One Million Moms Fights Gay Superheroes

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 15 NEXT
 

One million moms...Sound like horrible people.

Buretsu:

I'd love to hear what these possible effects of being gay that you'd want to avoid are...

It was point #1 of the argument I presented... plus there are other (seemingly less objectionable) reasons too. Would a parent who is afraid of their child being persecuted or bullied because they are gay be a bigot? Ironically, they might be. But in this case their bigoted notion wouldn't be about gay people (it isn't their fault if they're discriminated against); it would be that heterosexual people are bigots.

Buretsu:

How about we avoid false analogies, as obesity is preventable, and a child being gay isn't.

1) My point was about the intentions and values of parents. Whether or not you have control over something is irrelevant to whether or not you want it to happen. I might not be able to prevent an asteroid from destroying the earth, but I still sure as hell don't want it to happen. Furthermore, it is presumably people's values that make them bigots, not their actions. A person who hates homosexual people but keeps this fact entirely to themselves would still be a bigot.

2) I'm not sure how you know that homosexuality isn't somehow preventable... doesn't that fly directly in the face of the claim that it isn't a choice and that social conditions are irrelevant? Presumably those claims would imply that it has some determinate physiological or developmental cause. Plus, some forms of obesity have physiological causes beyond the control of the individual, e.g. thyroid problems. (Of course, whether or not something is preventable is distinct from the question of whether or not we should try to prevent it. I am not arguing that we should try to prevent homosexuality: I am arguing that there are other reasons aside from bigotry that would make parents want to do so.)

3) My point was that something can be intrinsically neutral while having effects that make it extrinsically negative. You don't have to hate obese people to want your children not to be obese. Someone isn't a bad person just because they are obese, but obesity isn't healthy so it might be better for them if they weren't obese. Similarly, given many unfortunate societal factors, a child may indeed be happier if they weren't gay. While it is true that it would be better if we could change society rather than the individual, parents hardly have the power to do so.

4) Now, if your point is that obesity is different from homosexuality because once someone is homosexual there is no way to turn them heterosexual, I completely agree. Parents shouldn't try to make gay children straight any more than they should constantly tell deaf children to listen or blind children to read. But the parents don't need to be bigots for it to be wrong, it's wrong because it is cruel to the child. I don't think this undermines the analogy.

So let's set up a thought experiment. It's the future like in the movie "GATTACA". Two parents are about to use in vitro fertilization and are selecting which embryos they want to implant based upon the genetic characteristics. Let's say that they both decide to reject any potential embryos that have either genetic predispositions to obesity or homosexuality (assuming for the sake of argument that there is such a thing). They reject obesity for health reasons, and homosexuality because they are afraid their children will get picked-on/discriminated against.

Do the parents 1) hate fat people, 2) hate gay people, 3) hate neither, or 4) hate both? Explain your answer. Please note that the question is whether the parents are bigots, not whether they are violating the child's rights or doing something else that is morally objectionable (which they probably are).

Buretsu:

Not wanting one's child to be gay implies that there's something wrong with being gay, something inherently undesirable about it.

My whole point was that one could want one's child not to be gay for other reasons aside from thinking that homosexuality is inherently bad. So if I interpret what you're saying correctly, you reject the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic value? That's going to lead you to some absurd conclusions.

For instance: chocolate cake has a high caloric content. If you were starving on a desert island, this would almost certainly make chocolate cake a good thing. However, if you are trying to lose weight it will almost certainly make it a bad thing. If we fail to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic good then we're led to the absurd conclusion that chocolate cake is both good and bad.

Now, if you're having some sort of knee-jerk reaction to what I'm saying, allow me to assure you once again that I am not arguing that parents ought to try to prevent their children from being homosexual. In fact, I think that they would be wrong to do so. My point is merely that they would not necessarily be bigots if they do so for certain reasons.

downsyndromechimp:
Also, trollpwner: I never said anything about morals, biblical preferences, or that I agree with OMM. For the record, I don't. I'm just waiting (or praying, if you will) that someone will find and post a logical argument in favor of their position.

Honestly, I don't think I'm asking too much here.

It's called the quote button buddy, learn to use it.

