Character » Batman appears in 23651 issues.
@ComicStooge said:
@ApatheticAvenger: To be fair, he kinda is. Same thing happened to Frank Millar, didn't it?
Moore is very eccentric, but he still has hit wits about him and is undeniably brilliant. Miller was always a bit unhinged, and in recent years has gotten worse (as has his writing). Moore's social commentary remains valid and poignant, Miller has lost his marbles.
@Gambler said:
Would hate it, but I'd like to think it was because of the seemingly random/drastic PC character change and not because of his sexual preference. Why not start making new characters with more diverse backgrounds as opposed to radically altering established ones....
DC changed height, entirety, and even weight. why is it bad to change sexual orientation when DC did those other changes?
I'd be all for it. As long as he's not hitting on any of his sons, villains, or Alfred, it'd be awesome. In fact, I think gay Batman would be cooler than straight Batman.
I dont really see weight gain and height differential as the same thing as suddenly switching sexual orientation. Not a fan of random entirety changes either. Maybe its not a bad thing, but I personally dont care to see characters randomly turned changed in an obvious attempt to seem more progressive. Besides, theres aready a homosexual Batman, his name is Midnighter. Is it a "bad" thing, I tend to think so. Like I said, if DC really wants to be more diverse then start creating new characters. And lets be honest, they picked Alan Scott because he is just well enough known to cause a buzz but not quite Superman, Batman, Flash, WW, etc level that would cause fans to lose their sh!t.DC changed height, entirety, and even weight. why is it bad to change sexual orientation when DC did those changes?
@Gambler said:
@moywar700 said:I dont really see weight gain and height differential as the same thing as suddenly switching sexual orientation. Not a fan of random entirety changes either. Maybe its not a bad thing, but I personally dont care to see characters randomly turned changed in an obvious attempt to seem more progressive. Besides, theres aready a homosexual Batman, his name is Midnighter. Is it a "bad" thing, I tend to think so. Like I said, if DC really wants to be more diverse then start creating new characters. And lets be honest, they picked Alan Scott because he is just well enough known to cause a buzz but not quite Superman, Batman, Flash, WW, etc level that would cause fans to lose their sh!t.DC changed height, entirety, and even weight. why is it bad to change sexual orientation when DC did those changes?
This!!!!!!!! times a hundred.
@batshrine said:
I personally could care less, though I would prefer him to be bi. Not enough bi heroes and Batman loves everyone :-P
Plus i want him to keep collecting his legions of women that he hooks up with
Did u mean I couldn't care less? I could care less means you care and you could care a little less.
I could care less about who's being porked. As long he stays the dark knight.
I wouldn't mind except then it would invalidate all of his past relationships (though I guess the reboot did that already...)
@BiteMe-Fanboy said:
I'd personally despise the idea. And their would probably be a mass suicide of Batman fanboys.
Agreed.
It's funny when pepole say stuff like "No offence to gay pepole but I don't like gay pepole"
@spiderbat87 said:
It's funny when pepole say stuff like "No offence to gay pepole but I don't like gay pepole"
It's funny when people start or put that mid-way in the sentence.
@ApatheticAvenger said:
He's what Grant Morrison has to say about that!
He's very plutonian in the sense that he's wealthy and also in the sense that he's sexually deviant. Gayness is built into Batman. I'm not using gay in the pejorative sense, but Batman is very, very gay. There's just no denying it. Obviously as a fictional character he's intended to be heterosexual, but the basis of the whole concept is utterly gay. I think that's why people like it. All these women fancy him and they all wear fetish clothes and jump around rooftops to get to him. He doesn't care-he's more interested in hanging out with the old guy and the kid.Original interview (a great read for Morrison fans)
This.
In order of the feelings appearance, I would probably feel:
Disbelief and surprise: Why would DC do such a major change to their best performing character.
Annoyance: Why does the "Yay We're Gay" agenda have to be forced into so many things.
Frustration: The character is just randomly gay after all the dozens of sexual encounters he's had in continuity. That's idiotic! Or is this another abomination of the DCNU changes?
I would still read Batman, but I would certainly feel less attached to the character. People like heroes to which they can relate and aspire. That is why young white heroes are so common; that is the same audience that reads comics.
Also, I would have serious questions about the nature of Robin. Especially considering Dick's costume. "Yeah Dick, that outfit is puuuuuuurfect for crime fighting.
As a non-offensive christian I wouldn't want Batman to be gay because then he'd burn in hell....
*hides from posters with no sense of sarcasm*
@ApatheticAvenger said:
He's what Grant Morrison has to say about that!
He's very plutonian in the sense that he's wealthy and also in the sense that he's sexually deviant. Gayness is built into Batman. I'm not using gay in the pejorative sense, but Batman is very, very gay. There's just no denying it. Obviously as a fictional character he's intended to be heterosexual, but the basis of the whole concept is utterly gay. I think that's why people like it. All these women fancy him and they all wear fetish clothes and jump around rooftops to get to him. He doesn't care-he's more interested in hanging out with the old guy and the kid.Original interview (a great read for Morrison fans)
Wow. Morrison's an idiot.
@PsychoKnights said:
@ApatheticAvenger said:
He's what Grant Morrison has to say about that!
He's very plutonian in the sense that he's wealthy and also in the sense that he's sexually deviant. Gayness is built into Batman. I'm not using gay in the pejorative sense, but Batman is very, very gay. There's just no denying it. Obviously as a fictional character he's intended to be heterosexual, but the basis of the whole concept is utterly gay. I think that's why people like it. All these women fancy him and they all wear fetish clothes and jump around rooftops to get to him. He doesn't care-he's more interested in hanging out with the old guy and the kid.Original interview (a great read for Morrison fans)
Wow. Morrison's an idiot.
Right, the best Batman writer of this generation (and probably the best comic book writer overall) is an idiot. :P
@PsychoKnights said:
In order of the feelings appearance, I would probably feel:
Disbelief and surprise: Why would DC do such a major change to their best performing character.
