MAX line and homosexual characters

[ERoy]

I agree with Marvel's perspective on this.

Dispite what "enlightened" people might think, the general populace is still very uncomfortable with homosexuality, and certainly do not want children to be exposed to it without supervision. The entire purpose of the MAX line is to tell people about the content of the title.

Of course, someone will counter with "that's inferring there's something wrong with homosexuality". To many (I would even say MOST) Americans, there is, and Marvel has a duty to be responsible to the majority.

[bert]

I agree with Marvel's perspective on this.

Dispite what "enlightened" people might think, the general populace is still very uncomfortable with homosexuality, and certainly do not want children to be exposed to it without supervision. The entire purpose of the MAX line is to tell people about the content of the title.

Of course, someone will counter with "that's inferring there's something wrong with homosexuality". To many (I would even say MOST) Americans, there is, and Marvel has a duty to be responsible to the majority.


bull and shit

(see my post below, referencing the Marvel Zombies book. . which is rated T+, and FULL of violence, cannibalism, and dismemberment).

I'm pretty sure "the General populance is still very uncomfortable with" Cannibalism, "and certainly do not want children to be exposed to it without supervision."

yet a child can buy Marvel Zombies, and is prohibited from seeing an "R" rated film. . which this book definately is.

[dancj]

Of course, someone will counter with "that's inferring there's something wrong with homosexuality". To many (I would even say MOST) Americans, there is, and Marvel has a duty to be responsible to the majority.

"Most" my arse. I don't know about America, but Will and Grace is shown in the daytime on telly in Britain and no-one bats an eyelid. DC has gay characters scattered through loads of their comments and no-one bats and eyelid, but Marvel feel the need to shield children from the horrors of men holding hands. It's downright offensive for Marvel to take that stance.

[Jay Figgs]

I agree with Marvel's perspective on this.

Dispite what "enlightened" people might think, the general populace is still very uncomfortable with homosexuality, and certainly do not want children to be exposed to it without supervision. The entire purpose of the MAX line is to tell people about the content of the title.

Of course, someone will counter with "that's inferring there's something wrong with homosexuality". To many (I would even say MOST) Americans, there is, and Marvel has a duty to be responsible to the majority.

Sorry, but I think that's rubbish.

In the book "Peanuts - The Art of Charles M. Schulz", Schulz tells of the first appearence of Franklin, the first black kid in the strip.
He appears in a scene with Peppermint Patty, in the classroom, in one of Patty's many embarrassing moments in class.

Schulz says that he received many letters against it, and tells of one specifically, where the editor of a newspaper told him he "was not a racist, but can you please not show them in the same classroom together?"

So, if he subscribed to this "responsibility to the majority", Peanuts would've been a very racist comic strip, just as Marvel is being abhorrently homophobic by stating that their gay characters can only be featured proeminently in Mature Readers labeled books.

[thehod]

Of course, someone will counter with "that's inferring there's something wrong with homosexuality". To many (I would even say MOST) Americans, there is, and Marvel has a duty to be responsible to the majority.

Bollocks.

If Marvel have any responisbility at all, its to do whats right, and what is right is not a pander to a totally wrong viewpoint, regardless of how many people hold it.

[outlander78]

Marvel is being responsible to its shareholders, not to its readers or the community at large.

Fear of gay characters (not gay sex, not gay kissing, just the mention that someone *is* gay) is really pathetic, and says a lot about the insecurities of the people who can't handle the facts of life.

Personally, I don't mind children handling homophobia in silly ways - they are children, after all - but I expect adults to approach the subject as adults. I haven't seen a child in a comic book shop since I *was* a child, and that was a long time ago. Hiding the fact that 10% of the population is on a different team seems a poor way to let children learn to accept and deal with the fact.

This is an age when sitcoms and talk shows feature gay characters and hosts, and a lead Oscar contender features gay characters. Maybe American society is stumbling towards a decent respect for all people, but damn is it taking its time!

Thanks for the Peanuts information - interesting, sad, and a good parallel to today's news.

[cactusmaac]

I agree with Marvel's perspective on this.

Dispite what "enlightened" people might think, the general populace is still very uncomfortable with homosexuality, and certainly do not want children to be exposed to it without supervision. The entire purpose of the MAX line is to tell people about the content of the title.

Of course, someone will counter with "that's inferring there's something wrong with homosexuality". To many (I would even say MOST) Americans, there is, and Marvel has a duty to be responsible to the majority.

Granted, it's still a widespread belief that homosexuality is a manifestation of degraded perversity, an affront to God's laws and something of a mental disorder leading to a host of self-destructive behaviour.

That being said, gay characters have been in a bunch of unrated\Teen-rated Marvel and DC comics without provoking a furore, so what's the logic behind discriminating against Rawhide Kid simply on the basis of sexuality?

[ocelotrevs]

But something I don't get right, is if America is supposed to be all Christian and into God and stuff, how come there isn't such a kerfuffle being made.

[kelvingreen]

Dispite what "enlightened" people might think, the general populace is still very uncomfortable with homosexuality, and certainly do not want children to be exposed to it without supervision. The entire purpose of the MAX line is to tell people about the content of the title.
Zombie Captain America has half of his head taken off by flying metal, spraying his brains all over the shop. That's fine. Graphic descriptions of the extinction of mankind by a big alien Gah Lak Tus thing. That's fine. A bloke who doesn't like girls. That's not fine.

And this whole situation is ridiculous. Marvel are being cowardly, and whether it's intentional or not, homophobic.

[Bright-Raven]

Hey, if Marvel actually produced intelligent "mature readers" books, instead of sensationalizing everything in all of their books (like Marvel Zombies is a big deal - keep in mind half of the stuff that was in Mike Allred's X-Force - let me puke on your face so it melts! Let's see the graphic depiction of a dead character's guts spilling out! That had NO branding on it whatsoever to my knowledge, because it's X-Brand and X-Brand has to be for all Marvel readers, right?!)

Let's see invisible girl's powers start to work so we see her muscles, then her internal organs, until finally she's invisible (see ULTIMATE FANTASTIC FOUR). Yes, it was a neat looking effect in the Kevin Bacon Invisible Man movie. But is that a movie you're going to show a seven year old? No? Then why depict something akin to it in the comic, eh?

Because Marvel doesn't give two &*&!s about children, in all reality. If they did, there would be a legitimate kids' line of Marvel comics akin to DC's animated comics line. (And they'd probably be better written and drawn than anything they currently publish.)

[Adam Crocker]

ERoy;

Marvel already has two gay characters in a relationship together as members of the Young Avengers. So they are pretty much part of the cast 'leads' (since team books don't have singular leads) for that comic. So Quesada's logic is even more flimsy, besides the arguments that I outlined in the other thread.

And as Louis pointed out, something which I forgot to mention myself, Marvel doesn't even publish comics for kids anymore. Most of their line is directed at adults and teenagers who grew up reading superhero comics while their attempts to establish material for younger readers have been tenative and halting. Mostly because it doesn't seem to want to or be able to commit to producing and pushing material in bookstores for younger readers where they are more likely to find it. As a result such efforts remained tied to the book's fortunes as a serial in the direct market.

[Crash-Man]

Of course, someone will counter with "that's inferring there's something wrong with homosexuality". To many (I would even say MOST) Americans, there is, and Marvel has a duty to be responsible to the majority.

If we're taking religious morals into account, Marvel should then MAX all comics depicting sorcery, murder, scantily clad women, "gods" and evolution.

I thought that Rawhide Kid would be placed in the MAX line because of the strong sexual innuendo I saw displayed on the covers of the last series (never read it), but Quesada seems to have dug himself into a hole with his explanation.

[dancj]

Let's see invisible girl's powers start to work so we see her muscles, then her internal organs, until finally she's invisible (see ULTIMATE FANTASTIC FOUR). Yes, it was a neat looking effect in the Kevin Bacon Invisible Man movie. But is that a movie you're going to show a seven year old? No? Then why depict something akin to it in the comic, eh?

I can't see any reason to stop kids seeing internal organs intact and in their places. Kids' biology books show stuff like that as well. When those internal organs are spilling out, that's a different matter

[Gilda Dent]

I agree with Marvel's perspective on this.

Dispite what "enlightened" people might think, the general populace is still very uncomfortable with homosexuality, and certainly do not want children to be exposed to it without supervision. The entire purpose of the MAX line is to tell people about the content of the title. Of course, someone will counter with "that's inferring there's something wrong with homosexuality".

To many (I would even say MOST) Americans, there is, and Marvel has a duty to be responsible to the majority.

Well, I'd be more likely to counter with "That's implying that there's something wrong with homosexuality," but that's because I'm anal about the use of imply and infer.

You're basing your entire argument on a group of unfounded assumptions. It's easy to win a debate when you get to define the terms to fit your arguments. I think it's mostly a very vocal minority that has a lot of people in certain positions of power convinced that they're much more representative of the whole of American society than they actually are. I think the majority in the middle just don't care one way or the other.

Another assumption you, and Quesada, seem to be making is that there would be widespread parental objections to a gay lead character in a mainstream book. This is factually and demonstrably wrong. Young Avengers has a gay couple as co-leads of a team book. No widespread outcry, but a lot of critical acclaim because it's damn well written.

How far does this "[being] responsible to the majority" go? If a majority of the parents whose children attend a school objected to having an openly gay teacher in that school, would that justify the removal/non-renewal of that teacher?

I have no objection to labeling based on content, but equating the mere presense of a homosexual character with sexually explicit heterosexual depictions is an openly homophobic policy.

Whether the person who is putting in place said policy agrees with it or not, the action is on it's face homophobic.

For what it's worth, I'm an openly lesbian first grade teacher. My students are exposed to a homosexual role model on a daily basis. So far this year, I've had one student transferred to another class, and that was because of race and personality conflict, not sexuality.

Which brings up another point. Suppose the majority objected to the depiction of, oh, supernatural beings and the occult. I'm picking this deliberately because such objections often come from the same groups who object to homosexuality. Would this mean Marvel should put Thor in MAX? How about if the majority, or the same vocal minority, objected to black characters? Would that justify putting a MAX on Black Panther, Young Avengers, most X-Men titles?