And you'd think, if we were all "potheads", bashing OMM for no reason, that it would be easy for someone to come up with a logical reason for supporting them. Why don't you do it? Oh that's right, because there's no reason to use your beliefs to attack the hapiness of others. How does the saying go? "Getting angry and gay marriage because you don't believe in it is like getting angry at someone eating a donut because you're on a diet"

Andy, my overall opinions of homosexuality aside, it would be nice if people covering this got the facts right: DC has a number of homosexual characters in operation already. They own the wildstorm imprint, Apollo and The Midnighter are both gay AND married (and got married before the Archies...) and have crossed over into DC in the past. Apparently they are also part of a version of Stormwatch that exists in the main DC universe now, and are still gay and married. On the lesbian front we have Sarah Rainmaker from Gen-13 who is also a DC character via Wildstorm, but I dont't believe she ever gained a permanant version in the main DC continuity.... and that's really the tip of the iceberg of what DC has covered, read "Sandman" sometime.

The point here is that "Million Moms" is behind the times, as is everyone covering this thing pretty much.

It also means that people should probably be sticking it to DC big time. Not so much because of wanting a gay super hero (which even with my opinions isn't that big a deal), but because it's a giant publicity stunt, and also one based on a lie. They were never going to launch the "first openly gay super hero" even in their universe because they already have gay super heroes, who are openly gay... and I'm not making that up. The new version of this, where they want to turn an iconic character gay, is just to get attention and bait this kind of thing. DC is pretty much manipulating everybody, and even those who are extremely pro-gay should be a bit miffed by this. Especially seeing as DC tends to pull these stunts and then retcon everything back to status quo in a couple of years time anyway, even if they insist they will not do that while it's going on, so it's not like an annoucement from DC here carries any wait or social inertia. The bottom line is that DC wants to get attention due to baiting gtoups like million moms, rally people to the defense of their stunt, sell tons of copies of the "coming out issue" and then say "just kidding" a couple years from now where the classic version of the character will be in force again, and there being a gay version potentially out there in some wierd alternate dimension spun off from their latest reboot that could pop up for an "oh, remember this..." once in a while will become a footnote of nerd trivia.

What I'm saying here is don't play the game. Go support the existing gay characters that generally weren't promoted as a publicity stunt. You should go buy "The Authority", or "Stormwatch" (old TPBs, or this new version launched) instead, and refuse to even acknowlege this kind of garbage while it's going on. Cheer on the million moms, and hope they trample the person who thought this up in an unexpected twist of irony. If DC gets attention and sells a ton of comics off of this, it will just get worse, and they will try and pull these kinds of strings with increasing frequency whenever they want a few bucks.

Hazy992:
''Oh noes! We can't have kids and teens reading about gay superheroes because then they might realise being gay is normal! We can't have that!''

Seriously when I read bullshit like this I can't help but be embarrassed. Future generations are gonna look back at us with shame.

Just like we do when looking back during the Civil Rights Movement.

superbatranger:

Hazy992:
''Oh noes! We can't have kids and teens reading about gay superheroes because then they might realise being gay is normal! We can't have that!''

Seriously when I read bullshit like this I can't help but be embarrassed. Future generations are gonna look back at us with shame.

Just like we do when looking back during the Civil Rights Movement.

My thoughts exactly. This attitude we have today is shameful.

ReiverCorrupter:

2) I'm not sure how you know that homosexuality isn't somehow preventable... doesn't that fly directly in the face of the claim that it isn't a choice and that social conditions are irrelevant?

No, it's completely in line with that claim. If someone is gay, they are gay. There's no way to stop, i.e. prevent, them from being gay. It's like gender or race; it's an immutable facet of their being.

3) My point was that something can be intrinsically neutral while having effects that make it extrinsically negative. You don't have to hate obese people to want your children not to be obese. Someone isn't a bad person just because they are obese, but obesity isn't healthy so it might be better for them if they weren't obese. Similarly, given many unfortunate societal factors, a child may indeed be happier if they weren't gay. While it is true that it would be better if we could change society rather than the individual, parents hardly have the power to do so.

That's still the fault of society, not the homosexual individual. Gays have the exact same inherent ability to he happy as straight people. There's a difference between being unhappy because others are making you such, and being unhappy because you dislike yourself.

4) Now, if your point is that obesity is different from homosexuality because once someone is homosexual there is no way to turn them heterosexual, I completely agree. Parents shouldn't try to make gay children straight any more than they should constantly tell deaf children to listen or blind children to read. But the parents don't need to be bigots for it to be wrong, it's wrong because it is cruel to the child. I don't think this undermines the analogy.

