Which X-Men title has the least homosexual propaganda?
slugbug
X-Men titles before, but had seen a couple of the cartoons, and watched
the movies. (and did read a few of the old ones) Two things about the
series struck me:
1) It seems like this title is specifically trying to reach teens. Ok,
ok, so I know it is a comic book, but I'd like a bit more of an adult
treatment. Any suggestions? And I don't like the neo-anime look.
2) The series seems to be chock full of homosexual propaganda. Because
of my religious beliefs and upbringing, I do not allow myself to
continue reading or watching any series that regularly seems to make a
point of bringing up this type of propaganda. So, I was wondering, is
there another one of the X-titles that doesn't overtly pander to the
homosexual crowd?
Bern
> 2) The series seems to be chock full of homosexual propaganda. Because
> of my religious beliefs and upbringing, I do not allow myself to
> continue reading or watching any series that regularly seems to make a
> point of bringing up this type of propaganda. So, I was wondering, is
> there another one of the X-titles that doesn't overtly pander to the
> homosexual crowd?
You know, at their core, the X-Men are all about respecting, accepting, and
learning to know minorities. Based of what your "values" seem to be, I
wouldn't recommend reading the X-Men.
On the other hand, maybe I would. (Audi alteram partem and all that...)
bar...@shentel.net
Oh, such horrible propaganda!! Gay people are people too!!
The idea of two men going at it makes me physically nauteous, but you
don't hear me calling a postive portrayal as propaganda.
I'm going to give you a piece of advice. Skip the comics. Because no
comic book will ever portray a gay relationship as a negative thing.
To giva an example the biggest jerk of a superhero ever, Triumph, was
gay. But it was never mentioned in stories because it had nothing to
do with him being an ass. The reason why people know this is simply
writers announced it later.
Back to point it depends on what you mean. Rogue of the X-men was
raised by the bisexual lovers Mystique and Destiny in the standard MU
books. Kitty Pryde has lots of boyfriend but she got really close to
Rachel Summers and Illyana Rasputin. New Mutants occasionally features
a lesbian named Karma. ANd considering it's your religous upbringing
that causes you to have a problem with this I doubt you'd like the fact
that Storm was worshipped as a goddess by a tribe in Africa. And
devout Catholic Nightcrawler dates a witch.
JLB
Gothic-Punk
bar...@shentel.net wrote:
ANd considering it's your religous upbringing
> that causes you to have a problem with this I doubt you'd like the fact
> that Storm was worshipped as a goddess by a tribe in Africa. And
> devout Catholic Nightcrawler dates a witch.
That, and he is supposed to be THE DEVIL'S SON, to boot...
Actually, he's the son of THE DEVIL called Azazel AND one of Rogue's
BISEXUAL foster parents.
Freaky, isn't it? Good ol' fuzzy elf is going to be Marvel Universe's
answer to Marilyn Manson!
^_____________________________^
Paul O'Neill
"slugbug" <fuzzh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151286858....@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Oh, and if anyone CAN find an x-men title that doesn't promote "accepting
people with differences", can you point me towards a Spider-man that isn't
about "a kid with spider-like powers" or a Hulk that isn't about a Superman
that isn't about a "Man" who's "Super"?
Paul O'Neill
"Paul O'Neill" <new...@lazyeyedpsycho.cjb dot net> wrote in message
news:4ga2hlF...@individual.net...
My best line of the day, and I messed it up :^)
Oh, and if anyone CAN find an x-men title that doesn't promote "accepting
people with differences", can you point me towards a Spider-man that isn't
about "a kid with spider-like powers" or a Superman that isn't about a "Man"
who's "Super"?
race...@lycos.com
but still give you the real deal. If you want to start collecting X-Men
comics go into a local borders or major chain bookstore and buy some
old trade paperbacks from the comics section. Start with things like
'Fall of the Mutants' or 'Inferno' if you can find them. Go to a local
comic book store and get some guidance there, they'll give you good
examples on where to start collecting.
Now, I think most people on here have made a good point though. It
depends on where your tolerance level is. I've found that there are
people out there that can play Dungeons and Dragons (the old version),
watch a Harry Potter movie and don't have any problem with it but can't
STAND anything that has gay people in it. Hey, that's your particular
belief system.
If your only real problem is with gays in comics then there are PLENTY
of other books out there that don't have any homosexuals. Any of the
other X-books, X-Factor, Uncanny X-Men, Astonishing X-Men and plain
ole' X-Men will give you plenty of mutant adventure without any gay
characters that are regulars. To be honest, and I'm not trying to flame
anyone I suspect that this kid is probably more representative of many
comic readers out there than people are willing to admit. Lots of
little straight kids have NO problem with gay women, or bi-women in
comics but gay MEN they have a serious problem with. And I suspect
that, religeous 'beliefs' aside this kid's issue is with Collosus and
Northstar being gay, not so much with gayness itself.
slugbug
> learning to know minorities. Based of what your "values" seem to be, I
Sheesh. I guess I should have known better than to expect you folks to
be above all this, and actually answer my question, rather than
focusing on the fact that my ideas may not mirror yours.
Note that my post did not have the Subject: "Can you help me clear up
my confusion about homosexuality"?, or "homosexuals, best thing since
sliced bread?". I am not a troll, I was simply and clearly stating a
question that I hoped others more familiar with the X - titles could
answer. I am not confused about my ideas, and I already know that many
of those with a more liberal leaning leftist worldview disagree
strongly with the more traditional worldview that I hold.
Mostly, it all comes down to what you consider a minority. I don't
even consider the so called "races" to be minorities. In fact, I think
there is only one race, the race of Man. I think it is very artificial
to say someone is of another "race" just because they have more pigment
in their skin, or their eyes are a bit more slanted. Besides, the so
called "minorities" are majorities in certain areas. You don't see
very many Asians around here, but try going to China. There aren't too
many blacks either, but take a visit to Africa. It would put your view
of "minority" in a whole different perspective.
Yes, I believe that everyone should be treated with respect, no matter
what their personal beliefs. The decision to engage in sodomy,
however, whether a learned or supposed genetic predisposition, does NOT
qualify a person for any sort of special status, including "minority",
no more so than converting to Judaism does. I think that we, as a
society, are WAY too focused on categorizing everything, including
ourselves.
Yes, I do feel that homosexual propaganda has infiltrated popular
culture these days. I can't think of how many movies I have started to
watch, only to find that there is a token homosexual character that has
absolutely nothing to do with the plot. It is definitely propaganda,
though you might not realize it if you have been exposed to it a lot,
and think of it as normal. I haven't, so I noticed right away.
Propaganda, for those who are confused, is defined as "The systematic
propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the
views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause". By
this definition, constantly repeating the dogma that "homosexuality is
simply another lifestyle choice", and putting it in print, on the
airwaves and in the movies certainly qualifies as propaganda. They are
trying to change the prevailing views.
I would also like to address the rather spurious argument several of
you have been trying to make, of accepting and respecting minorities.
If you think about it, then this should also be extended to anyone who
has a "minority" or dissenting viewpoint. I find it laughable that the
same people who espouse respecting minorities don't hold the same views
when it comes to respecting minority viewpoints. There is one word for
that: hypocrisy.
And not that it is any of your business, but my wife's sister is a
lesbian, so get off your high horse about how I need to get to know
them. I also did a horticultural internship for a sodomist back in
college, (named, ironically, Bob Butts - seriously!) and we had plenty
of discussions about this that did absolutely nothing to change either
of our minds on the issue. Neither would any sort of discussion we
might have here, so I would appreciate it if you could focus on the
initial question I asked instead.
So, is there anyone here who has read more than "Ultimate X-Men" who
can answer my initial question, or are all the folks who hang out here
focused on having a knee-jerk reaction instead? If the former, then
thanks up front!
Paul O'Neill
>> You know, at their core, the X-Men are all about respecting, accepting,
>> and
>> learning to know minorities. Based of what your "values" seem to be, I
>
>
> Sheesh. I guess I should have known better than to expect you folks to
> be above all this, and actually answer my question, rather than
> focusing on the fact that my ideas may not mirror yours.
Yes. Yes you should have.
