Pages

Friday, November 30, 2007

Fangirl Fridays: Down With Marriage?



In part 3 of the "One More Day" Spider-Man event, Mephisto tells Peter Parker: "I want your marriage."

That's a strange request. Wouldn't it make more sense to just kill Spidey himself and thus open the door to more unchecked evildoing? Why is Peter's marriage to MJ such a precious commodity?

To say that "OMD" is merely part of an anti-marriage agenda in comics is simplifying things way too much. I think the predicament presented by "OMD" illustrates the tug-of-war in the hearts of many married people in this society.

This society largely informs us, through its popular culture, that the personal responsibilty and self-sacrifice involved in the insititution of marriage is a cultural dinosaur and the extension of a Christian guilt-trip. Pop-psychology books and New Age gurus stress the importance of tending to the needs of the Self above all else. Aging celebrities regularly dump their spouses and "trade up." And God isn't even dead, because he doesn't exist at all.

But despite all this, "OMD" has curiously religious overtones. Mephisto is, after all, a representation of the Devil. The Devil is largely a Christian concept. Through attacking Peter & MJ's marriage, he is attacking the very institution of marriage.

And rumor is, he wins.

And Peter will get a chance to date again -- to have many adventures in crime-fighting and romance. And who wouldn't envy the choices available to him? Maybe Gwen will make a comeback. There's always Black Cat. Maybe he can date one of the X-Men -- if Black Panther can do it, I'm sure he can.

And when it's all over, in several years, maybe Peter will get lonely, sentimental. Maybe he will want to settle down again. Maybe he will crave some sort of stability. Maybe that biological need to continue his arachnid-infected DNA will crop up. Who knows? And then he'll think about it and think about it and then he'll break down and once again marry MJ. Or maybe the "reset" button will simply get hit again.

And then, in a few more years, the whole marriage thing will be "boring" again.

This is a common cycle. Many marriages don't survive it. Many more will continue on with some form of infidelity. Pop-culture is not at fault, but it also isn't completely off-the-hook. Values -- considered another "dinosaur" concept by many -- plays a big part. When you're standing at the precipice of a big decision that will impact the rest of your life -- and maybe that of those closest to you -- it's funny what stray thoughts or memories will be crucial.

Should superhero comics reflect the actual or ideal values of a society? By presenting these characters as "heroes," does that necessarily mean that they should convey some sort of values that might be considered "heroic" by society?


Is the idea of a man or woman who sacrifices some of his or her needs to put towards the greater good of their family considered heroic? Is that sort of self-sacrifice necessary for the greater good of society? Or if, as Christopher Hitchens and so many other authors write, God is merely a delusion -- why should these people sacrifice anything at all? For what?

When we die, is that it? Do we have an accounting at all for our actions? If there is no God, and no afterlife, shouldn't we get what's good right now? If the sex isn't great in your marriage, shouldn't you just move on and get some better sex so that you don't "miss out" before you die? Do you want to be like Sally Brown in the pumpkin patch and miss Halloween and candy and games and stuff?

Wouldn't it be great to have a "reset" button?

I believe that the core value of sacrificing of one's wants for the greater good of one's spouse and child to be very heroic. I believe that the parent who goes into their 9 to 5 every day with the monkeysuit and the briefcase so their children can have proper health insurance is very heroic. I think withstanding the temptation to stray in order to keep stability in the family is very heroic. I think these are the everyday heroic things that go unnoticed by society -- and not only goes unnoticed but is often sneered at.

Who will champion these people? If comics is a part of our present-day secular mythology/religion -- a substitute for the organized religion that is so much under attack and "shown" to be quaint and irrelevant -- where are the role models for the adults who have to raise families and try to balance budgets in this rotten economy and struggle daily with their own sexual temptations?

I don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, I don't believe that homosexuality is wrong, I don't believe that good people go to a "hell" because they don't follow the same religion as somebody else. But I do believe in some basic values -- like trust in relationships, devotion, and sacrifice in order for the next generation to survive. I also believe in a God. And I believe that there is an accounting of some sort for our actions in this life.

Is marriage coming under attack in comic books? Is this a good thing? Does this help? Is it entertaining? Is the function of superhero comic books to present an idealized view of a fantasy world where we get everything we want -- a place for sheer escape? Does the inclusion of marriage spoil that? Or does entertainment hold any social responsibility at all? Or is the idea of "social responsibility" gauche to even mention in the same breath as "entertainment?"


Did the family-affirming message of the movie The Incredibles spoil an otherwise entertaining film? Was Mr. Incredible a chump for not sleeping with Mirage? In a finite, godless world, wouldn't it have benefitted him to have a bit of fresh meat? Look how fat he got as a dad and husband. Marriage ruined everything. He couldn't be a hero anymore.

But the point was, he was a hero even before he put on the capes and tights again. He was a hero when he worked at that damn health insurance company -- because he was trying to support his family. It's an important message. People need to hear messages like that...at least as much as hearing messages about newly-single playboy superheroes.

71 comments:

  1. "I don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, I don't believe that homosexuality is wrong, I don't believe that good people go to a "hell" because they don't follow the same religion as somebody else. But I do believe in some basic values -- like trust in relationships, devotion, and sacrifice in order for the next generation to survive. I also believe in a God. And I believe that there is an accounting of some sort for our actions in this life."

    [[This might be a somewhat inappropriate response, but...]]

    Fuck, yeah.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't think it'll be several years. I think Joe Quesada has drastically overestimated the demand for a "swinging single" Spider-Man. People who want that can read 'Marvel Adventures: Spider-Man', they can read 'Ultimate Spider-Man', they can even read 'Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane'...but Peter Parker, the character who has been around since Spider-Man #1 and gone through so much with Mary Jane, who has been married to her for almost as long as he's been single (consider: any fan under the age of 25 only knows about a single Peter Parker through back issues)...that Peter Parker is available in only one place. I think that a lot more people might be reading for that Peter Parker than Joe Quesada realizes.

    (And does anyone else find it weird and creepy that the reasons Mephisto states for wanting to get rid of the marriage are pretty much similar to the ones Quesada gave on why Peter "works" better single? He basically wrote himself into the comic...as Satan.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. It all comes down to the assertion from Joe Quesada and many others at Marvel that the marriage is a hindrance to good Spider-Man stories. Tom Brevoort recently said over at his blog that Spider-Man is about "youth", and Joe Quesada has said marriage ages the character too much, making him unrelatable to younger readers, and closes off too many story avenues.

