Woo-Hoo!
7 April 2009 by Bob
Vermont legalizes gay marriage
MONTPELIER — Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature’s vote. The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override. The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law. It’s now the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts. The Vermont Senate voted earlier this morning to override Gov. Jim Douglas’ veto of the same-sex marriage legislation. The vote passed, 23-5. The true jubilation didn’t start until everyone gathered downstairs where they congratulated legislative leaders who championed the cause. Sonny Audette (D-South Burlington) who was on the fence last night did not show up for the vote. Three Democrats who voted against the bill voted for the override. Gov. Jim Douglas, who vetoed legislation, said, “I prepared myself for this outcome and predicted it. The outcome was not unexpected.”
7 April 2009, on 5:14 pm
Dude! Why you messin’ w/the Bat? Everyone knows he’s straight!
7 April 2009, on 5:27 pm
C’mon,
Please change this picture.
I grew up with Batman, my son learned to read with help from Batman comics.
7 April 2009, on 5:46 pm
Don’t be like the bigot who almost killed comic books. Besides, Robin’s dating Wonder Girl in the comics, and Bruce Wayne’s dead (maybe).
Anyway, way to go Vermont!
7 April 2009, on 6:55 pm
LOL, I thought the Batman thing was funny…and I also wondered about The Boy Wonder anyhow…
7 April 2009, on 8:30 pm
Go Vermont, Go Iowa! Now my state looks backwards! Also, I love the Batman and Robin, people need to know the truth! Next time you can post some Trek erotic fan art or something.
7 April 2009, on 8:54 pm
I think you people of a certain age have that terrible CBS show stuck in your mind, the same group that was responsible for the disgusting production of the failed batman movies in the 90’s after Tim Burton’s departure.
I bet you think I’m making a big deal about this.
1st, my seven year old wants to know why someone would have this picture. Talk about spoiling a child’s image of a hero.
He also views this site regularly, ready to discuss the conversation taking place. You are spending your credibility foolishly.
You do a disservice to homosexuals suggesting that they would adopt, then develop an intimate relationship with their child. (exception, W. Allen). My son asked why he would kiss his son like that.
And finally…It is not funny
Don’t fuck with my comics!
o.k., I’m done
Yes, I’m somewhat immature. Though still, not so numb to look for god.
7 April 2009, on 9:09 pm
Christopher, WTF are you even bumbling about?
Anyways, is this really the US we’re talking about? Amazing news!
7 April 2009, on 10:17 pm
Yeah, next thing you know they’ll be saying that Mr. Brady was queer and his kid was dating his step-mom.
I say woo hoo indeed! Four down, forty-six to go! And I vote in favor of keeping (and frequently re-using) the picture. All grown up, Robin’s pretty hot.
7 April 2009, on 10:18 pm
Batman and Robin make a great couple!
Sexuality, according Kinsey’s studies, is on a sliding scale and some people spend part of their lives living as heterosexuals and part as homosexuals. There appear to be few who are 100% one or the other. For this reason, marriage seems like an idea meant for the middle ages when women were denied property rights and inequality between the sexes was accepted, but if we’re going to have marriage laws they ought to apply to everyone equally. So bravo to Vermont!
http://gaygenderissues.suite101.com/article.cfm/alfred_kinsey_and_the_kinsey_scale
7 April 2009, on 11:18 pm
I guess I’m the one to reply, since it’s my post (and my pic)…
Perhaps. Just a bit.
Credibility? You’re kidding, right? Our “credibility” is “decreased” because of this particular pic? Please explain. I’m confused.
Then your son needs to understand the roles of Batman and Robin. You never told him the real history of Batman and Robin? Why the hell not? ‘Tis your duty, Sir! ‘Tis knowledge!
Hang on a sec. Spoiling? Yes, if Robin was Batman’s son, and he was a pedophile, sure. But this? Really? I don’t get it. I’m missing something here. Please inform.
Christ, I hope so…Jeez…
Well, we can always hope…
7 April 2009, on 11:42 pm
Bob, in the comics Tim Drake was legally adopted by Bruce Wayne after Drake’s father was killed by Captain Boomerang.
Unless this Robin is Dick Grayson or Jason Todd, Robin actually is Bruce’s son, legally speaking.
7 April 2009, on 11:43 pm
From Wikipedia….
“the comic book industry came under scrutiny with the publication of psychologist Fredric Wertham’s book ‘Seduction of the Innocent’ in 1954. Wertham’s thesis was that children imitated crimes committed in comic books, and that these works corrupt the morals of the youth. Wertham criticized Batman comics for their supposed homosexual overtones and argued that Batman and Robin were portrayed as lovers.” … “It has also been suggested by scholars that the characters of Batwoman (in 1956) and Bat-Girl (in 1961) were introduced in part to refute the allegation that Batman and Robin were gay, and the stories took on a campier, lighter feel.”
I wonder how much further along gay and lesbian rights would be today if Batman and Robin had been allowed to be lovers.
7 April 2009, on 11:56 pm
Bob,
Thanks for the response.
Obviously I don’t see the connection between Batman and homosexuals. Batman is a heterosexual fictional character.
I don’t know what REAL history of batman and robin that you mention, sarcasm maybe?
Credibility, as far as my son is concerned… He views whatever material I deem of humor or importance that is not inappropriate for his age. Now this picture indicates a homosexual behavior that he has never seen suggested in his hundreds of comics, novels, movies or on set from either of these characters including each version of Robin.
He questions your motive here, will he doubt it in the next post.
And yes, I’m really able to move on.
I was only asking for the picture to be changed. I don’t see the characters as you do. I accept you come from an older age group that viewed Batman, as I suggested earlier, as the butt of queer humor from CBS.
I accept my loss and will return…after this story has scrolled far enough that I don’t see this image.
You know I’m joking…mostly
7 April 2009, on 11:57 pm
I don’t think Batman and Robin were ever supposed to be gay, I think it was just one of those moral crusaders blowing things out of proportion as to ruin it for the rest of us.
He also claimed Wonder Woman was a lesbian. Why does no one continue to hammer on that?