When you espouse a viewpoint online that you admittedly know that some
people will not agree with, why are you surprised when some people disagree
with you? I'm surprised at how small the reaction was in fact.
Yes, we are. We disagree with the prevailing views, and are daed-set on
changing them -- although, I still don't think "propoganda" is the correct
word.
We're succeeding too, isn't that cool?
> I would also like to address the rather spurious argument several of
> you have been trying to make, of accepting and respecting minorities.
> If you think about it, then this should also be extended to anyone who
> has a "minority" or dissenting viewpoint. I find it laughable that the
> same people who espouse respecting minorities don't hold the same views
> when it comes to respecting minority viewpoints. There is one word for
> that: hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy.
Homosexuality cannot be cured by talking to gay people, and asking them to
stop. It is not a "learned" behaviour. It is inherent, and should be
tolerated.
Homophobia, on the other hand, can be over-come. It dois a "learned"
behaviour, as homophobes can stop being homophobes if encouraged properly.
Don't get me wrong, you can be a homophobe if you wish. You are pefectly
entitled to walk around quoting the bible or the koran or whatever, but
allow us to talk back and quote scientists and human-rights people. Oh, and
all the OTHER stuff in the bible. Y'know, that stuff about loving your
neighbour and tolerance and junk?
> And not that it is any of your business, but my wife's sister is a
> lesbian, so get off your high horse about how I need to get to know
> them. I also did a horticultural internship for a sodomist back in
> college, (named, ironically, Bob Butts - seriously!) and we had plenty
> of discussions about this that did absolutely nothing to change either
> of our minds on the issue. Neither would any sort of discussion we
> might have here, so I would appreciate it if you could focus on the
> initial question I asked instead.
>
> So, is there anyone here who has read more than "Ultimate X-Men" who
> can answer my initial question, or are all the folks who hang out here
> focused on having a knee-jerk reaction instead? If the former, then
> thanks up front!
My initial response was not a knee-jerk reaction. A lot of the modern x-men
is written from that point of view. Brian Singer and Sir Ian McKellan (an
admited "sodomoist") both see x-men as a methaphor for homosexuality in the
00's, in the same way that it was a metaphor for civil rights in the
sixties.
If you're looking for an x-men title that's not about accepting people who
are different, then you're plum out of luck.
If you want one that has no "gay rights" overtones, try some issues from
previous decades.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe. The speaker: "Paul O'Neill"
<new...@lazyeyedpsycho.cjb dot net>
>
> "slugbug" <fuzzh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1151339524.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com..
>> Propaganda, for those who are confused, is
>> defined as "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or
>> cause or of information reflecting the views and interests
>> of those advocating such a doctrine or cause". By this
>> definition, constantly repeating the dogma that
>> "homosexuality is simply another lifestyle choice", and
>> putting it in print, on the airwaves and in the movies
>> certainly qualifies as propaganda. They are trying to
>> change the prevailing views.
>
> Yes, we are. We disagree with the prevailing views, and are
> daed-set on changing them -- although, I still don't think
> "propoganda" is the correct word.
I would accept it's propaganda; as long as materials
*endorsing* the "prevailing views" (and really, how prevailing
are they these days?) are classed as propaganda as well...
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
janklo...@yahoo.com
>
> Oh, and if anyone CAN find an x-men title that doesn't promote "accepting
> people with differences", can you point me towards a Spider-man that isn't
> about "a kid with spider-like powers" or a Superman that isn't about a "Man"
> who's "Super"?
And next someone will be looking for a Star Wars movie that doesn't
allude
to the Empire as Nazis.
Jason "It ain't happening" Todd
janklo...@yahoo.com
Unlike some others in this thread have suggested I don't think you're a
troll -- and Im one who has a big problem with those who come in
instantly insisting that comics push some sort of "liberal agenda".
So, I'll treat you seriously:
1) You want more of an "adult treatment" but you don't want to deal
with real world issues like homosexuality. Kind of a contradiction
there doncha think?
2) The neo-anime thing is here to stay. Until the next trend comes
along. :)
3) Propaganda. That's a pretty loaded word. Here's what else you said:
"Propaganda, for those who are confused, is defined as "The systematic
propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the
views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause". By
this definition, constantly repeating the dogma that "homosexuality is
simply another lifestyle choice", and putting it in print, on the
airwaves and in the movies certainly qualifies as propaganda. They are
trying to change the prevailing views."
OK, interesting. Let's switch this around: For years Jews were
stereotyped as less than human. They were greedy vermin to be avoided
at a minimum and exterminated at a maximum. Today, we dismiss such
thoughts.
Blacks were less than human, bound into slavery and even after
emancipation were still treated as such. As inferior to the white race.
Everywhere you went were signs that said "colored" and "white".
Now, here's my challenge to you. A lot plays, books, tv shows and
movies over the years (geared for everyone from children to adults)
have preached that we should accept people
no matter their race or national origin. From the Diary of Anne Frank
to Sounder to Night to The Piano.
My question: are these collective works "propaganda"? Are we better off
without them?
Should we have retained the thinking of old Europe and the Antebellum
South?
Now I am not in total disagreement with you. There have always been
"tokens" in popular culture and gays are no different. A lot of pop
culture comes from NY and LA where the gay populations are largest, so
it's no suprise. Obviously someone in Oklahoma or Salt Lake City
blanches at this, because they don't know any homosexuals.
Of course that leads us to the whole discussion of how most homosexuals
leave the midwest and the south as soon as they turn 18, because of
ignorance and persecution, which is the same kind...of thin..g
that...the X-men is....about...hey...
How about THAT?
Now I want to ask yourself another question: If there is active
propaganda in the comics, movies and TV, then why is the gay population
in the US estimated --at best -- to be around 2 million? (note: The US
population hit the 300 million mark last week)
Or how about this? If you are so inundated by gay propaganda why aren't
YOU gay?
Cheers,
Jason "Admittedly, I Would Have Preferred to NOT Have Been Caught Dead
Wearing Those Shorts and Fairy Boots -- Not That There's Anything Wrong
With That" Todd
Daibhid Ceanaideach
rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe. The speaker:
> Now I want to ask yourself another question: If there is
> active propaganda in the comics, movies and TV, then why is
> the gay population in the US estimated --at best -- to be
> around 2 million? (note: The US population hit the 300
> million mark last week)
>
> Or how about this? If you are so inundated by gay
> propaganda why aren't YOU gay?
To be fair, slugbug hasn't said that gay propaganda makes you
gay, just that it seems designed to make people more accepting
of the idea that there are gay people about. (And he hasn't
said it works...)
Nathan P. Mahney
> So, I was wondering, is
> there another one of the X-titles that doesn't overtly
> pander to the
> homosexual crowd?
Without getting into the debate this post sparked, I'll give you my
recommendations as far as X-Men books go. Note that I can't say for sure
that there will be no homosexual "propaganda" spread throughout these
titles, but any that is there should be fairly minor and easy to ignore if
you wish to do so.
If you're looking for a current title, Astonishing X-Men is the way to go.
It's scripted by Joss Whedon, and is easily the most well-written and
illustrated of the current X-Men books. It may also be worth checking out
Uncanny X-Men starting with #475. That's Ed Brubaker's first issue, and his
Marvel work has all been rather good. He just finished up the X-Men
mini-series Deadly Genesis, and his run on Uncanny spins out of that.
If you're looking for semi-recent stuff in trade paperback form, you should
check out New X-Men Vol. 1: E is for Extinction. It's the beginning of
Grant Morrison's run, all of which is very, very good.
If you want to read the old stuff, and you don't mind black and white
comics, start with Essential X-Men Vol. 1. It reprints the first 20 or so
issues of Chris Claremont's classic X-Men run, which is the foundation that
the whole franchise has been built upon. If you want the issues in colour,
and have a lot of money to spend, there was an X-Men Omnibus recently
released that contains all of those issues and quite a few more in a
full-colour hardback.
- Nathan P. Mahney -
Eminence
> It
>depends on where your tolerance level is. I've found that there are
>people out there that can play Dungeons and Dragons (the old version),
>watch a Harry Potter movie and don't have any problem with it but can't
>STAND anything that has gay people in it. Hey, that's your particular
>belief system.