    This is all news to me. I've never seen Spider-Man as about "youth", but about responsibility. I've never heard a younger reader say they couldn't relate to the married Spider-Man (and one of my first comics at the age of 7 was the issue where MJ accepts Peter's proposal). And I can't help but wonder if the difficulty in writing stories about a married Peter Parker arises more from laziness? Certainly it's easier to write the standard break-ups, love triangles, and other cliched situations of the single scene, than to explore the more complex ups-and-downs of a long-term relationship.

    If that's the case, so be it, but I'd rather that reason be given than all of these claims that a married Spider-Man just can't be interesting or compelling.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I found The Incredibles to be morally grotesque in other ways, but I see your point.

    There was an interview with Bill Murray where he said that his character in Lost In Translation was a hero because he did something he didn't want to do: "He didn’t do it with that girl and that made him a hero, but a different kind of hero. It’s the kind that everyone can be." I liked that.

    In the case of One More Day, I don't think it's an attack on the institution of marriage, just a guy being incredibly egotistical and deluded about "what's good for the book". (See also: "No More Mutants".) If you need to do a magical reboot to tell good superhero stories, then you ain't trying hard enough. Bendis just did an interview where he said retcons are lazy and he enjoys writing characters out of corners. He knows Spidey: let Loeb destroy the Ultimate Universe with his ridiculous event and move Bendis over to the main book. Or get Matt Fraction, one of the hottest new guys around, who just wrote a universally acclaimed annual celebrating Spider-Man's marriage, pair him with a great artist and bingo. I'm sure Quesada believes that his favourite interpretation of Spider-Man is also the most worthwhile and salable, and that may even be true, but it doesn't seem like the majority of (internet) fandom think it's worth going through a lazy and clumsy reboot to get there.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There are very few stable marriages in comics -- in the entertainment industry, and maybe in the world -- and I think we're supposed to envy the single life. Not that there's anything wrong with that ...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sing it! As a man who wears the monkey suit and does the 9-5 for my family, I thank you for considering those actions heroic. I actually lost my last monkey suit job and am currently looking for a new one. It's been kind of dispiriting, as I don't really want it, but I know I have to have one for the sake of my family. You just made me feel so much better about the whole experience.

    Not to get all corny and maudlin, but it's been a hellish week for me, and this post was exactly what I needed. Thanks for being my hero today. :)

    As to the larger point, I seem to recall Joe Q saying he found Spider-man's marriage boring and limiting as far as storytelling goes, but I think that's crap. Peter has been married for roughly half the character's existence. I know I've read countless stories where MJ was the only thing that kept Spidey going in one horrible situation or another. I think good writers can make any situation work.

    Thanks again for an awesome post! :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is going to come off contentious, so let me say in advance... fan of the blog, no personal animosity intended. You just touched on some issues that inspire my passions.

    "[If] God is merely a delusion -- why should these people sacrifice anything at all?"

    Questions like that always boggle my mind, because it presumes that mainstream religious types have the market cornered on delusion.

    I have my own. I've been married ten years, and I believe in love. I believe my wife and I will be together to the end. I believe she loves me wholly. I believe I love her above all else.

    Then there are the ugly little facts: more than 50% of marriages end in divorce, a big chunk of the remnants just lie to and cheat on each other, and the leftovers from *that* group are largely composed of people who quietly tolerate one another for the sake of money, their kids, or mommy-n-daddy's pre-programmed Happy Meal value system.

    In short, the odds are very much against me, and my faith is likely misplaced. Except that it isn't.

    I don't have faith in love because I think it's this real, tangible thing that can be trusted to win in the end. I believe in it because it is a goal to which I aspire, an essential component of the person I want to be. Maybe it's just a dream, but it's mine, and I'm fine with that. As long as I don't completely dismiss (or twist) the facts and start trying to propagate my personal objectives as a cultural ideal, it's all good.

    "If there is no God, and no afterlife, shouldn't we get what's good right now?"

    So the only reason people behave themselves is 'cause they're scared shitless of what an invisible man in the sky thinks of their actions? Meh.:)

    Don't get me wrong... I have nothing against anyone believing in the Great Green Arkleseizure. As I've already established, I have my own beliefs that fly in the face of observed reality. In the immortal words of Sinatra: "Basically, I'm for anything that gets you through the night - be it prayer, tranquilizers or a bottle of Jack Daniels."

    It's just the hint of emotional myopia in those kinds of statements that tweaks me. The underlying idea that fear is the only motivator. That empathy is a non-factor. That all dreams are grounded in aeons-old nightmares of the unknown.

    I don't need metaphysical threats to make me deal honestly with my spouse. I'm honest with her because that's what keeps a relationship healthy, and that's the kinda guy I want to be. With apologies to Van Halen, the payoff is right here, right now.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Reed and Sue, despite a few bumps in the road, have stayed together, but that marriage has been around since the '60s, so let's look at more recent doomed marriages:

    Bruce & Betty - Ended with her death (has that been retconned?)

    Jean & Scott - He has a psychic fling with Emma Frost, Jean gets killed by Xorneto.

    Ralph & Sue - Rape, death, crispy-critters, insane hubby, death, and ghostification. I guess they get points for continuing the marriage in the after life.

    Ollie & Dinah - Didn't make it past the effing wedding night!

    Barda & Scott - Shot to the heart and your to blame. The New Gods give love a bad name.

    Jim Gordon - He's two for two.

    I'm sure I'm overlooking a lot more, but if you're a woman in a comic book universe, DO NOT tie the knot. It usually ends badly.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Roger says my point better than I could, but let me also answer this:

    "In a finite, godless world, wouldn't it have benefitted him to have a bit of fresh meat?"

    Where do you get that from? I don't believe in god; what it that has anything to do with my views on fidelity?

    I'm atheist, but I consider myself a moral person. And my moral is not defined by something a really old book has to say, thank you very much.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Don't forget the Flash marriages. Those seem to be pretty healthy. Jay and Joan Garrick have been together since the 40s, Barry and Iris Allen made it through the convoluted nutjobbery that was late-70s/early-80s Flash comics and Linda was Wally West's tether to the real world whenever he was going to get sucked into the Speed Force.

