• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Elton's new baby censored

Hicup

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
9,081
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Rochester, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Link: Elton John's Us Weekly Cover CENSORED | PHOTOS | Styleite

Brief synopsis:

Last night a lady went to a grocery store in Mountain Home, Arkansas, where she was privy to one of the more offensive things we’ve heard about in a long time. The people over at Harps Supermarket decided to put a “family shield” (you know, “to protect young Harps shoppers”) over the cover of Us Weekly. But Harps is not trying to protect kids from Snooki or Kim or any other standard tabloid trash. No, they’re trying to “protect” children from a photo of Elton John, his partner David Furnish and their adorable baby Zachary

Is this something that needs censoring?


Tim-
 
If this story is true...

It happened in Arkansas. Not exactly a renowned bastion of liberalism or sexual freedom.
 
That is quite funny actually.

It's really difficult for me to understand the mindset of people who have that much fear, they must hide a picture of two men holding a baby...

I don't judge them for it either.
 
Link: Elton John's Us Weekly Cover CENSORED | PHOTOS | Styleite

Brief synopsis:



Is this something that needs censoring?


Tim-

I say no. Most little kids probably wouldn't think anything of it. As far as little kids could be concerned that could either be a man and a really ugly lady holding a baby, two brothers holding a baby or a guy and his best friend holding a baby. Little kids do not know what sex is so how are they going to know that two grown men like to pack fudge and toss the salad.
 
Cute baby!!!

Stupid people - as usual (and it's not JUST in Arkansas, by the way - I'm sure it's not the only place that has done such, either).
 
If this story is true...

It happened in Arkansas. Not exactly a renowned bastion of liberalism or sexual freedom.

tell dat to Bill Clinton. :lamo
 
If this story is true...

It happened in Arkansas. Not exactly a renowned bastion of liberalism or sexual freedom.

Arkansas is actually quite conflicted.
In some places it's very liberal - VERY liberal . . . in other areas it's extremely conservative. That's why we have dry counties - and wet counties . . . areas that encourage the banning of gambling but still some areas which were always given permission to gamble (Hot Springs) and so on.

But aren't all states this way - mixed up and hard to peg - no one right way to label it?

After all - mass labels without basis are prejudices.

To note - Mountain Home is considered a retirement community. Over half of the residence are from other states - moved in upon retirement to have a change of life and access to relaxing fishing, golfing and other things. I would imagine that the 'shield' was more likely in place for an old granny (like my Grandmother) than young children who have no concept of 'gay couple'
My Grandfather lived there before he died - he most certain isn't a Native Arkansan - but he was a racist homophobic prick.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea why this is news, or why anyone cares one way or the other.

So they stuck it in one of the racks that hides the cover... who really gives a rip?
 
I have no idea why this is news, or why anyone cares one way or the other.

So they stuck it in one of the racks that hides the cover... who really gives a rip?

I don't that's for sure.. I hate censorship of reality. The reality is that these two dude have a baby.. Like James pointed out. It seems silly to censor the cover out of some fear?


Tim-
 
I don't that's for sure.. I hate censorship of reality. The reality is that these two dude have a baby.. Like James pointed out. It seems silly to censor the cover out of some fear?


Tim-

A store chose to put it there. It wasn't censorship imposed by law or government. The magazine wasn't thrown in the trash so no one could read it. It was just stuck in a rack that hides the cover.

This was one store, or maybe one chain? of stores, in one place. It just doesn't seem worth making an issue over to me, but if anybody thinks it is worth talking about then I'll wish you happy debating.
 
Arkansas is actually quite conflicted.
In some places it's very liberal - VERY liberal . . . in other areas it's extremely conservative. That's why we have dry counties - and wet counties . . . areas that encourage the banning of gambling but still some areas which were always given permission to gamble (Hot Springs) and so on.

But aren't all states this way - mixed up and hard to peg - no one right way to label it?

After all - mass labels without basis are prejudices.

To note - Mountain Home is considered a retirement community. Over half of the residence are from other states - moved in upon retirement to have a change of life and access to relaxing fishing, golfing and other things. I would imagine that the 'shield' was more likely in place for an old granny (like my Grandmother) than young children who have no concept of 'gay couple'
My Grandfather lived there before he died - he most certain isn't a Native Arkansan - but he was a racist homophobic prick.

I don't know. NY and CA are considered to be places where most simply wouldn't care about something this petty. Arkansas and the surrounding area? It simply doesn't surprise me this would happen there. I don't care either way. I just think any outrage at this event is missing geographical context.
 
I don't know. NY and CA are considered to be places where most simply wouldn't care about something this petty. Arkansas and the surrounding area? It simply doesn't surprise me this would happen there. I don't care either way. I just think any outrage at this event is missing geographical context.

Oh it doesn't surprise me either - but if just the opposite happened I wouldn't be surprised.

There's an immense gay population in the main areas (Little Rock, Hot Springs - so on). . . in fact, when I first became an 'adult' here - and moved *out* of Little Rock - I was suprised at the vast difference between people. In Little Rock a large number of people from the gay community would frequent the various businesses I worked at for the gay-pride parade and so on. It is really a thorough contrast. But in my town - 98% is white and there are NO openly gay people around.

I know, though, that this is probably a classic "rural vs populated" issue - rather than a 'state to state' issue.

Culture's fascinating - our country's more mixed up than I ever use to think.
 
A store chose to put it there. It wasn't censorship imposed by law or government.

And since when did the definition of censorship require government involvement?
 
And since when did the definition of censorship require government involvement?
Well, that's the only kind of censorship we should really worry about since the government can enforce it on others.
 
Last edited:
Well, that's the only kind of censorship we should really worry about since the government can enforce it on others.

You must be somebody incredibly ignorant of the last 200 in corporate development if you think the only censorship we should worry about is 'government censorship'. Private companies have enforced censorship just as much as governments. The East India Company, United Fruit, Firestone Rubber and Nike all come to mind. Corporate censorship is as enforceable as government censorship. All that is required is a few pay offs and the right political circumstance.
 
Last edited:
You must be somebody incredibly ignorant of the last 200 in corporate development if you think the only censorship we should worry about is 'government censorship'. Private companies have enforced censorship just as much as governments. The East India Company, United Fruit, Firestone Rubber and Nike all come to mind. Corporate censorship is as enforceable as government censorship. All that is required is a few pay offs and the right political circumstance.

The government functions mostly through agencies and lobbies - I doubt that much happens in DC *because* of a politician's decision or noble idea. It's more so because everyone else who has influence pushes for something to happen.

*spheres of influence*

What's the word?

Propinquity
 
I have no idea why this is news, or why anyone cares one way or the other.

So they stuck it in one of the racks that hides the cover... who really gives a rip?

The implication is that the sight of two men raising a baby is so offensive that children need to be protected from it.

The fact that you can't understand why people would care about that says an awful lot about you.
 
Since when is a loving family offensive?
 
People ignorant and/or bigoted towards gay folks raising children and it's impact on OTHER people. Film at 11.
 
Back
Top Bottom