So let's set up a thought experiment. It's the future like in the movie "GATTACA". Two parents are about to use in vitro fertilization and are selecting which embryos they want to implant based upon the genetic characteristics. Let's say that they both decide to reject any potential embryos that have either genetic predispositions to obesity or homosexuality (assuming for the sake of argument that there is such a thing). They reject obesity for health reasons, and homosexuality because they are afraid their children will get picked-on/discriminated against.

Do the parents 1) hate fat people, 2) hate gay people, 3) hate neither, or 4) hate both? Explain your answer. Please note that the question is whether the parents are bigots, not whether they are violating the child's rights or doing something else that is morally objectionable (which they probably are).

They hate both. They're bigots, because they're rejecting a child based on naturally developed factors present in that child, factors that they feel are undesirable. But then, that's the inherent flaw with this sort of eugenics; that it can be used not only to detect and allow for the prevention of genetic illnesses and malignant traits, it could also be used for something like that.

Buretsu:

Not wanting one's child to be gay implies that there's something wrong with being gay, something inherently undesirable about it.

My whole point was that one could want one's child not to be gay for other reasons aside from thinking that homosexuality is inherently bad. So if I interpret what you're saying correctly, you reject the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic value? That's going to lead you to some absurd conclusions.

But saying that something is bad, even for extrinsic reasoning, is malicious in itself. It's only adding a qualifier to the idea that being gay is a bad thing. Saying "I don't want my child to be gay because he might get picked on" is no different from saying "I don't want my child to be smart because he might get picked on" or "I don't want my child to be black because he might be discriminated against". Intrinsic or extrinsic, you are still attributing negative qualities. You're essentially blaming the victim.

For instance: chocolate cake has a high caloric content. If you were starving on a desert island, this would almost certainly make chocolate cake a good thing. However, if you are trying to lose weight it will almost certainly make it a bad thing. If we fail to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic good then we're led to the absurd conclusion that chocolate cake is both good and bad.

I'd say that it's entirely bad. While eating a piece of chocolate cake might seem like it would stave off hunger for an immediate time, the amount of sugar and fat present in the delicious treat would likely actually decrease survivability.

Now, if you're having some sort of knee-jerk reaction to what I'm saying, allow me to assure you once again that I am not arguing that parents ought to try to prevent their children from being homosexual. In fact, I think that they would be wrong to do so. My point is merely that they would not necessarily be bigots if they do so for certain reasons.

And I'm saying that you're wrong, that no matter the reasoning that gets applied, not wanting your child to be gay is bigoted.

trollpwner:

downsyndromechimp:
Also, trollpwner: I never said anything about morals, biblical preferences, or that I agree with OMM. For the record, I don't. I'm just waiting (or praying, if you will) that someone will find and post a logical argument in favor of their position.

Honestly, I don't think I'm asking too much here.

It's called the quote button buddy, learn to use it.

And you'd think, if we were all "potheads", bashing OMM for no reason, that it would be easy for someone to come up with a logical reason for supporting them. Why don't you do it? Oh that's right, because there's no reason to use your beliefs to attack the hapiness of others. How does the saying go? "Getting angry and gay marriage because you don't believe in it is like getting angry at someone eating a donut because you're on a diet"

Well, people with religious convictions typically argue that the worldly happiness one receives from homosexual love is outweighed by going to hell, and that they are therefore doing what's best for people, whether they like it or not. Obviously most people who aren't fundamentalist Christians would question the very first presupposition: that homosexuality will send you to hell. But seeing as how it's all based on faith anyway, it's virtually impossible to convince them of anything.

Now, I'm not sure what either of you mean by "logical reason"/"logical argument" but typically those phrases just mean a valid argument (where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises) and not a sound argument (where the premises are all true). As far as it goes, the Christian's argument is valid, i.e. logical. It's just factually incorrect.

downsyndromechimp:

Hazy992:
Who said it was?

You just did. Let me show you.

Hazy999:
See the problem here is that their standpoint is just flatout wrong.

See.

No I didn't say it was wrong because it was wrong. I said it was wrong because it doesn't match up with reality. Way to quote mine there -_-

downsyndromechimp:
Now, I'm not going to get into the nature vs nurture debate right now. Let's save that for another time and, if at all possible, a venue more appropriate than a gaming website.

Nature v nurture aside, it still doesn't make it a choice.

downsyndromechimp:

hazy992:
It's called hyperbole, look it up sometime.

Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration to make a point. The phrase "I hate these people" doesn't attempt to make a point, nor do I believe it was meant as an exaggeration.

The quote 'why do we let these bigots breed' is clearly hyperbole. I thought as a conservative you'd understand that, considering you guys are always saying liberals are declaring war on everything.

downsyndromechimp:
That being said, I'm getting the sense from your post that you at least have the ability to take my challenge and show a logical argument to back up your views. Take a minute, think it through, and try again.

Logical argument to what? Why the One Million Moms are wrong? I already explained that, but I can't help it if you cherry pick and quote mine.

Speaking of quotes could you hit the quote button next time?

rolfwesselius:
And my parents still wonder why i hate religious people.

Well no, they could just wonder why you seem to hate all religious people based on them being religious, regardless of the faith and their own interpretations of it, as well as these people's own morals.

Ok, I'm just poking fun at your above statement, which, given the wording, is roughly as close minded and hateful as the OMM's statements, which I hope was not your intention. Unless it was, in which case, I hope you're only joking,trying to get a rise out of people. Because that would be much easier to accept.

O.T(ish): OMMs, why do you want almost everyone to dislike you?

this is actually the best comic book title i have seen in a while.

ReiverCorrupter:

Well, people with religious convictions typically argue that the worldly happiness one receives from homosexual love is outweighed by going to hell, and that they are therefore doing what's best for people, whether they like it or not. Obviously most people who aren't fundamentalist Christians would question the very first presupposition: that homosexuality will send you to hell. But seeing as how it's all based on faith anyway, it's virtually impossible to convince them of anything.

Now, I'm not sure what either of you mean by "logical reason"/"logical argument" but typically those phrases just mean a valid argument (where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises) and not a sound argument (where the premises are all true). As far as it goes, the Christian's argument is valid, i.e. logical. It's just factually incorrect.

Oh, I do understand their viewpoint, I.E., that following the bliefs of their religion is what everyone should do, but that doesn't mean they're not wrong.

Matt King:
on behalf of Christianity i apologize for these close minded assholes

I feel your pain too, man. It sucks when that happens. Here, wanna hug?

CAPTCHA: spangled banner

Oh fuck off.

TomLikesGuitar:
I have a completely serious question.

Why are comics suddenly so fucking obsessed with gay activism and political correctness? Both of the major comic companies have dived faced first into confronting homosexuality and it's ridiculous. There's a reason most video game protagonists are straight. Most people are straight.

That's how life is.

Why make a character gay for no reason? It's tacky. Maybe if one of them had a male antagonist who always had some slight degree of sexual tension it could be cool (think Batman and Catwoman), but otherwise it just feels like they are shoehorning political correctness into the already fully stuffed boot that is the comic industry.

Its what DC does.

Marriage used to be a hip thing (when being a single mother was frowned upon), and they did an arc for that years ago.

Gay is now "in" and they are doing an arc for that.

Every single time, they retcon the entire arc out of existence once it serves its purpose. DC isn't furthering gay rights, they are cashing in on it. They always do.

trollpwner:

ReiverCorrupter:

Well, people with religious convictions typically argue that the worldly happiness one receives from homosexual love is outweighed by going to hell, and that they are therefore doing what's best for people, whether they like it or not. Obviously most people who aren't fundamentalist Christians would question the very first presupposition: that homosexuality will send you to hell. But seeing as how it's all based on faith anyway, it's virtually impossible to convince them of anything.

Now, I'm not sure what either of you mean by "logical reason"/"logical argument" but typically those phrases just mean a valid argument (where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises) and not a sound argument (where the premises are all true). As far as it goes, the Christian's argument is valid, i.e. logical. It's just factually incorrect.

Oh, I do understand their viewpoint, I.E., that following the bliefs of their religion is what everyone should do, but that doesn't mean they're not wrong.

Matt King:
on behalf of Christianity i apologize for these close minded assholes

I feel your pain too, man. It sucks when that happens. Here, wanna hug?

CAPTCHA: spangled banner

Oh fuck off.

image
yes, yes i would like a hug

thankfully these awful "family groups" are not getting anywhere. correct me if i'm wrong but, has "one million moms" stopped anything it's set out to? i truly hope not, because everything their against i'm for: like peace, love, and understanding!

On a side note about this topic, how fitting that a group of villains like One Million Moms, are trying to fight superheroes.

