|
|
| Posted: 13 Feb 2009 16:12 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I almost think I shouldn't post this because I know how big a deal it becomes, but that's what this site is for. To get things off your chest.
From the BBC story has been posted everywhere.
Quote:
Batwoman is to make her comic comeback as an openly gay superhero.
DC Comics writer Greg Rucka told Comic Book Resources she was "a lesbian socialite by night and a crime-fighter by later in the night".
Her appearance coincides with a battle in Gotham City to take over Batman's cowl after he was seemingly killed off in November.
Batwoman and her alter ego, Kath Kane, will appear in at least 12 issues of Detective Comics from June.
"We've been waiting to unlock her - it's long overdue," Rucka said.
"Yes, she's a lesbian. She's also a redhead. It is an element of her character. It is not her character. If people are going to have problems with it, that's their issue. That's certainly not mine," he added.
Rucka admitted the hero's sexuality would cause some controversy saying: "I think there is going to be some media - I can't control it.
"You've got to remember, Wonder Woman got a haircut and that became news. So it will be what it is. Our job is to make the best issues of Detective that we can."
Batwoman was originally introduced to the DC comic world in 1956 as a love interest for Batman and has made cameo appearances in the comic series.
She was first outed by her creators in 2006 as a former lover of Gotham City police detective Renee Montoya and her elevation to alpha superhero has been celebrated by gay rights groups.
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation praised DC for their efforts to diversify their characters.
Attention to
Quote:
Rucka admitted the hero's sexuality would cause some controversy saying: "I think there is going to be some media - I can't control it.
Yeah right. Obvious media circus stunt. Batwoman has been gay for 2-3 years already.
I don't have to tell you I don't believe comics should have this kind of crap in it. At the very least I would think and hope they rate it as not for kids or teens. But they won't I'm sure. I just grew up in a time where kids and grownups could read comics. Shouldn't be ashamed to show your mother what your are reading.
And I'll save you the trouble if somebody is thinking this. Yes, I'm and old fashioned, narrow minded bigoted opinionated old man. Well I'm not really old.
But what really gets me going is, yesterday, I heard several times that they are trying to say Abe Lincoln might be gay. Why because he supposedly shared a bed with a man for 4 years whom he was a friend to. Hello, back then men shared beds and thought it was ethical because back then it was only unethical for an unmarried man to share a bed with an unmarried woman. Obviously a lack of understanding as to the thought processes of early Americans.
I just thought to myself what's next? Gay transformers. More than meets the eye. Robot at night, hair dresser by night. That should be popular. The robot action figure girls and boys can play with.
Let's rewrite classic TV too. Didn't you always know Gilligan and the Skipper were gay?
The media has gay on the brain. That's all they think about, and if you try to look the other way eventually you'll find it aggravating your senses like a dripping faucet in the middle of the night.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 20 Feb 2009 10:18 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 257
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
|
Quote:
Shouldn't be ashamed to show your mother what you're reading. I'd say you're the one with issues if a gay character in a book embaresses you.Quote:
Yes, I'm an old fashioned, narrow minded bigoted opinionated old man. Step 1 is admitting you have a problem. Quote:
Abe Lincoln might be gay. I doubt it. From everything I've ever heard, and I'm no expert on the subject, Abe had jungle fever. Quote:
The media has gay on the brain. You're the one with gay on the brain. Are there gay people in the world? Yes. So of course there are gonna be gay characters in literature and TV. Were there gay people before the 1980s? Yes. So it makes sense that people might speculate about an important historic figures sexuality.
|
| Posted: 20 Feb 2009 15:53 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
No it doesn't make sense. What makes sense is sticking to the history based on the evidence not trying to rewrite it so it fits today's agenda.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 20 Feb 2009 18:29 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Gay comic characters as a tactic to sell books is even repellant to me but having a character in a book be gay isn't even a real issue. The BBC was probably wrong to run that story-but what else do we expect from mainstream media these days?
Tim, as for you-don't buy the book. Your problem solved.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 20 Feb 2009 19:56 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
As for comics I think comics should stick with stories that don't stick it to people of one political or spiritual frame of mind over another. Just make stories kids and grownups can read that average people can relate to. Certain subjects just shouldn't be put in a format that was once something safe to give a kid to read.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 20 Feb 2009 22:15 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Kids don't read comics anymore Tim-not anywhere near the way they did when we were kids. I'm not sure trying to protect them from something they're not even looking at is really an adequate defense. There's also nothing proven about seeing a gay character endangering a young mind either.