Annoyance: Why does the "Yay We're Gay" agenda have to be forced into so many things.
Frustration: The character is just randomly gay after all the dozens of sexual encounters he's had in continuity. That's idiotic! Or is this another abomination of the DCNU changes?
I would still read Batman, but I would certainly feel less attached to the character. People like heroes to which they can relate and aspire. That is why young white heroes are so common; that is the same audience that reads comics.
Also, I would have serious questions about the nature of Robin. Especially considering Dick's costume. "Yeah Dick, that outfit is puuuuuuurfect for crime fighting.
Because homosexuals have been needlessly persecuted for an embarrassingly long period of time?
@ApatheticAvenger said:
@PsychoKnights said:
@ApatheticAvenger said:
He's what Grant Morrison has to say about that!
He's very plutonian in the sense that he's wealthy and also in the sense that he's sexually deviant. Gayness is built into Batman. I'm not using gay in the pejorative sense, but Batman is very, very gay. There's just no denying it. Obviously as a fictional character he's intended to be heterosexual, but the basis of the whole concept is utterly gay. I think that's why people like it. All these women fancy him and they all wear fetish clothes and jump around rooftops to get to him. He doesn't care-he's more interested in hanging out with the old guy and the kid.Original interview (a great read for Morrison fans)
Wow. Morrison's an idiot.
Right, the best Batman writer of this generation (and probably the best comic book writer overall) is an idiot. :P
It is your opinion that he's the best Batman writer, and I know many share your view. I've also seen many on this site say he sucks. Personally, I think he is okay.
Regardless, you can be a good writer and still have idiotic ideas. For instance, Hitler has a book that has sold very well for a while now, but he had some (intentional understatement) bad ideas.
To imply that he's more interested in spending time with the boys than giving attention to hot girls speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the character in more ways than I will take the time to document here, but for one thing, Batman is a character who is closed off emotionally from everybody. It's not as if he has a deep and intimate relationship with the boys.
@ApatheticAvenger said:
@PsychoKnights said:
In order of the feelings appearance, I would probably feel:
Disbelief and surprise: Why would DC do such a major change to their best performing character.
Annoyance: Why does the "Yay We're Gay" agenda have to be forced into so many things.
Frustration: The character is just randomly gay after all the dozens of sexual encounters he's had in continuity. That's idiotic! Or is this another abomination of the DCNU changes?
I would still read Batman, but I would certainly feel less attached to the character. People like heroes to which they can relate and aspire. That is why young white heroes are so common; that is the same audience that reads comics.
Also, I would have serious questions about the nature of Robin. Especially considering Dick's costume. "Yeah Dick, that outfit is puuuuuuurfect for crime fighting.
Because homosexuals have been needlessly persecuted for an embarrassingly long period of time?
Blacks were discriminated against at one point too. How about we make Batman black? It would make as much sense as making him gay? It speaks to a disrespect of the character's own history...which admittedly would fit in well at DC these days.
Also, homosexuality, in my opinion and in the opinion of many others, is a bad thing. Your natural desired may not be a choice, but what you do with it definitely is.
Finally, what "persecution" do you really see going on these days for homosexuals?
@PsychoKnights said:
@ApatheticAvenger said:
@PsychoKnights said:
@ApatheticAvenger said:
He's what Grant Morrison has to say about that!
He's very plutonian in the sense that he's wealthy and also in the sense that he's sexually deviant. Gayness is built into Batman. I'm not using gay in the pejorative sense, but Batman is very, very gay. There's just no denying it. Obviously as a fictional character he's intended to be heterosexual, but the basis of the whole concept is utterly gay. I think that's why people like it. All these women fancy him and they all wear fetish clothes and jump around rooftops to get to him. He doesn't care-he's more interested in hanging out with the old guy and the kid.Original interview (a great read for Morrison fans)
Wow. Morrison's an idiot.
Right, the best Batman writer of this generation (and probably the best comic book writer overall) is an idiot. :P
It is your opinion that he's the best Batman writer, and I know many share your view. I've also seen many on this site say he sucks. Personally, I think he is okay.
Regardless, you can be a good writer and still have idiotic ideas. For instance, Hitler has a book that has sold very well for a while now, but he had some (intentional understatement) bad ideas.
To imply that he's more interested in spending time with the boys than giving attention to hot girls speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the character in more ways than I will take the time to document here, but for one thing, Batman is a character who is closed off emotionally from everybody. It's not as if he has a deep and intimate relationship with the boys.
Morrison never said that Batman has an intimate relationship with boys (he's not Jerry Sandusky), he's merely stating that the concept of someone choosing to pal around with their young ward and butler rather than the spandex-clad women chasing after them is fundamentally gay (which it is).
Morrison very clearly states that Bruce Wayne as a character is written to be heterosexual, so he's not saying that Batman himself is actually gay. It's the concept of Batman that is utterly gay, and there's nothing wrong with that (at least in my opinion).
@PsychoKnights said:
@ApatheticAvenger said:
@PsychoKnights said:
In order of the feelings appearance, I would probably feel:
Disbelief and surprise: Why would DC do such a major change to their best performing character.
Annoyance: Why does the "Yay We're Gay" agenda have to be forced into so many things.
Frustration: The character is just randomly gay after all the dozens of sexual encounters he's had in continuity. That's idiotic! Or is this another abomination of the DCNU changes?
I would still read Batman, but I would certainly feel less attached to the character. People like heroes to which they can relate and aspire. That is why young white heroes are so common; that is the same audience that reads comics.
Also, I would have serious questions about the nature of Robin. Especially considering Dick's costume. "Yeah Dick, that outfit is puuuuuuurfect for crime fighting.
Because homosexuals have been needlessly persecuted for an embarrassingly long period of time?
