Gay DC Superhero

[Mystirious]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

Something about hiring a woman to have you a child just ain't the same.

Surrogacy is totally normal and a perfectly valid way for a couple to have children

Lgbt couples have every right to be parents and surrogacy is a perfectly valid way for us to do it just like adoption or using a sperm donor

It's no better or worse than any other way

I never understood the surrogacy thing. Why not just clone yourself if all you care about is perpetuating your own genes?

...

The same reason I dont hop into a teleporter instead of driving to work

Because its impossible

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

I'm not flip flopping at all. You just don't understand a simple concept. While Shazam is clearly overreacting that 70 years of comic book history is now gone (which it isn't), the old Alan Scott is essentially gone now and he's been replaced by this new gay version for future Alan Scott stories. Sure you can read his old stories, but new ones aren't going to happen unless continuity is changed once more.

Look....you can try to marginalize what I said. But you know what I mean!
Alan's "established" history as a heterosexual male hero has been washed over! Now a new generation's "first" introduction to Alan Scott will be this version. I cant tell you how many young kids think John Stewart is the original GL for Earth-One. That's because of the JL animated series. That was their first exposure to a GL. This is all agenda driven. This is what they want.

There was no reason to do this. Create a new character ....don't p!ss on old classics!

[hippie_hunter]

Except no history has been washed over. You can still pick up an Alan Scott story where he's a heterosexual. There's a difference between washing over and erasing history and just simply putting something to an end.

[RockSP]

Originally Posted by Shazam

I cant tell you how many young kids think John Stewart is the original GL for Earth-One. That's because of the JL animated series. That was their first exposure to a GL. This is all agenda driven. This is what they want.

For a lot of kids Hal was the first GL they knew. For some it was Kyle. What's the difference?

Also, who are "they"?

[Mystirious]

All of us who are lgbt obviously

We had a meeting and decided that we had to make Alan Scott gay. Jane Lynch was the deciding vote

Neil Patrick Harris composed a song about it and we all did a big musical number it was fun

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Mystirious

All of us who are lgbt obviously

We had a meeting and decided that we had to make Alan Scott gay. Jane Lynch was the deciding vote

I knew it.

Neil Patrick Harris composed a song about it and we all did a big musical number it was fun

Ummmm.....Neil Patrick Harris isn't gay. It's all just a big scam.

[Harlekin]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Look....you can try to marginalize what I said. But you know what I mean!
Alan's "established" history as a heterosexual male hero has been washed over! Now a new generation's "first" introduction to Alan Scott will be this version. I cant tell you how many young kids think John Stewart is the original GL for Earth-One. That's because of the JL animated series. That was their first exposure to a GL. This is all agenda driven. This is what they want.

There was no reason to do this. Create a new character ....don't p!ss on old classics!

Operative word: 'old'. Seventy years is enough for straight Alan Scott.

[Mystirious]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

I knew it.

And now you know I'm going to have to turn you gay as well

With my magic lesbian powers

Ummmm.....Neil Patrick Harris isn't gay. It's all just a big scam.

That's just what he wants you to think

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Mystirious

And now you know I'm going to have to turn you gay as well

With my magic lesbian powers

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

That's just what he wants you to think

Since I can't put it up here, look up Neil Patrick Harris Is Not Gay on YouTube.

[Mystirious]

Oh you

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Look....you can try to marginalize what I said. But you know what I mean!
Alan's "established" history as a heterosexual male hero has been washed over! Now a new generation's "first" introduction to Alan Scott will be this version. I cant tell you how many young kids think John Stewart is the original GL for Earth-One. That's because of the JL animated series. That was their first exposure to a GL. This is all agenda driven. This is what they want.

There was no reason to do this. Create a new character ....don't p!ss on old classics!

I still fail to see how this is ruining or completely changing a character. Alan's sexuality has never been what made him distinctly Alan Scott. If you made him gay but kept everything else then he'd still have all the things that made him stand out from every other super hero.

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by Mystirious

Surrogacy is totally normal and a perfectly valid way for a couple to have children

Lgbt couples have every right to be parents and surrogacy is a perfectly valid way for us to do it just like adoption or using a sperm donor

It's no better or worse than any other way



...

The same reason I dont hop into a teleporter instead of driving to work

Because its impossible

How is it normal? What's valid is your opinion, but it's not normal by any definition of "normal" I am aware of. Iit is morally dubious. Intentionally stripping a child of a biological parent just so someone can have a child with their own DNA. Though someone who rents out their womb probably wouldn't make for a good parent anyway.

And Fett is the baddest off-screen bounty hunter in the galaxy.

So, when will it be official that Scott is no longer heterosexual?

[Anubis]

What about the people that don't get paid for it and simply do it for their friends?

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

How is it normal? What's valid is your opinion, but it's not normal by any definition of "normal" I am aware of. Iit is morally dubious. Intentionally stripping a child of a biological parent just so someone can have a child with their own DNA. Though someone who rents out their womb probably wouldn't make for a good parent anyway.

