Way to cop out DC. Just slap the tag on someone who hasn't been part of the core lineup in 60 years or so. Classy.
RvLeshrac said:What's next? Lois catches Superman fucking Jimmy Olsen?
Nope. But, in this specific case, you're altering the genetic make-up of a superhero.Treblaine said:The genuine cover art for a non-parody in-canon Superman Comic. Oh the innocent times. I am afraid I do not have context.RvLeshrac said:What's next? Lois catches Superman fucking Jimmy Olsen?
But seriously, you just made a slippery slope argument, a serious one unlike my joke one. You aren't giving any mechanism for how one can lead to another, only how it is apparently an equal step but to an unacceptable place.
Just because We go from A to B doesn't mean we will go from B to C.
The lack of LGBT superheroes is exactly why there's plenty of room for them. You don't walk into a party filled with guys and yell "THIS FEST NEEDS MORE SAUSAGE."Diana Kingston-Gabai said:Indeed. You can tell by the plethora of gay superheroes they already have.RvLeshrac said:So, why are they changing an established heterosexual character into a homosexual one? There's plenty of room for gay superheroes.
You do realise that it's a different character who is taking up the Green Lantern mantle?RvLeshrac said:Nope. But, in this specific case, you're altering the genetic make-up of a superhero.Treblaine said:The genuine cover art for a non-parody in-canon Superman Comic. Oh the innocent times. I am afraid I do not have context.RvLeshrac said:What's next? Lois catches Superman fucking Jimmy Olsen?
But seriously, you just made a slippery slope argument, a serious one unlike my joke one. You aren't giving any mechanism for how one can lead to another, only how it is apparently an equal step but to an unacceptable place.
Just because We go from A to B doesn't mean we will go from B to C.
If you want a comic analogy, this is akin to removing Cyclops's eye-beams or Wolverine's healing factor.
Sexuality isn't something you can "alter," this is the wrong message.
I knew it wasn't going to be Flash, or Jordan because in the new JL comic books those two argue over who gets to hit on Wonder Woman, so that was a foregone conclusion.Kelethor said:huh....thought for sure it was flash.
I laughed sooo hard at this.DVS BSTrD said:He's a man who draws power from jewelry, what did you expect?
It's a new timeline so they can do whatever they what to him, even if it means we no longer have one hot green lady, and one broody shadow man. Maybe they'll get new origins (nad parents) if they show up.MorganL4 said:I knew it wasn't going to be Flash, or Jordan because in the new JL comic books those two argue over who gets to hit on Wonder Woman, so that was a foregone conclusion.Kelethor said:huh....thought for sure it was flash.
What I want to know, is how are they gonna explain Jade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_%28comics%29
If he is not "recently gay" that would imply that he was always out of the closet, so somewhere along the line, either artificial insemination happened, or Thorn ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_and_Thorn ) knowing married a gay man. ( which is weird)
Am I the only one around these parts who thinks that gay romances are most likely pretty much the same as hetero? Not better or worse?Valis88 said:*sigh* The picture with that article, is so romantic.
I wish hetero love was half that romance really...what a lovely kiss.
WAIT... it all makes sense nowHitchmeister said:Be fair, there are lots of non-gay Green Lanterns who draw their power from jewelry. It just so happens that this one's weakness is wood...DVS BSTrD said:He's a man who draws power from jewelry, what did you expect?
Well, to be fair all superheroes are either spandex-wearing men or super-buff women. I figure you could probably make a gay joke about any of them. But hey, what do you know? Steve Butts called it and was exactly on the dollar, suspiciously so even...DVS BSTrD said:He's a man who draws power from jewelry, what did you expect?