Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
think of your brother or sister if you have one. Can you imagine them having two dads while growing up?
Think of the trauma when they find out how much they missed by not having a sweet loving mother who comforts them with motherly affection that a dude or gay dude simply is not capable of providing?
There is no sense of stability in gay relationships. Sure there might not be a lot in some str8 marriages now a days as well. Gay dudes can't create s*** with each other. A male and female can actually create life together. Maybe that's why gays are so offended easily over their terrible choices.
Surprisingly, I'll let you know,that I'm all for civil unions for gay people. However, when it comes to them raising kids...
If you have the edit button available still in the OP, then just edit the title and the topic title will change
It will only change where posters open the thread and read it....the thread title on the board is "locked in" as soon as you post it and he cannot change that without asking a moderator for help.
So you're essentially saying the store was wrong for having made that decision.
Which is the bigger intrusion on freedom?
1. A private enterprise choosing to exercise their freedom of choice by covering a magazine despite the fact they are still offering the magazine to interested customers.
2. Forcing a private enterprise to display something they deem problematic.
I'd go with number two as yet another example of political correctness run amok.
First of all, I never stated my position. You guessed correctly because I do in fact think covering up the image of gay parents to "protect" children is absurd.
Second, who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything?
First of all, I never stated my position. You guessed correctly because I do in fact think covering up the image of gay parents to "protect" children is absurd.
Second, who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything?
I was asking for clarification not making an accusation.
Personally I could care less who does what with whom. I'd rather people of all persuasions kept their personal activities behind closed doors but what they do behind those doors is none of my business.
On the other hand I believe the store was entirely within their rights to cover the magazine. They pay the bills for their establishment, they should be free to display or not display whatever they see fit.
If people are offended by the choices of the establishment they have the option of shopping elsewhere.
I was asking for clarification not making an accusation.
Personally I could care less who does what with whom. I'd rather people of all persuasions kept their personal activities behind closed doors but what they do behind those doors is none of my business.
On the other hand I believe the store was entirely within their rights to cover the magazine. They pay the bills for their establishment, they should be free to display or not display whatever they see fit.
If people are offended by the choices of the establishment they have the option of shopping elsewhere.
A business can carry whatever products it wants. If a company wants to put a porn shield over US Weekly because it shows a gay family, they can. Likewise, companies like Blockbuster can choose to carry only edited versions of movies (for instance if you rented Y Tu Mama Tambien from Blockbuster, then you missed the scene where the two male leads kiss - Blockbuster edited it out). I think it's the height of ridiculousness.
I just can't believe the bigotry and homophobia of some people (the people making these decisions).
A business can carry whatever products it wants. If a company wants to put a porn shield over US Weekly because it shows a gay family, they can. Likewise, companies like Blockbuster can choose to carry only edited versions of movies (for instance if you rented Y Tu Mama Tambien from Blockbuster, then you missed the scene where the two male leads kiss - Blockbuster edited it out). I think it's the height of ridiculousness.
I just can't believe the bigotry and homophobia of some people (the people making these decisions).
While that's true, why is there censorship of other items.
If I want to show the cover of hustler or playboy/girl, why can't I show them in my business?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
