Green Lantern is Gay

[Robert Ewing]

DAMMIT, I had my money on Alfred. But hasn't the green lanterns had many female lady friends in the past? Hmm.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

I was expecting Green Arrow...

 

[esperandote]

"As promised, one of DC's "iconic" heroes has come out of the closet - and it's not Aquaman."

I laughed.

If the change doesn't define him then they just did it for the sake of doing it, as previously stated there are other gay characters in dc universe.

 

[DeltaWolfson]

huh....thought for sure it was flash.

You and just about everyone else including me.

 

[Thespian]

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).

Absolutely. Well said, sir.
For the simple reason that sexuality being all there is to a character is shallow and boring. It's like having a token girl in an action movie or game who's only purpose is to be a girl and keep reminding person that she has female genitalia, but she's still doing stuff just like the men are, wow.
With the examples I gave, I think DC has done well with gay characters. I don't know so much about Batwoman, but all the gay characters in the New 52 are quite tastefully done.

However! I think there's a misconception about gay characters and how it always has to be subtle. Not so. There are a lot of gay people out there who are open and flamboyant and in-your-face about their sexuality, to varying degrees.
I think it's fine to talk about this, so long as you look at why the person is so constantly bringing it up. Because a lot of people do that.

I'll use myself as an example. I'm far from camp or flamboyant (I hope) but I do bring up the fact that I'm gay quite a bit. I mean, it's not all there is to me, but it's still a big part of my life. I'm proud of coming out, I like that it makes me somewhat different, and it's generally a good conversation starter.

Bunker from Teen Titans is a good example. He's sort of flamboyant, wears purple a lot, but he's still portrayed as masculine.

Gay characters don't have to be written super subtle, I think it's perfectly okay for a character to go beyond "I'm gay, it's no big deal."
Of course, it's always hard to get a balance between "Hiding it to the point of implied shame" and "shoving it down your throat"

 

[zehydra]

Lol, surprise surprise.

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if most superheroes out there were actually gay.

I don't really care either way, and I think this whole re-creation of superhero comics debate is just a debate between people who don't actually read superhero comics anyway.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

Up until last year when the Ryan Reynolds Green Lantern film came out I assumed there was only one Green Lantern, up until just now I thought there were only two, ha. The more you know.

And good for them for sticking to their promise of diversifying their super heroes' sexuality.

Hey Million Moms, do one.

 

[renegade7]

Thought for sure it would be Flash...

Aaaand cue the batshit conservatives in 3....2.....1.....

 

[Twilight_guy]

The only problem with this decision... look at the guy's original costume. The lame joke has become reality!

Interesting. I was guessing it probably wasn't a hero who had a famous love interest like Superman and it probably wasn't one of the main heroes we know since that'd be jarring. Alan Scott fits the bill pretty nicely. He's iconic but lots of people don't know him because the space cop green lantern is the more famous version and his name isn't tied with any eternal love interest.

 

[deathninja]

However! I think there's a misconception about gay characters and how it always has to be subtle. Not so. There are a lot of gay people out there who are open and flamboyant and in-your-face about their sexuality, to varying degrees.

A valid point, *if* executed correctly.

(More or less) I know just as many flamboyant, open, confident homosexuals as I do especially reserved types.

The danger with popular media is picking a stereotype and running with it; Too many people take Will & Grace as the de facto standard, and DC run the risk of falling into one of the two camps between "ashamed" and "flaming".

I know most of us have no intention of reading too deeply into this, but DC have a real opportunity of normalising the "issue" by just subtlety slipping it in and carrying on with it, rather than ((sadly) potentially inflammatory) fanfare.

 

[Creatural]

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....

...

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.

Why are you saying homosexuality is a lifestyle? Gay people can be very different and we don't automatically fall into certain lifestyles because of our sexuality. Some gay people vote Democrat, some vote Republican, some people go clubbing a lot, some people are so straight edge that they'd be sick being near a bar, some make a living as construction workers, some are reporters, some are dancers, some are promiscuous, and some don't have sex until marriage.