I guess I just don't really see the problem. The child would still be raised by parents, and usually the biological mother is completely anonymous in order to avoid complicated emotional attachments.

Also, most surrogate mothers don't use their own eggs. They use frozen eggs from an anonymous donor, so it's not even their child.

[Thundercrack85]

Slightly less so, but still. You make it, you raise it. If you can't do that, you fail at life. In which case, there's child services, or relatives, or appointed guardians, whatever. But your offspring should be your responsibility. That's the whole point.

There shouldn't be any complicated emotional attachments if they're being raised by their parents (i.e. the people who made them and therefore should be raising them). The fact that there can be complicated emotional attachments should make it obvious that something is wrong.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

Slightly less so, but still. You make it, you raise it. If you can't do that, you fail at life. In which case, there's child services, or relatives, or appointed guardians, whatever. But your offspring should be your responsibility. That's the whole point.

There shouldn't be any complicated emotional attachments if they're being raised by their parents (i.e. the people who made them and therefore should be raising them). The fact that there can be complicated emotional attachments should make it obvious that something is wrong.

Why? I just don't really see the moral dilemma. A gay couple wants a baby. They mix their sperm together with an egg from an anonymous donor and bring it to term in a female surrogate. They raise their baby together. Where's the harm?

[Anubis]

Arbitrary moral conflict.

[HighFivingMF]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

Slightly less so, but still. You make it, you raise it. If you can't do that, you fail at life. In which case, there's child services, or relatives, or appointed guardians, whatever. But your offspring should be your responsibility. That's the whole point.

There shouldn't be any complicated emotional attachments if they're being raised by their parents (i.e. the people who made them and therefore should be raising them). The fact that there can be complicated emotional attachments should make it obvious that something is wrong.

Don't carry someone else's baby in your womb or put your baby in someone else's then.

[Anubis]

Or stop giving a s**t about what people do with their baby cannon.

[Thundercrack85]

When you take biology out of the equation, you have a moral dilemma. In this case it's deliberate. What makes a person who they are is their parents. Both literally, and figuratively. This is robbing them of that.

Or maybe the family unit has just degraded to the point that no one sees the importance anymore. But since your parentage literally defines who you are, it's fairly irrelevant in the end.

[Mr.?]

Stupid that they're doing this. Want a gay character? Make a new one then. Dont take an existing character and change his sexuality to further your agenda. In the end all this is is a publicity stunt and nothing more. Im not even a Alan Scott fan but I feel bad for people who are and have to endure this.

I have nothing against gay people and have no problem with a gay superhero. The problem I have with it is you're pushing this agenda on a character who wasn't written for the past 70 years to be that way. Wouldnt the gay community rather have their own unique character that was written from the beginning to be gay other then having DC turn Alan gay as a half assed attempted to pander to you?

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

When you take biology out of the equation, you have a moral dilemma. In this case it's deliberate. What makes a person who they are is their parents. Both literally, and figuratively. This is robbing them of that.

Or maybe the family unit has just degraded to the point that no one sees the importance anymore. But since your parentage literally defines who you are, it's fairly irrelevant in the end.

How is it robbing them of that? They receive from their donor parent whatever inherited traits they will receive, and then the parents who raise them, one of whom is usually their biological parent, by the way, impart on them whatever learned traits will help to define who they are. If the parents who raise them are good parents, what's lost?

[Anubis]

Originally Posted by Mr.?

Stupid that they're doing this. Want a gay character? Make a new one then. Dont take an existing character and change his sexuality to further your agenda. In the end all this is is a publicity stunt and nothing more. Im not even a Alan Scott fan but I feel bad for people who are and have to endure this.

I have nothing against gay people and have no problem with a gay superhero. The problem I have with it is you're pushing this agenda on a character who wasn't written for the past 70 years to be that way. Wouldnt the gay community rather have their own unique character that was written from the beginning to be gay other then having DC turn Alan gay as a half assed attempted to pander to you?

Ya huh.

[Primal Slayer]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

When you take biology out of the equation, you have a moral dilemma. In this case it's deliberate. What makes a person who they are is their parents. Both literally, and figuratively. This is robbing them of that.

Or maybe the family unit has just degraded to the point that no one sees the importance anymore. But since your parentage literally defines who you are, it's fairly irrelevant in the end.

well guess you arent into adoption. And you still can use whoevers egg and sperm you want to impregnante someone so they are still biologically yours, you just dont happen to carry them. Also what about the people who cant have children of their own so have to find a surrogate?

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by The Question

How is it robbing them of that? They receive from their donor parent whatever inherited traits they will receive, and then the parents who raise them, one of whom is usually their biological parent, by the way, impart on them whatever learned traits will help to define who they are. If the parents who raise them are good parents, what's lost?

You'd be content with that? Really? If inherited genetic traits are all a parent is to you (or all they have to be perhaps), then I don't think I can explain to you what is lost.

Your parent's history. Their culture. Their religion (if you're into that). Their beliefs, their family, your grandparents, your ancestors, everything that has led up to you. Your identity.

Everything is lost.