You lost me with this. Is there a method to this seeming non-sequitur
comparison?
Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned
bar...@shentel.net
slugbug wrote:
> > You know, at their core, the X-Men are all about respecting, accepting, and
> > learning to know minorities. Based of what your "values" seem to be, I
>
>
> Sheesh. I guess I should have known better than to expect you folks to
> be above all this, and actually answer my question, rather than
> focusing on the fact that my ideas may not mirror yours.
>
> Note that my post did not have the Subject: "Can you help me clear up
> my confusion about homosexuality"?, or "homosexuals, best thing since
> sliced bread?". I am not a troll, I was simply and clearly stating a
> question that I hoped others more familiar with the X - titles could
> answer. I am not confused about my ideas, and I already know that many
> of those with a more liberal leaning leftist worldview disagree
> strongly with the more traditional worldview that I hold.
Hey, some people actually answered your question. I actually pointed
out relationships that had to do with homosexuality. Due to those
characters history it is entirely possible that any story with them in
it will possess homosexual "propaganda." They may also go for months
or years without mentioning it.
>
> Mostly, it all comes down to what you consider a minority. I don't
> even consider the so called "races" to be minorities. In fact, I think
> there is only one race, the race of Man. I think it is very artificial
> to say someone is of another "race" just because they have more pigment
> in their skin, or their eyes are a bit more slanted. Besides, the so
> called "minorities" are majorities in certain areas. You don't see
> very many Asians around here, but try going to China. There aren't too
> many blacks either, but take a visit to Africa. It would put your view
> of "minority" in a whole different perspective.
True enough, but I'm not in China and neither are they.
>
> Yes, I believe that everyone should be treated with respect, no matter
> what their personal beliefs. The decision to engage in sodomy,
> however, whether a learned or supposed genetic predisposition, does NOT
> qualify a person for any sort of special status, including "minority",
> no more so than converting to Judaism does. I think that we, as a
> society, are WAY too focused on categorizing everything, including
> ourselves.
If their weren't people who would do them harm your POV would be
correct there. But the few need to be protected from the many. What's
that called? The "tyranny of the masses" or something like that.
>
> Yes, I do feel that homosexual propaganda has infiltrated popular
> culture these days. I can't think of how many movies I have started to
> watch, only to find that there is a token homosexual character that has
> absolutely nothing to do with the plot. It is definitely propaganda,
> though you might not realize it if you have been exposed to it a lot,
> and think of it as normal. I haven't, so I noticed right away.
> Propaganda, for those who are confused, is defined as "The systematic
> propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the
> views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause". By
> this definition, constantly repeating the dogma that "homosexuality is
> simply another lifestyle choice", and putting it in print, on the
> airwaves and in the movies certainly qualifies as propaganda. They are
> trying to change the prevailing views.
It's not propaganda it's attempting to display diversity. And that
depends on what the prevailing views really are. It may be the
opposite of the prevailing view in one place, but be perfectly in line
in another place.
>
> I would also like to address the rather spurious argument several of
> you have been trying to make, of accepting and respecting minorities.
> If you think about it, then this should also be extended to anyone who
> has a "minority" or dissenting viewpoint. I find it laughable that the
> same people who espouse respecting minorities don't hold the same views
> when it comes to respecting minority viewpoints. There is one word for
> that: hypocrisy.
I'll respect any POV that isn't potentially dangerous to innocent
people.
JLB
Mary Healey
> ... Obviously someone in Oklahoma or Salt Lake City
> blanches at this, because they don't know any homosexuals.
They don't know they know any homosexuals. That's just different enough to
be significant.
Dan McEwen
news:1151338566.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
> Look, I going to try to give you a response that's a bit less critical
> but still give you the real deal.
Why bother? He's a troll and uninterested in a meaningful debate.
--
"Those who would give up essential
Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither
Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Michael Lehmeier
>
> Now I want to ask yourself another question: If there is active
> propaganda in the comics, movies and TV, then why is the gay population
> in the US estimated --at best -- to be around 2 million? (note: The US
> population hit the 300 million mark last week)
You have to be *very* careful with these statistics.
I have seen numbers ranging from 1% to over 10% (not even counting
bisexuals).
Most statistics I know say 5% and put emphasis that this is probably
a low number because many don't dare to admit it, even in an anonymous
poll.
OTOH, it also varies a lot depending on which country you live in.
It depends on what you count as "homosexual". Do they actually live
in a relationship? Do they try to hide it? Do they live with a token
wife? Do they actually know it?
--
Lehmeier Michael (Nightshade Dragon UDIC)
8:00 - 12:00 : Frohlocken!
12:00 - 20:00 : Hosianna singen!
Michael Lehmeier
> On 26 Jun 2006 09:16:06 -0700, race...@lycos.com wrote:
>
>> It
>>depends on where your tolerance level is. I've found that there are
>>people out there that can play Dungeons and Dragons (the old version),
>>watch a Harry Potter movie and don't have any problem with it but can't
>>STAND anything that has gay people in it. Hey, that's your particular
>>belief system.
>
> You lost me with this. Is there a method to this seeming non-sequitur
> comparison?
Violence - good
Sex - bad
Junior-kun
Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
>
> If you're looking for semi-recent stuff in trade paperback form, you should
> check out New X-Men Vol. 1: E is for Extinction. It's the beginning of
> Grant Morrison's run, all of which is very, very good.
His head's going to explode during the scene where Beast tells everyone
that he's gay.
The op is an a-hole, and best ignored.
Mark Modrall
"slugbug" <fuzzh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I would also like to address the rather spurious argument several of
> you have been trying to make, of accepting and respecting minorities.
> If you think about it, then this should also be extended to anyone who
> has a "minority" or dissenting viewpoint. I find it laughable that the
> same people who espouse respecting minorities don't hold the same views
> when it comes to respecting minority viewpoints. There is one word for
> that: hypocrisy.
I'd just point out that, by usenet standards, you've gotten pretty
much entirely thoughtful and respectful responses. There hasn't been
one "you're as bad as hitler, asshole!" in the bunch, and people have
been pointing out that the general theme of the x-men (persecution for
being different) seems an odd choice for someone who doesn't want to see
or hear anything about a particular kind of different.
Seems a bit pointless to go round and round about whether
homosexuality is a choice or a genetic predisposition, since you say
your opinion about that and the consequences are pretty much made up.
Vis a vis whether having any gay people at all in a story constitutes
"propaganda," why would you necessarily conclude that? "Tokenism" isn't
necessarily propaganda; it's simply trying to appeal to a broad set of
demographics. That's why marketers go to great lengths to include a mix
of skin tones in commercials.
And if you're going to have a large cast, the cast members have to be
*something*, so why not gay? There was a post a long time ago from PAD
(when he still posted on usenet) where he was talking about getting
George Takei to act in a movie with a script PAD wrote. George didn't
want to do it, and PAD said "George, when was the last time someone
offered you a roll that wasn't specifically the token Asian?" Takei
took the roll. Was casting him Asian propaganda? Or gay propaganda, as
it now turns out? No, but everybody has to be something.
I know that gay characters in stories specifically have to say
something about being gay for it to become known (there's no brand or
pigmentation for identification), so you could say that the script
writers are consciously making it an issue when they don't have to, but
you acknowledge gay people exist, so why try to have them excluded from
fiction? Especially in a comic which is all about facing condemnation
and fear from the majority, why wouldn't gayness be simply appros pos to
the theme?
A while back there were also some prostitute mutants (their powers
simply made them particularly adept at it). A lot of people would have
found that objectionable too (even a lot of the other mutants in the
story did). But that's another vein of exploration that's occasionally
mined in xmen - overlapping bigotries. Just because you're a mutant
doesn't mean you're not a racist, etc.
> So, is there anyone here who has read more than "Ultimate X-Men" who
> can answer my initial question, or are all the folks who hang out here
> focused on having a knee-jerk reaction instead? If the former, then
> thanks up front!
Others have already recommended the Essentials line, but for the
money, I'd get the dvd collection, if you want to read past issues... I
just finished reading all 40+ years of Uncanny which wouldn't be
possible with Essentials. One of the bigger problems you'll have with
the non-Ultimates line is that there are so many interlocked titles.
