Not Hal Jordan. Alan Scott, the original Green Lantern.
BREAKING NEWS***** Green Lantern is a GAY HOMOSEXUAL!! Iconic hero COMES OUT OF CLOSET!!!!**
|by Anonymous||reply 22||01/30/2013|
Looks like he's, um, flaming.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||06/01/2012|
Wondeful! This will help with the rumors.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||06/01/2012|
I'm happy they're doing this, but I'm disappointed they made his bf a twink half his size. They look like a father and son.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||06/01/2012|
Some panels from the issue, including Alan Scott frenching some dark-haired twink.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||06/01/2012|
His name is ALANSCOTT?
I've got a headache already.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||06/01/2012|
R2 Tell me about it!
|by Anonymous||reply 6||06/01/2012|
Comment from a straight poster on another board:
[quote]Yeah, it's basically a character they've not known what to do with for about 50 years. Well, actually not even him - his "alternate universe" counterpart. (Nearly typed "alternative universe" then...) And they got rid of his gay son last year.
[quote]So... this was completely pointless headline-grabbing, almost to an offensive level.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||06/01/2012|
Pretty cool. It's been a long time since I've bought a comic but I'll buy this one.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||06/01/2012|
Green. Such a tricky color.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||06/01/2012|
We all already knew this, and of course they would make a has-been character gay.
His cryptonite was wood.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||06/01/2012|
Whew! Am I glad to hear that. I was afraid he would be a str8 homosexual!
|by Anonymous||reply 11||06/01/2012|
I kind of liked the idea of it being Billy Batson. He's really iconic, he doesn't have a historical hetero love interest that anybody cares about, and that rumored bullying storyline sounded like such a classic mainstream comics super-hokey stab at topicality that it warmed my heart. But whatever. Even if you don't like the change I don't think you can say that James Robinson doesn't care about the JSA characters or that he'd never write a gay character unless it was for publicity.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||06/01/2012|
I liked Phil Jimenez's earlier speculation about a gay GL, btw
|by Anonymous||reply 13||06/01/2012|
On the other hand, the Green Lantern everyone knows about, Hal Jordan, is still straight.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||06/01/2012|
So I wonder if we'll ever see one of the gay superheros in a DC or Marvel film.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||06/01/2012|
Why would they ruin such an iconic hero this way?
|by Anonymous||reply 16||06/01/2012|
And by ruin I mean it's completely against character. It just seems like a plot driven decision.
It's not organic and there was no lead up to it.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||06/01/2012|
DC recently wiped nearly its entire slate clean. Except for Batman, Green Lanterns of the main universe, and the Legion of Super-Heroes, nothing from before last year counts any more.
Superman and Lois Lane were never married.
Wonder Woman's father is now Zeus.
So as far as DC is concerned everything is up for grabs.
This Alan Scott did not have a buddy named Doiby Dickles. He did not fight in World War 2. He did not have kids.
So it is not against his character, because he has no character. The lead up to it was the wiping away of any and all superheroes who used to exist before Superman announced himself to the world five years ago.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||06/01/2012|
[DC recently wiped nearly its entire slate clean]
Doesn't DC do this every 5 or so years?
|by Anonymous||reply 19||06/01/2012|
They should have made Superman gay & sent him down the aisle with Lex Luthor!
|by Anonymous||reply 20||06/01/2012|
r615 a gay character from marvel named Anole was in X-Men 3, but was mainly in the background and not much screen time.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||01/16/2013|
i would like to address this letter to duquesne university, as well as other gay-affirming colleges (be them christian or public):
after reading a letter that was posted on a few websites, ryan.miner.dylquesne.com and ryan.miner.shittsburgh.org and even ryan.miner.anti-gay.com, i feel that i have to make people aware. i feel that duquesne university should be ashamed of itself for succumbing to the "politically correct" version of our Lord. in short, ryan miner was correct to state his beliefs about homosexuality being "subhuman". i would like to go one step further and say that homosexuality is for the developmentally disabled - for the "men" whose masculine esteem sees other men through the eyes of a little boy, for the "men" who don't think highly enough of themselves AS men, for the "men" whose own masculine identity is slight enough to be compromised by the sight of any "real man," from ryan reynolds to tim tebow.
for whatever reason a "man" is apt to gawk at men and would regard the masculine body as some kind of "discovery zone," whether he has grown up thinking of himself as a small masculine slight...whether he has grown up being labeled as a girl by the athletic boys (and his sister)...whether he has felt unworthy and uninvited enough to stray from the masculine majority, the fact remains: people shouldn't let themselves be governed by their homosexual attraction. likewise, duquesne university shouldn't be governed by the abundance of masculivoids on campus. the university should not change their stance on homosexuality just because college boys (and i stress "boys") are a bunch of masculine ditzes suffering from gender-identity issues.
there is so much gay porn on my computer, but the reason i don't "hook-up" with anyone is because i think too highly of myself as a man. i don't think highly of myself as a "male," i don't think highly of myself as a "guy," i am a man and the reason that i don't "hook-up" with gay males is because i am "let-down". the act of sticking my hand down someone's pants like a blind man looking for buried treasure, it just rubs me the wrong way. also, i feel shame for the naive masculivoid who is apt to bow down and lick my dick like he's in total reverence, it's just shameful - i would not be able to respect such a masculivoid, and that is why i haven't been naked with anyone for years. i don't care to see "men" who celebrate naked men with their eyes gaping open and with the biggest smile on their faces, sometimes i can't even bear to watch porn, "men" who are in reverence of other men is just shameful. what man-worshipping DULLARDS.! i feel like cher in moonstruck: "snap out of it!". let me quote nanny fine here: "you're acting like you've never seen one before... you've got one, your father's got one".
anyone who gets a boner from the sight of a naked man should not think he is relegated to a life of homosexuality. i regard "making love" as "making answers," simply because of the curiosity that is satisfied with naked intimacy. curiosity is at the root of sexual attraction, and one develops curiosity about things as one lives and experiences things. nobody's born with a curiosity of men or of the lesser gender, i had a line in a play called "barefoot in the park" that i would like to relate to sexual curiosity: "talent is something that must be cultivated". curiosity is something that must be developed through one's understanding that he has a lack of understanding.
furthermore, i feel that if a man is justified in his own mind as a legitimate member of his own gender, he's not going to be curious of his own gender. now, i may have a physical attraction to masculine images because i never felt like i compared to the masculine athletes i went to school with, but the presence of a physical attraction towards men doesn't mean that i'd be happy to substitute masturbation with real sex. wasn't it sheldon cooper who said that he is disgusted by his own bodily fluids, weren't his words something like "why would i want to relish in anyone else's?"
i feel the same way a
|by Anonymous||reply 22||01/30/2013|