View Full Version : Unf*ckinbelievable! (DC Comics)
Battle*Hound
06-01-12, 11:41
So now the Green Lantern is queer.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/06/01/dc-comics-green-lantern-is-now-gay/?intcmp=features
Thank God I don't have children that will have to deal with the future of this country/world.
QuietShootr
06-01-12, 11:47
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llorqst7A61qdlpak.gif
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llorqst7A61qdlpak.gif
Translation: "Well, on the bright side...i mean... at least...well... ah hell, you're right, we're screwed."
:D
Translation: "Well, on the bright side...i mean... at least...well... ah hell, you're right, we're screwed."
:D
^^^^This is awesome. Thanks for the laugh.:laugh:
You know...the old days are just...better.
TriumphRat675
06-01-12, 12:53
Children don't read comics anymore. Only 32 year old man-children read comics. Although somebody is eventually going to need to talk about the facts of life with them.
The_War_Wagon
06-01-12, 12:58
Reason #80,238,971,236,134,907 my kids don't read comic books. :bad:
TriumphRat675
06-01-12, 13:09
It's a publicity stunt, and anyway, teh Gheyz are not Nazis, Maoists, or otherwise evil. So really, who cares?
CarlosDJackal
06-01-12, 13:18
Just how the hell is this supposed to "rejuvenate" things? :eek:
Doc Safari
06-01-12, 13:27
Uh, I don't mean to piss on anybody's Wheaties, but any genre where the hero wears tights is pretty much de facto.....gay. :D
(Except the Punisher, of course.) :D
if they had made a chick super gay it could have been a win win! :sarcastic:
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-01-12, 15:03
Wonder what Ryan Rynolds thinks about all this.
Or how about this little toy?
http://www.dccollectoruniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/GreenLantern-450x371.jpg
Wonder what Ryan Rynolds thinks about all this.
You can bet he won't be in the next movie...
Or will he? :confused:
Gutshot John
06-01-12, 16:18
Really? Who the hell cares?
It's a ****ing comic book.
Really? Who the hell cares?
It's a ****ing comic book.
I think that the larger point is our children are being bombarded by a progressive agenda from all angles.
Having said that, the use of cartoons and comic books is nothing new when it comes to carrying a liberal agenda. Hell, just look at Scooby Doo - it's a wonder that I'm not a crackhead after watching that show for the better part of 20 years.
Moose-Knuckle
06-01-12, 17:03
Really? Who the hell cares?
It's a ****ing comic book.
Well for one it shows just how FUBAR Western Civilization has become.
Kind of like the JCPenney's gay fathers day ad. . .
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/j-c--penney-releases-father-s-day-ad-featuring-two-gay-dads.html
JBecker 72
06-01-12, 17:14
Alright, my inner dork is gonna come out on this one...
Firstly there are like 5000 alternate universes and each has its own green lantern. This green lantern is Alan Scott who was the original green lantern (think 40's era) but then somehow made it into another universe. The current Green Lantern is Hal Jordan (played by Ryan Reynolds) and is not a gay character. This gay Green Lantern will be in the Earth 2 series and is not related to the movies at this time.
But I'm sure you all would have known this had you read the complete article. Personally I don't give a shit, if you don't like the genre, don't read it.
Besides, we all kinda had an idea of Batman swinging for the other team with some of the series of comics with Robin. Now that the character isn't featured in the current series most people don't get that idea.
Carry on.
Doc Safari
06-01-12, 17:31
I knew it was over years ago when they started editing the violence and other "objectionable" things like racial innuendos out of animated cartoons. Most Warner Bros. cartoons started out as theatrical shorts and had plenty of things in them that were politically incorrect.
Seeing the butchered versions on Saturday mornings was sort of the first indication to me that civilization was on the decline.
I'd have to agree with the comments that it's all about the "agenda". Most prime time TV comedies and dramas are furthering the leftist "agenda" as well.
The left rules TV; the right rules talk radio. It's a fact in America today.
Uh, I don't mean to piss on anybody's Wheaties, but any genre where the hero wears tights is pretty much de facto.....gay. :D
(Except the Punisher, of course.) :D
Punisher's dead. And he hadn't worn tights for a long time, at least Garth Ennis' PunisherMAX version, which is the only one that mattered.
Things have definitely turned on their heads when someone open carrying a gun is looked upon as strange, weird, and frightening, while this sort of nonsense is being promoted as normal and acceptable.
There's a "REASON" gay's are the end of the line. Those rump rangers CAN'T REPRODUCE!!! It takes a female egg, and a male sperm. No if's, and's, or but's!!!
If you believe in God, there is a reason God destroyed "Sodom". It was/is "Blaspheme" against what he said, "Be ye fruitful and multiply". Not go around being a frigin fruit cake!
I remember when the purpose of a comic book was entertainment...not indoctrination to a social agenda.
Punisher's dead. And he hadn't worn tights for a long time, at least Garth Ennis' PunisherMAX version, which is the only one that mattered.
Now THAT dude writes some comics I can get on board with...
I think that the larger point is our children are being bombarded by a progressive agenda from all angles.
Having said that, the use of cartoons and comic books is nothing new when it comes to carrying a liberal agenda. Hell, just look at Scooby Doo - it's a wonder that I'm not a crackhead after watching that show for the better part of 20 years.
Luckily for me I only watched Jonny Quest. I just couldn't stand that dyke Thelma and pothead Shaggy.
Gutshot John
06-02-12, 01:05
Hilarious, homosexual characters and writers have been in literature for decades if not centuries...and a single freaking comic book character spells the end of civilization. Oh and by the way, gay comic book characters have been around for decades as well. The Watchmen, one of the best comic books of all time, featured an openly gay character. Do you really think Green Lantern is going to be having anal sex in comic pages? Seriously?
