Now, this is more of a series of observations that I’ve made over time. Not exactly a research paper or anything of the kind. The main observation though, is that the liberal (If you permit the use of the word) more . . . progressive and open-minded people are actually far more homophobic than the Conservatives they oh so enjoy ripping on. Now, this is not baseless, and it is counter-intuitive.

But I do have examples. The first is of course, the reactions I get when I mention that I want to be POTUS. Out of every, say, 100 encounters, I get 40 of them asking me about my platform and saying that I have their support (and about half of them volunteer to help me out), 30 of them tell me that republicans will never vote for me, and that my platform doesn’t even matter (they also tell me that I am seriously wrong), and about 20 will tell me that they need to talk to me more, and 10 will say that my platform needs work. Here is the kicker:

The 40 consider themselves Conservatives, the 30 consider themselves Liberal, the 20 are Independents and the 10 are seriously undecided. Upon discovering that I’m gay, the Conservatives shrug and usually reply with a combination of “Hate the sin, not the sinner” or “Nobody is perfect”

Liberals ask how I can be so misguided and how can I possibly reconcile my economic ideology with the fact that I’m gay.

I do find this to be amusing. Vastly so. So, I have discovered that to Conservatives, even vastly religious ones, I am an intellectual, a politician and man who has a good life, but has made some questionable life choices. To Liberals, I am a gay who has no idea what’s going on in the real world. So, to recap:

A gay who is stupid vs. a brilliant man who happens to be gay . . . and people still think Liberals are gay friendly!? Someone please explain to me how that works!

So, now that I’ve given an overview of the more . . . political part of my observations, I do have to go to the everyday bullsh*t I have to go through. I am a proud man, and I refuse to be made ashamed by something like my skin color, heritage, sexual orientation or anything else that some liberal idiot has decided matters for some odd reason. But I have recently found myself being afraid of admitting that I’m gay. Why? Because I am going to be discriminated against. It’s that simple. However, it is not the Conservative Bloc I blame; it is not the religious communities. I blame the people who decided, for some odd reason, that the fact that I am gay is somehow important . . . it is defining of me somehow. Being gay has stopped being about who you date, who you sleep with, who you live with, its become about how you eat, how you live, how you vote, what you believe. Being gay somehow twists the world into a beast where more government control is good, where traditions of any kind are evil, where the correct is made evil, where life itself is wrong. Gay makes the world a different place. No longer women more natural nurturers, or men more athletic, the mere idea of this is evil. Immoral. Gay makes the world a place where natural law is good when I says that gay just happens, but wrong when it says that men enjoy sports more than women. It says that it’s ok for women to chose, but only if they chose as they will it, because clearly, no woman would want to be a mother.

All of these things, having no providence in the realm of romance, is now of crucial importance to the fact that I’m gay. So I have to ask, who high jacked my life and made it a target for people’s shooting practice?

The obvious answer is: The Religious Right. The truth? The Psychotic Left. This can easily be construed as a coincidence. After all, Correlation does not Imply Causation. SO, this brings me to the claim of my observations, the tying it all together, this is what is really going to get me angry replies and screams: Liberals are magnanimously more homophobic than Conservatives. And the claim that’s going to get me shot: Gays hate themselves. That’s it; no one hates them more than they hate themselves. The one thing that I refuse to do, the one thing that they do not understand, the simple fact that they’re groveling is nothing more than an act of self-loathing.

So, part one: Liberals are far more homophobic than the Conservatives, well, I already said this: A Gay vs. a Man with questionable choices, A Gay vs. a Man. That’s all. I do believe this explains why Liberals place so much emphasis on sexuality. They are terrified and disgusted by it. Their crusades are nothing more than a clever cover for their need to hate something. The same thing I would claim about feminists, they hate women.

The second part: Gays hate themselves. This is the only reason I can think of that would explain their sheer need to point out that they’re gay. Not just that they’re gay, but also explain their need to have this simple and secondary fact define their entire existence. So instead of owning up that they’re not normal, they flaunt it with such painful effectiveness that even other gay people feel disgusted. So this is why I have started to feel the need to hide the fact that I’m gay, not because of my fellow Conservatives, but because the Gay Rights Psychos will not be able to resist the urge to associate me with them and their flawed ideologies.