We vary just as much as straight people and we don't behave the same as each other, if we did I could just go out and date any other gay woman and we'd be a compatible couple right away. That doesn't happen though because we don't all have things in common beyond being gay.

It would make far more sense for you to just say you don't like homosexual interactions as that's the only thing you could be logically talking about here unless you've made an assumption about gay people all having a certain way of life and then only observed certain gay people and let that inform your life instead of doing any research into things. It wouldn't change opinions about you, but it'd make more sense if you were specifically disturbed by seeing gay things instead of claiming we all have a specific lifestyle that we don't.

Especially since your latter statement there makes it look like you just don't like gay interactions and don't care about a lifestyle choice at all.

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).)

That's not a very scientific view point and I wouldn't suggest using a small sample size as a way for you to prove what gay people think, even with that qualifier in there. You may not have intended it in this way but this has come off in such a way that you seem to be trying to use this as a way of supporting your view with evidence backing it up but also saying that it isn't either. It almost looks wishy washy. I'd recommend being clearer in what you type to actually show what you mean and not putting in your personal testing there unless it's actually been done as a proper study.

Also, I'm not sure why you went into talking about whether sexuality is a choice or not in response to Bluecho in particular as they weren't addressing that, unless you were perhaps trying to address things from up above and I don't know why you simply didn't do that more directly.

 

[PunkRex]

I wish they'd stop BEATING ROUND THE BUSH and make Wounder Women a lesbian *teehee* still, Green Lantern, thats impressive on their part.

 

[Croaker42]

Good on DC for not paying any attention to hate mongering filth groups such as One Million Moms.
Do I agree with the blatant publicity pandering that is this? Not really.

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

I guessed it would be Flash.

Not to take anything away from the decision- as I think it was a generally good choice- but it seems like kind of a cop-out to say "our newly announced gay guy is Green Lantern... but not "the" Green Lantern."

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

snip

He doesn't have to be a liberal to make that claim.

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.

Completely agree. People should also realize that whether or not homosexuality is "natural" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) is irrelevant to whether it's right or wrong. They seem to forget that mother nature is a complete and total *****. We generally don't imitate the brutality of nature in most things, so why the hell would it suddenly be important in regard to sexual orientation?

However, I do worry that there are certain religious doctrines that will make anti-gay sentiments a lingering phenomena. Everything you described above is pretty much factually true. Consensual homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone. But unfortunately none of that matters to people who think that it's a sin regardless of whether it has bad consequences. Remember that many of these people think that any sex that is for pleasure rather than procreation is sinful. I just don't see how you can change their minds without violating their right to religious freedom. Some super-progressive types might think that religious freedom is trumped when the traditions it protects involve some form of bigotry, but that argument scares the living bejezus out of me.

Some make the argument that there's weak textual basis for anti-gay sentiments in the Bible (e.g. taking Leviticus out of context), but the fact of the matter is that there's still plenty room in there. (E.g. Paul basically says that Christians should ostracize those who engage in "sexual depravity", and he certainly considers homosexuality to fall under this category.) I don't know very much about the Koran, but my understanding is that it is even more explicitly anti-gay.

As much as we might hate it, they have the right to be as hateful and ignorant as they want, as long as they don't try to violate the rights of others. Though it obviously becomes a lot more complicated when instead of breaking the law, they try to influence it. But thankfully we have the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause, so hopefully the judicial branch will rule against these laws. (And hopefully there will never be enough radicals to actually vote for a congress that would overturn the 14th amendment, but if that ever happens I'd say it's time to get the hell outta Dodge.)

The outcome that I would opt for is simply to declare marriage a religious institution and make it so the government can only give out "domestic partnership" licenses that give the same tax benefits to gay and straight couples. That way gay couples get the same rights and no one can complain about the government attacking marriage. Obviously some people would argue that the government has a duty to "defend marriage", but frankly the government has never historically had a duty to defend cultural institutions, only individual rights, so their argument is crap.