As for a "social agenda" comics have been at the forefront of social issues since their inception in the 1930s. This is true for any form of art, and comic books are indeed art, they reflect the society in which they were made. Homosexuals aren't going anywhere, deal with it.
Much of the best comics were written during the 1960s-70s with civil rights and those story lines reflected it, mutants in the X-Men as an allegory for racism. As for "indoctrination" please, no one is being forced to read it, you don't like it? don't buy it. Problem solved.
Moose-Knuckle
06-02-12, 01:33
Hilarious, homosexual characters and writers have been in literature for decades if not centuries...and a single freaking comic book character spells the end of civilization.
I don’t find anything “hilarious” about a publication that is marketed towards children to run a series based on a homosexual “super hero” much less one that depicts said “super hero” locked in an open mouth kiss with another man. In fact it’s downright repulsive.
Sure, limp wrists have been depicted throughout human history in erotica by those and for those societies that deem such behavior acceptable. But did they target children with their "art"? All those long ago civilizations that embraced homosexuality openly, where are they now?
Do you really think Green Lantern is going to be having anal sex in comic pages?
The actual depiction of a particular sex act really isn't the point here now is it? The mere suggestion of said lifestyle in a traditional children’s fictional tale being accepted in the mainstream is a tale-tale sign of how far down the slippery slope we have slid.
Seriously?
You don't like it, don't buy it. Problem solved.
I don’t buy comics anymore (kinda grew out of them) and when I have children they will not be allowed in my house due to the onslaught of amoral propaganda, however this doesn't solve the "problem".
And it's hardly "a single freaking comic book character". As if this is the first and only channel where this agenda is being pushed. :rolleyes:
Gutshot John
06-02-12, 02:56
I don’t find anything “hilarious” about a publication that is marketed towards children to run a series based on a homosexual “super hero” much less one that depicts said “super hero” locked in an open mouth kiss with another man. In fact it’s downright repulsive.
A casual google search reveals that the average age of a comic book reader is well north of 30 with more than 60% of readers above the age of 35. I'd submit that this is the main marketing audience. http://www.comicmix.com/news/2011/06/08/yet-another-reason-for-comics-to-go-digital-40-is-the-new-15/
The rest of your argument falls apart from there.
I'm amazed that a gay superhero is the end of civilization but the rampant and widespread availability of pornography doesn't even get a passing mention here.
You don't like it, don't let your kids buy the stupid comic book. It's that simple. If you're right they'll change. It's called voting with your pocket book, it's a cornerstone of a free market and free speech.
This is beyond stupid but I'm guessing it has nothing to do with the comic book.
Gays exist, get over it.
I'm amazed that a gay superhero is the end of civilization but the rampant and widespread availability of pornography doesn't even get a passing mention here.
Another topic for another thread.
You don't like it, don't let your kids buy the stupid comic book.Believe that's essentially what he said. :confused:
Gays exist, get over it.
Their agenda goes way beyond that. You'd have to be exceptionally naive if that's what you take away from their behavior. Fact is, most of us have no problem with their existence, even though it's DOWNRIGHT WEIRD to self-identify one's entire existence by one's abnormal sexual behavior, to the point of throwing parades about it and demanding it be protected, promoted, and accepted. Replace it with any other deviant sexual behavior and it immediately becomes clear how ridiculous it is that they are allowed to force their agenda into media, politics, military, and education.
The problem is it's not simply about existence, it's about their forcing what should be their personal sexual behavior to be a political and social issue and demanding they be recognized and accepted for it. Talk about a serious case of insecurity, shame, and guilt. When they stop forcing their deviant lifestyle into the public arena and demanding everyone else be exposed to it and essentially bow down to it, THEY will have "gotten over it" and we can all move on -- something, in regard to this issue, that the vast majority of society was doing just fine.
montanadave
06-02-12, 08:21
I'm with Gutshot on this one. The rest is just homophobic chicken little bullshit.
It's a big world with a lot of folks. Different cultures. Different beliefs. Different attitudes. Deal.
I'm with Gutshot on this one.
Shocked, dave. Shocked, I tell you. I just never would have expected that. /s :D
montanadave
06-02-12, 08:49
Shocked, dave. Shocked, I tell you. I just never would have expected that. /s :D
I just say shit like that to keep you guys guessin'. :haha:
So now the Green Lantern is queer.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/06/01/dc-comics-green-lantern-is-now-gay/?intcmp=features
Thank God I don't have children that will have to deal with the future of this country/world.
Always figured Aquaman was playing for the other side, but Green lantern?! :D
Luckily for me I only watched Jonny Quest. I just couldn't stand that dyke Thelma and pothead Shaggy.
No kidding, but you are just scratching the surface of Scooby Doo's impact on the drug culture. For example, the characters ride around in a van with flowers painted on it called the "Mystery Machine." Fred keeps wrecking the Mystery Machine - probably because he is drunk. It gets worse because Fred and Daphne always go off together in a cave and come back smiling.
Shaggy is obviously on meth. He talks to a dog that he believes talks back to him. They eat "Scooby Snacks" that look like shrooms and they will do ANYTHING to get them. These snacks cause them to see ghosts. Finally, Shaggy and Scooby always have the munchies.
I think this image sums up my opinion on the topic.
http://ohremy.mcmuumio.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Internet-gay-marriage-vs-violence.jpg
So, an inability to grasp the issue very well, then? :p
Many people wouldn't find either appropriate for their kids.
It's a typical tactic when something can't be justified, to point to other extremes as if that should somehow justify the existence of the former. Sorry, doesn't work that way.
I personally find both just fine.
I remember when the purpose of a comic book was entertainment...not indoctrination to a social agenda.
Seriously? History of comics is all about that, convincing people to give $$$ to fight Nazi's or Commies, and so forth. Social commentary, social agenda, political agenda, etc has been a standard theme since they existed. Maybe you just didn't realize at the time that's what was going on as you read, but indoctrination on something political or social was often taking place via comics.