So there it is. A simple predecessor to a far more complex and researched project, one aimed not at securing more liberties for gays at the expense of everyone else, but one at securing everyone’s rights from the gay rights movement. One that states it clearly and simply: you’re not special, you’re just human, get over yourself. You get no special rights, and most especially not when it’s at the expense of the people you claim to help.

I was rather afraid that this blog would eventually turn into a movie review blog, and it appears that I may be right. 

However, I do feel that this post is necessary, for a few reasons. The people who know me personally are well aware that I treat movie critics with practically no respect. They say don’t go see something, I go and see it, they highly recommend something, I ignore it. Granted, there are always a few exceptions. My unusual taste in music, movies, literature and art leads me to have my doubts about many critics. 

So, Sucker Punch, the consensus of the critic community: Don’t bother, yes, it really is that absolutely terrible. Interestingly enough, I did not see this consensus before Jameson (a friend of mine) invited me to see it along with his sister. He had already seen it and had been majorly impressed. In retrospect I suspect that the impression was less to do with the film itself and more with the half naked women and the big guns. 

I went in, waited for the previews to pass, and proceeded to have my mind. . .essentially raped by the sheer beauty and mastery of the opening scene. A combination of extreme close-ups, sweeping pans and a impeccably timed soundtrack told me a story in just visuals and song. 

This sequence yielded background, covered all necessary exposition and provided conflict, as well as foreshadowed the importance of several aspects of the setting, and introduced me main antagonist. 

The first setting of the movie is in the Asylum, our main character is escorted though the bare and ugly halls of the Lennox House. The main antagonist then presents the protagonist and the audience with the the main and only obvious theme of the story: The Theatre.

The theatre is run by a heavily accented Polish psychotherapist, who uses music and the Theatre to attempt to heal her patients. Up to now, everything has been harsh, gross and dully painful. We have been in the realm of the Ego. 

The moment that we are fully on the stage, the scene and setting changes. The main character is now in a brothel run by a mobster, whose clients include the “High Roller” and the very Mayor of the City. Here, the protagonist “Babydoll” is instructed by the psychotherapist turned dance instructor to dance. It is her only means of survival in this world of lust, pain and anxiety. Welcome to Babydoll’s SuperEgo. 

Babydoll gets onto the dance floor, and does nothing. But the point is then made clear to her, dance, or die. She closes her eyes, the music changes, and we step deep inside her Id. The setting is once again different, the snowy, cold and unforgiving courtyard of a Japanese style temple. Here she meets an old man, who prepares her for her journey, and gives her two weapons, a sword and a gun, along with a list of things she will need to escape. An astute viewed can recognize the Animus. 

Here manifest both the greatest and most terrifying aspects of Babydoll’s mind. The Demonic Samurai warriors intent on killing her, but also her skill and power. 

Thus the film continues with its strong visuals and haunting soundtrack, leaping between the terrors of the SuperEgo in the brothel to the fantastical action packed missions in the id, all of them handed down by the Journey Man. 

At this point, the film has three points of tension, in the Asylum, the days before Babydoll is lobotomized is running out, in the brothel, the days before Babydoll is sold to the High Roller are likewise running out, and in the deepest part of her mind, the third setting, each scene is its own mini plot. 

In the end, we have the combination of the three parts of Babydoll’s mind, and with it the solution to the Wise Man’s Mystery “fifth part of the plan” to escape. 

Babydoll has integrated, although we do not see this onscreen, but when the plan is prepared, she, now a complete and fully realized person, willingly sacrifices herself to see the mission through and allow her companion to escape. As she is about to die in the SuperEgo (the Brothel World) we are ripped back to the real world where she is lobotomized. In that second of consciousness the doctor performing the “surgery” sees something in her eyes, her willingness and acceptance of her fate. 

It is not until after Babydoll is no longer a player in the story that we are then allowed to see that what happened in the SuperEgo manifested in the Ego as well. Her actions have transversed her own worlds. 

This is, of course, my own little philosopher/writer interpretation. Even without the background or interpretation, the cinematography, visuals, music, and the combination alone present a very nicely pieced and aesthetically pleasing film. 

