I think you're quoting where you mean to spoilerfont.

I was. Was already fixing it when you posted. For some reason my brain transposed the formatting on me.

ETA: Apologies to anyone who read that that hasn't watched yet.

I've got a dumb question: Was the New 52 explained, or was it just a meta-event?

Someone's saying that ripping the fabric of reality shouldn't be enough to turn a character gay (Alan Scott will be gay when he's reintroduced), but given the major changes just about everyone went through...such a lame point.

Also, using evidence that the unrebooted character had kids, like a) they don't understand the meaning of the word "reboot" and b) don't get the birds and the bees or the principle of adoption, and has never met anyone who'd been in the closet for a significant portion of their lives.

If part of the point of the change is that the character's reboot age is significantly younger than when we last saw them in canon, the marriage and kids NEVER EVEN HAPPENED, and if they had, still doesn't mean homeslice is straight.

My god, people are just tossing around the p-word in that IO9 post...

Penis?

"Privilege". But please don't say that around white people, because it is as offensive as "nigger". Or so I've been told. By someone I kinda figure is white.

Or so I've been told.

"I don't have 24/7 blow jobs in my gold-plated mansion that I bought with my $80 gazillion CEO job, therefore I DO NOT HAVE PRIVILEGE!"

That "argument"? Oh, you defensive white dude. Get over yourself.

Unfortunately some people define privilege as "never had any sort of hardship at all, ever" and love to point out some random time that someone else got a break and they didn't as "proof".

That said, a good argument I've heard against the choice of Alan Scott (though I'm not familiar with the character personally) is he already had a gay son in the original continuity, and there was a very positive portrayal of their family dynamic, which is either going to be eliminated or altered by this change. So there's a sense that no ground is gained by this.

But the son was never going to be in New 52, unless we hung out a long time, or there was a severe case of SORAS, since Alan Scott was being de-aged himself.

So, if he "stays" straight, the universe is down one gay character.

Difference between "gaining no ground" and "making up what's lost", to use a weird metaphor.

A popular objection I'm seeing as "There already are x gay characters. Why do we need more?" and "Who said superheroes were meant to be representative of humans? Who says 1 in 10 is gay?"

But these are clearly people who have no issues with homosexuality--just why does it have to be here, where they might see it by mistake?

(Oh, and "gay people can't have kids, so they can't recreate him as gay", and "All the gay people I know are out, so there are no closeted gays.")

Please, people, read it over before you hit "submit", will you?

I think the point is "why de-age him and then make him gay?" Why not keep the already existing positive example and build on it, instead of swapping one for another?

As I said, I thought it was a good point. It was in no way an attempt to defend the rest of the asshats freaking out, screaming "the gay agenda ruining is my comic books, but I'm not homophobic".

I will give Robinson credit for deciding to make that change to Alan since Obsidian gets erased by the Now with 75% Less Off-Putting Age and Character Development reboot. But I have a sneaking suspicion that Alan's new domestic partner might want to avoid passing through any refrigerator cars on that upcoming train ride.