Blacks were discriminated against at one point too. How about we make Batman black? It would make as much sense as making him gay? It speaks to a disrespect of the character's own history...which admittedly would fit in well at DC these days.
Also, homosexuality, in my opinion and in the opinion of many others, is a bad thing. Your natural desired may not be a choice, but what you do with it definitely is.
Finally, what "persecution" do you really see going on these days for homosexuals?
1) There's no need to make Batman black, but at one time it was VERY important to introduce black characters into comics to show that race was no longer a barrier.
2) That's your opinion, and you're allowed to have it, regardless of how utterly backwards many people (including myself) will think it is.
3) Uh, are you serious? Do you actually live in a cave among the bats? Homosexuals are being repeatedly told their love is either unnatural or disgusting by small-minded bigots and religious fundamentalist who don't know how to mind their own business or protest things that actually matter (like world hunger, environmental devastation, and the countless the human rights atrocities being committed around the globe). My neighbors, who have been together for longer than my mother and her spouse and are the most stable couple I know, are not allowed to be married in our home state because they're both men. Openly gay people cannot donate blood to the Red Cross, were only just recently allowed to serve in the armed forces, and are still being denied the right to adoption in many states. There are still states where it is legal to fire someone, refuse service in a restaurant to them, or deny their spouse visiting rights in a hospital based solely on their sexual orientation. None of this sounds like persecution to you?
@ApatheticAvenger: I saw what Morrison said, and now I see you repeating it. Batman is not gay but Batman as a concept is gay. What the hell does that even mean?
Captain America is not a transsexual, but his concept is very transexual. Northstar is not straight, but his concept is very straight. The Knights Who Say Nee are not a commentary on British Imperialism, but their concept is very British Imperialism.
Let's look at Morrison's stupid assertions one by one. First, what is sexually deviant about Batman? Second, the women jumping around rooftops are criminals. Is he supposed to rape Poison Ivy after he catches her? Third, yes, he spends time with his father figure and ward. What is gay about that?
It's stupid. If you can't see that, I can't help you.
@PsychoKnights said:
@ApatheticAvenger: I saw what Morrison said, and now I see you repeating it. Batman is not gay but Batman as a concept is gay. What the hell does that even mean?
Captain America is not a transsexual, but his concept is very transexual. Northstar is not straight, but his concept is very straight. The Knights Who Say Nee are not a commentary on British Imperialism, but their concept is very British Imperialism.
Let's look at Morrison's stupid assertions one by one. First, what is sexually deviant about Batman? Second, the women jumping around rooftops are criminals. Is he supposed to rape Poison Ivy after he catches her? Third, yes, he spends time with his father figure and ward. What is gay about that?
It's stupid. If you can't see that, I can't help you.
Sigh... You've read Watchmen, yes? Did you catch the part where Alan Moore paints a picture of how sexual deviancy is heavily tied into costumed crime-fighting? You're also using utterly terrible comparisons here. Captain America as a concept is propaganda (which doesn't hurt his character, as it's good propaganda), there's NOTHING straight about Northstar, and cute little Monty Python reference there. The CONCEPT of a guy dressing up like a bat and fighting crime is TOTALLY GAY. Batman isn't gay, but what he does is pretty gay.
If you HONESTLY can't see anything deviant about a billionaire who dresses up like a bat and goes out as night to pummel bad guys to get out his frustration, or how it's rather gay for a man who could EASILY be spending time with attractive women in fetish garb to instead pal around with his butler and ward, then I can't help you.
Cheers mate.
@ApatheticAvenger said:
@PsychoKnights said:
@ApatheticAvenger said:
@PsychoKnights said:
In order of the feelings appearance, I would probably feel:
Disbelief and surprise: Why would DC do such a major change to their best performing character.
Annoyance: Why does the "Yay We're Gay" agenda have to be forced into so many things.
Frustration: The character is just randomly gay after all the dozens of sexual encounters he's had in continuity. That's idiotic! Or is this another abomination of the DCNU changes?
I would still read Batman, but I would certainly feel less attached to the character. People like heroes to which they can relate and aspire. That is why young white heroes are so common; that is the same audience that reads comics.
Also, I would have serious questions about the nature of Robin. Especially considering Dick's costume. "Yeah Dick, that outfit is puuuuuuurfect for crime fighting.
Because homosexuals have been needlessly persecuted for an embarrassingly long period of time?
Blacks were discriminated against at one point too. How about we make Batman black? It would make as much sense as making him gay? It speaks to a disrespect of the character's own history...which admittedly would fit in well at DC these days.
Also, homosexuality, in my opinion and in the opinion of many others, is a bad thing. Your natural desired may not be a choice, but what you do with it definitely is.
Finally, what "persecution" do you really see going on these days for homosexuals?
1) There's no need to make Batman black, but at one time it was VERY important to introduce black characters into comics to show that race was no longer a barrier.
2) That's your opinion, and you're allowed to have it, regardless of how utterly backwards many people (including myself) will think it is.
3) Uh, are you serious? Do you actually live in a cave among the bats? Homosexuals are being repeatedly told their love is either unnatural or disgusting by small-minded bigots and religious fundamentalist who don't know how to mind their own business or protest things that actually matter (like world hunger, environmental devastation, and the countless the human rights atrocities being committed around the globe). My neighbors, who have been together for longer than my mother and her spouse and are the most stable couple I know, are not allowed to be married in our home state because they're both men. Openly gay people cannot donate blood to the Red Cross, were only just recently allowed to serve in the armed forces, and are still being denied the right to adoption in many states. There are still states where it is legal to fire someone, refuse service in a restaurant to them, or deny their spouse visiting rights in a hospital based solely on their sexual orientation. None of this sounds like persecution to you?
1. Story telling can be used to sell a political or moral message, but you should not write a story as an excuse for a political message. Black characters should have introduced because it made a good story and there was no reason not to have black superheroes, not because somebody felt like preaching a sermon or meeting a race quota.