Marvel should label their books based on the content of the stories and the artwork, and do so consistently regardless of race, sexuality, religion. Let parents who are afraid of a little homosexuality do their damn jobs and take a look at what junior is reading.

Gilda

[Adam Crocker]

Holy shit. I thought ERoy's logic was demolished, but Gilda found like new ways to utterly demolish it even more.

You rock Gilda.

[bert]

Well, I'd be more likely to counter with "That's implying that there's something wrong with homosexuality," but that's because I'm anal about the use of imply and infer.

You're basing your entire argument on a group of unfounded assumptions. It's easy to win a debate when you get to define the terms to fit your arguments. I think it's mostly a very vocal minority that has a lot of people in certain positions of power convinced that they're much more representative of the whole of American society than they actually are. I think the majority in the middle just don't care one way or the other.

Another assumption you, and Quesada, seem to be making is that there would be widespread parental objections to a gay lead character in a mainstream book. This is factually and demonstrably wrong. Young Avengers has a gay couple as co-leads of a team book. No widespread outcry, but a lot of critical acclaim because it's damn well written.

How far does this "[being] responsible to the majority" go? If a majority of the parents whose children attend a school objected to having an openly gay teacher in that school, would that justify the removal/non-renewal of that teacher?

I have no objection to labeling based on content, but equating the mere presense of a homosexual character with sexually explicit heterosexual depictions is an openly homophobic policy.

Whether the person who is putting in place said policy agrees with it or not, the action is on it's face homophobic.

For what it's worth, I'm an openly lesbian first grade teacher. My students are exposed to a homosexual role model on a daily basis. So far this year, I've had one student transferred to another class, and that was because of race and personality conflict, not sexuality.

Which brings up another point. Suppose the majority objected to the depiction of, oh, supernatural beings and the occult. I'm picking this deliberately because such objections often come from the same groups who object to homosexuality. Would this mean Marvel should put Thor in MAX? How about if the majority, or the same vocal minority, objected to black characters? Would that justify putting a MAX on Black Panther, Young Avengers, most X-Men titles?

Marvel should label their books based on the content of the stories and the artwork, and do so consistently regardless of race, sexuality, religion. Let parents who are afraid of a little homosexuality do their damn jobs and take a look at what junior is reading.

Gilda

BRAVO !!


you are a positive influence on CBR Gilda. . glad you found us :)

[ERoy]

Well, I'd be more likely to counter with "That's implying that there's something wrong with homosexuality," but that's because I'm anal about the use of imply and infer.

That's not my intention.


You're basing your entire argument on a group of unfounded assumptions. It's easy to win a debate when you get to define the terms to fit your arguments. I think it's mostly a very vocal minority that has a lot of people in certain positions of power convinced that they're much more representative of the whole of American society than they actually are. I think the majority in the middle just don't care one way or the other.

And you're assuming the "quiet majority" don't agree with the vocal minority. I would disagree.


Another assumption you, and Quesada, seem to be making is that there would be widespread parental objections to a gay lead character in a mainstream book. This is factually and demonstrably wrong. Young Avengers has a gay couple as co-leads of a team book. No widespread outcry, but a lot of critical acclaim because it's damn well written.

Big difference between two members of a team book and a lead character. If you did Rawhide Kid again as a main character, people will look and see "gay cowboy". People look at Young Avengers, they see "teen versions of Marvel characters". BIG difference. Again, we're talking PERCEPTION, not reality.


How far does this "[being] responsible to the majority" go? If a majority of the parents whose children attend a school objected to having an openly gay teacher in that school, would that justify the removal/non-renewal of that teacher?

Yes. It absolutely would.


I have no objection to labeling based on content, but equating the mere presense of a homosexual character with sexually explicit heterosexual depictions is an openly homophobic policy.

Think what you will. People will not object to the heterosexual content because it is societies norm. Correct or not, homosexuality is still viewed upon by American society at large as something they do not want children exposed to, hense it should be a MAX title.

Again, I'm trying to see what exactly is the issue with making it a MAX title? Are you saying you WANT children exposed to a title like this?


Whether the person who is putting in place said policy agrees with it or not, the action is on it's face homophobic.

I disagree. It's responsible.


Which brings up another point. Suppose the majority objected to the depiction of, oh, supernatural beings and the occult. I'm picking this deliberately because such objections often come from the same groups who object to homosexuality. Would this mean Marvel should put Thor in MAX? How about if the majority, or the same vocal minority, objected to black characters? Would that justify putting a MAX on Black Panther, Young Avengers, most X-Men titles?

Well, the question of "black character" wouldn't come up, because it's a different thing altogether -- one being the difference between a race and something that is a choice, but I digress. The answer to the "supernatural beings and occult" -- absolutely. If it's something that children should not be exposed to, it should be a MAX title. Period.


Marvel should label their books based on the content of the stories and the artwork, and do so consistently regardless of race, sexuality, religion. Let parents who are afraid of a little homosexuality do their damn jobs and take a look at what junior is reading.

No, this is the PURPOSE of labels, to allow for parent to tell what the content of a title is. It allows parents to make more informed decisions. I really don't see why this would be objectionable to anyone.

Gilda[/QUOTE]

[Jay Figgs]

Well, the question of "black character" wouldn't come up, because it's a different thing altogether -- one being the difference between a race and something that is a choice, but I digress. The answer to the "supernatural beings and occult" -- absolutely. If it's something that children should not be exposed to, it should be a MAX title. Period.

The Peanuts incident I described earlier happened in 1968 - Not that long ago. I'm sure a few of the posters here might even have already been born at the time.
And I'm sure you'll find similar examples today if you look for them.

And regarding the choice thing ( It's tiresome to always have to point this out to people, but...) - Being gay is no more a choice than being straight (or black, or chinese). What IS a choice is how you deal with it, and with people and companies who'd treat you as second-class because of it.

[bert]

Well, the question of "black character" wouldn't come up, because it's a different thing altogether -- one being the difference between a race and something that is a choice, but I digress. The answer to the "supernatural beings and occult" -- absolutely. If it's something that children should not be exposed to, it should be a MAX title. Period.



Nice.

I mean, nice of you to provide concrete evedince of what Gilda said,

It's easy to win a debate when you get to define the terms to fit your arguments

I could present you dozens upon dozens of Homosexuals that I know who would tell you there ain't no choice in the matter.

If I could love a woman, the way I love my partner? Absolutely, I wouldn't be gay.

EDIT: and please don't come back with I *choose* to be with Nick, rather than be with a woman. Because all that would prove is that I am still a gay man, but an unhappy one -- and one with no sexual attraction for my partner.
I say again -- Homosexuals are not defined by their genitals. If I go for a year without any sex at all, it doesn't make me not gay, it makes me a celibate gay man.

you need to just be quiet when you don't know what you are talking about. It makes you look silly.

[Adam Crocker]

Big difference between two members of a team book and a lead character. If you did Rawhide Kid again as a main character, people will look and see "gay cowboy". People look at Young Avengers, they see "teen versions of Marvel characters". BIG difference. Again, we're talking PERCEPTION, not reality.

Of course if they actually read the books they will likely figure out Wiccan and Hulkling's relationship and think "gay teens," and there is a homophobe in the crowd there will still be an uproar.


Yes. It absolutely would.

So teachers should be removed, not because of their job performance, but for being gay? Would this merit removing a teacher for being black if parents objected on that basis?

Think what you will. People will not object to the heterosexual content because it is societies norm.

Which doesn't address his arugment that all: that it is a ridiculous double standard to equate mere homosexuality within a book, irregardless of the lack of explicit or risque sexual content, with the depiction of explicity heterosexual sex. Going on about society's norms doesn't change the fact that homosexuality does not equal mature content and hence it is a double standard

I disagree. It's responsible.

No, on the face it's homophobic because it enacts a double standard on the basis of homosexuality.

Well, the question of "black character" wouldn't come up, because it's a different thing altogether -- one being the difference between a race and something that is a choice, but I digress.

Which doesn't address her argument at all. In fact it dodges it. It's not about the likelihood of occurring. She's offering a hypothetical, if a majority or vocal minority objected to black characters? Would that merit the MAX label?

The answer to the "supernatural beings and occult" -- absolutely. If it's something that children should not be exposed to, it should be a MAX title. Period.

Yet there have been various Doctor Strange and Thor comics for years that haven't necessarily fallen under "for mature readers." And then there's Harry Potter. Supernatural beings and occult basically means portrayal of the supernatural and magic, so it's not out of bounds with anything that's been in children's entertainment and literature since time immemorial.

No, this is the PURPOSE of labels, to allow for parent to tell what the content of a title is. It allows parents to make more informed decisions. I really don't see why this would be objectionable to anyone.

Except it doesn't actually serve it's purpose because the label has been misleadingly applied and it certainly won't stop the children from encountering gay characters given that Young Avengers doesn't have an 'MR' label but is labeled 'T+'. So what's the point even?

[ERoy]

you need to just be quiet when you don't know what you are talking about. It makes you look silly.

Just because I disagree with you I have to be quiet? Whatever.

YES, it is a CHOICE, but since I disagree with you and because you're gay and I'm not, I'M AUTOMATICALLY homophobic when I disagree. Sheesh.

Bottom line: the rating system for Marvel exists to inform people of the content of their titles. When a potentially objectionable aspect (and if you don't think homosexuality is objectionable to a LARGE GROUP of people in the US, then YOU don't know what your talking about), of the comic exists, it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the publisher to inform the public.

PERIOD. You can take away your money, that's your right. I was discussing the comic, not you personally. I PERSONALLY think you have the right to live your life the way you want and you AS AN ADULT can put up and buy a MAX title. The MAX rating isn't designed for you or I. BY GOD if I was a parent I want to know if something that COULD BE objectionable is in the comic my children is reading. If I CHOOSE to let them read it anyway, that's on me. BUT I WANT TO KNOW. That is why the ratings system exists for Marvel, and it fits in this example.

PERSONALLY I would have put Marvel Zombies as a MAX title myself, but as I said before, violence is more readily accepted in this society than sex.

I was rationally trying to discuss a comic and you make it personal. Get over yourself.

[That JonoGuy]

YES, it is a CHOICE,

Obviously you would know. Being it that you chose to be ignorant.

[Tadhg Adams]

Just because I disagree with you I have to be quiet? Whatever.

