Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
Well, rainbow patterns are OK and fun, even sexy, for women...



...but for myself I prefer wear a rainbow in my heart. \:\)

As for the HULK magazine cover overall, beyond just the colors, I think it's a pretty damn cool page of (rare) Walt Simonson painted art.


 Originally Posted By: Nowhereman
You wasnt talking about being critical of christianity, you was talking about portraying in a negative light. Overly camp, stereotypes could be seen as negative portrayal. For instance the character Extrano (or whatever his name was) in that shitty New Guardians comic. Many could say that he was insulting to the gay community. Especially as he was attacked by an AIDs vampire .. a fucking AIDs vampire, could they get anymore insulting than have a gay characters mortal enemy being a vampire that spreads AIDs?


Well, again, that requires some interpretation and oversensitivity on the part of gays. AIDS is not necessarily a gay disease, although about 85% of cases are gay men, particularly gay white men. There are also cases transmitted through IV drug use, through blood products and blood transfusions, through female prostitutes, and even heterosexual transmission. (Although as I've cited before, the "heterosexual cases" are overwhelmingly women who get HIV through men who are secretly bisexual, so those could more accurately be labeled "homosexual contact".)

I was thinking back to a Saturday Night Live Halloween skit with Adam Sandler as a vampire, and he was seductively asking his intended female victim AIDS/HIV screening questions about her former sex partners, possible hemophelia, etc., before drinking her blood! If such a skit is acceptable for SNL, then an AIDS vampire is arguably just as playfully innoccuous.

People who choose to be offended about something intended to be playful and frivolous will always feel a need to be offended, I guess. I haven't read the story, but it sounds like it was done with humor, and not demagoging gays.

An example of something that SHOULD rouse an offended response is a Syrian children's show, teaching kids to hate Jews, and a little girl answering a costumed host, saying she hopes she has the chance to kill a lot of Jews when she grows up.
Or the muslim brotherhood-connected Egyptian successor to president Mubarek, comparing Jews to "apes and pigs".
Both examples of rhetoric similar to that of Nazi propaganda, intended to stoke and rationalize genocide against Jews.

Acknowledging with humor in a fantasy vampire story that gays are a large (but not exclusive) risk group to AIDS is not in the same category.

You dont want to accept my point because you hate gays (self loathing maybe).
The point that AIDs is not exclusive has nothing to do with my point, which is that if you have a gay character, why do you specifically have an AIDs related villain unless you are trying to say its a "gay disease"? Why not have an AIDs vampire attack Batman? Oh I know why, he isnt gay. Thats the logic they were using. Its cliched hack writing, and homophobic.
You then compare to an Adam Sandler sketch which is the complete opposite. He is a vampire who did not want to catch AIDs, and was asking heterosexual women if they had it. How is that the same as a vampire with AIDs specifically created because a character was gay?