexuality are neither. The exact fallacy on display here is, according to wikipedia, ad hominem->abusive fallacy.

Actually, it's not. You've not MADE any attempt to counter my claim that there are no rational reasons for your position, nor offered any of your own reasoning. So there is no argument to refute. That's not the same as attacking you instead of your arguments, other than the one above that I am hopefully misreading.

You don't get to say "I'm not going to back up my arguments since it's below me" and then claim "ad hominem."

My quote above, meanwhile, is simply the dictionary definition of "bigot." Which is to say, it applies to anyone who detests, hates, despises, and/or cannot tolerate, someone with whom they differ or disagree. Such as, quite apparently, yourself.

Except you're wrong. I don't detest, despise, or hate you. If you honestly hold this position then I pity you and, absent evidence to the contrary, take it as prima facie evidence of poor reasoning skills, and fair game for mockery and ridicule as a form of social pressure to make it clear to others that it's not a position that should be adopted.

 

[Johnny Reb]

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

Take a trip round your local toy store and see what children get exposed to anyway.

Especially as the shelves are designated as toys for BOYS and toys for GIRLS; with appropriate colours so you can remember which toys are yours and why you must never play with the other toys.

It's not like there's anything there that will hurt them...

lolz i actually had one of those Mattel M-16s when i was a kid. as well as a platoon of GI Joes. is that why i grew up to want to be a Marine?

 

[Johnny Reb]

heh where can i get one of those comics?