If the definition of marriage is a huge cultural issue then let it play out culturally. Legislation follows culture, not the other way around. I should hope that most gay people don't think they have a right to get married in a church that opposes homosexuality at a doctrinal level, because the government ain't gonna make it happen. To be frank, if someone is gay they probably shouldn't be Catholic, they shouldn't expect Catholicism to change to suit them, and they DEFINITELY shouldn't expect the government to force Catholics to allow them to marry in Catholic Churches. But I doubt that there are any more than a handful of gay people that think that way, if there are any at all.

 

[spectrenihlus]

I wish they'd stop BEATING ROUND THE BUSH and make Wounder Women a lesbian *teehee* still, Green Lantern, thats impressive on their part.

But then what would Steve Trevor do?

 

[PunkRex]

I wish they'd stop BEATING ROUND THE BUSH and make Wounder Women a lesbian *teehee* still, Green Lantern, thats impressive on their part.

But then what would Steve Trevor do?

He had nothing on JL Batman. He had... issues.

 

[Creatural]

Snip.

Completely agree. People should also realize that whether or not homosexuality is "natural" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) is irrelevant to whether it's right or wrong. They seem to forget that mother nature is a complete and total *****. We generally don't imitate the brutality of nature in most things, so why the hell would it suddenly be important in regard to sexual orientation?

However, I do worry that there are certain religious doctrines that will make anti-gay sentiments a lingering phenomena. Everything you described above is pretty much factually true. Consensual homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone. But unfortunately none of that matters to people who think that it's a sin regardless of whether it has bad consequences. Remember that many of these people think that any sex that is for pleasure rather than procreation is sinful. I just don't see how you can change their minds without violating their right to religious freedom. Some super-progressive types might think that religious freedom is trumped when the traditions it protects involve some form of bigotry, but that argument scares the living bejezus out of me.

Some make the argument that there's weak textual basis for anti-gay sentiments in the Bible (e.g. taking Leviticus out of context), but the fact of the matter is that there's still plenty room in there. (E.g. Paul basically says that Christians should ostracize those who engage in "sexual depravity", and he certainly considers homosexuality to fall under this category.) I don't know very much about the Koran, but my understanding is that it is even more explicitly anti-gay.

As much as we might hate it, they have the right to be as hateful and ignorant as they want, as long as they don't try to violate the rights of others. Though it obviously becomes a lot more complicated when instead of breaking the law, they try to influence it. But thankfully we have the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause, so hopefully the judicial branch will rule against these laws. (And hopefully there will never be enough radicals to actually vote for a congress that would overturn the 14th amendment, but if that ever happens I'd say it's time to get the hell outta Dodge.)

The outcome that I would opt for is simply to declare marriage a religious institution and make it so the government can only give out "domestic partnership" licenses that give the same tax benefits to gay and straight couples. That way gay couples get the same rights and no one can complain about the government attacking marriage. Obviously some people would argue that the government has a duty to "defend marriage", but frankly the government has never historically had a duty to defend cultural institutions, only individual rights, so their argument is crap.

If the definition of marriage is a huge cultural issue then let it play out culturally. Legislation follows culture, not the other way around. I should hope that most gay people don't think they have a right to get married in a church that opposes homosexuality at a doctrinal level, because the government ain't gonna make it happen. To be frank, if someone is gay they probably shouldn't be Catholic, they shouldn't expect Catholicism to change to suit them, and they DEFINITELY shouldn't expect the government to force Catholics to allow them to marry in Catholic Churches. But I doubt that there are any more than a handful of gay people that think that way, if there are any at all.

I agree on this and do believe in either giving everyone domestic partnership or saying that marriage as it is covered in government is not the same one covered in any religion.

I do think however it depends on what sect of a religion you're in for whether or not a Catholic gay person should get married in a church or not. If someone is gay and religious and their sect supports them I think they should be able to get married in their church and the churches that don't want them getting married don't get a say as it's not their church.

Also, I'm sorry for my other reply to you since I think I may have fundamentally misunderstood some of the things you were saying and my reply is probably very confusing.

Woah html what did you do? All right, I think I fixed that.

 

[WalrusPowers]

The title of this article made me think for a moment that one of my douchebag classmates had written a way-too-late review of the film.