As for this:
Quote:
people of one political or spiritual frame of mind over another.
Politics and spirituality and sexuality and quirks and vices are all part of the composite that makes up interesting characters. Long gone are the days when you would just have a bad guy get beat up by a good guy without the fight or those characters being fleshed out in the slightest. The artform is too evolved now to NOT include a character's philosophy, whether that includes their politics or spirituality, not to mention anything else that leans toward making that character at least memorable or unique if not more 'real'.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 21 Feb 2009 01:57 |
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 474
Join Date: Aug 2008
|
|
Quote:
Were there gay people before the 1980s? Yes. So it makes sense that people might speculate about an important historic figures sexuality.
True, gay people did exist before the 80s, but there were none in comic books.
__________________"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
- Ronald Reagan
|
| Posted: 21 Feb 2009 16:25 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 257
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
|
Quote:
but there were none in comics Because they've only just begun to attain a level of acceptance in the last 20 years. I heard Reagan was gay. He and Rock Hudson back in the 50's had an affair. While Nancy was with Sinatra.
|
| Posted: 21 Feb 2009 17:35 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Don't be nuts spockman you just make my point for me. Look as far as comics go they should go back to focusing on general markets. That means reach the average person. Put the comics back into newstands and supermarkets. Heck at least make a deal with Walmart.
Kids don't need to read stories with gay junk in it anymore than they need to read about prostitution or sex in general. The line of decency and morality needs to be pushed way back especially for kids.
I remember when I was a kid there was a sense that the good guys were really good characters that may have been flawed especially in the Marvel Universe, but they still were characters of high morals. They were in a sense role models with funny costumes. That aspect of the superhero is what I've always considered part of what makes them so interesting. That kid I used to be in the 70's and 80's still lives deep within and that is one of the reasons I still enjoy comics today. For the sake of those old characters that stood for truth, justice, and the american way I make that trip to the comic shop. Not because I'm so amazed by the gritty darkness and reality that today's comics provide. If anything I want to escape the darkness of reality. I suppose that's why I always go looking for the older comics first before I see what's new.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 23 Feb 2009 06:08 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 257
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
|
Quote:
Kids don't need to read stories with gay junk in it anymore than they need to read about prostitution or sex in general. What exactly is 'gay junk'? And why do you try to equate it with sex and prostitution? Quote:
really good characters that may have been flawed but they still were characters of high morals. So a gay character automatically doesn't have high morals?
|
| Posted: 23 Feb 2009 22:39 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Uh no he doesn't. When I say high morals I mean high morals. No smoking, drinking, gambling or otherwise.
Now Wolverine is cool and I know he smokes, drinks, and all, but there was a time when kid heroes would never dream of such.
You and I are on different planets. For one you don't see morality the same because you are obviously not a Christian. Second I really believe you haven't had the benefit of being on this planet as long as I have and really don't have that big of a frame of reference to know anything about morality. All you have to compare today's moral standards by is today's moral standards. You just haven't been around long enough to know better. And believe it or not that's not meant as a slam. That's just the facts. Wisdom comes with time.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 24 Feb 2009 11:30 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 257
Join Date: Mar 2008
|
|
You're too much Tim.
|
| Posted: 24 Feb 2009 13:33 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Morality...wasn't there a huge thread about that somewhere....?
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 24 Feb 2009 15:36 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
When you get as old as I am you only remember the things that happened 20 years ago.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 09 Nov 2009 22:28 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
On the Gay Abe Lincoln, that's pretty specious,the case for James Buchanan being gay was far stronger (most notably it was a rumor at the time) but there too it's mostly just gossip and inuendo.
That being said, it doesn't detract from the man if he did enjoy the company of other men. He would be no less the great emancipator even if he himself were in the closet.
And to that end, Gay superheroes. They aren't new, and they aren't common, but like actual gay people they do exist. Just as everntually someone realized eventually a blackman might one day be at a nuclear testing facility when something goes horribly wrong, so too have people realized that gay people likewise might get bitten by various radioactive ivertibrates.
As to putting an adults only lable on it, I think a lot of comics probably should come with those. Heterosexual heroes are always jumping in and out of the sack, and perhaps kids don't need to see that. But as far as a gay character being inherintly more offensive than a hetero character, I don't see it.
Now yes, I'm a relativly young man (35) so perhaps my heads all just full of hippie nonesense, but when I get to the brass tacks of it, I can see keeping kids from sex if you must, but I no more see a point in keeping them from sexual orientation than I do keeping them from racial diversity.
