I've never heard of the Harps grocery chain, as they are in Arkansas and other places I have never lived, but now that I have, I am pretty sure that I will never shop there given the opportunity. Apparently, because stable families that just happen to be headed up by parents of the same sex are offensive to a few backward minded, bigoted complainers, Harps decided that they would put a "family shield" over the US Weekly cover featuring Elton John and his partner with their new son. The Dlisted article, which handles the outrage with more humour than I can muster, is here.
It truly boggles the mind. That shield is generally reserved for racy magazine covers that are not appropriate for children, and pornography, which I am pretty sure is not something Harps sells. That Harps gave in to the bigots in their area, even for a little while (read: until the insult got national attention), is pathetic.
Statistics show that children raised by parents of the same sex grow up just as well adjusted as any other child. There are no significant differences between children raised by straight parents or gay parents aside from the possibility that the child of gay parents grows up to be a more tolerant individual. It can even be argued that due to the adoption screening processes, where it is allowed for gay parents to adopt, that some of those children will automatically have it far better than the child born into a family of people that might abuse or otherwise neglect their offspring.
The people vocally offended by the US Weekly cover are little more than bigots who have the average intelligence of a parsnip. The "family shield" sign reads: "Family Shield to protect young Harps shoppers". From what? A loving couple who have chosen to have a child? A stable family? The reality that gay people with children exist?
The bigotry against homosexuals is more offensive than anything that shield could protect a young person from.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What one may also find facinating here is what is not covered up. In the right hand corner of the magazine we are teased with the idea of "hot photos" insides. Two people offering a home to a child we need must hide. Women, we must objectify. I smell fear and ignorance.
ReplyDeleteSA
Good observation, and one that makes you really wonder where our priorities as a society really are. I will not criticize the woman that chooses to be objectified, though it is not the choice I would make. She is free to do as she wishes and how she wishes, but of the two things on the cover of that magazine that should have given anyone a twinge of offence, it should have been THAT.
ReplyDelete