I mean, who else but a villain, fights a superhero?

LilithSlave:
On a side note about this topic, how fitting that a group of villains like One Million Moms, are trying to fight superheroes.

I mean, who else but a villain, fights a superhero?

Other superheroes, some times.

LilithSlave:
On a side note about this topic, how fitting that a group of villains like One Million Moms, are trying to fight superheroes.

I mean, who else but a villain, fights a superhero?

Perhaps DC should make the One Million Moms the main villain in their next big 'event'?

Can the Justice League fight off it's greatest threat yet? ONE MILLION MOTHERS!
Seriously, does a group called "One Million Moms" sound like it would be anything BUT a professional trolling group who will slander anything on the petty basis that it's "too unwholesome for my poor innocent baby child!"? This is just a publicity stunt for the group to try their absolute hardest to seem relevant when really it's just a demonstration of how retarded and bigoted they really are.

monkeymo4d:
I wonder who it could be *looks at guy with blue and red FABULOUS tights* . But seriously its these fundamentalist busy body moms like these who give Christianity a ba-......worse name.

they truly are.

Also fundamentalist christian mom's complaining about indoctrination, the level of fail in that is painful.

Buretsu:

ReiverCorrupter:

2) I'm not sure how you know that homosexuality isn't somehow preventable... doesn't that fly directly in the face of the claim that it isn't a choice and that social conditions are irrelevant?

No, it's completely in line with that claim. If someone is gay, they are gay. There's no way to stop, i.e. prevent, them from being gay. It's like gender or race; it's an immutable facet of their being.

WOW, gender is an immutable facet of people's beings? Try telling that to transgender people. So when a person gets sexual reassignment surgery they become a different person? An interesting theory of identity, to say the least. I guess in your scenario it's not the homosexuality that you prevent, but the existence of the homosexual person. So what if someone suffers a brain injury that causes them to change their sexuality? Did they die and an entirely new person come into life to replace them?

Buretsu:

ReiverCorrupter:
3) My point was that something can be intrinsically neutral while having effects that make it extrinsically negative. You don't have to hate obese people to want your children not to be obese. Someone isn't a bad person just because they are obese, but obesity isn't healthy so it might be better for them if they weren't obese. Similarly, given many unfortunate societal factors, a child may indeed be happier if they weren't gay. While it is true that it would be better if we could change society rather than the individual, parents hardly have the power to do so.

That's still the fault of society, not the homosexual individual. Gays have the exact same inherent ability to he happy as straight people. There's a difference between being unhappy because others are making you such, and being unhappy because you dislike yourself.

I explicitly acknowledged that it is society and not the individual that is to blame in what you just quoted.

A person who is born into a famine so that they will be starving for the rest of their lives has the same inherent ability to be happy as a person who isn't (i.e. it's not their fault that there's a famine). So is it bigoted to not want to bring that person into the world? Does one thereby hate starving people?

What about clinical depression? Would parents be bigoted for trying to prevent that? Surely someone with clinical depression does NOT have the exact same inherent ability to be happy as someone who doesn't (by the very nature of depression). How about the kind of mental disorders that have both positive an negative side effects? Say, for instance, something like manic-depression where the person might be more gifted in a certain respect (e.g. it gives them greater artistic ability), but they are seemingly less happy overall? I don't think it's nearly as simple as you make it out to be.

Buretsu:

ReiverCorrupter:
They reject obesity for health reasons, and homosexuality because they are afraid their children will get picked-on/discriminated against.

Do the parents 1) hate fat people, 2) hate gay people, 3) hate neither, or 4) hate both? Explain your answer. Please note that the question is whether the parents are bigots, not whether they are violating the child's rights or doing something else that is morally objectionable (which they probably are).

They hate both. They're bigots, because they're rejecting a child based on naturally developed factors present in that child, factors that they feel are undesirable. But then, that's the inherent flaw with this sort of eugenics; that it can be used not only to detect and allow for the prevention of genetic illnesses and malignant traits, it could also be used for something like that.

So who defines 'illness'? Are you aware that there are many people in the blind and deaf communities that don't consider blindness and deafness to be illnesses? They have argued along the same lines as you that parents shouldn't be allowed to prevent deafness or blindness as it constitutes an act of passive genocide.

