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

[Lunar Templar]

snipped comic page

(Don't worry. Non-magnet explanation follows.)

XD!!! the 'am i going to have to look this up on the internet?' line was great, that, and the one girl trying to get her head around the Spike/Rarity sub plot, that look was pretty good to.

OT: i see, 'group of back wards moron ***** about the passage of time, and how civilization on the whole is leaving they're archaic belief structure behind, and no one cares' pretty much sums it up i think

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I'm not asking for the comics to be removed, I would ask that the comics don't cover the subject.

Well then you are even more in the wrong, censorship is not your right. And trying to force your censorship on the rest of the country is wrong. And before you ask, you are wrong because you are trying to force censorship, I am right for opposing censor ship. That is where the difference lies. When your "right to decide what your children see" starts to affect what my kids have available to them, it starts to infringe on my same right. If:
Parent A - Wants to remove item A
Parent B - Feels their kids should be allowed to see item A

the two choices are
Item A is banned
Parent A - Their kids will never see it - They get what they want
Parent B - Their kids will never see it - They don't get what they want

Item B is not banned
Parent A - keeps their kid away from item A, their kid doesn't see it - They get what they want
Parent B - Their kid can see item A - They get what they want

So then what about porn? Do you feel so strongly that kids should be exposed to that as well?

 

[JediMB]

The people who don't accept homosexuality are now the outcasts.

Hate is a choice.

Eh, one could argue that this is not the case for the indoctrinated.

The best cure there is teaching everyone critical thinking.

 

[Epona]

The people who don't accept homosexuality are now the outcasts.

Hate is a choice.

There's plenty of that on both sides. The pro-homosexual side often refers to the other side as bigots, that's hate going the other way.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

The people who don't accept homosexuality are now the outcasts.

Hate is a choice.

not accepting and hating something are not always the same thing.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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

And they can, buy not taking them to Toys R Us, not taking them in the check out lines with the comic in it, or any number of other simple fixes, but they do not have the right to deprive my kids of something that they find offensive.

Nobody is "depriving" you of anything, but why does your opinion have more value to it then mine? I don't like something, but I just have to deal with it, but if the tables are turned, now I'm "depriving" you of something? Hypocritical much?

And before you or anyone else tries to bring in an argument relating this to porn, or other over the top subjects, they are completely different situations.

I didn't bring up the subject, but now that you have, why is this different? I realize its not the same thing as them seeing porn, but what if I don't agree that this is a subject I want young children to be exposed to? How is this different from that? While porn and homosexual marriage are not the same thing, they are two subjects that I don't think young children should be exposed to.

Seeing two people in sexual acts is something that the kid has not been exposed to, and exposing them to it in the wrong way can alter their perception of the act, whereas two men getting married is the same exact thing as a male and a female getting married, and can be explained the same way that you explained your own marriage. And if you have never talked to your kid about marriage, or they don't know what marriage is then the cover won't bring up any questions because there would be nothing strange about it.

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?

To put it very simple: Your opinion is of exactly equal worth as another persons. But since there aren't a lot of you (or enough of you), it matters LESS. That's how our democracy works.

My point still stands about the "depriving" comment.

No, it doesn't. We live in a capitalistic system. Peoples right to express an opinion does not equal their right to censure a private-owned corporation. You can't say "My opinion is that X-business is bad, and thus, I want it removed/censured/shut down" unless there is enough of you to either A: Get a law passed, or B: Make a capitalistic pressure (i.e voting with your wallets) large enough to get the corp to change their mind.
So, good luck.

Yes it does, the depriving comment is hypocritical and that is what I was pointing out.

I'm sorry, how is it hypocritical? If you refer to "Well, Porn isn't allowed!", well, that's because we got laws that say "No, you can't have that". There is no law against displaying two men getting married in a way that children can see it. There is one against displaying pornographic material, though.

Okey, well, actually, when I think about it, there isn't one (as far as I know) that is against displaying racist material to children. So go ahead. If you wanna print up a neo-nazi comic and manage to get Toys R Us to shelve it, I will support your right. Then me and pretty much everyone else will get it removed by appealing to standards of decency.

