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

[Sidiron]

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.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

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.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

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

 

[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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States]

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.

 

[Sidiron]

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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States]

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.

 

[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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States]

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.

 

[Sidiron]

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-

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-

 

[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-

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.

 

[Cyfu]

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.

 

[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.

 

[OriginalLadders]

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?

 

[XDravond]

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...

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...

 

[GoddyofAus]

This mob is going to love mass Effect 3.

 

[Mike Fang]

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.

 

[Atary77]

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.

 

[twohundredpercent]

This is pretty funny.

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

 

[mintfresh]

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.

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.

 

[masticina]

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.