Thom Creed tries not to disappoint his dad, a disgraced caped crusader who now toils as a factory drudge, so he keeps his gay identity and his developing superpowers under wraps. Then he secretly tries out for the prestigious League, joining aspiring heroes in villain-busting adventures that escalate alongside more private discoveries.Find all of Variety’s story on the matter here.
Nov. 12, 2008, 11:38 p.m. CST
Couldn't they have changed the title a bit to avoid confusion?
Nov. 12, 2008, 11:39 p.m. CST
Nov. 12, 2008, 11:41 p.m. CST
Don't know anything about it, but certainly has the potential to be pretty interesting.
Nov. 12, 2008, 11:43 p.m. CST
But seriously, it is actually a pretty clever use of the "secret Identity" metaphor, and if handled right could be good.
Nov. 12, 2008, 11:49 p.m. CST
Go look learn
Nov. 12, 2008, 11:50 p.m. CST
I think Hollywood sometimes forgets that the population isn't 50/50 gay/straight.
Nov. 12, 2008, 11:50 p.m. CST
Nov. 12, 2008, 11:58 p.m. CST
... was Ambiguously Gay Duo. Does actually sound like an interesting premise though.
Nov. 13, 2008, 12:06 a.m. CST
Stan Lee is aboard.
Nov. 13, 2008, 12:07 a.m. CST
by Amy Chasing
The Heroic League of Heroes? Could fight Whedon's Evil League of Evil. Song & dance routines would fit the story too. <P> Just need to avoid association with a certain other show about Heroes...
Nov. 13, 2008, 12:10 a.m. CST
OOOOOOOOOOOOOH... too soon?
Nov. 13, 2008, 1:09 a.m. CST
They told me that if George W. Bush was re-elected we would see increased hate against religious minorities and attacks on the 1st Amendment ... and they were right.<p> .<p> .<p> .<p> Look I don't live in CA and can't vote for/against Prop 8, but I have noticed which side acts like a bunch of thugs. <p> Let's characterize more things as hate and then fight hate with hate. What a terrible idea!<p> Before we get the hating started (because I criticized hate) I am neither Black, Mormon, gay nor Christian. <p>
Nov. 13, 2008, 1:46 a.m. CST
Then I agree wholeheartedly...<p> I voted against Prop 8 here in CA, but I am shocked at the response to it passing. I'm not shocked that it passed, I'm shocked at the response to said passing. My very liberal friends have taken such a radical stance against Pro-8ers, that my other friends that voted for 8 are scared to say that they did. Instead of respectfully disagreeing and saying that this prop is unfair to a portion of the population, they have adopted a thug-like presence, and have come out against the whole idea of VOTING.<p> Though I am personally for gay marriage, I liked what Prop 8 meant. Instead of our state being in the control of radical courts, we the people have a choice. And Californians chose...<p> Such racism and christian-bashing that is currently coming from that side is disgraceful. It really goes a long way to unravel their own argument against "hate."
Nov. 13, 2008, 1:56 a.m. CST
Charming, just charming.
Nov. 13, 2008, 2:38 a.m. CST
by the podosphere
as to just how touchy-feely I want my superheroes to be.
Nov. 13, 2008, 2:51 a.m. CST
Nov. 13, 2008, 4:37 a.m. CST
by Media Messiah
Yes, ever since I was a child I have been in love with women. And so what, I have a penis, still, nothing can stop the fact that I am secretly a lesbian inside!!!
Nov. 13, 2008, 4:39 a.m. CST
by Media Messiah
Yes, ever since I was a child I have been in love with women. And so what, I have a penis, still, nothing can stop the fact that I am secretly a lesbian inside!!!