What, you think gay-marriage isn't "decent standard"? Fair enough. Too bad most people are changing their views now. I.e: Your standards are shit out of luck.

I never said it wasn't "decent", so cut with the strawman.

If anything, it's controversial.

Alright, so it's controversial...Aaaaaand? Same logic as above apply.
So cut it short: They dislike, others like.
They want it censured, others don't.
They don't have the law on your side, or the numbers to change the law, or a valid argument based upon logic, science, math, economics or any other respected science.
So it really isn't that big of an issue.

I, for instance, wish I had the right to deprive corporations of the right to broadcast the smut they call "reality-TV", but since the masses love it, I have to suck it up, since I don't have a better argument than "It turns people into attention-loving whores that will do anything to get on TV".

ah, I see your point with the reality tv example. Fair enough

 

[JediMB]

snipped comic page

(Don't worry. Non-magnet explanation follows.)

XD!!! the 'am i going to have to look this up on the internet?' line was great, that, and the one girl trying to get her head around the Spike/Rarity sub plot, that look was pretty good to.

I loved that Spike/Rarity bit too.

Even more so when my tweet [https://twitter.com/#!/JediMB/status/172973770091397120] to the creator ended up getting retweeted to his 3000+ followers.

 

[artanis_neravar]

I'm not asking for the comics to be removed, I would ask that the comics don't cover the subject.

Well then you are even more in the wrong, censorship is not your right. And trying to force your censorship on the rest of the country is wrong. And before you ask, you are wrong because you are trying to force censorship, I am right for opposing censor ship. That is where the difference lies. When your "right to decide what your children see" starts to affect what my kids have available to them, it starts to infringe on my same right. If:
Parent A - Wants to remove item A
Parent B - Feels their kids should be allowed to see item A

the two choices are
Item A is banned
Parent A - Their kids will never see it - They get what they want
Parent B - Their kids will never see it - They don't get what they want

Item B is not banned
Parent A - keeps their kid away from item A, their kid doesn't see it - They get what they want
Parent B - Their kid can see item A - They get what they want

So then what about porn? Do you feel so strongly that kids should be exposed to that as well?

I do not, but porn is still available, I would never try to force people to stop making porn, it's not my place. And I will point you back to my earlier point about porn, and request that you drop your straw man argument and come up with something real.

 

[JediMB]

The people who don't accept homosexuality are now the outcasts.

Hate is a choice.

There's plenty of that on both sides. The pro-homosexual side often refers to the other side as bigots, that's hate going the other way.

So describing a bigot with the word "bigot" is inherently hateful?

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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

Well, then kids shouldn't be let outside, because whenever I walk down the street, I see promotions for violent movies/games/tv-shows/music or promotions for fashion/tv-shows/movies/music that appeal to sex, not to mention the commersials/shows that are on TV.
Or the news. Damn, the NEWS! Children shouldn't be allowed to watch the news.
Or read the news.
Or actually, go to school. Then you have to interact with other people, and they might you know, share information.

Edit: And more OT..What do these moms mean when they say "children shouldn't be bothered with what is hard to understand."? How hard IS it?
How about "Hey, some men love men, and some women love women, and they can get married too. It's about love."? Seems pretty simple to me.

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.

That's all well and good.

Doesn't mean they're not wrong though.

yes it does mean that their not wrong, because their opinion is just as valid as anybody else.

 

[Wintermoot]

so kid,s don,t get the concept of two people of the same sex loving each other?
or is it BECAUSE you don,t like it. I hate homophobia but I hate it even more if people use lame ass excuses.(IE religion,think of the children etc.) just say "I don,t like gay people" is it that hard to say?

 

[anthony87]

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

Well, then kids shouldn't be let outside, because whenever I walk down the street, I see promotions for violent movies/games/tv-shows/music or promotions for fashion/tv-shows/movies/music that appeal to sex, not to mention the commersials/shows that are on TV.
Or the news. Damn, the NEWS! Children shouldn't be allowed to watch the news.
Or read the news.
Or actually, go to school. Then you have to interact with other people, and they might you know, share information.

Edit: And more OT..What do these moms mean when they say "children shouldn't be bothered with what is hard to understand."? How hard IS it?
How about "Hey, some men love men, and some women love women, and they can get married too. It's about love."? Seems pretty simple to me.