I'm with GSJ as well, and I will go further and add that the only thing I find disgusting and revolting are some of the responses to this thread.
Just another sucker punch to chivalry...I suspect the bat signal will be a double rainbow soon, while the hulk is in therapy for being the same color.
A casual google search reveals that the average age of a comic book reader is well north of 30 with more than 60% of readers above the age of 35. I'd submit that this is the main marketing audience. http://www.comicmix.com/news/2011/06/08/yet-another-reason-for-comics-to-go-digital-40-is-the-new-15/
That is actually disturbing. It's disturbing because openly gay characters are not only accepted but marketable. It means we have a generation that looks at this kind of perverted behavior and not only accepts it, but finds it entertaining
I'm amazed that a gay superhero is the end of civilization but the rampant and widespread availability of pornography doesn't even get a passing mention here.
You make a very good and important point here
You don't like it, don't let your kids buy the stupid comic book. It's that simple. If you're right they'll change. It's called voting with your pocket book, it's a cornerstone of a free market and free speech.
Free speech also means one is allowed to speak out against things they find deplorable, even if it's not popular to do so. Yes, folks can passively vote with their pocket book. That's what we should tell everyone with a grievance. "If you don't like the fact there are nothing but heteros in comic books, don't buy them. It's stupid to protest. Don't let your kids read them. Problem solved"
This is beyond stupid but I'm guessing it has nothing to do with the comic book.
Gays exist, get over it.
So do pedophiles and other sexual deviants. So do tyrants, murderers, rapists and others whose behavior is repugnant
So do pedophiles and other sexual deviants. So do tyrants, murderers, rapists and others whose behavior is repugnant
One of these things is not like the others. Homosexual behavior is an act between two consenting adults. Everything you listed is predatory and involves aggressive acts against those unable to defend themselves.
The point isn't whether or not it's predatory, it's whether or not people should just accept deviant behavior just because it exists
Moose-Knuckle
06-02-12, 15:52
A casual google search reveals that the average age of a comic book reader is well north of 30 with more than 60% of readers above the age of 35. I'd submit that this is the main marketing audience. http://www.comicmix.com/news/2011/06/08/yet-another-reason-for-comics-to-go-digital-40-is-the-new-15/
The rest of your argument falls apart from there.
Hardly . . . kids are the main market of "Super Hero" cartoons, action figures, lunch boxes, back packs, themed bedding, slurpees, chewable vitamins, et al.
I'm amazed that a gay superhero is the end of civilization. . .
Typical over exaggeration of the point being made, anyone who has read my post in this thread can easily deduce that I’m not saying that a fudge packing comic book character is TEOTWAWKI. It’s merely a symptom to and an indication of how far the attack on the family has gone in our country when people argue for the acceptance of a central homosexual theme in a children’s literary publication.
. . .but the rampant and widespread availability of pornography doesn't even get a passing mention here.
Your attempt to derail from the subject is a no go as pornography, whether it’s strait, bi, or homosexual in nature it is behind closed doors and marketed to consenting adults. Even the pornographic animation genre is marketed solely towards adults. Comic book heroes however have a historical target audience of children and 40 year old virgins who live in their mother’s basements.
You don't like it, don't let your kids buy the stupid comic book. It's that simple. If you're right they'll change. It's called voting with your pocket book, it's a cornerstone of a free market and free speech.
As I stated in my post above this is exactly what I intend to do. However my dollars don't quit have the impact to make a hill of beans difference to a paradigm shift in a particular industry.
This is beyond stupid but I'm guessing it has nothing to do with the comic book.
So it's stupid to object to what even the left, liberal, and politically correct call an "alternative lifestyle" being put in front of children?
Gays exist, get over it.
People who want adult topics left out of their childrens toys, books, TV shows/movies exist . . . get over it. ;)
TriumphRat675
06-02-12, 15:53
The point isn't whether or not it's predatory, it's whether or not people should just accept deviant behavior just because it exists
No, the point is whether we should condemn people who engage in behavior that is, in and of itself, non-predatory and non-harmful to non-participants just because it deviates from the norm.
If they ain't hurting me and mine, and it makes them happy, I don't give a shit. Why do you?
QuickStrike
06-02-12, 15:58
The point isn't whether or not it's predatory, it's whether or not people should just accept deviant behavior just because it exists
If it doesn't affect anyone else why does it matter?
It's not like reading the comics are gonna turn kids gay. IIRC from my sister's constant babbling about her psychology classes, the brains of individuals... engaging in alternative lifestyles... are different.
One does not simply decide to turn gay. Well I'm sure there are male equivalents of lipstick lesbians, but that's a special kinda gay. :p
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lm7jzrrxem1qjv48ho1_500.jpg
I am willing to bet that a majority of people on this board practice something that others would call deviant. From Pre-Marital sex, Oral sex, etc. All f these activities are "Deviant"
QuickStrike
06-02-12, 16:01
Some would view our hoarding of weapons and ammo to be downright alarming!
Moose-Knuckle
06-02-12, 16:12
The rest is just homophobic chicken little bullshit.
I'm glad you chose this particular vernacular as I have always had a quistion in relation to it . . .
Why is it that anyone who is homosexual and or a supporter there of always plays the "homphobic card" when such topics present themselves?
The very phrase means to be in fear of homosexuals is it not? This basically equates to someone playing the "race card" when some situation arises in society and the person playing said card has no other leg to stand on. It's pathetic not to mention the fact of how asinine the notion is that someone who opposes something lives in fear of the said thing.
It's a big world with a lot of folks. Different cultures. Different beliefs. Different attitudes. Deal.
Ironic as this is exactly what I would tell people who have a problem with by belief that certain subject matters have no place in a children's comic book.
Shame on you, you small-minded, ignorant few. That's all I've got on this one.