YES, it is a CHOICE, but since I disagree with you and because you're gay and I'm not, I'M AUTOMATICALLY homophobic when I disagree. Sheesh.

Actually, if anyone called you a homophobe, it would be for supporting Marvel's homophobic policy. He says you look silly for disagreeing with him, and you kind of do because saying "Homosexuality is a choice" doesn't really fit with what's known.

[ERoy]

Obviously you would know. Being it that you chose to be ignorant.

DEFINITION OF HOMOSEXUALITY: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex

IT IS A CHOICE. You CHOOSE to engage in sexual relations with someone of the same sex. Whether you're "miserable" or not is completely irrevelant. To say being gay is like being black is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY INCORRECT. You want to be offended by this definition, take it up with the dictionary creators.

Then again, people are apt to be "offended" by every little thing nowadays, so why not this. :rolleyes:

Now, you think because it's a choice I'm saying it's somehow wrong. I'm not. As I've said numerious times, you have the right to live your life the way you want, in my opinion. I'm saying however, that comparisons of race and sexual orientation are off the mark.

So far, in this thread, because I think potentially objectionable comics should have a label reflecting such, I've been told to shut up and called ignorant. I find it amazing that people who agree with homosexuality have no tolerance in discussing it without insults.

[Adam Crocker]

YES, it is a CHOICE...

You care to back this up with some facts, particularly when it's found that homosexuality in men is biologically hardwired, partly caused by abnormal hormonal levels in the womb?

Bottom line: the rating system for Marvel exists to inform people of the content of their titles.

Which completely ignores how the application of 'MR' to a homosexual lead in a title is utterly useless in informing parents of homosexuality when there are homosexual co-leads in a team book. And that's leaving out everyone else's critique of it being utterly illogical since homosexuality =/= sexual intercourse.

PERSONALLY I would have put Marvel Zombies as a MAX title myself, but as I said before, violence is more readily accepted in this society than sex.

Which ignores whether the graphic violent content is actually appropriate for the "T+" rating. I don't see how this would pass muster with PG 13 films.

[Gilda Dent]

That's not my intention.

Oh sure it is. You've made it quite clear that you agree with a policy of equating the depiction of a homosexual character with explicit depictions of heterosexual activity, and that you endorse the removal of homosexual teachers from public schools. You imply below that children shouldn't be exposed to homosexuality.

And you're assuming the "quiet majority" don't agree with the vocal minority. I would disagree.

Nope. I neither said nor implied that. Reread what I actually said and get back to me.


Big difference between two members of a team book and a lead character. If you did Rawhide Kid again as a main character, people will look and see "gay cowboy". People look at Young Avengers, they see "teen versions of Marvel characters". BIG difference. Again, we're talking PERCEPTION, not reality.

This is exactly the point. There is a gay couple in Young Avengers, and people look at that book and see "teen versions of Marvel characters". There's no reason why Rawhide Kid can't be the lead character in a story without the focus of the story being his homosexuality. That was the very problem with the mini--it put the focus in the wrong place.

A lot of people joke about Brokeback Mountain as the "gay cowboy" movie, when in reality there's about two minutes of sex scenes in a two hour movie with the two guys, and a lot of female nudity, but nothing in the movie that would be anywhere close to porn level stuff. Should such a movie be rated by the reality of it's content, or by the perception of people who make judgements without having seen it.

I'm in favor of applying labels that accurately reflect content, not prejudice.

Yes. It absolutely would.

:eek:

Sign on the church down the road from my church, which has several homosexual couples:

Tolerance is a mistake made by those who don't know what to believe.

I'm curious. You seem to be deferring over and over to the will of the majority, and making an, as yet unsupported, assumption regarding how the majority feels on this subject, but haven't yet stated directly what you think, though I think it's been clearly implied.

What do you, personally, think of the portrayal of homosexual characters--and please note, I said homosexual characters, not explicit sex--being shown in the same manner as heterosexual characters, or on the topic of your quote immediately above, homosexual teachers.

Think what you will. People will not object to the heterosexual content because it is societies norm. Correct or not, homosexuality is still viewed upon by American society at large as something they do not want children exposed to, hense it should be a MAX title.

You're using a logical fallacy here, specifically, the fallacy of the excluded middle. Not all books without the MAX label are intended for children. Marvel labels the books aimed at kids Marvel Age. Rawhide Kid wouldn't really be appropriate for a Marvel Age book regardless of his sexuality, but for T or T+, I see no problem if there isn't any explicit sex or violence.

You're also using a second logical fallacy which is an appeal to popularity. What is popular or commonly believed isn't necessarily true. If a million people believe a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing.

Again, I'm trying to see what exactly is the issue with making it a MAX title? Are you saying you WANT children exposed to a title like this?

Hint: Take a look at my previous post. I'm a lesbian who teaches first grade. My students, whom I care about more than my own life, are exposed to a homosexual every day, a person much more important and influential on their lives than any comic book character could possibly be.

No, I don't think being exposed to a homosexual, in person or in a comic book is in any way harmful.

Also, you haven't really specified what kind of book you're referring to. If you mean a title with a gay lead character which had the degree of sexuality in it as say, Ultimate Spider-Man, I'd have no problem with that being labled teen or teen+. Oh wait. We have that already. Young Avengers. And yeah, I think it's a wonderful idea for kids to be exposed to positive portrayals of homosexuals so that they'll see that we're not monsters or predators or really any different than anyone else in any way that matters.

Exactly how much sexual content are we talking here?

Well, the question of "black character" wouldn't come up, because it's a different thing altogether -- one being the difference between a race and something that is a choice, but I digress.

Nah, the question of choice aside, it's exactly the same issue: Should the label placed on a comic be based on consistent criteria in regards to the amount of sex and/or violence depicted, or should it be dictated by an external opinion regarding not the content of the story, but the perception of a group of people represented in the book held by a vocal minority or even the majority?

More simply, should we label books based on who the characters are, or on what they do and how it's shown? The latter seems more consistent and informative.

The answer to the "supernatural beings and occult" -- absolutely. If it's something that children should not be exposed to, it should be a MAX title. Period.

Well, there's the crux of the problem here. Marvel isn't labeling every book with a mythical creature or pagan god in it MAX. And rightly so, as few of them have much explicit sex or violence.

No, this is the PURPOSE of labels, to allow for parent to tell what the content of a title is. It allows parents to make more informed decisions. I really don't see why this would be objectionable to anyone.

Exactly, the labels should give information, and should give the same information every time. If we say, ok chase romantic interest with no physical affection is A, making out or a little kissing is T, implied off-panel sex is T+, and explicit depictions of sex are MAX, and stay with that, that's giving information. But if we start saying, ok, if it's a guy kissing a guy on the cheek, that's MAX, but if it's a girl, that's All Ages, we get into a situation where the hypocrisy is actually creating a situation in which we have less information, not more.

Dang it. I wanted to refine this answer some more, but it's late, so I'll send it off as is and hope the gremlins are kind to me.

Gilda

[Adam Crocker]

Dang it. I wanted to refine this answer some more, but it's late, so I'll send it off as is and hope the gremlins are kind to me.

I don't think you need to. That was better than my response.

[ERoy]

You care to back this up with some facts, particularly when it's found that homosexuality in men is biologically hardwired, partly caused by abnormal hormonal levels in the womb?

Sure. There's several websites that dispute a "gay gene" or a biological connection with being gay, saying that it's by-large created by environment. I can PM you links if you like, but I'm not getting into a large "it is choice or not" discussion because it's really not relevant to a comic discussion board. People believe it to be genetic, some believe it to be choice or environment. I believe it to be choice. Does this somehow lessen people who are homosexuals? No. It simply means they chose or made a conscious choice in the direction of their lives. This is an admirable thing, in many ways.

[bert]

Just because I disagree with you I have to be quiet? Whatever.

YES, it is a CHOICE, but since I disagree with you and because you're gay and I'm not, I'M AUTOMATICALLY homophobic when I disagree. Sheesh.

I was rationally trying to discuss a comic and you make it personal. Get over yourself.


as others have stated, I never called you Homophobic, and I've pretty politely debated your points so far.

But stating that homosexuality is a "choice" -- which is completely untrue in my case -- makes it extremely personal to me.

(and even before this, you posted saying that I "wanted a comic that promoted gay themes).

I was just trying to give you constructive criticism. But if you wish to keep insisting on something you know nothing whatsoever about, then you will continue to look silly.

and there you go.

[Charles RB]

DEFINITION OF HOMOSEXUALITY: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex

No, the definition of homosexuality is primarily "sexual orientation to persons of the same sex", according to the American Heritage dictionary. Orientation is not the same as intercourse.

IT IS A CHOICE. You CHOOSE to engage in sexual relations with someone of the same sex.

Yes, choosing to have homosexual intercourse is a choice. Being sexually orientated towards the same gender? That's not a choice.

Unless you can tell me when you chose to be heterosexual.

To say being gay is like being black is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY INCORRECT.

You're right. You can't tell people are gay just by looking at them, whereas you obviously can with black people. Of course, you meant something completely different and inaccurate.

You want to be offended by this definition, take it up with the dictionary creators.

That's funny, the dictionary creators seem to disagree with you. Funny that.

Now, you think because it's a choice I'm saying it's somehow wrong.

No, he thinks that you are talking crap, and he seems to be right.

I'm saying however, that comparisons of race and sexual orientation are off the mark.

How so? You can't choose either, and some small-minded arsehole will always discriminate against you if they think you're the wrong race/orientation.

potentially objectionable comics should have a label reflecting such

That's funny. When Marvel had a black soldier in World War 2 being treated as an equal by the other Howling Commandos, a black man as the intelligent editor-in-chief & moral center of the Daily Bugle, and a black African a highly intelligent leader of an advanced African nation back in the 60s, that would've been potentially objectionable... and that didn't get labelled. When they did a three-parter dealing with drugs in Spider-Man, that didn't get labelled. When they had Wolverine first kill the bad guys without any moral qualms, that didn't get labelled.

What makes the mere existence of gay people any different?

I've been told to shut up and called ignorant.

Frankly, you are talking from a position of ignorance. If you weren't, you wouldn't have openly said that schools should fire gay teachers because parents complain about them simply being gay.