There may be fewer now, but there's a whole decade (the 1990's) on the
dvd collection that's almost unintelligible because the storylines cross
3-5 other X-family titles which aren't included in the collection.
It seems to me that some kind of back-issue reading would really help
making sense of any of the current titles. There are so many characters
and so much history, it would be hard to jump in with Astonishing or
Uncanny and figure out what's going on.
-Mark
Steve-o Stonebraker
> [snip!]
Heheheh. Good one. :)
--Steve-o
--
Steve Stonebraker (sst...@gmail.com) Physicist and All-Around Geek
www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~sstoneb/ AIM: srstoneb Y!IM: sstoneb
Ophidian
>>You know, at their core, the X-Men are all about respecting, accepting, and
>>learning to know minorities. Based of what your "values" seem to be, I
>
> Sheesh. I guess I should have known better than to expect you folks to
> be above all this, and actually answer my question, rather than
> focusing on the fact that my ideas may not mirror yours.
Your question was almost answered though.
There is no X-Men title I know of that doesn't touch on the issue
on occassion.
Unless there is still a kid's version being published...
Which one touches on it the least?
Is that really relevant to you after we've pointed out that it is
a major theme in all the X-titles we know of?
> Mostly, it all comes down to what you consider a minority. I don't
> even consider the so called "races" to be minorities.
Homosexuals ARE a minority.
> Yes, I believe that everyone should be treated with respect, no matter
> what their personal beliefs. The decision to engage in sodomy,
> however, whether a learned or supposed genetic predisposition, does NOT
> qualify a person for any sort of special status, including "minority",
A minority of men choose to engage in sodomy with other men.
> Yes, I do feel that homosexual propaganda has infiltrated popular
> culture these days. I can't think of how many movies I have started to
> watch, only to find that there is a token homosexual character that has
> absolutely nothing to do with the plot. It is definitely propaganda,
If it exceed the actual ratio in the actual population then it might
be propagands.
By liberal estimates one out of seven people is homosexual.
Even if the real ratio is much lower, realism would indicate that
some homosexuals should appear in mainstream media.
> By
> this definition, constantly repeating the dogma that "homosexuality is
> simply another lifestyle choice",
It is.
So is eating high fat foods or smoking.
> I would also like to address the rather spurious argument several of
> you have been trying to make, of accepting and respecting minorities.
> If you think about it, then this should also be extended to anyone who
> has a "minority" or dissenting viewpoint.
In the US, constitutionally, it should.
Acceptance and respect are also virtues in most faiths.
Neither implies agreement or condoning.
> And not that it is any of your business, but my wife's sister is a
> lesbian, so get off your high horse about how I need to get to know
> them. I also did a horticultural internship for a sodomist back in
> college, (named, ironically, Bob Butts - seriously!) and we had plenty
> of discussions about this that did absolutely nothing to change either
> of our minds on the issue. Neither would any sort of discussion we
> might have here, so I would appreciate it if you could focus on the
> initial question I asked instead.
Many of us feel a need to combat ignorance.
Jesus instructed his disciples to do so.
Is trying to emulate them a bad thing?
--
Perhaps the greatest evil of the American people is apathy!
But who cares?
Ophidian
> "slugbug" <fuzzh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1151339524.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Homosexuality cannot be cured by talking to gay people, and asking them to
> stop. It is not a "learned" behaviour. It is inherent,
Some of us don't believe that is proven.
janklo...@yahoo.com
Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
> The time: 26 Jun 2006. The place:
> rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe. The speaker:
> janklo...@yahoo.com
>
> > Now I want to ask yourself another question: If there is
> > active propaganda in the comics, movies and TV, then why is
> > the gay population in the US estimated --at best -- to be
> > around 2 million? (note: The US population hit the 300
> > million mark last week)
> >
> > Or how about this? If you are so inundated by gay
> > propaganda why aren't YOU gay?
>
> To be fair, slugbug hasn't said that gay propaganda makes you
> gay, just that it seems designed to make people more accepting
> of the idea that there are gay people about. (And he hasn't
> said it works...)
OK, then ...
If you are so inundated by gay propaganda why aren't YOU
more accepting of gays?
Fixed.
Jason Todd
mimf
> And I suspect that, religeous 'beliefs' aside this
> kid's issue is with Collosus and Northstar being gay, not so much with
> gayness itself.
What? Since when is Colossus gay?
Daibhid Ceanaideach
<mi...@nospam.com>
Only the Ultimate universe version.
Nathan P. Mahney
"Junior-kun" <junio...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151352902....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
>
> >
> > If you're looking for semi-recent stuff in trade paperback form, you
should
> > check out New X-Men Vol. 1: E is for Extinction. It's the beginning of
> > Grant Morrison's run, all of which is very, very good.
>
> His head's going to explode during the scene where Beast tells everyone
> that he's gay.
Hmmm, forgot that bit! Ah well, the guy sounds like he could use some
head-explosion anyway, at least figuratively speaking.
Fallen
> Paul O'Neill wrote:
>
>> "slugbug" <fuzzh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1151339524.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Homosexuality cannot be cured by talking to gay people, and asking
>> them to stop. It is not a "learned" behaviour. It is inherent,
>
>
> Some of us don't believe that is proven.
>
I was just about to reply with exactly the same thing. Weird.
Fallen.
Mark Modrall
Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Like most complex human behaviors, I imagine the answer's going to be
a little nature and a little nurture, and in varying degrees. Not to
offend anyone gay, but the analogy I draw is to alcoholism. There are a
lot of "nurture" drunks - people using alcohol to cope with stress they
can't handle. But then I knew a guy who was the best "nature" drunk I'd
ever heard of. At the age of 7 they had to start hiding the vanilla and
mouth wash because his body had figured out that was where the alcohol
was.
Moving back to homosexuality, I've known several "recreational
lesbians" - i.e. women who'd been heterosexual most of their lives,
decide to try on comfortable shoes and declare themselves to be lesbians
(for a couple of years), and then go back to being heterosexual. I've
never met a single "recreational" gay male. I ascribe that to the very
strong negative pressure in society against gay males. Given the
harassment starting in grade school going on up to beatings on the
street and in bars for being a gay male, you'd have to be crazy to try
it on as a "lifestyle choice" - the penalties are just too high. Most
of the gay males I've known have felt it a visceral attraction from a
very early age, something they couldn't help or change.
I remember in college, when there was a lot of talk about finding the
"gay gene", several of my gay friends in college were actively hoping it
could be found so that they could show "it wasn't their fault". The
natural cynic in me kept saying but then they'll have something to test
for and abort fetuses over. Stick with "It's none of your business!";
that's the best answer.
Back on topic, this type debate is also what the X-Men has been about
for so many years. What portion of your "difference" is genetic, how
ashamed you should feel about it, and the lengths you should go to to
change/nullify it. To the original poster's sentiment about
"propaganda" and pop-culture celebrity status, a few years ago the X-Men
even had an on-going storyline about designer drugs that gave you
temporary mutant powers. This could be likened to the media's supposed
glamorization of homosexuality and "pushing" kids to be gay.
-Mark
Ophidian
Not so weird.
We agree a lot when it comes to _comics_.
Other points of agreement are bound to occur.
Graves
Junior-kun wrote:
> Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
>
> >
> > If you're looking for semi-recent stuff in trade paperback form, you should
> > check out New X-Men Vol. 1: E is for Extinction. It's the beginning of
> > Grant Morrison's run, all of which is very, very good.
agreed.
>
> His head's going to explode during the scene where Beast tells everyone
> that he's gay.
hopefully....
>
> The op is an a-hole, and best ignored.
amen.
dynamic competition
race...@lycos.com wrote:
> ... And I suspect that, religeous 'beliefs' aside this kid's issue is with Collosus and
> Northstar being gay, not so much with gayness itself.
>
wait wait wait... Collosus is GAY?? When did this happen? What about
Kitty?? Last I heard of him was he died, then was brought back to life
in Astonishing Xmen. I have that first Arc but stopped reading X-men
since then. Can anyone give me a brief background on this, what issue,
etc?
bar...@shentel.net
Ultimate Collossus is gay.