Another thing, The intro is perfect, Because it shows Gru as he is, he creates happiness, so he may take it away, a true Villain!

Then enter the Minions, hey are essentially highly trained children, with insane senses of humor. More about them later.
So, Miss Hatty, I totally called it! The moment I saw her, I knew that she was going to be a total bitch. Writer’s instinct I guess.

The Box of Shame is . . .incredible! I suppose that villains come in all sorts of forms, both those with Boxes of Shame and those with Shrink rays. . .

One thing that really put this movie together for me was the fact that we have hints at subplot form the very beginning, everything is foreshadowed at least once, and the characters actually have personalities, We see Edith’s annoyances from the beginning, as well as Agnes’ unicorn obsession and her willingness to see everything in a very positive light, unlike the aforementioned Edith tends to see the negative. The older sister, Margo, is caring and well rounded, although clearly vengeful.

The call from Gru’s mother also greatly helps the story, It sets up background info for later and also helps ground the story, in a world where Shrink Rays and Freeze rays exist, annoying mothers are also still a problem.
Of course, although Gru has a reason to be a villain, he is also villainous and evil because he can.His random acts of violence clearly portray this.

Enter Vector, Vector is a bored son of a Villain Banker. He is simply living up to expectations without even trying, able to actually do real villainy, he’s simply trying to impress someone. He is generally uncaring about the world, other than his image.

Of course, this makes the fight between them even better. After Gru and Dr. Nefario have their little disagreement, Gru decided to take on Vector for lying to him and kidnapping the girls.

Of course, the story follows a predictable pattern, Gru needs the girls, he grows to like them, they are taken from him, he recovers them, although in the process he also discovers his heroic side. A classic story, but it is the writing that makes it spectacular, particularly the dialogue.

In the end, all the strings are tied together, Vector is defeated, the mother is proud, Gru keeps the girls. and everyone is happy. Even the subplots with the floating minion is brought to a close in the end.

In Dracula, several characters are seen following roles and actions that are usually reserved for the opposite sex, these situations allow for the Victorian reader to understand that this is a special situation and that something is not right. In clearer terms, the switching and blurring of gender roles allows for a greater sense of strangeness and wrongness for the novel to continue successfully as horror fiction.

Jonathan Harker is the first character we see allowing himself to be feminized, firstly when he is captured by the Brides of Dracula and his reactions are entirely passive and feminine: “I lay quiet, looking out under my eyelashes in an agony of delightful anticipation” (Stoker, 32). Eventually he manages to escape them, only to end up in a bed, ill, not only physically from the Brides’ blood drinking, but also mentally as his reality is altered and he believes himself to be going insane: “. . . In his delirium his ravings have been dreadful; of wolves and poison and blood; of ghosts and demons.” Jonathan’s hallucinations and symptoms fit what physicians would attribute to hysteria, which is generally a woman’s ailment. (OED). His six weeks in bed allow him to regain himself and therefore bring him back into the normal boundaries of manhood, this rehabilitation is fully realized and sealed by his marriage to Mina.

However, the character who challenges traditional gender roles the most is Mina. She uses a typewriter, and is economically stable on her own. She is also able to act as one of the men, helping plan out situations and make sense of the chaos that Dracula brings to London. It is her notes and her work that ultimately lead to the death of Dracula. Her actions are reflective of a modern woman, as compared to a traditional Victorian woman; however she is still bound to her culture: “Ah, that wonderful Madam Mina! She has man’s brain-a brain that a man should have were he much gifted-and a woman’s heart. The good God fashioned her for a purpose, believe me, when He made that so good a combination” (Stoker, 201). In this case, Mina’s masculinity is acceptable because she is still a woman who plays by the rules that she is meant to follow, that is, she marries and is, unlike Lucy, controllable by her husband.