8 April 2009, on 12:38 am
Lynda?…
That interesting Kinsey link brings to MY (albeit, fumbling & rambling a bit) mind something which may, at this point in time, really only be PRACTICALLY possible amongst us atheists. I don’t mean to sound arrogant in that statement, of course. The point is, without religion’s so-called invented “moral judgment” about one’s personal sexuality; it really, existentially, matters not where anyone ‘falls’ on the Kinsey scale.
Sexuality, in all its variations, simply “is”. Nature, in all its mind-boggling splendor, is filled with every conceivable combination and variation of sexuality; which includes the human animal, of course.
Any notion of “Absolute Good and Evil” has really NOTHING…Cosmically…to do with any of it.
For us humans…pragmatically…it simply boils down to doing no harm to one another, and the absolute free exercise of mutual consent.
Obviously, when children are involved, the all too necessary wisdom and experience of, hopefully, caring adults enters the equation.
Therein lies a big problem, of course; only exasperated by the various made-up religions.
Until “we humans” free ourselves, completely, from religious delusions, the current guilt and fear surrounding sexuality will continue to create totally unnecessary havoc in people’s personal lives.
As to the old argument whether sexuality has some, as yet unproven, genetic basis, or is strictly nurture and/or preference, I might put my money on a combination. However…from my personal experience, all the admitted “homosexual” people that I’ve known, claimed that they knew that they were what they were from their earliest dawning of sexual awareness. In other words…it’s NOT a choice. Which would seem to imply some genetic element.
No matter what…one simply IS what one IS. Which would apply, of course, to any variation of early sexual awareness. Of course, placement variations on that Kinsey scale might change and evolve, even drastically, during a lifetime. So much for my rambling…?
8 April 2009, on 12:56 am
I’m sorry, I’m still reeling from Iowa.
And Christopher, for fuck’s sake; lighten up. I love Batman too (but evidently not as much as Batman loves Robin). Now’s a great opportunity to explain “satire” to your son.
8 April 2009, on 3:57 am
Christopher,
I’m at a loss to understand the fuss you are making re the Batman/Robin piccie.
So, Bob, has used an image of an imaginary couple of people that you and your son claim make you feel uncomfortable. Consequently, you want the piccie removed.
Yet, apparently, you find it OK for GIFSters to use piccies of other imaginary entities or events in a humorous, sarcastic, mocking or satirical way, even though there are people who look at this site who may find them offensive because it jars with their religious faith.
Perhaps you would kindly explain to me why it is OK to mock the revered and respected objects of those foolish enough to claim to be religious but not to mock Batman and Robin and (inadvertently) offend people like you and your son who apparently imbue those imaginary creatures with some kind of misplaced reverence and respect?
8 April 2009, on 4:03 am
Chuck,
Your post was not rambling, but the wisest and most compassionate in this thread.
8 April 2009, on 6:32 am
Oh yeah, sure he is. Real heterosexual.
8 April 2009, on 8:15 am
I’m not exactly sure I ever claimed that the Batman character was, in fact, gay. And I feel like I’m having a conversation with someone who just doesn’t get the joke: “I don’t understand. She says to the guy, ‘I don’t speak English’? But wasn’t she born and raised in Illinois, so, like, she must be able to speak English?”
Guess it’s time to explain the concepts of homosexual daydreaming and fantasy.
I never knew that my motives were so complex (and damaging). Given my track record here, I’m quite surprised. (How old is this person, anyway?)
If you succeeded in getting around the God stuff with him (not a small task, mind you), then you can just explain to him the other blasphemous phenomena that gays have sexual fantasies. I’m sure he’ll understand.
Time to go to work, Dad…
8 April 2009, on 8:42 am
@Bob,
I commend you for not forcing any notion of gods on your 7-year old son. However, is it really any better to have him worship another completely fictional being to the point at which he would be traumatized by a depiction of that same fictional being as gay? Moreover, what message are you sending about the morality of anti-homosexuality if he’s so affronted by this image? Why not just say, “…NOT that there’s anything wrong with that!”
Would Batman be any less a (make believe) hero were he gay? I mean, c’mon. The dude wears a Lycra body suit, knee-high boots, and a cape in public all the time. As someone who both read the comics and watched the TV show as a boy every day, when I saw the pic – and giggled – my first thought was “Why had I never thought that he might be gay before?!”
8 April 2009, on 9:50 am
Someone hasn’t ever been to Superdickery, Christopher.
8 April 2009, on 10:09 am
One of the commenters on this news item wrote: A nation of gays will cease to exist in one generation.
These types of comments illustrate how narrow-minded people create fear by presenting unrealistic “what ifs”. One would think that Vermont had just changed the marriage laws to forbid heterosexual unions. Maybe someone should have stopped the heterosexual union that produced that stupid commenter?
Chuck A,
Yes, it is important to point out that Kinsey’s sliding scale does NOT suppose that homosexuality is a CHOICE. The sexual attraction/desire of humans appears to have more to do with genetic predispositions than societal conditioning or nurturing. After all, it is hard to imagine, given the abuses gays and lesbians have endured for centuries, that anyone would CHOOSE homosexuality. It ’s like choosing to wade across a crocodile infested river when there’s a solid bridge right above your head.
When a very close friend of mine finally came out to me about his homosexuality, he told me that he had considered asking me to marry him at one point thinking that he would never be able to live openly as a gay man (this was about 25 years ago). His religious upbringing almost persuaded him to live a LIE. I’m glad he found the courage to be open with his friends (some of whom were not as supportive as I was), and I’m even more thrilled that governments are beginning to recognize the injustice that has been done against wonderful people like him.
8 April 2009, on 10:13 am
First, this:
WOOT!!! GO VERMONT!!! VERMONT FTW!!! Various other positive internet memes!
That being out of the way, there is nothing wrong with the pic. It is relevant to the post, and that is all that matters.
8 April 2009, on 10:53 am
Chris, in all due respect, it’s a cartoon. Not real. For fun and entertainment, and the creator can make this character any way he wants him to be. Who knows in future movies if Batman will reveal himself to be homosexual and come out of the Bat closet!
