World X-Men and Homosexuality: The Connection

QUEERLY BELOVED
Same-sex marriage
on rocks with voters
20 out of 20 times, Americans choose
to protect institution from changes

Posted: July 27, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


Yesterday's stunning decision by Washington's Supreme Court upholding traditional marriage is not the only setback dogging same-sex marriage advocates.

In fact, 20 out of the 20 times it has come before voters, Americans have chosen to protect by constitutional amendment the idea of limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

So this year as it's brought before voters in another six – or eight – states, what do opponents plan to do to get their first single?

Obfuscate.

"The best that they (traditional marriage opponents) can do is confuse the issue," States Issues Analyst Mona Passignano, of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family Action, told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive look-ahead at this fall's election season.

"What they're running up against is that people just want traditional marriage protected," she said.

"We have six states that will have marriage amendments on their ballot (in 2006)," Passignano said, identifying them as Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Two more, Arizona and Colorado, still have yet to reach either deadlines for turning in petition signatures or decisions for whether enough signatures have been turned in. Arizona's marriage supporters turned in 300,000 names, for a requirement of 184,000, but they still are being verified. In Colorado, the deadline to turn in names is Aug. 7, and 68,000 verified names are needed, she said.

"The atmosphere (around the issues) right now is actually positive," she said. "But you can expect that to change in October." Then, the campaigning will get confusing.

Colorado's potential battle already is typical of what she expects.

There probably will be four ballot initiatives on the fall Colorado ballot addressing marriage or civil unions and the like. One would think that would be confusing, and Passignano said that's the plan.

"The campaign in Colorado already is to confuse the voters. The more confusion, the better the chance (for same-sex marriage being endorsed)," she said. "It's not exactly a new campaign, it's exactly the strategy that unfolded in Texas last year."

During that battle, same-sex marriage supporters actually "tried to get people to vote against the marriage amendment by pretending they were from the attorney general's office and telling people they were going to nullify actual marriages with their vote," Passignano said. Senior citizens, especially, were targeted.

She said she took calls in her office at Focus Action from Texans who would hesitate. "I think I voted the wrong way," they would tell her. "Yes, you did," she told them.

The salvation of the Texas amendment came from Christian pastors, she said.

"What's going to be the key is church participation," she said. "The IRS has said pastors have the right to talk about that, despite what we commonly hear, because it is a nonpartisan ballot issue. Pastors can talk about it all they want.

"Just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you checked your rights at the door," she said.

Focus Action is a cultural action organization that is separate from Focus on the Family, the Christian broadcasting, publishing and ministry powerhouse. It was set up for Christians to have a platform for informing and rallying about moral issues.

Baptist Press earlier had cited a homosexual publication's report about a multi-point plan devised by the Democratic National Committee to combat the marriage protection plans.

Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the DNC told Baptist Press the committee opposes Republican efforts to use the issue to get voters to ballot boxes. But he didn't confirm or deny the homosexual publication's report about a plan that calls for labeling such initiatives "divisive" and training operatives in all 50 states how to campaign against them.

That report also said the plan included working with a homosexual advocacy group and campaign organizations in each state fighting marriage protection plans.

During 2005, Texas and Kansas voters approved marriage protection amendments, and in the sweep of the 2004 vote, 13 states took the same action, including voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Utah, Michigan, Ohio and Oregon who did so on the same night. Five states had done so in earlier elections and another two dozen states have taken the same action, but by statute, not constitutional amendment.

Representatives are especially tenacious in pursuing this particular issue, too. In Wisconsin state lawmakers went through the process a second time after first passing a Defense of Marriage law in 2003, only to see Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle veto it. The second time around, for this year's election, they pursued the constitutional amendment process, which does not require a governor's signature.

State lawmakers in Washington also battled back to overturn a veto by Gov. Gary Locke in their pursuit of their 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which limits marriages to couples of one man and one woman.

That battle was crowned with victory this week when the state's Supreme Court affirmed its constitutionality. The court noted that there may be homosexual weddings at some point in the future, but it will be because people have brought it about, not because of a judicial opinion.

The underlying conclusion of the Washington state court was that the Legislature had a legitimate interest in protecting traditional marriage and that action did not violate equal protection and other laws.

Even in Massachusetts, where the state's highest court created a right to homosexual marriage to become the only state ever to recognize such situations, supporters have collected 170,000 signatures and court approval and hope to have a marriage amendment on the ballot in 2008.

One defeat for the traditional marriage supporters came in June in the Senate, which failed to endorse a change in the U.S. Constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But that wasn't even on an up-or-down vote; only a procedural move.

It is "inconceivable" the U.S. Senate refused to even vote, said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America.

"If the founders could have imagined a time when same-sex 'marriage' would be forced upon the people by judicial fiat, they would have established a uniform rule of marriage in the Constitution just as they did for naturalization and bankruptcy," she said.