Dracula, on the flip side, cannot be controlled by anyone, and his own sexuality and gender roles are even more questionable than Jonathan’s or Mina’s. When Jonathan  find himself a victim to the Brides, it is the Count, a man, who comes to his rescue, but his intentions are not in order to save a fellow man (as a general protective motion towards masculinity itself) but because: “This man belongs to me! Beware how you meddle with him, or you’ll have to deal with me!” which brings his intentions into question, and further inquiring (or hinting at) about his sexuality as the narrative continues: “Then the Count turned, after looking at my face attentively and said in a soft whisper:- “Yes, I too can love;”(Stoker, 33). This is after Jonathan finds himself being served dinner by Dracula, rather than the brides, although he does not seem to find this behavior strange, which serves as a set up for the question of the Count’s own sexual roles, as later he goes on using deceptive techniques to seduce the women whose blood he drinks. In the Victorian society that the novel is set, it is women who use the deceptive techniques and the secrecy. Men like Quincy, use strength, and other men, like Van Helsing, use knowledge, but not cleverness or seduction.

Three main characters are portrayed in ways, or in situations where gender roles are reversed. The view of Mina as a modern woman, although with traditional aspects, is shown as she is considered to be at times, one of the group of men. Jonathan often finds himself a victim, in very weak and feminine situations, but it is the Count himself who pushes the lines of sexuality: in role, in taste and in  attitude.

The Higgs Boson.

Grendel’s attitude and his behavior are highly elegant and philosophical. And as Ayn Rand once put it, “all work is an act of philosophy” and extending the assumption further, all existence is an act of philosophy as well, especially Grendel’s. It is because of this that Grendel is the only solid character and the only defining thing in the entire novel. The story is entirely defined and dependant on him.

If it were not obvious from the title of the novel, Grendel asserts himself as the stronger (and almost only) force in the work. Unlike in other works, where titular characters are unaware of their situation or their influences, Grendel is aware of his situation: “Nothing was changed, everything was changed, by my having seen the dragon (Gardner, 75)” He is aware of both the fact that for the world around, him, everything remains exactly the same, yet as for himself and the dragon, everything is different. Grendel is incredibly aware of the changes, or rather, the flux, of his existence and its ultimate meaninglessness. Grendel’s world is reduced to himself, although this discovery, this philosophy, does in no way stand against its opposing force: the importance of the self and the individual.  His voice then, characterized by short, descriptive clauses: “I blink. I stare in horror (Gardner, 5)” sets the tone for the further expression of his ego, and allows for the reader to understand that the world is reduced to Grendel because he considers himself to be the only thing worth noticing.

Grendel’s reductionist philosophy takes him down a nihilistic rabbit hole: “nihil ex nihilo (Gardner, 150)” Out of nothing, nothing exists, except for the observer, that is, both Grendel and the reader. This is exemplified and clearly pointed out in the one statement that defines him: “I understood that the world is nothing: a mechanical chaos of casual, brute enmity on which we stupidly place our hopes and fears. I understood that, finally and absolutely, I alone exist. All the rest, I saw, is merely what pushes me, or that I push against, blindly- as blindly as all that is not myself pushes back. I create the whole universe, blink by blink. (Gardner, 21-22)”

Each sentence containing the word ‘I’ is then set apart, not merely as a causality, but as a rigid, undeniable and unquestioning statement of Grendel’s unshakable sense of life. It is obvious, that Grendel Is. Like the Higgs Boson, Grendel gives existence to himself and it is only when he tricked by Beowulf that he shows any sign of losing his control, even then as he lies bleeding to death, his final words haunt and define the future of his destroyers: “So may you all (Gardner, 174)”

Original Comment:

I also agree with everything in this article and the post above me. Being an LDS youth, nothing irked me more than seeing Mrs. Meyer’s undertones in this piece of “literary” work.

And, like the above post mentioned, Edward and Bella wait until they are married – but that doesn’t stop them from coming too close. Mrs. Meyer scuffed out the line between chaste affection and smut with the four books, and now hundreds of young LDS girls think it’s okay to neck and touch because Mrs. Meyer is LDS and her books teach that it’s okay to do that kinds of things. And parents don’t do anything, because Mrs. Meyer is LDS and her books MUST be okay to read. I work at a bookstore, and it’s almost sad to see parents coming in and telling me, “Oh, my nine year-old daughter loves these books. She’s going to be so excited I’m getting her this one!”