Nov. 13, 2008, 5:27 a.m. CST
Nov. 13, 2008, 6:25 a.m. CST
First off, thanks for being of sound mind enough to vote No on 8. It was appreciated. Now, as for your notion that those of us who voted against 8 took a "radical stance" against those who voted yes, you're god damn right we have. As a gay man,how the Hell else am I supposed to react to this? If I were black, would I be expected to be anything but horrified and enraged about a law that exists soley to deny me rights and privelages that are extened to those who are simply not like me but in the majority? Your friends who voted Yes on 8 SHOULD be scared to admit it; it's like admitting you were part of a homeowner's association in the 50's that denied rights of ownership to certain races, or laws that were still on the books in many states that denied mixed race marriages. The people who voted in favor of those bigted laws back then SHOULD have been ashamed of themselves, and the friends you have now should be just as ashamed of themselves for promoting the notion of institutionalized bigotry. Because that's what it is, nothing more and nothing less. Unlike you, I wasn't shocked Prop 8 passed. I saw dozens of Yes on 8 signs in my Orange County neighborhood. It was like a personal census of how many of my neighbors whom I smile and wave at, view me as a second class citizen. You say you like that "California Chose" Well, some things are simply unconstitutional and WRONG regardless of what a vote count says. Slavery after all, was pretty popular with many people back in the day. I'm sure if it was up to a vote, many at the turn of the 20th Century would have voted no on the notion of women having the right to vote. Yes, even in California. But these things were fundamentally against what this country stands for. At the end of the day, in 2008 there is simply NO secular reason why gay marriage should be illegal. NONE. And as long as we have a seperation of church and state, no religious argument holds any water with me. I don't follow any of the three major religions, so I don't care what they say about me. And the law books shouldn't either. So sorry if we come off as "thug like" to those who are against us. For the record, I'm also thug like against all forms of bigotry and persecution. By passing this law, they have thrown down the gauntlet, and I can tell you that the LGBT community, as well as our friends and families, are done taking this shit lying down. We will not stop fighting this fight, not now, not EVER. The passing of 8 has done one positive thing...it's galvanized the LGBT community in a way I've never seen before, and this time we're not stopping until true equality is enforced.
Nov. 13, 2008, 6:35 a.m. CST
They could save a ton of production money by pilfering Joel Schumacher's costume department
Nov. 13, 2008, 6:39 a.m. CST
Although I am not Gay, one has to realize that 95% of all people in the entertainment industry are either open or closeted Gays, and therefore it is only natural for them to want to write, produce, act, and sing about others of their kind. Without Gays, there would be no movies, TV shows to watch, or music to listen to. Whether one likes it or not, it has to be accepted.
Nov. 13, 2008, 7:05 a.m. CST
well, as a gay person I'd say 95% is very generous, but even if we were 45 or 50%, we are a very SIZABLE portion of the components that make up the entertainment industry. Without us, all you obsessed film junkies would have a hell of a lot less product to come here and praise and/or bitch about.
Nov. 13, 2008, 8:07 a.m. CST
Sounds like it somehow.
Nov. 13, 2008, 8:23 a.m. CST
Nov. 13, 2008, 8:23 a.m. CST
You see the word "Hetero", but then the "te" in the middle fades out. :)
Nov. 13, 2008, 9:09 a.m. CST
by Cletus Van Damme
Maybe something about suit nipples being mandatory?
Nov. 13, 2008, 9:12 a.m. CST
by Cletus Van Damme
...well said, gentlemen.
Nov. 13, 2008, 9:38 a.m. CST
Sounds like the show is full of those "types," if you get my drift...