    Yay superspeed marriage!! :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thought of a few more:

    Luke & Jessica: Let the Skrullification begin! It's a shame, cause I really like them together.

    Matt & Milla: Still on after the last trade, but she's felling ignored, terrorized, oh then there's the little thing about accidentally pushing a guy under the subway train.

    Ororo & T'Challa: No problems there... yet. (I still like her with Forge, though.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I don't need metaphysical threats to make me deal honestly with my spouse. I'm honest with her because that's what keeps a relationship healthy, and that's the kinda guy I want to be. With apologies to Van Halen, the payoff is right here, right now."

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people need the idea that there might be an accounting for their behavior to do the right and decent thing.

    It is just that I have had people justify to my face horrible things they have done by saying there is no God or accounting. I have heard variations of this justification so many times that I really have to wonder if people like yourself (as you have described) who are motivated by an interior moral compass are in the minority -- or have reached a level of pure moral/emotional development that is not in the possession of the majority of people.

    If we took away all religion & spiritual belief and let the population of this world operate on their own internal moral/ethical compasses, would the institution of marriage/monogamy still exist? We will probably find this out anyway in the next 25 years.

    ReplyDelete
  13. HOT BUTTON ISSUE ACTIVATE.

    frankly, lets put the debate on value & meaning aside for a minute. lets just take it from a literary standpoint! i mean, there are plenty of "single" players to do the romance drama. there are even plenty of "break-up artists" to pull that story. plenty of on-again-off-again couples to hash out that cliche. but the marriage cliche is all too rare, from a "story engine" (thanks, whatever your name is guy, who writes those) perspective. what, we've got...superman, spider-man, & sue & reed. am i missing somebody else? i don't think i am.

    ReplyDelete
  14. luke & jessica! okay, there are other marriages, but not so big name. storm/panther is too short to see how long it will weather. but ps. if luke or jessica are skrulls? i might just switch from bendis fan over to the haters!

    ReplyDelete
  15. "And my moral is not defined by something a really old book has to say, thank you very much. "

    And yet, how many people who consider themselves atheists have unconsciously built a system of ethics and morals that are influenced/are in alignment with ancient spiritual teachings from all faiths? Where do these morals and ethics come from? A vacuum? Are they necessary tools for evolution?

    Doesn't it make more evolutionary sense to lie and steal your way to the top more than it does to slow yourself down with compassion and ethics? But you might answer that the ethics and compassion is more important because you know deep down that it is the right thing to do. But how do you know that? Where are the facts? Where is the scientific evidence that monogamy for men is better than playing the field?

    Biologically-speaking, monogamy might be counter to what males are really built to do. If there is no God or primoridial spiritual wisdom indicating otherwise, why maintain the position that monogamy is the right thing to do? Why put yourself through that limitation? Because you feel strongly? Another person might laugh and say that you are deluding yourself with some quaint notion that flies in the face of science and reality. How do you answer them?

    The only way you can answer them is to say: I feel strongly, from the bottom of my heart, that marriage is important. I love my wife and that is the most important thing to me.

    I am of the opinion that such strong feelings ultimately come from some sort of spiritual center of one's being. It's not necessarily Christian or religion-specific in any way. But it is some sort of deep, primordial, ancient, universal wisdom that "these things are important."

    And then there are some people who absolutely do not possess those feelings in any way and see people as "things" to be used and discarded. And, evolutionarily-speaking, their single-minded viewpoint might make them more successful in this world. They might have more money because they are more ruthless. And more chances to spread and continue their DNA because they don't practice monogamy. Which is all rather successful, evolution-wise.

    These are all questions and theories. I obviously don't have all the answers, I'm just throwing out some opinions and more questions.

    ReplyDelete
  16. An interesting point, particularly in regards to our evolution as a species. However, wouldn't it be fair to say that an ability to rise above simple biology and embrace monogamy from a strong internal morality be a sign of a more evolved human sensibility? Or that the ability to let ethics and compassion temper ambition indicates the same? And that the cad who claws his way to the top while indiscriminately spreading his DNA around is actually hampering our evolutionary development by encouraging those "primitive" traits?

    This is a fun discussion, by the way. :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think that the "Big Two" view marriage as a paperweight, something that holds the "hero" back from being truly accessible--through the eyes of the READERS. The "Big Two" think that marriage does not appeal to the young, hipster crowd, the few teenagers that are out there reading their books. Because teenagers cannot relate to the concept of marriage.

    Look at the pop-culture world around us today: celebrities get married and then divorced like it's nothing. Britney Spears, once upon a lifetime, claimed to be "virginal" and goes on to marry, divorce, have children and behaves like a single woman. All you see in television are people hooking up with this guy and that girl and so on. There is no ethereal concept of marriage in today's culture. Religion barely exists in today's world and you would be hard-pressed to find them in comics. Marriage is a secluded thing in the comic world and is treated as such. And that's why the marriage is being undone--to reflect the times we live in. And that's why we (according to THEM) want a young, single Peter Parker, a Tony Stark who constantly has women in his bed, a (dead) Captain America who has a girlfriend that is having his child out of wedlock and that is why Bruce Wayne is always single and why Wonder Woman cannot be seen as settling down--because they don't need that albatross around their necks; they need to be fun and fancy-free, to be able to go out and do battle on a whim without telling their significant others that they'll be home "later." Because nobody wants to read that.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Addendum: When I say "Religion barely exists in today's world" I mean America, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "And that the cad who claws his way to the top while indiscriminately spreading his DNA around is actually hampering our evolutionary development by encouraging those "primitive" traits?"

    but who is going to stop him when he largely controls our world?

    this is a job for...

    Superman? Gandhi?

    Oprah?