JLB
Fallen
> Fallen wrote:
>
>> Ophidian wrote:
>>
>>> Paul O'Neill wrote:
>>>
>>>> "slugbug" <fuzzh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1151339524.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> Homosexuality cannot be cured by talking to gay people, and asking
>>>> them to stop. It is not a "learned" behaviour. It is inherent,
>>>
>>>
>>> Some of us don't believe that is proven.
>>>
>> I was just about to reply with exactly the same thing. Weird.
>
>
> Not so weird.
> We agree a lot when it comes to _comics_.
> Other points of agreement are bound to occur.
>
It wasn't that we agreed. It was just that having read that rather long
post I was about to snip it all because that one sentence bugged me,
then I thought I'd better read the replies first and you'd already done
just that.
Fallen.
Fallen
I doubt that there will ever be a 'gay gene'. The very idea of it sounds
remarkably silly.
The very idea of looking for a gay gene also seems to play directly into
bigots' hands by expressly proving that being gay 'is' being 'different'.
Personally I also believe that much like many other things that it's a
combination of both nature and nurture. There are genes that affect
certain aspects of your personality that make you more or less
susceptible to becoming gay or bi. What then sends you one way or
another will be nurture and not necessarily the overt parts of nurture.
None of us know why our favourite colours or tastes or shapes are what
they are, I don't see why that would be any different for sexual
preferences.
I also believe that sexual preference 'can' be changed. However I rarely
tend to get involved on that side of the argument because while I
believe it 'can' be changed I don't believe it 'should' be changed and
of course that side of the argument is usually manned by those who think
it should be.
Fallen.
Eminence
<m_leh...@gmx.de> wrote:
>On 2006-06-26, Eminence <grey.e...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 26 Jun 2006 09:16:06 -0700, race...@lycos.com wrote:
>>
>>> It
>>>depends on where your tolerance level is. I've found that there are
>>>people out there that can play Dungeons and Dragons (the old version),
>>>watch a Harry Potter movie and don't have any problem with it but can't
>>>STAND anything that has gay people in it. Hey, that's your particular
>>>belief system.
>>
>> You lost me with this. Is there a method to this seeming non-sequitur
>> comparison?
>
>Violence - good
>Sex - bad
Oh. I thought perhaps "Satanism* masquerading as games and children's
books - good, deviant sex - bad."
*Based on an actual incident with a friend's dad: "I don't want that
Satanism in my house!"
Takes all kinds, but sometimes I wonder why.
Lynley
>Recently, I subscribed to "Ultimate X-Men". I never really read the
>X-Men titles before, but had seen a couple of the cartoons, and watched
>the movies. (and did read a few of the old ones) Two things about the
>series struck me:
>
>1) It seems like this title is specifically trying to reach teens. Ok,
>ok, so I know it is a comic book, but I'd like a bit more of an adult
>treatment. Any suggestions? And I don't like the neo-anime look.
>
>2) The series seems to be chock full of homosexual propaganda. Because
>of my religious beliefs and upbringing, I do not allow myself to
>continue reading or watching any series that regularly seems to make a
>point of bringing up this type of propaganda. So, I was wondering, is
>there another one of the X-titles that doesn't overtly pander to the
>homosexual crowd?
Any specific instances of this "propaganda"? I've read up to the
Magnetic North trade (Vol 14 IIRC) and the only thing vaguely
homosexual in it is Collosus and for much of the book he's been in teh
closet.
Anyway why is it propaganda to reflect some reality in the book? There
are many, many gay men out there and the writers have just decided to
reflect that.
Lynley
Lynley
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>In article <1151289027.3...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <bar...@shentel.net> wrote:
>>Oh, such horrible propaganda!! Gay people are people too!!
>
>Will you guys please stop responding to trolls?
While his views may not be popular, I have seen slugbug in here
infrequently and the fact that he took the time to respond to Bern
goes someway to rpoving that he's asking a genuine, if unpopular
question.
Lynley
Graves
he hasn't responded since, however...
Steve-o Stonebraker
> I would also like to address the rather spurious argument several of
> you have been trying to make, of accepting and respecting minorities.
> If you think about it, then this should also be extended to anyone who
> same people who espouse respecting minorities don't hold the same views
> when it comes to respecting minority viewpoints. There is one word for
> that: hypocrisy.
Ah, yes, of course. Such as when Conan O'Brien did a Clutch Cargo bit
with MLB player John Rocker's face and had him say, "I hear a lot of
people talking about 'tolerance', but I don't see anybody tolerating my
racism."
I think you are missing something here -- you are mischaracterizing your
opponents by simplifying their view to something so trite as "respect all
people's beliefs" or "respect and accept all minorities". If you spent a
few minutes thinking about it, you would probably realize what an
untenable stance that would be. It would, for example, morally bar people
who hold it from prosecuting any crime where the perpetrator was doing
something they believed was justified, such as, say, shooting somebody for
badmouthing them. Nobody believes in what you seem to think they believe
in. Try again.
Ophidian
>
> I also believe that sexual preference 'can' be changed.
Hell, I've seen it happen.
Twice.
David
<sst...@fox.mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>On 26 Jun 2006 09:32:04 -0700, slugbug wrote:
>> I would also like to address the rather spurious argument several of
>> you have been trying to make, of accepting and respecting minorities.
>> If you think about it, then this should also be extended to anyone who
>> has a "minority" or dissenting viewpoint. I find it laughable that the
>> same people who espouse respecting minorities don't hold the same views
>> when it comes to respecting minority viewpoints. There is one word for
>> that: hypocrisy.
>
>Ah, yes, of course. Such as when Conan O'Brien did a Clutch Cargo bit
>with MLB player John Rocker's face and had him say, "I hear a lot of
>people talking about 'tolerance', but I don't see anybody tolerating my
>racism."
The scary thing is it's what the real John Rocker would've said. He
once compared the shunning he was getting to what Jackie Robinson went
through.
Tony
bar...@shentel.net wrote:
> slugbug wrote:
> > Recently, I subscribed to "Ultimate X-Men". I never really read the
> > X-Men titles before, but had seen a couple of the cartoons, and watched
> > the movies. (and did read a few of the old ones) Two things about the
> > series struck me:
> >
> > 1) It seems like this title is specifically trying to reach teens. Ok,
> > ok, so I know it is a comic book, but I'd like a bit more of an adult
> > treatment. Any suggestions? And I don't like the neo-anime look.
> >
> > 2) The series seems to be chock full of homosexual propaganda. Because
> > of my religious beliefs and upbringing, I do not allow myself to
> > continue reading or watching any series that regularly seems to make a
> > point of bringing up this type of propaganda. So, I was wondering, is
> > there another one of the X-titles that doesn't overtly pander to the
> > homosexual crowd?
>
>
> don't hear me calling a postive portrayal as propaganda.
>
> I'm going to give you a piece of advice. Skip the comics. Because no
> comic book will ever portray a gay relationship as a negative thing.
> To giva an example the biggest jerk of a superhero ever, Triumph, was
> gay.
--I must have been asleep at the time. When in Justice League Task
Force was that little tidbit revealed?
Tony
bar...@shentel.net
If you'd continued reading you's have seen that it was never revealed
in comics pages, but by the character's creators later, because they
never had a place to reveal it. It never fit in any of the stories.
JLB
sgtbilko
of something. Nazi Germany's version was to make my mum (who is a German)
and the rest of her people to believe they were the master race and that
jews were an abomination. Marvel's version ( as we all now know ) is to
convince us all that homosexuality is a good thing. If I was Gay I'd
sympathise with that view as I'm not I'm torn. What should I believe? Having
very few prejudices I'd have to go along with Marvel's "evil" propaganda (I
know the word evil wasn't used in the original post but it just seemed to
fit). Marvel must have been using this type of propaganda since the 60's
then because as long as I can remember I've held these kind of subversive
views.
Free speech eh? tut tut Shouldn't be allowed (ironic
statement please don't troll me)
"Lynley" <lynley...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gf70a29ql95t9ri8d...@4ax.com...
Dan McEwen
news:8Fgog.4022$PO.1337@dukeread03:
> Fallen wrote:
>
>>
>> I also believe that sexual preference 'can' be changed.
>
> Hell, I've seen it happen.