Never know in a world of fiction!
And as for allowing your “seven-year-old” to read this site, well I don’t know if that is such a great idea considering his age. Oftentimes the discussion can be very “r-rated to x-rated” and IMO as a mother of three grown children, not suitable for a person that young.
As for teaching your child to worship cartoon heroes…I think it would be best for him if his father were that image and not some cartoon character who has a dark side, is a playboy and has all sorts of inner turmoil. You are a much better role model for him. Cartoons are cartoons, but people are real and who matter in a child’s life.
Yes, imo you are making too big of a deal out of a picture.
And as Pi Guy pointed out above, “what message are you sending about the morality of anti-homosexuality if he’s so affronted by this image?” By making a big deal of it, you are indeed sending your child a wrong message.
Anyway, getting back to the real subject of the post, it’s good news once again for the gay and lesbian community.
8 April 2009, on 12:45 pm
*Obscene* is the word Christopher seeks. I felt the same emotion looking at that picture. Is nothing sacred, even Batman?
On a logical note, if we’re going to pretend homosexuality in the animal kingdom has a genetic, as opposed to an environmental basis, we might as well assert that celibacy is inherited. Doesn’t anyone take Darwin seriously anymore? There is a lot of politically driven pseudo-science out there easily refuted by basic reasoning.
8 April 2009, on 2:28 pm
…if we’re going to pretend homosexuality in the animal kingdom has a genetic, as opposed to an environmental basis…
As far as my readings have taken me I am not aware of any peer-reviewed papers that have been able to prove definitively the causes of the homosexuality which has been so widely observed in the non-human kingdom so I would appreciate your citing the references on which you base your apparent claim that it is definitively not genetic but environmental.
…we might as well assert that celibacy is inherited.
Can you also cite any credible empiric evidence to suggest that all celibacy is a personal, environmental or culturally induced choice rather than the result of some genetic physiological or psychological cause ?
8 April 2009, on 2:37 pm
I forgot to add this…
There is a lot of politically driven pseudo-science out there easily refuted by basic reasoning.
What has ‘basic reasoning’ got to do with genetics or neuroscience per se?
In case you miss my point, no one, in any discipline, has been able to provide a single definitive generally applicable cause of homosexuality, but if you are able to do so I will be happy to nominate you to the Nobel Committee for your outstanding research.
8 April 2009, on 2:54 pm
But celibacy _is_ inherited. If your parents didn’t have any children, you won’t either.
I love the picture. I think it’s a beautiful depiction of two men who love each other very much. That Batman and Robin love each other is, I think, well-established. How they express that love will be different in the eyes and minds of different readers; B & R are, after all, fictional characters. Whatever form their love takes should not diminish their heroism in any way.
I remember a time when everyone thought like Christopher, or at least when all gay folks feared that they did. Consider how much it warms this gay man’s heart to see this image on a blog populated mostly by straight people.
If it really bothers you, then pretend the picture is of two guys dressed as Batman and Robin, and not really them. But better, why not decide that all love is good, and just maybe the source of all heroism?
8 April 2009, on 3:14 pm
But celibacy _is_ inherited. If your parents didn’t have any children, you won’t either.
So that’s what ‘inherited’ means. Thanks for the explanation, Thomas.
Oh, and BTW, there’s nothing wrong with being gay per se, but then you are smart enough to have worked that out for yourself.
All the best, mate.
TOG.
8 April 2009, on 3:32 pm
…you can just explain to him the other blasphemous phenomena that gays have sexual fantasies…
If I had a pound (OK, a dollar in your debased currency) for every ’straight’ person who has stated to me hand on heart that they do not have sexual fantasies, I would not need to pass my time posting on GIFS for amusement and would this moment be reclining on my three-masted schooner somewhere in the Med and having my every (non-sexual whim) catered for by a team of silent but highly proficient staff.
Invariably the same people also maintain that they have never had a ‘cross-word’ with their partners in umpteen years of togetherness.
Generally, they also claim to ‘believe’ in ‘God’ – rather like this man.
8 April 2009, on 5:10 pm
Okay, let’s ’straighten’ this out a bit:
A. I don’t think anyone was inferring that Batman would be less ‘cool’ if he was gay,
B. Yes Batman IS straight: in the DC universe, he’s had sexual relationships with:
1. Selina Kyle
2. Silver Sable
3. Barbara Gordon (during her time as Batgirl)
C. My objection isn’t that Batman’s kissing another man, he’s kissing an underage minor. Definitely not cool, as most gay folks assiduously avoid interacting w/people under the age of 21.
D. There is a large group of fictional superheroes that are ‘coming out’ so to speak.
So yeah, Bats is a fictional character, but being a huge fan of the Dark Knight (the graphic novel fella, not the ugh! crappy films about him lately), the graphic’s not something I would’ve done. That’s just me.
8 April 2009, on 5:29 pm
C. My objection isn’t that Batman’s kissing another man, he’s kissing an underage minor. Definitely not cool, as most gay folks assiduously avoid interacting w/people under the age of 21.
Well KA, I see your point on this one. I forgot about Robin being a teenage character (AND Bruce Wayne is his uncle). So in that sense, yes it’s a bit obscene when you take those things into consideration.
8 April 2009, on 5:44 pm
Awww Gawd…look at this video I found over at Pharyngula by gob botherers against gay marriage. They are claiming THEIR freedoms are being infringed upon by allowing others their freedom and human rights! That’s right, go into persecution mode when you cannot control others…how typical. Disgusting how they say they are coming together in “love” when they mean “bigotry”. If they mind their own business the decision to allow same sex couples will affect them not. Homosexual couples will live together with or without legal documentation so basically changes nothing about relationships, just gives legal rights to these couples private lives.
8 April 2009, on 6:02 pm
Bats is a fictional character, but being a huge fan of the Dark Knight (the graphic novel fella, not the ugh! crappy films about him lately), the graphic’s not something I would’ve done. That’s just me.
