One Million Moms Fights Gay Superheroes
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.
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 said:
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.Buretsu said:
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).
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.Buretsu said:
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.
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.
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.
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.trollpwner said:
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.
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 said:
Nature v nurture aside, it still doesn't make it a choice.downsyndromechimp said:
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 said:
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.downsyndromechimp said:
Speaking of quotes could you hit the quote button next time?
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.rolfwesselius said:
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?
trollpwner said: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.ReiverCorrupter said:
I feel your pain too, man. It sucks when that happens. Here, wanna hug?Matt King said:
CAPTCHA: spangled banner
Oh fuck off.
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?
I mean, who else but a villain, fights a superhero?