Moose-Knuckle
06-02-12, 16:19
I am willing to bet that a majority of people on this board practice something that others would call deviant. From Pre-Marital sex, Oral sex, etc. All f these activities are "Deviant"
And you are absolutely correct, but out of these "deviant acts" how many are displayed in a mainstream kids comic book? That is the point of this thread, not that homosexuality is wrong or right.
Graphic novels, which are marketed towards adults deal with more mature subject matters. When Christian Bale first embarked on the Dark Knight franchise he strived to have an R rating from the MPAA as he wanted to explore the playboy nature of Bruce Wayne and the darker side of Batman that the graphic novel series delved into.
Moose-Knuckle
06-02-12, 16:21
Shame on you, you small-minded, ignorant few.
Same to you, you open minded amoral few. ;)
The fact that you approve of such subject matter in a children's comic book is, well . . . hell I can't even put into words at the moment.
JBecker 72
06-02-12, 16:27
Again, these really aren't "children's books" as you put it. They are comic books and graphic novels dealing with pop culture.
They already push this propaganda in public schools to children, so arguing whether the comic book constitutes children's material is really beside the point.
One of these things is not like the others. Homosexual behavior is an act between two consenting adults.
Except that's not actually true. You may wish it were so, but in order to exceptionalize that one from the rest of the list you have to operate on an inconsistent moral ground with no basis to back it up other than subjective appeals.
Whether we look at it from an objective moral point of view such as the law of God laid out in the Old Testament (where we find that practice listed right along with the others as being forbidden, and which was a significant influence for western legal systems) or an objective secular-atheistic perspective (where scientifically that lifestyle is proven to be unbeneficial, inherently dangerous, extremely unhealthy (and if you aren't aware of the statistics you should look into it sometime soon before they censor those too), and categorically inferior when it comes to the continuation and evolution of the human species), you're incorrect either way. So either way, yes, people should care when such an unhealthy behavior is force-promoted in the media and society by an extreme minority in an attempt to get it popularly accepted and normalized.
And not surprisingly, the "tolerance" crowd out there is VERY eager to silence any opposing points of view about this matter, because they can't actually defend it on any consistent moral or scientific ground as the normal and acceptable practice they wish it to be. It doesn't stand up to examination. So they use subversive tactics like censoring science, twisting popular religious texts to excuse away the clear condemnation of the practice, or pushing the lifestyle in entertainment fantasy scenarios like movies, TV, books, and music where it can be idealized, bearing little to no resemblance to the reality of the lifestyle and those who practice it. Since their arguments fail, they are also out to silence any opposition, all while claiming "persecution" and "tolerance". Give it maybe two or three years and we won't even be able to have a discussion, all in the name of "tolerance" of things we are informed, whether by God or science, to have no reason to "tolerate". But this is really a discussion better suited to other forums, so we can leave it at that.
We're generally all on the same page when it comes to REAL tolerance: helping our fellow man, charity, kindness, and compassion, leaving people to do what they want with their private lives. But that does not follow into publicly supporting and promoting unhealthy practices. To force others to accept such things (or prevent them from debating them) is tyranny and that is presently progressing faster than most realize.
Someone said this conversation is not about homosexuality being "wrong" or "right," that we're talking about whether children should be exposed to it. Wrong. If you weren't contending that it is wrong and evil then you would not care if children were exposed to it. Don't be a coward and cop-out like this. Own your beliefs.
At its very core, homosexuality is not just a form of sex, but a form of love. And for that reason alone it deserves our respect. I know some of the crowd here fancy themselves "tough-guys," and scoff at the idea that love in any form should be advanced in the world...maybe laugh at people who talk about love, dismissing them as hippies or kumbaya-singing fools. Maybe these "unnatural machine-men, with machine-minds and machine-hearts" (Charlie Chaplin) prefer conflict and hatred, but not me. I've seen first hand and borne the burden of an intolerant and hateful worldview, and I'll fight it at every turn.
All of us have just this one life, a few short decades. If a man is attracted to other men, or a woman to another woman by their very nature, how dare you call them amoral or sick? How dare you try to rob them of the ability to live a full life in this short time we have, full of love and companionship?
If exposing children to the idea that people can express themselves in a way that hurts NOBODY, without fear of being shunned or belittled, is what this comic does, then I'm 100% for it.
If it offends your religious sensibilities, then don't do it. But realize that homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible in the exact same passage as these other things:
(Homosexuality - Leviticus 18)
Eating pork and shellfish - Leviticus 11
Wearing clothes of mixed fabrics - Leviticus 19
Shaving - Leviticus 19
But curiously, these things are endorsed in the same context:
Slavery, rape, child abuse, prejudice, and misogyny.
If you call yourself a Christian, don't choose which Old Testament laws you're going to call your own. Don't take it upon yourself to decide which laws the son of your god chose to negate in the New Testament.
QuietShootr
06-02-12, 17:21
Shocked, dave. Shocked, I tell you. I just never would have expected that. /s :D
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4902546830263689&id=c8715a49b6fcdb139525a4291f04bf63
QuietShootr
06-02-12, 17:27
Someone said this conversation is not about homosexuality being "wrong" or "right," that we're talking about whether children should be exposed to it. Wrong. If you weren't contending that it is wrong and evil then you would not care if children were exposed to it. Don't be a coward and cop-out like this. Own your beliefs.
At its very core, homosexuality is not just a form of sex, but a form of love. And for that reason alone it deserves our respect. I know some of the crowd here fancy themselves "tough-guys," and scoff at the idea that love in any form should be advanced in the world...maybe laugh at people who talk about love, dismissing them as hippies or kumbaya-singing fools. Maybe these "unnatural machine-men, with machine-minds and machine-hearts" (Charlie Chaplin) prefer conflict and hatred, but not me. I've seen first hand and borne the burden of an intolerant and hateful worldview, and I'll fight it at every turn.
