Neither do I, I mean they could have done an interesting story where his already gay son becomes a green lantern like his sister Jade. Or just make a brand new green lantern, it's not exactly that difficult.ImSkeletor said:
Green Lantern is Gay
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Kind of a cop out. I guess Alan Scott is technically iconic given his title of "Green Lantern", but it's not the Green Lantern that's familiar to non-comic fans.
Add to that, he's not even of the same universe as the mainstream heroes.
Add to that, he's not even of the same universe as the mainstream heroes.
Argh... for the love of... why? Why do liberals have to go way overboard and make outlandish scientifically unproven claims in order to counter Christian fundamentalists? WE DON'T KNOW WHAT CAUSES PEOPLE TO BE GAY. Sheer common sense will tell you that it isn't a choice that someone makes overnight; no one wakes up one morning and says to him/herself, "huh, ya know what? Heterosexuality is kinda boring, I think I'll be gay!" But on the other hand, there is little-to-no evidence for it being genetic either.RvLeshrac said:
Considering homosexuality makes you less likely to pass on your genes there would be a pretty strong selective pressure against it on the individual level. Now, you might argue that it could function as a population control device and that there might be a group selective pressure for the trait. However, not only is group selection much more complex and harder to instantiate than normal selection, but this would also imply that the phenotype would have to only present itself during conditions of overpopulation. This means that the gene would only activate itself under specific developmental conditions (e.g. perhaps mothers produce a certain hormone during pregnancy when exposed to stresses associated with overpopulation). This would mean that genotype =/= phenotype; i.e. that homosexuality is not purely genetic but rather a product of a genetic predisposition combined with certain developmental factors.
And that is just from the abstract level of evolutionary theory. Sexuality encompasses an extremely broad range of behavioral phenomena. It likely has both hormonal and neurochemical aspects as well as higher cognitive (computational) aspects, and it probably involves a complex interplay between very different parts of the brain. To be perfectly frank, cognitive science is still in its infancy. We can't even fully explain memory or dreams, much less something as complex and multifaceted as human sexuality. And we do know that at least some aspects of human sexuality are learned from society (fetishes, bodily ideals, etc.), so we cannot reasonably claim that sexual orientation is entirely innate.
If you start being a contrarian and claiming the exact opposite of what your adversary claims without forethought or context then you only hurt your cause.
Or as Nietzsche put it: "at times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid."
No worries. I dont have a clue really as to what else was changed, I simply dont like reboots. If the authors want change in the story/universe...write it. If it cant be written...then dont do it.Spot1990 said:
If someone already is hetero, let him stay hetero. If hes gay, let him stay gay. If hes white, let him stay white. Et cetera. I didnt like them changing Nick Fury either. There was no good reason for it. In retrospect, Samuel L. did a fantastic job with the role...but that doesnt stop me from being annoyed that companies change stuff like this, probably simply to appeal to a bigger audience.
If you write your story according to customer polls and the like you've already failed as a writer/storyteller imo.
I'm pretty sure GL is gay simply because they want to appeal to a larger audience plus free PR. One should think that a well crafted story was good enough PR in and of itself >:|
Huh. That post got longer than I expected. I'm rambling. 13+ hours of work will do that to you
Good night!
Damnit DC! One of the characters I totally wanted back, and you make him gay! Grumble grumble.
Let's be clear, I don't hate gay people. But I don't like homosexuality as a lifestyle for a number of reasons I won't bore anyone with. So I'm just a little irked by this choice, especially given that it's a member of the JSA, my favorite superhero team.
I've sat through worse betrayals, and honestly Alan Scott being gay can't be that bad. I'll keep reading Earth 2 as a promised I would, though I won't be happy.
Honestly, this change caught me off guard, but I really shouldn't have been surprised. Despite everyone's theories, there was no way DC was going to make one of the core characters a homosexual. If it had been Superman or Wonder Woman, there'd be no end to the outrage. Because as miffed as I am at Alan Scott being gay, I'll get over it. Make an iconic character gay, and DC would never live it down. For many, it'd be worse than Emerald Twilight or Identity Crisis.
It's especially obvious now, considering how obviously forced this change is. Maybe some writers like James Robinson were toying with the idea of making one of the heroes gay, but it's obvious this change was at least partially motivated by either what Marvel did or what Archie did when it came to gay characters. It wouldn't be the first time DC jumped on a trend by its destinguished competition. And the fact that the one made gay is barely known by anyone, even in the comic culture, is proof enough of how half-hearted a change it is.
