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

[Helmholtz Watson]

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.[/quote] I believe I already retracted my comment about censorship.

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.

Fair enough, and a good point

 

[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.

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

What's gray about it? It's a very stupid idea to hide a kid from a concept that exists all over the world. Instead of sheltering their kids, these bigoted mothers should be explaining to them that some men like men and some women like women.

 

[Swifteye]

I really surprised this comic exists at all! I didn't know archie comics were trying to be progressive I always assumed they lived in some 50s television style of reality. Good on the author though now toys r us just needs to follow through.

 

[JediMB]

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.

That's a rather bad example, since taste is inherently subjective. One could make an argument that shit doesn't taste good to a majority of the human population, but it's certainly possible that someone out there is born with taste buds that say otherwise. ^^;

But, yes, it's true that not every opinion is born equal. Some opinions are informed, whilst others are based on prejudice or misinformation. Stating something as an opinion doesn't make it immune to criticism.

 

[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.

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

Not inherently but certainly implied in many cases.

Isn't it funny how both sides think the other side is both hateful and intolerant while thinking their side is not.

I would also say that both sides have been TAUGHT to think the way they think. Pro-homosexual people are a product of modern indoctrination while anti-homosexual people are products of religious and past cultural beliefs. Of course, there are always exceptions.

I find it fascinating to watch this shift in culture, 5 years ago this much support for homosexuality was unheard of. In 5 more, where will we be?

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

What's gray about it? It's a very stupid idea to hide a kid from a concept that exists all over the world. Instead of sheltering their kids, these bigoted mothers should be explaining to them that some men like men and some women like women.

The ideas about what subjects children should be exposed to differ from person to person, society to society, and era to era. What one person thinks should be withheld from the eyes of children, another person feels that children should be exposed to. To give a example that doesn't deal with this comic, think about religion, some people don't want there kids exposed to it, while others think that children should go to Church as often as possible. Hence my comment that, what children should be exposed to is really a grey area.

 

[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.

No it's not, because by that logic the opinion of Hitler, the SS and the entire Nazi party was just as valid as the people they murdered. If your opinion is based on ignorance then it is wrong. Plain and simple.

Godwins law, really? Couldn't resist could you?

 

[JediMB]

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.

And that's like trying to "protect" your children from seeing and knowing what lightning is. You could say it's because you think lightning is dangerous, but it's still wildly irrational to not let them know about it and that it isn't an inherently bad thing.

 

[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?

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.

Not gonna happen, the man is an ignorant Nazi.

really? I'm curious as to how my Jewish family would feel about me being a Nazi. Stop the name calling.

 

[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.

And that's like trying to "protect" your children from seeing and knowing what lightning is. You could say it's because you think lightning is dangerous, but it's still wildly irrational to not let them know about it and that it isn't an inherently bad thing.

The subject of homosexual marriage is still controversial, and its not at all like lighting.

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

OneMillionMoms, proof genocide doesn't need to be a bad thing

But seriously, respect to the CEO for standing his ground on the issue.
In my opinion anyone who is unable to tolerate or explain a gay marriage lacks the brains or maturity to raise kids.

 

[Pyrian]

Hate is a choice.

The pro-homosexual side often refers to the other side as bigots, that's hate going the other way.

How can something so simple sail so completely over your head? The distinction isn't hate or not hate. The distinction is between hating people for their innocence: their race, their gender, their orientation - versus hating people for their guilt: their conscious adult decisions to despise such innocence.

"Tolerance" does not necessarily include tolerance for intolerance, and it takes a remarkable simplicity of perspective to think it should. I.e., somehow it's mostly the intolerant who think there should be "tolerance for intolerance", which is odd given that they don't have much tolerance in the first place, so what do they know about it? They're not even for it, except with respect to themselves.

It's hypocritical to demand to be treated X when your problem is that you don't treat people X. It's not hypocritical to demand that people who Y aren't exempt from Y. These are not equivalents.

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

First, see above; it's not really a relevant, as replacing one with the other doesn't change the terms of the distinction. Second, they are closely related, as either, when applied to groups of people, quickly leads to the other.

 

[JediMB]

The subject of homosexual marriage is still controversial, and its not at all like lighting.

