Why Do We Need An Explicitly Gay Comic Hero?

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Boone, sounds like you see some parallel between three-toed exhibitionist underwater basketweaving serial killers and gays. That cound indicate bigotry, NO?

I think gays are an aberration. Does that make me a bigot? Whether it's a choice or genetic, it's a harmful, high-risk life. It's certainly not a healthy lifestyle, why does everyone feel the need to publicly recognize gays? I don't go around carrying a "I'm a heterosexual" flag, do I? Whether a serial-killer murders by choice or by genetic abnormality, I think that they're harmful to the human race. The same can be said for gays. So, yes, there is a parallel. And I don't think we need comic books for either category.

You caompare gays to serial killeers? How is it a harmful life?

You're an aberration.

How many people have you know that have died of AIDS? Of that number, how many were gay? It's harmful because it's a lifestyle that has a higher rate of mortality due to STDs. It's harmful because society as a whole shuns the 'lifestyle', so a homosexual 'partnership' that manages to adopt or otherwise locate a child to rear is only leading that child into a lifetime of abuse. I think it's repulsive because anal sex is unnatural. Despite Moonbeam's apparent feelings to the contrary, no matter how hard you try you are not going to make any babies that way. Trying to defend homosexuality as a distinctive trait like blue eyes is ludicrous. You can try and make it sound warm and fuzzy, but a sexual relationship between two males is anything but natural.

 

[Moonbeam]

Talk about wearing your bigotry on your shirt sleave. Homosexual acts give me the willies. Yup, it must be bad because it disgusts me. End of my simple minded story. Where does your disgust come from? It comes from your own mind. To see disgusting you have to feel disgusted. To learn to feel disgusted you have been made to feel disgusted with yourself. The reason you are sad because of bigotry toward homosexuals is because it's how you feel about yourselves. That's why you need to get over it. It will mean seeing that you are what disgusts you. Good luck.

 

[Dari]

Moonbeam, the vast majority of the human race does not accept homosexuality. They abhor it. They see it as immoral. It is mainly Europeans that accept it. In fact, in ancient greece, it was fashionable to be a pedophile and have gay lovers. Remember the Sacred Band? They were an army of homosexuals; lovers fighting as one.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Dari
Moonbeam, the vast majority of the human race does not accept homosexuality. They abhor it. They see it as immoral. It is mainly Europeans that accept it. In fact, in ancient greece, it was fashionable to be a pedophile and have gay lovers. Remember the Sacred Band? They were an army of homosexuals; lovers fighting as one.

^ ^I'm looking for a point there.

 

[Dari]

moonbeam, your argument has holes in it because you're comparing racism (against minorities) in America to homophobia in America. But there are more people of african descent around the globe than those of european descent. Globally, blacks (and other minorities in this country) are very much the majority while causcasians are the minority. Meanwhile, the percentage of gays remains the same (roughly 10%). Furthermore, the various races of the human specie is a natural phenomenom (sic?) while homosexuality is a natural errata. Nature can only survive when there are offsprings. Homosexuals aren't attracted to the opposite sex, hence, they go against the natural current. While racism is an advanced form of bias, ignorance, and competition (within a certain group), the hostility towards homosexuals derives mainly from the fact that homosexuals are very different from heterosexuals. While racism can be overcome (to an extent) via knowledge and mutual respect, homosexuals can never fit into the natural scheme of things. No male group will accept them (except for sexual purposes). It is sad to say that they are the ultimate pariah.

Dari, there's no hole in my argument like you claim. The whole point is that numbers don't make for a definition on natural. Blue eyes are natural. We don't have to shun people who have them because they seem unnatural. We could though, if we were fools and also didn't understand genetics. Kill the bearers of the Rare Evil Eye. Meanwhile the numbers of people with blue eyes remain essentially the same. You clearly didn't read your lesson on the Bonobo's because you're still spouting that 'Natural" garbage. Homosexual and heterosexual are both natural, obviously, in a proportion of 9 to 1. Hehe. You are simplely confused with what is natural. You are making moral judgments about your definition. It's how you inject your bigotry. 'Homosexuals and heterosexuals are very different', that's a laugh. It's sad to say you make them the ultimate pariah in your own mind. Elsewhere they have been totally accepted. I told you that bigotry isn't something you just glance at yourself and see. It's always accompanied by a circular and self consistent series of logical assumptions. They just happen to be wrong. What you cannot accept is not what others can't accept.