[bert]

Does this somehow lessen people who are homosexuals? No.



hmm. . .

but apparently, to you, it does lessen us.

otherwise, why wouldn't you be calling out for MR labels on every Marvel book featuring gratuitous boob shots (like this week's 198) or any book where the character sleeps around (She-Hulk has had quite a few one-night stands both in her own book, and in the Avengers).

yet a book simply featuring a homosexual in the lead, demands a MR label?

your hypocricy is showing thru.


(and most all of those "it's a choice" websites are run by people with no medical bacgrounds nor experience. . go looking for the true medical websites, and get back to us).

[ERoy]

Sigh.

Since obviously people here are not interested in discussing the comic book, I'll bow out of the conversation. I'm not at all interested in furthering a discussion on how being gay is genetic, or comparing homosexuality to race, or any such nonsense. I'll find a discussion where we talk about comics.

So you guys can go ahead and continue to discuss how horrible people are that disagree with homosexuality, and rampage on about how Marvel is being homophobic or some such, and how horrible Marvel is for not publishing a comic about a gay cowboy, when they have every right to choose what comics they will and won't publish. Have fun.

EDIT: On a final note, I find it AMAZING how homosexuals claim to anyone who will listen how people are not tolerant of them, but people on this group (namely bert and a few others) are among then most intolerant people I've encountered on message boards thus far. Funny, that.

[bert]

Sigh.

Since obviously people here are not interested in discussing the comic book, I'll bow out of the conversation. I'm not at all interested in furthering a discussion on how being gay is genetic, or comparing homosexuality to race, or any such nonsense. I'll find a discussion where we talk about comics.

So you guys can go ahead and continue to discuss how horrible people are that disagree with homosexuality, and rampage on about how Marvel is being homophobic or some such, and how horrible Marvel is for not publishing a comic about a gay cowboy, when they have every right to choose what comics they will and won't publish. Have fun.



. . .and , typical.

we make some valid points, so you take your ball and go home.

at least I stand up for what I believe in.

Have a nice life in your fantasy world.

[Charles RB]

So you guys can go ahead and continue to discuss how horrible people are that disagree with homosexuality

I'd rather have a discussion about how people who say "yes, schools should fire teachers for being gay to satisfy close-minded parents" are ignorant and are talking morally reprehensible shite. That's a fun conversation.

[Gilda Dent]

DEFINITION OF HOMOSEXUALITY: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex

IT IS A CHOICE. You CHOOSE to engage in sexual relations with someone of the same sex. Whether you're "miserable" or not is completely irrevelant. To say being gay is like being black is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY INCORRECT. You want to be offended by this definition, take it up with the dictionary creators.

Then again, people are apt to be "offended" by every little thing nowadays, so why not this. :rolleyes:

Now, you think because it's a choice I'm saying it's somehow wrong. I'm not. As I've said numerious times, you have the right to live your life the way you want, in my opinion. I'm saying however, that comparisons of race and sexual orientation are off the mark.

So far, in this thread, because I think potentially objectionable comics should have a label reflecting such, I've been told to shut up and called ignorant. I find it amazing that people who agree with homosexuality have no tolerance in discussing it without insults.

Which dictionary are you using? Is that the only definition listed, or did you cherry pick the one which most closely matched your point, thus once again trying to define terms to fit your arguments?

American Heritage:

1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

Merriam-Webster:

1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

Several other sources had much the same thing, one definition referring to homosexuality as orientation and a second one as activity.

Aha, found it:

Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary:

1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward individuals of one's own sex —compare HETEROSEXUAL 1a
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex

This is the second definition from the third main entry. The dictionary makers tend to list homosexuality as orientation for the primary definition, and not activity.

Your opinion is unfounded, and once again you're merely defining terms to fit your arguments.

Gilda

[Charles RB]

you take your ball and go home.

Well, we'll just have to play Tag instead.

You're It.

[bert]

Well, we'll just have to play Tag instead.

You're It.


heh


I do think it's kind of cute that he/she thinks that you MUST discuss comic books here on CBR. Especially in forums like this one.

Wonder how old he/she is. . .pretty much willing to bet, early 20's or late teens.

[ERoy]

heh


I do think it's kind of cute that he/she thinks that you MUST discuss comic books here on CBR. Especially in forums like this one.

Wonder how old he/she is. . .pretty much willing to bet, early 20's or late teens.

I'm 34 years old. I'm not upset by not discussing comics, however two things are clear: no matter what I say unless I agree with you, we won't come to a compromise, and 2)I'm, frankly, a little tired of the insults.

[bert]

I'm 34 years old. I'm not upset by not discussing comics, however two things are clear: no matter what I say unless I agree with you, we won't come to a compromise, and 2)I'm, frankly, a little tired of the insults.


but no one has insulted you (at least I don't think anyone has). Saying that you look silly when you talk about things you know nothing about isn't an insult. it's just a statement.

I was wrong on the age. . I was basing it on your "world view". . not your maturity level. so it wasn't intended as an insult.

We are debating your points.

and finding all kinds of problems with your point of view.

but, honestly, this is a rather civil debate here. (if you don't belive me, check out the message boards at some other comics sites).

[ERoy]

but no one has insulted you (at least I don't think anyone has). Saying that you look silly when you talk about things you know nothing about isn't an insult. it's just a statement.

Disagreeing on a subject does not mean I don't know anything about a subject. Simply means I disagree with you.


I was wrong on the age. . I was basing it on your "world view". . not your maturity level. so it wasn't intended as an insult.

It's ok. My viewpoint, if you're curious comes from my background. Rural raised, I consider myself extremely conservative. I honestly do not know of a single thing I agree with the Democratic Party on, although I'm sure there's something.

On a personal level, I think a person has the right to live their lives however they want. I'm uncomfortable with homosexuality, though I don't believe it to be a disease or other nonsense the Christian Right is saying (I'm not religous). I really can't rationally say why I am uncomfortable -- it may be due to how I was raised, but (and please don't take this offensively because it's the farthest thing I intend), I get left with a feeling of ... ickiness when confronted with a very feminine-acting homosexual.

As I said, I don't have a rationallity for it, and at least I think I try to treat everyone the same, but everyone .. no matter how hard they try, is a little racist against something. It's human nature to be afraid of things different from his or her own. Not trying to be offensive, just honest.

On the teacher thing -- if it's a public school, I do believe the public has a right to determine the type and style of teacher that is instructing their students. If a great majority of parents find a teacher disagreeable or objectionable for whatever reason, the teacher will not be effective. Parents should be the last word on the type of schools their children go to. Of course, I also believe of school vouchers as this will allow parents to choose the type of school their children will attend.

Back to Rawhide: people want to say that homosexuals and heterosexual activity or characters should have equal footing, and in a perfect world that may indeed be the case. We do not live in a perfect world, and the publisher has to not look at what SHOULD be, but what IS. Many, many people, especially in conservative, rural areas (and I can name state after state where this is the case), there will be parents who would object to the fact that their kid has the ability to order a western comic with a gay lead character in it, regardless of the content of the book. In situations like this, a rating is warrented.

Someone pointed out the unfairness of a girl kissing a girl getting a MR rating, and a girl kissing a guy getting a T+. Honestly, I can see her point, and I really can't counter it with anything other than "This is simply the way it is". Until the attitude of the people change radically, it is the way it will be, and Marvel has a responsibility to the people at large to report what could be objectionable, regardless of whether you or I believe it should be.

I apologize when I said people were being insulting. I have a thing about being called ignorant, because people from my state are called this all the time. It's a pet peeve of mine, and I have a tendency to overreact when the term comes up. My apologies.

[tangentman]

Maybe you're encountering problems because you have an admittedly less-than-rational perspective on gays (the "Ick" Factor comment), yet you're trying to have a rational debate on the appropriateness of gays in comic books? Somehow, the dots just don't connect when I read your posts.

You deny wanting to debate whether homosexuality is "nature" or "nurture", yet YOU'RE the one who brought that up by stating that it's "a choice". You're saying that you don't want this to get personal, but you've pinned motives onto bert and commented on Gilda's profession. You act as if you don't want this to get political, yet you've just admitted a very STRONG political bias in the matter.

We're not trying to chase you out of here on the basis of your beliefs. From what I see, it's your lack of honesty about what you want to debate that's drawing the heat. As well as your over-generalizing without factual support. For example, you're acting as if America is 85% anti-homosexuals, with only a 5% fringe group that appproves. The various polls I've seen, especially around the last election, was that it was closer to an even divide. Our country has been VERY divided on moral issues for the last 6 years, not just homosexuality.

Also, not all gay people subscribe to "group think". Talk with 5 random gay people and you'll see a variance in beliefs, personalities, background experiences. We're not all a collective hive mind.

You stepped into a subject which invokes powerful emotions in people. I'm really trying to avoid any rudeness, but are you REALLY surprised that you received such strong reactions?

[Michael P]

Someone pointed out the unfairness of a girl kissing a girl getting a MR rating, and a girl kissing a guy getting a T+. Honestly, I can see her point, and I really can't counter it with anything other than "This is simply the way it is". Until the attitude of the people change radically, it is the way it will be, and Marvel has a responsibility to the people at large to report what could be objectionable, regardless of whether you or I believe it should be.

What, you think it will change on its own? There's no more stagnant attitude than "This is the way it is." Change requires people with the balls to say "But it's not the way it should be."

[dancj]

BY GOD if I was a parent I want to know if something that COULD BE objectionable is in the comic my children is reading. If I CHOOSE to let them read it anyway, that's on me. BUT I WANT TO KNOW. That is why

Anything can be offensive to people. As pointed out earlier in this thread, some people are offended by magic - there's a load more Max titles. Some people are offended by just about any religion you could name - not least christianity - a load more Max titles. Humans in relationships with aliens? Cows being disrespected?

You've said yourself that in an ideal world gay people would be treated equaly. I find it hard to see why you feel Marvel should base the rating systems on the opinions of some people, even though you yourself say you feel those opinions are wrong.

A responsible publisher doesn't pander to unreasonable opinions. They work to change those opinions. The most responsible thing Marvel could be doing is making sure that children have suitable role models. This means black children need black role models, girls need female role models, and kids who are hitting puberty need positive role models to match any orientation they may feel tendencies towards so that they don't feel self loathing at having erotic thoughts towards the wrong person.