> Twice.
Behavior or feelings? And how do you verify?
--
"Those who would give up essential
Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither
Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Dan McEwen
news:1151399993.9...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
I'm not normally a nitpicker for spelling here. (I've learned my lesson
about bothering with these things.) However, it's "Colossus" not
"Collosus" or "Collossus".
Dan McEwen
news:b8l2a2l0kafnbkvco...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 21:54:36 +0000, Michael Lehmeier
> <m_leh...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>>On 2006-06-26, Eminence <grey.e...@charter.net> wrote:
>>> On 26 Jun 2006 09:16:06 -0700, race...@lycos.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> It
>>>>depends on where your tolerance level is. I've found that there are
>>>>people out there that can play Dungeons and Dragons (the old
>>>>version), watch a Harry Potter movie and don't have any problem with
>>>>it but can't STAND anything that has gay people in it. Hey, that's
>>>>your particular belief system.
>>>
>>> You lost me with this. Is there a method to this seeming
>>> non-sequitur comparison?
>>
>>Violence - good
>>Sex - bad
>
> Oh. I thought perhaps "Satanism* masquerading as games and children's
> books - good, deviant sex - bad."
>
> *Based on an actual incident with a friend's dad: "I don't want that
> Satanism in my house!"
Damn, that's better than the "I don't read Harry Potter because it has
too much real witchcraft in it." As anyone who read Harry Potter knows,
the magic in it is inherent and the equivalent to being a mutant.
> Takes all kinds, but sometimes I wonder why.
Yep.
Dan McEwen
news:1151439536.4...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:
> he hasn't responded since, however...
True, but that's probably because he said he wanted his question
answered and didn't want to debate homosexuality.
Fallen
>Ophidian <oNpEhMi...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:8Fgog.4022$PO.1337@dukeread03:
>
>
>>Fallen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I also believe that sexual preference 'can' be changed.
>>>
>>>
>>Hell, I've seen it happen.
>>Twice.
>>
>>
>
>Behavior or feelings? And how do you verify?
>
>
How do you verify sexual preference apart from through behaviour?
Fallen.
MarkRRose
Dan McEwen wrote:
> bar...@shentel.net wrote in
> news:1151399993.9...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>dynamic competition wrote:
>>
>>>race...@lycos.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>... And I suspect that, religeous 'beliefs' aside this kid's issue
>>>>is with Collosus and Northstar being gay, not so much with gayness
>>>>itself.
>>>>
>>>
>>>wait wait wait... Collosus is GAY?? When did this happen? What about
>>>Kitty?? Last I heard of him was he died, then was brought back to
>>>life in Astonishing Xmen. I have that first Arc but stopped reading
>>>X-men since then. Can anyone give me a brief background on this, what
>>>issue, etc?
>>
>>Ultimate Collossus is gay.
>
>
> I'm not normally a nitpicker for spelling here. (I've learned my lesson
> about bothering with these things.) However, it's "Colossus" not
> "Collosus" or "Collossus".
>
and he's gay.
Mark
Mark Modrall
Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Well, to go back to the alcoholic metaphor, AA says you are *always*
an alcoholic, though they encourage you to consciously change your
behaviour in respect to it. In other words, you never change at the
core, but you use your mind to override what the natural inclination
would be.
-Mark
Mark Modrall
Ophidian <oNpEhMi...@cox.net> wrote:
> Fallen wrote:
>
> >
> > I also believe that sexual preference 'can' be changed.
>
> Hell, I've seen it happen.
> Twice.
I've also seen it happen a few times, but generally not with anyone
who had a strong inner sense of it in the first place. From my
experience, it's usually been women who were fed up with an obnoxious
boyfriend, or who think it would be trendy or interesting to declare
themselves lesbians. After a couple of years, they say "eh" and go back
to being heterosexual.
But I've also met many many gays who's sense of preference was very
deep seated (to the point of possibly being genetic) from very early on.
When you're talking about conscious behavior there's always the
possibility to impose an override on the natural tendency, but who's to
say that it's really "changed"? If there are enough negative
consequences to the natural tendency, the conscious mind can see the
value in doing the override. As mentioned before, the treatment of
alcoholism is predicated on that.
-Mark
Carl Fink
> Well, to go back to the alcoholic metaphor, AA says you are *always*
> an alcoholic, though they encourage you to consciously change your
> behaviour in respect to it. In other words, you never change at the
> core, but you use your mind to override what the natural inclination
> would be.
It turns out that AA is exactly as effective in curing alcoholism as no
therapy whatsoever. Really. If you go to AA or do nothing, your chances of
recovery are the same.
Here's an article indicating that the prenatal environment has a lot to do
with whether a male is homosexual. (The study didn't deal with lesbians.)
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060627/D8IG7M9G0.html
It isn't conclusive, but notice that the token conservative commentator, Tim
Dailey, clearly didn't even understand the study before denying its
accuracy.
--
Carl Fink ca...@finknetwork.com
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your
government when it deserves it."
- Mark Twain
Fallen
Frankly a pretty strong argument can be made for alcoholism, and any
'psychological addiction', not being a disease at all so I'm not sure
the varied treatments for it will be a useful debate tactic.
Fallen.
Mark Modrall
Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Frankly a pretty strong argument can be made for alcoholism, and any
> 'psychological addiction', not being a disease at all so I'm not sure
> the varied treatments for it will be a useful debate tactic.
I'm not sure I understand your objection. I never made a claim that
alcoholism (or homosexuality) was a "disease" - like the flu or strep -
that could be "cured" by a particular course of treatment.
My point (and only the hopelessly obtuse would deny it) is that
alcoholism is a recognized condition. People are alcoholics. I think
most everybody knows at least one. As I said earlier and all along,
*why* people are alcoholics varies a lot; a lot of nature and a lot of
nurture goes into it. Some people turn to the bottle because they can't
cope with the stress in their lives (what I would call situational
alcoholism). Some people (and I've met stellar examples), have a
biological craving that goes back to very early ages. It seem to me
hard to argue that at having to hide vanilla extract from a 7 year old
is anything but a biological problem.
When you get complex human behaviors involved, it's going to be hard
to tease out the nature influence from the nurture influence. It's easy
to blame nurture (or "personal weakness" or "you just didn't try hard
enough") and say there is no nature in behaviors you object to, but I
don't think you can really prove that case. My point about AA was that
their approach essentially says it's *all* nature - it's in your blood
and only strenuous, continuous conscious exertion will get you to
overcome the predisposition. *And* that you're an alcoholic for life no
matter you do with your conscious mind to stifle it.
Vis a vis homosexuality, people try on identities when they're
growing up. People try to figure out what their preferences are.
Sometimes the things they try don't fit and they move on. That's what
adolescence is all about. I've known several women who tried
homosexuality on as a fashion statement and it didn't stick so they went
back. That doesn't prove that there aren't cases of biological
predisposition for homosexuality. I've met many more homosexuals who
said it was pretty firmly etched in their psyche from early adolescence.
And, as I've commented before, given the harassment often meted out to
male homosexuals it seems less likely to me that it's "just a phase" or
a "fashion statement".
Perhaps a less charged comparison would be to vegetarianism.
Biologically, we're wired as omnivores. We have protein cravings that
often make meat taste pretty good. For conscious reasons, people *can*
choose to stifle that impulse. Whether they don't like how the piggies
are treated, their cholesterol is too high, or whatever, people can
choose not to eat meat. But I know lots of vegetarians who do a little
swoon when the sausage pizza goes to the next table. Does making the
conscious mind reject meat mean that there's no wiring in there to
digest it?
-Mark
Ophidian
> Ophidian <oNpEhMi...@cox.net> wrote in
> news:8Fgog.4022$PO.1337@dukeread03:
>
>
>>Fallen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I also believe that sexual preference 'can' be changed.
>>
>>Hell, I've seen it happen.
>>Twice.
>
> Behavior or feelings?
Both.
> And how do you verify?
Can't really.
At best I trust the descriptions given by the two people who claim
it happened to them.
A cynic might claim they are or were "lying to themselves".
Ophidian
> People are alcoholics.
