BTW, children birthed via the DNA of two women is probably not that far off I think.  I don't know if a child with two samples of male DNA would be possible, kind of tricky with the XY chromosome.  It's more easy with an XX, and it would of course only produce female offspring every time.  It would be interesting if Archie tried to achieve this through science fiction though since it is a future timeline.  lol

I'd seen a story about this on ABC's "World News Tonight" a few years ago. The Japanese did it with mice. They said it might be possible with humans someday.

Yeah, it's flat out strange.  I don't see how two guys waving at people really gives that message unless they are the royals or something.  They could at least be facing each other and exchanging vows or something.  Definitely a lack of intimacy in that cover.  Could be by design or not, I'm not going to make that judgment.

Yeah, somewhat reminds me of Hitler saluting ppl lol
It would have been much clearer if they were holding hands, facing each other in front of a minister or something.

Well, it could be argued that showing a cover of two men kissing each other, especially on a comic book, might get the comic book banned from more conservative retailers, which is why they went the safe route.  I personally wouldn't care either way what the cover looked like, or what they were doing.  But some retailers might. 

I think every effort was made to keep promoting diversity here, but I think the cover design was based solely on retail displays.  Doesn't mean I agree with what they did, but I have no complaints about the actual artwork on the cover...it's beautifully done.

I don't think anyone has argued they had to be kissing on the cover.  I said that's what I would have preferred, but I just think it's a flaw that there is no intimacy on the cover that indicates they're being married.  The previously mentioned Archie/Veronica cover doesn't have them kissing, but it still says "these people love each other and are getting married."  Without the "Just Married" banner, no one would have any idea it was at a wedding I think.  It's just two guys waving at people.

As for retailers banning stuff like that, I think the LGBT community has done a good job of turning that on its head in the past few years.  Heavy handed reactions like that actually produce lots of bad publicity now, so I don't think publishers have to be as careful now as they thought they had to be in 1998 or something.

And let's be honest here, Archie is trying to make a claim on the "first gay wedding in comics" sort of like Marvel tried to do with the first black wedding.  Just would have been nice if they owned it slightly more with the cover I think, especially if the cover will be referenced in the future due to that claim.  Over all, what Archie is doing is very positive, but I just see a small flaw here.

I skimmed through the issue. I don't want to read it until I can get #15. Anyway, there's no kiss in the issue itself either. In fact, they skip over the entire ceremony.

Seems like a bait and switch.  I mean they're the ones that went out to the media to advertise the fact it would have a wedding. 

I wrote more, but I edited it down, because don't really know what to think at this point.  If it was such a insignificant part of the issue, why the cover and the media blitz?

Quote from: Ghidra on January 10, 2012, 03:24:25 PM

Quote from: Tuxedo Mark on January 10, 2012, 02:00:29 PM

I skimmed through the issue. I don't want to read it until I can get #15. Anyway, there's no kiss in the issue itself either. In fact, they skip over the entire ceremony.

Seems like a bait and switch.  I mean they're the ones that went out to the media to advertise the fact it would have a wedding. 

I wrote more, but I edited it down, because don't really know what to think at this point.  If it was such a insignificant part of the issue, why the cover and the media blitz?

Playing to the 'Liberal' crowd, that's Marketing.

Given the length of time Archie has been around, there would also quite a sizable readership in conservative areas, showing a full blown same-sex ceremony with all the bells and whistles, alienates that market.

You're way too cynical.  I mean as much as marketing obviously played into this, I don't like that point of view at all.  Why would they half and half it then?  If you willingly bought and issue with same sex marriage on the cover, I think you would be fine with it appearing inside.  If this is the case, there's an editorial problem with this magazine.  Also currently, younger demographics approve of gay marriage by a wide margin in the United States.  The demographics that don't are too old to have children now.

Also kind of sick of this liberal/conservative binary that always pops up with gay stuff is discussed.  I'm sure my gay and lesbian friends that were born to conservative parents are pretty sick of it too.  It would be kind of hilarious if the politics of heterosexuality were judged by the same standards.  Then everything that ever existed in media would suddenly be "conservative."

