EA Defends Itself Against Thousands of Anti-Gay Letters 1069
donniebaseball23 writes "Video game publisher Electronic Arts has not only had to defend itself against 'worst company in America' labels, but GamesIndustry International has revealed that EA's been receiving thousands of letters protesting the inclusion of same-sex relationship content in games like Mass Effect and Star Wars: The Old Republic. The campaign against EA appears to be led by Florida Family Association and the Family Research Council. The letters threaten to boycott purchase of EA games if the company won't remove the LGBT content, and many allege that EA was pressured by LGBT activists to include the content, which they say is forcing LGBT themes on children playing the games. 'This isn't about protecting children, it's about political harassment,' said Jeff Brown, VP of corporate communications."
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck you!
Walmart (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who voted for EA over Walmart as the worst company has no idea what they are talking about.
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:5, Insightful)
So: Being gay is wrong. Gays can't be open about their sexuality. Gays don't get the same rights as heterosexuals.
So yes, that absolutely does make you anti-gay.
umm, really? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think that Evangelicals are big market for these kind of games anyway. Another political stunt by the bigots on the extreme fringes.
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this make me anti-gay?
Yes:
I oppose gay marriage.
That's the problem. You don't want gay couples to have all the rights associated with marriage that married people have, like residency rights, visitation rights, and all the various tax benefits, such as estate tax, etc.
So yeah, pretty much by opposing gay marriage, you are acting to make life worse for gay people just because they are gay. Own it.
EA doesn't have to defend itself. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not like the FRC are going to buy their software anyway.
Caving to the likes of the FRC is not going to get them anywhere and they should simply circular-file the letters, which are easy to spot because they are all identical. It's too bad that a lot of companies cave to tactics like this. Do they come out ahead after? Nope.
--
BMO
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except it's not being promoted aside from how the public has taken it upon itself to run with it.
You don;t have to pursue the homosexual options in the game, they are optional.
*On a more personal note, if you against gays having the same rights (marriage) as straights, you kind of are by definition anti-gay.
"I'm not a misogynistic I just think woman should be kept in the kitchen."
"I'm not racist I just think blacks should have stayed on the plantations."
If it was strictly a matter of theology I would agree it should be up to the church, but so long as the insurance companies cannot insure a domestic partner, nor the government grant tax benefits to domestic partners, nor hospitals allow visitation to domestic partners; then it is a federal mater and the church should have zero say.
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't think of it as siding with EA.
Think of it as siding with your neighbors, your friends, your co-workers, and your family members.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:5, Insightful)
they have the right to marry what ever woman they want
So you're pro lesbian but anti male/male union? Odd, but not unprecedented.
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe homosexual acts are a sin.
Fine. Many people believe eating bacon is a sin.
I believe homosexuality should not be promoted.
Fine. I don't think boxing should be promoted. Doesn't seem to stop them.
I oppose gay marriage.
Here is where it is not-so fine. If you are actively trying to suppress two consensual adults from entering into a mutually beneficial contract because of their gender, you are anti-gay. Maybe you're ok with civil unions; that makes you less anti-gay and just deluded in believing that separate-but-equal will work this time.
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does this make me anti-gay?
Yes:
I oppose gay marriage.
That's the problem. You don't want gay couples to have all the rights associated with marriage that married people have, like residency rights, visitation rights, and all the various tax benefits, such as estate tax, etc.
So yeah, pretty much by opposing gay marriage, you are acting to make life worse for gay people just because they are gay. Own it.
Being anti-gay marriage does not necessarily mean you are anti-gay. It depends on your motivation for anti-gay marriage AND your definition of marriage. Personally, I consider marriage a religious ceremony, if religions or religious people do not believe in gay marriage, fine. That said, I ABSOLUTELY believe that the rights and privileges that the government grants to heterosexual marriages must be made available, at all governmental levels, to same-sex couples. I defy anyone to provide me with any legal argument, with no religious aspect, to why same-sex couples should not be granted equal rights.
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well I say (Score:5, Insightful)
We Don't want you in our church. So they won't go to your church. Not going to church they will not be exposed to the other values that you find good.
Being exposed to a diverse set of people is usually a good thing, you are not shocked at everything that goes on. And the fact that you lived in backwater area with no exposure to your people won't change their ways just because you think it is wrong.
Re:Well I say (Score:3, Insightful)
"Streisand effect" [wikipedia.org] anyone?
