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

[Aprilgold]

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.

So I should be able to voice the opinion that all black people are assholes who ruin everything else, and deserve death sentences all around, wait, what is the officer doing? Why am I in jail?

You might not get at what I'm saying, but if you have a opinion of something being offensive or wrong, but you say it to someone who is for that specific thing, then you just started a argument. Kinda like if you have a opinion of a bigoted asshole, then expect to be pointed out for being a bigoted asshole. I know you yourself isn't saying its offensive, I'm just wanting to point out that you can voice your opinion, but don't expect people to accept your opinion of its bigoted bullshit.

That was a neat article, doesn't 1 Mil Moms have something else to do, like be completely submissive like the great old holy old testament book say they should? I'm only half kidding on that, honestly. But seriously, is it just a slow news day for them to decide to attack a comic for the front cover?

 

[imnot]

. 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.

There is no facepalm big enough!

 

[JediMB]

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

As has been brought up by someone else as well, there's quite the difference between being intolerant of a person's attributes and being intolerant of a person's intolerance.

Intolerance of intolerance, so to speak, helps in eliminating intolerance. When there's no base intolerance to not tolerate anymore, that resulting intolerance vanishes.

Meanwhile, being tolerant of intolerance can is counterproductive as it lets said intolerance flourish.

That said, it's quite possible to be intolerant of a person's intolerance without hating or being intolerant of the person.

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.

"Pro-homosexual" isn't entirely accurate, really. The term makes it sound like everyone with the label believes people should be homosexual, when it's really a matter of thinking that people should simply be allowed to be who they are.

These thoughts have their origins in critical thinking and analysis, which stands in stark contrast to the anti-homosexual agenda which has it roots in religious dogma, fear, outdated societal needs, and indoctrination. Religion doesn't want critical thinking, because religion doesn't want to be questioned, as it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and the same goes for the anti-homosexual ideas conveyed through it.

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?

Funny thing? I grew up in a small town known to its surroundings for its racist rednecks. I found out about homosexuality basically through some friend or other who said that it's when guy falls in love with or wants to have sex with another guy. I was pretty clueless, and no one had told me if there was anything good or bad about this.

A few years later, a friend of mine said he was gay. I didn't care. He was my friend, and I saw no reason to think any differently of him than I had earlier. Was this indoctrination, or simply a natural neutral state?

 

[Lyvric]

"We're sorry the American Family Association/OneMillionMoms.com feels so negatively about our product, but they have every right to their opinion, just like we have the right to stand by ours. Kevin Keller will forever be a part of Riverdale, and he will live a happy, long life free of prejudice, hate and narrow-minded people."

Nicely put, sir.

Nicely put indeed. Seeing two people mutually, and respectfully, together on the front of a book is nothing to get worked up about. It doesn't really matter who they are or what book it's shown on. Seeing this happiness is nice and I wish this kind of thing was an accepted thing way back when.

I've never been a fan of Archie. In my opinion, it has brushed up on topics that made me way more uncomfortable as a kid than seeing two married dudes. Cliched stereo-types, cheating, gluttony and characters over-dramatically indecisive about everything. Bleh, to each their own.

Off topic, the stuffed poo and pee is both very cute and damn gross...

 

[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.

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

It's called an analogy.

If you can't tell an analogy from a straw man... I don't even know what to say.

 

[LastMondaysHangover]

Hmm, what year is it again?

 

[CardinalPiggles]

They need to stop spinning this bullshit, pull their thumbs out of their arses, and simply tell their children, it's not hard, it won't take long, and they can get back to previously mentioned thumbs in arses later.

Some people are just so aggressively narrow minded, it's ridiculous.

 

[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.

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.

And your claim just now can be applied to pretty much anything, rendering it pointless semantics at best.

 

[SD-Fiend]

I haven't read Archie in... well I've never read those comics in the first place. how long has the couple been in the comics anyway? and what's the point other than dropping the drama bomb?

 

[BehattedWanderer]

People still read Archie?

I kidd, I kidd. Mostly.

But, as to the topic on hand, it's almost like they want children to grow up seeing gay marriage as something as accepted and commonplace as regular marriage--whoa! It baffles the mind! I daresay I'm outraged! How dare they try to expose my children to marriage!

Gotta love the way the world is changing.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

True love is real, if one person is labeled a girl and the other a guy.

 

[Clankenbeard]

The times they are a changin'. Kudos to you Archie Comics for staying with them. (I guess I always thought it would be Jughead that came out.)

Kids today are colorblind and ridiculously tolerant of everything. They don't care about race, creed, color, or sexual orientation. My 13-yr old daughter has informed me repeatedly that she wants a male gay friend. Gay culture is everywhere. You pretty much have to keep your kid in a box, in the basment of a cave on the moon to keep it away from them.

Gay isn't for me. But I don't have the balls to think I should make that call for somebody else. My kids have seen some pretty racy stuff in their lives and they have had questions. When that happens, you treat them with respect and explain to them what they are seeing. Take 5 freakin' minutes and pass on some knowledge. They will respect you for it.

These (few thousand) MillionMoms should explain what's happening in Riverdale if their kid asks about it. Odds are they won't. And when the moms explain "These two men are getting married." the kid will either say "Ewww." or "Why?" or "Where's the lady?" or "Is that allowed?" or "Why can't planes fly backwards?". If they're too young, the attention devoted to this topic will be brief. If they're old enough to dwell on it, then they should probably be better informed about gay partners. Too little information is always more dangerous than too much.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

What's the point of censoring a comic cover from a store when there's much larger things that would cause kids to question it. Two men holding hands in public? Would you tell them to kindly keep it to themselves so they don't make your kid think? Honestly I think a kid would notice that way before accidentally stumbling upon a comic cover.

As it is, I hate how gay interest is completely avoided in children's shows. It actually makes me rather glad that someone has finally had the balls to do it. It shouldn't be forced into children's media, but at the very least it should be acceptable to show in it. Public backlash be damned! I am glad to see someone sticking up for their beliefs like this.

EDIT: Some people try to argue their point by saying "Where does it stop?". You could use that argument in so many different contexts. What about interracial marriage? I'm sure that people were saying the exact same thing back when that was seen as a morally dubious issue. Something like this should never be dismissed just because of what issues may need to be considered after it.

 

[Draconalis]

When did the Escapist become the head of internet politics?

Considering how little real world news I get... I'll take it... and I'll take it gladly.

OT: I expected to read that Toys R'Us folded at the first sign of hotility, but I am pleased to see that I am wrong.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

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.

Would you like to know what else was once controversial? The appearance of a black man as an astronaut in the comic "Judgement Day". [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrayal_of_black_people_in_comics#1956:_Comics_Code_Authority_tries_to_censor_.22Judgment_Day.22] The reprint of the comic was protested by the Comics Code Authority administrator and came close to being censored. (On a side note, this event is what led to the foundation of Mad Magazine, which has infuriated parents' groups for decades.) I guess they shouldn't have run it since it was "controversial" back in 1953, hm? Wouldn't want to force little white kids to deal with the idea of a black man going to space and being a representative of his species.

Or, hey, you know, these busybody parents could spent more time monitoring their kids and less time trying to dictate what anyone can do, say or sell. A man can dream....