That, of course, depends on your definition of "alcoholic". ;)
Ophidian
> "Graves" <Leo.Ro...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1151439536.4...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:
>
>>>While his views may not be popular, I have seen slugbug in here
>>>infrequently and the fact that he took the time to respond to Bern
>>>goes someway to rpoving that he's asking a genuine, if unpopular
>>>question.
>
>>he hasn't responded since, however...
>
> True, but that's probably because he said he wanted his question
> answered and didn't want to debate homosexuality.
And likely has little interest in being insulted for his beliefs.
Personally, I think we should strive to welcome insults to our
beliefs. ;)
Fallen
>In article <Vglog.65191$uP.5...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>,
> Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Frankly a pretty strong argument can be made for alcoholism, and any
>>'psychological addiction', not being a disease at all so I'm not sure
>>the varied treatments for it will be a useful debate tactic.
>>
>>
>
> I'm not sure I understand your objection. I never made a claim that
>alcoholism (or homosexuality) was a "disease" - like the flu or strep -
>that could be "cured" by a particular course of treatment.
>
> My point (and only the hopelessly obtuse would deny it) is that
>alcoholism is a recognized condition. People are alcoholics.
>
My point was just that not everyone believes that alcoholism 'is' a
condition. I didn't wanna get into a tangent about it though.
Fallen.
slugbug
to argue the points pro or against homosexuality, because my mind is
already made up on the issue. I just wanted some knowledge from
someone who has more experience with the X-Men titles, and that is what
you gave me, in a clear, unbiased way.
I guess in a way I just wish that comics were more like I remember
them, from the 1960's and 50's. I just tend to like TV, books, music
and other "stuff" from the early 1960's and earlier, back through the
1940's. The comics had more action, and less sitting around talking
about how people feel about various stuff. It probably has more to do
with my personality than anything else. I'm one of those folks who
gets stick of people standing around forever, talking about doing
something, and not getting it done. I'm a "doer", I go do it while
they are still debating and talking about it. Then I go do something
else.
Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
> "slugbug" <fuzzh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1151286858....@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > So, I was wondering, is
> > there another one of the X-titles that doesn't overtly
> > pander to the
> > homosexual crowd?
>
> Without getting into the debate this post sparked, I'll give you my
> recommendations as far as X-Men books go. Note that I can't say for sure
> that there will be no homosexual "propaganda" spread throughout these
> titles, but any that is there should be fairly minor and easy to ignore if
> you wish to do so.
>
> If you're looking for a current title, Astonishing X-Men is the way to go.
> It's scripted by Joss Whedon, and is easily the most well-written and
> illustrated of the current X-Men books. It may also be worth checking out
> Uncanny X-Men starting with #475. That's Ed Brubaker's first issue, and his
> Marvel work has all been rather good. He just finished up the X-Men
> mini-series Deadly Genesis, and his run on Uncanny spins out of that.
>
> If you're looking for semi-recent stuff in trade paperback form, you should
> check out New X-Men Vol. 1: E is for Extinction. It's the beginning of
> Grant Morrison's run, all of which is very, very good.
>
> If you want to read the old stuff, and you don't mind black and white
> comics, start with Essential X-Men Vol. 1. It reprints the first 20 or so
> issues of Chris Claremont's classic X-Men run, which is the foundation that
> the whole franchise has been built upon. If you want the issues in colour,
> and have a lot of money to spend, there was an X-Men Omnibus recently
> released that contains all of those issues and quite a few more in a
> full-colour hardback.
>
> - Nathan P. Mahney -
slugbug
>more accepting of gays?
Hmm, let's think about that for a second:
That's like saying "If you have Scientologists knocking on your door
every day trying to convert you, then why aren't you more accepting of
Scientology?"
or:
"If your email inbox is inundated with SPAM every day, then why in the
world don't you support spammers?"
janklo...@yahoo.com
My point exactly.
Propaganda may work on some, but unless you have a predisposition
towards its subject -- its going to have little to no effect on a
person.
Jason "The More You Know (rainbow fx) "Todd
Nathan P. Mahney
> Thanks, Nathan. That's exactly what I was looking
> for. I didn't want
> to argue the points pro or against homosexuality,
> because my mind is
> already made up on the issue. I just wanted some
> knowledge from
> someone who has more experience with the X-Men
> titles, and that is what
> you gave me, in a clear, unbiased way.
Though keep in mind, I'm not too sure that I did answer your question as it
was asked. I gave my recommendations, but they're based purely on my
subjective views of the quality of the books, not on any possible homosexual
content (though the stuff I did recommend is *mostly* free of that.
Anyway, glad to be of service!
Dan McEwen
news:ofjog.64230$uP.5...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net:
Lots of people don't "come out" until later in life, but it doesn't
change the fact that they prefer people of the same sex. They might
even be married or have girlfriends. Behavior and feeling aren't the
same.
Dan McEwen
news:slrnea3o1c...@panix2.panix.com:
> It isn't conclusive, but notice that the token conservative
> commentator, Tim Dailey, clearly didn't even understand the study
> before denying its accuracy.
A recent article in my local newspaper mentioned that a new study gave
more credence to biological factors.
Fallen
>Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
>news:ofjog.64230$uP.5...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net:
>
>
>
>>Dan McEwen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Ophidian <oNpEhMi...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>news:8Fgog.4022$PO.1337@dukeread03:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fallen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I also believe that sexual preference 'can' be changed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Hell, I've seen it happen.
>>>>Twice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Behavior or feelings? And how do you verify?
>>>
>>>
>>How do you verify sexual preference apart from through behaviour?
>>
>>
>
>Lots of people don't "come out" until later in life, but it doesn't
>change the fact that they prefer people of the same sex. They might
>even be married or have girlfriends. Behavior and feeling aren't the
>same.
>
>
That doesn't answer my question at all?
Fallen.
Dan McEwen
news:9MIog.60857$lQ....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net:
> Dan McEwen wrote:
>>>>>>I also believe that sexual preference 'can' be changed.
>>>>>Hell, I've seen it happen.
>>>>>Twice.
>>>>Behavior or feelings? And how do you verify?
>>>How do you verify sexual preference apart from through behaviour?
>>>
>>Lots of people don't "come out" until later in life, but it doesn't
>>change the fact that they prefer people of the same sex. They might
>>even be married or have girlfriends. Behavior and feeling aren't the
>>same.
>>
>>
> That doesn't answer my question at all?
You can't verify. That was sort of the point, especially when one
claims to have "seen it happen".
Fallen
>Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
>news:9MIog.60857$lQ....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net:
>
>
>> <>Dan McEwen wrote:
>
>>>>>>> <>I also believe that sexual preference 'can' be changed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <>Hell, I've seen it happen.
>>>>>> Twice.
>>>>>
>>>>> <>Behavior or feelings? And how do you verify?
>>>>
>>>>How do you verify sexual preference apart from through behaviour?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Lots of people don't "come out" until later in life, but it doesn't
>>>change the fact that they prefer people of the same sex. They might
>>>even be married or have girlfriends. Behavior and feeling aren't the
>>>same.
>>>
>>>
>>That doesn't answer my question at all?
>>
>>
>
>You can't verify. That was sort of the point, especially when one
>claims to have "seen it happen".
>
>
So the fact that you can't verify by a physical test can apparently be
used by both sides? Surely Occam's Razor works here, if a guy is
sleeping with other guys and says he's gay then you assume he's gay. If
he then switches to sleeping with woman and says he now only fancies
women you assume he's now straight. Anything else is a bit pointless really.
Fallen.
Dan McEwen
news:x4Zog.15846$1g....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net:
Plenty of guys who sleep with guys claim to be straight. But, this is
ultimately a pointless debate. Claims from both sides can't be verified
and we're unlikely to change our opinions.
Fallen
It's a more natural assumption to combine someone's statements with
their behaviour and come to a conclusion not to ignore both their
statements and behaviour because they 'could' be lying and pretending.
When you start doing that you'll only ever find the answer you want to hear.
Fallen.
lili...@gmail.com
Dan McEwen schreef:
> Ophidian <oNpEhMi...@cox.net> wrote in
> news:8Fgog.4022$PO.1337@dukeread03:
>
> > Fallen wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I also believe that sexual preference 'can' be changed.
> >
> > Hell, I've seen it happen.