Quote from: Ghidra on January 11, 2012, 12:53:25 PM

Quote from: aamrun on January 11, 2012, 04:21:54 AM

Quote from: Ghidra on January 10, 2012, 03:24:25 PM

Quote from: Tuxedo Mark on January 10, 2012, 02:00:29 PM

I skimmed through the issue. I don't want to read it until I can get #15. Anyway, there's no kiss in the issue itself either. In fact, they skip over the entire ceremony.

Seems like a bait and switch.  I mean they're the ones that went out to the media to advertise the fact it would have a wedding. 

I wrote more, but I edited it down, because don't really know what to think at this point.  If it was such a insignificant part of the issue, why the cover and the media blitz?

Playing to the 'Liberal' crowd, that's Marketing.

Given the length of time Archie has been around, there would also quite a sizable readership in conservative areas, showing a full blown same-sex ceremony with all the bells and whistles, alienates that market.

You're way too cynical.  I mean as much as marketing obviously played into this, I don't like that point of view at all.  Why would they half and half it then?  If you willingly bought and issue with same sex marriage on the cover, I think you would be fine with it appearing inside.  If this is the case, there's an editorial problem with this magazine.  Also currently, younger demographics approve of gay marriage by a wide margin in the United States.  The demographics that don't are too old to have children now.

Also kind of sick of this liberal/conservative binary that always pops up with gay stuff is discussed.  I'm sure my gay and lesbian friends that were born to conservative parents are pretty sick of it too.  It would be kind of hilarious if the politics of heterosexuality were judged by the same standards.  Then everything that ever existed in media would suddenly be "conservative."

Why would they half and half it ? Testing the waters ! Just because Archie came out with a gay character doesn't necessarily mean everyone inside Archie concurs that it's a great idea. There could have been passionate and heated discussions on the risk Archie would be taking with this, some inkers, writers would have refused to collaborate etc. That would explain why they didn't go the whole jog.

While the above is a hypothesis of what may have happened behind the scenes another thing Archie would have to consider ( if it cares ) is it's international readership. The West may be largely in favour of same-sex matters but it is a different story in the emerging markets. Homosexuals are still persecuted by those in authority and even those who may 'understand' won't hesitate to pass snide remarks.

Again the money spin, Archie despite it's impact on generations of readers is ultimately a for-profit franchise. It can't afford to ignore where the money comes from. If responses to such issues are positive, stories henceforth would be progressively bolder. If not, they may ship off the entire stuff to the Archie Comics attic.

The CEO, John Goldwater, had nothing but glowing things to say about Kevin being gay and all that, and he's the one running the ship right now.  He was also the one out there trying to get lots of attention for it.  So yeah, I think this theory that it was controversial inside the current company culture is flat out false. 

I also don't buy this idea that the artists or inkers or whatever had "moral objections."  I'd pretty much gurantee you if there was in-fighting it was sparked by editors or people in management or something.  It's never really the writers or artists  that censor things themselves or have issues like that.  Usually, they tend to be extremely open minded.  This does seem like some kind of contorted marketing maneuver for the magazine probably shaped by perceived notions of demographics and/or retailers, but the artists, inkers, etc. would have nothing to do with that.

And please, Archie Comics is set in the United States.  As much as I enjoy the input of the non-American members and think their opinions are valuable, I kind of doubt the intake of profit from overseas sales from those places you are referring to is that substantial.  Show me the numbers if I'm wrong, and it should be sales from these supposed "non-western" countries you are alluding to.

And even if international sales are a big chunk of the sales pie, they're not going to be concerned with appealing the lowest common denominator of totalitarian governments or vehemently racist bigots that live in whatever nations you're referring to.  If they were kowtowing to anyone that thought like that, they wouldn't have done these storylines in the first place at all.  That argument makes no sense.

Testing the water?  Maybe that is a possibility for why this occurred, sure.  But I certainly don't agree with anything else you said.  lol