Are they kissing or just pressing their mouthless faces together? I can't tell.
This can help open the door a bit more to that though. I'm sure there's plenty of people trying to get original representative characters out there, but will get halted by the ones in charge that feel that it's not familiar and therefor won't sell. By tying something still seen by many as unfamiliar, like being gay, to something that is seen as very familiar, like a well established Superman character, the later can help do some legwork for the former.
Ofcourse a wholly original LGBTQ+ superhero would be a lot more meaningful, but that doesn't mean representation of this kind has absolutely no meaning. And it's not like people can't find out later in life that they're gay or bi, and in Jonathan Kent's case he's still fairly young too. I'd be up for a lot more comicbook characters figuring out different sides of themselves (not necessarily sexual oriention wise) in stead of remaining the same stagnant characters they've been for decades.
The only problem I have with this coming out is if it's just used as an initial marketing gimmick, if Jonathan being bi quickly disappears into the background, and if it's used as a line in the sand; 'This is as much as you gays are going to get.'
I understand the "something is better than nothing mentality," but the effort is just superficial. I mean, if the big companies really
cared about representing more than the cis fanbases, they would take that risk. Put a gay/bi/transgender/black (non-white) character out there and stand behind it. Making $uperman bi or a black Human Torch only goes to show how little risk they're willing to take to represent underrepresented people.
I'm not saying they need to die on the sword of representation for everyone, just don't condescend with efforts that are clearly self-serving and mitigated risks. "Oh, you don't like a bisexual Superman? Well, Superman has been notoriously popular for decades, so we guess YOU'RE the non-progressive one in this current narrative." Like the white woman who shows up to Black Lives Matter rallies only to cross the street when a black man approaches in her path.
Point being, they've not the cojones to start something new that could
be popular, but unproven when money is involved. There's the disingenuousness. Point in case: the Black Panther; as a long-standing hero, had no real pop culture following until the movie came out, but at least he was original in that he was afro-centric and wasn't retroactively changed to fit a model of mandated modern inclusion. He was released as-is and became extremely popular. THAT I can respect, yet the industry doesn't have the balls to try it again even in an age of enlightenment when it could most likely succeed. A millionaire dropping a $5 bill into the cup of a beggar isn't representative of his/her grander altruism.
TL;DR? Do it or don't. When your interests supersede your efforts, your efforts are shallow.