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

[Stilkon]

Well, for that matter, why is Toys R Us selling Archie comics in the first place?

 

[Blind Sight]

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

Then it's simple. Launch a complaint like these moms did, and the company will respond if there is enough of the consumer market that supports it. If not, and you still have a problem with it, don't go to their stores. Companies are private property that can enforce whatever 'decency' standards they wish, parents are only allowed to enforce their own 'decency' measures within their private property as well.

 

[Zen Toombs]

As I've said before, Riverdale is a safe, welcoming place that does not judge anyone. It's an idealized version of America that will hopefully become reality someday,"

This is our home. But make no mistake - America is not a country of peace and love. They say it's a wasteland, that it's dangerous, that only a fool would search for something of value here.

When did the Escapist become the head of internet politics?

It isn't. But there are people here, and we have OPINIONS.

 

[Micalas]

OH MY GOD! His spouse is black!

My mistake. Wrong form of bigotry.

 

[gentlemanghost]

The funny thing is, I saw this in my TRU a few days ago and thought to myself, "Huh, that's interesting. I'm surprised some moron hasn't complained about this, yet". Then I read this and sure enough.....

 

[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?

 

[getoffmycloud]

When I first read the title, my heart sank, as I thought it meant that One Million Moms meant how many people had complained about this. I'm glad this isn't the case.
The way the co-CEO of the comics company handled this was brilliant.
But this piece of news begs the question; does this group have anything more important to do?

This is what happens when soccer mums stop playing farmville for 5 minutes shows we should really be showering zynga with money just to keep them occupied

 

[gentlemanghost]

Hell, I'm surprised some religious nuts haven't complained about KISS meets Archie (which actually sounds just as awesome as the Punisher meets Archie)....and those issues are sold at TRU, too!

 

[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.

 

[Realitycrash]

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.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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...

 

[Epona]

So I guess we are now at the point where the tables have turned. The people who don't accept homosexuality are now the outcasts. Interesting.

 

[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.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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...

and there are parents that have issues with those toys as well.

lol at the cellphone comment.

 

[Realitycrash]

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.

 

[artanis_neravar]

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?

Because your opinion is the one that is taking something away from me. My opinion leaves something the way it is. You are depriving me of something that already exists, while I am just causing you to find a different way to deal with it. If you Have an issue with something that exists, then you need to find a way to deal with it without stepping in and forcing your opinions on me. I am not the one trying to force a change, you are. There are other ways for you to avoid this material without forcing me to conform to your beliefs. In other words, You are the one with a problem, you are the one trying to force a change that effects me, I'm not demanding that this comic be put in every store, but you are demanding that this comic be removed from every store. You are the one

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?[/quote]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.

 

[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.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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.