Green Lantern is Gay

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

Exactly, could you imagine if they did the reverse and made Obsidian or Batwoman straight? If that's not ok then changing a character who has always been written as straight should not be ok either.

False equivalency: making Obsidian or Batwoman straight wouldn't be motivated by the need for having more straight people in comics. That's not exactly a minority group that requires more representation.

I'm not happy that it's Alan Scott specifically because he's such a minor character in the overall DC hierarchy, but if this is the only way to get some diversity into the painfully-homogenous DCU (and it is, because new characters just don't go over as well with existing readers), then that's how it has to be.

 

[LadyRhian]

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

They sorta already mentioned this. In one WW comic, she decides to romance her new partner, and she tells him that she's having to adapt her people's culture to romance with a man, because it's normally done between two women. She may be Bi, but since Paradise Island is all-female only, apparently all the romances there are between two women.

 

[Strain42]

I guessed Green Lantern, but not this Green Lantern.

So...I dunno if I won the pool or not.

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

Does this sound like someone confused with their sexuality to you? No. This is pure a simple a gimmick.

You do realize that all that lore about Alan Scott's relationships with women is no longer canon, right? DC may have been ludicrously clumsy about the reboot, but one thing they've been clear on is that there is no "Old DCU" anymore, so none of that information you've provided means anything in the current state of affairs.

 

[lord.jeff]

Exactly, could you imagine if they did the reverse and made Obsidian or Batwoman straight? If that's not ok then changing a character who has always been written as straight should not be ok either.

False equivalency: making Obsidian or Batwoman straight wouldn't be motivated by the need for having more straight people in comics. That's not exactly a minority group that requires more representation.

So majority bad, and minority good. I agree with spectrenihlus point, it should matter what you're switching around, it defeats the point of having established characters if your just gonna switch out major portions of their personalities for a crappy political statement.

 

[LadyRhian]

So what does this mean for his wife, and his kids.

That's the thing about changing the sexuality and/or race of a established character, it creates ripple effects that force the change of other characters. I have no problem with gay characters I just wish they wouldn't change already established characters to add more "diversity". If you need to have a character to be gay create a new character, like Obsidian.

Also look at it from the reverse can you imagine if someone decided to change an established gay character and make them straight?

Being gay does *not* mean you cannot have kids, guys. Do I really NEED to say this? Or cannot marry a woman, for that matter.

Did I say it did? No it creates inconsistencies with the established lore. Yes it is a reboot however they still use the previous background for his character and besides it all just feels forced on him. Here is a writer on the best way to write a gay character

I think it was implied in the very first sentence, as if gay men or gay people in general can't have opposite sex spouses or children. What does it mean for his wife? Her husband is attracted to other men. What does it mean for his kids? Their father is gay. That's all it means.

I didn't want to make a character gay unless it felt organic. So, the list was pretty short. Then I remembered when Obsidian was in the JLA years ago and Gerard Jones, the writer, danced around the issue. I went back and read all my Infinity, Inc.'s and although Todd dated women, it was always a mess. Andreyko said that DC was supportive, wanting a "visible gay character" and that it was "a general void in the DCU that needed exploration". Geoff Johns, longtime writer of JSA, also stated his support for the idea.

That is describing Green Lantern's son obsidian. He was written from his inception with the intent of making him gay. Here however I will describe Alan Scott's marriage

Years later, after the death of his first wife Rose Canton, Alan Scott realized that he had loved Molly all this time and they got married. As the years passed a problem developed for the two; the Starheart (which gave Scott his powers) had reversed his aging processes, so he was physically a young man while Molly had since aged into an old woman. In despair over the rift this had caused between them Molly sold her soul to the demon Neron in return for youth in Underworld Unleashed: Abyss - Hell's Sentinel #1. Her body became that of a young woman (who had the power to create nightmares) but her soul remained in the underworld. Scott fought his way through Hell to obtain it and, with the help of the young Green Lantern Kyle Rayner, returned it to the Harlequin's body. This resulted in re-aging Molly, but making her whole once again. Some time thereafter, Scott himself was returned to his true physical age, as well. Mayne and Scott remain happily married to this day.

