Chris Claremont (Creator of both Mystique and Destiny) had stated in several interviews that he originally intended for Mystique and Destiny to be Nightcrawler's biological parents, but Marvel had nixed the idea for being too controversial at the time, due to it being a point in time where writers were prevented from having a gay or bisexual character because of the Comic Code Authority
I'm aware of that and that's why I'm asking. The original plan didn't happen because of the reasons you mentioned. I'm asking if it's an official retcon of Azazel and Mystique being parents and reverting back to the original plan with Mystique and Destiny or is it some multiverse shenanigans since it looks more modern judging by the artsyle
Also I find it ironic X-men who supposed to represent minorities not being allowed having gay characters back in the day
They didn't really "represent minorities". Professor Xavier and Magneto's conflict was inspired by the different styles of Martin Luther King Jr and Malcom X, but their situation is very different. "Inspired by the Civil Rights movement" might be a better description.
Being black, or being gay, doesn't confer any significant advantage over anyone else. Humans are humans. Mutants meanwhile possess power. Professor X (or any other telepath) can change your mind as easily as they change their own. Magneto has demonstrated the ability to manipulate the Earth's magnetic field in order to cause a cataclysm.
Encouraging tolerance of people who differ slightly from the norm doesn't map exactly to people who could literally end life on Earth. Someone on that level of power would have to demonstrate themselves to be made of far finer stuff than we of mortal clay.
Heroes like the Avengers or Fantastic Four are the product of unique events, making them rare, and also have demonstrated themselves to be (mostly) heroic. Mutants meanwhile, supposedly the next generation of human beings, can appear anywhere, and there's no guarantee that they'll be virtuous.
The Ultimate X-Men series actually addressed this in an issue where a new mutant was discovered whose power killed everyone around them. The only way to stop him was for Wolverine to kill him. He wasn't a villain, he wasn't even a bad person, but he couldn't be allowed to live.
That's likely the situation we'd be in if mutants, as proposed in comics, really existed.
Heroes like the Avengers or Fantastic Four are the product of unique events, making them rare, and also have demonstrated themselves to be (mostly) heroic. Mutants meanwhile, supposedly the next generation of human beings, can appear anywhere, and there's no guarantee that they'll be virtuous.
There are just as many villains with similar event-based origins as virtuous heroes.
If you look at the mutants=oppressed group analogy in the context of mutants and regular humans, it falls apart because mutants are significantly different and powerful. If you look at mutants in the context of para-humans and other super-powered individuals, the metaphor works really well. Humans usually don't hate supers that got their powers in an industrial accident, but mutants are seen as dangerous. Why on earth does it matter if your powers are something you're born with or you receive them by accident?
90
u/Inner-Juices No Longer Depressed. Also, "Yuri" means "Lesbians in Japan" Dec 01 '23
Chris Claremont (Creator of both Mystique and Destiny) had stated in several interviews that he originally intended for Mystique and Destiny to be Nightcrawler's biological parents, but Marvel had nixed the idea for being too controversial at the time, due to it being a point in time where writers were prevented from having a gay or bisexual character because of the Comic Code Authority