As a Britisher reading through this talkback I have only just now appreciated the full nature of the Prop 8 vote that has just passed (thanks to Wikipedia for catching me up). If I were living in America I would be devastated by the result and every bit as angry as you are. In Britain we have civil partnerships which confer on same-sex couples all the rights of marriage, although they are secular ceremonies by nature. (I have to admit that I am proud of my countries recent track record on humanist issues.) I have had the pleasure of attending 2 amazing civil ceremonies this year. It is a fast-growing industry in this country with many companies wanting to cash in on the pink pound! Anyways, strange as it may sound, the fact is that I appreciate the sound of your anger. You should be angry and you should be prepared to fight. Masses of luck to you. As for the sound of 'Hero' (that was the talkback topic, right?) If it was well made it could make great viewing as Superhero mythology has always explored terrain such as isolation in society, minority rights, identity and outsiders fighting for a place in the world. Of course, done badly it could just embarrass us all. And pornking: If one accepts that between 6%-10% of the worlds population is gay then I really don’t think that there is a relative presence of gay men and women represented in fiction and factual TV and other media. Not that it should be a big ‘gay issues’ presence at all, just a presence… as if it were just a normal part of life. Seems reasonable.
Nov. 13, 2008, 9:43 a.m. CST
As a Britisher reading through this talkback I have only just now appreciated the full nature of the Prop 8 vote that has just passed (thanks to Wikipedia for catching me up). If I were living in America I would be devastated by the result and every bit as angry as you are. In Britain we have civil partnerships which confer on same-sex couples all the rights of marriage, although they are secular ceremonies by nature. (I have to admit that I am proud of my countries recent track record on humanist issues.) I have had the pleasure of attending 2 amazing civil ceremonies this year. It is a fast-growing industry in this country with many companies wanting to cash in on the pink pound! Anyways, strange as it may sound, the fact is that I appreciate the sound of your anger. You should be angry and you should be prepared to fight. Masses of luck to you. As for the sound of 'Hero' (that was the talkback topic, right?) If it was well made it could make great viewing as Superhero mythology has always explored terrain such as isolation in society, minority rights, identity and outsiders fighting for a place in the world. Of course, done badly it could just embarrass us all. And pornking: If one accepts that between 6%-10% of the worlds population is gay then I really don’t think that there is a relative presence of gay men and women represented in fiction and factual TV and other media. Not that it should be a big ‘gay issues’ presence at all, just a presence… as if it were just a normal part of life. Seems reasonable. .
Nov. 13, 2008, 9:47 a.m. CST
by duct tape wallet
I only like to have sex with women! Boo-YA!
Nov. 13, 2008, 9:55 a.m. CST
he puts it in perspective quiet well check out his Special Comment here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY
Nov. 13, 2008, 11:09 a.m. CST
Beautifully said. <br>I'd just like to add that the "outrage at the outrage" is a little, um, shall I say "draaaama queen!" :) <br>Of course the GLBT community is outraged. Of course they're going to say that this was hateful. Of course they're going to say that those who voted for this were hateful, because the religious definition of marriage should have no bearing on the legal definition of marraige. We all really know this wasn't an argument about the definition of the word "marriage" because seriously who gets this worked up over semantics? But are the anti-prop 8/pro-GLBT community looting? Overturning cars? Setting buildings on fire? No, they're protesting in front of churches, which were the main supporters of Prop 8. Oh, my, break out the hoses!
Nov. 13, 2008, 11:32 a.m. CST
a team called the custodians of justice. flawed heros who had to work off their minor crimes by working for the city, literally. i had a character called 'the dynamic arrow' sort of a hawkeye parody. he was busted for indecent exposure in a public restroom, ala' george micheal. his outing ruined his career and he is mockingly called the 'flaming arrow' afterwards. he also has a pet helper monkey named quiver.<P>but i never did anything with it. and gay superheros are nothing new anyway.
Nov. 13, 2008, 11:56 a.m. CST
I dont see the relevance. Gay or Str8, this is a cool idea. It could be quite funny, and the book was really done well. Its a funny premise but also quite serious. Someone mentioned superman, and thats actually similar. Think if Jor-El found out his son was a mo, that would have been weird. So its him dealing with powers and his obvious addiction. If you like darker shows like dexer on showtime, I would imagine a similar tone
Nov. 13, 2008, 12:03 p.m. CST
Hero is too close to Heroes. I suggest "Queero".
