Gay Character Picks Showcase DC/Marvel's Cowardice

I think it's funny all the outrage that two, TWO characters are now gay. Can somebody figure out what percent that is out of all the characters in Marvel and DC combined. If anything this article is overkill.

Strange...this is my comment from another thread from earlier.

I don't care what anyone from DC says, this is a cheap publicity stunt. If they were really trying to make a difference they should either....

A. Assign their absolute best writers and artists to a new character and really establish the groundwork around this characters life and get the readers to accept him (or her.)

B. Have a character come out of the closet that would really make an impact. Maybe a character that has always led a double life. A character that has never been married. Maybe a character that has always surrounded themselves with members of the same sex. A character that nobody can truly say they have ever known. Maybe a character like Batman.

I'll tell you why DC didn't go with a character like that. They didn't go with someone like that because if this doesn't work out and the fans don't accept (swallow this crap) this change, nobody gets hurt. They will get an initial explosion in sales from people seeing what this is all about BUT when the sales go back down (and they will) they lose nothing in the end.

Batman would have made a serious change in how readers perceive a "gay" character. If that's what DC was hoping to do, that's who they should have used. However, they didn't. Which makes this nothing more than a publicity stunt with a "sacrificial" classic character.

Is it a publicity ploy to include taboo aspects of our society into any form of entertainment?

Yes it is.

Is it about damn time they included them so that as a society we can eventually get used to being exposed to it on a regular basis?

You're goddamn right it is.

Why does everyone always refer to the media as "the liberal media"? It's been like that for decades, I don't understand, really.

Anyway, I disagree a bit with this. Batman is not gay, nor is Superman. You could reasonably assert that Superman hailing from another planet would also be some poor motivation for making him gay, considering he's obviously not human.

Alan Scott has children in the comics that I own. Now he doesn't because he is both young and gay. That is the big issue I have, and that it really promotes even LESS "tolerance" for homosexuality, as the retcon is something like a husband abandoning his family, even if that's not exactly what it is happening.

Don't make straight characters gay, and dammit, write better dialogue.

and in "kingdom come" it is implied that alan scott might be the mightiest hero in the galaxy

@batbro
I would argue that Kingdom Come is an alternate universe/reality, but.....

Everything about your article is stupid.

DC said a major character. Alan Scott is a major character. He has been around the longest of all of the GL's.

The point you are missing, is that this is a positive step. Change happens in time. It becomes more and more accepted with each step. Does it matter what triggered this step, whether its Obama or not? No, at least this step was taken.

So get off your soap box and shut up

@Tainted87:
from wikipedia:
"Considering that Scott derives his power from the Starheart, and does not need to recharge his ring as it is made of the Starheart, he is perhaps the most powerful of all the bearers of the Green Lantern mantle. Doctor Midnite has remarked that Alan Scott is perhaps more powerful than even Superman (due to its magical properties), and as such one of the most powerful beings in the universe."

This editorial piece does have a few points that I have noticed as well. I promote tolerance too but there does seem to be a very deliberate agenda at play here. It doesn't always feel sincere either. It often feels heavy handed and forced rather than portraying homosexuality as something that has always existed within humanity. These recent moves by the comic companies smell like marketing more than simply introducing these characters or story lines. Television has promoted gay lifestyles, personalities and stars in such a heavy handed way that I often ask why is there such an influx of new shows (especially reality shows) focused on some flamboyant, effeminate gay man? Every homosexual man is not that way and often the personalities border on caricature. From the editing to the situational aspects, it reads too obvious.

Back to DC/Marvel, competition between these companies has always bought about similar story lines or direction. Its just that these recent developments reek of "Look we are BOLD! We are doing our part to embrace homosexuality!" Rather than just being bold by slipping it in without the fanfare. Multi-cultural representation of comic book heroes has gotten better over the years and many are introduced without making a big deal out of it. I just hope that the stories are handled in a sincere way and not with a propagandist tone.

NickBruel: There is most definitely a liberal AND conservative media these days. What you will not find in the media anywhere, is somebody sitting there, reporting facts and then letting the people listening decide for themselves what they think about the report.

Ah conservatives can't live with them, can't live without them . . . wait, you can.

Just1Superguy- You can [frick] right off because i've ALWAYS supported gay characters in the books which is why i've always liked Northstar, Appolo and Midnighter. Twisting an already existing character into something he's never been is what i don't endorse. But i've been against the entire reboot from the start, regardless what the changes are. Aquaman was the only character that needed it IMHO.

HOLY COW, SHAME ON CBM. This is an completely abhorrent article. And it's one that is latently if not openly bigoted. It's dripping with fox news hysteria and gay panic.