> > Twice.
>
> Behavior or feelings? And how do you verify?
>
> --
> "Those who would give up essential
> Liberty, to purchase a little
> temporary Safety, deserve neither
> Liberty nor Safety."
>
> -- Benjamin Franklin
Well one could say that someone who's bisexual could decide s/he
prefers to date someone of the opposite gender, because it's seen as
more acceptable. Doesn't mean s/he won't still be attracted to people
of his/her own gender.
Lore
Lynley
wrote:
>
>Lynley wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:53:36 +0000 (UTC), arro...@green.rahul.net
>> (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1151289027.3...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> > <bar...@shentel.net> wrote:
>> >>Oh, such horrible propaganda!! Gay people are people too!!
>> >
>> >Will you guys please stop responding to trolls?
>>
>> While his views may not be popular, I have seen slugbug in here
>> infrequently and the fact that he took the time to respond to Bern
>> goes someway to rpoving that he's asking a genuine, if unpopular
>> question.
>>
>> Lynley
>
>he hasn't responded since, however...
Yeah, but he pretty much made it clear that he wasn't gonna engage in
a debate about homosexuality which is what teh majority of the thread
is. Even those responses recommending titles have some portion of teh
debate going on.
Lynley
Mikel Midnight
<new...@lazyeyedpsycho.cjb> wrote:
> My initial response was not a knee-jerk reaction. A lot of the modern x-men
> is written from that point of view. Brian Singer and Sir Ian McKellan (an
> admited "sodomoist") both see x-men as a methaphor for homosexuality in the
> 00's, in the same way that it was a metaphor for civil rights in the
> sixties.
"sodomoist" is, I hope, merely a disgusting typo.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Mikel Midnight
"You will die, sir, either on the gallows or from the
pox." (John Montagu, fourth Earl of Sandwich)
"That depends, sir, on whether I embrace your principles
or your mistress." (John Wilkes, sometime friend of his
and rakish member of the aristocracy)
blak...@blaklion.best.vwh.net
_______________________________________http://blaklion.best.vwh.net/comics.html
Dan McEwen
news:vg%og.15860$1g....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net:
>>Plenty of guys who sleep with guys claim to be straight. But, this is
>>ultimately a pointless debate. Claims from both sides can't be
>>verified and we're unlikely to change our opinions.
>>
> It's a more natural assumption to combine someone's statements with
> their behaviour and come to a conclusion not to ignore both their
> statements and behaviour because they 'could' be lying and pretending.
> When you start doing that you'll only ever find the answer you want to
> hear.
I've seen too many cases of "cured" homosexuals not sticking with it to
believe it's true. But, like I said, we're not likely to change
Fallen
>Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
>news:vg%og.15860$1g....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net:
>
>
>
>>>Plenty of guys who sleep with guys claim to be straight. But, this is
>>>ultimately a pointless debate. Claims from both sides can't be
>>>verified and we're unlikely to change our opinions.
>>>
>>>
>>It's a more natural assumption to combine someone's statements with
>>their behaviour and come to a conclusion not to ignore both their
>>statements and behaviour because they 'could' be lying and pretending.
>>When you start doing that you'll only ever find the answer you want to
>>hear.
>>
>>
>
>I've seen too many cases of "cured" homosexuals not sticking with it to
>believe it's true. But, like I said, we're not likely to change
>opinions.
>
>
You're the only person to mention the word 'cured'. Our point was that
sexual preference can change. So if you've seen people switch between
them then that enforces our point rather than counters it.
Sexual preference is simply who you find attractive at that particular
moment in time.
Fallen.
Lynley
wrote:
>
>Nathan P. Mahney wrote:
>
>>
>> If you're looking for semi-recent stuff in trade paperback form, you should
>> check out New X-Men Vol. 1: E is for Extinction. It's the beginning of
>> Grant Morrison's run, all of which is very, very good.
>
>His head's going to explode during the scene where Beast tells everyone
>that he's gay.
>
>The op is an a-hole, and best ignored.
Well no. Most of us may not agree with his stance, but that doesn't
make him an arse. C'mon, differing viewpoints is what makes life
interesting and fun. Debate him, but don't just dismiss him.
Lynley
Ophidian
> Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
> news:vg%og.15860$1g....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net:
>
>
>>>Plenty of guys who sleep with guys claim to be straight. But, this is
>>>ultimately a pointless debate. Claims from both sides can't be
>>>verified and we're unlikely to change our opinions.
>>>
>>
>>It's a more natural assumption to combine someone's statements with
>>their behaviour and come to a conclusion not to ignore both their
>>statements and behaviour because they 'could' be lying and pretending.
>>When you start doing that you'll only ever find the answer you want to
>>hear.
>
> I've seen too many cases of "cured" homosexuals not sticking with it to
> believe it's true.
Have you ever seen evem one case of someone who claimed they
realized late in life that they were homosexual, but years after
that realized they weren't?
Because I have.
There is simply almost no likelihood that "homosexuality", the
behavior or the feeling, is genetic in all cases.
And I seriously doubt that the behavior is ever genetic.
(Though I admit the possibility...)
Mikel Midnight
slugbug <fuzzh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Wow, I go days at a time without seeing any homosexuals. Where do you
live?
Fallen
Because we can't prove a negative without knowing what every single part
of human DNA does.
Fallen.
Ophidian
>
> Wow, I go days at a time without seeing any homosexuals.
Don't get out much, huh?
But under the implicit logic you used, I go days at a time without
seeing a Wiccan.
Or an accountant.
Or any one with a doctorate degree.
Or someone who ate bananas in the last month.
Etc.
Dan McEwen
news:DTnpg.5460$PO.3886@dukeread03:
> Dan McEwen wrote:
> Have you ever seen evem one case of someone who claimed they
> realized late in life that they were homosexual, but years after
> that realized they weren't?
> Because I have.
> There is simply almost no likelihood that "homosexuality", the
> behavior or the feeling, is genetic in all cases.
> And I seriously doubt that the behavior is ever genetic.
> (Though I admit the possibility...)
OK, I was under the assumption that you were implying someone's
orientation can be changed, such as by outside forces. That's different
than it simply changing. I've noticed this sort of thing is more common
for women, though I don't know why. Men, while they may not figure it
out for awhile, typically say they "always" had certain feelings.
Ophidian
> Ophidian <oNpEhMi...@cox.net> wrote in
> news:DTnpg.5460$PO.3886@dukeread03:
>
>>Dan McEwen wrote:
>
>>Have you ever seen evem one case of someone who claimed they
>>realized late in life that they were homosexual, but years after
>>that realized they weren't?
>>Because I have.
>>There is simply almost no likelihood that "homosexuality", the
>>behavior or the feeling, is genetic in all cases.
>>And I seriously doubt that the behavior is ever genetic.
>>(Though I admit the possibility...)
>
> OK, I was under the assumption that you were implying someone's
> orientation can be changed, such as by outside forces.
I was implying that it may be possible.
Anecdotally, I used to find red hair ugly.
An outside force changed that.
I am willing to believe that an outside force could convince me that
man are desirable, or convince my gay friends that they aren't.
But, I'd readily agree that the evidence indicates that this
rarely happens at best.
> That's different
> than it simply changing. I've noticed this sort of thing is more common
> for women, though I don't know why.
Abuse is the culprit usually blamed.
But it gets blamed for a lot of things.
The majority of homosexuals I know claim to have been abused children.
But the majority of people I know who claimed to have been
abused children are not homosexual.
So the jury is very much out on this.
> Men, while they may not figure it
> out for awhile, typically say they "always" had certain feelings.
I sometimes suspect almost everyone has "certain feelings" but
they interpret them through environment and personality.
When a straight man is drawn to another man he may interpret it
as camaraderie, fellowship, common interest, or such.
A gay man with the same draw may interpret it as lust, attraction,
love, or such.
I won't discount that the actual draw though may be the same or
similar in each case.
Fallen
While not abuse I'd definitely say that the majority (which in my
particular case is probably close to 90%) of gay women I know have had
bad experiences with a male relative as a child. However I think abuse
is beaten out by abandonment, normally by the father.
Doesn't seem to work that way for the gay men I know.
Fallen.