There are more LDS themes than abstinence. Mrs. Meyer tries (and does so poorly) to enter themes of eternity and living together forever by the end of her books. She hardly succeeds. What she has succeeded in is breaking down the vampire stereotype that has been in the making for hundreds of years. Vampires are not supposed to be sexed up. The original Dracula was an ugly old man who thirsted after blood before anything else. (Read the book by Stoker; it’s very fabulous.) But Mrs. Meyer seems to think it’s okay to crush this idea. I’m not saying that new ideas are unacceptable, but Mrs. Meyer leaves little room for other options. ALL of her vampires are sexy, sparkly, toned, good-smelling…things. To enter back the idea of an ugly old vampire will not succeed, simply because of the fact that rabid fangirls will crush the figure instantly and cling to their marble-chested, alabaster, stone-skinned sex-god. Mrs. Meyer has brought in this new figure and obliterated everything else. We see how this generation is being brought up. It’s sad.

My response:
I’m sorry, but Meyer castrated the vampire myth; she definitely did not sex up her vampires. Vampires on principle should be overly sexual and wanton creatures: that is where all of their scare comes from. They are such a perversion of morality and goodness because of what they are and how they behave that people should hate them. Stoker’s three female vampires dripped with sex and definitely provided Harker with more ecstasy than his lovely Mina ever could and I think it is incredibly ignorant of you to think that Dracula being old and ugly meant all vampires should be old and ugly. Not to mention the outrage Dracula portrayed at the lovely vampires feasting upon Harker when he stumbled upon them; Dracula may well have been homosexual. Seeing as you thought Dracula was such a great novel, I’m baffled that you should think Meyer “sexed up” her vampires. But Stoker wasn’t the first to sex up his vampires: vampires have been overly sexualized from the origin of the myth. Lilith is often considered a vampire figure: as a demoness of illness and death, she preyed on newborn children and copulated with men in their sleep to spawn hundreds of demons each day. She can be seen as a Succubus figure. Lamia, often seen as the Ancient Greek vampire, seduced men so she may drink their blood and consume their flesh. Does any of Meyer’s vampires ever seduce or even drip with sex? No.

Meyer created her vampires to be completely asexual. If Edward were a Victorian vampire, he’d be bisexual, have sex with anyone he pleased, and the entire series would be considered smut. If Edward were anything like Lilith or Lamia, he’d have wooed Bella into some sort of romance and then kill her and drain her blood. He does nothing of the sort. The entire series is filled with heterosexual couples who probably sleep in separate beds and barely touch each other at all. What I found completely amazing is the number of people who let the vampire myth be so distorted by an LDS author. Who in their right minds would enjoy reading Harry Potter as written by a Catholic priest? Who in their right minds would enjoy reading Uncle Tom’s Cabin as written by the KKK? Who in their right minds would allow such a moral and religious figure to rape the vampire myth – a myth so filled with sex and unconventional sexual orientations?

Have you read any Anne Rice? Her Lestat pretty much turned his gay lover into a vampire because he seriously wanted some of that body. Or maybe you’ve heard of Carmilla, the lesbian vampire who preys on young women? The vampire myth has always been of very sexual creatures who feed upon humans. Meyer’s creatures are neither sexual or feed upon humans.

on the road to damascus

to slay the christians

saul saw the light

and was blinded by that light

and looked into the Darkness

and embraced that Darkness

and saul arose from the great white way

saying “I Am Paul

who would slay you

but i saw the Darkness

and i am that Darkness”

then he raised his voice

singing red black and green songs

saying “I am the lion

in daniel’s den

I am the lion thrown to slaughter”

do not fear the lion

for he is us

and we are all

in daniel’s den.

Kidnap Poem

ever been kidnapped
by a poet
if i were a poet
i’d kidnap you
put you in my phrases and meter
you to jones beach
or maybe coney island
or maybe just to my house
lyric you in lilacs
dash you in the rain
blend into the beach
to complement my see
play the lyre for you
ode you with my love song
anything to win you
wrap you in the red Black green
show you off to mama
yeah if i were a poet i’d kid
nap you

Ego Tripping (there may be a reason why)

I was born in the congo
I walked to the fertile crescent and built
the sphinx
I designed a pyramid so tough that a star
that only glows every one hundred years falls
into the center giving divine perfect light
I am bad