2. Fair enough.
3. Being told something is wrong is persecution? In that case, are you persecution those who think homosexuality is bad? How dare you persecute me! (chuckles) Come on. Everybody on this planet has a large percentage of the population who would disagree with them on something.
With the other issues: the lack of gay marriage does not keep homosexuals from being apart. Are you trying to tell me that homosexuals are persecuted because the United States has not officially redefined the definition of marriage?
The Red Cross thing does puzzle me. My understanding is that any blood diseases that homosexuals are more likely to carry are detectable, so I don't see the problem, but I would have to do more research to really form a solid opinion. Again though, not being able to donate blood is persecution? Really? You have a very loose definition of the concept.
I agree that the armed forces thing was stupid. I don't see any problem. Thankfully, that has been fixed.
I'm fine with gay adoption if we clearly prove that homosexual couples have no ill effects on children. Many sources say there is no harm, but there are others who disagree. I suppose I should research that as some point too, but quite frankly, gay marriage is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down on my list of political priorities. The only reason I've started objecting to the promotion of homosexuality on this site is that I was tired of all the endless agreement that gay is cool. Someone should represent the other point of view with something other than, "Gays are nasty."
In regards to being fired and not being served, I'll give you that as persecution. My best friend recently lost his job under mysterious circumstances, and he suspect it might be because he is bi. However, people can be fired for any reason unless you are a protected class such as a racial minority. I don't personally think people should be fired for homosexuality, but why should a boss' rights to hire and fire who he chooses be taken away? If somebody wants to only hire redheads, that's their choice. Someone could be fired or not served at a restaurant for being straight too. I agree that when this happens, then homosexuals are being persecuted, but it is by individuals, and individuals have the right to be dicks. It sucks, but its true.
The inability for homosexuals to see their loved ones in the hospital desperately needs to be fixed.
@PsychoKnights said:
@ApatheticAvenger said:
@PsychoKnights said:
@ApatheticAvenger said:
@PsychoKnights said:
In order of the feelings appearance, I would probably feel:
Disbelief and surprise: Why would DC do such a major change to their best performing character.
Annoyance: Why does the "Yay We're Gay" agenda have to be forced into so many things.
Frustration: The character is just randomly gay after all the dozens of sexual encounters he's had in continuity. That's idiotic! Or is this another abomination of the DCNU changes?
I would still read Batman, but I would certainly feel less attached to the character. People like heroes to which they can relate and aspire. That is why young white heroes are so common; that is the same audience that reads comics.
Also, I would have serious questions about the nature of Robin. Especially considering Dick's costume. "Yeah Dick, that outfit is puuuuuuurfect for crime fighting.
Because homosexuals have been needlessly persecuted for an embarrassingly long period of time?
Blacks were discriminated against at one point too. How about we make Batman black? It would make as much sense as making him gay? It speaks to a disrespect of the character's own history...which admittedly would fit in well at DC these days.
Also, homosexuality, in my opinion and in the opinion of many others, is a bad thing. Your natural desired may not be a choice, but what you do with it definitely is.
Finally, what "persecution" do you really see going on these days for homosexuals?
1) There's no need to make Batman black, but at one time it was VERY important to introduce black characters into comics to show that race was no longer a barrier.
2) That's your opinion, and you're allowed to have it, regardless of how utterly backwards many people (including myself) will think it is.
3) Uh, are you serious? Do you actually live in a cave among the bats? Homosexuals are being repeatedly told their love is either unnatural or disgusting by small-minded bigots and religious fundamentalist who don't know how to mind their own business or protest things that actually matter (like world hunger, environmental devastation, and the countless the human rights atrocities being committed around the globe). My neighbors, who have been together for longer than my mother and her spouse and are the most stable couple I know, are not allowed to be married in our home state because they're both men. Openly gay people cannot donate blood to the Red Cross, were only just recently allowed to serve in the armed forces, and are still being denied the right to adoption in many states. There are still states where it is legal to fire someone, refuse service in a restaurant to them, or deny their spouse visiting rights in a hospital based solely on their sexual orientation. None of this sounds like persecution to you?
1. Story telling can be used to sell a political or moral message, but you should not write a story as an excuse for a political message. Black characters should have introduced because it made a good story and there was no reason not to have black superheroes, not because somebody felt like preaching a sermon or meeting a race quota.
2. Fair enough.
3. Being told something is wrong is persecution? In that case, are you persecution those who think homosexuality is bad? How dare you persecute me! (chuckles) Come on. Everybody on this planet has a large percentage of the population who would disagree with them on something.
With the other issues: the lack of gay marriage does not keep homosexuals from being apart. Are you trying to tell me that homosexuals are persecuted because the United States has not officially redefined the definition of marriage?
The Red Cross thing does puzzle me. My understanding is that any blood diseases that homosexuals are more likely to carry are detectable, so I don't see the problem, but I would have to do more research to really form a solid opinion. Again though, not being able to donate blood is persecution? Really? You have a very loose definition of the concept.
I agree that the armed forces thing was stupid. I don't see any problem. Thankfully, that has been fixed.
I'm fine with gay adoption if we clearly prove that homosexual couples have no ill effects on children. Many sources say there is no harm, but there are others who disagree. I suppose I should research that as some point too, but quite frankly, gay marriage is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down on my list of political priorities. The only reason I've started objecting to the promotion of homosexuality on this site is that I was tired of all the endless agreement that gay is cool. Someone should represent the other point of view with something other than, "Gays are nasty."
In regards to being fired and not being served, I'll give you that as persecution. My best friend recently lost his job under mysterious circumstances, and he suspect it might be because he is bi. However, people can be fired for any reason unless you are a protected class such as a racial minority. I don't personally think people should be fired for homosexuality, but why should a boss' rights to hire and fire who he chooses be taken away? If somebody wants to only hire redheads, that's their choice. Someone could be fired or not served at a restaurant for being straight too. I agree that when this happens, then homosexuals are being persecuted, but it is by individuals, and individuals have the right to be dicks. It sucks, but its true.