Dan

[Adam Crocker]

Sure. There's several websites that dispute a "gay gene" or a biological connection with being gay, saying that it's by-large created by environment.

The "gay gene" is a strawman erected by charlatans with an axe to grind against homosexuality. Where genetics comes into play there isn't really a 'gay gene' though there is a genetic predisposition at work according to what is known, and that is affected by other factors like hormones in the womb.

And I have seen many sites disputing the biological causes of homosexuality, and all them seem to focus on said strawman.

People believe it to be genetic, some believe it to be choice or environment. I believe it to be choice.

Whether one believes it to be choice or not has little to do with whether homosexuality is in fact biologically determined or not.

I can PM you links if you like, but I'm not getting into a large "it is choice or not" discussion because it's really not relevant to a comic discussion board.

If it's not really relevant to the discussion then why did you bring it up?


Since obviously people here are not interested in discussing the comic book, I'll bow out of the conversation.

ERoy, if you're angry about people not taking your arguments seriously, it's largely because you brought up a talking point, then claimed it wasn't relevant to the dicussion despite you bringing it up after people pointed out that your position wasn't in fact, fact. Moreover:

Since obviously people here are not interested in discussing the comic book, I'll bow out of the conversation. I'm not at all interested in furthering a discussion on how being gay is genetic, or comparing homosexuality to race, or any such nonsense.

This doesn't help your case either. People brought up a series of arguments in response to points that you made, that touch on the issues of discrimination and what is appropriate content that are of subject in this conversation. Therefore they are relevant, but for whatever reason you did not want to answer them at the time and then declared that people were discussing irrelevancies and were leaving.

Honestly, thats not going to get you very far because what to other people it looks like you can't handle a conversation where your point of view has been contradicted. In fact it makes you look pretty bad and shoots your credibility down a fair bit. Just some advice.

[Ian Boothby]

Sigh.


EDIT: On a final note, I find it AMAZING how homosexuals claim to anyone who will listen how people are not tolerant of them, but people on this group (namely bert and a few others) are among then most intolerant people I've encountered on message boards thus far. Funny, that.

Being tolerant of ignorance isn't a good thing. It leads to the dumbing down of society. People are actually repecting you by pointing out how wrong your points are. They could just ignore you like you would a crazy guy yelling racial slurs sitting on the subway.

[Gilda Dent]

It's ok. My viewpoint, if you're curious comes from my background. Rural raised, I consider myself extremely conservative. I honestly do not know of a single thing I agree with the Democratic Party on, although I'm sure there's something.

I came from a rural upbringing in the rural Midwest with a very traditional Japanese father and a hardcore Catholic mother. I rejected all of the racist and homophobic nonsense they tried to program into me. I knew it was wrong because I knew that what I felt inside was real, was the person God made me to be. I knew that by being the person I am, I wasn't hurting anyone.

On a personal level, I think a person has the right to live their lives however they want. I'm uncomfortable with homosexuality, though I don't believe it to be a disease or other nonsense the Christian Right is saying (I'm not religous). I really can't rationally say why I am uncomfortable -- it may be due to how I was raised, but (and please don't take this offensively because it's the farthest thing I intend), I get left with a feeling of ... ickiness when confronted with a very feminine-acting homosexual.

I think I've said two or three times on CBR that this is a major factor in why a great many straight guys are really turned off by male homosexuality. It's easy to translate that feeling into a belief that there must be something wrong with this thing that's making you feel this way. Surely it can't be something inside of me that's the problem?

Yet it is. I have a problem with hyper-masculine men, especially larger men whether gay or straight, or groups of teenage boys. I'll cross the street rather than walk through a group of young guys congregated on the sidewalk. These groups scare me more than a little bit for a variety of reasons that aren't relevant here.

Is it reasonable? Perhaps just a tiny bit. I am, due to my size, an easy target for any large man, and I'm always acutely aware of this. But is it reasonable to assume that a guy is going to just attack me in broad daylight, or in the corridors or the school where I teach? Of course not. That's me, my problem. My reaction to them is something that comes from me, not from their behavior so long as it isn't threatening or aggressive, so the onus to resolve this problem is for me to work on controlling my reaction, not to try to shift blame.

The feminine guys don't really bother me in the least; I'm cool with them.

As I said, I don't have a rationallity for it, and at least I think I try to treat everyone the same, but everyone .. no matter how hard they try, is a little racist against something. It's human nature to be afraid of things different from his or her own. Not trying to be offensive, just honest.

Nope. It's learned behavior. I teach first grade. I have black, white, Asian, and Jewish kids in my class. About a third of my kids are of mixed ethnicity, usually white mother/black father or Asian mother/white father. They don't notice race. They really don't, unless somebody has gone out of his or her way to point it out.

I think most people harbor some bigotry towards some group, often something so small they can't see it and it doesn't manifest itself in overt behavior, and it's usually something they've learned as children most of the time. My biggie is large, aggressive and/or hyper-masculine men, a psychological disorder called androphobia. It's something I "learned" as a result of childhood abuse by every father figure I've ever had, and a few schoolmates.

I don't get to pick how I react emotionally to that situation, but I do get to choose what to think about it, and what I'm going to do about it. I could just say "men suck", and isolate myself from men entirely. Or I could try to work on resolving the situation by actively looking at what is making me feel this way and why it's doing that, and by looking at how my feelings, though genuine, don't actually reflect the way the world works. I know that not all men are predators, and by taking that knowledge and applying it to my reactiions, I can help to reduce my phobic reactions and place the focus of control where in belongs, in me, and not in a situation beyond my control.

We don't control our emotional reactions, but we do control our thoughts and actions.

On the teacher thing -- if it's a public school, I do believe the public has a right to determine the type and style of teacher that is instructing their students. If a great majority of parents find a teacher disagreeable or objectionable for whatever reason, the teacher will not be effective. Parents should be the last word on the type of schools their children go to. Of course, I also believe of school vouchers as this will allow parents to choose the type of school their children will attend.

It's entirely possible for a teacher to be a very effective instructor for her students even in the absense of parental approval or support. It's much, much more difficult, but possible.

But still it comes to this: Would this same general rule apply if the parents found black teachers objectionable, or a male kindergarten teacher, or a teacher who was too old or too young or Arabic?

The general rule should be that we judge people based on their ability to do thier job. Judge teachers on their ability to teach. Judge soldiers on their ability to work as part of a team and operate military equipment. Judge people on their ability to do the job, not irrelevant factors like sexuality or race or religion.

If people outside the organization find these thing ojectionable, they are wrong, and the organization should do the right thing, not pander to the petty prejudices of the vocal minority.

Back to Rawhide: people want to say that homosexuals and heterosexual activity or characters should have equal footing, and in a perfect world that may indeed be the case. We do not live in a perfect world, and the publisher has to not look at what SHOULD be, but what IS.

Nope. This is a fictional universe. The publisher gets to decide what reality is for itself. It's a simple matter of deciding how things SHOULD be and making them that way. If Marvel decides homosexuality should be treated equally with heterosexuality, it would be. They have control of their comics, the content therein, and the labeling.

Many, many people, especially in conservative, rural areas (and I can name state after state where this is the case), there will be parents who would object to the fact that their kid has the ability to order a western comic with a gay lead character in it, regardless of the content of the book. In situations like this, a rating is warrented.

Would these parents be in the majority? Sure there are unreasonable attacks on comics and comic shops, but it isn't the parents who don't want their own children reading book X that do this, they're the parents who are already monitoring their children's artistic consumption, it's the parents and activists who have decided that they don't want anyone else's kids to read this. Catering to would be censors smacks of a lack of confidence in one's product to me.

Someone pointed out the unfairness of a girl kissing a girl getting a MR rating, and a girl kissing a guy getting a T+. Honestly, I can see her point, and I really can't counter it with anything other than "This is simply the way it is".

It's however Marvel decides it's going to be. They control their ratings.

Until the attitude of the people change radically, it is the way it will be, and Marvel has a responsibility to the people at large to report what could be objectionable, regardless of whether you or I believe it should be.

But it needs to be consistent for it to be effective, and someone needs to take the lead and say, "This is how things are at this company. At this company, we treat people equally, and don't single out homosexuals as somehow inherently offensive."

Gilda

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

...everyone .. no matter how hard they try, is a little racist against something. It's human nature to be afraid of things different from his or her own. Not trying to be offensive, just honest.

But it's a measure of how good a person you are by how well you fight that out of your system.

On the teacher thing -- if it's a public school, I do believe the public has a right to determine the type and style of teacher that is instructing their students. If a great majority of parents find a teacher disagreeable or objectionable for whatever reason, the teacher will not be effective. Parents should be the last word on the type of schools their children go to. Of course, I also believe of school vouchers as this will allow parents to choose the type of school their children will attend.

Many, many people, especially in conservative, rural areas (and I can name state after state where this is the case), there will be parents who would object to the fact that their kid has the ability to order a western comic with a gay lead character in it, regardless of the content of the book. In situations like this, a rating is warrented.

I'd say if he spends the issue running around naked and having lots of sex, sure the book deserves a rating.
If he spends the issue clothed and makes a lot of dirty inneundos, then rate it for a teen audience (though why such things have to be rated for teens these days, when Carry On films aren't is beyond me).
If he just spends the issue walking around and saving people from burning buildings, then it should be rated all ages.


Someone pointed out the unfairness of a girl kissing a girl getting a MR rating, and a girl kissing a guy getting a T+.

I'm no prude, and I was shocked in the first arc of Ultimate X-men - rated all ages like all ultimate books were going to be - when there was a seen of Wolverine and Jean-Grey in bed, post coital, and then they started in for some more (it wasn't even the fact that Jean was a teen in bed with a much older man, just the fact they were in the sack in an all ges book).
Later on she threatned to stick a candle stick up his arse.

So I find it odd that this is the same company now suddenly concerned about not offending anyone - by rating safe.
Quite frankly, I think Joe Q is either homophobic, or a pussy.

Honestly, I can see her point, and I really can't counter it with anything other than "This is simply the way it is".
Until the attitude of the people change radically, it is the way it will be, and Marvel has a responsibility to the people at large to report what could be objectionable, regardless of whether you or I believe it should be.

