Christ Centered Gamer

http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_news/ ... zzing?lite


Do you think they're starting to make James Bond bi-sexual?

I think Bond is probably one of the most unpredictable, clever, debonair, sexually charged men in film history. Maybe he has been with a dude. Judging from the statements, I think it's more likely that he's playing a game of strategy with the villain.

Of course, I'm going to have to put forward my opinion that it doesn't even remotely matter. Film reflects real life, and in my life, I sure as heck meet a lot of people with different sexual natures. It is an absolute disservice to characterization and storytelling to not make Bond an authentically human character because "too many characters are turning gay" or because "it would turn people away." Bond is a very saucy man, we all know that, and he has been with more women over the last several decades than I can possibly count. How surprising would it be if he WAS with a man?

I understand your discomfort given your beliefs, Cheryl, but when you look back at the last 100 years of popular culture, straight white males have dominated. Now we've got a black Spiderman, a gay Green Lantern, and a potentially (unlikely if the creators' statements are true) bisexual Bond. Most people are getting suspicious of an agenda because they're focusing on the differences and divisions. Most of us can agree a black Spiderman is okay, I'm sure, and yet a lot of people aren't happy about it. It's just... different. Spiderman is rooted in our minds as white. Bond is rooted in our minds as a womanizer, not a... manizer. We want it to stay that way. I think that's a tremendously sad thing, boxing up a character like that. These characters have existed for centuries. They reflect the struggles of humanity, or the styles of the times. James Bond survives because he is constantly current. We cannot hold him to 1960s ethics in the 21st century. Being gay is an entirely relevant issue for people like me, an issue that I care deeply about. I appreciate that today's artists can and do reflect that in their characters, even if it means adapting well-established characters. Art has to adapt. Art lives only if it adapts.

And if the fear is that every character will become gay, then I think everyone needs to take a step back and breathe deep. Is every main character black? Is every main character a woman? No. That will never happen. It won't happen with gay people, either. The problem here, I truly believe, is that we care far too much about the norm being shattered, about agendas polluting our time-tested purity of straight white man characters. I don't think that of you, of course, Cheryl. I guess in your case, in most Christians' cases, the problem is that people are teaching that being gay is okay. On that issue, I can't honestly say much, because I just fundamentally disagree with having a problem with it.

*slow clap*

CountKrazy wrote:And if the fear is that every character will become gay, then I think everyone needs to take a step back and breathe deep. Is every main character black? Is every main character a woman? No. That will never happen. It won't happen with gay people, either. The problem here, I truly believe, is that we care far too much about the norm being shattered, about agendas polluting our time-tested purity of straight white man characters. I don't think that of you, of course, Cheryl. I guess in your case, in most Christians' cases, the problem is that people are teaching that being gay is okay. On that issue, I can't honestly say much, because I just fundamentally disagree with having a problem with it.

I do have to say that your logic is sound, except on one note: being black or being a woman isn't gay, and it isn't feared or detested for the same reasons (discriminating against people of a different race or gender seems foolish, is it isn't sin to be of a different race or gender). With that pointed out, I'm just presuming you're Christian, and if I'm mistaken please correct me, I should mention that our faith is against homosexuality. Lemme point out a quote, as I think 1 Corinthains 6:9-10 makes it pretty clear.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthains 6:9-10.

So yeah, I'm gonna have to stand with Paul on this one.

No more Robin Hood for you!

I'm cool with gay characters, however I'm against taking characters that have been established as straight and making them gay. If you want a strong, positive, gay character, make one, don't just say "oh, you know that guy? Yeah, he's gay now." I'm looking at you, Ultimate Colossus.

However, I'd say Bond is playing mind games with the guy.

siv9939 wrote:I'm cool with gay characters, however I'm against taking characters that have been established as straight and making them gay. If you want a strong, positive, gay character, make one, don't just say "oh, you know that guy? Yeah, he's gay now." I'm looking at you, Ultimate Colossus.

However, I'd say Bond is playing mind games with the guy.

My thoughts exactly but I'm not familiar with ultimate colossus.

Ok, time to be that guy.

Guys, read the frickin' article.


"Bond isn't bi," he writes. Who's "he?"

Oh, just the writer, Frank DiGiacomo.