All of us have just this one life, a few short decades. If a man is attracted to other men, or a woman to another woman by their very nature, how dare you call them amoral or sick? How dare you try to rob them of the ability to live a full life in this short time we have, full of love and companionship?
If exposing children to the idea that people can express themselves in a way that hurts NOBODY, without fear of being shunned or belittled, is what this comic does, then I'm 100% for it.
If it offends your religious sensibilities, then don't do it. But realize that homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible in the exact same passage as these other things:
(Homosexuality - Leviticus 18)
Eating pork and shellfish - Leviticus 11
Wearing clothes of mixed fabrics - Leviticus 19
Shaving - Leviticus 19
But curiously, these things are endorsed in the same context:
Slavery, rape, child abuse, prejudice, and misogyny.
If you call yourself a Christian, don't choose which Old Testament laws you're going to call your own. Don't take it upon yourself to decide which laws the son of your god chose to negate in the New Testament.
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4994536450491485&id=0ef237da7cb39e7f021ecdb3cbcd957b
montanadave
06-02-12, 17:31
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4994536450491485&id=0ef237da7cb39e7f021ecdb3cbcd957b
He's quite serious. And I quite agree.
homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible in the exact same passage as these other things:
(Homosexuality - Leviticus 18)
Eating pork and shellfish - Leviticus 11
Wearing clothes of mixed fabrics - Leviticus 19
Shaving - Leviticus 19
But curiously, these things are endorsed in the same context:
Slavery, rape, child abuse, prejudice, and misogyny.
If you call yourself a Christian, don't choose which Old Testament laws you're going to call your own. Don't take it upon yourself to decide which laws the son of your god chose to negate in the New Testament.
Funny how that strawman argument has been soundly refuted, yet it still keeps being used. Here's a recent example that was handy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxIWf7qrcZM).
It's interesting to see how the Liberal Left of today is the new Religious Right. The difference is that when someone disagrees with the system of beliefs pushed by the Left, the Left will try to outright silence the opposition, often by finding a way to be "offended" by any objection, claim it is "intolerant", and then create legislation to make such speech illegal (e.g., "hate speech").
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4994536450491485&id=0ef237da7cb39e7f021ecdb3cbcd957b
Don't know what to tell you man. Do you have a gay friend or family member? Seen how assaults on their dignity have affected them, broken them, dehumanized them? One of my best friends and a decorated soldier came out not too long ago. And I've seen this happen to him.
I don't want to live in a world where people I care about are subjected to this. And if intentionally propagating acceptance of homosexuals through exposure to it in media can keep this from happening in the future, then I'm completely in favor it.
Moose-Knuckle
06-02-12, 17:41
So much for . . .
That's all I've got on this one.
Someone said this conversation is not about homosexuality being "wrong" or "right," that we're talking about whether children should be exposed to it. Wrong. If you weren't contending that it is wrong and evil then you would not care if children were exposed to it. Don't be a coward and cop-out like this. Own your beliefs.
At its very core, homosexuality is not just a form of sex, but a form of love. And for that reason alone it deserves our respect. I know some of the crowd here fancy themselves "tough-guys," and scoff at the idea that love in any form should be advanced in the world...maybe laugh at people who talk about love, dismissing them as hippies or kumbaya-singing fools. Maybe these "unnatural machine-men, with machine-minds and machine-hearts" (Charlie Chaplin) prefer conflict and hatred, but not me. I've seen first hand and borne the burden of an intolerant and hateful worldview, and I'll fight it at every turn.
All of us have just this one life, a few short decades. If a man is attracted to other men, or a woman to another woman by their very nature, how dare you call them amoral or sick? How dare you try to rob them of the ability to live a full life in this short time we have, full of love and companionship?
If exposing children to the idea that people can express themselves in a way that hurts NOBODY, without fear of being shunned or belittled, is what this comic does, then I'm 100% for it.
If it offends your religious sensibilities, then don't do it. But realize that homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible in the exact same passage as these other things:
(Homosexuality - Leviticus 18)
Eating pork and shellfish - Leviticus 11
Wearing clothes of mixed fabrics - Leviticus 19
Shaving - Leviticus 19
But curiously, these things are endorsed in the same context:
Slavery, rape, child abuse, prejudice, and misogyny.
If you call yourself a Christian, don't choose which Old Testament laws you're going to call your own. Don't take it upon yourself to decide which laws the son of your god chose to negate in the New Testament.
Congrats! You just proved his point . . .
Whether we look at it from an objective moral point of view such as the law of God laid out in the Old Testament (where we find that practice listed right along with the others as being forbidden, and which was a significant influence for western legal systems) or an objective secular-atheistic perspective (where scientifically that lifestyle is proven to be unbeneficial, inherently dangerous, extremely unhealthy (and if you aren't aware of the statistics you should look into it sometime soon before they censor those too), and categorically inferior when it comes to the continuation and evolution of the human species), you're incorrect either way. So either way, yes, people should care when such an unhealthy behavior is force-promoted in the media and society by an extreme minority in an attempt to get it popularly accepted and normalized.
And not surprisingly, the "tolerance" crowd out there is VERY eager to silence any opposing points of view about this matter, because they can't actually defend it on any consistent moral or scientific ground as the normal and acceptable practice they wish it to be. It doesn't stand up to examination. So they use subversive tactics like censoring science, twisting popular religious texts to excuse away the clear condemnation of the practice, or pushing the lifestyle in entertainment fantasy scenarios like movies, TV, books, and music where it can be idealized, bearing little to no resemblance to the reality of the lifestyle and those who practice it. Since their arguments fail, they are also out to silence any opposition, all while claiming "persecution" and "tolerance". Give it maybe two or three years and we won't even be able to have a discussion, all in the name of "tolerance" of things we are informed, whether by God or science, to have no reason to "tolerate". But this is really a discussion better suited to other forums, so we can leave it at that.
