When I saw this cover on the Drudge Report, I grimaced.
Why would The Advocate–a notorious homosexual magazine–be running a cover story asking "How gay is Superman?" and showing a picture from the upcoming movie Superman Returns?
Did it mean that the actor picked to play Superman (about whom I know nothing) is gay? Did it mean that the movie contains a homosexual theme or plot element?
The answer to those two questions is, apparently, "no," for which I am relieved.
Instead, according to the L.A. Times, The Advocate’s article dealt with an attempt to view superheroes in a homosexual light.
This is something that is not that surprising.
I don’t know precisely what to attribute it to, but the homosexual community frequently seeks to reinterpret wholesome American icons in homosexual terms.
That’s why so many men in homosexual parades dress up as Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz, or why the idea of gay cowboys in Brokeback Mountain struck such a note with the homosexual community. Re-reading superheroes in this light looks like a continuation of the same theme of the homosexualization of what is in itself wholesome and innocent.
I can only imagine that those in the gay community who do this kind of thing take a kind of perverse delight in reinterpreting icons of goodness and decency in this fashion. In that perverse delight, by definition, there is an element of perversity that would infuriate many in the gay community if it were labelled with a particular noun which is a cognate of "perverse" and a synonym for "perversity."
Unfortunately, those in the homosexual community who are doing this kind of thing are not without collaborators.
That explains why D.C. Comics would allow the reinterpretation of Batwoman as a "lipstick lesbian" (which, I discovered, is a lesbian who cultivates a feminine rather than a "butch" appearance). The announcement of that was particularly disgusting to me, since I remember the original Batwoman from reprints of old Batman stories that I read as a child, and the original Batwoman was created as a love interest for Batman himself.
It also explains why–according to the L.A. Times story–the marketing department promoting Superman Returns is apparently advertising the movie in homosexual venues in an attempt to pull in gay moviegoers–but without alienating the straight community that is expected to form the core audience of the film.
I can only view such efforts with contempt.
While the film itself is meant to be a thematic followup to the first two Superman movies, which were quite good, if Warner Brothers is specifically trying to get the gay community out to see this film in order to play off of a desire to subvert wholesome American images so that it can make more money then it is contributing to the subversion and homosexualization of American culture.