However, just in the past few weeks, other courts in Georgia, Nebraska, Tennessee and New York have endorsed the legality of protecting marriage.
http://family.netscape.com/viewstor.../news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51193&frame=true
 
Hey its pride in stockholm(capital os sweden....) right now and I thought that I would post a link with pictures. Maybe you guys will fall in love with a swede who knows?:O

OOOO halfnaked swedish guys

Does mutants have something like this in the 616-world, what do you think? And, if I liked a girl at work and I quit on sunday should I tell her OR at least ask for her msn? Just some lovehelp, please?:confused:
 
to quote The Producers:
"God bless Sweden."

img_44d4c46440d61.jpg

can i put him on a hook and play with him? :( :up:

and bengan, you're so obviously a bisexual. it's not even funny.
 
newwaveboy87 said:
to quote The Producers:
"God bless Sweden."

img_44d4c46440d61.jpg

can i put him on a hook and play with him? :( :up:

and bengan, you're so obviously a bisexual. it's not even funny.
Really...that guy? And I think its funny. Well not HAHA funny, but quite funny.
 
but, you don't deny it.
ha - i knew it.

you always smelt of a homosexual.
 
effin Hype decided to double post my repsonse. grrr. :mad:
 
they always have. :confused:
how do you think we sense each other's presence?
 
so...i found all of this on a website which promotes spiritual guidance for people seeking a path to God. it's quite interesting to read and i posted only the highlights, for me personally. you may find what every person who's letter was posted to be of more interest, but more for me these were the best parts to read - both positive and negative. ENJOY!

http://explorefaith.org/questions/accepting.html

Among us, different people found different kinds of new information important to us. It was important to me to learn that sexual orientation is not a choice. There is evidence pointing to a genetic origin; there is some other evidence of environmental influences. But science was pretty clear that our sexual orientation is set at an early age, before age three. The other information that seemed important to me at the time was evidence that gay people are just as sane and normal (or crazy) as the general population. They are not somehow inferior, immature, or unfinished.

My friend from Pennsylvania couldn't care less about the science. The important point for him was looking at the scripture again and seeing that there is nothing that truly addresses sexual orientation, but that there are major Biblical themes about liberation from bondage and about faithfulness in relationships. My friend from Maine said none of that stuff was what mattered. He believed in Tim. Tim was authentic; Tim was good; Tim was a holy person. That was enough for him. All of us came to the same conclusion traveling down different paths -- gay and lesbian people should be held to the same ethical standards as the rest of us and should be fully included in the life of the church and society.

As with people in diverse denominations, I have struggled with this issue. I wish I had a different opinion because everything would be so much easier. I am an Episcopalian. At this point in my own understanding, I cannot reconcile what seem to me to be clear teachings in scripture against homosexuality and the Episcopal Church's advocacy of homosexual behavior by confirming an openly gay bishop. This opinion will probably be offensive to my friends who are homosexual or who have a different opinion from my own.

Tolerance is one of the hallmarks of the Episcopal Church and it is one of the many reasons that I feel at home there. Tolerance is not the same thing as advocacy. There is all the difference in the world in embracing a struggling sinner who is journeying from darkness into light and in becoming an advocate for their actions

As with many controversial issues, I can only speak for myself. While many Christians may have problems with various aspects of homosexuality, I believe that the overriding theological perspective is one that was so inspiring as former Presiding Bishop Edmund Browning's "signature line": "there are no outcasts." For me, that is the headline and the bottom line to the life of a Christian. Not one of us has the authority or the unblemished life with which to declare that someone else ought to be left out of anything.

What I regret is not so much the decision to recognize an openly gay bishop itself but the distraction from this core mission. It seems to me that too many people are willing to sacrifice the greater good of the church for a principle where reasonable, faithful people can disagree. The church and its members are not prepared theologically to make such a momentous decision. There is too much disagreement, confusion, and division.

In addition, I believe that Jesus teaches us to love and respect all people, and to accept them as full members of the church. Now the church is greatly agitated over the questions of same-sex marriage and ordination of gay and lesbian clergy. It therefore seems necessary to me for us to continue to develop ways to allow persons to form stable relationships (families) based on mutual love, respect, and commitment to each other, such relationships being blessed and supported by their faith communities. So I think we need to work toward a way to sacramentally bless these unions.

The church remains constant in teaching the two great commandments of loving the Lord with all of your heart, mind and soul and in loving your neighbor as yourself. These commandments don't ask us to love only our white neighbor, or our heterosexual neighbor, or our neighbor who thinks as we do.
 
cyclonesfury said:
homosexuals have a smell now
Yea, I think its flower arrangements and old Madonna albums. Damn I need to change deoderant....
 
X-Maniac said:
The X-Men supposedly is an allegory that symbolises the struggle of minority groups in general. This includes gay people. But I don't know what minority groups the creators had in mind. They may not have been thinking specifically of gay people. There was McCarthyism in the USA - McCarthyism took place during a period of intense suspicion in the United States primarily from 1950 to 1954, when the US government was actively countering American Communist Party subversion, its leadership, and others suspected of being Communists or Communist sympathizers. During this period people from all walks of life became the subject of aggressive "witch-hunts," often based on inconclusive or questionable evidence.