The inability for homosexuals to see their loved ones in the hospital desperately needs to be fixed.
1) A very good point. WE AGREE ON SOMETHING! MADNESS!
2) Cheers.
3) No, being told something is wrong isn't persecution, but having people regularly attempt to dehumanize you and deny you your civil liberties is. Marriage is a word, one that has existed before many modern religious and civil institutions, and I see little harm in "redefining" it to mean the union of any two consenting adults regardless of gender.
Perhaps it's using a loose definition to say that not being able to donate blood is persecution, but it's nonetheless bigoted and utterly asinine when the AIDS scare involving homosexuals is a thing of the past.
Anyone who is willing and capable of serving in our armed forces should allowed to, period.
Glad to see you have no problem with gay adoption (there is an overabundance of kids in need of a loving home these days). I'm surprised you would make the effort to oppose the promotion of homosexuality if it's so low on your priorities. It would be like me suddenly deciding I needed to vehemently oppose any promotion of the now irrelevant Herman Cain. :P
You're best friend is bisexual and yet you oppose the promotion of homosexuality as something positive? Strange. People do have the right to be dicks, but if it's illegal to fire someone on the grounds of race, gender, or religion, it should also be illegal to fire someone based on sexual orientation.
Yes, yes it does.
Yes, I've seen Watchmen, and there Moore does link sex and costumes, but (laughs) personally, I didn't take that to mean that all people who wear costumes and fight crime are sexual deviants. I viewed that as an interpretation of the comic medium but not The interpretation of the superhero. Perhaps that is where we differ.
I admit that my comparisons were random, but that was the point. I see no more relation between Batman being a representation of gayness than Captain America being a represnatation of transexualism. If you are saying there is something particular about dressing up like a bat as opposed to dressing up like a Daredevil which makes you gay, then I'm not seeing it.
If Batman only spent time with his young boy partner and butler and ignored the sexual temptation of females, then I could see your point, but he doesn't. If Bruce were jumping on top of only guys in spandex, then I could see your point, but he doesn't. Everything that Batman does makes sense from the story's perspective. The only way it sounds gay is if you leave out half the information.
I do appreciate this conversation. It has been interesting. Even though I disagree with you completely, you made your case well. I hope you do the same on our other conversations.
Later.
This. That explains all the grown men on this site being in love with him. LolHe's what Grant Morrison has to say about that!
He's very plutonian in the sense that he's wealthy and also in the sense that he's sexually deviant. Gayness is built into Batman. I'm not using gay in the pejorative sense, but Batman is very, very gay. There's just no denying it. Obviously as a fictional character he's intended to be heterosexual, but the basis of the whole concept is utterly gay. I think that's why people like it. All these women fancy him and they all wear fetish clothes and jump around rooftops to get to him. He doesn't care-he's more interested in hanging out with the old guy and the kid.Original interview (a great read for Morrison fans)
Unfortunately, most people on this site are morons and have no idea what Morrison meant by that, (nor what Morrison has ever meant, because Final Crisis was too "hard to read"), so they'll just assume Batman is actually homosexual under Morrison's pen, which is not the case at all.He's what Grant Morrison has to say about that!
He's very plutonian in the sense that he's wealthy and also in the sense that he's sexually deviant. Gayness is built into Batman. I'm not using gay in the pejorative sense, but Batman is very, very gay. There's just no denying it. Obviously as a fictional character he's intended to be heterosexual, but the basis of the whole concept is utterly gay. I think that's why people like it. All these women fancy him and they all wear fetish clothes and jump around rooftops to get to him. He doesn't care-he's more interested in hanging out with the old guy and the kid.Original interview (a great read for Morrison fans)
I could care less but the world will RIOT!!!!
Gay Batman=Midnighter.
@ApatheticAvenger: @ApatheticAvenger: That was Morrison being Morrison. He often talks out of his ass. Denying a group of people equal rights solely on the basis of their sexual orientation is persecution. I don't think it's necessary to make Batman gay, by any means, but if it turned out that he was bisexual (which would likely be the case, in order to preserve continuity), and it was dealt with maturely rather than used for shock value, then I wouldn't have any qualms with it at all and neither should anybody else. Batman being gay doesn't change anything other than the people he ends up in bed with.
@ApatheticAvenger said:
1) A very good point. WE AGREE ON SOMETHING! MADNESS!
2) Cheers.
3) No, being told something is wrong isn't persecution, but having people regularly attempt to dehumanize you and deny you your civil liberties is. Marriage is a word, one that has existed before many modern religious and civil institutions, and I see little harm in "redefining" it to mean the union of any two consenting adults regardless of gender.
Perhaps it's using a loose definition to say that not being able to donate blood is persecution, but it's nonetheless bigoted and utterly asinine when the AIDS scare involving homosexuals is a thing of the past.
Anyone who is willing and capable of serving in our armed forces should allowed to, period.
Glad to see you have no problem with gay adoption (there is an overabundance of kids in need of a loving home these days). I'm surprised you would make the effort to oppose the promotion of homosexuality if it's so low on your priorities. It would be like me suddenly deciding I needed to vehemently oppose any promotion of the now irrelevant Herman Cain. :P
You're best friend is bisexual and yet you oppose the promotion of homosexuality as something positive? Strange. People do have the right to be dicks, but if it's illegal to fire someone on the grounds of race, gender, or religion, it should also be illegal to fire someone based on sexual orientation.
Yes, yes it does.
1. Crazy. (grins)
3A. Civil liberties is commonly used to mean "anything I want." What exactly do civil liberties mean to you? Marriage, as recognized by the state, is an incentive given to promote families in the belief that families are good. It has nothing to do with freedom (liberty). Homosexuals are perfectly free to spend their lives together already. Rather, homosexuals are denied the incentives given to straight couples because society has not yet decided to promote homosexual relationships. Marriage, to my knowledge, has always meant only one thing. If we need to set up some new program to give homosexuals some of the benefits we discussed before, so be it, but there is no reason to change the meaning of a word. If you change words too much, they begin to lose their meaning.