    ReplyDelete
  20. The stupidest thing to me about the whole One More Day end of the marriage thing is that it's just so damn lazy. If you want Peter Parker to be single, take the time to create and explore a rift in his relationship with Mary Jane and let them get divorced. No need to for the deus ex machina / Superboy punching the walls device of having Mephisto hit the retcon button. Except that doing a good job of writing a real ending to the marriage is tougher and would take longer...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oh, hey! Evolutionary ethics! Not wanting to go too much into it (LAST. NANOWRIMO. DAY!), there is plenty of benefit in altruism, AS LONG AS ENOUGH PEOPLE DO IT. & you know, they do; humans are wired for tribalism because it is efficient. As to the biological & evolutionary advantages of males having multiple partners, & being built for said behavior, the female anatomy is built for cheating, what with concealed ovulation & whatnot. Really, from a resource investment standpoint, monogamy has a lot to recommend itself to both parties.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "but who is going to stop him when he largely controls our world?

    this is a job for...

    Superman? Gandhi?

    Oprah?"

    SuperGandhi and the Oprah Squad!

    Sorry. Couldn't resist that one. :)

    And I think the "who will stop him" question cuts to the heart of the problem. Since monogamy tends to result in less offspring bearing that particular DNA, it stands to reason that there will be more mini-cads running around than not. Also, since the cad has likely not spared much thought for said offspring, they will be developing in less optimal conditions than they could (or should) be, and will likely be forced into situations which will lead toward a greater degree of self-interest and caddish behavior.

    I should note that this is not an absolute. I know quite a few people who grew up in single parent homes, did not know their cad of a father, were stuck with their cad of a father or whatever and grew up to be fine upstanding people of great moral and ethical fiber. I'm just generalizing. Because that's what these sorts of philosophical conversations come down to: generalization.

    Just wanted to avoid offering offense and risk derailing what's been very civil and enjoyable discourse thus far. :)

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm in the camp that says you can't tar aethism as the downfall of "values" anymore than you can homosexuality or comic books. In my experience, people who misbehave hide behind some obscure, half-understood bible passage for their justification instead of "God is dead."

    And the central tenent of evolution (and Buddhism) isn't "Every man for himself." People who act that way are simple, whatever their belief system, and cannot comprehend the idea of a common good. Whales get it. Bonobos get it. When people get it right, it's sublime.

    As far as Joe Q, Dan D, and their quests to recapture the Peter Parker/ Jason Todd* of their youth? Maybe it says something about their personal codes. It certainly made for crappy stories.



    *Really? Jason Todd?! Ten years from now, is the editor at Marvel going to introduce Gambit as the new Captain America, because he loved Gambit as a reader?

    ReplyDelete
  25. While I mostly skimmed the conversation here, I would just like to point out that the reason Mr. Incredible got fat wasn't that he was a father, it was that he was no longer regularly exercising as a hero and, since he was no longer a hero, lacked the motivation to do it on his own.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Oddly enough, I just saw this headline on Yahoo's front page:

    Papal encyclical says atheism to blame for injustices, cruelty

    Anyway. I was raised religious, and now I'm agnostic. I don't think atheism is bad except when it's militant and tries to insult others for their beliefs. As for where morality comes from, there's no doubt for a great many people it is fear of punishment from God, but I think it can (admittedly more rarely) come from an enlightened realization that in the long run, treating people well can benefit you. Pure altruism is still rarer, maybe coming from some emotional/chemical response rooted in evolutionary species survival techniques.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't think "pure" altruism/selflessness is really possible. I think there's always going to be some sort of self-interest at work, even if it's just the good feeling and sense of satisfaction one gets from serving/helping others.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that. :)

    ReplyDelete
  28. I actually took an entire college course on altruism. I was in a very cynical phase of my life at the time, but these days I just don't know. I have read examples of people literally doing things they had no chance of surviving to save a stranger's life. It may be in some cases a biological imperative. Or, alternatively, a malfunction, if you're as cynical as I was back then :)

    ReplyDelete
  29. See, this doesn't bother me morally or ethically as much as it does creatively.

    If we could have seen Mary Jane and Peter's relationship simply fracture and fall apart, as some marriages do when a spouse is in a high-stress, dangerous profession, I could have respected Marvel for the guts to show that yes, with great power comes great responsibility, but at a terrible price. I'd have admired them to show a superhero comicbook relationship where someone didn't flip out or was revealed as a skrull or whatever, but a couple who loved each other but just couldn't make it work.

    Now that could work, and it'd be a story whose disbelief I could easily suspend. And it'd have Spidey single (and 'swinging' if only by webs), and it'd have the possibility of reconcilliation.

    But of course, a separation or divorce wouldn't work without making Peter and Mary Jane look fallible, without maybe one or both of them looking a bit ugly. Never mind that Marvel used to be about characters with flaws rather than as servants of the State. We can't besmirch the characters, so instead we'll split them up without them having any memory of their relationship in the Marvel equivalent of that time-honored explanation for all continuity error, the Emoboy punch.

    I'm not asking for the moon or stars, just a well-thought out story. Is that too much to ask these days?

    ReplyDelete
  30. "It is just that I have had people justify to my face horrible things they have done by saying there is no God or accounting."

    Really? I don't know why I'm surprised... but I am. To be honest, my knee-jerk reaction is that people like that tend to be "faking" their atheism, in the sense that it's a pose they're striking in order to fill an emotional/ethical vacuum.

    For what it's worth, I don't consider myself an atheist. More agnostic, really.

    "...[you] have reached a level of pure moral/emotional development that is not in the possession of the majority of people."

    I'm not comfortable with any reading of the situation that suggests I'm more evolved than anyone else. :)

    I *will* say, though, that most people I've known, whatever their approach to (or lack of) faith, tend to lead unexamined lives. Even those that spend contemplative moments in therapy, prayer, or a haze of smoke usually approach the practical process of living with a "I'll just wing that mutha" outlook.

    So I think any of us --theists, skeptics, atheists-- who actually spend any significant amount of time trying to actively apply our values to our actions are in the minority.

    And I dunno... maybe that's for the best. There's a lot to be said for treating life like a surfboard and circumstance as a wave. Would we even recognize a civilization made up of principled individualists? It can be argued that society needs most people to go with the flow most of the time.

    "...would the institution of marriage/monogamy still exist?"

    Probably. Although I'm not crazy about the conflation of marriage (read: commitment) and monogamy... I have friends in long-term polyamorous relationships who look as committed to their trio as my wife and I are to our duo.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Getting rid of MJ? Preposterous.

