Elton John Cover of US Magazine Covered Up

[IDrinkaRum]

Because a Harps Supermarket in Mountain View, Ark. deemed it inappropriate for "young Harps shoppers"

According to the article, the cover shield have been removed, but why were they there in the first place?

Gay families can't be celebrated?

I don't think seeing 2 men holding a baby on the cover of a magazine is going to suddenly turn all the children gay, and make them want to adopt babies.

But then again, I don't know everything.

[Andara Bledin]

So, did they cover up any magazine covers that featured the Three Men and a Baby or Three Men and a Little Lady cast as well? How about Two and a Half Men?

It is worth noting that this is a decision made on a store level, and was a reaction to intolerant shoppers whinging to management about having to see something they want to pretend doesn't exist. Also worth noting is that the shields were removed after the incident was publicized.

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

Heh, I have family there. When I heard a bit of the story on the news, I thought it was probably a store up in the Ozarks.

Arkansas is full of Christian nut-jobs/homophobes, especially in the rural areas. They tried to ban gay people from adopting. When the courts struck that down, they circumvented it by passing a law that said single people couldn't adopt. (Governor is still leading the fight to get that struck down.) A lot of people down there would be offended by the idea of a gay couple adopting a child. Didn't surprise me at all.

[Ginger Tea]

let me guess the cover star of goat fuckers monthly was displaying its teats for all and sundry

Yes this was a store level desicion not a publisher's choice to pre bag its magazines, although I do like prebaged mags (not the greyed out porno type) as you know all freebies are still in there like cover disc's and no one has been treating a news agents like a library (mind you no one should be treating a news agents like a library whilst looking at porno)

As for the whole Surragasy and adoption for gay couples goes, as long as the child grows up healthy and loved and not harmed by the parents in any way I don't care, society in general should not care that little timmy is raised by two dads or two moms or a single gay man that has a gazzillion partners, but that wont change any time soon, I am not involed with their personal life, so I don't care what they get up to and even if I was involved I probably still wouldn't care.

[AdminAssistant]

let me guess the cover star of goat fuckers monthly was displaying its teats for all and sundry

Oh, a joke implying that Arkansans/hillbillies are into bestiality. Gee, never heard that one before.

[Peppergirl]

To be fair, alot of homosexual bashing and racism still exists in many states, not just Arkansas.

It's unfortunate, but I honestly would not be surprised to see this in MANY states, not just the ones who suffer from often unfair stereotypes.

[AdminAssistant]

Thanks, Pepper.

As I said, I wasn't surprised about this happening in Arkansas, especially in that town (as I said, I've got family there). But I also thought, "Ho, boy, here we go again." I really wish that people back home would stop doing stupid things. And that the Duggars would move to Oklahoma or something.

FTR, at least Arkansas isn't broke!

[Eisa]

To be fair, alot of homosexual bashing and racism still exists in many states, not just Arkansas.

It's unfortunate, but I honestly would not be surprised to see this in MANY states, not just the ones who suffer from often unfair stereotypes.

*raises hand sadly*


That is so stupid. So, so stupid.

They put covers over Cosmo here.

[Peppergirl]

They put covers over Cosmo here.

Here too, love. It really is quite ridiculous, isn't it?

Consider this irony: I live in, and was born and raised in the city where Hustler mag and Larry Flynt got his start. But we cover up cosmo and drive the Mapplethorpe exhibit out of town.

Where is the ASHAMED smiley over here?

[Gravekeeper]

Pfft, like anyone on a Cosmo cover is real >.>

Joking aside, you need to be staggeringly ignorant to A) Do that in the first place and B) Not comprehend the shitstorm you invite by not realizing the world actually extends beyond your little fear sphere.

[AdminAssistant]

I've seen covers over Cosmo *here*, in my little liberal island of open-mindedness. Although, those are the ones that only cover the sides. So, you can still see who's on the cover, but it hides the "GIVE YOUR MAN THE BEST FUCKING LAY HE'S EVER HAD". I've also noticed some places that don't put Cosmo up by the checkout lines. I can actually almost understand it; preventing a 5 year old from asking Mommy, "What's a blow job??"

But, no, the happy gay couple holding the baby is the *real* threat!!

[IDrinkaRum]

Here in Northern Virginia (just a hop, skip, and a jump from DC), there are at least 2 different grocery stores (Safeway and Wegmans), who put up the full cover covers on Cosmo. Now, I haven't been to them since the US Magazine has been put up for sale, but I can tell you, Wal-Mart and Target here in my town both do NOT have the covers covering the pictures.

[blas87]

I'd rather see two responsible, classy gay men and their baby on a cover of a magazine than some photo-shopped, digitally enchanced overly skinny whorish looking woman on the cover of Maxim (what else do they feature anyway?) or some other idiot twat celebrity on Cosmo or Glamour along with their shallow and stupid "Best Sex Ever!" right at the top of the cover headlines.

[macphile]

Even assuming the sign placer believes that any child who sees gayness will instantly become gay, how would a child even know that was what this cover was "showing"? If a straight famous man were holding up his son, that'd be fine, but if a gay one did it, that'd be wrong...because apparently, children can instantly spot the difference between the two from a photo. Yeah, both men are in this photo, but I bet it would have been covered even if it were just one.

People are so weird.

[smileyeagle1021]

You know the truly funny thing, if I didn't already know who they were, I wouldn't immediately know it was a gay couple. Not knowing better I might think it was brothers, one who had just had a child and the other congratulating him. Oh, could also be friends, business partners, cousins... there is any number of situations where two men would be together with a baby other than they are a gay couple.
"think of the children" doesn't work on this one, because either the children already know who Elton John is and seeing a picture of him isn't going to change anything, or they have no idea who he is and most likely would make some sort of connection other than OMG Fags with a baby