Nov. 13, 2008, 1:06 p.m. CST
Nov. 13, 2008, 1:39 p.m. CST
Even though Harry likes to use his site for political fillibustering this is still a moive/tv/nerd site, can you take your prop 8 crap somewhere else. I don't care if you're for prop 8 or against it, I don't I don't want to have to wade through political opinion.
Nov. 13, 2008, 1:48 p.m. CST
Homosexuals probably make up 2-3% or the population. Do you honestly think that 2-3% or all characters in film and television are gay, or that even 2-3% or all fims deal with a gay subject matter (excluding Gay Cinema, because that stuff is GAA-AAY!)
Nov. 13, 2008, 1:50 p.m. CST
And if it's banned we can annul all the marriages of interracial couples. That's right, folks you DON'T vote on a persons civil rights. It's just plain bigotry. You say you're defending marriage, but what you're really saying is "screw you, faggots."
Nov. 13, 2008, 1:57 p.m. CST
by Damien Chowder
So make him loud and flamboyantly gay. Hardly any homosexual are in the closet now! That is so 90's!!
Nov. 13, 2008, 2:13 p.m. CST
we've had years of 'secret identity' being code for gay in superhero films and tv. It will be refreshing to skip the metaphor and deal with the reality. As any comic reader knows, there have been gay superheroes for years. In Marvel, there's Northstar, and Wicca (cringe) and Hulkling in the Young Avengers. If you doubt how well this can be done, read the first arc of Young Avengers in trade paperback. Excellent stuff. I'm very curious about how this will be done. If anyone can do it, Showtime can.
Nov. 13, 2008, 3:48 p.m. CST
Nov. 13, 2008, 4 p.m. CST
then don't watch it. Showtime is a pay per view cable channel that attracts its own audience. That's what cable is supposed to give us, choice. Enjoy it or don't watch it. Easy. And furthermore I don't care who is getting married as long as it isn't me. As as a guy who has been divorced twice I'd just like to add that if gay people want to get married, then I hope it is in churches because God help'em.
Nov. 13, 2008, 4:16 p.m. CST
In response to your notion that because gays and lesbians only make up 2-3% of the population (a debatable number, considering how many in the closet LGBT people don't answer truthfully in a census, but I'll give you that number for arguements sake) and are overepresented in the media..do you think African Americans are overrepresented in the media too? Right now they are only 14% of the population, yet I'd say they are more than 14% of characters on tv. I can't think of a single show that doesn't have at least one African American character. Asians are only 4% of the US population (although as a Californian that number seems absurd, but it's skewed here) Should Asians only be 4% of characters in the media, DESPITE the abundunce of Asians in academic and professional jobs that television loves to depict? Right now it sure seems like they are. And Jews are only 1.8% of the population. Do we just not show them at all? Keep in mind. most movies and television deals with the goings on of large urban metropolises,where the perentage of ALL minorities are higher than in the rest of the country.
Nov. 13, 2008, 4:40 p.m. CST
First off, I be honest and admit that I am a little confused by your post. I never made the accusation that gays are overrepresented in film and television. I was actually making the opposite claim (maybe my wording was bad). My comments where in regard to someone else’s charge that there are to many movies and shows about gays. In all honestly, I can think of only a couple shows with gay characters and gay themes considering how much of the population they might be (I agree that my 2-3% figure is probably pretty small). <p> However, I understand where you are coming from, and how hard it is to put a percentage or quota on how many people of a certain ethnicity are depicted. It opens a very bad can of worms.