Black people would be still working for a pittance, with less rights, and reguarly being called nigger if we'd stuck with the way it was.
Feeling up a woman in the workplace would be quite acceptable, and she'd be called a slut if she complained, would still be okay if we stuck with things the way they were.
Here's the thing though - those that disagreed started ignoring the people who wanted it to stay the way it was. People who wanted it to stay the way it was complained.
They either came across as ignorant and eventually ignored, all they appealed to the law, which tended to side with the people who wanted change. Usually, because it came down to that whole damn equality thing with the law.
(what the hell were they thinking with that one, hey? All people are equal in the eyes of the law?)

Now you may say that's for the real world, not my comics, but I disagree. I see it as the job of fiction, especially sci-fi and fantasy, to reach beyond the bounds of reality, not just by having a heavey handed piece of social commentary, but by just letting loose and showing us how things should be, no commentary needed.
I mean, what's the point of it otherwise?


I have a thing about being called ignorant, because people from my state are called this all the time. It's a pet peeve of mine, and I have a tendency to overreact when the term comes up. My apologies.

This will probably offended you a bit, but here goes....
I usually refer to your whole country as ignorant. Ignorant arseholes, quite often.
But quite frankly, your views are REALLY ignorant - I'm not saying your the worst of the lot, not by a long shot, but that's a sad thing.
If the rest of your state has beliefs and attitudes like yours, it's no wonder people keep referring to you that way. (how did your state react to other social changes?)


Ps.
You can ask people to just accept that you think homsexuality is a choice, and not make an issue of it, but the things is - it's either genetic or it's not - there's no middle ground there - it's one's right, one's wrong - and right now, the doc's are on the 'genetic, not choice' side.

[ERoy]

Joe Q responded to this topic much more succinct that I did. It's on Newsarama.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Joe Q responded to this topic much more succinct that I did. It's on Newsarama.

But he left Rock Hudson out of his list of great cowboys!

And beyond that, all he does is justify Marvel's homophobia because of other people's homophobia.
And then tries to take credit for paving the way for Brokeback Mountain.

It's still piss-weak, and still makes America look quite backwards.

[bert]

Joe Q responded to this topic much more succinct that I did. It's on Newsarama.


actually, he pretty much evaded any answer as to why a book with no sex, nudity, or double entendres but simply featuring a gay character as the lead must have a Mature Readers label.

but he did try to take credit for "paving the way" for things like Brokeback Mountain.

I laugh at the man's image of his importance.

the "rawhide kid" mini, with it's prancing, prissy, gay Kid, didn't pave the way for ANYTHING. all it did was copy "Jack" from Will and Grace.

nope. . I'm not the least bit satisfied by his attempt at spin, and I plan on not only continuing to boycott Marvel books, but also to attempt to organize a response from the ACLU.

[Adam Crocker]

actually, he pretty much evaded any answer as to why a book with no sex, nudity, or double entendres but simply featuring a gay character as the lead must have a Mature Readers label.

Oh he did. He said that because the main character was gay and focused on him being gay that it merited an Mature Readers label.

In other words he's insisting on standing up for the line he's taken in violation of the facts.

Now, while I know that there is nudity in Brokeback, I don’t think it would have received a lower rating even if it that aspect was to be removed.

Based on what? The MPAA ratings (http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp) which give R on the basis of 'strong language, violence, nudity, drug abuse, other elements, or a combination of the above'? Or that To Wong Foo a film about drag queens was rated PG-13? Or likewise In & Out, a movie about a college professor who questions his sexuality? (And even then both featured a level of language that would have merited the rating anyways.)

(And In & Out is a pretty crappy movie by the way.)

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

nope. . I'm not the least bit satisfied by his attempt at spin, and I plan on not only continuing to boycott Marvel books, but also to attempt to organize a response from the ACLU.

I think a retaliation against marvel right now - even if it's just vocal outcry that tarnishes the image and doesn't damage the dollar* - is exactly what's needed, and exactly what's deserved.





* I can't see many fanboys giving up their marvel, and I doubt Joe's fear-filled retaliation from his apparently hatefilled nation would either.

[bert]

I think a retaliation against marvel right now - even if it's just vocal outcry that tarnishes the image and doesn't damage the dollar* - is exactly what's needed, and exactly what's deserved.





* I can't see many fanboys giving up their marvel, and I doubt Joe's fear-filled retaliation from his apparently hatefilled nation would either.


Me + one at my comics shop when I announced why I was dropping them.

so that's at least two.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Me + one at my comics shop when I announced why I was dropping them.

so that's at least two.

I haven't brought a Marvel book in quite a while (I can't even remember what it was.... maybe the Bendis DD trade where Black Widow fights with him, or maybe the first Vaughn Ultimate X-men, Ulitmate Fantastic four maybe?), the quality dropped so low I really couldn't care, but I'll definetly hold back until they change their views on this one.
So much for the Runaways HC I was planning to buy.

[king mob]

I've been reading ERoy's posts and (because it's Saturday and it's hangover day) been wracking my mind to work out where i've read the same sort of bigoted nonsense about 'promoting homosexuality' before. And then i remembered about this sad bit of history. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28)

Basically no matter how much you try to rationalise homophobia by intellectual, moral or an economic viewpoint, it's still homophobia. Marvel have seriously fucked up over this and i find it astonishing that they have.

[bert]

Basically no matter how much you try to rationalise homophobia by intellectual, moral or an economic viewpoint, it's still homophobia.


Very well said.




(in regards to ERoy. . . .seems like a nice enough guy, even if his attitududes clash with what he says is "fair" -- unlike homosexuality, homophobia and bigotry is learned, and with understanding, can be unlearned. . or at least basic toleration of others can become more than just lip service).

[rogersuk]

I had totally forgotten about Clause 28.

To get from there to gay marriage in less than 20 years must be a minor miracle, of sorts.

[Tommy]

Wow! Joey Q lied his ass off about Rawhide Kid. While I will admit the hook really was "Hey, a gay cowboy!" the fact was that the series didn't focus on his sexuality at all. First off he was not even really the main character. The sheriff and his son were the main characters and Rawhide had only a slightly larger role than Laura. Secondly everyone besides Laura remained pleasantly oblivious to his sexual orientation (and even then she didn't realize until about the last issue). Certainly no one was reacting to it. Thirdly Rawhide's innuendos were on the more subtle side. Certainly not overtly graphic. The lesbian in the book was far more graphic in her sexuality. There was ABSOLUTLY no reason Rawhide Kid should have been a MAX book three years ago nor should it be a MAX book now.

Really I don't think Joey Q ever even read the damn thing.

[Chiasm]

Just of curiosity,

Did anyone ask Joe about Northstar or Ultimate Colossus. Northstar was featured on the cover of several Uncanny X-men issues and all the while he was pursuing a gay relationship with Iceman. Seems kind of hypocritical that he is so worried about Rawhide kid but Northstar featured so prominently in one of the flagship titles didn't even draw a warning.

[Adam Crocker]

Seems kind of hypocritical that he is so worried about Rawhide kid but Northstar featured so prominently in one of the flagship titles didn't even draw a warning.

Well it is (though I'd argue that it wasn't merely "kind of"), which is percisely why he's drawing so much heat over this because he doesn't have a leg to stand on. (And I'm still trying to figure out his logic that because the series was a western, it made it all the more controversial.)

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Well it is (though I'd argue that it wasn't merely "kind of"), which is percisely why he's drawing so much heat over this because he doesn't have a leg to stand on. (And I'm still trying to figure out his logic that because the series was a western, it made it all the more controversial.)

The only reason Rawhide Kid was controversial was because Marvel chased controversy with it.

I want to know how it ruins characters from the past to make them gay.

[WatsonGlenn]

I want to know how it ruins characters from the past to make them gay.>>

Because, being gay is sick and comic book heroes are supposed to be admirable.

[bert]

I want to know how it ruins characters from the past to make them gay.>>

Because, being gay is sick and comic book heroes are supposed to be admirable.


What are you? 12?

what the hell kind of comment is that?

You don't think Sir Ian McKellan is "admirable"?

he played both Gandalf in the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, as well as Magneto in all three "X-men" films. He has been knighted by the Queen of England.

and he's gay.


Sir Elton John also has been knighted by the Queen of England, and has raised millions upon millions of dollars for children's AIDS charities.

you don't think he's admirable.

sheesh. . .get your head out of your ass

[Tommy]

ass
HA! You said "ass!" :D

[Donald M.]

HA! You said "ass!" :D

I know! That's sick.

I thought bert was supposed to be admirable.

[Donald M.]

Seriously though, for any number of reasons many if not most comic book heroes these days are less than admirable. Some of them being gay or being revealed as gay is not among those reasons.

[Tommy]

Seriously though, for any number of reasons many if not most comic book heroes these days are less than admirable. Some of them being gay or being revealed as gay is not among those reasons.
I think All Star Batman's sexuality is a BIG reason why that charector is less than admirable. Well that and the Child abuse, reackless endangerment, kidnapping, and hanging out with All Star Vickie Vale.

But Hey, he is "the Goddamn Batman."

[Charles RB]

comic book heroes are supposed to be admirable.

You clearly haven't read anything the Punisher's been in for the last umpteen years.

[WatsonGlenn]

Men can do things that are both admirable and not admirable. Giving to charity is admirable. Being an actor, not so much. Homosexuality is definitely not admirable.

[tangentman]

Men can do things that are both admirable and not admirable. Giving to charity is admirable. Being an actor, not so much. Homosexuality is definitely not admirable.

From your perspective, that might be true. However, those of us who have a broader experience of the world believe otherwise. Homosexuality is a trait, like being blond-haired or left-handed, not a mark of a person's character.

[Adam Crocker]

Homosexuality is definitely not admirable.

Why? Moreover, why is it 'sick' as you put it?

[Nick Kal]

Men can do things that are both admirable and not admirable. Giving to charity is admirable. Being an actor, not so much.

WHOA... what is wrong with actors? Let's not say things we can't take back...

P.S. What if an actor gives to charity? :eek:

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Homosexuality is definitely not admirable.

I'm with you there buddy.

Nothing admirable about it.