"I've never seen Bond as having those undertones, but I could easily see him opportunistically playing to the prejudices of anyone." -Huffington Post commentator.

So from reading the description of the scene, it can easily be seen as Bond just trying to keep his foe off balance by not letting his flirty behavior shock him. Can't really say much more without seeing it in context, but this whole article, and the response, strikes me as a mountain out of a molehill.

ccgr wrote:

siv9939 wrote:I'm cool with gay characters, however I'm against taking characters that have been established as straight and making them gay. If you want a strong, positive, gay character, make one, don't just say "oh, you know that guy? Yeah, he's gay now." I'm looking at you, Ultimate Colossus.

However, I'd say Bond is playing mind games with the guy.

My thoughts exactly but I'm not familiar with ultimate colossus.

In Marvel's Ultimate universe Colossus is gay, even though he has a long history with Kitty Pryde in their primary universe.

No problem I could have googled it but I'm only familiar with super heroes with movies. I don't read comics. :\

Spider Man is black?

ChickenSoup wrote:Spider Man is black?

I know. That threw me. haha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man ... Morales%29

YOU GUYS ARE MAKING ME FEEL LIKE A NERD

ScotchRobbins wrote:

CountKrazy wrote:And if the fear is that every character will become gay, then I think everyone needs to take a step back and breathe deep. Is every main character black? Is every main character a woman? No. That will never happen. It won't happen with gay people, either. The problem here, I truly believe, is that we care far too much about the norm being shattered, about agendas polluting our time-tested purity of straight white man characters. I don't think that of you, of course, Cheryl. I guess in your case, in most Christians' cases, the problem is that people are teaching that being gay is okay. On that issue, I can't honestly say much, because I just fundamentally disagree with having a problem with it.

I do have to say that your logic is sound, except on one note: being black or being a woman isn't gay, and it isn't feared or detested for the same reasons (discriminating against people of a different race or gender seems foolish, is it isn't sin to be of a different race or gender). With that pointed out, I'm just presuming you're Christian, and if I'm mistaken please correct me, I should mention that our faith is against homosexuality. Lemme point out a quote, as I think 1 Corinthains 6:9-10 makes it pretty clear.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthains 6:9-10.

So yeah, I'm gonna have to stand with Paul on this one.

There's actually a pretty interesting thread buried somewhere in the forums that touches on this subject in far more detail, but I will say this: I believe you to be wrong. And I believe the translation you're using is incorrect in its rendering. There's plenty on this subject, but neither word that is used to describe "homosexuals" explicitly translate to "homosexual" in the original language.

I believe you are wrong because if God isn't big enough to forgive someone who truly loves him - and happens to be gay - then there is no reason for our faith. Jesus died for our sins. The New Covenant bypasses all previously established law.

John 3:16 doesn't say, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, so that whoever believed in Him should not perish but have eternal life (except for, you know, gay people, and thieves, and drunks, and all those people who make you cringe when you walk past them on the street. And fat people. Especially not them)."

It doesn't say that because that's not Jesus' message. It says that God loved the world. There's no clarification needed. And we certainly shouldn't say that just because Paul (who is notably flawed in some of what he says, including attitudes towards women) says that those people will be excluded in a likely mistranslated piece of Scripture.

Our faith is against hate. Our faith is against fear. Our faith is against excluding those who need Jesus' love. And, honestly, that entire verse lists all of the people who need Jesus' love.

Is that reason to say that we are "against" them? That's not the faith I share, and that kind of attitude makes me ashamed to call myself a Christian.

Drewsov wrote:Our faith is against hate. Our faith is against fear. Our faith is against excluding those who need Jesus' love. And, honestly, that entire verse lists all of the people who need Jesus' love.

Is that reason to say that we are "against" them? That's not the faith I share, and that kind of attitude makes me ashamed to call myself a Christian.

Well said,
though there are a few things I should note.

Now lets look at what ScotchRobbins said,

ScotchRobbins wrote:I should mention that our faith is against homosexuality.

He did not say we are against them, rather the sinful act.

As for what Paul said, (By all means correct me if I am wrong.)

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Corinthains 6:9-10.

Paul wasn't saying we are against these people ether, rather that they wont inherit the kingdom of God at their current state.
(Which gives us more the reason to help them. Like what Drew said, they need Jesus' love.)


...That was all I had to say at the moment.