I sat on the throne
drinking nectar with allah
I got hot and sent an ice age to europe
to cool my thirst
My oldest daughter is nefertiti
the tears from my birth pains
created the nile
I am a beautiful woman

I gazed on the forest and burned
out the sahara desert
with a packet of goat’s meat
and a change of clothes
I crossed it in two hours
I am a gazelle so swift
so swift you can’t catch me

For a birthday present when he was three
I gave my son hannibal an elephant
He gave me rome for mother’s day
My strength flows ever on

My son noah built new/ark and
I stood proudly at the helm
as we sailed on a soft summer day
I turned myself into myself and was
jesus
men intone my loving name
All praises All praises
I am the one who would save

I sowed diamonds in my back yard
My bowels deliver uranium
the filings from my fingernails are
semi-precious jewels
On a trip north
I caught a cold and blew
My nose giving oil to the arab world
I am so hip even my errors are correct
I sailed west to reach east and had to round off
the earth as I went
The hair from my head thinned and gold was laid
across three continents

I am so perfect so divine so ethereal so surreal
I cannot be comprehended except by my permission

I mean…I…can fly
like a bird in the sky…

Poem For Unwed Mothers (to be sung to “The Old F.U. Spirit”)

It was good enough for the virgin mary

It was good enough for mary

It was good for the virgin mary

It’s good enough for me

Chorus.

One of the oldest texts in the world, the Tao Te Ching, also happens to be one of the most widely translated books in history. Although its true origins are somewhat unknown, its teachings are said to have began sometime during the Zhou Dynasty, when, as fable has it, a woman finally gave birth to a wrinkly baby with grey hair, after more than 50 years (62 years according to legend) of pregnancy. Laozi, or ‘Old Master’, began teaching himself in the high courts, and soon became disillusioned with the Chinese government and decided to leave. Before leaving however, a guard on China’s border pleaded the wise man to write down his teachings, and thus the Tao Te Ching was born. Composed of 80 chapters, or small poems, Laozi’s teachings deliver a broad spectrum of thought-provoking philosophy that has actually evolved into a religion. Eventually this ancient text was introduced to the West, but unfortunately because there are many cultural and idealistic concepts present in this book for which the West has no knowledge of (or even a word for), the translations are heavily subjective and based on interpretation of the translator. There tend to be three major categories of translations however, the literal translation, the poetic translation, and of course the political translation.

Undoubtedly the most controversial and interpretative chapter is the first. Although across the many translations it expresses the same principal idea, language and diction gives the text different connotations. For example, in the translation by Ursula K. Le Guin, the excerpt, “So the unwanting soul sees what’s hidden, and the ever-wanting soul sees only what it wants” the wording is expressed in a more poetic undertone, suggesting its meaning in not only a physical, but a spiritual sense, unlike the more materialistic translation by S. Mitchell stating, “Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations” which expresses the same general idea, just in a more interpretative and physical sense, rather than with the spiritual aspect. Similarly, Mitchell’s opening chapter states, “The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name” which does attempt to interpret any Eastern concepts, is generally more difficult to understand because of this, compared to the much more flowery “A way can be a guide, but not a fixed path; names can be given, but not permanent labels.” In this translation by Thomas Cleary, the Tao is interpreted to be ‘A way’, a Western idea that does not actually have the same meaning as ‘The Tao’. In fact, the distinction is even made between this ‘way’ as being not a path to follow, but a ‘guide’, even though The Tao is really neither.

In similar fashion, the 77^th chapter is an excellent example of how the Tao Te Ching can be interpreted in a more political sense, focusing on the physical and moral implications amongst a greater society. The excerpt “Those who try to control, who use force to protect their power, go against the direction of the Tao. They take from those who don’t have enough and give to those who have far too much. ” by S. Mitchell chiefly exemplifies this by establishing the presence of the very specific ‘force’ and ‘power’, both words that are usually associated with the government. This is a very political interpretation of the Tao Te Ching as opposed to Yi-Ping Ong’s “It is the Way of Heaven to remove where there is excess and add where there is lack. The way of people is different: they take away where there is need and add where there is surplus” which uses words like ‘excess’ and ‘lack’ that are much more broad and encompassing, thus expanding the overall meaning of the passage beyond just the implied idea of controlling force like a government.