I’ve got some news for you – ‘God’, ‘Jesus’ and all the rest of them are fictional too, but I find it amazing that this furore concerning the fictional Batman and Robin’s implied sexuality seems to have ruffled more delicate sensibilities than all the other stuff that this site is allegedly about.
Seems that theists are not the only people to revere imaginary entities or take exception to them being caricatured.
How peculiar.
Perhaps it is time to move on?
8 April 2009, on 6:09 pm
I’ve got some news for you – ‘God’, ‘Jesus’ and all the rest of them are fictional too, but I find it amazing that this furore concerning the fictional Batman and Robin’s implied sexuality seems to have ruffled more delicate sensibilities than all the other stuff that this site is allegedly about.
And I see your point,too TOG. Americans especially seem to love to create fictional characters to revere, as well as make heroes out of Hollywood celebrities and “worship” them to the extreme.
Being fictional characters, the facts concerning their lives are also fictitious and changeable, not set in stone. As we mock other fictional characters, there is nothing derogatory or “blasphemous” about dissing a cartoon hero.
Bob has used this image before and I never really gave it much thought…Batman kissing Robin…amusing, and didn’t think any more about it.
8 April 2009, on 6:22 pm
TOG:
Hey, you don’t like the facts, that’s just TS. I happen to enjoy reading graphic novels, I have a large amount of them, & I don’t see the need to fucking apologize if I speak up when I see something I think is off. I don’t shoot off angry fanboy letters or any of that nonsense when they retrofit a character.
So you can take your ‘delicate sensibilities’ & shove them right up your ass.
Go moderate your own blog.
8 April 2009, on 6:26 pm
I might add, that I don’t need a speech about ‘delicate sensibilities’ from the same poster who stormed off in a hissy fucking fit from this SAME BLOG over a year ago.
8 April 2009, on 7:38 pm
I’m dropping it, though in the next Dark Knight Story I write I will work in a mention of this discussion some how.
Maybe I’ll invite Stardust on the set when we begin work on the next film, so she can speak for the topic.
By the way, I asked politely and didn’t take it much further. If you don’t like the way I make a living so be it but I will defend any work I contribute to, if it is misrepresented by others.
Now moving along…
8 April 2009, on 8:38 pm
Wow, what an unlikely heated thread this has turned into! It’s only fiction for crissakes and we should be celebrating the victory in Vermont…that seems to have gotten lost in all this Batman stuff.
And Christopher, you and I have been in communication and I don’t want a comment thread to stand in the way of that. I do understand how difficult it is to raise a child in these crazy and changing times and trying to explain everything. This site can get over-the-top at times and why I said it may not be appropriate for a child of seven. I wasn’t dissing you as a father or your love of traditional Batman/superhero comic characters.
KA, FYI, The Dark Knight is my favorite superhero character.
8 April 2009, on 8:59 pm
Stardust
Sorry,
I’m happy for them.
8 April 2009, on 9:03 pm
Christopher,
I’m just happy for people who are allowed to have the same benefits as any other married couple. If they do have legal recognition of their union it doesn’t affect me, but it does them greatly for many reasons personal to them. So, this is good news for them, and quite a surprise at the same time that our country may not be as bigoted as we have assumed.
8 April 2009, on 11:09 pm
Realizing it’s getting quite “late” on what’s turned out to be a rather contentious Post…
the old:
“Can’t we all just…get along?”
Of COURSE not…
we’re human beings!
How ’bout THIS very old and silly “something completely different”…to break the GifS fighting “spell”, that is…?
[I just noticed Bob's newer Post's title...AFTER...I wrote that line. What!...I'm Psychic?]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhwO17AkZAo
OK…
ACTUALLY…here’s REALLY something else for us wonderful, oh-so kind and loving humans to fight about? (snark!)
But, on second thought, it might just as well be better left to an unnoticed rapid sinking into the forgotten archives.
“10 Holy Cross priests object to Obama invitation”:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090409/ap_on_re_us/obama_notre_dame
Of COURSE!…and guess why?
“D’uh!”
And as I would (so kindly…and respectfully?) say to those nobodyfucking priests…
“What about miscarriages?…
You fucking lifetime, brainwashed, hopelessly delusional, religious idiots!”
[I think I'll skip my usual Bible/abortion ffrf tract link, here...
but only THIS time.]
8 April 2009, on 11:16 pm
Stardust – yeah, sorry. Some of the points got lost there. I’m putting together a post on my blog about sexuality in the comics. I think actually that media acceptance of the lifestyle is starting to really show, not only in comics but in movies, TV (not just Will & Grace, but more overall).
The religious lose more ground every day, & that’s a grand thing.
9 April 2009, on 4:19 am
Hey, you don’t like the facts, that’s just TS. I happen to enjoy reading graphic novels, I have a large amount of them, & I don’t see the need to fucking apologize if I speak up when I see something I think is off.
Facts? What facts? Apart from the fact that you are being loud-mouthed and gratuitously offensive, that is.
So you can take your ‘delicate sensibilities’ & shove them right up your ass.
Go moderate your own blog.
My, my, you are just a tad touchy, are you not?
Nevertheless, thank you for your suggestions, though you are probably more familiar with shoving things up your ass than me, and you have demonstrated that you are certainly good at speaking through it.
I might add, that I don’t need a speech about ‘delicate sensibilities’ from the same poster who stormed off in a hissy fucking fit from this SAME BLOG over a year ago.
And whilst you profess to deal with the facts, your comment demonstrates that you can be an expert at distorting them when it suits you to make a point for it is knowingly and wilfully duplicitous and mendacious.
But never mind, as a Moderator on this blog, you will be able to expunge this comment of mine and thereby spare yourself any further embarrassment or annoyance.
Have fun playing with yourself.
9 April 2009, on 4:28 am
Afraid I messed up the HTML tags again.
The third line in above comment is not KA’s but my response to his comment, therefore the first 3 lines should read:
Hey, you don’t like the facts, that’s just TS. I happen to enjoy reading graphic novels, I have a large amount of them, & I don’t see the need to fucking apologize if I speak up when I see something I think is off.
Facts? What facts? Apart from the fact that you are being loud-mouthed and gratuitously offensive, that is.