Naw... "Starbucks Effect" [towleroad.com]... where anti-Gay protests causes your stocks to rise.
Supposedly Starbucks is doing so well that Microsoft and Apple want the Anti-Gay NOM Group to boycott them as well [huffingtonpost.com] </satire>.
Eliminating privileges of marriage be better? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would eliminating privileges of marriage be better?
Well, it would be fairer.
Don't buy the EA propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
I have it on good authority (No, I can't reveal my source) that this is EA responding to being voted the worst company of 2012 [consumerist.com] by Consumerist.com. The higher-ups are worried about the bad press right before the stock holders meeting, so they are deliberately trying to spin the negative press as being tied to their support of LGBT. However it's pretty obvious that the voters at the Consumerist were much more focused on EA's price gouging and charging extra for downloadable content just to get the basic content, anti-competitive measures and a host of other issues.
So when you hear EA saying "They hate us because we're taking a stand for human rights", you know the truth is "They hate you because you mercilessly squeeze every dollar out of your customers, you provide horrid customer service and because you deliberately hold back game content as DLC, making the customers feel like they're being blackmailed instead of being consumers."
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes. Effectively what these wingbats want is a class system whereby only certain people get benefits. These are the same people who protested against blacks marrying whites because "it's against God's will" and other such crap such as separate but equal education.
What's truly funny (in a non-ha ha way) is these are the same people who talk so much about the freedoms of this country, how the Constitution is so great, the evils of Islam, how a blob of cells is a person (who may be gay btw) and shouldn't be allowed to be aborted, yet then go about and do the exact same thing they rail about happening in other countries or try to ignore what the Constitution says.
It's like this, either everyone gets the same rights regardless of their genetic composition, or we start having a stratified society like India (which, while outlawing the practice, still has a series of societal classes) in which certain people are only allowed certain rights. If that is the case, then we need to rewrite the Constitution because currently the Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protection for everyone regardless of their genetic structure :
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (emphasis mine)
Re:So, why don't they... (Score:1, Insightful)
I say make it on by default. Nothing better than pissing off a bunch of mouth breathers.
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:5, Insightful)
citing nature's activities as defense of homosexuality is entirely illogical.
I disagree. A lot of anti-gay stance is based round the concept that being gay is a choice and not a fundamental attribute. By showing that animals are gay as well means (among other things) that either God has given animals the ability to choose to be gay or not, or that being gay is natural.
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is such semantic nonsense. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they romantically love. Homosexuals do not have that right in most of the United States.
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is that the word "marriage" has a religious meaning. I propose we remove the word from all federal, state, and local laws and documents, replacing it with civil unions (with rights and responsibilities identical to those currently attributed to marriage). All current marriages are automatically converted over to the (functionally identical) civil unions and any couple of legal age and standing (neither member already part of a civil union) may fill out the paper work and be legally joined. Leave the word marriage to mean "joined by a church"; which, of course, any couple, gay or straight, could also have performed as part of forming their civil union.
There, everyone has their religious freedoms, everyone has identical rights, everyone is happy right? Oh wait no, the religious wackos (and no, I don't mean that to be everyone who is religious is wacko) will throw an ever loving hissy fit, yelling at the top of their lungs that "the gays won" and "you're destroying marriage!".
Re:Well I say (Score:5, Insightful)
That always confounded me - why on earth would an earnest religious person turn away someone from their church, just because they were a sinner? Aren't non-christians the people you -want- to come to church? Afterall, Christ did lunch with sinners, and preached love and compassion. It's become clear to me that many christians (but not all) are not interested in saving souls, but only about their social club that lets them feel superior to people who are not Them - the other, the different, the outsider. It used to be the jews and gypsies until it became unpopular to ostracise them - now it's the gays and muslims.
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Until the word "marriage" loses it's legal definitions, being anti-gay marriage is, by your own statements, being anti-gay. Reality is that civil unions don't exist in most states in the US and many places where they do exist aren't legally identical to marriage. I agree with you, marriage should be a religious ceremony, the problem is that according to the laws of the land it also is a legal agreement. Until the two concepts are separated you can't be for one and against the other. And besides, the pro/anti-gay marriage debate is focused exclusively on the legal aspects, there's absolutely nothing stopping a gay couple having a religious marriage ceremony, it just wouldn't be legally binding.
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because gays are icky.