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.

That's all well and good.

Doesn't mean they're not wrong though.

yes it does mean that their not wrong, because their opinion is just as valid as anybody else.

Their opinion is valid but they're still wrong.

I must've missed the update when the meaning of "Opinion" became "Magic shield-world that prevents people from being wrong". I could say that it's my opinion that dog shite tastes nice. That'd my opinion but it'd also be wrong because dog shite doesn't taste nice.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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

And they can, buy not taking them to Toys R Us, not taking them in the check out lines with the comic in it, or any number of other simple fixes, but they do not have the right to deprive my kids of something that they find offensive.

Nobody is "depriving" you of anything, but why does your opinion have more value to it then mine? I don't like something, but I just have to deal with it, but if the tables are turned, now I'm "depriving" you of something? Hypocritical much?

And before you or anyone else tries to bring in an argument relating this to porn, or other over the top subjects, they are completely different situations.

I didn't bring up the subject, but now that you have, why is this different? I realize its not the same thing as them seeing porn, but what if I don't agree that this is a subject I want young children to be exposed to? How is this different from that? While porn and homosexual marriage are not the same thing, they are two subjects that I don't think young children should be exposed to.

Seeing two people in sexual acts is something that the kid has not been exposed to, and exposing them to it in the wrong way can alter their perception of the act, whereas two men getting married is the same exact thing as a male and a female getting married, and can be explained the same way that you explained your own marriage. And if you have never talked to your kid about marriage, or they don't know what marriage is then the cover won't bring up any questions because there would be nothing strange about it.

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?

To put it very simple: Your opinion is of exactly equal worth as another persons. But since there aren't a lot of you (or enough of you), it matters LESS. That's how our democracy works.

My point still stands about the "depriving" comment.

No, it doesn't. We live in a capitalistic system. Peoples right to express an opinion does not equal their right to censure a private-owned corporation. You can't say "My opinion is that X-business is bad, and thus, I want it removed/censured/shut down" unless there is enough of you to either A: Get a law passed, or B: Make a capitalistic pressure (i.e voting with your wallets) large enough to get the corp to change their mind.
So, good luck.

Yes it does, the depriving comment is hypocritical and that is what I was pointing out.

I'm sorry, how is it hypocritical? If you refer to "Well, Porn isn't allowed!", well, that's because we got laws that say "No, you can't have that". There is no law against displaying two men getting married in a way that children can see it. There is one against displaying pornographic material, though.

Okey, well, actually, when I think about it, there isn't one (as far as I know) that is against displaying racist material to children. So go ahead. If you wanna print up a neo-nazi comic and manage to get Toys R Us to shelve it, I will support your right. Then me and pretty much everyone else will get it removed by appealing to standards of decency.

What, you think gay-marriage isn't "decent standard"? Fair enough. Too bad most people are changing their views now. I.e: Your standards are shit out of luck.

I never said it wasn't "decent", so cut with the strawman.

If anything, it's controversial.

No, it's not controversial, it's your ignorance and idiocy in thinking that because some people love those of the same gender they are in some way shameful that makes you want to think it is.

This comic has two people in love, if they were black it wouldn't matter, if they were teens or OAP's it wouldn't matter. Get the barge pole you have rammed up your pretentious asshole and grow the fuck up.

Children see far worse than men holding hands, they hear far worse than 'gay marriage' and they know much more about the world than you give then credit for. In the immortal words of one of the greats 'your road is rapidly fading, get out of the new if you can't lend your hand'


Your opinion is not worth the same as other peoples, if a electrician and a plumber were asked to fix a light socket you will always take the word of the electrician because he has relevant information on the subject.

The same can be said here, you have no relevant information, only ignorance and bigotry, and before you dare come along with a 'everyone's opinion is the same' in some pathetic excuse to deny the truth of the above then think of the Nazi's.

They hated gays as well, in my eyes, and the eyes of millions of other rational, educated and morally superior people around the world the Nazi's are scum and you, in your ignorance and bigotry are no better.

Now try to convey your point without name calling and act more civil.

Seeing as how this is about what children should be exposed to, my opinion is just as valid as anybody else.