The rest of the piece remais unaltered – until it is deleted, of course.
9 April 2009, on 6:40 am
My objection isn’t that Batman’s kissing another man, he’s kissing an underage minor.
No, I’m afraid I can’t buy that unless you also object to Bruce Wayne allowing his underage ward to go out and pick fights with armed criminals. Since that hasn’t come up at all in this discussion, I’m gonna have to go with the gay thing.
Also, kissing ain’t sex. It might be a little creepy, if Dick is underage, or it could be completely innocent. You can’t tell from the picture. Why else would they be kissing? Let your imagination go someplace other than sex.
stogoe, thanks for pointing me to Superdickery. I hadn’t seen that before. Brilliant!
And, as Lynda pointed out, it seems like this debate didn’t start here, not by a long shot:
http://tinyurl.com/d5lmcb
9 April 2009, on 9:35 am
I’m pretty sure all the Robins are adults now. And anyone who thinks the comics were so totally way a bunch better than Chris Nolan’s films is by definition a fanboy.
9 April 2009, on 10:25 am
TOG:
I tend to get that way when I’m lectured to in a condescending matter.
Awww, did I hurt your widdle feewings? Sad repartee.
LMAO! Aren’t you the weenie who went ballistic & stormed off like a virgin being felt up on prom night? Yes you were. No distortion there. Unless you can prove that accusation, bite me.
Oh my, I consider myself told off! How will I ever live this shame down!
Gimmee a fucking break.
Since you have no clue, I’ll clue you in:
I don’t need reminders as to my priorities. Nor do I need your amateur armchair psychiatric theatrics. The accusation that I might delete your post is an effort @ poisoning the well. Unless you have me confused w/someone else, which seems likely.
9 April 2009, on 10:30 am
stogoe:
The definition of fanboy is:
So, no, Nolan’s films do suck, but still not a fanboy. I say for instance, that many of King’s novels are better than the movies (which they indubitably are), does that make me a King fanboy? No, that means I have clarity of sight.
9 April 2009, on 10:36 am
Thomas A:
That apples to oranges. It does show that Batman’s an incompetent guardian – child endangerment.
Because in America, we liplock over all kinds of matters – to seal a deal (oh, wait, that’s a handshake), to say hello (oh wait, that’s more a peck on the cheek), to greet a family member (length of kiss is a barometer), I mean, there’s just so many other things expressed by a full open-mouthed kiss besides just sex, right?
9 April 2009, on 11:04 am
To KA and Stardust and anyone else concerned with Batman and Robin’s “sexual” behavior in the picture (if that’s what it is since in some Mediterranean cultures men kiss on the mouth in greeting)….
In response to, “My objection isn’t that Batman’s kissing another man, he’s kissing an underage minor. “
Since Robin debuted in 1940, that makes him a senior citizen not an under-aged minor. How can one tell how old he is with the mask on anyway? Besides, if he’s old enough to fight crime, he’s old enough to have sex.
One of the problems, IMHO, with society is that we tend to figure that beating up people is okay for our kids to watch, play in video games or read about, but usher them out of the room when two people are mutually pleasuring one another on TV. It’s so darn absurd! Make love not war!
9 April 2009, on 11:12 am
One of the problems, IMHO, with society is that we tend to figure that beating up people is okay for our kids to watch, play in video games or read about, but usher them out of the room when two people are mutually pleasuring one another on TV. It’s so darn absurd! Make love not war!
Lynda, excellent point! Many cartoons are full of warring and violence, then there are the toys modeled after the cartoons, blood spattering about, blowing things up, etc is okay in most people’s books. Then like you say, show some nudity and sex and parents go beserk! It is indeed absurd.
9 April 2009, on 11:44 am
Old Git,
Seems that theists are not the only people to revere imaginary entities or take exception to them being caricatured.
I think this is an interesting perspective on the discussion. Considering the reaction we saw in the last few years to cartoons portraying the Muslim “hero” with a bomb in his turban, I think you’ve brought up a valid observation.
To ask a poster to remove a picture because they find it offensive without really offering much of a reasonable argument for why the picture is offensive, may very well suggest that an appreciation of the right of freedom of expression is lacking. Although, the cartoonist who initially drew the famous characters may very well have some legal copyright claims against using the image without permission.
I might add, raising children to revere anyone, fictional or otherwise, does the child a disservice. It tends to counter our attempts at teaching them to be critical thinkers. We need to have devotion to logic and reason, and awe for the universe which makes all of us look less powerful than paramecia.
9 April 2009, on 11:57 am
IMHO…
Sex makes fools of us all…
BIG fools!
[But then...that seems to be the nature of the World; if not the whole Cosmos!]
9 April 2009, on 3:16 pm
Lynda:
If that were the case, Bart Simpson should be in HS right about now. Dick Grayson is now Nightwing, & I’m not enough of a ‘fanboy’ to keep track of their ages, or who’s who these days. Comic book years aren’t human years, if ya know what I mean.
I couldn’t agree more.
My issue w/the whole picture nonsense, wasn’t 2 guys kissing. It was that it was highly inaccurate. So instead I get an earful insinuating ‘worship’ or some such horseshit.
Anyways, I whipped up a post about sexuality in comics, if anyone’s interested. Nothing but the facts, no smarmy finger-pointing involved.
9 April 2009, on 4:14 pm
For anyone who’s interested, here’s my written apology to TOG.
9 April 2009, on 5:20 pm
Decent of you KA to even be concerned about this, but don’t hold your breath for an apology in return from the other party.
For most of us here, we have been able to disagree amongst ourselves without getting condescending and hateful toward our own here, including moderators and regular commenters. We don’t always agree, and when we disagree we try to keep it respectful, and civil as we can and take into consideration tact and self-control in our responses (as I tried to do with our friend Christopher above and we are fine about it). I do understand when one feels that they are attacked the instinct is to counter that attack with a defensive response. But at least you show some remorse about the whole thing. You are right, people’s feelings are more important than some fictional character “who dresses up like a flying rat.” (Funny description)
9 April 2009, on 6:12 pm
Well, for the record, I tried. He’s now accusing me of all sorts of horrendous crap.
