And this post by Jeff is also what happens when you start tolerating stupidity getting near a keyboard.

I saw here a general “shut up… you have bigoted views, go read X-Men” sort of thing. In this post it was said to OMM, but was it only because of the letters? I don’t think so. This group’s public stance on gay marriage is handled in the end of the day as someone else’s with the same stance. Look the title of the post: isn’t it implied that these children will have shame on their mothers because of their opinion on gay marriage? So, if I also disagree on it, won’t my children have shame of me too?

Nowadays, homosexuality is not seen as morally bad anymore in society; I’m not specialist, but maybe we could consider it as a shift to a sort of “post judeo-christian” society on the matter. But there are still people who holds the traditional judeo-christian worldview on the matter, and always will, and I to consider them as automatically villains because of that is wrong. “You have moral principles about sexual orientation which says that gay marriage is no good, then you’re vile, so shut up?”

Accusing someone to be “hateful”, to be “vile”, “hypocrites”, similar to the Klan people, because of a different stand on gay marriage, this also sounds to me as “to demonize”, and one must be careful with that, to automatically consider all of them as William Strykers or Graydon Creeds in this “X-Men story”, who deserves a “shut up”, which seems an oversimplification to me.

This is about point #3. About point #1: one can argue that this number is decreasing, but I still think, and actually see, children reading super-hero comic books, or being influenced by it, as pointed out in OMM’s excerpt; and I don’t think this is a group of old mothers trying to protect their 30 year old sons and daughters. So, I don’t entirely agree with point #1. About point #2: as someone who already is saying a big “no” to many other aspects I’m finding in super-hero comic books, yes, I think the author do have a point.

One last remark: the “learn to count” seems not correct, then 98,500 + 1,502 followers in Twitter = 100,002, not 1,000,000, if this was what it’s meant.

One final comment: I wonder how many of these women, claiming such things are an attack against marriage, have had affairs or are divorced? Maybe they should worry about their own marriages before they get concerned about other people.

You have to realize that these people aren’t content merely to voice their opinions. They want to pressure networks to cancel TV shows and comic book companies to change their publishing plan in order to match their view of the world. This isn’t a question of free speech, it’s a question of a group trying to use economic pressure to bully companies into doing it their way. If it were about free speech, they would be content to allow artistic works to go on as long as their audience permits, and to protest and complain and quote the bible at it along the way. The fact that they define “victory” by removing anything they disagree with from the public sphere amounts to them telling anyone who doesn’t agree with them, “Shut up.” More than that, they’re saying, “Shut up, or we’ll get you fired from your job.”

YOU CAN’T WIN GUYS.

Given that, that’s my problem with the “shut up” and “bigoted views” part in this post. In fact, I may have also problem with the first point, then I think children still read comics (@Sallyp?), or are at least still influenced in some way by them. I think of that when I remember the post-DC New 52 Starfire and a 7-year-old girl, as show in the following link:

http://io9.com/5844355/a-7+year+old-girl-responds-to-dc-comics-sexed+up-reboot-of-starfire

If I was a father and had children, I wouldn’t join “One Million Fathers” in such a campaign, but I’d also disapprove gay marriage, and tell about it. As many others do; and they have the right to do so, in the same way the author has the right to say “gay marriage is a good thing”. That’s my point.

You mean the way One Million Moms tolerates gay marriage?

I really hate self-esteem. I don’t mind self respect, which is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.

Some people hold to different moral principles, based in different moral concepts in this matter (yes, some considered it a moral issue – me included), and each group must in the end tolerate each other: no one should have the right to prohibit each other to manifest each other disagreements in these moral principles.

I’m saying this because I do have problems with the “shut up” part of this post. This shows that a level of intolerance may happen in both sides of the debate. I don’t think he intended to prohibit anyone in their rights, but it’s a “shut up” anyway. If this group of moms want to complain, let them complain. If they are wrong to do so, talk about that, but not with a “shut up”.

It seems to me that these groups get more air time and screen time because people against them insist on talking about them.

Just a thought.