These minor differences amongst the many translations of the Tao Te Ching may not seem like important elements of Taoism, but for a Westerner reading such a translation it may in fact have a surprising effect on that persons view and understanding of The Tao. This is why it is quite important for readers to try and see these various interpretations. This also points to the immense flexibility of the already ambiguous text and philosophy.

I always thought I hated comic books. As a kid I avoided shows like X-men and Batman and TNMT, and I have no idea why. Point being, until my favorite kick ass Vampire slayer (Anita Blake) was turned into a comic book, I never read any comics at all. After Anita, I picked up X-Men: The End, and I was stricken with Emma Frost, after that I went on to explore more interesting characters, and actually bought comics for the first time in my life (as a 19 year old no less) I fell in love with Sabretooth, Emma Frost, Mystique, the Silver Surfer, Storm and especially with Deadpool (“Do I still think in those little boxes? Oh how I missed you, what fun we shall have!”)

Shortly after Anita Blake came out, I thought of transferring my favorite creation (Merrick Anatole Silvak) from novel to comic book, I even wrote a small script and drew a small story board that sucked and I scrapped, along with the script. I suspected that the majority of comic book readers (male, straight, teens-thirties) would really not be too interested in a megalomaniacal gay sorcerer (if at all) So I moved on to writing short stories and fantasy novels that included strong leading female and gay characters, ignoring the comic aspect of speculative fiction.

I eventually came up with my new favorite creation, a bisexual teen living vampire named Kevin James Lancaster (no, I did not intend for it too sound like Harry James Fucking Potter, it just unfortunately happened) and then I really wanted to see a bi character in a comic. Then on June 1^st, someone told me about American Comic’s first gay kiss between Rictor  and Shatterstar*

So, I googled (I LOVE google, you can know the basics of virtually anything in a manner of minutes!!) and found that there is a medium sized list of gay superheroes that I was unaware off (I was aware of Emma Frost’s brother Christian, but that’s it, and he had no powers)

First off on the list was obviously Batman and Robin, which is just speculation and the creators deny it, and I myself don’t believe it, but apparently, many people do believe it.

Then on the list is the uber-flamboyant, HIV-positive Hispanic Extrano (Strange in English) in 1988. He could use magic and I consider him generally not interesting.

Alan Moore (one of my favorite comic writers) was the next one to explore Gay and Lesbian Themes in V for Vendetta and Watchmen (That’s probably why he’s a favorite of mine, plus he’s British). At about the same time that The Sandman ( Neil G-something, the same dude who wrote Stardust I think, correct me if I’m wrong, I’m writing from memory here) was exploring themes of transexuality.

Then came Apollo (a superman archetype character) and Midnighter (a batman archetype character) who actually got married and adopted a daughter. I am personally not a fan of Apollo, but Midnighter’s violent take on life I very much enjoy. (I likewise hate both Batman and Superman, I am very much a Marvel kind of person) At this point I realized that Marvel’s giant leap forward was actually long after Apollo and Midnighter got married. Apparently, the Big Gay Kiss happened in the year 2000. Windstorm the publisher of the comic is related legally somehow to DC, and I can’t bloody figure out how. Oh and they’re a British Branch. So no American.

Because I’m on a DC roll, I would like to add now, that the newest incarnation of Batwoman (Kate K-something) is lesbian, and since I’m not a DC comics person, I really don’t know much about that.  (and DC seems generally homophobic, except for Apollo and Midnighter).

But I do know that the amazing Mystique (we’re talking Marvel now, so this I do know) and Destiny (who can tell the future and is blind, wow, big surprise) were lovers, but it was all hush-hush because of Marvel’s ridiculous “no gay” rule. I am not too sure how I feel about the whole sensitive Destiny, very feminine and kick-ass bitch Mystique all in control of the world being a couple because it seems to play too much on the whole masculine lesbian, feminine lesbian, masculine gay, effeminate gay thing. But overall, since I love Mystique, I am willing to overlook what as Moore calls it “that strange attitude towards gays” oh, and Destiny, who I previously hinted that I believed was a boring character, was murdered, so Mystique is alone again.