Does this sound like someone confused with their sexuality to you? No. This is pure a simple a gimmick.

I will add that being gay only means you are sexually attracted to other men. Nothing says a gay man cannot love a woman, or even marry her or have kids with her. It just means... he's attracted to other men first and foremost.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

So they retconned out a long standing Gay character and then simply turned his father, the traditionally more right wing and conservative type, gay in their new incarnation? Wow! That's just wrong in so many ways. regardless of which side of the political spectrum you reside.

I agree, and here's why:

The article says that he is being

"retooled" as a younger, gay character.

Although somewhat vague, I take this to mean that he's not from the 1940's.

This leaves us with a dilemma:

If I'm misreading things and he is from the 1940's, that's WAY worse than anything you mentioned: it's whitewashing history. No one in the 1940's could be openly gay: they had freaking laws against "sodomy". If he was openly gay people would want him arrested for it, which would be a recurring conflict in almost every issue. There would be no way that you could just say that he was gay and not have it be an important aspect of the character without completely ignoring the historical intolerance of the era. (Or maybe Earth 2 was less intolerant, but even then it seems like a disingenuous way to skirt the issue.)

On the other hand, if he is being retooled as a contemporary character then it seems they have to eliminate the entire storyline with his son being gay. And as you so succinctly put it:

And at the end of the day the contrast between the older 1940's era "old school" superhero struggling to come to terms with his gay superhero son, was a much more interesting story than 'OMG the old Green Lantern is Gay!!!" could ever be. It felt more real, and not simply a retread of a 4 color version of a Glee story.

This is clearly just a cheap publicity stunt. They already have other gay characters and they aren't really making the popular/well known (outside of comic book circles) version of the Green Lantern gay. Obviously I can't speak for gay people, but I would definitely understand if they found this offensive.

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

So majority bad, and minority good.

If you have to boil it down to brass tacks, then yes: it's 2012, and there is no good reason why I should be able to count the number of prominent gay superheroes on one hand.

 

[VoidWanderer]

While I applaud them not making Wonder Woman gay, going along the little respect I have for the DC Superheroines since they hit 'F5', I am judging this solely on Starfire from the Red hood comic, so if I am wrong please tell me good news, I find this a cop-out.

If all of them were gay, then I would applaud them properly on this, but to say a version of a character who is chosen by the power ring is gay and make a big deal about it, is weak.

If they made Superman gay, I would've been truly impressed.

 

[ProtonGuy]

You know what bothers me? Having gay pride shoved in my face all the fucking time. I have a best friend who is gay, but that doesn't bother me, why? Because he doesn't remind me every two freaking seconds! What really pisses me off is the shitting on decades worth of continuity, so fuck off DC I'm just going to read IDW's G.I. Joe, and Ninja Turtles until you can stop pulling prom queen publicity stunts.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

So what does this mean for his wife, and his kids.

That's the thing about changing the sexuality and/or race of a established character, it creates ripple effects that force the change of other characters. I have no problem with gay characters I just wish they wouldn't change already established characters to add more "diversity". If you need to have a character to be gay create a new character, like Obsidian.

Also look at it from the reverse can you imagine if someone decided to change an established gay character and make them straight?

Being gay does *not* mean you cannot have kids, guys. Do I really NEED to say this? Or cannot marry a woman, for that matter.

Did I say it did? No it creates inconsistencies with the established lore. Yes it is a reboot however they still use the previous background for his character and besides it all just feels forced on him. Here is a writer on the best way to write a gay character

I think it was implied in the very first sentence, as if gay men or gay people in general can't have opposite sex spouses or children. What does it mean for his wife? Her husband is attracted to other men. What does it mean for his kids? Their father is gay. That's all it means.

