I have no idea what Archie is. I can only guess it's an American thing, and being British I am in the wrong market area to have seen it.
What type of gay is this? There are many types of potential gay character, and it does matter. There's the incidential gay, where it barely matters. The sitcom gay, where the writers just want to put him in strange situations. The flaming gay, when he is so over-the-top gay rights groups complain. It'll take more than one frame to see where this is going.
How about the "useless gay?". Where he's only gay because he defines himself as such. Let's be honest, here, Kevin Keller isn't ever actually going to be shown in a relationship with another man. The extent of his gayness will be, "I don't date girls, I'm gay." Which, if we take out the, "I'm Gay" aspect, is already Jughead.
Anyway, I don't think it's so wrong to promote some tolerance in today's youth. As long as he's a well-written, funny and likable character, I support this decision with every fiber of my being.
"Sick" is a word I reserver for atrocities like pedophilia, bestiality and rape, not two people who consent engaging in a loving sexual relationship.
I would go further, in saying that a children's comic adding a gay character to the cast is anything but. I would, in fact, call it "progressive". Adding Kevin Keller to the cast is as necessary an addition as Chuck Clayton was in the 70's, but I'm sure you'd prefer he were picking cotton.
It's not as much about 'tolerance' as it is about the advancement of the homosexual agenda. They are trying to teach impressionable young children that being homosexual is the norm. Despite the objection of a majority of people, they want to impose their "lifestyle" on everyone.
5 comments:
It's sick.
I have no idea what Archie is. I can only guess it's an American thing, and being British I am in the wrong market area to have seen it.
What type of gay is this? There are many types of potential gay character, and it does matter. There's the incidential gay, where it barely matters. The sitcom gay, where the writers just want to put him in strange situations. The flaming gay, when he is so over-the-top gay rights groups complain. It'll take more than one frame to see where this is going.
How about the "useless gay?". Where he's only gay because he defines himself as such. Let's be honest, here, Kevin Keller isn't ever actually going to be shown in a relationship with another man. The extent of his gayness will be, "I don't date girls, I'm gay." Which, if we take out the, "I'm Gay" aspect, is already Jughead.
Anyway, I don't think it's so wrong to promote some tolerance in today's youth. As long as he's a well-written, funny and likable character, I support this decision with every fiber of my being.
"Sick" is a word I reserver for atrocities like pedophilia, bestiality and rape, not two people who consent engaging in a loving sexual relationship.
I would go further, in saying that a children's comic adding a gay character to the cast is anything but. I would, in fact, call it "progressive". Adding Kevin Keller to the cast is as necessary an addition as Chuck Clayton was in the 70's, but I'm sure you'd prefer he were picking cotton.
It's not as much about 'tolerance' as it is about the advancement of the homosexual agenda. They are trying to teach impressionable young children that being homosexual is the norm. Despite the objection of a majority of people, they want to impose their "lifestyle" on everyone.
Post a Comment