Moonbeam, the vast majority of the human race does not accept homosexuality. They abhor it. They see it as immoral. It is mainly Europeans that accept it. In fact, in ancient greece, it was fashionable to be a pedophile and have gay lovers. Remember the Sacred Band? They were an army of homosexuals; lovers fighting as one.

That's my point. He said that homosexuality is natural, while I said it was a natural errata. He said that everyone accepted it. I say that the vast majority of the world hasn't.

 

[Dudd]

So it's a natural errata, what's the point? Should we hate people simply because their DNA doesn't contain the optimal code for procreation?

 

[Dari]

Who said anything about hate? Please read my posts before making such accusations.

 

[Dudd]

I'm not saying that you hate gays. However, you point out that most of the world has not accepted them, and I'm commenting on that, not on you personally. And, I already tried to read this thread, and I came *this* close to having my head explode. There really should be a surgeon generals warning about reading Moonbeam's posts back to back, even if you agree with what he's saying.

 

[Ronstang]

So it's a natural errata, what's the point? Should we hate people simply because their DNA doesn't contain the optimal code for procreation?

This brings up an interesting point, linking homosexual behavior to DNA. It the so "claimed" clones in the news turn out to be genuine and grow up to be heterosexual then there can not be a genetic link to homosexuality since they are the result of asexual cloning......food for thought, well more like arguing around here.

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
This brings up an interesting point, linking homosexual behavior to DNA. It the so "claimed" clones in the news turn out to be genuine and grow up to be heterosexual then there can not be a genetic link to homosexuality since they are the result of asexual cloning......food for thought, well more like arguing around here.

I'm not following. If they cloned a homosexual, then the clone would also be homosexual, if it is indeed genetic. If they cloned a heterosexual, then we would assume that the clone would also be heterosexual. I don't see how a clone would be gay simply because it was a clone.

 

[Ronstang]

I was led to believe that the clones being born are the result of Lesbian women wanting babies and using cloning to achieve that goal.....so if these cloned babies grow up to be heterosexual then it would debunk the genetic link. A clone does not necessarily guarantee exact personality cloning also since it is highly influenced by environment.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Boone, sounds like you see some parallel between three-toed exhibitionist underwater basketweaving serial killers and gays. That cound indicate bigotry, NO?

I think gays are an aberration. Does that make me a bigot? Whether it's a choice or genetic, it's a harmful, high-risk life. It's certainly not a healthy lifestyle, why does everyone feel the need to publicly recognize gays? I don't go around carrying a "I'm a heterosexual" flag, do I? Whether a serial-killer murders by choice or by genetic abnormality, I think that they're harmful to the human race. The same can be said for gays. So, yes, there is a parallel. And I don't think we need comic books for either category.

You caompare gays to serial killeers? How is it a harmful life?

You're an aberration.

How many people have you know that have died of AIDS? Of that number, how many were gay? It's harmful because it's a lifestyle that has a higher rate of mortality due to STDs. It's harmful because society as a whole shuns the 'lifestyle', so a homosexual 'partnership' that manages to adopt or otherwise locate a child to rear is only leading that child into a lifetime of abuse. I think it's repulsive because anal sex is unnatural. Despite Moonbeam's apparent feelings to the contrary, no matter how hard you try you are not going to make any babies that way. Trying to defend homosexuality as a distinctive trait like blue eyes is ludicrous. You can try and make it sound warm and fuzzy, but a sexual relationship between two males is anything but natural.

What does AIDS have to do with anything? Or people that abuse children of gay couples. Do you think either justifies your position?

Trying to defend homosexuality as a distinctive trait like blue eyes is ludicrous.