3B. I'm not sure what you are calling the AIDS scare. AIDS does spread faster through the homosexual community, and it did wipe out a lot of homosexuals in the eighties. However, I thought you could test for Aids in blood, so yeah, I don't know why the donations would be blocked. Seems strange. Regardless though, this is a medical issue not a government issue, right? I admit my knowledge on this whole point is fuzzy.
3C. Sure.
4D. (chuckles) I see your point on the Herman Cain comment. As I said at some point (it may have been in a different discussion), I mostly chose to talk on this issue because there were almost no voices showing the perspective of the other side. Though most people seem incapable of having an intellectual conversation on divisive issues these days, I think the reason for this is that we have made politics a forbidden topic, and most Americans have not trained themselves to analyze their beliefs and back up their views. It seems the best way to combat this shortcoming is to try to promote more civil discussions by engaging people. Also, these discussions pass the time when there is nothing to do at work. (grins)
On the gay adoption issue, remember, I said I would be for it if it is clearly demonstrated that homosexual families are as good for children as straight families (or single parent homes for that matter). We can certainly agree that there are a lot of kids out there that need homes, and I suspect that a gay home would be better than what they are getting in the foster system. (frowns)
4E. My best friend is my best friend. I love him. I might disagree with his homosexuality, but so what? I'm sure he thinks many things I do are stupid too. We talk about it with each other, and occasionally even debate, but it is just one aspect of his life. It's not the only thing I see about him. My friendship with homosexuals is actually one of the things that makes me think homosexuality is bad. For most of his life, Matthew, my best friend, was miserable because of his desires. He felt they were bad and wrong (and no, I did not add to those feelings. He knows where I stand, but it would be a dick move to harass him on it). Recently, he seems to have come to peace with his homosexuality. Another homosexual I know pretty well...is pretty sad actually. He's always felt bad and guilty about his homosexuality, and he has never come to peace with it. He's frequently been self-destructive in relationships. I've often heard homosexuals say that they would choose to be straight if they could. Doesn't seem like a great lifestyle to me.
I'm a Libertarian which means I think the government should butt out of most things. The federal government certainly has no rights to impose restrictions on who can be fired from a job, but of course the federal government ignored the constitution and passed laws about it anyway. Hence, you can't fire (or hire) somebody for being Asian, or Christian, or hermaphrodite, but as far as I'm concerned, people should be allowed to fire and hire whoever they choose. If a business want to only hire redheaded, black, Hindu males, I believe they should have that right. Would people use this freedom to be dicks and make racist and sexist decisions? Sure, some would, but most wouldn't. Let's say a place wants to hire only whites. Would you shot from that store? I doubt it, and I wouldn't either. They'd probably go out of business quickly, but if they did survive, then they'd consist of a small clientele of racists. Lots of stores would still serve people of all colors, and the racist dicks are now easily identified. No big.
4F I don't understand why hospitals haven't just changed their policies. It should be an easy fix.
Batman doesn't have a sexuality imo... and if he'd be very picky
@PsychoKnights said:
@ApatheticAvenger said:
1) A very good point. WE AGREE ON SOMETHING! MADNESS!
2) Cheers.
3) No, being told something is wrong isn't persecution, but having people regularly attempt to dehumanize you and deny you your civil liberties is. Marriage is a word, one that has existed before many modern religious and civil institutions, and I see little harm in "redefining" it to mean the union of any two consenting adults regardless of gender.
Perhaps it's using a loose definition to say that not being able to donate blood is persecution, but it's nonetheless bigoted and utterly asinine when the AIDS scare involving homosexuals is a thing of the past.
Anyone who is willing and capable of serving in our armed forces should allowed to, period.
Glad to see you have no problem with gay adoption (there is an overabundance of kids in need of a loving home these days). I'm surprised you would make the effort to oppose the promotion of homosexuality if it's so low on your priorities. It would be like me suddenly deciding I needed to vehemently oppose any promotion of the now irrelevant Herman Cain. :P
You're best friend is bisexual and yet you oppose the promotion of homosexuality as something positive? Strange. People do have the right to be dicks, but if it's illegal to fire someone on the grounds of race, gender, or religion, it should also be illegal to fire someone based on sexual orientation.
Yes, yes it does.
1. Crazy. (grins)
3A. Civil liberties is commonly used to mean "anything I want." What exactly do civil liberties mean to you? Marriage, as recognized by the state, is an incentive given to promote families in the belief that families are good. It has nothing to do with freedom (liberty). Homosexuals are perfectly free to spend their lives together already. Rather, homosexuals are denied the incentives given to straight couples because society has not yet decided to promote homosexual relationships. Marriage, to my knowledge, has always meant only one thing. If we need to set up some new program to give homosexuals some of the benefits we discussed before, so be it, but there is no reason to change the meaning of a word. If you change words too much, they begin to lose their meaning.
3B. I'm not sure what you are calling the AIDS scare. AIDS does spread faster through the homosexual community, and it did wipe out a lot of homosexuals in the eighties. However, I thought you could test for Aids in blood, so yeah, I don't know why the donations would be blocked. Seems strange. Regardless though, this is a medical issue not a government issue, right? I admit my knowledge on this whole point is fuzzy.
3C. Sure.
