Comments for Ex-Gay Watch

Comment on XGW Digest: July 4, 2009 by Jay

Jay — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 00:13:43 +0000

I think an X-Men title is more mainstream than those, even though the two characters in question are relatively minor. Plus, I really can’t recall any other on-panel kiss between two male characters, so it is significant. Comics have a mostly male fan-base, so a kiss between two attractive super-heroines (like Karolina and Xavin in Runaways) is less risky than two male characters.

Northstar has been an openly gay member of the X-Men since the late 90s, I believe, but as I complained, he hasn’t had any sort of romantic relationships at all, just an unrequited crush on a heterosexual team member, Iceman.

I certainly think having a gay male couple is good for the X-Men universe, especially since that series has often been about combating prejudice and intolerance. They’ve even tackled issues of religious tolerance towards homosexuality, since the character Nightcrawler (a devout Catholic) had problems when the openly gay Northstar joined the team.

It’s just that using these two characters doesn’t seem that helpful to me. At the very least, like Emily said, it’s just not that great of storytelling.

Comment on XGW Digest: July 4, 2009 by Kith

Kith — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:50:49 +0000

Comic book first? So we ignore Runaways, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Strangers in Paradise? Or is this the first male gay kiss? Or are we very narrowly defining Mainstream?

Comment on XGW Digest: July 4, 2009 by Emily K

Emily K — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:46:37 +0000

Jay, I have that same kind of conflicted thought – about straight characters. It seems that if the two unrelated straight characters share a close bond they are destined to eventually have sex with one another, even if they end up “going back to being just friends” afterwards. Not sure why this is.

On the one hand it’s nice to be represented in the comics. On the other, can’t we do better as a whole when it comes to storytelling? I think so.

Comment on XGW Digest: July 4, 2009 by Jay

Jay — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:22:07 +0000

I’m a little conflicted about the unveiling of the two Marvel Comics characters as a romantic item. I’m a huge comics fan, specifically when it comes to the X-Men titles of which those characters (Rictor and Shatterstar) are a part. They’ve been around since the 80s and they’ve typically been portrayed as two young men with a particularly close–almost brotherly–bond.

On the one hand, it’s encouraging to see a gay couple in comics (rather than simply a token gay character who never seems to have any romantic interests or sexuality at all). On the other hand, I’m always concerned about story arcs in media that suggest if two unrelated men or women share a strong and loving emotional bond, then they must be gay.

Comment on XGW Digest: June 27, 2009 by Timothy (TRiG)

Timothy (TRiG) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:26:23 +0000

The Irish civil unions have not yet become law. This is probably a good thing, as they are by no means equivalent to marriage. The general mood at Dublin LGBTQ Pride seemed to be that these civil unions would be a hindrance rather than a help in the struggle for full equality.

TRiG.

Comment on XGW Digest: July 4, 2009 by Jayelle Wiggins-Lunacharsky

Jayelle Wiggins-Lunacharsky — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:09:19 +0000

I don’t know much about India–and unlike so many of the people we discuss, I usually let a lack of knowledge stop me from talking–but I know something mega when I see it.

The Southern Baptist Convention must have decided to shrink their congregations to match their narrow little minds.

As for Sally Kern, well, sorry about the economy, y’all!

Happy Independence Day to all the Americans!

Comment on XGW Digest: July 4, 2009 by Ephilei

Ephilei — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:27:29 +0000

The India case is huge! That’s 1/6 people in the world. India has a million transgender people alone.

Comment on In Brief: Scott Lively Hanging Up His Swastika by Leonardo Ricardo

Leonardo Ricardo — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:55:44 +0000

Don’t be silly…he’s not stupid, he’s just a shabby merchant and he knows that after his prepaid escapade before the Parliment of Uganda his “snake oil” cure/refrom-a-queer is running on low…he has little audience left and the audience he plays to doesn’t even have the stomach for the kind of junktalk he spews…the party is over, Lively sinks into the stink of his own lubricating.

Comment on In Brief: Scott Lively Hanging Up His Swastika by Mike Airhart

Mike Airhart — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:52:23 +0000

I see no indication that Lively has hung anything up — he has promised an upcoming fifth edition of the book The Pink Swastika and he has essentially declared the book to be infallible and beyond further discussion.

Instead of responding to the new criticisms of Warren Throckmorton and Jim Burroway, he is broadening his tactics of anger, envy, fear, and strawman argumentation to include other right-wing topics so as not to be perceived as someone whose spirit is consumed by idolatrous homophobia.

Comment on In Brief: Scott Lively Hanging Up His Swastika by Jayelle Wiggins-Lunacharsky

Jayelle Wiggins-Lunacharsky — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:45:29 +0000

I always wonder whether our opponents/enemies get tired. I’m actually gratified to see that sometimes they do. It’s obvious Lively hasn’t learned a thing, but thank the Gods anyway, even if this is only a break rather than the end of the line.