I just don't get why it's any different to someone being straight.

[Tommy]

I just don't get why it's any different to someone being straight.
It has different positions. And a secret handshake.

[Rio_de_Janeiro]

it's such a simple solution.

if you choose to breed, you must be responsible for filtering EVERYTHING that your infant should.should not consume. don't make society as a whole follow your commands, don't try to change reality. accept that the world is vast, and your children have you as guides.

don't avert the responsibility. have your children because you'll love them and care for them so that they have the best life possible in your opinion. just be the responsible parent.

and if children get exposed to anything else, whether it was or not beyond your control (it's physically impossible to be there all the time), educate your children to deal with this. give them strong values and ideas which won't be questioned by the exposition. talk to your children. be parents.


but don't tell the rest of the people what can be done where and how. i am not your child. i don't care for gaystraightblackwhitewheelchair people being depicted. they exist in the real world. even bigots and kkk people get depicted.

love and care for your children. filter and educate. and don't tell the world how to be.

cheers.

childless rio de janeiro

[Rio_de_Janeiro]

Men can do things that are both admirable and not admirable. Giving to charity is admirable. Being an actor, not so much. Homosexuality is definitely not admirable.




and in what ways is heterossexuality (or any other sexuality) admirable ?










can you hear it? "oooooooooooo, i admire dr. johnson so much...he's so straight!"

[Gilda Dent]

Men can do things that are both admirable and not admirable. Giving to charity is admirable. Being an actor, not so much. Homosexuality is definitely not admirable.

I agree with your words, though I suspect not with your meaning.

Some things are admirable. Giving to charities that do good for people is, I agree, admirable. Being an actor, in and of itself, no that isn't admirable, but giving a moving, effective performance, making people laugh or cry or cheer, that is a difficult and admirable thing.

Homosexuality is a state of being, so, like being male or female, like being black or white or Asian, it is morally neutral. It neither helps nor harms others, nor does it involve choosing something more difficult, but better over something less difficult, but worse.

Or, to use your terms, it isn't admirable, but neither is it shameful. It's one of the many, many things about being human that exists outside the realm of behavior that either contributes to the well-being of oneself and others (admirable, good, moral) or causes harm to others (shameful, bad, immoral).

This is a disntiction that is often lost in discussions of good/bad and its variant synonyms. Most things exist in that gray area in the middle of individual variations or taste or behavior or state of being that are simply not part of the moral/ethical realm.

Homosexuality is one of these.

However, loving and supporting and bringing light and joy and fulfillment into the life of another, that is admirable, and it is so regardless of whether that love and support are for someone of the same sex or opposite sex.

So no, homosexuality itself isn't admirable, but, like those heterosexual relationships that work to the benefit of both parties, and often, society, many homosexual relationships are admirable.

If you look at Young Avengers, you'll find a couple that cares enough for each other to risk their lives to protect their partner. That's what's admirable, not that the couple in question is gay. And that Marvel has the guts to publish this and show that such devotion can exist between gay partners in the same way they've been showing hetero couples for years, that's admirable.

So I agree with what you said, though not, I think, with what you meant.

Gilda

[Justin Davis]

I'm going to ignore what ERoy has said because, well, it just makes the most sense to at this point. I've talked with Bert about this and thought about this some more afterward.

First, what I told bert. I'm not sure this is Quesada being an irresponsible EIC as much as it is him being a lazy one. He knows that there will be some fundamentalists, ERoy probably being one of them, that would vocally object to a lead gay character book put out by Marvel, especially after the last Rawhide Kid mini. Marvel has just finished and is starting another series of company-wide crossovers and "big, important" stories. Quesada could likely think that any outrage over some perceived offense of a gay lead character might overshadow other books and the large media push Marvel is doing throughout the next year. Because of all that, it might indeed be easier to wait to publish a book starring Rawhide Kid or other lead homosexual characters when feared backlash might not diminish the spotlight on bigger projects Marvel has going on. It's easier to just not do the book than have to wade through people acting offended and trying to direct reporters away from it to other books.

Also, I just thought that even though he may have been more general with his comments, he may still have been directing them specifically at Rawhide Kid which was not about taking things seriously and indeed used sexual identity as part of the book, through comedy if nothing else.

However, none of that changes the poor way in which Quesada phrased his comments. A better and much simpler way to say them might have been, "We're just not going to pursue that right now."

[Chiasm]

Neither heterosexuality or homosexuality are admirable. They just are.

Its what a person does with their life that makes them admirable. Who they sleep with might influence how admirable they are - Bill Clinton certainly loses points for being a scumbag cheater (all cheaters are the scum of the earth in my opinion). And George Michael certainly loses points for being a pervert who likes to grope men in public restrooms (he's a pervert for his choice of location - no one of any flavor should be doing it public restrooms).

But neither lost any points due to their sexual orientation. They lost points for what they did in the pursuit of said orientation.

[Tommy]

Lets have some quotes and commentary...

Okay, let’s first discuss why we labeled it MAX three years ago because those reasons still exist today if not more so because of the furor the original series caused in the media. Let me just say that there are many factors and considerations that are taken into account when making a decision like this and it’s not a decision that is made in a vacuum or without much internal consultation and consideration. It is also a decision that is not made lightly. Because of the strength of the Marvel brand we have to be sensitive to as many of our readers as possible and those readers come in many shapes and sizes. Because of that, and because we anticipated that Rawhide would be controversial we had to look at publishing the title in a responsible manner.

Yes, controversial.

First off... Furor in the media? I must have missed that. (Goes off to check). Okay as far as I can tell the furor from fan publication consists of people saying Marvel is doing this for shock value. And even that is little to nothing. The mainstream media noted the comic with a short buried column and I couldn't find any editorial on it at all.

And for my second point the only reason this was controversial was because they were chasing controversy with it. It was billed as "a gay cowboy" comic. Thus they were attempting to create controversy rather than let controversy find them.

This wasn’t going to be another costumed hero who was gay You mean besides Northstar and...

this wasn’t going to be a supporting character or a one-time walk on or a passing story line. This was taking what has been for decades a symbol of American hetero masculinity (think John Wayne, Clint Eastwood) and showing a whole different point of view on the heroic ideal and doing it with an established character from the 50s who for decades graced the pages of what is considered in the mainstream (we in comics know better) as a child’s medium.
For decades? Like John Wayne or Clint Eastwood? He was last seen in a four issue miniseries in 1985 and before that it was in the 1960's. I highly doubt a large segment of the population knew who the Rawhide Kid was let alone held him up as some lofty icon.

Yes, a cowboy who became a Wild West legend because he was the best fist fighter, the best gunslinger, and the guy who always saved the day by upholding all that is good and heroic, and yes he is all that and gay. Oh yeah, and he’s also a character whose comic you most likely picked up back when you were a little tyke.

Now, sex and sexuality have always been hot-button topics here in the states. We have to take into account that many of our readers are children whose parents may object to such content, especially discussions about alternative lifestyles. Many parents today want to be the source of information regarding sex and sexuality and all the different colors that comes in and we have to respect that choice.

That is very true. And as such it is the Parent's job to, you know, parent. It is not the world's job to parent for them. Nor is it the world's job to censor the bits of itself that make a parent have to talk about such an icky subject such as sex.

We have to operate under a business model that takes all points under consideration and weigh what is and isn't objectionable content in some people's minds.
While they should operate under a business model endlessly attempting to guess at what could be perceived as objectionable is not the way to go. Didn't Joe ever see that episode of South Park where they attempted to remove anything objectionable from the Christmas pageant? Well all they had left was mundane crap. And really a publisher should be demanding excellence, not mundane crap. That is how you make money in a business.

Rawhide was labeled MAX because the major hook and focus of the project was the sexuality of the main character,
No, it wasn't. The main focus of the project was the relationship between the father and the son.

a 50-plus year old established character. The reason the books featuring the characters you named in your question don't carry a MAX label is because that's not the focus of their books. The sexuality aspect of their lives is just one part of the whole that makes up their books, as opposed to Rawhide, where the fact that he was gay and his history was the major point of the book.
I don't think you read the book Joe Quesada.

In comparing Rawhide to Brokeback Mountain, I was merely saying that it dealt with a Western icon motif that was gay. I do feel that that's a perfectly accurate comparison to make. Keep in mind that Brokeback was rated R, which means no one under 18 could see it unless accompanied by an adult, which is exactly what we are saying with MAX. Now, while I know that there is nudity in Brokeback, I don’t think it would have received a lower rating even if it that aspect was to be removed. you are not winning any points with me right now Joe. I am highly against the MMPA's rating system. But I do know what you are saying. The Craft was R rated solely due to the presence of Witchcraft. However, if you translated that comic book directly on to film it would receive a PG-13. In & Out was PG-13. As Good As It Gets was PG-13. Saved! was PG-13. All of which had much more graphic talk about homosexuality than the Rawhide Kid comic did.

We understood, before publishing the title, the sensibilities of taking an established kids property and retconing him, we new it would be controversial and we knew that we had to be responsible as the publisher. Sure, could we have done this with a brand new character, probably. but it wouldn’t have done and had the same effect that Rawhide had. Like or loath the series, it broke ground and it established precedent and it said that it could be done.So you could take a character who has not seen the light of day in almost 20 years and get away with making him gay? That is once more chasing controversy than really doing something ground breaking. And that series was less ground breaking than Ellen's last season. A lot less. While I am at loath to admit it, Will and Grace broke more ground than that series.

So, while some may want to get up in arms three years later that it was labeled MAX, I don’t understand why we aren’t at least celebrating the fact that it happened, that it was published and we took on the naysayers and the hardcore fanmen and the letter writers and the bloodthirsty media. That was the true triumph of Rawhide. The book and the character now exist!

So in 2003 when Rawhide Kid was produced it was up against what? A world where Will and Grace had been on the air and a hit for only four seasons! And once more I am mystified about this "bloodthirsty media."

Look, the world changes, personal tastes and beliefs change. There are words, images, and ideas that weren’t an issue as little as five years ago. Today, they are considered a big no-no or controversial. Someday the pendulum will swing back, it is the way of civilization.