Nov. 13, 2008, 8:02 p.m. CST
Words have meaning. The word "marriage" has a meaning and a very specific definition.<P>Homosexual unions should, nay... must have equal representation. All the same rights must be afforded to such couples. However, one of the two words in the phrase "gay marriage" has already been hijacked by political correctness to such extent that the word is no longer used in the original context. The other word will likely suffer the same fate. There are already many heterosexual couples that refer to themselves as "life partners."<P>Homosexual unions would garner way, way more support if it wasn't called "marriage" ...since, well, it isn't. Not because I think it isn't, but because of the word's definition.<P>How many states has an Op-8 ballot failed in? All of them. The only states that have homosexual "marriage" are the ones that shoved it down the throats of their residents by judicial fiat. And in MA, the legislature didn't even allow a ballot question despite overwhelming petition that earned more than 3-times the required signatures. Not a good way to make your case.<P>Again, just don't call it what it isn't -- marriage -- and you'll have everything you want. Legalese, equal standing in society, tax disadvantages, etc. Everything, that is, except what you want (those that oppose you) to call it.<P>...<P>Now, as an analogy, I've handed a huge sack of marbles off to the other side, withholding only one single marble. I'm interested to see how this TB will unite against me as a homophobe, religious zealot, zion, right-winger, neocon, etc. I just don't want you people to call a hamburger a sandwich, but you'll doubtless find a way to tear my words apart.
Nov. 14, 2008, 12:05 a.m. CST
But in the stupid way.
Nov. 14, 2008, 3:15 a.m. CST
Sorry for your loss... I'll be sure to vote Yes next time.<p> The reason I voted No was because I honestly don't care what others do with their lives and feel that we're better off without government deciding what we can and can't do. The only reason why I would have voted Yes was to show that the majority of Californians aren't in line with radical judges.<p> And, what do you know? The majority of Californians are not in line with radical judges.
Nov. 14, 2008, 4:15 a.m. CST
Not gay, not gay, Hes definetily not gay...................
Nov. 14, 2008, 4:25 a.m. CST
I just want to know who was floating Nicole's boat for a decade
Nov. 14, 2008, 7:26 a.m. CST
And guess what. His sexual orientaion had jack shit to do with him being a super hero.
Nov. 14, 2008, 10:17 a.m. CST
by I am the most horrible
I don't care what your church has to say about it. Your church can say that only white dudes names Ken can marry for all I care. What matters to all of us is marriage in the eyes of the State, and that shouldn't be denied to someone because they creep you out. <p> Fact is I have yet to hear an argument against equal rights to marry that doesn't have something to do with religion. Gays and straights deserve the same rights to marry. Period. Anything else is UNAMERICAN. <p> Loving Vs. Virginia anyone?
Nov. 14, 2008, 11:16 a.m. CST
..on this board, wow. The Mormon church waged a war against gays from OUTSIDE THE STATE, contributing half the money and some seriously deranged, completely false ads to sway the vote. That is why they are being protested. Secondly, it is completely absurd to think that you have the right to vote on someone else's marriage. It should have never been on the ballot, as the right to interracial marriage in 1967 was never on the ballot, and would still be illegal if it was, in some states. So when do gays get to vote on your civil rights? Thirdly, all these freedom-loving right wingers who voted against gays have no clue that LEGAL marriage and RELIGIOUS marriage are two completely different things. One is a contract with the government, and one is a contract with your house of worship/deity. The law does not "change the definition" of anything, and anyone who actually read the court decision would know that instead of being swayed by the Mormon propaganda. The law clearly states that churches are completely exempt from recognizing the LEGAL marriage if they wish. Lastly, if you love America and freedom so much, then it should scare the CRAP out of you, whether you are gay or not, that a precedent has been set in California to blur or even erase the line between church and state. This was what the Catholic, Mormon and Christian Pro 8 people were really after, and they deliberately blurred the line between RELIGIOUS and LEGAL marriage in the public's mind to do it. So what right that you hold dear will a religious group other than your own have the votes to take away next? Abortion? Contraception? Even if you belong to those religious groups, you have to realize that freedom of religion is what makes this country what it is, and no one religion should have the right to put their beliefs into law so that others have to follow them. Those of you complaining about "gay thugs" don't have a fucking clue what was at stake here. If the state you lived in voted to INVALIDATE your ALREADY-LEGAL marriage because of a campaign of fear waged by an out-of-state religious group trying to destroy the separation of church and state, how the fuck would you react? You would be burning shit down and you know it. These groups try to dehumanize gay people, or make their lives all about sex. They think about gay sex more than gay people do, to get themselves worked up to destroy gay-people's families. Get it? Prop 8 destroyed families. Made gay people's children unable to get health care through their partners. Made claims on couple's shared property invalid. Hospital visitation. Gay thugs?? Are you kidding me? Stop viewing gay people as a joke for 5 minutes and think how you would respond if your rights were put up for a public vote. They are taxpaying citizens just like you and deserve the same right to LEGAL marriage without being bullied by the Mormon church in their drive to take away all kinds of rights and make the constitution look more like their religious tomes. Freedom-loving right-wingers who voted for this or think it is only about "gay people shoving their 'lifestyle' down our throats" are total fucking suckers. Enjoy your theocracy "freedom lovers".