...

I will add that being gay only means you are sexually attracted to other men. Nothing says a gay man cannot love a woman, or even marry her or have kids with her. It just means... he's attracted to other men first and foremost.

Two points:

1) It seems like you're using the term 'gay' a bit too generally. I could very well be mistaken about this, but as I understand the terms 'gay' means that you're exclusively attracted to the same sex, 'straight' means that you're exclusively attracted to the opposite sex, and 'bisexual' means that you're attracted to both. So you seem to be conflating 'gay' with 'bisexual'. Or perhaps you regard it as a continuum where 'gay' and 'straight' are two ends of the scale and 'bisexual' is in the middle.

Whatever your answer, you should consider the possibility that there are at least some gay men who might be offended by the idea that you can be gay and also be attracted to women because it might be taken to imply that homosexual people are promiscuous and willing to have sex with anyone. There are certainly some gay men that are solely attracted to other men. Alternatively, there are probably a few lesbians who might be offended by the idea that you can be lesbian and still be attracted to men.

I'm not saying that these people are right: ultimately it's a terminological issue. If you're right and 'gay' and 'lesbian' just mean "predominantly attracted to the same sex" then we could just invent new terms to describe those who are only attracted to the same sex.

2) While in general terms you're right to point out that gay men can have wives and children (assuming 'gay' has the meaning you ascribe to it), spectrenihlus is right to point out that it would cause issues with Scott's backstory. Specifically, part of his backstory (or so I've heard from other posters in this thread) is that his son was gay and that there was a large conflict in him coming to terms with that fact. That makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever if the character is openly gay himself.

 

[LordOfTheDance]

Only 1 person made a, 'his weakness is wood joke'? I am disappoint.

 

[sharinganblossom25]

Huh. Imagine that.

 

[Beautiful End]

Well...I guess they figured after the big screen flop, they couldn't possibly screw Green Lantern more.

Look, I'm all up for diversity and that whole "It's not what defines him" stuff, but it still seems like a publicity stunt, like the Mexican Spider Man. And it's not even the most popular Green Lantern. I call cop-out.

 

[infinity_turtles]

Not too big a fan of this. They could've had a new Green Lantern who was gay, but instead they rewrite Alan Scott and make him younger, which removes his son entirely. And frankly, with the way they're advertising this, I highly doubt this version of Alan Scott will be anywhere near as well written as Obsidian was. Whether he's "iconic" or not, I think this is a pretty poor trade.

 

[Jose Batista]

Damn.. I was only half right, I thought it was gonna be Hal Jordan. Also, in the main DC universe, didn't Alan Scott also have a daughter named Jade?

 

[Aprilgold]

So what does this mean for his wi-

EVERYTHINGS REBOOTED, NOTHING BEFORE THIS COUNTS! IF SUPERMAN WAS TO BECOME A GAY DUDE HE WOULD NOT HAVE EVER GREW A INTEREST TO LOUIS! NOPE, NOTHING BEFORE THIS COUNTS MAN, TOTALLY NEW WORLD!

--------------------------

Needed to be someone thats part of their 7, not iconic as old and should be remembered.

 

[conholio23]

I know that this is an iconic character and sexuality is a big part of what makes a person who they are but I couldn't care less about this. Other then the rage by some mothers who do not know that the cord was cut long ago I really don't know why this is any sort of news. I just hope they do some good stories with this and every other character.

 

[marurder]

I wonder if they would have made him gay if the movie were a bug success..?

 

[LadyRhian]

So what does this mean for his wife, and his kids.

That's the thing about changing the sexuality and/or race of a established character, it creates ripple effects that force the change of other characters. I have no problem with gay characters I just wish they wouldn't change already established characters to add more "diversity". If you need to have a character to be gay create a new character, like Obsidian.

Also look at it from the reverse can you imagine if someone decided to change an established gay character and make them straight?