    She is part of the Spidey Mythos. Geek gets to be a hero and gets a beautiful talented woman.

    Marvel killed off Pete's first love. This poor guy can't catch a break.

    I'm not just talking about the situations either, I'm also talking about the crappy stores and crappy writers.

    Why do I have the feeling that MJ is going to become some sort of demonically powered nemesis for Spider-Man?

    I hope to GOD that I am 100% wrong.

    Please Marvel, don't go all DC-ish on me.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I'm not going to get too deep here, but I just want to say that, as someone who loves someone as much I as do Lily, it was special to me to write a Spider-Man book that showed them just as happy as most couples are today.

    I can't talk about whether it makes him a better character... I'm not into the marketing end of this. But I know that I've collected Spider-Man books since he dating Gwen Stacy and they all hung out the Coffee Bean. I liked him back then.

    And then Gwen died and Peter was dating characters soley created to show how much Spider-Man fucks up his relationships. I was okay about that, not really hooked.

    But then there was MJ. She had that connection to his past and it felt better seeing those two together. And I was single back then.

    I so love, so dig these two characters together. For the life of me, I don't understand why some writers don't like writing them as a married couple. I had such a blast working them together.

    I'm bummed that Marvel wants to break them up. You just don't inject loss into a relationship to make it special. You look into the two. Man... so much potential was in this marriage and all that was done was focus on her being a hot super model, or by making her co-dependant and helpless.

    And, well... I like them.

    And I'll really miss that relationship. Nothing is going to come close to capturing it.

    Bummer.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The apolcalypse is nigh.
    This proves it.
    I actually agreed with soemthing Val said.
    *shudder*
    http://rationalmadman.blogspot.com/2007/11/hell-freezes-over.html

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think the larger point of the atheist/spriritual thing is that if you are using your belief or lack of belief to justify behavior that hurts other people or society at large, then you are just an asshole.

    There aren't a lot of qualifications for being an atheist, but I do think its nice if you don't use it that way.

    ReplyDelete
  35. At this point why doesn't Marvel just man up and reboot the entire MU? Either you want the existing continuity or you don't. Does anyone who actually reads comics think that stunts like this (yes I'm looking at you House of M) make for good stories?

    I'm really supposed to believe that Mephisto lord of the underworld give two cents about Spider-Man's marriage? This is the kind of storyline that I have to explain to my wife in emberassment when we're talking comics.

    Yes I did say wife, my wife who started reading comics about a year before we got married. The same one that is going to be mad pissed when I explain to her Peter and MJ are breaking up... and because the devil made him? seriously this is what I'm paying 2.99 an issue for?

    ReplyDelete
  36. As another atheist chiming in, I'll add my voice to the "finding some of your language here insulting" group. Not believing in a god does not give anyone an excuse for bad behaviour anymore than emulating the old testament God does. Doing something due to fear of punishment, by adulthood, is a miserable way to go through life. Being an atheist means you have to take more responsibility, consciously, for your actions, rather than justifying them another way.

    If you're acting like an idiot, that's on you and you alone, not your belief/God or lack thereof. Divorce rates are usually higher in areas wth higher levels of religion. Of course, a major driver of this is that religious faith tends to drop off with more education and money, with the US being a weird outlier in the world (rich and religious). Those who are poor tend to have greater stresses the cause divorces and separations, celebritise aside.

    Which brings me to Spiderman and Mary Jane breaking up/ret-conned into oblivion....dumb idea. Like others noted, married Spidey is the only one I remember aside from the Marvel Tales reprints from the 1960-70's. Peter Parker is one of the few married superheroes. Hulk: married a few times, ending in death of wife. Captain America has always been single if I recall. Iron Man - noted bachelor. Hawkeye - divorced. Pym/Wasp - yeah... other avengers, all single. X-men - occasional marriages, none particularly permanent, usually ending in a clone/death/ret-con/who knows what. Wolverine - always single last I checked. The only long-term (i.e., longer than PP/MJ) marriage in Marvel U is Reed/Sue, which practically defines the FF as characters. A married Peter means more opportunites for unique stories, not less. If a writer hates the character as it is so much, why hire him/her to write it? This stupidity is mostly on Marvel, not Quesada. He seemed pretty upfront about his prejudices coming in.

    ReplyDelete
  37. It seems like no one can ever address the god issue without all the believers and non-believers crying like 14 year old girls (get offended by that, too, while you're at it). No matter how you couch it, if you address the issue of belief, someone gets their feelings all hurt and starts moping around.

    If you do it one way, group X gets hurt. Another way, group Y.

    Actually, it's more subtle than that. Usually it's either group A or B atheists that start crying and group X or Y believers that start crying.

    I'm a believer. Maybe I'm just in the non-cryer group of believers on this one, but I can't help but feel that OccSupes gave a very honest post that was, at its heart, a post about the question of the role of marriage in comics...
    and everyone had to hop on her for addressing the belief issue. Which is important here, but it isn't the main topic.

    Executive summary of my thoughts here: sheesh!

    Anyway, way to go, OccSupes. You've managed to start two pretty hot topics in as many days.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Two more thoughts:

    1) You know why monogamy makes sense? Because, I don't care how great looking you are (and we're comic book fans, people, so c'mon), someday you'll be ugly. You won't want any of the ugly people your own age when you get there. You'll want the younger ones, but they won't want you unless you're rich. The only way you'll want to be with someone your own age at all is if she/he has hung with you through your better days, your rough times, your great moments and knows your stupidest secrets. That is, you have another reason to like them and that reason is HISTORY and you can't buy History.

    2) raise your hand if your mind is blown that Spidey's been married for 20 years? I bought that issue on the newstand in a grocery store, man. Long, long ago.

