Why should duos be priviliged with tax breaks, inheritance rights, social acceptance, while polygamy is persecutied and demonized by small- minded oppressors shoving their monogamy-centric values down our throats?

Why is two the magic number, anymore than man/woman should get all the breaks. All we wantis our fair share…

Denton: Political Correctness has a very specific, historical context, whether you like it or not:

“Historically, the term “politically correct” originates in Germany in the 1930s. It was fostered by a group of Marxist intellectuals at Frankfurt University’s School of Social Research. They believed that images and words were powerful conveyers of political intentions. They also held that people should self-censor their language in order to avoid offending or creating hostile social climates that might jeopardize social cohesion, collective cooperation, work production, and other Marxist economic and societal concerns. Of course, Adolf Hitler closed the school, claiming that it was both Jewish and Marxist. Several Frankfurt School faculty members wisely departed Germany for New York, where they joined the ‘University in Exile,’ eventually inspiring the rise of the New School of Social Research, NYC. Over time, the Frankfurt School’s ideas evolved into the chic leftist doctrine of being “politically correct.”

Historically, polygamy is a much more accepted standard than same-sex couples: do you think that polygamist activists who complain that society oppresses them by forcing the monogamous male/female couple as the standard have the same grievance as you express?

In America today there is no political correctness. It’s perfectly okay for not only the average citizen to express anti-gay sentiment, but our elected officials as well. When so many states are writing discrimination into their constitutions, it’s hardly a climate of any type of correctness, political or not.

Being gay is as much about sex as being straight is. Most parents are not only comfortable with displays of straight sexuality that their children are exposed to on a regular basis, but actually think nothing of it and are active participants in promoting that sexuality. Parents who rightly see nothing wrong with various displays of kissing and maybe even a chaste grope in front of their children recoil in horror at simple hand-holding by same-sex couples.

People who intuitively understand that straight couples kissing doesn’t lead one to having to explain sexual mechanics to children continuously assert that this same type of display forces them to explain anal and oral sex. It’s ignorance, hypocrisy and it’s homophobic.

Opinion, as you rightly point out that homosexuality USED to be a diagnosed mental disorder, but it hasn’t been for decades now, so I’m not sure what your point is. As a matter of fact, the APA actively stands against so-called reparative therapy and even lately the US military’s incorrect labeling of homosexuality as a mental defect. So, if you are trying to imply that the APA changed just because one person was trying to sell a book, then you’re way off base. Clearly, an entire body of professionals realize that the previous categorization was a mistake based on incomplete or bad information and firmly stand against bad science.

You said “Kids that learn about loving relationships will de facto learn about loving same-sex relationships” which indicates that you have a lot more faith in bigots doing the right thing than I do.

I can no longer follow your reversals and lack of logic (suddenly I’m anti-sex because I think the gay experience *should* be represented in comics?), so I’m done.

From Kim’s THE BEAT: yeah, why would anyone think there’s a bias against those not of the political orthodoxy in the creative community?

“I use “bigoted” because it sets homosexuals apart solely because of that quality, defining them only by their sexual inclination.”

But, Johanna, the term “homosexual” was used explicitly to define humans by their sexual desires.

I included a link to a blog by a young guy who blogs on comics,

[JDC edit: this link includes NSFW pictures]

http://dudetube.blogspot.com/2006/12/alex-ross-responds-to-obsidian.html

and other aspects of his life, which you deleted,
I’m guessing because one if his preocupations is sex and attractive men.

You edit that out of your blog, but then decry Dixon for wanting to edit what his children are exposed to?

A guy saying “I love him” about another guy is not a homosexual issue, and, as I’ve stated, my opinion is that children who are well-raised will have respect for ALL humans. Kids that learn about loving relationships will de facto learn about loving same-sex relationships

If you want to present an image of “homosexuals” as some sort of fuzzy, adorable,
Nathan Laney Ewoks who can’t speak for themselves and must be defended by politically-correct-outraged women as the cause celebre du jour, carry on. That’s no different with Japanese girls being into romantic schoolboys-in-love manga. If you can’t see why that’s patronizing and condescending…

And if you think you can separate out lust and horniness and those thing in Dudetube that make you uncomfortable from the “gay” experience, you’re
exhibiting the same tunnel vision you decry in Dixon.

Keep in mind: “homosexuality” was actually a diagnosis in the US, in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), until it was removed by lobbying by Charles Silverstein, PhD—who went on to write THE JOY OF GAY SEX
(”covers the ins and outs of gay life alphabetically from “anus” to “wrestling.”) with Edmund White soon after.

Some people will tell you that kids out to be able to read Silverstein & White’s book. If I’m supposed to think that Dixon is a fiend because maybe he and his spouse find that inappropriate for the children they’re responsible for–unless they’re letting the kids read HUSTLER, I don’t buy it.

And kids grasp love and relationships without needing to go into bedroom behavior just fine when it comes to boy/girl relationships (we were playing weddings at six years old without knowing anything about sex). I’m leery of the double standard applied when anyone immediately starts talking about keeping them protected from sex when it comes to “the gays”. I think it says more about what that person obsesses on than what really applies to the kids.