They will eventually meet a black person, just as they will eventually meet a gay person and maybe even a jew. It would be best if the child had a point of refernce other than their bawdy uncles jokes for these people when the time comes.
|
| Posted: 11 Nov 2009 00:12 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I'm 38 so I don't understand where you got all your hippie nonsense. Were you asleep in the 80's or were you raised by Jane Fonda?
Kidding. Seriously, don't get mad. I like to kid.
I think one's perspective has a lot to do with how and where one was raised. To me gay means a sexual perverted act. It's not like black on a man's skin or red, white, or whatever. It's not even like short or tall. It's an action, a verb, not primarily an adjective as people use it.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 11 Nov 2009 17:28 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Well...it wasn't that long ago those who mixed races were considered equally perverted.
I guess growing up in the 80's is all about perspective. To me, the bawdiness of the 70's bled over into the early 80's and that lead to my rather libertarian social views.
If it doesn't cause me or my family stress, what do I care what people do in their bedrooms?
Obviously it's all about prespective...I mean really Superman's not even Human, so how is it that people don't raise an eyebrow to Lois Lane's beastiality?
If we turn a blind eye to that sort of thing I don't see much wrong with Hulkling and Wiccan bating eyelashes at one another.
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2009 20:42 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
what do I care what people do in their bedrooms Well I don't never go around asking people that's for sure, but it's kind of hard to overlook when they decide they need to change laws, change school book curriculum, and prance around in parades all the time. Otherwise I'd never know the difference. If people just wanted to be left alone to do their own thing then they should just keep to themselves and hush about it.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2009 23:36 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Well the problem Tim, is that there are certain legal rights that they would like to recieve in aknowledgement of their living arrangement that are currently denied them.
And you Tim, if you just gave them their rights they'd probably stop parading around. And as far as curriculum goes, I don't think much needs to change. I don't recall reading anything in my health books about how it's fine for interracial couples to marry, so I can't see why anyone would take the time to point out that it's o.k. for gay couples to marry. The law is the law, and beyond that needs no mention.
So there you go Tim. Give civil rights to gay people and you may never need to know they exist again.
|
| Posted: 13 Nov 2009 22:10 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
ertain legal rights that they would like to recieve in aknowledgement of their living arrangement
Name some things.
Quote:
And you Tim, if you just gave them their rights they'd probably stop parading around. Heck far I'm just a poor old country boy trying to eek out a meager living. Who knew I was taking rights away from other people by having opinions.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 15 Nov 2009 00:44 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Rights include, end of life decisions, inheritence, and mergeing of assets, income, and debt.
No, as I said, you have every right to your bigotry just as I'm entitled to mine (dang francophones). The question isn't should people be bigots, but should the state endorse their bigotry through it's laws. This include popular forms of bigotry, such as laws forbiding the protection of the state and it's instution from groups who are doing nothing illegal.
|
| Posted: 15 Nov 2009 00:45 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Oh, and steve, North Star was in comics in the 80's he was just in the closet. 
|
| Posted: 19 Nov 2009 22:44 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
But the real question is who decides what is bigotry and what is just a difference of opinion. As we of course have shown folks can really disagree on these matters. Is it really fair for you to label anything I disagree with you on as being bigoted? I don't mean to say you are trying to be unfair just that it seems to be a big liberal tactic. Somebody disagrees. Label them as a bigot.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 20 Nov 2009 18:58 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
The differnce is if you make assumptions about a person based on a single factor of their existence.
Such as "gay people are perverted". That's bigoted, a differnce of opinion is, one person says John Smith is perverted, and another disagrees.
You see, when you treat people as you know, people, that's not bigoted, when you treat them as groups, then you know, you're a bigot.
Now as always you are entitled to bigotry, and you can feel free to skip those books with gay people in them, just as stores sent the issues of Lobo (the first african american comic character with his own book) from the 60's back to the publisher unopened.
|
| Posted: 23 Nov 2009 23:40 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Ok, I only think that guys that kiss other guys are perverted. Or girls that kiss other girls. Does that make it not bigoted?
And as far as black characters in comics or TV. I really don't remember ever in my life ever thinking twice about it. I watched Good Time, Roots, A-team, read Power Man and Iron Fist. All that stuff. Never crossed my mind for a second.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 24 Nov 2009 18:26 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Funny you should bring up kissing. The cause for a gay Lincoln has to do with the fact that he repeatedly refernces kissing and embracing his good friend with whom he shared a bed for a number of years.