That is after all the underlying reason for the viewpoint.
Re:So, why don't they... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well I say (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't that a political party strategy?
Fixed that for you. It doesn't take a lot of effort to be bipartisan when it comes to distrusting politicians, you should try it.
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know how many people would agree with me, but I would say 100% yes, it would be better. Personally, I don't believe the word "marriage" has any place in law. Marriage is a religious ceremony that was given legal status a few thousand years ago when everyone was religious, and we've spent the last couple hundred years trying to decouple the religious aspect without changing terminology. This creates a situation where separation of church and state becomes impossible, as any change to the legal status of marriage is viewed as a change to the religious status of marriage, when in fact we're talking about two entirely different things. I do not support government recognition of marriage in any way.
I would support a government system that allows two people, any two people, to file paperwork allowing them to declare joint ownership of assets, joint filing of taxes, sharing of benefits, and any other legal statuses that legislature decides is appropriate. It should be required that these people share joint residency, but sex, race, and whether these people decide to share bodily fluids should have no legal bearing. If two heterosexual, same sex roommates decide they'd like to enter this type of arrangement, that's fine with me (thought breaking of this contract obviously still has legal significance, since you are declaring joint ownership of assets, so it should not be taken lightly). If people decide they'd still like to stand before friends, family and/or religious authority and declare their eternal love for each other, that's also fine with me, but it's between them and their church, not them and the government. But in the end, the current legal definition of marriage just boils down the federal government taking an interest into what two consenting adults choose to do with their genitalia, and no matter what Rick Santorum thinks, I cannot possibly see any justification for that.
The wierd priorities and prudishness of Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
Firstly let me state that I'm not gay.
That said, I accept that homosexuality has been found to be a natural part of the animal kingdom (not just humans) since the beginning of all life, as far as smarter people than me can tell.
Blowing peoples brains out with assault weapons is absolutely not natural.
Yet look at which issue the American parents are worried that their kids might learn about.
Personally I don't believe there's much of a cause/effect thing with kids becoming more violent just from playing violent video games, but there's always gonna be a very low percantage of freakish kids that will prove any theory wrong.
I prefer believe that glorifying hard violence is far more dangerous to younger kids minds than showing people of the same sex kissing.
But then the real fault is actually with the parents that let those kids play these games in the first place, even though they're often clearly marked 18+.
Lets move the blame back to where it belongs, on the parents for not properly shielding and educating their kids instead of doing that very American thing of finding everyone/anyone else to blame instead of acknowledging their own failures.
Re:There is no same sex relationships in SWTOR (Score:4, Insightful)
There are some suggestive conversations between different characters but is as close as it gets.
That's more than enough. These people don't want to be even subtly reminded that gays exist. Wanting to be able to exist in society without having to hide their identity, and creating entertainment that acknowledges that homosexuals exist, is "shoving the gay agenda down people's throats".
Then toss in the fact it all is a computerized version of "Choose your own Adventure" and its painfully obvious you could choose to totally ignore that direction in any conversation.
The mere fact that they are aware of its existence is enough.
And does it matter?
Think of it this way: If instead of an RPG where you basically craft whatever character you want and all the romance subplots are optional, what if it was a game about an openly gay character (with or without 'romance', and with appropriate age rating), and playing that character was the only option? Would that make their complaints legitimate?
Call them what they are: American Taliban. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well I say (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
That always confounded me - why on earth would an earnest religious person turn away someone from their church, just because they were a sinner? Aren't non-christians the people you -want- to come to church? Afterall, Christ did lunch with sinners, and preached love and compassion. It's become clear to me that many christians (but not all) are not interested in saving souls, but only about their social club that lets them feel superior to people who are not Them - the other, the different, the outsider. It used to be the jews and gypsies until it became unpopular to ostracise them - now it's the gays and muslims.
What's even stranger is that they want to pass laws so that secular law enforcement will coerce everyone into observing their inhibitions. Like that would help anyone get to Heaven, according to their doctrine.
"Religious Right" is just a euphemism for "sex obsessed control freaks".
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, yours is. You're phrasing the right in such a way that heterosexuals get what they want, but homosexuals do not. It's like saying that someone has the right to vote for whatever Republican they want. It doesn't fucking work.
Re:Well I say (Score:5, Insightful)
A friend of mines family got kicked out of their church because their new son had down syndrome or touched by the devil as the called it.