Why? There's are many interesting types of genetic traits. If you think anal sex is repulsive then don't do it. I can't see why you should have any say in what other people do in the bedroom.

I'm not gay but I have some gay friends and they certainly aren't lacking in morals and are always welcome. I find it repulsive that you would put them a group with serial killers. They just happen to be attracted to different people than me. Who cares?

 

[Moonbeam]

Well I'll be darned if most people back in slavery days in the south thought slavery was perfectly natural and a free negro an erata. Yup, people that think the negro or the gay are natural or should be free are a definite minority and just plane wrong. You know blacks and gays and women just don't measure up and most people know it too.

 

[Dari]

Q]Well I'll be darned if most people back in slavery days in the south thought slavery was perfectly natural and a free negro an erata. Yup, people that think the negro or the gay are natural or should be free are a definite minority and just plane wrong. You know blacks and gays and women just don't measure up and most people know it too. [/quote]

I'm starting to wonder if you are understanding my point here. Blacks are natural. Slavery was a very successful human institution until it was found to be morally repugnant by the advancement of universal rights. Back then, due to ignorance and racism, blacks were thought to be inferior. Homosexuality is a natural errata (get that through your head). That is not political, it's scientific (natural). Homosexuality goes against the natural current. Whether or not it's good or bad is up to each individual or culture. Hence, classy's argument is that while discrimination against blacks is purely political (ignorance, bias, competition), homosexuality is a different ballgame because of its nature. Furthermore, minorities change from country to country. Hence, political bias will change from society to society. Homosexuality, meanwhile is a natural errata that is met with hostility because it goes against the natural current (as well as other factors).

To just dump the suffrage of homosexuals with those of blacks (and women) in this country is debatible because one is natural while the other is political.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm not starting to wonder anything, Dari. I have understood you from the beginning. You don't get it because you can't. You are a bigot and don't want to see it. I told you in numerous ways there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality, It's perfectly natural with our closest relatives. Your erata crap is a bigot's rationalization devoid of content. You don't like the idea that you have a mental disease, irrational prejudice. The roots of bigotry aren't political or categorical. They are based on assumed superiority based on hidden feelings of inferiority. Too bad for you that you feel inferior and need to assume yourself sexually superior. It's pure bunk. Lack of offspring, population control, all garbage of your own mind. Relax and be happy. You aren't superior or inferior to anybody. Just too bad you don't know it. Isn't the mind wonderful. There were homosexuals long before there were modern humans.

Want some fun? Define natural current and going against it. I'm sure that if it exists you will be able to prove you can go against it by sleeping with a man.

 

[BooneRebel]

Moonbeam, I think you're confused on the definition of the word "natural" (or unnatural). Let's try 'normal' and 'abnormal'. I think one man grappling with another man's back hair while trying to make babies falls into the unnatural or abnormal category. You say it's perfectly natural. How about we break this down into biological terminology. The male sexual organ is naturally designed for two purposes: Urinating and procreation. Which natural (or 'normal', if you prefer...) function is being demonstrated in a homosexual relationship? Trying to mask this question by bringing up blue eyes or slavery is just throwing up another red herring. I'm talking about an unnatural act, whether it's in the eyes of God or of the general population. So, back to the original question, do we need an explicitly gay comic 'hero'? I think not.

 

[flavio]

So, back to the original question, do we need an explicitly gay comic 'hero'? I think not.

Why not? If people are interested, they will buy it. This creates a demand just like any other product.

...or are you interested in getting one of those lists going of books that people aren't allowed to read?

 

[EXman]

this thread is way past its prime I thought only the religion threads got this in depth and off the subject...

 

[Moonbeam]

EXman, the question is do we need a gay hero. To answer we need to see bigotry for what it is.

BooneRebel, you can see how ridiculous your argument is by answering a single question. Do you masturbate?

Trying to move unnatural into biology is just your bigotry looking for justification. You begin with an irrational feeling of revulsion for gays and your mind seeks its rationalizations.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
EXman, the question is do we need a gay hero. To answer we need to see bigotry for what it is.

