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."
Well I say (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well I say (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't help but to side with EA on this... if they want to boycott, fine.
Re:Well I say (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well I say (Score:5, Funny)
It might actually be even stranger than the normal Streisand-related backfiring; there's a theory [imgur.com] floating around that EA are actually deliberately exploiting the increased publicity of this to divert attention away from the fact that they're an utter bunch of assholes in many other ways. No idea whether it's true or not, but seemed worth mentioning.
yes its true, they are an utter bunch of assholes in many other ways.
Re:Well I say (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, thanks to the Streisand Effect, this bunch of assholes at EA are going to profit handsomely because another bunch of prudish, backwards religious assholes are making a big deal out of this silly issue.
Personally, I'm rooting for the assholes at EA. I'm really sick and tired of the religious nuts around here.
(Note that not all religious people are bigoted nuts like these morons; there's a bunch of Christian churches these days which openly state that LGBT people are welcome, generally the Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopals.)
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:Well I say (Score:4, Insightful)
You might want to go read up on the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Re:Well I say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well I say (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well I say (Score:5, Funny)
Well, it is different for men and women. Women can experiment, they can dabble, hell, its often been said that most women are only 1 strawberry daquiri away from kissing another chick.
Women, can experiment, and still be considered on the home team.
Men? Nope....you suck one cock...and your gay.
Plain and simple.
Re: (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>.
Yoda says.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yoda says.... (Score:5, Funny)
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: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: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').
Re:Yoda says.... (Score:5, Interesting)
How come you people never complain about the inter-species relationships?
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:Well I say (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting that should you mention that ;)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-wooledge/microsoft-apple-unite-to-_b_1394821.html [huffingtonpost.com]
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.
The Homosexual Agenda (Score:4, Funny)
(Not Mine but worth reading through. I honestly think some people believe 15:33 is going to happen).
8:00 a.m. Wake up. Wonder where you are.
8:01 a.m. Realize you are lying on 100 percent cotton sheets of at least a 300 count, so don't panic; you're not slumming.
8:02 a.m. Realize you are actually in your own bed for a change. Wake stranger next to you and tell them you are late for work so won't be able to cook breakfast for them. Mutter "sorry" as you help him look for his far-flung underwear. You find out that you tore his boxers while ripping them off him last night, so you "loan" him a pair of boxer-briefs, but not the new ones because you never intend to see him again.
8:05 a.m. Tell the stranger, whose name eludes you, "It was fun. I'll give you a call," as you usher him out the door, avoiding his egregious morning-breath.
8:06 a.m. Crumple and dispose of the piece of paper with his telephone number on it when you get to the kitchen.
8:07 a.m. Make a high protein breakfast while watching the Today show. Wonder if the stories you've heard about Matt Lauer are true. Decide they must be.
8:30 a.m. Italian or domestic? Decide to go with three-button Italian and the only shirt that is clean.
8:45 a.m. Climb into red Z4 and try not to look too much like Barbie driving one of her accessories as you pull out of your underground parking. Revos or Armanis? Go with Revos.
9:35 a.m. Stroll into office.
9:36 a.m. Close door to office and call best friend and laugh about the guy who spent the night at your condo. Point out something annoying about best friend's boyfriend but quickly add "It doesn't matter what everyone else thinks, just as long as you love him."
10:15 a.m. Leave office, telling your secretary you are "meeting with a client." Pretend not to notice her insubordinate roll of her eyes (or the cloying "poem" she has tacked to her cubicle wall).
10:30 a.m. Hair appointment for lowlights and cut. Purchase of Aveda anti-humectant pomade.
11:30 a.m. Run into personal trainer at gym. Pester him about getting you Human Growth Hormone. Spend 30 minutes talking to friends on your cell phone while using Hammer Strength machines, preparing a mental-matrix of which circuit parties everyone is going to and which are now passe.
12:00pm Tan. Schedule back-waxing in time for Saturday party where you know you will end up shirtless.
12:30 p.m. Pay trainer for anabolic steroids and schedule a workout. Shower, taking ten minutes to knot your tie while you check-out your best friend's boyfriend undress with the calculation of someone used to wearing a t-back and having dollars stuffed in their crotch.
1:00 p.m. Meet someone for whom you only know his waist, chest and penis size from AOL M4M chat for lunch at a hot, new restaurant. Because the maître d' recognizes you from a gay bar, you are whisked past the Christian heterosexual couples who have been waiting patiently for a table since 12:30.