Keywords: "Liberal overlords", "gay agenda", "normalize homosexuality".
READERS, THIS ALONE IS A SIGN THAT THIS GUY WATCHES TOO MUCH FOX/FREEREPUBLIC TO NOT BE A HUGE NUT

He's trying to attack DC/Marvel from the left, when obviously he's also delusional enough to believe that anything supporting gays is part of an "agenda".

Ok.

Regarding the most important argument about how "half assing" it makes them "homophobes" and cowards, I'd say it only makes them cowards at worst. But forgivable ones who took a right step, since it was many years after the civil rights movement before they added any black leading characters. So cowards, perhaps.

But homophobes? It's a huge a false equivalency here between the conservative movement which literally said (and still says) being gay is wrong, and an artistic community adding diversity to their comic universe.

(By your own paradoxical metric, how much does someone have to support gay rights before they stop being "homophobes"?)

Moreover the timing of it makes it political, duh, but this guy misses the point on this one, too. It's because there IS a national conversation on gay rights - this is a way for DC and Marvel to throw their support behind a community that is bullied at school, marginalized in society, and told they can't even visit their dying partners in the hospital for not being "family". They may not be saying "go gay marriage" like Marvel, but they certainly say that being gay is ok. (A sentiment which I doubt the editor believes, since he still refers to it as "normalizing homosexuality").

And also, why is he SO afraid of the inane gay jokes that nobody but he is making or laughing at? (Wood! Green flames!) These are very superficial. Does he realize that people who actually are gay can't, and try very hard not to, live in constant fear of this nonsense? Even if they have to suffer it in real life?

But yeah. Maybe DC/Marvel could make more prominent gay superheroes. But this is an obvious red herring for the editor's REAL point about how this whole "gay superhero" thing is nonsense altogether. His campy pictures about superman/batman kissing, the rainbow rings, they're aimed to make a mockery of a legitimate cause. Don't even pretend otherwise.

You sure as hell have "balls" to call them homophobic for adding in the gay characters you would rather not see at all.

So sick of this nonsense. I just wanted to read about comics, but now I will go elsewhere. I never wanted to write any of this, but I was seriously so offended by the inanity of this article.

oh so THIS is where the party went. and we were having so much fun on the OTHER gay thread!

well, this is my first time posting, and all i really have to say is instead of changing a character like so drastically, why not just come up with a new character. one whose history they can personally expand and develop in its own way, without getting longtime fans pissed off like that. i actually think that would be more interesting than something that feels too much like a publicity stunt.

NickBruel - you said

"Fallacy #1: That there is a "Liberal media." I believe that the very existence of FoxNews, The New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, etc., etc., etc., pretty much contradicts that point."

Really? You name 4 news outlets, with misleading 'etc's afterwards, as proof that the media isn't liberal? Try naming the liberal media outlets... here, let me start... CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NY TIMES, any LA paper, virtually every Boston, Philly, Chicago paper, AP, YAHOO, GOOGLE, most UK papers... lets see, thats about 20 to your 4... I win. What the SUCCESS of those that you named means is that the public doesn't want the liberal BULLCRAP the liberal MEDIA is feeding them. And that's the truth.

"Fallacy #2: That the Left currently controls the government. Really? The GOP runs congress ..." The Dems had both houses of Congress for the first two years of the Obama presidency, and they still control the Senate... the do nothing, including proposing or passing a federal budget for 3 years Democrat Senate! "... and has put a stranglehold on EVERY initiative Obama has put forth including even the most minor judicial appointees." Even the Dems have voted against Obama's budgets, giving him unanamous defeats twice in the last year on his proposals. As for his appointees being stonewalled... that's their job... when an incompetent president sits in the WH, it's up to Congress to protect the nation from his rule. ..."Half of the supreme court is openly Conservative. ..." and you're damn lucky they are. "... And even the so-called Leftwing of government remains beholden to bankers, lobbyists, and big money in general." That's because power corrupts, and the left are masters of corruption. open your eyes.

Just wanted to set the record straight.

Hawksblueyes- "What you will not find in the media anywhere, is somebody sitting there, reporting facts and then letting the people listening decide for themselves what they think about the report."

Actually, here in Canada, our news is considered boring for being exactly what you have described. So i guess the U.S. media gets its ratings from them choosing "sides".

I can agree with you Shaman.

Im all about creating new characters for the needed diversity. Thats why Im against the trend of changing the race of characters. We all need characters to relate to. In the absence of a group's relatable character CREATE NEW ONES. Dont take away from one group just to give to another. That is equally as wrong.

However, the difference with Alan Scott becoming gay is, in the real world, there are times when a person that is gay has a difficult time admitting it to themselves due to upbringing or whatever. They have families of their own, believe they are straight for a while etc. And eventually they discover who they truly are. The way I view Alan Scott, even looking at the Golden Age, is perhaps he was one of those that had a hard time with it at first. So essentially he couldve ALWAYS been gay and he never came to terms with it so we just didnt know it.