    ReplyDelete
  39. hi val.

    i've been reading and enjoying your blog for a long time. if anything i say sounds agressive, i apologise in advance.

    i feel you've dropped hitchens' [and dawkins'] names without reading their books for they do cover what you're talking about. where does morality come from if you do not believe in the divine?

    the survival instinct [enriching oneself at any cost] and propagation of the species [screwing around] are only part of the biological equation.

    there's also the survival of the group where any behaviour that is not in the best interest of the group tends to get weeded out through evolution. so our being 'good' to other members of our own species is also hardwired into our dna.

    you said you don't believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. so you won't sacrifice your child if a voice in your head tells you to and you won't let your children be gang raped to save a couple of angels. so where does your morality come from?

    the fact that you cherry pick the 'good' stuff from your religion indicates that you have an innate sense of what's right or wrong. no matter what the good book or your priest says.

    don't you believe that non-religious people have this sense as well? that people who don't believe in a god hovering over them know what is right or wrong?

    i think you will enjoy hitchens' book. get past the title and read 5 pages at a bookshop and see if it grabs you.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Isn't Superman married now or are you guy's just talking about marvel?

    ReplyDelete
  41. The whole anti-marriage vein of thought is, in my opinion, just more evasive bullshit from writers who won't admit they're out of ideas. Blaming the marriage for turning kids away from the books is the first excuse of many that will be trotted out if the non-marriage Spidey doesn't sell by the bucketful - if not the marriage, it'll be that kids are turned away by comics in general because they prefer videogames, or "Hey, we'll put our hands up that we misjudged the post-marriage relaunch and screwed up X, Y or Z element, but the underlaying idea of undoing the marriage is fundamentally sound and readers want this because we TELL them they want it."

    I couldn't care if Peter Parker is married to a redheaded supermodel or a hirsute gay man called Jeff - a good story is a good story, and saying the status quo is what the audience want to see - and not good storytelling - is an excuse for evading responsibility for not telling good stories in the first place.
    If they'd gone with the post-Clone Saga idea of having Spidey with a kid - now that would have been damn ballsy, and groundbreaking, too. The idea of a mainstream Peter Pan-type character like Spidey actually growing up and being a dad would make more interesting stories than a return to the Peter Parker seen in the cartoons and movies.
    Would require more effort to write for too, of course, so I can guess the reason it didn't take at the time.

    The fanboys may whine about the creative bankruptcy that creates such poor stories as this one, but they've already been beaten to the whiney punch by the editors and writers of the Spidey franchise.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I'll add my two cents into the argument since I have some opinions on my own.

    As anyone who's read my webcomic knows, I believe in objective morality and that I'm a Christian. However, I do not necessarily believe that morality itself is also defined by God, since that would imply that morality comes from an authoritative source, and while that source may be perfect, it doesn't mesh with my beliefs. Rather, morality is a natural force necessary for the universe to function and it's possible to come up with a rational argument to prove its existence without needing God in the equation (something I've been attempting to do, but of course philosophers have struggled with it for thousands of years so I'm not exactly close at hand).

    On that note, however, I'd like to think we'd still have monogamous relationships even if there wasn't religion, if only for practical purposes if not for just basic romance and love.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This is my last comment on the "religion" aspect of the comment thread --

    I've read great amounts of literature on just about every religion and religious thought -- including non-religious thought. Podcasts, books, lecture series, etc. I consider myself a student of religion and philosophical viewpoints. Certainly not a scholar...but a student.

    I realize a portion of the negative reaction to the concept of "God" is due to the excessiveness with which organized religion has treated the last several generations. While the seeming goal of organized religion was to gain "souls"/members, what it really did was chase many many many people away. And there is no excuse for the horrible way so many people have been treated in the name of "God."

    As such, talk of "God" has pretty much become a taboo. Every time "God" is mentioned, it's like somebody farted in the room. "God," it seems, is only fit to be talked about by the hardcore religious and politicians.

    I discuss religious matters with a very precious few. While I keep my books on Eastern Philosophy, Kaballah, and even Women's Spirituality prominently on my shelf, I tuck my Bible in a crack between a crowded row full of copyediting and marketing books. And I just realized now that I did this because I was afraid people would see it on my shelf and assume I was intolerant.

    That's the situation. That's all I have to say about it right now.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I wouldn't say I was 'whining' per say there Bryan. . .maybe grumbling a little, but since the last Spider-related book I picked up was Avengers: The Iniative #7, I'm far from the audience this book hopes to infuriate. Irritation, however, is another story.

    Stacy

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anyone remember when marvel decided to break up Johnny Storm/Alica marriage because they felt it aged the character too much, limited the stories they could tell, (and someone probably felt that Alica should always be with Ben like back when they were reading the book)?

    And remember how that 'I married a skrull' story was the begining of a endless stream of horrible `ideas that threw the book into a cesspool of suck that lasted years and years?

    Yeah... that's pretty much my feelings about this One More Day crap.

    ReplyDelete
  46. And is it true that the whole "secret ID reveal" is also getting swept under the rug with this? I've heard people say it is, but nothing definitive.

    I'm with whomever called for a wholesale MU reboot. Or maybe have Emoboy smash the Marvel Universe into the Ultimate Universe or something. And then the Marvel Zombies eat everyone. The End.

    ReplyDelete
  47. (Linking your blog NOW)

    ReplyDelete
  48. As we follow the example of Socrates, all assumptions on which we base our beliefs must be held up to constant scrutiny. But also, just because we cannot find perfect definition does not mean we fail to live morally - but the resultant aporia serves as a spur for further investigation, the pursuit of moral "truth" throughout or lives. Life and morality are a constant struggle for definition. And the belief that the nonexistence of God somehow absolves a person of the responsibility to live their lives free of moral rigor - well, that's just insulting on the face of it to an atheist like me who believes that he lives according to very strong moral beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Um, as maybe the oldest married person here (my husband and I have been together for 30 years, married for 27), I have to say that neither morality nor ethics has much to do with it. I like him. I like hanging out with him. It is my preferred state.

    Are there better reasons? We haven't found them yet.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Martha, that's why I've stuck with my wife for over 12 years as well. I really enjoy her company and I just like her. She is the one person I have yet to get sick of and I don't see it ever happening.

    However, while that may be what keeps me with her, it's morality (from whatever source) that keeps me from "getting some on the side" as the kids say (do they say that?).

    ReplyDelete
  51. Roger said:

    "Then there are the ugly little facts: more than 50% of marriages end in divorce [...]"

    Which does not mean that over 50% of married couples get divorced, because statistically speaking, later marriages are more likely to fail. Or to put it in simpler terms, Liz Taylor makes up the numbers for seven happy couples. :)

    Always remember, the standard deviation is every bit as important as the mean in determining "averages". A high standard deviation means that the mean is less reliable as a general indicator of probability. (Yes, my dad has made phone calls to local news complaining about this to weather forecasters. Your point?)