Nov. 14, 2008, 1:38 p.m. CST
which exactly why it's hilarious when anti-gay whiners talk about media, or the courts, or gays as shoving a gay agenda "down our throats." Almost every time I see an anti-gay rant, that phrase is used. Freudian slip much? Methinks the squeaky wheel wants to get greased!
Nov. 14, 2008, 7:47 p.m. CST
The campaign waged by the YES ON 8 people. Those commercials were fucking despicable and in many cases downright lies.
Nov. 14, 2008, 7:48 p.m. CST
that you vote YES to keep gay marriage. I know of at least 3 of them and I wasn't even looking for them.
Nov. 14, 2008, 8:07 p.m. CST
That's how Props get passed in California. You get a summary that sways the mindless idiots into thinking whatever you want them to think. It's been like that for years...
Nov. 14, 2008, 8:07 p.m. CST
Nov. 15, 2008, 5:13 a.m. CST
Where the 2 horses are outside a tent and one says something like *why aren't they up yet*<br> The other horse goes *I'll look and see* (or something like that)<br> He looks in the tent and freaks out and runs away.<p>
Nov. 15, 2008, 12:12 p.m. CST
by Col. Tigh-Fighter
Was expecting a bit more rabid gay bashing on here. <p> Personally I think this sounds a cool premise and will be checking it out. But thats a given as I am a shirt lifter too lol ;) <p> And yeah, Prop 8 sucks, but you may have had more sucess if you werent so hung up on the word "marriage". As long as there is a legal framework to gve you all the rights of a marriage, then call it whatever you like, ie Civil Partnership, and the jobs a good un. You can still refer to yourselves as "married" and your "husband", but the nutty rightwing christians might not get so hung-up about a word.
Nov. 15, 2008, 12:40 p.m. CST
This is a guaranteed hit though, every gay man in the country will watch, though no one else will.
Nov. 15, 2008, 2:36 p.m. CST
by Snake Foreskin
I hate this ongoing fascination with homosexual culture. But if it is going to be an enduring part of our society, at least do something interesting with it.<p> What might be cool and subversive in print form usually doesn't work in other media. For instance, Veitch's Brat Pack and Maximortal are great subversive takes on the superhero mythos. But they would absolutely suck on TV of film.<p> Don't get your hopes up for the gay superhero on Showtime, guys.
Nov. 15, 2008, 2:38 p.m. CST
by Snake Foreskin
Prop 9: No More Gay Superheroes. Followed by Pop 10: No More Reality TV shows on VH-1 or MTV. Followed by Prop 11: No More Lifetime, Oxygen or WE networks.
Nov. 15, 2008, 3:20 p.m. CST
Cookylamoo, excellent, excellent post. best one here.