Then I came across THE couple: Hulkling and Wiccan from Young Avengers (ok, when I said I hated DC I was omitting the Teen Titans) Hulkling is a teen version of the Hulk archetype (not a teenage Bruce whatshisname, just a similar personage ability wise) who is part Skrull and part something else who can shape shift, become somewhat Hulk-like and has the necessary healing factor to go with it (btw, I am not a huge fan of the Hulk or She-Hulk [horrible sexist name] but the 2008 movie was good, therefore I thought I would likewise hate a character named hulkling, but I was wrong) Wiccan is a teenage, male version of another favorite female character of mine, Scarlet Witch. And he totally kicks ass, just like Wanda, plus he’s a guy that adds points to his awesomeness. Their relationship was hinted at from the very beginning, but was confirmed in issue twelve (I think) when they had a very sentimental and cute and awesome set of panels where they decide they are dating, they should go looking for Scarlet Witch, take a trip together, et cetera. ( I can’t do the relationship justice in words).  I absolutely love this couple and I can’t wait for the peck on the cheek that has to come next (unless it already happened and I am already behind again, which happens all the freaking time!!) My favorite quotes from this pair are the following:

“My name’s Billy Kaplan and its official, I have the coolest boyfriend EVER!” – Wiccan

And:

Wiccan: Why bother, he never listens

Hulkling: Hey, I heard that

Wiccan: Oh sure, NOW he listens.

Which I find adorable.

Anyway, in reading this I realized that Northstar is gay, which I someone managed to miss. I have absolutely no idea how I missed it, but I did. And in the Ultimate X-Men incarnation he dates Colossus, no joke. Other noteworthy gay characters in the Marvel universe (recent Marvel universe) are Anole, a lizard-type mutant who was supposed to commit suicide but didn’t cause he’s cool like that. Three characters who I had to wiki cause I have no bloody clue who they are: Phat, Vivisector (sounds too much like viviparous to me, made me laugh, get it? he’s gay and he’s called Vivisector?) and Bloke, all three characters are mercifully dead.  Also included in wiki’s list (which I found far too late in my writing) is someone named Graymalkin who sounds like a character with awesome potential (all of his abilities only work when he’s in the dark!!)  Anole by the way was mentored by Northstar (that was somehow important) Oh and a lesbian character named Karma was listed somewhere in there too.

Ok this brings about the end of my initial look into gay comic book characters. I have a few personal last words.

As a gay man living in America, I appreciate the fact that there are gay superheroes who do not remind me of the gay people I unfortunately know. I say this because I believe that people, gay, bi, straight, or asexual, are all meant to be self-reliant, strong-willed, self-assured and self-critical. Unfortunately, its rarely that I see a gay man be those things in real life, and too often am I reminded that stereotypes are born in reality and that all too often, people who would otherwise have unlimited potential, get caught up in these molds and never move beyond them. I feel like I am surrounded by weak-minded, shallow, emotional gays and lesbians who lose themselves in the stigma and the even worse “pride” that stands as a senseless act of alienation from the rest of society.  I enjoy the Young Avenger’s pairing of Billy and Ted because aside from dealing with real issues like coming out and homophobia, they also continue living as normal a life as any superhero can.

When Marriage Between Gays Was a Rite
http://www.global.org/Pub/Gay_Marriate_Rites.asp
An article in the Irish Times that discusses same gender unions in the early church.
by Jim Duffy
Published in 1998
Gay Christians
As the churches struggle with the issue of homosexuality, a long tradition of gay marriage indicates that the Christian attitude towards same sex unions may not always have been as “straight” as is now suggested, writes Jim Duffy.

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The “husband and wife” are in fact two men.

Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual “marriage” is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that “we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life”. More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the “sweet companion and lover” of St. Bacchus.

In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their “marriage”.

The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual “marriage” did exist as late as the 18th century.

Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual.

Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the “Office of Same Sex Union” (10th and 11th century Greek) or the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).

These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.

Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century “Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union”, having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to “vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints”. The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded”.

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of the Same Sex Union”, uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that antihomosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope’s parish church) in 1578 a many as 13 couples were “married” at Mass with the apparent cooperation of the local clergy, “taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together”, according to a contemporary report.

Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper.

Boswell’s academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.

It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.