Another question, how do you define 'hatred'? Is it an emotion or a more general disposition? Certainly hatred is at least an emotive state. So are you saying that it would be physically impossible for a person both to chose an embryo without those traits and not feel hatred when confronted with gay people or fat people? That would be an interesting argument.

Or are you just using 'hate' in a broader sense? You could probably argue that bigotry doesn't require actual emotional hatred. If so, then we might just have different definitions of bigotry. I find implicit/unconscious prejudices to be a general form of prejudice, which is distinct from bigotry (bigotry being conscious, intentional prejudice accompanied by hatred). The former is less objectionable that outright hatred for other groups. But then some people might see them as the same. Of course, that would imply that someone with unconscious prejudices would be equivalent to a member of a hate group. Some people might find that result desirable.

Buretsu:

But saying that something is bad, even for extrinsic reasoning, is malicious in itself. It's only adding a qualifier to the idea that being gay is a bad thing. Saying "I don't want my child to be gay because he might get picked on" is no different from saying "I don't want my child to be smart because he might get picked on" or "I don't want my child to be black because he might be discriminated against". Intrinsic or extrinsic, you are still attributing negative qualities. You're essentially blaming the victim.

The whole point of extrinsic qualities is that you AREN'T saying that the thing itself is bad. You're failing to distinguish between the badness of a thing and the badness of a thing's possible consequences. A thing is not identical to its consequences.

In fact, many things can be intrinsically good, but extrinsically bad in certain circumstances. Saving someone's life could be considered an intrinsically good action, but saving Hitler's life right in the middle of WWII would have some very bad consequences. At any rate, I don't see how you're blaming the victim if you openly acknowledge that it's society's fault. Now, there are plenty of other reasons for saying that what the parents are doing is morally wrong aside from appealing to bigotry, especially in the examples you just mentioned.

Buretsu:

I'd say that it's entirely bad. While eating a piece of chocolate cake might seem like it would stave off hunger for an immediate time, the amount of sugar and fat present in the delicious treat would likely actually decrease survivability.

Lol, not if it's the only thing to eat. But you can replace it with something else if you like, such as a medicine that cures people with a certain type of illness, but would harm someone who doesn't have the illness.

Buretsu:

ReiverCorrupter:
Now, if you're having some sort of knee-jerk reaction to what I'm saying, allow me to assure you once again that I am not arguing that parents ought to try to prevent their children from being homosexual. In fact, I think that they would be wrong to do so. My point is merely that they would not necessarily be bigots if they do so for certain reasons.

And I'm saying that you're wrong, that no matter the reasoning that gets applied, not wanting your child to be gay is bigoted.

Ah, so bigotry is independent of the reasoning behind actions (aka motivations, intentions and mental states)? Now THAT, my friend, is an interesting conclusion. I can't say I agree with it. I think bigotry is necessarily tied to how people see other people, but maybe that's just a personal quirk.

they better not make the flash gay, they already done that for the new spiderman and that wrecked it for me

trollpwner:

ReiverCorrupter:

Well, people with religious convictions typically argue that the worldly happiness one receives from homosexual love is outweighed by going to hell, and that they are therefore doing what's best for people, whether they like it or not. Obviously most people who aren't fundamentalist Christians would question the very first presupposition: that homosexuality will send you to hell. But seeing as how it's all based on faith anyway, it's virtually impossible to convince them of anything.

Now, I'm not sure what either of you mean by "logical reason"/"logical argument" but typically those phrases just mean a valid argument (where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises) and not a sound argument (where the premises are all true). As far as it goes, the Christian's argument is valid, i.e. logical. It's just factually incorrect.

Oh, I do understand their viewpoint, I.E., that following the bliefs of their religion is what everyone should do, but that doesn't mean they're not wrong.

I essentially agree. I was really just pointing out a rather pedantic point about how people use the term 'logical'.

Oh well, if their attempts to stop progress for Archie didn't work then how the hell will it work for DC? And I'm pretty sure if they don't want their kids exposed to the concept of same-sex intimacy then they should just go ahead and lock them in a box in the basement (a little extreme, but I imagine it wouldn't be much worse than what the kids would already go through living with such backwards, bigoted mothers).

rolfwesselius:
And my parents still wonder why i hate religious people.

Didn't see the message of opposing intolerance in the article, did you? You're just being counter-productive here mate.

Pegghead:

rolfwesselius:
And my parents still wonder why i hate religious people.

Didn't see the message of opposing intolerance in the article, did you? You're just being counter-productive here mate.