And of course there was the racist events in the USA too. And the civil rights movement that led to the protests led by Martin Luther King and the passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. It was in 1963, the year the X-Men was first published, that Martin Luther King said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" in a speech at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C. (28 August 1963).

During the 60s there was also a rising gay rights movement in the USA that led to the Stonewall Riots of 1969.

So the X-Men was created in a time where social/political minority groups - in particular blacks, gays and Communists - were fighting for their rights in a time of persecution. Although Communists are not born different - it's a political choice - they were part of this climate of discrimination, fear and suspicion.

In the X-Men universe, the scientific term mutants is applied to those born with unusual abilities (and/or appearances) just as many people believe there is a 'gay gene', although I don't know whether there were strong scientific thoughts about a gay gene at the time the X-Men was first created.

The persecution element and the fight for rights is present in the comics in a very powerful sense, and has been reinforced by the movies. The movies contain what could be interpreted as several ideas that have particular resonance with gay people - running away from home (Rogue), the search for true identity (Wolverine), fear of what normal people might think (Storm, in her conversation with the dying Senator Kelly), fear of taking part in normal life because they may be shunned or bullied (Mystique in her conversation with Kelly on the helicopter). And Magneto's Jewish/gipsy parents being led to the gas chamber (as gay people also were). Also, Iceman's 'coming out' scene with his parents in X2 has been seen by many as having a strong gay subtext.

Bryan Singer - who is gay - was attracted to the movies by the idea of persecuted minorities. He is also Jewish and as an adopted child is also searching for his true identity -- which is why he focused on, and identified with, Wolverine in particular.

Ian McKellen was attracted to the X-Men movies by its symbolism for struggling minorities. And Singer said he would often direct McKellen with a gay reference. In an interview in Total Film magazine (issue 44, September 2000), Singer was asked how he got the actors to find their characters (they were not allowed to read the comics), and he responded: "You find tricks and ways of getting them to speak, or intellectually: 'Look, Ian, this is a society of people who want to wipe out homosexuals. What do you feel about that?' There's ways to do it."

In the same interview, Singer says: "The idea about reluctant superheroes, born the way they are, searching for acceptance in a world that hates and fears them, it's interesting. It's what every adolescent experiences at one point or another. It's what I experience every day."

Producer Lauren Schuler Donner said in the same magazine article: "Thematically there's a lot to relate to. It's about oppression. It's about prejudice, it could be the Jews in World War Two, it could be gay people."
That's pretty much how I see it; X-Men reflects intolerance & prejudice in general, not any particular group that's targeted.
 
bengan said:
Yea, I think its flower arrangements and old Madonna albums. Damn I need to change deoderant....
i smell like the Like a Prayer album. :D
 
I am also gay. =] but i'm not typically straight acting or the stereypical gay persona, but my voice is kind of feminine so people always presumed i was gay because of that and because i relate better to girls than guys, so all my friends at high school were girls. then when people eventually found out i was gay the treated me much worse. 1 thing i find mnakes me angry is school anti-bullying policies. sure they crackdown on racism these days alot more vigilantly but they don't do much when it comes to homophobic discrimination. i am proud of my sexuality, but i often do fear showing it openly because i'm not a a strong guy, so if someone attacked me or whatever i wouldn't have much luck defending myself, and after my bf got beaten up when i was 16 by bullies from my school just cos i was walking with him, we weren't even showing any sort of affection, i worry about my bfs getting hurt.
i think its sad that so many people just clsoe their minds off to it, or see it as an illness.
its really nice to see other homosexual people on this forum talking maturely about this and heterosexual talking about it without getting all homophobic about it.
Since i was little i have identified with X-men and i'm happy that people see the relation and X-men was created to tell stories relating to predjudice and discrimination. i think its great that there are comicslike X-men that minority groupd can relate to.
anyway i've typed alot, but just thought i would post on here. sorry for the lecture.
 
Welcome to the board, Storm-within, and have no fear, you are welcome to rant here as much as you like. It's what we are here for. :)
 
squeekness said:
Welcome to the board, Storm-within, and have no fear, you are welcome to rant here as much as you like. It's what we are here for. :)
Thanx Squeekness ^^ its nice to be here.
i better get to work on my posts so i can hav an avatar lol
 
There is serious talk that avitar priviliges will soon be given to us by join dates rather than post count so don't get too worked up about your post count. You can read about it here: http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=246546

Meanwhile, feel free to join us in the off topic chat thread in the X-World forum and the Gamma Lounge in Communities. :)
 
storm-within said:
Thanx Squeekness ^^ its nice to be here.
i better get to work on my posts so i can hav an avatar lol
hi, you're really cute.
welcome to the thread Dani. :)
 
Hi guys, long time no post :p. Anyway I just did this the other day and thought you might get a laugh or two from it :p.

attachment.php


attachment.php
 
sebita said:
Hi guys, long time no post :p. Anyway I just did this the other day and thought you might get a laugh or two from it :p.

attachment.php


attachment.php
Thats is sooo out of character (and yes I know its a fake).
 
bengan said:
Thats is sooo out of character (and yes I know its a fake).

That's why its funny :p I love the "male bonding" part, I laughed my butt off writing it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"