    Of course, really when you think about it, the 50% of couples who get divorced are getting off lightly. The other half of all marriages end with the death of one or both partners! Scary stuff. Get divorced now, before your marriage kills you. :)

    ReplyDelete
  52. If I can make it totally subjective (and I will):

    The "family" aspect was one of the best qualities of The Incredibles. That and the fact that it was a way better Fantastic Four movie than the three Marvel produced (although the Roger Corman one had its, er, charms...)

    Spider-Man has always been a wish-fulfillment character, whether even Stan Lee knew it or not. Geeky, put-upon high school kid gets super powers and ends up not only being the hero, but dating the hottest girls around (Gwen, MJ, Black Cat)? So for him to be married to a hot, intelligent, totally devoted and way cool woman is just another aspect of that. Spidey gives us geeks hope and something to which we can aspire, even if he is a completely fictional character. But then, that's what many myths/legends were all about in the first place. For Peter Parker to be married in no way diminishes the character or the ability of kids to relate to him.

    Unfortunately, this is simply another bad story bourne out of a bad editorial decision which only continues the trend Marvel started ten years ago with the whole Clone Saga. I don't care if Quesada was in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, he needs to go. Now.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Perhaps Seavey was correct when he said I am "universally positive." See, while I don't think breaking up Peter and MJ is something I would be interested in or spend money on, I can see why Marvel would think its a good idea. I don't feel that this is an attack on marriage in the least. Just a quick look at Ultimate Spider-Man shows how much more interesting a single Peter Parker is than a married Parker. Similarly, a single Reed Richards is a less interesting character than Reed Richards and Sue Storm, the Fantastic Couple. One could argue that this is merely a result of the writing choices, but I feel there this is something inherent in the characters; Reed Richards was created to be the 'father' in the Fantastic Four character. Remove that, you have Flatman.

    However, I'm under the impression that this sort of thing is exactly why the Ultimate Universe exists. We can have BOTH married Peter Parker and young, anxious Peter Parker. Just seems unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Hi.

    Setting aside the other stuff that people are disagreeing with you about (on that, I'll just say that, in my 36 years of life, I've never met an atheist who used the lack of God/afterlife/final judgement as a justification for bad behavior - maybe midwestern atheists are just nicer people, I dunno) - setting aside that, this was the part of the post I disagreed with:

    "This society largely informs us, through its popular culture, that the personal responsibilty and self-sacrifice involved in the insititution of marriage is a cultural dinosaur and the extension of a Christian guilt-trip."

    I guess I just don't see that. I mean, okay, there's coverage of celebrity divorces, but I don't see a lot of people taking their cues from celebrities, not in that area, at least.

    As for the products of popular culture, what's at the center of "The Simpsons," one of the longest running and still very beloved prime time television shows? Wasn't the example you point to, "The Incredibles," embraced by a large audience? What's the projected endgame, the narrative goal line for a popular show like "How I Met Your Mother"? Wasn't Monica and Chandler's marriage a major story element in the later seasons of "Friends"?

    I dunno, you probably have a point about the portrayal of marriage within comics. And the One More Day thing is pretty lame, if it does play out like this and they don't pull a last minute fake-out on everyone. But comics, in their monthly, published form, are a pretty miniscule part of popular culture. Maybe there'll be a brief headline that makes it into the New York Times, if that, but it'll pass pretty quickly, the majority of people won't give it a second thought, and their views on the institution of marriage will be unchanged.

    Think back to the other "big" comic book headlines that made the national press in the past year or so. How many people in the US think about Cap being dead, Batwoman being a lesbian on a day-to-day basis as they go about their lives?

    One More Day seems to me to be more indicative of lameness on the part of Marvel than it is of some larger, disturbing social trend. (If anything, I think they're missing out on a opportunity to do a story about the inevitability of losing your parents, and how you deal with that as an adult.)

    The other things you wrote, about there being a nobility and worth of the self-sacrifices involved in marriage and parenthood, you're totally on the money there. And it's nice to see an entry on a deeper subject, even if I disagree with some of what you wrote.

    Belated congratulations on the Friends of LuLu presidency.

    ReplyDelete
  55. See... I've never seen Peter as the single guy that everyone else sees in Ultimate Spider-Man. He still is closer to MJ than anyone they've put in the book.

    No matter who you pair him up with, there's that knowledge that Mary Jane is who he belongs with. Whether it's Felicia Hardy or Kitty Pryde... his true feelings are for MJ.

    I'm just dreading the long list of dating prospects who will only be created to scream "help me" time after time again.

    And it's not because I've got someone I love. Actually, when we DID tie the knot, those rings caused more harm than good. We divorced and now we're back together and it's a much better relationship the way it is.

    But, you can't look likely that they've been married for twenty years. Second only to Reed and Sue.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Amen. I still don't understand the "need" to "restore" Peter here. And it's going to be a long time before I do. IF I do.

    This has "Great Mistake of the Ages" writ large all over it for me as a Spider-fan.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Val, as always, you hit everything right on target. It does seem as if the married superheroes are now far and between (Did Booster's marriage for money survived the Emo-punch? And if it did... what does Gladys think her husband is doing now?)

    Michael: I was starting reading FF when the whole 'I married to a Skrull' thing happened, and to be honest, I might be in the minority that loved Lyja. I think the one reason why it ended being such a bad idea was because it was used to end the marriage. If Jhonny and Lyja had managed to get back together despite the lies and all, I think it would've given them a lot more to do with Jhonny than just the 'younger brother' role he's stuck in.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "No matter who you pair him up with, there's that knowledge that Mary Jane is who he belongs with. Whether it's Felicia Hardy or Kitty Pryde... his true feelings are for MJ. "

    While I completely agree, I suppose I find Peter more interesting when he is pining for MJ. But then, maybe it is that I find Peter a more interesting character as a teenager than as a man, let alone a family man. But this then goes back to the debate of how timeless SHOULD these characters be? Should the grow with us, or stay as they were eternally.

    Or perhaps the hiatus that superheroes experienced after the Golden Age is the best thing that can happen to a genre?