So by your definition of perversion, the media's thoughts about Lincoln are correct. Now perhaps you could say it was a differnt time and men kissed and embraced back in the gay 1800's. And while that's true, then it's not the action you are objecting to but what you assume about the people, and that is where you cross the line into bigotry.
But it's again o.k. to be a bigot, it is a protected american right as central to our way of life as freedom of assembly and the right to bare arms. I just think people should be honest about their opinions. I forexample am very bigoted against bigots, but I understand that society tolerates bigotry in many forms, and it's up to me to live my life among them. I don't try to discriminate against bigots, and hope that when raising my children I can teach them that just because society accepts bigots, that it's not an acceptable lifestyle in my opinion.
Bigots and gay people, and every other group in america deserve access to the same rights, that I as an acceptable american have access to. That means that when two bigots love one another, and as disgusting as their household may be, as horrified as I may be for the children raised in such a home, I can't see any reason for the state to deny them the rights I enjoy as an acceptable american.
Despite the fact that they are bigots, there is no differnce in my home and theirs. If the state mandates what is and is not an acceptable american, who is to say that it won't decide I'm not acceptable tomorrow.
|
| Posted: 25 Nov 2009 18:09 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I think you try to hard to label people bigots. Reminds me of the pharisees in the Bible that went out of their way to label others sinners.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 25 Nov 2009 19:57 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
If we are indeed all sinners, which even I agree with based on the definition of sinner that's being used, they didn't have much work at all.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 25 Nov 2009 20:01 Last Edited By: Matches |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Or the way evangelicals go out of their way in modern times to lable other people sinners. gotcha! 
You know, to get away from the sinner and bigot lines. Let's just ask this question. Should the government care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home? Should the state care what legal activities are engaged in in the pressence of minors?
You know to me, the whole gay rights issue has far less to do with any particular interest in homosexuals, but just that I recognize how easy it is for lines to be drawn and to rapidly find yourself on the wrong side of them.
If the mental health community still held homosexuals as mentally disturbed, if the courts still held that homosexual activity was against the law. If the world were anything other than what it is, I wouldn't likely feel as strongly as I do. I am at my core a conservative, but conservative shouldn't mean standing still, mearly reasoned deliberate movement (left or right) on any issue. There are a lot of issue right now that the right could stand some rational deliberate movement on, but reactionaries are trying to keep the right stationary.
As I've said, you have every right to have what ever opinion on gay people that you want. But the law shouldn't be about your or my opinions. The law should be about equal treatment for people in equal situations. It shouldn't matter if it's a white guy turned down for a job because he's white or a black guy turned down for a job because he's black. Regardless of anything else these people aren't being treated equally.
If the state says two consenting adults can establish a domestic relationship and receive certain benefits of it, why should the state deny the right to people in similar situations based on a unique moral judgement unrealted to law or science?
I think we need the state to be impartial, because if we allow it to make choices based on one groups moral opinions, how quickly till we are called the sinners and banned from public life?
|
| Posted: 25 Nov 2009 23:13 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I go out of my way to label actions as sin. I try not to point at particular individuals, but then again we are all guilty of judging others at times aren't we?
Quote:
Should the state care what legal activities are engaged in in the pressence of minors?
Uh well I hope even straight couples don't have sex in front of kids.
Quote:
I am at my core a conservative, but conservative shouldn't mean standing still
I believe in using common sense based on the situation. Situations change, but right and wrong do not. Therefore I at times might seem like I'm progressive but it's only a different argument or situation being addressed. Over all I believe what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. Period.
Again it's not about discrimination. A gay person can hold the same job a white guy or a black guy can unless it's in a church and even then if he keeps his mouth shut about it most likely. If this gay lifestyle is about personal freedom then shouldn't it be kept quite? It's not what people do in their own privacy that upsets us conservatives that much anyway. It's what they do in front of the whole world, and the laws they try to change that effect the whole world.
Problem I see with your logic is it's stuck in the last couple of decades as if you were born only 15 years ago. My view is based on common sense from history. You look at old fashioned views as outdated. I don't. Like years ago in old movies if a guy said something about marrying another guy. That was a joke. He might have gotten some laughs. Nobody ever thought in a million years a guy would ever want to marry another guy. That was considered preposterous. The thing that bugs me about this liberal view of yours. You seem to think that your view is automatically superior to any view held in the previous generations because you can prove they had some bad beliefs to go along with those good views. Not considering even for a moment that you yourself could be mistaken. Or thinking just what will the next generation of liberals think about your views. Are you going to call your current ideology ridiculous in another 20 years? If your moral beliefs can change based on the decade you live then it's not worth a whole lot.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
|