BooneRebel, you can see how ridiculous your argument is by answering a single question. Do you masturbate?

Trying to move unnatural into biology is just your bigotry looking for justification. You begin with an irrational feeling of revulsion for gays and your mind seeks its rationalizations.

Moon I think you need counseling hoss. Just because people don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle doesn't make them bigots. Maybe if you could get that through your thick gord maybe you would see what some of us are saying. And to answer the question, my answer is no. The only way to show a character is homosexual is to introduce his sexuality. And a super hero's sexuality shouldn't be the focus. And if your goal is make a gay character, his sexuality becomes the main theme. Outside of Superman I can't think of many super heroes whose sexuality came to the fore front. Unless you want a gay James Bond type. And if he's gay he wouldn't be James Bond.

 

[Dari]

Moonbeam, simply labeling those that don't agree with your liberal lifestyle bigots is bigotry in and of itself. All we are trying to say (in different ways) is for you not to bundle disparate issues together and label them the same. Your simplistic approach to this debate makes the argument mute.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: Dari
Moonbeam, the vast majority of the human race does not accept homosexuality. They abhor it. They see it as immoral. It is mainly Europeans that accept it. In fact, in ancient greece, it was fashionable to be a pedophile and have gay lovers. Remember the Sacred Band? They were an army of homosexuals; lovers fighting as one.

Speaking of pedophilia, it seems to be getting way out of hand.

 

[Moonbeam]

Classy, your not agreeing with a gay lifestyle is bigotry because it implies a value judgment that has no correspondence with reality but is just an irrational feeling you have exactly like the irrational feeling that some whites have that blacks are inferior. They will just point to a getto somewhere and say, see what a lousy lifestyle.

Dari, I don't care whether you agree or non't. That's up to you. You, however, are the simple one. BS about birth control, unnatural errata, Hahahaha. Bigotry is a disparet phenomenon with regard to target. My symplicity was to reveal the underlying unity of cause, irrational revulsion. You are a prisoner of your emotions and drag your mind along to provide cover for your defect. I am here simply to make it clear to you, but particularly to others that your silly logic is nothing but the workings of a disguised irrational revulsion you won't confess to having. Bigotry creates the stereotype that it's acceptable to harbor irrational feelings about gays. Collectively your kind of thinking damages people's lives. Otherwise, I could care less. All that's required for evil to win is for good people to say nothing. Most blacks know what I mean.

PS, please, guys, don't play with yourselves. Not only is it homoerotic, but it's unnatural, I mean an unnatural erata, but it does, of course, help to keep the population down.

 

[Dari]

For the individual who mentioned masturabtion, that is quite natural. We, like dolphins, have sex for pleasure. There is nothing unnatural about self-gratification. Monkeys, too, practice masturbation when they lose the girl (female monkey) to a bigger chap.

Moonbeam, then I guess you approve of homo-pedohilia, right? Since, in your view, homosexuality is A-ok, then copulation with little kids is acceptable, like they did in ancient greece. Or maybe it's not acceptable to you. Maybe 'minors' are too young. Then what is your limit? 18? 15? 14? Or should they be old enough to understand what they're doing. The fact is, if you accept homosexuality to be a natural (non-errata) part of human nature, then you're opening a pandora's box (and grey areas) of the very same human right that you so uphold.

While I'm not saying that homosexuality and pedohilia are one and the same, they are quite close (historically). If you were living in ancient greece, would you find it acceptable for 14 year old boys to have 35 year old gay lovers? That was acceptable back then? Would you denounce those that saw that as repugnant (like the Persians and Egyptians) as bigots that don't understand the bliss of homo-pedophilia? What's your limit?

 

[Moonbeam]

Both masturbation and homoselual contact are natural to monkeys. Glad we're finally on the same page. I always say that when you poke a bogot with a stick youre sure to provoke a nasty reaction. Just let it all out aobut hopmsexuals and pedofiles. You need the catharsis. The more repulsive I get the closer to the source of your bigotry you'll be. Don't forget to look at yourself though. I'm just a mirror.