 

[legend forge]

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

And they can, buy not taking them to Toys R Us, not taking them in the check out lines with the comic in it, or any number of other simple fixes, but they do not have the right to deprive my kids of something that they find offensive.

Nobody is "depriving" you of anything, but why does your opinion have more value to it then mine? I don't like something, but I just have to deal with it, but if the tables are turned, now I'm "depriving" you of something? Hypocritical much?

And before you or anyone else tries to bring in an argument relating this to porn, or other over the top subjects, they are completely different situations.

I didn't bring up the subject, but now that you have, why is this different? I realize its not the same thing as them seeing porn, but what if I don't agree that this is a subject I want young children to be exposed to? How is this different from that? While porn and homosexual marriage are not the same thing, they are two subjects that I don't think young children should be exposed to.

Seeing two people in sexual acts is something that the kid has not been exposed to, and exposing them to it in the wrong way can alter their perception of the act, whereas two men getting married is the same exact thing as a male and a female getting married, and can be explained the same way that you explained your own marriage. And if you have never talked to your kid about marriage, or they don't know what marriage is then the cover won't bring up any questions because there would be nothing strange about it.

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?

To put it very simple: Your opinion is of exactly equal worth as another persons. But since there aren't a lot of you (or enough of you), it matters LESS. That's how our democracy works.

My point still stands about the "depriving" comment.

No, it doesn't. We live in a capitalistic system. Peoples right to express an opinion does not equal their right to censure a private-owned corporation. You can't say "My opinion is that X-business is bad, and thus, I want it removed/censured/shut down" unless there is enough of you to either A: Get a law passed, or B: Make a capitalistic pressure (i.e voting with your wallets) large enough to get the corp to change their mind.
So, good luck.

Yes it does, the depriving comment is hypocritical and that is what I was pointing out.

Don't buy it for them, it's that simple and as I explained, sexually explicit material is different, it is eye catching, and it raises questions, especially if the child has never been exposed to anything sexual in nature, whereas marriage is such a public concept, that the children (if they know what marriage is) will see it as two people married, and may ask why two men are married, but only if it has been established that marriage is only between a man and a women. And if they don't know what marriage is then all they will see is two people holding hands and smiling.

I'm not asking for the comics to be removed, I would ask that the comics don't cover the subject.

Why is your opinion more important then other peoples? You feel a certain way, and that in no way gives you the right to control who other people are. Kids need to learn what the world is like and clearly the comic writers/producers feel the same way. They released a product in line with that philosophy and you have every right not to buy it. You say that people don't think it is equal to heterosexual marriage, what makes them right and us wrong? By the same token I could argue that bibles shouldn't be printed because I disagree with its contents. People need to get over themselves and accept that they are not the arbiters of what is right or wrong for anyone other then themselves and their own kids.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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

Well, then kids shouldn't be let outside, because whenever I walk down the street, I see promotions for violent movies/games/tv-shows/music or promotions for fashion/tv-shows/movies/music that appeal to sex, not to mention the commersials/shows that are on TV.
Or the news. Damn, the NEWS! Children shouldn't be allowed to watch the news.
Or read the news.
Or actually, go to school. Then you have to interact with other people, and they might you know, share information.

Edit: And more OT..What do these moms mean when they say "children shouldn't be bothered with what is hard to understand."? How hard IS it?
How about "Hey, some men love men, and some women love women, and they can get married too. It's about love."? Seems pretty simple to me.

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.

That's all well and good.

Doesn't mean they're not wrong though.

yes it does mean that their not wrong, because their opinion is just as valid as anybody else.

Their opinion is valid but they're still wrong.

I must've missed the update when the meaning of "Opinion" became "Magic shield-world that prevents people from being wrong". I could say that it's my opinion that dog shite tastes nice. That'd my opinion but it'd also be wrong because dog shite doesn't taste nice.

this is an opinion on what children should be exposed to, and on this subject it is gray, not black and white.

 

[Redd the Sock]

The sad part, these women will take their kids to the grocery store and the kids read the headlines in cosmo about improving your sex life and endless tabloid headlines while waiting, and not think about what they're exposing their kids to there.