It is exactly like lightning in that knowing of its existence and being informed about it is in no way harmful.

Controversy has no bearing. It simply means that it is a subject of debate.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Hate is a choice.

The pro-homosexual side often refers to the other side as bigots, that's hate going the other way.

How can something so simple sail so completely over your head? The distinction isn't hate or not hate. The distinction is between hating people for their innocence: their race, their gender, their orientation - versus hating people for their guilt: their conscious adult decisions to despise such innocence.

"Tolerance" does not necessarily include tolerance for intolerance, and it takes a remarkable simplicity of perspective to think it should. I.e., somehow it's mostly the intolerant who think there should be "tolerance for intolerance", which is odd given that they don't have much tolerance in the first place, so what do they know about it? They're not even for it, except with respect to themselves.

It's hypocritical to demand to be treated X when your problem is that you don't treat people X. It's not hypocritical to demand that people who Y aren't exempt from Y. These are not equivalents.

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

First, see above; it's not really a relevant, as replacing one with the other doesn't change the terms of the distinction. Second, they are closely related, as either, when applied to groups of people, quickly leads to the other.

Then I guess I'm the exception because I don't accept it, but I realize that they are people too, so I don't hate them either.

 

[ThePurpleStuff]

There is nothing wrong with Gay Marriage, there is nothing wrong with a man loving another man, same with women. It does not affect your life personally if a gay marriage happens, the world is not ending because your close minded way of thinking is being "violated". If you don't want your kids exposed to something that is becoming more and more common by the second despite your feeble, failed attempts to stop it. Don't buy it, don't look at it, don't go to the store that sells it. You have no right to censor something another person has made or stop someone from living their own lifestyle. We are not in the past anymore, this is 2012, get over yourself and keep your nose and your religion out of other people's business.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

The subject of homosexual marriage is still controversial, and its not at all like lighting.

It is exactly like lightning in that knowing of its existence and being informed about it is in no way harmful.

Controversy has no bearing. It simply means that it is a subject of debate.

I'm not going to indulge your strawman.

 

[JediMB]

The subject of homosexual marriage is still controversial, and its not at all like lighting.

It is exactly like lightning in that knowing of its existence and being informed about it is in no way harmful.

Controversy has no bearing. It simply means that it is a subject of debate.

I'm not going to indulge your strawman.

I don't think you know what a straw man is.

All I'm saying is that if there is no harm in being informed about X, there is no reason to withhold information about X.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

The subject of homosexual marriage is still controversial, and its not at all like lighting.

It is exactly like lightning in that knowing of its existence and being informed about it is in no way harmful.

Controversy has no bearing. It simply means that it is a subject of debate.

I'm not going to indulge your strawman.

I don't think you know what a straw man is.

All I'm saying is that if there is no harm in being informed about X, there is no reason to withhold information about X.

Your arguing against informing people about lighting, something I never even mentioned.

 

[Epona]

How can something so simple sail so completely over your head? The distinction isn't hate or not hate. The distinction is between hating people for their innocence: their race, their gender, their orientation - versus hating people for their guilt: their conscious adult decisions to despise such innocence.

So YOU say. I say it's two sides of the same coin. Two sets of opposing beliefs, one set widely taught in the past and present and a newer one being taught now and in the future. Look at the bigger picture. In a hundred years, homosexuality will be completely accepted while 100 years ago, it was completely rejected. We are in transition.

"Tolerance" does not necessarily include tolerance for intolerance, and it takes a remarkable simplicity of perspective to think it should. I.e., somehow it's mostly the intolerant who think there should be "tolerance for intolerance", which is odd given that they don't have much tolerance in the first place, so what do they know about it? They're not even for it, except with respect to themselves.

You're talking in circles trying to explain how intolerance isn't really intolerance when it comes from your side.

Intolerance has it's purposes, we are intolerant of slavery today and that's ok.

It's hypocritical to demand to be treated X when your problem is that you don't treat people X. It's not hypocritical to demand that people who Y aren't exempt from Y. These are not equivalents.

More about how your side is "holier than thou". It just isn't true. See it for what it is, your opponents think your opinion is wrong and you think the same of their opinion. As a result both sides are intolerant of the other because...well, this is just too obvious...they are opposites.