Hopefully they realize that they didn't lose anything.
Re:Well I say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Being anti-gay marriage does not necessarily mean you are anti-gay.
Yes, it does. It means that you are against an entire class of people having a fundamental civil right.
It depends on your motivation for anti-gay marriage AND your definition of marriage.
No, it doesn't. If you're against people having equal rights, you're against that class of people.
Personally, I consider marriage a religious ceremony
Tough titties, that hasn't been how it's been for a long ass time. Since before the US was founded, actually.
if religions or religious people do not believe in gay marriage, fine.
Then they can just not have them, and not perform them. What's so hard about that?
Re:Well I say (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) Not get killed
(2) Have a nice lunch
There person rounded it off by pointing out that 'our demands are simple'
Re:Defends itself, or its writing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So, protect you from *yourself*?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, remember that religious people are incapable of logical reasoning.
As a "religious person," I feel entirely convinced you have logically come to this conclusion.
My bad, religious people are unable to accept reality as well.
As well as this. Well, this one makes sense, as long as you define reality as what you believe to be true; thus, anyone who thinks differently is denying reality.
Re:Viewpoints aside... (Score:4, Insightful)
Mass effect 3 has an "M" for mature rating. If children are playing it then the parents should take it away from them.
It's up to BioWare/EA/developers and publishers what rating they want to aim for on a game, the same as movies. You can disagree with ratings in general or specific, so, for example, I tend to think that by 15 or 16 you should be able to figure out that gay people exist and the content in mass effect is not going to somehow damage your brain. But if you're an 8 year old there is nothing in mass effect that is really suitable for your maturity level, the whole story, theme, romance etc. are a bit too grown up for that.
Just because it's a video game doesn't make it for children. People who can't grasp that aren't worth dealing with. They have ratings on them so parents can make intelligent decisions about what their kids should be playing or watching, and how much parental oversight might be required.
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW being gay is natural.
So is wanting to punch someone in the face when they do something to make you angry. Doesn't mean I have to actually punch people in the face.
The difference is that a gay couple that wants to get married is a pair of consenting adults, whereas you and whoever owns the face presumably aren't.
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not trying to pick on you here, but there's a problem with your belief: it's wrong. Marriage is a legal status conferred by the government. Religious ceremonies exist only to keep the church in people's lives. Many people are married in non-religious ceremonies, are atheists not really married because they aren't religious?
The whole marriage is religious thing is an invention to justify opposing various marriages on religious grounds. Whether it's used to justify opposition to marrying blacks, inter-race couples, gays or lesbians, it's always been a invented reason. There's one legitimate definition of marriage and it's not religious. If religions want to have their own super-hetero-god-fearing-marriage, they can have it, but it shouldn't be recognised by the government as anything other than a civil marriage.
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Technically, if you can find a consenting adult who'll let you punch them in the face, you should be free to go at it. I think there might even an underground group of punching enthusiasts who run something called "boxing matches".
Re:Well I say (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Christian, while I don't approve of homosexual activity, I would not deny a person who practices such the church or the possibility of friendship. I figure, every person, whether they are Christian or not, not only sins but they sin regularly. Who am I to judge another due to their sin? That is between them and God.
That said, I still believe society has a obligation to hold those accountable take from others who are unwilling to give. For example, murder does not just affect those who volunteer to take part in the event. Stealing is another example.
Flipping to the other side of the coin, barring rape, all participates are willing when participating in sexual immorality of any kind. They sins is just as bad in the eye of God but who am I to stand in there way? I can still try to convince them to change their ways and help them if they choose to change but I would do wrong if I used force to stop their actions.
All this said, I am of course human. I still struggle to overcome my natural human tendencies to judge others and treat them unfairly but I do try to overcome.
Re:Well I say (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't have to side with EA in particular to tell these groups to shove it. The games in question are rated M are they not? You know, the NOT FOR KIDS rating.
The so called concerned parents of these Family oriented groups should already be boycotting the games in question simply because they aren't suppose to be buying them for their kids. And if they're so fucking offended that it's in a game intended for mature adults, they should already be avoiding the game willingly.
Re:Any Different? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, protect you from *yourself*?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:3, Insightful)
So you would ban hetro marriage for infertile people, or women past child bearing age? Otherwise I suspect you are being inconsistent, and trying to cover up prejudice? No marriage wasn't created for making babies - it was created for maintaing control of land for the upper classes. Did you kknow marriage wasn't a religious sacrement in Christianity before the 1700s? Have a look at the history of marriage - it is relatively recent that the poor in society took it up. And yes there is a history male unions prior to christianity (albeit in a minority of cultures).