4D. (chuckles) I see your point on the Herman Cain comment. As I said at some point (it may have been in a different discussion), I mostly chose to talk on this issue because there were almost no voices showing the perspective of the other side. Though most people seem incapable of having an intellectual conversation on divisive issues these days, I think the reason for this is that we have made politics a forbidden topic, and most Americans have not trained themselves to analyze their beliefs and back up their views. It seems the best way to combat this shortcoming is to try to promote more civil discussions by engaging people. Also, these discussions pass the time when there is nothing to do at work. (grins)
On the gay adoption issue, remember, I said I would be for it if it is clearly demonstrated that homosexual families are as good for children as straight families (or single parent homes for that matter). We can certainly agree that there are a lot of kids out there that need homes, and I suspect that a gay home would be better than what they are getting in the foster system. (frowns)
4E. My best friend is my best friend. I love him. I might disagree with his homosexuality, but so what? I'm sure he thinks many things I do are stupid too. We talk about it with each other, and occasionally even debate, but it is just one aspect of his life. It's not the only thing I see about him. My friendship with homosexuals is actually one of the things that makes me think homosexuality is bad. For most of his life, Matthew, my best friend, was miserable because of his desires. He felt they were bad and wrong (and no, I did not add to those feelings. He knows where I stand, but it would be a dick move to harass him on it). Recently, he seems to have come to peace with his homosexuality. Another homosexual I know pretty well...is pretty sad actually. He's always felt bad and guilty about his homosexuality, and he has never come to peace with it. He's frequently been self-destructive in relationships. I've often heard homosexuals say that they would choose to be straight if they could. Doesn't seem like a great lifestyle to me.
I'm a Libertarian which means I think the government should butt out of most things. The federal government certainly has no rights to impose restrictions on who can be fired from a job, but of course the federal government ignored the constitution and passed laws about it anyway. Hence, you can't fire (or hire) somebody for being Asian, or Christian, or hermaphrodite, but as far as I'm concerned, people should be allowed to fire and hire whoever they choose. If a business want to only hire redheaded, black, Hindu males, I believe they should have that right. Would people use this freedom to be dicks and make racist and sexist decisions? Sure, some would, but most wouldn't. Let's say a place wants to hire only whites. Would you shot from that store? I doubt it, and I wouldn't either. They'd probably go out of business quickly, but if they did survive, then they'd consist of a small clientele of racists. Lots of stores would still serve people of all colors, and the racist dicks are now easily identified. No big.
4F I don't understand why hospitals haven't just changed their policies. It should be an easy fix.
I understand the reasoning behind the federal support of the institution of marriage, but in a the modern world where "family" is no longer defined as a stereotypical mother, father, and kids, I see little reason to keep homosexual couples from the same rights. They want to be married, and they're being denied. If it's a case of a specific church not wishing to marry gay couples, they shouldn't be forced too (and that means something from a died in the wool atheist like me), but plenty of churches would happily marry them. I also understand that changing words can cause them to lose some of their meaning, but honestly, changing marriage to mean "the binding of two loving adults in a partnership of life" isn't too much of a stretch from it just being a man and a woman. It's not as if the absurd argument that it'll lead to men marrying goats has any weight.
When I was referring the the "AIDS scare" I was referring to the outdated concept that AIDS was strictly a homosexual disease. It did spread rather quickly through the gay community, mostly due to unprotected sex (which, let's be honest, gay man at the time had no reason to use because they can't get pregnant). When sexually transmitted disease prevention became more widely promoted, people got their act together. Now, the average person who contracts HIV is actually a young, straight male (at least that was the last statistic I read). But yes, AIDS and HIV can clearly be identified through blood and as can things such as anemia so it shouldn't be an issue at all.
Studies have actually found that most gay families are perfectly healthy, no more dysfunctional than a family with a male and female parent together or a single parent.
My best friend, who was also my high school sweetheart, identifies herself as pansexual. She is primarily attracted to women, I was one of the lucky guys who caught her eye. She has had to deal with a lot of turmoil in her life, not because she isn't comfortable with her sexuality (she REALLY is), but because her PARENTS aren't comfortable with her sexuality. Her mother has been more and more accepting, but her father remains a roadblock. I find this with a lot of my gay friends, that they're only struggle with the sexuality is other people's acceptance of them. I've seen parents disown their children, remove them from their homes, and church leaders deny them a place among their congregation (how VERY Christian of them). It's heartbreaking, and not until they get out on their own do they realize that there's nothing wrong with them, there's something wrong with the people who turned their backs on them. I just refuse to be one of those people. I'm sure there are homosexuals who wish they could have been born straight, it would have made life a lot easier. It's further proof (as if we needed any more) that homosexuality is not a choice. Who would choose to be gay in a world where so many people look down upon you? The solution is accepting who you are, and accepting that there's nothing wrong with you. You're gay, live your life and bollocks to those who tell you that you're less for being born different (starting to sound like a pro-mutant activist :P).
I was a libertarian myself for the longest time, but I ultimately lost faith in it's tenets. I simply couldn't stand behind certain aspects of there not being a strong federal government. So many hard-working and honest people depend on their government to assist them in their daily lives, and the bad apples who abuse the system shouldn't spoil it for everyone else. I've essentially become more and more socialist as I grow older, a rather angry and cynical liberal. Both sides of the fence just anger me regularly. Democrats have no spines, Republicans have no decency, it's all one big corrupt and self-serving mess. Colbert and Stewart keep me entertained on the nonsense though, so I can't complain about it all. My bud, a Special Forces vet who runs the veterans group on our college campus, often talks politics with me. Unlike a lot of the other vets I meet, he's a staunch liberal. His biggest gripe is that people in the U.S. would rather throw a fit about welfare and social security, and yet the countries he's been too are filled with constant warfare and strife. We've got it made, and yet we take it for granted every damn day.
It defends on the state I believe, though I believe there may be a federal law coming into effect that would guarantee spousal visiting rights regardless of gender.
@cosmo111687 said:
@ApatheticAvenger: That was Morrison being Morrison. He often talks out of his ass. Denying a group of people equal rights solely on the basis of their sexual orientation is persecution. I don't think it's necessary to make Batman gay, by any means, but if it turned out that he was bisexual (which would likely be the case, in order to preserve continuity), and it was dealt with maturely rather than used for shock value, then I wouldn't have any qualms with it at all and neither should anybody else. Batman being gay doesn't change anything other than the people he ends up in bed with.