2:30 p.m. "Dessert at your place." Find out, once again, people lie on AOL.
3:33 p.m. Assume complete control of the U.S., state, and local governments (in addition to other nations' governments); destroy all healthy Christian marriages; recruit all children grades Kindergarten through 12 into your amoral, filthy lifestyle; secure complete control of the media, starting with sitcoms; molest innocent children; give AIDS to as many people as you can; host a pornographic "art" exhibit at your local art museum; and turn people away from Jesus, causing them to burn forever in Hell.
4:10 p.m. Time permitting, bring about the general decline of Western Civilization and look like you are having way too much fun doing it.
4:30 p.m. Take a disco-nap to prevent facial wrinkles from the stress of world conquest and being so terribly witty.
6:00 p.m. Open a fabulous new bottle of Malbec.
6:47 P.M. Bake Ketamine for weekend. Test recipe.
7:00 P.M. Go to Abercrombie & Fitch and announce in a loud voice, "Over!"
Re:The Homosexual Agenda (Score:5, Interesting)
9:00am Go to work
5:00pm Come home from work
7:00pm Cook dinner for partner and myself
12:00am Sleep
Other than the obligatory orgy every other week there isn't much difference from a straight couple I'd imagine.
Re:The Homosexual Agenda (Score:5, Funny)
I stopped reading as:
"8:01 a.m. Realize you are lying on 100 percent cotton sheets of at least a 300 count, so don't panic; you're not slumming."
Which I couldn't disagree with more. 300 count is definitely slumming it, I'm getting itchy just thinking about it.
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: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:Well I say (Score:5, Informative)
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.
That is simply not true. Most churches are open to anyone, and saving souls is task Numero Uno. That doesn't mean that they have to accept conduct, though, which is clearly condemned in the Bible. The idea is to be saved. Part of being saved is "changing your ways", as the Bible teaches. What some people are demanding, however, is that the churches should change for them, accepting things that the Bible teaches against. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Christ taught that salvation was a free gift to anyone that wanted it, but you had to accept it on his terms, not yours.
If someone can't accept that, then so be it. Go about your life elsewhere. But don't demand that churches abandon their teachings and laws to make you feel comfortable. That's not the way it works.
Re:Well I say (Score:4, Funny)
Dear America - can you see why we sent you the Puritans now? We are sorry, but very glad they are no longer here. Yours, the UK.
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:4)
Wait, what? It's quite normal to disapprove of real-world phenomena while approving of abstract ideals. For example, most people diapprove of how most people look and dress, as they fall sort of the ideal appearance.
I understand your rush to post "look, look, he's a stupid religion guy and I'm not", but c'mon, at least try to make some sort of rational point.
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)
(1) Not get killed
(2) Have a nice lunch
There person rounded it off by pointing out that 'our demands are simple'
Re:Well I say (Score:5, Funny)
(2) Have a nice brunch
FTFY
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, to the protesters, I simply say, "Fuck you".
"...but, of course, only in a monogamous heterosexual relationship, because otherwise that would clearly be indecent."
Ugh (Score:5, Funny)
Are these bastards really going to make me side with EA on something? I need a shower.
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.
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Funny)
I live in Texas. My neighbors, co-workers, and family members are more likely the ones I shouldn't be siding with.
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like an EA PR story ... (Score:5, Funny)
Are these bastards really going to make me side with EA on something? I need a shower.
Just think of it as an EA PR story. Its not like ignoring thousands of letters is something new to them. Its just business as usual.
Conflicting (Score:3)
Who is more evil here? I'm going to say the FFA and FRC, but I don't think they're evil enough to get me to buy an EA product just to spite them.
If this were any other company than EA (well also Ubisoft and Sony), I'd write them a kind letter and buy the product. I hope the normalization of homosexuality isn't impeded because no one is willing to defend EA.
Re:Conflicting (Score:5, Informative)
From my perspective, the FRC is a scourge upon the United States. They exist solely to advocate for censorship of everything they disagree with, because if they don't like it, nobody else should be allowed to see it either. The most ridiculous part is that most of the people who send the letters in don't ever watch anything they're complaining about. They don't want to risk exposure to "that degenerate material" so the FRC employs people to scan shows and find things that they can be offended at, and then provide their membership with a form letter they can use to bombard the latest victim with complaints from people who never watched what they've been told to be offended about.