How would letting same sex couples turn anything over - are you misreading it and assuming someone wants it to be compulsory? Seriously two men marrying will not hurt you or impact on your life. Get some charity in your soul and stop hating please.
Re:Well I say (Score:2, Insightful)
As a Christian, while I don't approve of homosexual activity
So you don't approve to something that is real in nature but you do approve of god?
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:4, Insightful)
They Let Their Children Play Them? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yoda says.... (Score:5, Insightful)
is there some sort of middle ground? I mean, if someone wants their game character to be in a same sex relationship that's fine, it's their game, but if it's part of the story line that is exposing me to things I really don't wanna see.... i don't think that is ok, and the game should make that clear before purchase.
Do you object to characters having opposite-sex relationships too? It seems to me that you should either allow both same-sex and opposite sex relationships, or ban both.
If you "don't wanna see" same-sex relationships in games because you don't want to see them anywhere, then tough. We are people too you know, and I'm not going to pretend my husband is a platonic friend just because you don't feel comfortable seeing two people who love each other.
Re:Well I say (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you're making the mistake of lumping all religious people together. It's a bit like saying that all white people are genocidal maniacs because of the actions of the Germans in the 1930s.
In case you haven't noticed, there's now protestant churches which have openly gay ministers. That directly contradicts your statement that "only the secular part of the religious society ... accepts homosexuality". You can't appoint an openly gay person a preacher without implicitly accepting homosexuality in a non-secular way. Of course, these churches (nor all the other ones which are accepting of LGBT people) don't get much press the way the bigoted ones do. There's also been a lot of schisms among protestant churches, with congregations breaking off and leaving denominations because they don't like the acceptance of homosexuality, female preachers, etc., but the accepting churches aren't going away (though they do seem to becoming more and more a minority among American churches, as the fundamentalists continue to grow in numbers and power, along with ultra-right-wing political thought).
Re:So, why don't they... (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, the gay pilot was ok. He tells you he's gay, acts interested, and you can let him down. The other guy though, I replayed ME1 to be sure, and he tells you he's straight. It was an obvious plot problem imho.
True. After all, nobody has ever said they were straight when they haven't meant it, or were confused, or thought they were straight until they found themselves in the right circumstances.
Re:Yoda says.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Relationships are not about reproduction. They are about love, companionship, mutual support, sex, and so on. Those things don't require the couple to be opposite-sex.
Many religions do consider it a sin to be gay, but they usually consider belonging to other religions (or none) to be sinful too. That hasn't stopped religious diversity becoming mainstream in many many places.
Re:Well I say (Score:4, Insightful)
You might want to go read up on the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Re:Yoda says.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Heterosexuals force their sexual preference on everyone all the time. They have pictures of their partners on their desks, they hold hands in the street, they kiss in greeting or parting, they flaunt their relationships via wedding bands for all to see, you see their relationships and even graphic sexual portrayals of them from every book, magazine, TV show, movie, billboard, ad, etc.
Basically you're saying you're SHOCKED that acknowledging that gay people exist and should have the same rights to live and love and be visible as anyone else isn't a bad thing. You think that respect only goes one way, apparently.
Perhaps you might ponder seeing things from other people's perspectives, or walk a mile in other people's shoes. The Closet is not a healthy place, and you have no fundamental right to have everyone conspire to keep you ignorant of the existence of people different than you.
Existing is not "forcing their sexual preference on others". We're not talking about RAPE here. We're talking about human beings simply existing in life, like anyone else, with the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else... and not having to jump through hoops to hide in order to avoid offending your delicate and ridiculous sensibilities.
Re:Yoda says.... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are racists in the world who hate seeing non-whites treated as equals... should games featuring people of color carry a "WARNING" in order to avoid offending those racists?
Of course not.
So why should a game carry a "warning" in order to avoid offending heterosexists, homophobes, and anti-gay bigots?
Listen to what you're advocating here.
Ignorant bigotry won't go away as long as everyone caters to it. If you're an ignorant bigot offended by something perfectly normal, then tough. Sucks to be you. (note, I'm not saying YOU are an ignorant bigot... I'm saying 'in general').