I wouldn't say he was talking out of his arse (he's Scottish, remember :P), he's just exceptionally eccentric. Brilliant, but eccentric. He and Alan Moore are two peas in a pod in many things: great writers, chaos magicians, and completely mad.
Fun Fact: Both were also likely used as templates for Spider Jerusalem (since Warren Ellis is friends with both), with Moore being spider with long hair and a beard and bald Spider with shades strongly resembling a mix of Morrison and Hunter S. Thompson.
@PsychoKnights said:
4E. My best friend is my best friend. I love him. I might disagree with his homosexuality, but so what? I'm sure he thinks many things I do are stupid too. We talk about it with each other, and occasionally even debate, but it is just one aspect of his life. It's not the only thing I see about him. My friendship with homosexuals is actually one of the things that makes me think homosexuality is bad. For most of his life, Matthew, my best friend, was miserable because of his desires. He felt they were bad and wrong (and no, I did not add to those feelings. He knows where I stand, but it would be a dick move to harass him on it). Recently, he seems to have come to peace with his homosexuality. Another homosexual I know pretty well...is pretty sad actually. He's always felt bad and guilty about his homosexuality, and he has never come to peace with it. He's frequently been self-destructive in relationships. I've often heard homosexuals say that they would choose to be straight if they could. Doesn't seem like a great lifestyle to me.
The situation might be unique to your friend, since I don't know him, but for most people the reason why they're conflicted over their homosexual desires doesn't have to do with being homosexual as much as it does with society's reaction towards homosexuality and what he's been taught about homosexuality. If society tells him that his feelings are bad and wrong, he'll believe that they're bad and wrong even if there isn't a logical reason for it being bad or wrong.
I'm a Libertarian which means I think the government should butt out of most things. The federal government certainly has no rights to impose restrictions on who can be fired from a job, but of course the federal government ignored the constitution and passed laws about it anyway. Hence, you can't fire (or hire) somebody for being Asian, or Christian, or hermaphrodite, but as far as I'm concerned, people should be allowed to fire and hire whoever they choose. If a business want to only hire redheaded, black, Hindu males, I believe they should have that right. Would people use this freedom to be dicks and make racist and sexist decisions? Sure, some would, but most wouldn't. Let's say a place wants to hire only whites. Would you shot from that store? I doubt it, and I wouldn't either. They'd probably go out of business quickly, but if they did survive, then they'd consist of a small clientele of racists. Lots of stores would still serve people of all colors, and the racist dicks are now easily identified. No big.
Most consumers don't consider the morals or ethics of the businesses they're buying from. That's why BP continues to thrive even though it caused one of the greatest environmental catastrophes of the last 25 years. Everybody needs gasoline and most consumers don't care where it comes from, even if it means destroying national parks and poisoning ecosystems to get to it - just as long as it doesn't directly effect their lives in a noticeable way. The same principle can be used for McDonalds, which might get attention if somebody contracts E. Coli or Salmonella from their hamburgers, but it doesn't get attention for the environmental damage caused by their feedlots or the mountains of trash they produce on a daily basis. Most people aren't hermaphrodites. Or Hindus. Or gay. So most people won't know and won't care if GE fires an employee because he or she isn't a heterosexual, white, male. That's why we have laws, to correct injustices where the invisible hand of the market fails us, again and again.
@ApatheticAvenger said:
@cosmo111687 said:
@ApatheticAvenger: That was Morrison being Morrison. He often talks out of his ass. Denying a group of people equal rights solely on the basis of their sexual orientation is persecution. I don't think it's necessary to make Batman gay, by any means, but if it turned out that he was bisexual (which would likely be the case, in order to preserve continuity), and it was dealt with maturely rather than used for shock value, then I wouldn't have any qualms with it at all and neither should anybody else. Batman being gay doesn't change anything other than the people he ends up in bed with.
I wouldn't say he was talking out of his arse (he's Scottish, remember :P), he's just exceptionally eccentric. Brilliant, but eccentric. He and Alan Moore are two peas in a pod in many things: great writers, chaos magicians, and completely mad.
Fun Fact: Both were also very likely used as templates for Spider Jerusalem (since Warren Ellis is buds with both), with Moore being spider with long hair and a beard and bald Spider with shades strongly resembling a mix of Morrison and Hunter S. Thompson.
Haha! True. :) And you're right, he's just eccentric. (Which is a good thing. All my favourite people are eccentric.)
@cosmo111687 said:
@ApatheticAvenger said:
@cosmo111687 said:
@ApatheticAvenger: That was Morrison being Morrison. He often talks out of his ass. Denying a group of people equal rights solely on the basis of their sexual orientation is persecution. I don't think it's necessary to make Batman gay, by any means, but if it turned out that he was bisexual (which would likely be the case, in order to preserve continuity), and it was dealt with maturely rather than used for shock value, then I wouldn't have any qualms with it at all and neither should anybody else. Batman being gay doesn't change anything other than the people he ends up in bed with.
I wouldn't say he was talking out of his arse (he's Scottish, remember :P), he's just exceptionally eccentric. Brilliant, but eccentric. He and Alan Moore are two peas in a pod in many things: great writers, chaos magicians, and completely mad.
Fun Fact: Both were also very likely used as templates for Spider Jerusalem (since Warren Ellis is buds with both), with Moore being spider with long hair and a beard and bald Spider with shades strongly resembling a mix of Morrison and Hunter S. Thompson.
Haha! True. :) And you're right, he's just eccentric. (Which is a good thing. All my favourite people are eccentric.)
All the best people are, I'm rather absurd myself. ;)
@ApatheticAvenger: I'm sure everybody on this site is a little crazy.
@cosmo111687 said:
@ApatheticAvenger: I'm sure everybody on this site is a little crazy.
Some much more than others.
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment