Marvel Comics already has its gay superhero, Northstar. The comic book company is planning a Northstar "marriage" on June 20. Now DC Comics appears to be following suit. The original Green Lantern, a character named Alan Scott, is returning, but with one major change. He's gay. The question is... why?
As noted in The Christian Post , X-Men character Northstar will marry his companion in the June 20th issue:
"When gay marriage became legal in New York State, it raised obvious questions since most of our heroes reside in New York State", said Marvel Comics editor-in-chief Axel Alonso in an interview with Rolling Stone this week.
"Northstar is the first openly gay character in comics and he's been in a long-term relationship with his partner Kyle so the big question was – how would this change his relationship? Our comics are always best when they respond to and reflect developments in the real world. We've been doing that for decades, and this is just the latest expression of that."
Now, The Blaze reports that as part of DC Comic's "universe-wide reboot," Green Lantern is coming back, but this time he's gay:
The big reveal officially comes Wednesday in the second issue of DC’s “Earth 2” series, which features Scott as the main superhero of a parallel world. Scott, who first appeared in a 1940 comic, is getting a new origin story as a young media mogul as part of DC’s universe-wide reboot.
DC confirmed the news about the character Friday after co-publisher Dan Dido told a convention audience in May that a heretofore straight character would be gay.
“He’s going to be the leader of the team, this dynamic hero, he’ll do anything to save people, the bravest man on the planet. Why not just make him gay as well?” writer James Robinson told USA Today.
What is all the fuss about? Obama is giving speeches endorsing gay marriage. Courts are picking up the issue. What is going on? According to the Huffington Post , Gary Gates, a demographer at the Williams Institute estimates that only 1.7 percent of the entire adult population in the U.S. is gay. Based on the way the media and the left hype the issue, most Americans probably think the number is much higher.
But back to the point. Why even make a superhero gay? Isn't the comic book for kids? Isn't it supposed to show the good guy fighting bad guys? What's the agenda here, when no kid out there cares whether his or her favorite super hero is gay or straight.
Marvel Comics already has its gay superhero, Northstar. The comic book company is planning a Northstar "marriage" on June 20. Now DC Comics appears to be following suit. The original Green Lantern, a character named Alan Scott, is returning, but with one major change. He's gay. Why?
Enough is enough.
It was bad enough when Bert and Ernie were attacked and Seseme Street had to drop Bert as it was considered "gay" when two male puppets living together were gay. Now the tide is turned and everything has to become pro-gay. If they want a gay superhero, create a new one. There is no problem with that; just leave the existing comic heroes alone, the ones with whom people have grown up.
I never, nor did my children, view Bert as gay and yes, the religious community should be ashamed for allowing the radical element to pressure his removal from the program.
Green Lantern should remain as he is, it is wrong to change something to become what the radical group wants in this case, too.
I am so tired of a small, radical element of our society determining what the majority are supposed to accept. Why do we have to be sensitive to the feelings of Muslims? Jews have never made an issue of Christian beliefs and customs being openly displayed in the U.S.; why do the Muslims have special consideration? If we truly have freedom of religion, should Christians not be allowed to display the nativity and cross, and The Ten Commandments in public, should the Jews not be allowed to display the Star of David openly in public places, and yes, Islam should be able to share their religious symbols if they wish. But to deny Christians and Jews and allow Islamics is so wrong.
Since Gay History is now going to be required in CA classrooms, these comic books might well be adjunct reading for children there. ...Why do we need this? We don't imo.
The comic books could be the primary text for "Gay History" since it isn't a real subject any more than comic books are real literature. Another left wing pro Dem interest group at work!!!!!!! Can't have anything that smacks of Judo-Christian values/teaching/history/literature though. Still wondering why that is a violation of the mythical "separation of church and state" but teaching about islam isn't!!! All part of the "progressive" agenda!
Everywhere we look we are reading about gays and lesbians, a very small percentage of our population. I have no issue with people living their own lives but enough is enough already to have to subject our young children to it. They will learn when they are older and better able to absorb what it means.
This is constantly in our face when we have no interest in it. If this involved 30% of our population I would call it an epidemic but this shouldn't be the topic of discussion for our children....as I've said before, Sandy, we should make California a country and go back to 49 states.
Don't agree Diane, we need to pack up the people living in California and send them to Mexico where they can teach the Hispanics how to live in a better manner and maintain our ownership of California. We don't want to open up that much more border to the Hispanics, sorry.
But otherwise, I agree 100% with you; the real Americans have moved out of California or are moving out; soon it will be the illegal immigrant headquarters of the U.S. Add Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and it is a real circus.
Linda, California is the last state on my list of places I would want to live. The liberals have destroyed it.
Send them to Mexico? Hmmm, what a concept! Well, but first they have to get their papers in order...LOL!
Diane, had quite a conversation with my fella last night regarding California. He lived there from about 1969 through 1994 and he said that it depends where you live. He lived on Balboa Island and he said it was the most conservative place he has ever been and he loved that aspect of it, but he worked in Los Angeles and he said the people he worked with were a mix, but they were not the radical left or right and a great bunch of people.
But anywhere else in California than the southern areas it is the most liberal, radical liberal area in the U.S. He has nothing good to say about Maxine Waters; she has never lived in Watts although she respresents them and tries to make people believe she is a staunch black woman; and as for Pelosi, he said that it sure took the people of the U.S. a long time to know what California conservatives have known about her from day one, she is an insider and should have been put in jail so many times it would make your head spin. He said that Boxer, Feinstein and the entire group have all been involved with insider trading to some degree. He wanted us all to know that California is 80% as corrupt as it gets with the exception of Chicago which is the most politically corrupt place he has ever witnessed; he worked there for 2 years for a company doing a government contract and he said that they had all kinds of hassles as they had outbid the "Chicago firm" that was supposed to get the job due to backroom negotiations.
So, that is his take on California; places to see and visit but no where to live. That is precisely why he moved to Oregon. In his line of work there was not a lot of choice but once he retired he was out of California with bells on his feet.
Thanks, Linda. And thank your 'fella' for me. I believe what he says.