Being gay does *not* mean you cannot have kids, guys. Do I really NEED to say this? Or cannot marry a woman, for that matter.

Did I say it did? No it creates inconsistencies with the established lore. Yes it is a reboot however they still use the previous background for his character and besides it all just feels forced on him. Here is a writer on the best way to write a gay character

I think it was implied in the very first sentence, as if gay men or gay people in general can't have opposite sex spouses or children. What does it mean for his wife? Her husband is attracted to other men. What does it mean for his kids? Their father is gay. That's all it means.

...

I will add that being gay only means you are sexually attracted to other men. Nothing says a gay man cannot love a woman, or even marry her or have kids with her. It just means... he's attracted to other men first and foremost.

Two points:

1) It seems like you're using the term 'gay' a bit too generally. I could very well be mistaken about this, but as I understand the terms 'gay' means that you're exclusively attracted to the same sex, 'straight' means that you're exclusively attracted to the opposite sex, and 'bisexual' means that you're attracted to both. So you seem to be conflating 'gay' with 'bisexual'. Or perhaps you regard it as a continuum where 'gay' and 'straight' are two ends of the scale and 'bisexual' is in the middle.

Whatever your answer, you should consider the possibility that there are at least some gay men who might be offended by the idea that you can be gay and also be attracted to women because it might be taken to imply that homosexual people are promiscuous and willing to have sex with anyone. There are certainly some gay men that are solely attracted to other men. Alternatively, there are probably a few lesbians who might be offended by the idea that you can be lesbian and still be attracted to men.

I'm not saying that these people are right: ultimately it's a terminological issue. If you're right and 'gay' and 'lesbian' just mean "predominantly attracted to the same sex" then we could just invent new terms to describe those who are only attracted to the same sex.

2) While in general terms you're right to point out that gay men can have wives and children (assuming 'gay' has the meaning you ascribe to it), spectrenihlus is right to point out that it would cause issues with Scott's backstory. Specifically, part of his backstory (or so I've heard from other posters in this thread) is that his son was gay and that there was a large conflict in him coming to terms with that fact. That makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever if the character is openly gay himself.

Gay talks about attraction, not love. You can marry someone you are not attracted to, and have sex with them, and "love" doesn't necessarily imply sexual love. I know gay men who love their female friends. Does this make them suddenly, magically not gay? No. They may not want to shag their friend's bones, and the love might be more platonic, but it's still love. I said nothing about him being attracted to his wife in a sexual way. That is different from love and different from having sex. Because you are attracted to women, does that mean you cannot love your brother, or your father, or a friend? No, it just means you are not sexually attracted to them. That's all it means. You could still have sex with a guy or marry him. Marriage is not predicated on love or attraction-people prove that pretty much all the time, with green card marriages. And gay men have had children while married to a woman, so obviously, it's possible to have sex with a woman while only being attracted to other men.

As to point 2, yeah, that is going to be a conflict, but since they made his character young (again?), he could always go on to get married to a woman and have kids in the future. It's rewinding his story to a point before the marriage and babymaking happened. For me the biggest thing is that they are making him young in the current time, not in the past. Although I did read a story where he teamed up with Batman in the present day universe (not on Earth 2, though). It was in the Graphic Novel "Batman: The Man Who Laughs".

So what does this mean for his wi-

EVERYTHINGS REBOOTED, NOTHING BEFORE THIS COUNTS! IF SUPERMAN WAS TO BECOME A GAY DUDE HE WOULD NOT HAVE EVER GREW A INTEREST TO LOUIS! NOPE, NOTHING BEFORE THIS COUNTS MAN, TOTALLY NEW WORLD!

--------------------------

Needed to be someone thats part of their 7, not iconic as old and should be remembered.

Can I say it? BEST TYPO EVER! Not attracted to Louis? Well, yes, if he was gay, he might be attracted to someone named Louis.