We're generally all on the same page when it comes to REAL tolerance: helping our fellow man, charity, kindness, and compassion, leaving people to do what they want with their private lives. But that does not follow into publicly supporting and promoting unhealthy practices. To force others to accept such things (or prevent them from debating them) is tyranny and that is presently progressing faster than most realize.
QuietShootr
06-02-12, 17:49
Don't know what to tell you man. Do you have a gay friend or family member? Seen how assaults on their dignity have affected them, broken them, dehumanized them? One of my best friends and a decorated soldier came out not too long ago. And I've seen this happen to him.
I don't want to live in a world where people I care about are subjected to this. And if intentionally propagating acceptance of homosexuals through exposure to it in media can keep this from happening in the future, then I'm completely in favor it.
1) No. I do not know exactly how I'd think about that situation, other than to say it sounds like a mess.
and 2) I strongly disagree. I really do not care who a person wants to ****, but I really do not like the intentional social programming of children to accept what has been considered deviant until about 10 minutes ago, anthropologically speaking.
I don't know who said it, but it's profoundly true: "The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name has become The Love That Won't Shut The **** Up." I do not define myself by my skin color or that I love pussy...why oh why do I constantly have to be subjected to the agendas of those who do?
The argument is largely academic for me. I have chosen not to have any children, because my wife and I believe that to do so at this point is morally equivalent to conceiving a child on the deck of the Titanic...but I despise the blatant programming nonetheless.
Congrats! You just proved his point . . .
I've done no such thing, because there was no point to be proved or disproved. The basis of the argument makes no sense.
If you argue from the position of Biblical morality, then you must reconcile your view-point with the capricious and inconsistent canons and codes of religious justice found within it. Being abhorred by one practice mentioned within and accepting other equally condemned practices is nothing more than emotion based selectivity. Further, using superstitious nonsense as a platform for arguing which behaviors are acceptable and unacceptable has no bearing on what other people do. The first amendment guarantees your right to criticize them, surely. But what I'm arguing is that you should not, and of course not that you may not. What you absolutely can't do is legislate from this position. You can bully, condemn, and criticize, yes. But it doesn't mean that you should.
If you argue against homosexuality from a scientific perspective, then you are simply wrong. Human beings are animals, mammals and primates, to be specific. Homosexuality has been observed in over 1,500 species of animals. It is absolutely biological and highly likely to be genetic. We don't know yet (I will grant you that for some, it is a choice. But not for most). The idea that accepting a behavior that a minority of people seem to be predisposed to at birth will wipe out the human race because homosexuals can't reproduce is ludicrous. At a time when overpopulation is rife and the natural resources of Earth are strained like no other, you cannot argue from a scientific perspective that homosexuality presents a threat to human survival or prosperity. Also, sexually transmitted diseases are an equal opportunity problem. While the AIDS rate is higher in the homosexual population, this is a result of social factors and practices. It is not causally related to homosexuality. It is a separate issue.
...what has been considered deviant until about 10 minutes ago, anthropologically speaking.
Theological anthropology (the part of Christian theology concerning the genesis, nature, and future of humans, especially as contrasted with the nature of God) or scientific anthropology (the scientific study of the origin, the behavior, and the physical, social, and cultural development of humans)?
I have no interest in the former. Consider what other practices common theological anthropology has endorsed or condemned prior to "10 minutes ago." Witch hunts? Exterminations due to blaming the plague on demonic possessions and affronts to god? Blaming natural disasters on impiety? Do I really need to go on?
Further, christian theology says that man is created in the image of god. Natural born homosexuals are created in the image of who, then?
The latter says that you're wrong. Homosexuality is as old as life itself.
I don't know who said it, but it's profoundly true: "The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name has become The Love That Won't Shut The **** Up." I do not define myself by my skin color or that I love pussy...why oh why do I constantly have to be subjected to the agendas of those who do?
Homosexuals are commonly bullied and belittled for engaging in the same public expressions of partnership that heterosexuals take part in...PDA, etc. You are not defined by your skin color or sexual orientation, but you are also not criticized for it either. THEY ARE.
Why SHOULD they shut up? Until the bullying stops, until they are afforded the same rights to marry as everybody else, they should not.
http://bobcargill.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/535132_10150690521932395_705822394_8026655_1008504104_n.jpg
QuietShootr
06-02-12, 18:38
I'm not beating the religious drum. If I stepped foot in a church of any description, the earth would likely yawn open, swallow me and anyone unlucky enough to be within 20 yards of me, then slam shut.
As to your images. No, nevermind. That's enough for one day.
GeorgiaBoy
06-02-12, 18:43
"I'm tired of hearing their agenda" or "I don't care what they do, I just don't want to see it, hear about it, or known about it" is a terrible excuse for homophobia.
Man up and face the fact that your blatantly scared of homosexuals. Face the fact that you don't like them because of what has been ingrained in your head since your birth by your religion and/or what society has pressed you to do for your entire life. You don't see an exact reason to despise them, but you do.
Also man up and face the fact that your hatred of homosexuals in this context is EXACTLY like the hate of blacks half a century ago.
This is 2012. This is the United States, a supposed "land of the free". Progress has been made in a exponential scale in the past 50 years for more freedom for anyone, regardless of race or religion. LGBT is one of the last groups still to be largely demonized and rejected in our society.
How can a nation so great, with a people so in love with freedom and liberty, restrict the rights of a group simply because of their lifestyle and sexuality? Nazi Germany? Soviet Russia? No, the United States. :rolleyes:
QuietShootr
06-02-12, 18:48
"I'm tired of hearing their agenda" or "I don't care what they do, I just don't want to see it, hear about it, or known about it" is a terrible excuse for homophobia.
Man up and face the fact that your blatantly scared of homosexuals. Face the fact that you don't like them because of what has been ingrained in your head since your birth by your religion and/or what society has pressed you to do for your entire life. You don't see an exact reason to despise them, but you do.