Lol, I find it to be one of life's greatest ironies that the feeling of moral superiority so often leads to intolerance.

"Conservative Christian organisation says something retarded" HOLY SHIT! NEWS AT 11!

Can we stop acting like we're surprised everytime this happens? Getting outraged every time these people act like the raving lunatics and mongoloids that they are is equivalent to seeing a baby shitting it's diaper and shouting "LOOK EVERYONE! THERE'S A CHILD DEFECATING ITSELF!!! AREN'T YOU SHOCKED?!?!"

It's just so OLD.

When are the ten-thousand moms gonna realize that they're idiots with no influence whatsoever.
Oh wait, they're idiots, they fucking can't.

Captcha: narrow-minded. Yes they are captcha, yes they are.

ReiverCorrupter:
Lol, I find it to be one of life's greatest ironies that the feeling of moral superiority so often leads to intolerance.

Wait, how is that ironic? How could it lead to anything else? If you feel that you are in possession of the absolute moral truth, then how could you NOT be intolerant of other views?

Absolutism always, ALWAYS leads to intolerance, because it cannot lead to anything else.

OZITOMAI:
they better not make the flash gay, they already done that for the new spiderman and that wrecked it for me

Miles isn't gay, he's just black. I REALLY hope I don't need to explain the difference. He's also only in the Ultimate universe. It's also a really well written story and you should check it out so you can y'know... have a leg to stand on.

And the cherry on the cake, DC said a hero that hadn't yet been introduced into the New 52 was going to be gay, so it isn't Flash.

Not saying a WORD that a superhero being gay means you no longer like them, but just leaving this here.

OT: I like how One Million Moms doesn't seem to have over 9000 members. That's just neat.

I would so buy a comic called, "One million moms fight gay superheroes." Especially if Garth Ennis wrote it.

Andy Chalk:
One Million Moms Fights Gay Superheroes

[...]

The whole thing is beyond odious, and the suggestion that exposure to gay superheroes could somehow "indoctrinate" children into homosexuality betrays a stunning level of ignorance, fear and even hatred.

[...]

Permalink

"indoctrinate"... I don't know if people are that stupid, or so easily manipulated by media. Remember when in year 1993 Dean Hamer according to media found "gay gene" (completely disproved in 1999)? Well did anyone knew that by his own words being gay is not inheritable ("born gay" is a lie)? Did anyone knew that all biological/genetic research to being gay led nowhere? (brain shape failed, hormone balance research gave nothing, identical twins research also brought no serious correlation to theory of "born gay"). Did you knew that in nature there is no homosexual relations, but they are bisexual(no one ewer found gay animal)? Only theories that stand is that you become gay in early development of your mind. Why is that hidden and newer mentioned by media? Because that would lead to "indoctrination" theories. Gays would newer get adoption rights and no child would grow up with gay heroes.

Call me homophobic, but I stand by scientific research. If you don't, then you are just like religious zealot. And "but if everyone will be gay in future it doesn't hurt you" is bs. There already is gay rapists, and future where mental problem is considered ok is retarded.

why aren't they upset about grown mean beating the crap out of each other?

1. You don't have to go along with every continuity-thing the writers come up with. You can keep your personal interpretation if you're not a fan. If you are it sort of comes with the territory, but I doubt many of these intolerant wenches are.
2. F*** OMM, that's retarded. Opposing a comic book character being gay in case your child likes the character (who hasn't even been clarified yet) enough to be tolerant towards them? Unless they are actually that far gone that they think it would have an influence on their child's sexuality...
3. I bet there aren't even a million of the complaining bitches.
4. I just looked it up. NOWHERE NEAR IT. Someone sue for false advertising.

ReiverCorrupter:

Pegghead:

rolfwesselius:
And my parents still wonder why i hate religious people.

Didn't see the message of opposing intolerance in the article, did you? You're just being counter-productive here mate.

Lol, I find it to be one of life's greatest ironies that the feeling of moral superiority so often leads to intolerance.

Nah, I'm just sick to death of people using isolated, tenuously-linked cases like this as justification to unnecessarily voice their opinion on world religion.

MeChaNiZ3D:
4. I just looked it up. NOWHERE NEAR IT. Someone sue for false advertising.

Well to be fair to them, "Loose Gaggle of Lame Helen Lovejoy Impersonators" doesn't have the same ring to it as "One Million Moms" does.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 15 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here