Gay Characters

[Zach]

I really have no problem with gay characters in comics, as long as the writers don't bog down their character with being gay. None of the straight characters have to constantly make comments about how they are straight, so why should gay characters. I am completely fine with a character being gay, as long as their story doesn't stay on that fact. They should be allowed to grow and expand the same as other characters.

On a side note, I figured out Northstar was gay a long time before I read issue 106. I read vol. 1 in order after reading the first couple issues of vol. 2, and I recall many incidents with his sexuality in question. In his origin issue, the narrator makes a comment about how he never payed much attention to the ladies. In another issue (in the 40s I think), Aurora wants to design Jeffries costume, and Northstar makes some crack about colorful form-fitting outfit, to which she replies "When have you ever objected to men running around in tight clothing."

So, in summary, gay is ok, as long as it doesn't kill a character.

[ladymako71]

So, in summary, gay is ok, as long as it doesn't kill a character.

Agreed, the only problem today is that I guess companies want to look P.C. so they make it painfully obvious a character is playing with the boys (in JP's case for instance) instead of just having a character who is more then who they sleep with...

=/

[Sir John A.]

If one of the original X-Men could be, it would be Hank McCoy...

During Morrison's run on X-Men Hank mentions he's exploring his sexuality and thinks he might be gay....which kinda pissed me off (like how they made the "ultimate" Colussus gay).

There hasn't been any mention of this since.

I don't like it when they make a character gay just for the shock value.

[DelBubs]

If one of the original X-Men could be, it would be Hank McCoy...

During Morrison's run on X-Men Hank mentions he's exploring his sexuality and thinks he might be gay....which kinda pissed me off (like how they made the "ultimate" Colussus gay).

There hasn't been any mention of this since.

I don't like it when they make a character gay just for the shock value.

I know they are a bit overboard in everything else they do, but Marvel should look towards the Authority for hints on how to portray gay characters. I think the majority of people are in accordance with Sir John here making a person gay for shock value, probably irritates straight and gay readers alike.

[kozzi24]

The indication or hints/speculation of an original X-Man being closested all these years fit Hank McCoy much better than it did Iceman, although I don't think it makes too much sense for any of them.

[Major Mapleleaf Jr]

Hank was never meant to be gay at all, even under Morrison's pen. The comment was made to Trish Tilby in a calculated effort to hurt her for her incredibly hurtful (yet very much in keeping with who Trish is) breaking off of their relationship because of his secondary mutation and the effect of it on her career.

On a side note, the hinting of Bobby being gay (when Emma was tooling around in his mind) was done rather well, if you ask me.

[Sir John A.]

DelBubs,

It didn't irritate me that much that the character might be gay.

What ticked me off was that it seemed to me to be a "retcon" of the character for no reason other than shock value.

One other "gay" character who isn't:

Connor Hawke (Green Arrow 2)

Not too long ago he had a chat with his dad and denied he was gay.

[Major Mapleleaf Jr]

Um, people deny that they're gay to their parents every day.

[Sir John A.]

Still, I didn't come across as lying.

Especially when he's lying to arguably the most "progressive" character in the DCU.

[Major Mapleleaf Jr]

Hey, I'm just sayin'. I make it a habit not to read DC... the codenames are just way too hokey for me.

Besides, different writers have different interpretations of characters (*grumbleMAGMAgrumble*), and that might have been the case here. I honestly don't know.

[Sir John A.]

I think the writers are trying to paly up the "father / son" aspect and felt they had to "macho" him up.

[Major Mapleleaf Jr]

So what's your take on it? In your opinion, is Connor gay or isn't he? I find it's always best to resort to reader opinion, because a loyal reader will stick with a character through the good times and the bad times, writer-wise.

[Sir John A.]

I think he was gay, but they "retconned" him and now he's just "shy around women" as he says.