Edit: Also, why did Alan Scott need to be gay? There was already gay in his character by way of his son, Obsidion. Of course that was back in Pre-Flashpoint continuity, and now Alan Scott is too young to have a gay son. And you know what? That was a much more interesting story there, of Scott having to deal with his son's gayness in spite of his entrenched, 1940s worldview. That he accepted it is something I personally disliked, but at least there was a story there.
Let's be clear, I don't hate gay people. But I don't like homosexuality as a lifestyle for a number of reasons I won't bore anyone with. So I'm just a little irked by this choice, especially given that it's a member of the JSA, my favorite superhero team.
I've sat through worse betrayals, and honestly Alan Scott being gay can't be that bad. I'll keep reading Earth 2 as a promised I would, though I won't be happy.
Honestly, this change caught me off guard, but I really shouldn't have been surprised. Despite everyone's theories, there was no way DC was going to make one of the core characters a homosexual. If it had been Superman or Wonder Woman, there'd be no end to the outrage. Because as miffed as I am at Alan Scott being gay, I'll get over it. Make an iconic character gay, and DC would never live it down. For many, it'd be worse than Emerald Twilight or Identity Crisis.
It's especially obvious now, considering how obviously forced this change is. Maybe some writers like James Robinson were toying with the idea of making one of the heroes gay, but it's obvious this change was at least partially motivated by either what Marvel did or what Archie did when it came to gay characters. It wouldn't be the first time DC jumped on a trend by its destinguished competition. And the fact that the one made gay is barely known by anyone, even in the comic culture, is proof enough of how half-hearted a change it is.
Edit: Also, why did Alan Scott need to be gay? There was already gay in his character by way of his son, Obsidion. Of course that was back in Pre-Flashpoint continuity, and now Alan Scott is too young to have a gay son. And you know what? That was a much more interesting story there, of Scott having to deal with his son's gayness in spite of his entrenched, 1940s worldview. That he accepted it is something I personally disliked, but at least there was a story there.
Hehehe. That made me laugh.deathninja said:
Also, as a genuine gay person I stamp it with the "Not Offensive" stamp because that is how the world works.
Uhm, I'm sort of disappointed by this. Yes, Alan Scott is technically the most iconic lantern since he was the first, but he's not the one who will get his own on-going, or another awful movie, or very much media attention at all, which limits the amount of "Being Gay and also a Superhero" stories that we can tell. Plus people will forget about this very soon.
Let me just say that there's already a ton of gay characters in the new 52.
Batwoman - Batwoman is gay.
Stormwatch - Apollo and Midnighter are gay (and a couple <3)
Teen Titans - Bunker is gay
Flash - Singh and the Pied Piper are a couple.
And Alan Scott won't get much more coverage than those characters. So unfortunately this isn't a big deal. I'd much rather see a premiere character be gay than a technically-iconic-but-lots-of-people-don't-know-him-and-of-those-that-do-very-few-care-about-him character.
That's right I forgot! Pied Piper and that detective are gay! It completely slipped my mind! And hell, there's some tension in there, with one character being afraid of the social fallout should his relationship with the other come to light. So why did Alan Scott need to be hit with the queering beam again?Thespian said:
Oh right, because as iconic as the Flash is, no one knows about his supporting cast and thus no one cares. Heck, I care more about these characters than most, and I have problems with homosexuality in general. As I've already said, this whole business seems like a pointless publicity stunt to get in good with the LGBT community. A community that probably doesn't even care about the JSA or the golden age Green Lantern.
To be honest, it does seem stunt-y, but I disagree on two points.Bluecho said:
1 - I doubt it's to get in good with LGBT community. More likely it's just to say "Check us out, we're diverse!" and appeal to the... Is straight-guilt a thing? If so, that demographic. Or just generally spread good-will about DC.
2 - I don't think it's all that bad.
My guess is, it went like this;
Writer 1: Okay, so Alan Scott is now young... Which means he has no son?
Writer 2: His son was gay, and many people liked how he was tied to homosexuality. How can we keep that theme active for him?
Writer 1: I guess we just make him gay. We'll basically fuse the two into one, since this is a reboot and all. That way we keep the good aspects of both. Makes sense.
Marketing Guy: Gosh, it sounds like a dramatic and open-minded change about a character who is, from one perspective, iconic is occurring. It is my duty as a marketing guy to blow this way out of proportion.
I mean, DC is a business. Just because they try to capitalize the shit out of something, doesn't mean that was the intent from the start. It seems like a natural progression.
But yeah, Flash is cool and I like his supporting cast. They should have just made Barry gay for this reboot =/ Everyone prefers Wally West anyway, it'd be no big deal.