The evil the organisation does isn't limited to what they actually complain about, companies avoid airing things they know the FRC will be upset about, particularly when Republicans have control of the FCC, because it can be very costly to run afoul of their arbitrary prejudices.
EA mostly makes games that suck. I don't think there's much competition in the evil category here.
Re:Conflicting (Score:5, Informative)
The FFA isn't exactly a real organization. They appear to be one single man with a website, who sent letters to Viacom threatening to boycott the advertisers over an episode of Degrassi which delt with LGBT issues in school, and sent letters to TLC threating to boycott the advertisers unless they cancelled the reality show "All-American Muslim" for, and I'm not making this up, only showing non-terrorist Muslims living in America. The controversy over the latter actually got them more attention than they deserve, and many people on the Far Right signed up for their mailing list.
I for one (Score:5, Funny)
Am, in the interests of balance, going to boycott EA games unless they have more lesbian content.
It's only fair after all.
Walmart (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who voted for EA over Walmart as the worst company has no idea what they are talking about.
So, protect you from *yourself*?? (Score:5, Interesting)
In those games, you actually have to ACTIVELY PURSUE gay relationships. So are these groups arguing that game makers have an obligation to stop good Christians from their *own* desire to pursue gay relationships? Because I'm pretty sure that eliminating the POSSIBILITY of gayness in a game is not going to make them all into good Christian heterosexuals, especially if they're *that* determined to pursue the gay endings.
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:So, protect you from *yourself*?? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no same sex relationships in SWTOR (Score:4, Informative)
It does not currently have them. There are some suggestive conversations between different characters but is as close as it gets. Top it off with how bad the in game romance story lines are and I serious doubt any self respecting gay person would want to see the Bioware developers take a stab at it.
I mean, the scripts used make the prequel love story between Anakin and Padme look downright Academy Award material.
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.
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?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
SOE Did This Ten Years Ago in SWG (Score:3)
You know with all the families that deal with neglect, abuse and other problems you'd think Florida Family Association and the Family Research Council would have other topics to tackle that are just a tiny bit more important than whether or not a parent is too shitty to talk to their child about homosexuality in media. For crying out loud, people, really?
You know, you have a right to be homophobic, I can't tell you how to raise your children. But don't fuck up my kid while you're at it. "Mommy, why was I able to marry my best friend in the SWTOR?" "Because some people are homosexuals and we believe that's wrong so don't ever do it in real life." There, was that so hard? Please let the rest of us move forward while your ignorance dies with you, okay?
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."
Geez. (Score:3)
One of the very best things about the additional "same-sex" content was how completely UN-weird it was, and I applaud the developers for treating a historically delicate subject as standard fare. Hell, Cortez almost made me cry when I found out he lost his husband; that was definitely NOT the usual "zomg gheys!" giggle-treatment. Even the treatment of inter-racial relationships still doesn't have that level of dignity in entertainment media.
I figure if a vampire can eat a fetus out of the uterus of the woman he impregnated with his zombie spawn on screen, and the only protest is the quality of the acting, two dudes can make out in a video-game just peachy.
Pure Pwnage? c. 2004 (Score:3)
It's incredible how this all started with Jeremy asking EA to "suck his balls," way back in 2004. Who knew they listened to customer feedback?
Well, EA can still suck my balls [youtube.com], and there's no religious group that will intimidate me from making such a request.
http://www.purepwnage.com/ [purepwnage.com] has the full video, but there's egregious ad-portals in front of them. So you only have to sit through one, it's Season 1, Episode 3. The whole thing's worth watching, but the quote is at 4:14.
As for fundamentalist family groups, they can suck my balls too. I can only hate on EA so much.
Political harassment? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Call them what they are: American Taliban. (Score:5, Insightful)
They Let Their Children Play Them? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck you!
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.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
That's a lie. I do not have the right to marry what ever woman I want.
I'm a straight male, and I just tried to marry my coworker by saying "It is my right to marry you, as it is my right to marry any woman I want!"
And weird I got an invite for a meeting from HR where the meeting location is in the lobby outside security.
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, Informative)
Heterosexuals (and maybe 50% of the time bisexuals) can marry a person they romantically love, if that person is able to give consent and does so.
In most of the United States, homosexuals are NOT able to marry a person they romantically love, even if that person is able to give consent as does so.