You’re ducking my other points to ride your own, clearly familiar hobbyhorses.

In short, “he loves him” can be said without reference to sex, and it should be said in comics. I do fault Dixon for making bigoted statements. I use “bigoted” because it sets homosexuals apart solely because of that quality, defining them only by their sexual inclination. Since you don’t want them to be “pandas” (an odd fixation), I’m sure you agree with me that that would be wrong.

I don’t think young kids need to have an opinion of what adult humans do in their bedrooms, because they’ll develop their own as they mature. As far as for those humans who are attracted to and fall in love him their those of their own sex, playgrounds seemed to have their knowledge of that in the antedeluvian age when I was a child. Knowledge of their existance doesn’t flow from parents.

Good parents will educate their children to respect other humans, period.

“What’s Dixon doing but trying to treat gays as something that can be locked away” Here’s what annoys me -it’s the Panda bear syndrome. You speak of “gays” as some monolithic bloc,as though
“gayness” defines a separate tribe of humanity.

Isaac Mizrahi, Roy Cohn, Alan Turing, Fran Lebowitz, Miceal Judge,Batwoman, Banky from “Chasing Amy”—this is a cohesive community that needs defending from Chuck Dixon treating ‘them’ as something to be marginalized?

Because maybe he doesn’t want his young kids to be conversant about the specifics of male/male or female/female sexual practices?

I suppose I just don’t cotton to the orthodoxy about “the knowledge of the existence of gays”. Do you think Dixon wants to keep the existance of Turing, or of “Banky” from his kids? The specifics of what these adults’ sexual dynamics are? If the latter, then that family’s opinions on sexual morality are none of my business, nor anyone else opinionating here.

Well brought up children will respect other humans,
and it’s incredibly patronizing for people to fault Dixon just because his opinions are different from theirs.

You don’t want Dixon defining those who are drawn to others of their same sex for his children? I don’t want you defining my experience to fit into your politics, or speaking for me. I can speak for myself.
I’m not in a zoo eating bamboo.

I’m not scared of Chuck Dixon. his politics, or what he’ll do with a cliched Batman-manque of note only because Mark Millar or Warren Ellis or Garth Ennis had him gettin’ it on with a Superman-manque character.

And I certainly don’t need the politically-correct orthodoxy handwringers to speak for me.

[...] What Was DC Thinking? – Johanna from Comics Worth Reading wonders why Chuck Dixon! (from Comics Worth Reading) [...]

David: you make a good point: the complaint might should be with the editors that hired Dixon for this job.

Maybe “Comics should reflect the real world, which includes men and women who are attracted to and fall in love with those of their same sex, but
comics doesn’t have to reflect the political exquisiteness that treats these men and women as
Panda bears, to be protected and shielded from any perceived slight.

Because that’s condescending and patronizing, even if some of those men and women choose to have the political and cultural status of Ming-Ming
and Ling Ling.

Because, a Chuck Dixon “Midnighter” should be evaluated on its merits, not on his politics of some litmus test.

I don’t care if Chuck Dixon wants to edit what his children are exposed to. I care about his work.

Female/female sex is going to disquiet some people, and male/male sex is going to make people, especially straight guys, squirmy. That is not a hate crime.

Judge the man on his narrative and storyline, not because he’s not EM Forster, or Gore Vidal, or Edmund White or because his politics aren’t Larry Kramer’s.

[...] You already knew the American comics industry was dumber than a bag of hammers, right? Here’s further proof: DC Comics’ Wildstorm imprint has hired an anti-gay social conservative to write a book co-starring Midnighter, a gay superhero. Chuck Dixon, a longtime scripter well-known for his distain for homosexuals, will be writing a Grifter/Midnighter miniseries. The fuck…? Reaction to this bizarre bit of hiring news can be found from Lyle Misaki, Johanna Draper Carlson, Loren Javier and Dorian Wright. (Right: publicity image and possible cover for the Grifter/Midnighter miniseries, ©2006 DC Comics.) [...]

Regardless, Dixon has said nothing about this series in the press, and I can’t quite see Wildstorm letting someone denigrate one of their new A-list characters (part of a high-profile team book and star of his own monthly series by a well-respected writer) just because their politics or opinions don’t line up.

At this point, we know nothing about the series beside Chuck Dixon is writing, another fellow is drawing, and it stars Midnighter and Grifter in what’s sure to be a straightforward action picture. Dixon’s Team Zero miniseries last year was good enough that I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, crap statements aside.

Augie, saying those who are concerned about what might happen are “championing the political correct” is bias-speak. (I’m suspicious of anyone who uses the term “politically correct” serious, since it’s a way to shut down discussion by stereotyping and marginalizing the opponent.)

Attributing opinions about Dixon’s work to a blog bias against the conservative is similarly incorrect and reductionist — thus my description of you as reacting by knee jerk. You’ve already made up your mind regardless of what anyone says… ironically enough, you’re doing exactly what you’re accusing others of.