Why pick this guy though? He married twice and had two kids from his first marriage. Granted that's from a different continuity, but you'd think that would cross over.
That's not a very scientific view point and I wouldn't suggest using a small sample size as a way for you to prove what gay people think, even with that qualifier in there. You may not have intended it in this way but this has come off in such a way that you seem to be trying to use this as a way of supporting your view with evidence backing it up but also saying that it isn't either. It almost looks wishy washy. I'd recommend being clearer in what you type to actually show what you mean and not putting in your personal testing there unless it's actually been done as a proper study.
Lol. Yes, because clearly by saying that I "tested some of them on it" I meant that I had conducted an experiment with strict social-scientific methodology. [/sarcasm] (Also, lol at the phrase "strict social-scientific methodology".)
When I said that "I tested some of them on it" I meant that I engaged someone in a conversation in order to tease out the exact implications of their views. Hence I did not "test" the entire population of the escapist to see what percentage of them held these views, but instead I "tested" the views of particular individuals in order to draw out their presuppositions. If I had meant that I conducted a statistical analysis of the viewpoints of members of the escapist forums I would have said something completely different. But I do apologize as I can see how the term "test" can send people all aflutter with assumptions of scientific pretense on the part of the author. "Made them explicate their views" would have probably been a better phrase. I do hope that clears up any confusion you may have experienced, gentle reader.
Or perhaps you mean to reject all forms of commonsense inductive reasoning from personal experience as illegitimate or "wishy-washy"? If so, you should realize that this would likely cripple the day-to-day activities of your average human being, who relies heavily upon non-scientific inductive inferences from past experience. I was claiming that Bluecho should be prepared for some people to quote him and tell him that one cannot disapprove of homosexuality without being a bigot, not that this would definitely happen. And I'd say I have reasonable evidence to make this inference considering two people responded to some of my previous posts and argued that exact point. Notice that I did not say anything about the probability of it happening because I didn't have enough evidence to support any such probability. Just look at the last sentence of my post:
ReiverCorrupter: Let's see if the people in this thread return the favor...
So sure, if that's "wishy-washy" by your standards then I was making a wishy-washy claim. But I don't see anything wrong with "wishy-washy" in that sense, so perhaps someone who criticizes others for vague terminology shouldn't use phrases like "wishy-washy" in the process. ;P
Wishy washy was a teasing term meant to be used to lessen the seriousness of what I said so offense would not be taken to my comment. It's also a teasing based on how unclear previous statements were. I did have to take your term of test more literally than I would most people though as when I've come across people talking about homosexuality in particular when they say they've tested other specifically they do tend to mean that their small amount of "testing" is as legitimate as what an actual study may find. If this were another subject where people talked about testing and didn't mean it seriously so often as I've come across I wouldn't be addressing you about this at all.
That doesn't make wholly excusable as an assumption to make, but hopefully that explains where it came from and why I addressed it as I did in the first place.
Also, I'm sorry for my other reply to you since I think I may have fundamentally misunderstood some of the things you were saying and my reply is probably very confusing.
(Oh, and I don't think there was any confusion on my part. I didn't assume that you belonged to any of my hypothetical groups and I was arguing against them, not you. I tend to argue in hypotheticals, which often gives people the mistaken impression that I'm committing them to a straw man position when I'm actually just trying to elucidate all the possible positions one might take in an argument. I'm certainly not assuming that you would want the government to rule in favor of the diocese in the example I just gave.)
Not the reply I meant and I may be reading this wrong as it is late o'clock but I didn't mean to imply that there was any confusion on your part, I put it specifically on my part for a reason. And no, you're very clearly arguing in hypotheticals and not using strawman arguments. Strawman arguments tend not to explore things or go into as much detail about differing sides as you have.
What I misunderstood was the nature of something else you were talking about which is covered above.
ReiverCorrupter: snip ... So sure, if that's "wishy-washy" by your standards then I was making a wishy-washy claim. But I don't see anything wrong with "wishy-washy" in that sense, so perhaps someone who criticizes others for vague terminology shouldn't use phrases like "wishy-washy" in the process. ;P
Wishy washy was a teasing term meant to be used to lessen the seriousness of what I said so offense would not be taken to my comment. It's also a teasing based on how unclear previous statements were. I did have to take your term of test more literally than I would most people though as when I've come across people talking about homosexuality in particular when they say they've tested other specifically they do tend to mean that their small amount of "testing" is as legitimate as what an actual study may find. If this were another subject where people talked about testing and didn't mean it seriously so often as I've come across I wouldn't be addressing you about this at all.
That doesn't make wholly excusable as an assumption to make, but hopefully that explains where it came from and why I addressed it as I did in the first place.
Lol. Don't worry about it, I knew where you were coming from. I was just returning the favor. (Notice the emboldened thing at the end of my post.)
Im confused. Judging from their "Reboot" movie they made few years ago, he seemt not only heterosexual, but quite a sex addict, you know, one of those quagmire types but not really overboard yet. and not they announce he is gay. I got ntohing about it being gay, its just that its totally ignoring the movie (bad as it was).
I'm still confused by people who say that this change fucks up all the previously established canon.
If this a new continuity, then WTF is the problem? He might not even have a wife or son.
If he does, then explore that within the context of rebooted universe. Maybe instead of Green Lantern struggling to accept a son who's gay, we could have a son who struggles to accept a father who is gay.
Strazdas: Im confused. Judging from their "Reboot" movie they made few years ago, he seemt not only heterosexual, but quite a sex addict, you know, one of those quagmire types but not really overboard yet. and not they announce he is gay. I got ntohing about it being gay, its just that its totally ignoring the movie (bad as it was).
The Green Lantern in that film is Hal Jordan, the one we're talking about in this thread is Alan Scott (the original).
Almost got it. Was pretty sure it would be Green Lantren considering it's probably the easiest of all heroes to do with as there was just so many of them. But going with such obscure one? Meh.
Hm.. Hm... Thinking... Nope, don't really care. Though, it is somewhat interesting, how DC just decided to piss off a religious group (Comics: 1, Religion: 0) and introduce an existing character as homosexual. I don't know why they did it - to expand on that character, or simply for the giggles, or something along those lines.
Awww, that's so cute. DC still thinks homosexuality is a talking point. Yes, yes, we see the men kissing. How liberal of you. Can you get back to writing your comics now?
Can you hear us, DC, all the way back there in the 80's?
Clive Howlitzer: People still consider it shocking when someone is gay? Why is this news?
What they want you to think: because it's about time we, the gay community, got a superhero rolemodel and it's a big step towards homosexuality been accepted!
The truth: because DC are fuckwits and being edgy is easier than actually writing with purpose. Also, because people dumb enough to believe the former (what they want you to think) will praise DC and talk about it like a fucking revolution, thus increasing sales.
They couldn't have just wrote a character's sexuality into the story naturally. Nooo. They had to make a big deal out of it like anyone gives a fuck and go "guys, guys, look! We totally have a gay hero! Check it out!" Yeah, shouting and carrying on about it really shows how much you don't care about other people's sexuality, doesn't it. It's like one of those useless sods that always reminds everyone how "okay" with gay people they are and how many "gay friends" they have.
One step towards homosexuality being a non-issue? Try a thousands backwards and away from it being seen as mundane as heterosexuality
Grey Day for Elcia: Awww, that's so cute. DC still thinks homosexuality is a talking point. Yes, yes, we see the men kissing. How liberal of you. Can you get back to writing your comics now?
Can you hear us, DC, all the way back there in the 80's?
I'm afraid DC can't hear you over their rising stock portfolio (God bless Reaganomics), lime green pants, massive hair and the trilling sound of Erasure :P.