Also man up and face the fact that your hatred of homosexuals in this context is EXACTLY like the hate of blacks half a century ago.
This is 2012. This is the United States, a supposed "land of the free". Progress has been made in a exponential scale in the past 50 years for more freedom for anyone, regardless of race or religion. LGBT is one of the last groups still to be largely demonized and rejected in our society.
How can a nation so great, with a people so in love with freedom and liberty, restrict the rights of a group simply because of their lifestyle and sexuality? Nazi Germany? Soviet Russia? No, the United States. :rolleyes:
Godwin's Law proven again.
And another add for the ignore list.
QuickStrike
06-02-12, 18:53
1) No. I do not know exactly how I'd think about that situation, other than to say it sounds like a mess.
and 2) I strongly disagree. I really do not care who a person wants to ****, but I really do not like the intentional social programming of children to accept what has been considered deviant until about 10 minutes ago, anthropologically speaking.
I don't know who said it, but it's profoundly true: "The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name has become The Love That Won't Shut The **** Up." I do not define myself by my skin color or that I love pussy...why oh why do I constantly have to be subjected to the agendas of those who do?
The argument is largely academic for me. I have chosen not to have any children, because my wife and I believe that to do so at this point is morally equivalent to conceiving a child on the deck of the Titanic...but I despise the blatant programming nonetheless.
You know that one does not simply decide or copy someone and become gay right? There's a biological basis for it.
It's not a choice thing like accepting to be an obese person.
If exposing kids to some gay characters will make them grow up to be less hateful; and prevent them from verbally or even physically harassing people just because they are different, then I'm all for it.
GeorgiaBoy
06-02-12, 19:06
Godwin's Law proven again.
And another add for the ignore list.
Ignores the point of 95% of the post; judges the post by a passive analogy.
Moose-Knuckle
06-02-12, 20:20
If you argue from the position of Biblical morality, then you must reconcile your view-point with the capricious and inconsistent canons and codes of religious justice found within it. Being abhorred by one practice mentioned within and accepting other equally condemned practices is nothing more than emotion based selectivity. Further, using superstitious nonsense as a platform for arguing which behaviors are acceptable and unacceptable has no bearing on what other people do. The first amendment guarantees your right to criticize them, surely. But what I'm arguing is that you should not, and of course not that you may not. What you absolutely can't do is legislate from this position. You can bully, condemn, and criticize, yes. But it doesn't mean that you should.
If you argue against homosexuality from a scientific perspective, then you are simply wrong. Human beings are animals, mammals and primates, to be specific. Homosexuality has been observed in over 1,500 species of animals. It is absolutely biological and highly likely to be genetic. We don't know yet (I will grant you that for some, it is a choice. But not for most). The idea that accepting a behavior that a minority of people seem to be predisposed to at birth will wipe out the human race because homosexuals can't reproduce is ludicrous. At a time when overpopulation is rife and the natural resources of Earth are strained like no other, you cannot argue from a scientific perspective that homosexuality presents a threat to human survival or prosperity. Also, sexually transmitted diseases are an equal opportunity problem. While the AIDS rate is higher in the homosexual population, this is a result of social factors and practices. It is not causally related to homosexuality. It is a separate issue.
You wouldn't happen to "teach" Biological Science at UC Berkeley would you?
http://bobcargill.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/535132_10150690521932395_705822394_8026655_1008504104_n.jpg
I would love to respond to the pics you posted with ones Google/image pulls up on "gay pride demonstration/parade/march", but they violate forum rules and those of my image hosting site. :bad:
You wouldn't happen to "teach" Biological Science at UC Berkeley would you?
Your veiled references are almost never clear, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at. But if I had to hazard a guess, and I may be wrong, you're referencing Peter Duesberg, the guy who denies the link between HIV and AIDS. I have no idea how this applies to anything I said, but I have to assume based on prior conversations that there is no reason to believe the reference should make sense anyway. So that's my guess. But anyway, the guy did make some breakthroughs on the cancer front, but his non-virological explanation for HIV-AIDS leaves him almost universally alone within the scientific / medical community. So he's probably very wrong. In the late 80's very little was known about it, but if he's still trying to push a toxicological explanation for AIDS in 2012 then it's probably just a case of somebody not admitting they were wrong.
What any of this has to do with me, I have no idea. I said that HIV-AIDS is not CAUSALLY related to homosexuality in an existential sense, but may be said to be CORRELATED in manifestation due to social factors.
Surely you can't believe that homosexual sex acts actually create HIV-AIDS??? This is what you seem to imply by apparently disagreeing with my 100% scientifically sound statements. If you didn't mean to imply this or don't understand how you did, then tell me, what exactly are you trying to say?
I would love to respond to the pics you posted with ones Google/image pulls up on "gay pride demonstration/parade/march", but they violate forum rules and those of my image hosting site. :bad:
Yeah man I get it...you think gays are icky. Solid argument.
There are plenty of new testament quotes to throw in here but religion is not the basis to dislike the moronic decision to make a super hero gay...it's pointless for anything other than the agenda and not difficult to grasp.
Moose-Knuckle
06-02-12, 21:29
Your veiled references are almost never clear, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at. But if I had to hazard a guess, and I may be wrong, you're referencing Peter Duesberg, the guy who denies the link between HIV and AIDS. I have no idea how this applies to anything I said, but I have to assume based on prior conversations that there is no reason to believe the reference should make sense anyway. So that's my guess. But anyway, the guy did make some breakthroughs on the cancer front, but his non-virological explanation for HIV-AIDS leaves him almost universally alone within the scientific / medical community. So he's probably very wrong. In the late 80's very little was known about it, but if he's still trying to push a toxicological explanation for AIDS in 2012 then it's probably just a case of somebody not admitting they were wrong.
What any of this has to do with me, I have no idea. I said that HIV-AIDS is not CAUSALLY related to homosexuality in an existential sense, but may be said to be CORRELATED in manifestation due to social factors.