Nov. 15, 2008, 3:31 p.m. CST
So, if I understand your argument, what's really crucial in defining the WORD which is the carrier for the MEANING of marriage is that two people of opposite sexes are married, right? That's it? NO other defining characteristics have any bearing on the meaning? So, I guess in societies where grown men are sold 8 year old girls to pay off gambling debts have a better definition of marriage than ours, where two adult who just happen to shop for the same underwear can't use the word 'marriage' to define their lives? <p> Look, you can go on and on about the sacred definition of marriage, but who says what it means? We do. It's not like humans evolved out of the jungle to find an instruction booklet on the ground telling us how to be sentient beings. We decide what the definition of marriage is. The concept has been around longer than recorded history, and has manifested in every human culture, sometimes in radically different ways. In this culture, in our society, we believe that there is only one kind of equality, You simply can't have two definitions- that some people are more equal than others. Marriage should be the right of any human adult.
Nov. 15, 2008, 7:19 p.m. CST
I remember you. You're the right-wing conservative that wanted to peel my eyeballs for daring to suggest that rape victims have more than one choice available to them. Yep, you're a conservative alright. Mind if I call you Massawyrm? Or would simply John suffice?<P>Given your political leanings, doesn't the constitution mean anything at all to you? Just because you, yourself, believes something one way or the other, shouldn't the established methodology take precedent? The rule of law? Infrastructure, as it were? Should four people be allowed to decide the fate of the populace of an entire state? And, if so, why should the opinions of only four judges trump the will of the people on a ballot question?<P>Example -- I'm a vicious anti-smoker. Not a non-smoker; ANTI-smoker. Despite that, I was totally against the smoking bans in restaurants and bars. Why? Because I believed the federalist, free market should decide. THAT is the American way. Yet we had the decision of one side decide the fate of the other, with no chance of repreive. It is THAT that is unamerican.<P>Look, certain words apply to certain people because of who they are, whether or not they are to blame for who they are. As a man, the word menstruation will never mean anything to me. There have been scientific studies as to the effects of the moon on men and the parallels to menstruation. And efforts to equate them in legalese will be met with my consternation at the very least, I assure you.<P>Let me put it this way -- Can any white person ever be a victim of a hate crime in US law? No, they can't. If a gang of minorities raced after a sole caucasian screaming "Kill whitey!" it wouldn't be considered a hate crime. Whites enjoy a majority, therefore only they can be the perpetrators of hate. Please don't believe me. Look it up. Name me one hate crime perpetrated on a white by a minority.<P>Clearly, there is an imbalance as to how definitions are applied. From my perspective, they are all painted with a left-handed brush. But you should agree, since, after all, you're a self-described conservative.
Nov. 16, 2008, 1:33 a.m. CST
I completely support gay rights. They deserve everything heterosexual couples do. I support civil unions over marriage, however. In my mind, marriage is an institution of the church, not the state. Why should the church be forced to accept something they, for the most part, disagree with? But I've heard it compared to slavery. It is by no means anywhere near the level of evil of slavery. To haphazardly quote Jules Winfield, it's not in the same fucking ballpark, it ain't even the same sport. Slavery was atrocious. Banning gay rights is not. While I think it's wrong to deny them, it's a helluva lot closer to segregation than slavery. And even segregation was worse.
Nov. 16, 2008, 2:10 p.m. CST
10% of the population is gay. Less than 1% TV characters is. Do we need more straight characters? Surely not. ;)
Nov. 16, 2008, 2:14 p.m. CST
I'm marrying my boyfriend in February. I'm lucky to live in a country that has decided that under the human rights there's not a single way to discriminate the right of a couple that love each other due to the nature of the combination of the sexes. Here the marriage is legal for 2 human beings that love each other. And frankly, less and less people care about the name of the union, most people think there are way more important issues in our world today than preventing two people that love each other marrying or adopting a child.
Nov. 17, 2008, 6:01 p.m. CST
Oh, yeah. A gay superhero is wildly subversive, there are so many of them. I feel so, so subverted.<P> Careful Snake Foreskin, these public pronouncement may attract the attention of the Gay Mafia.