BUT i think slow, awkward, token progress is still progress. The US has seen the ugly specter of extreme homophobia on a state level so i still think keeping relatable gay characters in fiction is still a necessary idea, if a slightly corny one now. At least people realize that maybe their entirely heterosexual fictional world may be a little unrealistic.
Scrumpmonkey: At least people realize that maybe their entirely heterosexual fictional world may be a little unrealistic.
Who said any of the heroes was hetero? Unless they've actually said they are straight, there's no reason to assume they aren't bi, gay or otherwise queer.
I am so sick of people caring about sexuality, I could puke. /rant
Scrumpmonkey: At least people realize that maybe their entirely heterosexual fictional world may be a little unrealistic.
Who said any of the heroes was hetero? Unless they've actually said they are straight, there's no reason to assume they aren't bi, gay or otherwise queer.
I am so sick of people caring about sexuality, I could puke. /rant
So if people don't ask, they won't tell :P
To be honest i have trouble seeing your point. Sexuality is still a massive dividing issue in the US and so its hard NOT to care about sexuality one way or another. Personally i think the wholesale attack on gay rights by some states is pretty disgusting and warps the legal rights of all non married couples.
Wow, they're really make a big deal outta this whole gay thing. It does kinda seem stupid to change a character that wasn't previously gay. Why didn't they just make a newer, flashier... gayer green lantern, instead of using an-
Scrumpmonkey: At least people realize that maybe their entirely heterosexual fictional world may be a little unrealistic.
Who said any of the heroes was hetero? Unless they've actually said they are straight, there's no reason to assume they aren't bi, gay or otherwise queer.
I am so sick of people caring about sexuality, I could puke. /rant
So if people don't ask, they won't tell :P
To be honest i have trouble seeing your point. Sexuality is still a massive dividing issue in the US and so its hard NOT to care about sexuality one way or another. Personally i think the wholesale attack on gay rights by some states is pretty disgusting and warps the legal rights of all non married couples.
It's all just so draining and idiotic. One side thinks what two or more adults feel or share together is any of their fucking business and the other side won't shut up about what they do in private. I'm just so over the whole thing. I don't give a flying shit who you love or who you wanna do the dirty with or how (so long as they are an adult and consent, blah, blah, blah) and no one else should either. That this little stunt is "necessary" is just salt on my aching wound of not giving a shit.
Why can't people just not care? What in sanity's name is stopping people from waking up tomorrow and going "oh hey, who gives a fuck what sexuality someone describes themselves as?" Are you gay? I don't care. Are you straight? I don't give a crap. Something else? Zero shits are given. In the most non-narcissistic way possible... why can't people just be like me in this regard?
Sorry for ranting in your direction. Nothing against you. You seem quite nice. I am just so, so, so, so over sexuality being an issue. Could you tell? :P
ruthaford_jive: Wow, they're really make a big deal outta this whole gay thing. It does kinda seem stupid to change a character that wasn't previously gay. Why didn't they just make a newer, flashier... gayer green lantern, instead of using an-
Whatever... don't care.
You assume he was hetero and then use the phrase "gayer" as an adjective. Hardly progressive.
ruthaford_jive: Wow, they're really make a big deal outta this whole gay thing. It does kinda seem stupid to change a character that wasn't previously gay. Why didn't they just make a newer, flashier... gayer green lantern, instead of using an-
Whatever... don't care.
You assume he was hetero and then use the phrase "gayer" as an adjective. Hardly progressive.
Well, it's the original green lantern we're talking about here, who (as the article states was made in the 1940s) and though it's possible he was gay at that time, I highly doubt the creators intention was for him to be gay. So, yes, I am assuming he was hetero, but it's not like I was going way out on a limb with that one.
Hardly progressive? What are you talking about? My intent wasn't to be progressive for the sake of being progressive. Being gay is gayer than not, so the word applies. Though it was a bad attempt at humor, so you're probably looking into my comment too much.
ProtonGuy: You know what bothers me? Having gay pride shoved in my face all the fucking time. I have a best friend who is gay, but that doesn't bother me, why? Because he doesn't remind me every two freaking seconds! What really pisses me off is the shitting on decades worth of continuity, so fuck off DC I'm just going to read IDW's G.I. Joe, and Ninja Turtles until you can stop pulling prom queen publicity stunts.
There is no decades worth of continuity. It's a reboot. New 52, you might have heard of it. Caused quite a stir about 10 months ago.
Strazdas: Im confused. Judging from their "Reboot" movie they made few years ago, he seemt not only heterosexual, but quite a sex addict, you know, one of those quagmire types but not really overboard yet. and not they announce he is gay. I got ntohing about it being gay, its just that its totally ignoring the movie (bad as it was).
Called it, makes sense, if maybe a not as iconic a character as Dc lead people to believe. Though it is going to be funny when people keep asking me (the one comic book geek) if Hal Jordan's gay. It's going to be "I heard Peter Parker is black now" all over again.
Also those still saying Aquaman have no clue. Smoking hot wife for one thing. Wonder Woman would have made sense though, there's even been hints of it since in her title recently.
SomeBritishDude: Called it, makes sense, if maybe a not as iconic a character as Dc lead people to believe. Though it is going to be funny when people keep asking me (the one comic book geek) if Hal Jordan's gay. It's going to be "I heard Peter Parker is black now" all over again.
Also those still saying Aquaman have no clue. Smoking hot wife for one thing. Wonder Woman would have made sense though, there's even been hints of it since in her title recently.
You never know they could still pull wonder woman out of the closet anytime they want.
They were cool. All of the 1940s WW2 superheroes and their families hanging out fighting evil and training the next gen of heroes.
the Reboot erased all that and now we have less interesting stories.
Instead of Alan Scott ((AKA the Green Lantern We're talking about))being this elder statesman, one of the first Real Superheroes in the DCU learning to live with his son being a gay superhero, DC just up and Retcons the character away and makes him gay instead.
Strazdas: Im confused. Judging from their "Reboot" movie they made few years ago, he seemt not only heterosexual, but quite a sex addict, you know, one of those quagmire types but not really overboard yet. and not they announce he is gay. I got ntohing about it being gay, its just that its totally ignoring the movie (bad as it was).
i was kinda suspicious about this change, but now i'm fully for it because i'm worried if i say against it i'll be roped in with One Million Moms, and i'd much rather support of gay superhero than be associated with those bigots
thiosk: Man, and I was sure it would be matter eater lad.
snip
Was that a real comic?
Never doubt the stuff superhero comics will come up with.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
thiosk: Man, and I was sure it would be matter eater lad.
snip
Was that a real comic?
Never doubt the stuff superhero comics will come up with.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
This is all very much canon.
So Spiderman was sexually molested by a gay man earlier in his life.
I wonder if they'll cover this part of his past in that upcoming Amazing Spiderman movie.
Never doubt the stuff superhero comics will come up with.PHA+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZXAudGMvcHJvYmxlbXMvZmlmdGVlbi8wMi5qcGciIGFsdD0iaW1hZ2UiLz48YnIgLz48aW1nIHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy5lcC50Yy9wcm9ibGVtcy9maWZ0ZWVuLzAzLmpwZyIgYWx0PSJpbWFnZSIvPjxiciAvPjxpbWcgc3JjPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LmVwLnRjL3Byb2JsZW1zL2ZpZnRlZW4vMDQuanBnIiBhbHQ9ImltYWdlIi8+PGJyIC8+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZXAudGMvcHJvYmxlbXMvZmlmdGVlbi8wNS5qcGciIGFsdD0iaW1hZ2UiLz48YnIgLz48aW1nIHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy5lcC50Yy9wcm9ibGVtcy9maWZ0ZWVuLzA2LmpwZyIgYWx0PSJpbWFnZSIvPjxiciAvPjxpbWcgc3JjPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LmVwLnRjL3Byb2JsZW1zL2ZpZnRlZW4vMDcuanBnIiBhbHQ9ImltYWdlIi8+PGJyIC8+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZXAudGMvcHJvYmxlbXMvZmlmdGVlbi8wOC5qcGciIGFsdD0iaW1hZ2UiLz48YnIgLz48aW1nIHNyYz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy5lcC50Yy9wcm9ibGVtcy9maWZ0ZWVuLzA5LmpwZyIgYWx0PSJpbWFnZSIvPjxiciAvPjxpbWcgc3JjPSJodHRwOi8vd3d3LmVwLnRjL3Byb2JsZW1zL2ZpZnRlZW4vMTAuanBnIiBhbHQ9ImltYWdlIi8+PC9wPg==
This is all very much canon.