Guess I hit a nerve or 2.
@ this point, all I can do is walk away, shaking my head. Live & learn, I always say.
9 April 2009, on 11:59 pm
To Krystalline Apostate
I apologize that you were dragged into this ridiculous exchange.
I don’t think my comments were read and considered by some before they decided to react with their fingered fury.
Thomas A,
Observing and noting the portrayal of clear misrepresentation of character traits in no way indicates how I feel about homosexuality. None what so ever.
Lynda,
A request to take down a inaccurate depiction of something is not an attempt to discard free speech. It is a request to stay honest, even including the portrayal of a fictional character.
Think about it, what artist would not defend the integrity of their work? (LET ME BE CLEAR, I mean the integrity of the characters traits as his own, not as a suggestion that a homosexual figure is bad.)
Batman has put food on my table and helped provide a home for my children. I will defend my work.
TOG,
ah, yeah right… I won’t even try
To everyone…
Some might find it funny that following my visit to the Art Institute with my boys today (we go every other month and view many pieces of straight and gay work,) we stopped by the ABC-WLS station for the 6:00 broadcast and found ourselves as the sole non-participants of an equal rights for gays demonstration that had stopped to take advantage of some easy camera time.
I couldn’t help but laugh and think of this mess.
*I will mention that I was not offended by the topic nor the immediate proximity to my boys.
I don’t want to add fuel to a fire that shouldn’t be.
10 April 2009, on 12:59 am
Christopher – no worries. It’s funny, but when I’m in error, there are those who rush to point out my mistake. My pedantry was mistaken for idolatry, but what are ya gonna do?
10 April 2009, on 10:00 am
Christopher, I am just wondering if you would feel the same if a picture was posted of Jeebus kissing Peter on the mouth, for example? We all laugh hysterically at parody and spoofs that involve religious characters real or fictional. Like Gawd and Allah, for example.We all do that on a regular basis around here on this site.
10 April 2009, on 10:54 am
Christopher,
Think about it, what artist would not defend the integrity of their work?
My daughter is a cartoonist, as yet just getting started in the industry. I have some appreciation of your feelings regarding your work. A cartoon my daughter drew was used to support a venture she did not support and a character was given words to speak that she did not approve. She’s learning about copyright law.
If you are concerned about your work being portrayed in ways that you do not approve, then copyright infringement laws are in place to support you. I’m curious as to why you did not make this the basis for asking that the picture be removed rather than appealing to “integrity” concerns.
As far as “integrity” of your work, I did mention in an earlier comment that Kinsey was able to show that sexuality is rarely limited to just one or the other, either homosexuality or heterosexuality. The “honesty” of the portrayal of Batman kissing Robin could be that humans (even fictional characters of questionable humanity) are complex sexual beings.
Often writers find their characters take on a life of their own as they are “revealed” during the writing process. Perhaps Batman and Robin are trying to come out of a closet and you’re just holding the door closed?
10 April 2009, on 2:54 pm
All right, here is my last post on the subject.
Lynda,
Yes, copyright law is available. So what you are saying is that I need to turn to legal protection when dealing with a topic on this site instead of of just asking outright? Do you truly value right and wrong or are you only good when you are being watched? Would you honestly like me to have DC force this photo down? Is that how you want to see society function? That is why I made the integrity of character appeal instead of the one on legal ground.
In regards to the Kinsey statement, I will acknowledge that human sexuality can be complex but I strongly believe that for the grand majority of us, we know what side of the fence we are on…or straddling it for that matter!
It would be extremely rare, I would argue that a mature adult person would suddenly decide to experiment, unless it took decades to build up the courage but then we are then talking about a person living a lie. This does not apply here.
Stardust,
Without debating the question, was he really single and possibly gay or was there a woman hidden the background story, let me say that for me and in the case of how I raise my children I would say it would be wrong to use a picture of jesus and peter kissing in a passionate manner because it does not fit into the “story.” Unless you were making a case for this version of debatable history.
This is far different from a character that is owned by DC and you need approval before making any changes to their characters behavior.
My son would sometimes say something ridiculous and attribute it to religious attributes with a snicker.
This was a child’s way of discovering boundaries with fact and humor. He no longer does this. I explained first why it was wrong. It wasn’t funny, if it did not make sense. A joke is not funny if there is not some truth to it.
Second, I asked him to consider our statistical place in this world. We are fighting a war to free the human mind and we should make sure that we do not commit our words carelessly. We will be judged by harsher standards. We will face stiffer criticism. That is the price we pay for going against the majority. We do so not because we are non-conformist but because it is the rational direction to approach life.
10 April 2009, on 3:00 pm
Christopher, ^^ you are teaching your son well.
10 April 2009, on 6:05 pm
Christopher,
I did not suggest you utilize copyright infringement laws as the first step. Here’s part of my comment again: “copyright infringement laws are in place to support you. I’m curious as to why you did not make this the basis for asking that the picture be removed rather than appealing to “integrity” concerns.” You see, there is a very important step one can take prior to calling legal authorities. Simply ask that the picture be removed based on your legal right to decide when, where, and how your characters are published. You could have avoided a whole field of unnecessary argument by simply stating your legal rights. Now, perhaps you have over-stated your actual legal rights in this matter. Perhaps you really have no say whatsoever in the publication of these images. If so, then their integrity is intact and you haven’t a leg to stand on.
Do you truly value right and wrong or are you only good when you are being watched?
What does this have to do with any of this discussion? We may be discussing legalities, but not “right and wrong”. Whatever “good” means to you, I can assure you that whether I am watched or not I behave as my logic and reason dictates. Sometimes others may not call it “good”, but I could care less whether they see me do it or not.
Well, based on your statement about Kinsey, I gather you have little respect for scientists who devote a good deal of their lives to research trying to understand such things as very complex human sexuality. Your understanding of the subject I should accept on what basis? Your anecdotal evidence based on your own experience is hardly a large enough sampling to warrant any consideration as far as what the “majority” are apt to experience in regards to sexuality in the real world. It’s true that Kinsey was not an expert in the comic universe, but I dare say that the comic universe likely has far more options for sexuality than even the dear scientist imagined.