    ReplyDelete
  59. "Or perhaps the hiatus that superheroes experienced after the Golden Age is the best thing that can happen to a genre?"

    All I know is that I'm bored to tears with most of the ironic characters: Batman, Spider-Man, Superman, Wolverine. I don't know if changing something like their marriage status is really going to turn the tide for me.

    The only thing you really need is talent and creativity on the level of a Grant Morrison or Ed Brubaker that can truly breathe new life into these characters. That sort of talent and innovation is invaluable. And the public responds to it.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "I don't know if changing something like their marriage status is really going to turn the tide for me."

    It won't. Nor will it for me. But I also wonder if Spiderman is something I am interested in reading month in and month out at my age. I'm no fogey, but I somewhat feel I've seen it all in the genre and need something particularly outside of the box to interest me. Ennis' Hitman fit that bill, as did PAD's Captain Marvel. This is also why I enjoy the current 5 year long epic at DC...although to be fair, if they bungle the climax, I'll join you at the bitching post. "Dan Bizzle to...change?" Ha.

    "that sort of talent and innovation is invaluable."

    I'd agree with that. Morrison is certainly one of those talents that finds a new spin on the genre. However, I'd like to look at whipping boy BM Bendis for a moment. Prior to signing with Marvel, Bendis was doing GREAT work. I loved Jinx, I loved Goldfish, I loved his take on superheroics with the first run of Powers. These days, of course, Bendis is almost synonymous with mainstream superhero books and is subject to much disdain. Is this the future that looms for Morrison too?

    ReplyDelete
  61. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "Is this the future that looms for Morrison too?"

    Bendis is a very, very, very talented writer.

    Morrison is a genius.

    Plus, Morrison, like Alan Moore before him, believes he is a "magician," which you can read about if you Google "Grant Morrison + Pop Magic"

    So when he constructs an event that reshapes a comic book universe, I think part of him *really* thinks he's reshaping an actual universe.

    Beat *that*, Bendis!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Plus, I would hope that Morrison would refuse to write under a situation where he felt he would be churning out hackwork. I'm sure it's tempting, given how much the Big Two pay their star writers, but I get the sense he values his his work more than his paycheck.

    ReplyDelete
  64. And Grant Morrison continues to surprise me. There are writers where you know exactly what you're going to get. Sometimes that can be good or bad, but with Morrison, you never know. That's why I pick up a new Morrison title with a mixture of caution and excitement, and that has its appeal.

    Bendis? Mmm. I know what I'm going to get, and while it's competent, it's no longer that exciting, nor (dare I say it) as good as he used to be.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Val Said: So when [Grant Morrison] constructs an event that reshapes a comic book universe, I think part of him *really* thinks he's reshaping an actual universe.

    Or even this universe: During The Invisibles, he got sick when he wrote King Mob getting messed up, and got a new girlfriend when he wrote Ragged Robin getting together with King Mob. So: watch out for our corrupted future selves to pillage our past culture to sustain their own bankruptcy of ideas- waitaminute! ^_^

    -Throw me in there with the "resetting Peter/MJ/Aunt May = Lazy Writing" thing. When I first heard about this event- based totally on the title alone- I assumed that Peter only had one more day to come to some sort of peace with a dying Aunt May and try and save his marraige (the last Spider-Arc I bothered to read had them on the rocks and MJ in LA, or something. Now, doesn't that sound like a better story? And wouldn't a "Brand New Day" of Peter trying to reconstruct his life be wicked cool? Anywho.

    And I know folk are sick to death of the belief side of this post, but I feel the urge to ask this:

    Two children each find a wallet containing $10.00 in the street, and they each hand it into the police to try and return to the owner, with no hope nor expectation of reward. One does so because his mother will beat him if he doesn't. The other does so because he thought about it, and decided it was the right thing to do.

    Which is more deserving of praise, if either? Does it matter what the motive was if they both did the right thing?

    ReplyDelete
  66. I'm gonna drop a nice, safe, low-content post and say: this blog is wonderful.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anonymous4:11 AM

    I don't know how much of this marriage business is philosophical in nature so much as it is a bunch of overgrown frat boys living out their fantasies through these iconic characters. Sure, Peter Parker is married to one of the most smokin' women in New York, but wouldn't it be REALLY cool if he could ALSO nail the first and second runners-up, too? I don't think this is the case for all creators, but it definitely seems to be that way at the top.

    The thing I don't get is why Joe Q doesn't understand that you can't get rid of Mary Jane any easier than you can Lois Lane. At this point, MJ has showed up as Peter's main love interest in every modern iteration of the character. As far as the public is concerned, Pete and MJ are inseparable.

    As someone else said, I wouldn't mind this storyline so much if it were developed over a period of time, used to really analyze these characters and their relationship and what does or doesn't work about it. Then, even if the outcome was something the audience was unhappy with, we could at least own up to the fact that it wasn't exactly a surprise, and that it was a logical ending to the story presented, and that if nothing else it offered some good character analysis. Instead, we get deus ex machina, the "quick and easy" fix, which we ALL know only pisses the fans off more.

    -M

    ReplyDelete
  68. Single Spiderman = Me cancelling Spiderman. MJ and Peter's marriage is a part of the story I enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I completely agree that MJ and Peter breaking up as a "single Spider is hotter!" move is very sad, but I take issue with your choice of debate terms.

    Namely:

    If there is no God, and no afterlife, shouldn't we get what's good right now?

    Because many atheists are good and ethical people who keep the oaths they make to their loved ones.

    Like any person of faith, you are absolutely entitled to your beliefs, but I do resent the implication that those who don't believe in divine forces are selfish or that if someone rejects God that they neglect their responsibility to others. I don't believe in a God or an afterlife, but I do believe in personal responsibility, loyalty, and keeping my promises - not because God told me to or because he'll be mad when I die if I don't, but because it's the right thing to do.

    Like you, I consider sacrificing oneself and devotion to others to be heroic and that social responsibility and entertainment are not diametrically opposed concepts. And unlike you, I firmly believe that God is a delusion. I've never been presented with credible evidence to the contrary. But I don't need God to believe in the grace of humanity, and the responsibility of people to behave ethically towards one another.

    ReplyDelete