So Spiderman was sexually molested by a gay man earlier in his life.
I wonder if they'll cover this part of his past in that upcoming Amazing Spiderman movie.
As a part of a stunt of a level never before seen, Marvel and DC have made an agreement to merge their movie universes and Peter Parker's youth's mystery molestor will turn out to be The Green lantern.
They're pulling a double cross on us. They're making us think they're aiming for increased social acceptance of gays, but they're actually allied with One million moms to make gays out as evil sodomites. It will all become clear in the upcoming Spiderman movie.
PunkRex: I wish they'd stop BEATING ROUND THE BUSH and make Wounder Women a lesbian *teehee* still, Green Lantern, thats impressive on their part.
They sorta already mentioned this. In one WW comic, she decides to romance her new partner, and she tells him that she's having to adapt her people's culture to romance with a man, because it's normally done between two women. She may be Bi, but since Paradise Island is all-female only, apparently all the romances there are between two women.
Best of both I suppose and this still leaves the possibility of Wounder-Bat-babies.
Never doubt the stuff superhero comics will come up with.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
This is all very much canon.
So Spiderman was sexually molested by a gay man earlier in his life.
I wonder if they'll cover this part of his past in that upcoming Amazing Spiderman movie.
As a part of a stunt of a level never before seen, Marvel and DC have made an agreement to merge their movie universes and Peter Parker's youth's mystery molestor will turn out to be The Green lantern.
They're pulling a double cross on us. They're making us think they're aiming for increased social acceptance of gays, but they're actually allied with One million moms to make gays out as evil sodomites. It will all become clear in the upcoming Spiderman movie.
The amount of butthurt and rage... It would be overwhelming. The Escapist would explode while the US would implode as a result of the sheer amount of controversy.
Well...consider me extremely pissed off (Not that I'm against gay people just so you know now) I LOVED Alan Scott and not just because he's Green Lantern but because he's a kick ass old man or WAS. Now they're turning him into a young man and gay and it's just like everything that's come before doesn't even matter anymore, I might as well not even buy any of the pre-New 52 comics anymore! Fuck you DC, fuck you
So Spiderman was sexually molested by a gay man earlier in his life.
I wonder if they'll cover this part of his past in that upcoming Amazing Spiderman movie.
As a part of a stunt of a level never before seen, Marvel and DC have made an agreement to merge their movie universes and Peter Parker's youth's mystery molestor will turn out to be The Green lantern.
They're pulling a double cross on us. They're making us think they're aiming for increased social acceptance of gays, but they're actually allied with One million moms to make gays out as evil sodomites. It will all become clear in the upcoming Spiderman movie.
The amount of butthurt and rage... It would be overwhelming. The Escapist would explode while the US would implode as a result of the sheer amount of controversy.
The entirety of Kansas would be flooded by the jizz flowing forth from the Westboro baptist church headquarters. The headquarters would float on top of it all like some sort of second ark, trying to collect various animals.
Damn. And I was SURE it would be Hawkman.
Why pick this guy though? He married twice and had two kids from his first marriage. Granted that's from a different continuity, but you'd think that would cross over.