Surely you can't believe that homosexual sex acts actually create HIV-AIDS??? This is what you seem to imply by apparently disagreeing with my 100% scientifically sound statements. If you didn't mean to imply this or don't understand how you did, then tell me, what exactly are you trying to say?
No, the Berkeley comment was directed at your postulating of liberal rhetoric.
Yeah man I get it...you think gays are icky. Solid argument.
LOL, no seriously the pics are too graphic. Apparently the benevolent homosexuals can't do anything in an organized effort without exposing their anuses and or gentiles. But hey, kids should be exposed to that after all I’m learning . . .
No, the Berkeley comment was directed at your postulating of liberal rhetoric.
Whoops, my bad then. I'll say that I'm simultaneously flattered that you compared me to a professor at the #2 ranked scientific-research university in the world, and disturbed that you would think this an insult.
Gutshot John
06-02-12, 22:52
Hardly . . . kids are the main market of "Super Hero" cartoons, action figures, lunch boxes, back packs, themed bedding, slurpees, chewable vitamins, et al.
Apparently not...per the links I've cited, if you have evidence to the contrary cite it accordingly.
Comics are as much, if not more, for adults than they've historically been.
All that said...
People who want adult topics left out of their childrens toys, books, TV shows/movies exist . . . get over it. ;)
One more time...
THEN DON'T ****ING BUY THEM!!!!!
Wow, 74 posts and running over the morality of turd tampers in tights, but only 30 post total in the superman renounces citizenship (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=80050) thread. (not that he ever was a citizen though, literally an alien immigrant though)
Somehow I'm a bit more concered about up til recently distictly in it for the USA he-ro types suddenly going all global community for truth, justice, and the united nations way!
Well that and Captian America going all bitch as a result of one collateral damage incident after a decades long career.
The Watchmen (the original British version, not the movie tripe from a few years ago) had at least one wide****ingopen gay, who on occasion might even be caught sodomizing a villian.
(it was a really dark comic series)
Tank Girl: carpet muncher
Bethlem Steele: kitty licking android
'Alternate lifestyle' characters in comics and novellas are not a new occurence.
Green Arrow was pot burning fool in the 70s, and his original sidkick Speedy died (or almost died?) from a heroin overdose.
As for scooby and the gang?
Daphne was hot, but everyone (including her) was doing Velma with her big honkin sweatermeat that even that turtlenecked knit tent she wore couldn't hide.
Shaggy was just dicked up because he was voiced by Kasey Kasem (yes, that Kasey Kasem), and my dog talks to me, even others sometimes.
He has a very clear 'I love you' and a decent 'feed me'
Mostly he sings and bitches like an old man though....
Battle*Hound
06-02-12, 23:50
There are plenty of new testament quotes to throw in here but religion is not the basis to dislike the moronic decision to make a super hero gay...it's pointless for anything other than the agenda and not difficult to grasp.
Simple, easy to understand and correct!
I fail to see where the fire is.
Moose-Knuckle
06-03-12, 02:13
I'll say that I'm simultaneously flattered that you compared me to a professor at the #2 ranked scientific-research university in the world, and disturbed that you would think this an insult.
Now why does it not surprise me that you would hold in such high regard the #1 cesspool of liberal thought in the world?
Moose-Knuckle
06-03-12, 02:17
Apparently not...per the links I've cited, if you have evidence to the contrary cite it accordingly.
Comics are as much, if not more, for adults than they've historically been.
Tell you what, instead of posting various cited sources on the market and age group of super heroes . . . next time you and the Mrs. go to Target/Wal-Mart/local big box store take a stroll in the toy department. They have an entire aisle devoted to Marvel/DC comic action figures, play sets, costumes, video games, posters, and the like.
One more time...
THEN DON'T ****ING BUY THEM!!!!!
No need to shout John, if you read my previous posts then you know I have no intention too.
VooDoo6Actual
06-03-12, 07:55
Never go full libtard.
Never go full libtard.
Take it easy Magnum PI. This isn't a liberal or conservative issue, it's a human rights issue. Artificially contextualizing it into the false dichotomy of the left-right political spectrum might make you feel better about your harmful worldview because you view it as just another issue to squabble over, but anyone who goes this route should know this: one day your children will look back at you like those who told blacks and women that they didn't have the same rights as white men. You are on the wrong side of history, and fortunately, your bullshit will die with you.
montanadave
06-03-12, 18:53
^ We can only hope.
QuietShootr
06-03-12, 20:08
Take it easy Magnum PI. This isn't a liberal or conservative issue, it's a human rights issue. Artificially contextualizing it into the false dichotomy of the left-right political spectrum might make you feel better about your harmful worldview because you view it as just another issue to squabble over, but anyone who goes this route should know this: one day your children will look back at you like those who told blacks and women that they didn't have the same rights as white men. You are on the wrong side of history, and fortunately, your bullshit will die with you.
I think that's a little out of line.
It is also a false dichotomy to say that because I don't want homosexuality propagandized into normality, that means I want to put the Doc Martens to them on a Saturday night.
(digs around for P38, opens Can, Worms, Assorted, 1ea)
I would probably not use the integration issue as a model of success if I were bound and determined to be intellectually honest.
As that famous sage McGreevy of the Royal Rooters used to say, "'Nuf Ced".
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Nuf_Ced_Button.jpg/240px-Nuf_Ced_Button.jpg
Army Chief
06-03-12, 20:38
Putting this one to rest.
It's one thing to do a collective eye roll at DC Comics deciding to change the sexual prefererence of a fictional superhero, and quite another to let the discourse devolve into a contentious debate on homosexuality, the rights which society should or should not associate with this lifestyle choice, or the full-acceptance agenda which has been so methodically advanced over the past quarter-century.
Whatever your position on the issue, I think I'm safe in saying that most of us are just really, really sick of hearing about it. Let's move on.
AC
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.