[sub]also what problem do you have with gay people out of interest?[/sub]
He doesn't have to be a liberal to make that claim.ReiverCorrupter said:
Also, as a gay person, I'm going to say something that should probably be said instead of the general nonsensical idea that reads oh gay people are born gay you shouldn't judge them for something they can't choose.
It doesn't matter if you're gay because of genes, the environment, both, or neither. Being gay isn't inherently wrong, my sexual and romantic attraction to people of my gender actually has nothing to do with my morality. My homosexual attraction, unlike a pedosexual or zoosexual attraction, doesn't hurt anyone and only involves people who can consent to sex. My sexuality also doesn't make me automatically involved in certain religious, political, or hobby circles. Sexuality does not have to automatically equate to certain types of behaviors despite what a lot of people think.
Stop going "Oh gay people can't choose" go "So what if someone's gay?" if you really want to support me and other gay people.
Though I don't think RvLeshrac is terribly interested in supporting the gay community, and in comics in particular, if he doesn't even understand why gay representation being used with an already established character is good and why a lot of the community is hesitant accept new characters who are gay.
Now, back on topic, I wish DC had been braver and gone with a super hero/heroine that was more iconic, but I'm glad they've gone with someone with this much visibility at least. Now I just have to hope that this won't go down the road some other comics have gone where they decide to drop the character in a few months, or have them die brutally. Or both.
Valid points, but I think DC do need to tread carefully here.Thespian said:
I've never been a huge fan of using sexuality as *the* defining characteristic of anyone, be they a comic superhero or a fellow man. Diversity is always welcome, especially in the white, hetero male power-fantasy that is comics, but personally I think it should be done sensibly, sensitively and nonchalantly. makes things more believable, more realistic and less inflammatory.
(That last point's not about hiding anything because of drama, more I see it as the mature high ground).
Considering Alan's green lantern costume (which contained very little green) being an uncoordinated riot of color. I gotta say he's definitely not going to be 'stereotypically' gay.
I told my older brother this earlier today he was big into Green Lantern comics (still is) and is gay. He said "If they do it right and want to keep that a realistic part of his character he won't seem all that different" I've got to agree.
I told my older brother this earlier today he was big into Green Lantern comics (still is) and is gay. He said "If they do it right and want to keep that a realistic part of his character he won't seem all that different" I've got to agree.
They wanted a younger Alan so that he could actually be used in the stories instead of having him as a "old timer". That effectively eliminated his children and thus one of the more prominent gay character. So the writer approached the powers that be with the option of turning the father who was uncomfortable with his gay son into being one himself. The stories involving him and his son should have already turned you off of his stories in the old time line so I don't see why you'd be upset over this change since he already had the gay market covered.Bluecho said:
Between Crisis, Infinite Crisis, Flash Point, and Kirby knows what else I'd raise your "He's not real" with a "They're all not real".Freaky Lou said:
In another 10 years DC will reboot again.
Next Up: Batman is outed as a chubby chaser!!!!!! Shocking!!! Why sexual preference is relevant to anything is beyond me. Why not make a big spiel about a hero liking only blue eyed, blond haired people....ooopppss.
Dear GOD MAN, don't you know where you are? Prepare for people to quote you and tell you that you must hate gay people if you don't approve of homosexuality.Bluecho said:
Here's the general argument that they'll give: homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, it's an intrinsic property of one's metaphysical identity and cannot be changed.
Believe me, I've tested some of them on it and they pretty much committed themselves to this view. Some of them even seem to think that even if it was genetic and that you had the power to alter someone's genome it would still somehow be impossible to change that person. It's pretty incoherent once you start examining it. (Not that everyone subscribes to this view, but the kind of people that are outspoken enough to try to "correct" people's value systems tend to propound absolutist views to support their points (go figure).)
Now, I definitely wouldn't say that it's a simple lifestyle choice, but I don't commit myself to their incredibly strong views. Furthermore, the question of whether it is intrinsic to someone's identity and the question of whether it is good or bad are two different things. To be frank, I view human beings as conglomerates of different properties that are always in flux and hence that there is no atomistic identity. Hence I don't really have a problem with someone wanting to change an aspect of his/herself.
You can value whatever you want, as long as you tolerate others. That's right: TOLERANCE NOT ACCEPTANCE. You don't have to accept people, you just have to mind your own damn business and not harass them. If you do start to get into their business then you've invited them into your business. This is something that some progressives seem to have forgotten.
If only people kept to this idea they would realize that you've only alluded to your own personal value system in order to explain your reasoning and have not attacked anyone. Let's see if the people in this thread return the favor...