[crozack]

I think what people need to understand is that The Authority has been meant from the very beginning to be a dark satirical look at the superhero genre, while at the same time jolt superhero comics out of the slow, plodding pace that they've been in for the last fifteen years. Apollo and Midnighter are obvious knock-offs of Superman and Batman, portrayed as gay to sort of rib the relationship between the two DC heroes. Not to say 'Hey! Look how progressive Vertigo Comics is!' nor 'We at AOL/Time Warner love gays!'.

On the topic of Sandman, the Sandman character is a purely supernatural one, so of course it makes sense within the context of the character and its design. Again, this character was not 'turned gay' for shock value or political correctness. It simply fit him.

What people seem to not understand is that comics aren't here to reflect modern society (a world where kids gain superpowers at puberty, or where a scientist turns himself into a gorilla reflects modern society?). They aren't here to imitate real life (I really hope there isn't a guy like Doctor Doom out there). They're here to give us damn good stories that are worth our money, just the same as movies, books and television shows. Gay characters shouldn't be introduced just because there is a shortage of them. Characters shouldn't be turned gay simply for shock value or as a substitute for character development. That wouldn't be creating a good story.

If a writer wants to create a character, then they need to think about all aspects of the character's personality. Yes, undoubtedly, the question of the character's sexual orientation should be brought up. (John Byrne obviously wanted Northstar to be gay when he delved deeper into the personalities of the original Alphans in issues #1-12 all those years ago.) But if the character turns out not to be gay, hey, whatever. Just make me care about the character and the stories in which they are portrayed.

On a related note, I highly doubt the shows Will & Grace (awful show) and Queer Eye For The Straight Guy (spectacular show) are doing anything for the overall social status of homosexuals in society. What's Happening? and The Jeffersons didn't help blacks, Wonder Woman and The Mary Tyler Moore Show didn't help women, though all the shows I just mentioned were incredibly progressive. Gays in comics are not going to help the overall situation of gays in society, so why should Marvel or DC or Image or anyone introduce gay characters for the sake of being politically correct? (I mean, really, I don't think a bigot is going to sit down for an episode of Must See TV and think at the end of it, "Wow, that Will guy was hilarious! I love gays now!")

Anyway, my overall point is, this is pointless. At the end of the day, whether my comic features Northstar, Rawhide Kid, Karma or Young Green Arrow is irrelevant. Whether the comic was worth my three bucks is.

[DelBubs]

I'm in almost total agreement with your take on what comics are/should be
crozack, however writers have set up the universes in such a way that a
reflection of the real world is almost an necessity. As soon as characters
like Bill Foster, T'challa were introduced, then a reflection of being
African or African American was the next logical step. As soon as Sabre
appeared then being Israeli/Jewish and all that involved had to be explored.

I have no problem with any minority or diversity being portrayed in comics,
but I do have a problem when that diversity becomes the main selling point
of that characters portrayal. I referred to Midnighter and Apollo in the
sense that although gay, gay is the not the be all and end all of their
characterisation. They have many facets and even Robbie Morrisons
Authority, which has been slated, managed to maintain that balance.

Marvel dropped the ball at lot in regards to The X-Men especially. First
off being a mutant was an analogy of the African American struggle for
equality, then with the onset of the Legacy virus, we had the analogy to
A.I.D.S and the ridiculous concept that certain Viruses will only affect
certain people. This of course takes up back to the concept of comics
reflecting real life, no matter how it is dressed up. Marvel explored the
prejudices that mutants suffered due to the legacy virus, but never fully
reflected (IMHO) the full implications of it. If you can't go from A to B,
then you shouldn't set off down that path, to my mind anyways.

In regards to Northstar, Marvel have always used his homosexuality as a
selling point, Austen just exacerbated that with his ridiculous use of the
character in UXM. On the whole, comics should be an escape, but in places
like the DCU and MU I believe that is a target that will never be reached,
any character you care to mention from those universes, will immediately
bear some resemblance to real people. From patriotic Captain America, to
drunken Iron Man. It is how these characters are portrayed by the writer
that will dictate whether totally escapism is possible for the reader.