A joke is not funny if there is not some truth to it.
Have you ever watched Stephen Colbert? His jokes are very funny and sometimes they are completely ludicrous and have no basis in reality or truth. Children are great at appreciating the humor in complete nonsense. Recognizing “nonsense” is of course important.
I happen to think a picture of Jesus kissing Peter would have been better. It is completely in keeping with the “story” in my estimation. And, obviously, the “intellectual and creative” property of anyone since the authors of the story are a long time dead and buried. Thank goodness!
10 April 2009, on 6:35 pm
Lynda,
I clearly claimed the legal rights belong to DC.
You keep writing instead of reading.
10 April 2009, on 6:40 pm
Copyright law won’t do anything here. Satire and parody are fair use. But what follows is neither satire nor parody.
This debate has convinced me. Batman and Robin are gay.
Super-hero stories have always spoken to “the closet”; characters who are forced to live a double life, unable to tell those closest to them who they really are. Can comic-book fans and professionals really not see that?
The creators of fiction have no control over how their works are perceived. I’ve never been a huge fan of The Dynamic Duo, but they’re part of our culture. I’ve been aware of them for nigh unto forty years.
For most of that time, I’ve had to do plenty of mental gymnastics to translate stories of straight people into something that a gay guy can relate to. But when faced with one picture — one goddam picture — that requires straight folks to do a little translating, they can’t lift the fucking mental equivalent of a finger to try to fit it into their straight world.
I’ve already given you two outs, but apparently they’re too much work. Maybe Batman is giving Robin mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Maybe it’s the Gotham Gay Pride Parade, and those are just two guys dressed as their local heroes. Maybe those are the Batman and Robin from the alternate-universe Earth-Lambda, where 90+% of people are oriented to the same sex, and they’re just as straight as that world defines the term. Maybe Catwoman has a gun to Batgirl’s head, but she’ll let her go if Batman and Robin kiss for her. Maybe their bodies are possessed by the ghosts of two lovers, enjoying their last kiss before oblivion. Or the same thing with extraterrestrial energy-beings.
Are explanations like this really that hard, especially for someone who works in fucking comics, for chrissakes?! Are plots like this really any more unlikely than stuff that’s actually appeared in comics over the years?
But it’s too late now. You don’t get to take any of those outs. Batman and Robin are gay lovers, and the last seventy years of comics, tv, and movies have just been a whitewashing campaign against that fact. That’s how it is in the mind of this gay man, and that’s how it always will be, and all of your protests to the contrary will just be further evidence of the conspiracy of misinformation.
Oh, and Robin? He’s 16, hormonal, and damn lucky that he’s got an older man who genuinely loves and cares for him, and will assiduously observe the campsite rule. Look it up.
10 April 2009, on 6:42 pm
Lynda,
By your standards if I saw someone stealing a car that I sometimes use but do not own, I could not object to someone stealing it right in front of me.
I hope nobody breaks into your neighbors home. You may claim no legal right to interfere.
10 April 2009, on 6:46 pm
Thomas,
very entertaining…
10 April 2009, on 9:57 pm
Christopher,
I clearly claimed the legal rights belong to DC….By your standards if I saw someone stealing a car that I sometimes use but do not own, I could not object to someone stealing it right in front of me.
You had an opportunity to protest the use of the characters based on a perfectly legitimate matter of “stolen creative property”, INSTEAD you used a completely fictitious concern over “integrity” that did not wash with those of us who observe critically. As of now I am tempted to think, you live too much in the world of fiction and quite honestly need to perhaps experience more of the real world.
Thomas,
Bravo! Excellent! Especially this part:
Super-hero stories have always spoken to “the closet”; characters who are forced to live a double life, unable to tell those closest to them who they really are. Can comic-book fans and professionals really not see that?
10 April 2009, on 11:18 pm
Lynda
My point was that I didn’t want to protest the legal vs illegal use of the photo. How come you continue to fail to understand that it is the character integrity that I was seeking to maintain.
Yes, character integrity
It seems very straightforward to me. Maybe I’m to close to the subject matter to see it from your point of view. If you cannot understand the integrity argument then there is no chance of of us moving forward.
This discussion is beyond comics. My argument for integrity applies to so much of what takes place in this world. I refuse to accept the manipulating of facts and misrepresentation from politicians and I won’t agree with it here but I will reluctantly accept it.
So that being said, which has been far to much already, I summit my resolution to dropping the matter.
It comes with the expense of my own integrity.
10 April 2009, on 11:32 pm
KA,
About the age of Robin, I was attempting some humor that obviously did not succeed. Oh, well, I never claimed to be a humorist.
My other statement about his age being appropriate for sexual activity still stands. Those employed to fight crime need to have enough maturity to understand and engage in sex.
Also, I read your “apology” to Old Git. Not much of one, is it? At Old Git’s blog you threaten to hit him were he within striking distance which suggests you may need to consider anger management classes. I found your response to Old Git’s initial comments here very disturbing and I am fearful that someone with a great ability to think critically is no longer going to visit GifS as a result. This is a true shame as far as I’m concerned, but what do I know? (Not much, I admit.) I’ve been reading too much by Carl Sagan lately I guess. Now there was a thinker with some class!
10 April 2009, on 11:44 pm
Christopher,
Just to show you I understand “character integrity” I have copied a definition that I believe is how you understand character integrity.
Maintaining Character Integrity
Since each character is unique, you must get to know the character you are drawing. Believe me, the art director does. Each character has physical attributes assigned to them that allows them to move, bend and stretch, or have extreme facial expressions. Each character also has a personality all their own that dictates what they would or would not do. It would be wrong to show Minnie Mouse holding a bloody knife with a crazed look in her eye, while many other characters such as Ren or Stimpy would look completely natural in that same situation.
