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

[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.

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.

 

[zombie711]

No, dont. Kevin is the most boring pointless Archie character in the series, but this comic has finally given him some much needed depth.
He was once just a guy who everyone accept had no problems, no character traits, and apperently could eat more than Jughead (which is stupid because that scientificly impossible) and better looking then Archie.
So pretty much his shtick was stealing other peoples shtick.
He was a boring character and with out any conflict or problems, he could have been straight and it would have made no difference.
Alot like when Chuck first came out because of the civil rights movement. Chuck use to be boring but then they saved him and made him an artist who draws comic and cartoons. But they didnt change anything to the other black character and can anyone remember HER name? No.
so yeah Kevin = bland character not worthy of his own spinoff comic despite already having one(yet). But this may just flesh him out.

But as far as these people go. Thats just silly.

 

[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.

 

[jibjab963]

You want something that actually has to do with the real world off the selves because you don't want to explain this thing to your kids!? If that's the reason why let them out of the house? Just keep them in there with restrictions on all forms of media and social contact!! But good for Toys R Us, if these moms are really this mad about something like this their stupid. People just this make me shake my head and face-palm.

 

[razer17]

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.

You dislike gay marriage, so comics shouldn't cover the subject? Who died and made you king on censorship?

 

[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

 

[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.

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".

 

[Avatar Roku]

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. If you don't want it for your kid, you don't have to buy it for them. If it really bothers you THAT much, you can go to a different store. You can deal with your hang-ups without changing what others can and can't do. If you try to get the store to get rid of them, that's it, it's decided for everyone.

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.

Please address his question. How is it hypocritical?

 

[Hitchmeister]

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?

You mean like recruiting 960,000 more moms so their name doesn't sound so farcical and expose them for the crackpot fringe that they are?

 

[Scarim Coral]

Wait the US Toy R Us sell comicbook?

Anyway this is stupid, they just can't be bother to explain homosexuality to their kids already. Beside wouldn't the children maybe aware of it already in other medias or in real life?

 

[Sandytimeman]

Huh, I wasn't aware Archie was still going after all these decades.

I don't think Toys 'R' Us has to worry. This is little more than a publicity stunt, a desperate and pathetic plea for attention by a group of people too stubborn and out of touch with reality to realize that they've already lost. They've realized that their intolerance no longer conforms with modern, progressive society. Instead of re-evaluating their stance, they lash out bitterly like a cornered animal.

12 Angry Men had the right approach for dealing with such people: ignore them. You deny them a captive audience and they have nobody to talk to but themselves.

Wow, that was powerful. I want to watch that entire movie now.

Also, Million moms are entitled to their position but I'm glad that first JC penny ignored them, and hopefully Toys'R'us will too. I don't understand whats so hard to explain to their children. It's two humans..two people that love each-other and want to make a commit to each-other.

or shoot even if you think its wrong and evil just tell them that.

These are evil men who are committing sinful evil acts. They may say they are married but they are really just liars and sinners. They will burn in hell for eternity because of it.

or something like that, I'm not exactly sure what bigots tell their children about us.

 

[JediMB]

"This is the last place a parent would expect to be confronted with questions they are too dumb or prejudiced to answer properly."

Fixed.

And if the kids are too young to be exposed to same-sex marriage, then they're certainly too young for all other forms as well. Time to remove all the Barbies in wedding dresses and such.

Also, I'd like to plug a related short EGS Comics story [http://www.egscomics.com/?date=2012-02-13] that is about to reach its conclusion:

[http://www.egscomics.com/?date=2012-02-17]

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

 

[D Moness]

Makes me wanna get a copy to show my support. Just to say screw you to all the intolerant people in the world(and this forum). Now how can i get a copy seeing i live outside the usa.


Lets check some websites

 

[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.

 

[Johnson McGee]

If they don't want to expose their kids to gay they might as well just lock them in the closet.

 

[DrRockor]

My god! If they keep these comics in the stores the kids will get the impression that being gay is not only natural but also if they themselves are gay they shouldn't be ashamed in anyway and that people who think its wrong are bigots

 

[legend forge]

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

Yes and no. If a parent objects to a certain type of material being present in their home that is their right to remove it. It is not a parent's right to remove things they disapprove of from the world. Gay people exist, and people will just have to deal with that fact. If they really want to protect their kids from the world's perceived "evils" then they will end up raising a narrow minded bigoted shut in with little in the way of social skills, and yes I have seen this exact thing happen.

 

[Pyrian]

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

Hate is a choice.

 

[anthony87]

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

Hate is a choice.

The wrong choice.