We're supremely amused by the frantic denials of any ubermensch gay-ness that "Superman Returns" director Bryan Singer has been issuing of late.

Today, Reuters offers this tidbit:

"After weeks of Internet buzzing that the new Superman movie portrays the Man of Steel as gay, the director of the film issued a strong denial on Friday and said it was the most heterosexual character he has filmed. Superman "is probably the most heterosexual character in any movie I've ever made," said Singer, director of "Superman Returns," a new movie about the crime-fighting superhero that opens June 28. "I don't think he's ever been gay."

The "most heterosexual character in any movie I've ever made"?(!)

Can we infer from this that Wolverine might enjoy a little antique-hunting on Fire Island? Or that Verbal Kint is more likely to hit the gym and then head over to Rage in West Hollywood for a few Mojito shooters?

The whole thing is so patently ridiculous, we lack the words for it.

This is the problem with the web: Rather than asking a more justifiable question ("Isn't "Superman" wildly overpriced at $250 million?) web conspiracy theorists want to equivocate being in the closet, with ducking into a phone booth.

And what if Superman was gay? It would explain a lot: Can't commit to Lois. The always-dashing-off-whenever-she wants to spend the night. ("The Barneys Winter Sa- er, a runaway train, Lois. Couldn't be helped!") It would make Clark Kent's secret life a far more empathetic than a pathetic one. But with a quarter billion on the line, Warner Bros. can't take the chance that Red State America might boycott the film.

Besides: Does anyone really think a gay Superman would be caught dead wearing red and blue together in this combination?