Now if Batman and Robin had been shown raping a woman, or Batman strangling Robin, this would have been completely out of character. Everyone would have seen immediately why you had an objection to the portrayal of the characters in that manner. However, affection between two men is NOT out of character for these heroes, as has been abundantly expressed by those who are familiar with the characters through years of observation and find the idea that they could possibly be gay quite acceptable and even intriguing. The characters become deeper, more lovable, more heroes, not less. If you cannot comprehend the difference I would venture to say you are in the wrong business.
11 April 2009, on 12:00 am
Lynda,
I restate my resolution to dropping the matter. We have no chance of moving forward on this issue but I would like to thank you for your last post. The first 60% is in agreement with my argument.
11 April 2009, on 12:28 am
^ Lynda…regarding your comment on the KA/TOG situation; I agree.
First, I have to say that I really hate taking sides in these unpleasant situations.
However…
To me it’s a perfect example of what can happen when people get into very PERSONAL ad hominem attacks.
We do a lot of “at a distance” criticism and name calling here on GifS RE religions, politics, etc.; but it’s a whole other issue when ESPECIALLY fellow atheist GifSters get to the point of flat out intellectual abuse…or worse…actual PHYSICAL threats. Even though we all, I assume, realize that it’s a lot more egotistical bluster than any “real” threat; that doesn’t diminish the unnecessary nastiness which somehow poisons…at least for THIS atheist…what has always been for me this Site’s feeling of a welcoming oasis in the ‘Internet Wilderness’.
As you said, Lynda…and with only my slight variation, and immense sadness…I’m almost CERTAIN…”that someone with a great ability to think critically is no longer going to visit GifS as a result.”
AND I concur…that “This is a true shame…”!
I, for one, will miss him greatly. I was very pleasantly surprised when he started commenting again, recently.
I guess we’re ALL a bit too sensitive, at times, for our own good.
‘Nough said, I guess.
And Lynda…from what I can gather from your contributions here at GifS…I’d say you DEFINITELY know quite a bit…and express it with a lot of “class” as well!
11 April 2009, on 7:50 am
Lynda:
Well, obviously, you need to work on reading comprehension. He said some of the most vile shit about me, & they WERE fighting words. In fact, I think they’re actionable.
I don’t think that person is you, but okay. In fact, you’re still fussing about that stupid picture, which is indicative of OCD. So, say hey to your therapist for me.
Ta.
11 April 2009, on 10:18 am
KA,
Yes, I was vague. I did mean Old Git. No, you won’t get rid of me from GifS so easily. I have an extremely tough skin having dealt with many bullies over my lifetime. They don’t bother me. I can just quit reading your comments if I wish to continue enjoying the more creative and intellectually stimulating views of other commentators here. Lickity split! No harm done to me. I’m sure your contributions will hardly be missed.
As long as someone else was addressing my comments and I decided to respond to their statements one can properly call it “communication” or “discussion”, which hardly indicates OCD. As a commentator here you should be slightly familiar with the process. If I had a therapist I’d recommend him/her to you.
11 April 2009, on 11:33 am
I guess we’re ALL a bit too sensitive, at times, for our own good.
ChuckA, I agree. This whole “warring” over a mere image is a bit ridiculous. We should be able to respectfully disagree without being condescending, hateful and personal attacks towards each other in our little clubhouse here. It’s been a long time since there has been this sort of exchange amongst fellow atheists. I hope in the future we all can agree to disagree without being so touchy about it. The good news in the copy of the post has been lost in a heated debate over a fictional character, just proving that if it isn’t religion humans will fight with each other about other things. It will always be something.
11 April 2009, on 11:44 am
I’m sure your contributions will hardly be missed.
Lynda, I am speaking as KA’s fellow moderator from a neutral standpoint in all this, and I and many others here appreciate his “Sunday Sermons” which he puts great work and effort into, and yes…those would be missed my many of us.
And Lynda, despite what TOG wants to make it appear at his site, I for one harbor no “hostility” towards you for standing up for him. After all, you aren’t aware of the circumstances of his first leaving. Putting all this aside, Lynda, your comments and your own perspectives on topics add much to our discussions.
If TOG wants to comment further, he is not blocked or banned and he does have people who enjoy reading his comments. He is free to comment here if he wishes. If he chooses to storm off in a huff again (only this time he can’t make a mess of the archives, thank goodness!
), then that is sad, but his choice.
(And as for TOG suggesting that his comments are being deleted, I can assure you that they have not been as I am pretty much the only one who does “housekeeping” of that sort around here. The only comments deleted are advertisements in the spam folder, and the occasional fundie Xian or Muslim who comes by to tell us we are going to burn in Hell. )
I think that most everyone has moved on to new topics and aren’t even interested in this post anymore. So, we should just move on from here. We all need to be less touchy here.
11 April 2009, on 10:17 pm
Lynda:
Then quit harping on it. I’m not going anywhere anytime soon. Makes little spittle to me – I do this for free.
Oh wow, I misdiagnosed you! Did it irritate you in the slightest? Imagine how I felt when accused of something as idiotic as ‘revering’ a comic book character.
I can hear your voice now (in the imitation of Vera Demilo: “Oh, but you used the c-word & threatened to punch him. You’re wrong, no matter what now!”
Honestly, I don’t give anybody free passes. You talk stupid to me, I’ll tell you about it. You accuse me of stupid crap, you’ll get an honest response. I don’t care if you’re an old man, a woman, or what. NO FREE PASSES.
Here’s my other yardstick: I won’t say anything online that I wouldn’t say to your face. I’m not a hypocrite, a coward, or a bully.
Your inability to see this doesn’t impress me in the slightest.
Anyways, this is getting tedious.
12 April 2009, on 2:36 pm
Yes, agreed KA. It is getting tedious. This “flame-baiting” and “poisoning the well” by some is getting old and he seems to be enjoying it over at his blog. Time to let it all die down now and ignore whatever falsehoods he wants to say on his own blog in an attempt to stir up traffic to his site (As well as turn us against each other on our own site. That is not cool. ) The horse is dead, as the saying goes. Time to move on from here.
19 April 2009, on 2:50 am
[...] it seems that some folks have been picking fights with me. There was a ridiculous brouhaha here, which led to a severe misdiagnosis of my present mental state. Following this, I actually got [...]