That said, who knows, perhaps someday when we decided to do another Rawhide series, perhaps a movie like Brokeback Mountain will have cleared a wide enough path where people will be much less reactionary, perhaps a gay cowboy will no longer be an issue. It’s just sad to me that once again Hollywood will have trumped us at our own game and managed to break ground where we couldn’t even though we dug out the first few shovel-fuls.


As far as I can tell the real world would give a big "who cares" to another Rawhide Kid series. Fandom would probably also give a big "who cares" to another Rawhide Kid series. Joe Quesada is just being weasely.

[MBunge]

First off... Furor in the media? I must have missed that. (Goes off to check). Okay as far as I can tell the furor from fan publication consists of people saying Marvel is doing this for shock value. And even that is little to nothing. The mainstream media noted the comic with a short buried column and I couldn't find any editorial on it at all.




I do recall seeing someone from Marvel getting yelled at on one of the cable news channels over the gay Rawhide Kid series. It may have even been Quesada. I'm sure there were other media appearances like that.

However, the more you read JoeQ's comments, the more insulting they become. The gay Rawhide Kid series was not the groundbreaking, meaningful book that he seems to remember. It was sold to the fans and shocking and controversial, but turned out to be fairly lame and the homosexuality angle seemed to exist only for the purposed of sophmoric humor.

The reality is that the series was nothing more than an ill-conceived stunt to get attention from the mainstream media, during a period when Quesada seemed to think that was the key to success. I'd be willing to bet money that what the gay ret-con would mean to the future usefullness of The Rawhide Kid got little to no consideration when they came up with the idea.

Mike

[Tommy]

I'd be willing to bet money that what the gay ret-con would mean to the future usefullness of The Rawhide Kid got little to no consideration when they came up with the idea.
Since 1985 was the last time the Rawhide Kid had been published I don't think it was much of a consideration either.

[Mr.Musgrave]

But something I don't get right, is if America is supposed to be all Christian and into God and stuff, how come there isn't such a kerfuffle being made.


America isn't supposed to be all Christian and into god and stuff. It's supposed to be a land of the free for all people. Unfortunately it seems that many people don't get that.

[PatrickG]

Why is everybody conceding that being an actor is NOT admirable?

It's a craft. Even the worst actor has to grapple with tough schedules, feast or famine pay cycles, learning lines, physicality and grappling with the whole bloody human condition.

Pheh. I don't understand why it's perfectly PC to degrade artists or art as somehow being easier, less productive, less important or less socially beneficial than other fields.

[Gilda Dent]

Why is everybody conceding that being an actor is NOT admirable?

It's a craft. Even the worst actor has to grapple with tough schedules, feast or famine pay cycles, learning lines, physicality and grappling with the whole bloody human condition.

Pheh. I don't understand why it's perfectly PC to degrade artists or art as somehow being easier, less productive, less important or less socially beneficial than other fields.

I wasn't one of those. I said quite clearly that certain aspects of being an actor, when it's done skillfully, are admirable.

Gilda

[stealthwise]

For a company that's prided itself on being "cutting edge," from the early days as Timely, where they had Captain America punching out Hitler before America joined World War 2, to the revitalization of the superhero genre in the Silver Age with the creation of dozens of new popular heroes, Marvel sure are acting like a bunch of pussies with this issue.

[Charles RB]

I'm still amazed that the Rawhide Kid is supposed to have been important and shocking just because he was a cowboy and gay. Big whoop. Who cared?

[Lanowar]

To be fair there is a bigger point to this Rawhide thing, the fact is the actual story was'nt that good. I read the first issue and it was so dull I was wondering why anyone would complain about it.

Back to the topic at hand, to me I don't care, what I mean is if a character is gay so be it, I got no problem with it. In Young Avengers it makes it a bit more intresting. No one in the media even picked up the whole Colossus thing.

In a sense the media wanted to gaybash and all of a sudden out comes a gay cowboy (no pun intended) so they have an arguementm, I bet not a single person who wanted it banned had actually read the story.

[WatsonGlenn]

and in what ways is heterossexuality admirable>>>

Heterosexuality is inspired by love and produces children. Those two elements make it admirable.

[Donald M.]

and in what ways is heterossexuality admirable>>>

Heterosexuality is inspired by love and produces children. Those two elements make it admirable.

*smacks forehead*

So what are you suggesting homosexuality is inspired by?

There are plenty of homosexual couples who are in love, just as there are heterosexual couples just in it for the sex.

What's more, here's nothing admirable about producing children. It's a physical function of humanity, nothing admirable about it. It's raising them to be healthy and productive human beings that is admirable, and many, many heterosexual couples have proven themselves woefully inadequate for the task.

[Charles RB]

Heterosexuality is inspired by love

No, it's inspired by hormones and the instinctive urge to shag.

[Gilda Dent]

and in what ways is heterossexuality admirable>>>

Heterosexuality is inspired by love and produces children. Those two elements make it admirable.

I'm going to agree with WatsonGleen here, at least in part. Finding love with a person of the opposite sex and bringing children into the world as a product of that love is an admirable thing, so long as the children themselves are subsequently loved and well cared for.

However, I'd go a little bit farther than that, and add that the same is true of homosexual couples. The love and support Emily and I give each other has made us both happier people, and if it does nothing more than that, it's a good thing. We plan to have children in the near future. It'll have to be done through artificial insemination, but Emily will be carrying our child, and that child will be the product of our love.

We agree Watson, I just think you're not seeing that what you say is true of homosexual couples also.

Gilda

[WatsonGlenn]

So what are you suggesting homosexuality is inspired by?>>>

Lust, perversion, low self esteem. Certainly not Love.

[WatsonGlenn]

No, it's inspired by hormones and the instinctive urge to shag.

Not if you do it right.

[Zeta]

Not if you do it right.

The same is true of homosexuality.

[bert]

Lust, perversion, low self esteem. Certainly not Love.


wow. .

you are so wrong, you cant even see right from where you are standing.

hell. . .you probably can't see anything. . it's pretty dark when your head is THAT far up your ass.

[Gilda Dent]

Lust

That's certainly true but really doesn't do anything but define sexual attraction. Heterosexuality is sexual attraction, or lust, for those of the opposite sex. Homosexuality is sexual attraction, or lust, for those of the same sex.

perversion

You're just defining things. You don't like homosexuality, therefore you call it perverted. Perverted just means a sexual practice of which one disapproves. Saying you disapprove of homosexuality because it's perverted is saying you disapprove of it because you disapprove of it. It's meaningless, providing a definition as if it were an argument.

low self esteem

You may be on to something here. I certainly had low self-esteem when I was trying to live the straight life. I hated myself, my body, and everything about my sexuality. Accepting that I was a homosexual woman and embracing that with my heart and soul, and everything that meant, freed me, put me in a place where happiness and being a complete person, allowed me to escape the near-suicidal depression I had been in for a decade since my early teens. So in that sense, the low self-esteem that I had as a result of denying my sexuality may have served in part to inspire me to embrace who I truly was inside and reject the social programming of society.

So in that sense, the low self-esteem caused by trying to be straight did in part inspire me to embrace my sexuality.

I doubt that's what you meant, though I really can't quite figure out exactly what exactly it is that you did mean by this.

Certainly not Love.

It depends on how you define homosexuality. If you define orientation strictly in terms of sexual attraction, as you seem to be doing, you're right, homosexuality isn't inspired by love. Neither is heterosexuality.

It does, however, often lead to love, the kind of romantic love and spiritual connection that the closest couples share. To deny that this exists among homosexual couples is to deny reality.

Gilda

[meethraa]

Not if you do it right.
Do what right?

How do you do heterosexuality?

[RichJohnston]

Lust, perversion, low self esteem. Certainly not Love.

I'm glad to hear you're such an expert on what inspires homosexuality. It would be interesting to know how you gained such an insight.

[RichJohnston]

and in what ways is heterossexuality admirable>>>

Heterosexuality is inspired by love and produces children. Those two elements make it admirable.

So if a heterosexual couple are unable to have children, then they cannot be in love?

Remember to when you were ten, eleven, twelve, or thirteen. Those stirrings of puberty. the change in how you regarded a group of people who were previously just "girls". The changes your body went through.

It was all about love and the desire to have children wasn't it? Mmm.

[Charles RB]

Not if you do it right.

Bollocks! I thought we were talking about where heterosexuality came from- and it does come from hormones and "go have sex" instincts. If you don't think so, you need to go back and retake Biology classes.

[JerrBear81]

IT IS A CHOICE. You CHOOSE to engage in sexual relations with someone of the same sex. Whether you're "miserable" or not is completely irrevelant. To say being gay is like being black is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY INCORRECT. You want to be offended by this definition, take it up with the dictionary creators.


Sex is a choice. Attraction isn't. If it were, I'd be straight because I spent most of my life trying to choose to be attracted to women.

[WatsonGlenn]

wow. .

you are so wrong, you cant even see right from where you are standing.

hell. . .you probably can't see anything. . it's pretty dark when your head is THAT far up your ass.>>>

You are like a walking talking joke machine. Please stop. My sides are aching from all the laughter you cause.

Let me re-edit this respnce to point out how clever your whole "too far right to see left" thing was, or was that too far left to see right. And how orginal your "head in the ass" thing was too.

Way to go Bert.

[WatsonGlenn]

Perverted just means a sexual practice of which one disapproves. Gilda


Where did you get that definition?

[WatsonGlenn]

I'm glad to hear you're such an expert on what inspires homosexuality. It would be interesting to know how you gained such an insight.

I doubt you're really all that glad, but to answer your question it comes from living life and doing a bit of reading, common sense, maybe a bit of wisdom.

[WatsonGlenn]

So if a heterosexual couple are unable to have children, then they cannot be in love?.

I would not say that. The question was why is heterosexuality admirable.

[bert]

>>>

You are like a walking talking joke machine. Please stop. My sides are aching from all the laughter you cause.


but you see, we are laughing at your ill informed, silly opinions and your view of the world.

we aren't laughing with you.


AT you, not WITH you.

ha ha

[WatsonGlenn]

Bollocks! I thought we were talking about where heterosexuality came from- and it does come from hormones and "go have sex" instincts. If you don't think so, you need to go back and retake Biology classes.

Are you from England or do you just use the word "Bollocks" to be cool? Do you use that word in real life? Do they even use that word in England? Anyw