That anyone can claim that this is not depriving homosexuals of equal rights is astounding.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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: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: (Score:3)
Personally, I consider marriage a religious ceremony
except that it's not, because you can get married by a justice of the peace/judge/whatever.
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because gays are icky.
That is after all the underlying reason for the viewpoint.
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: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)
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!".
Eliminating privileges of marriage be better? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would eliminating privileges of marriage be better?
Well, it would be fairer.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should people get tax breaks for signing a paper?
Ask the corporations. Actually, there's your answer. If couples want extended rights, they should incorporate.
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:Anti-Gay? (Score:5, Informative)
I believe homosexual acts are a sin. I believe homosexuality should not be promoted. I oppose gay marriage.
Does this make me anti-gay? No way. Hate the sin and love the sinner. We are all children of God.
By denying gay people respect and what they want - yes you are anti-gay
BTW being gay is natural. If not then why did God create all those gay animals? See Biological Exuberance:Homosexuality and Natural Diversity [amazon.com] which lists the gay and bisexual nature of over 300 species as seen in the wild.
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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: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: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: (Score:3)
I believe homosexuality should not be promoted.
What do you mean by 'promoted'? Should heterosexuality be promoted? Out of context, probably neither should. But if you are going to portray hereto behavior, then it would be reasonable to expect about 10% LGBT activity as well. In keeping with the demographics of society. I'm not asking for a quota. But until your so-called homosexual behavior far exceeds 10%, I don't think there's any 'promoting' going on.
I believe homosexual acts are a sin.
Then don't perform them.
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Anti-Gay? (Score:4, Informative)
"You cant lie with a man as you would with a woman, the holes dont line up."
I've never tried personally, but I'm told the problem is actually a missing hole.
"and for not stoning to death a disobedient daughter."
Now now, Leviticus, at least that part, is one of the few bits of the bible that aren't sexist. You were supposed to stone your disobedient son to death too.
Re: (Score:3)
Does this make me anti-gay?
Yes, very much so.
We are all children of God.
No, we really are not.
"It's OK to be Takei" (Score:5, Funny)
George Takei has offered up his name as an alternative to gay, so you can support Takei Marrage instead.
Re: (Score:3)
It's just as logical for me to say that I love you but hate your sin of being named 3arwax. You could be a good person, if only you'd get away from your addiction of using 3s in place
Re: (Score:3)
I believe homosexual acts are a sin
Biologists, OTOH, realize that it has something to do with the organization of your brain.
Do you think lefties are sinners? People used to try to make them use their right hands.
You're condemning people for what they are, not for some "vice" that they elected to adopt.
Re: (Score:3)
In other news, its not like they force the LGBT encounters on you in the game. You pretty much have to consciously chose them.
Finally, some sanity. You have to consciously seek out any "intimate relationship" with the other characters, whether homo- or hetero-sexual in nature. In fact I think it's even possible to go through the first two games without *any* type of sexual relationship (haven't played ME3 yet, but I would assume the same is true there as well).
Re:Any Different? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, why don't they... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, why don't they... (Score:4, Funny)
The ultimate in customization!!
I thought most people liked more choices and ability to customize here on Slashdot....you're not saying more choices are a bad thing, are you?
Re:So, why don't they... (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a pretty simple way to avoid same sex relationships in the game... don't flirt with characters of the same sex. Seriously, Bioware handles relationships worse than Stephenie Meyer. The conversation paths necessary to get into "romance" with an NPC are pretty much lit up with landing lights. It's not like you're going to be choosing random friendly options and suddenly realize that the character has fallen for you.
Ironically one of the things that upsets FOM about the idea of same sex relationships in The Old Republic (which don't actually exist yet, despite what the article says, they're promised for a future update), is that you might inadvertently interact with people having same sex relationships with *their* NPC companions. Never mind that there's no interaction with other people's companions, and you can't possibly know what the romantic status of any companion relationship is for someone else. You might get gay cooties from grouping with someone who is having freaky sex with his avatar's virtual friends while you're not looking.
No, only 1 in 40. (Score:5, Informative)
Isn't the figure that 1 in 10 people is LGBorT?
No, only about 1 in 40 in the US. See "Sex in America, a Definitive Survey" [amazon.com] 2.8% of men, 1.4% of women. 1 in 10 in the largest 5 cities, much lower in more sparsely populated areas. Data based on detailed interviews with 3400 people randomly selected, not self-selected.
Re:Defends itself, or its writing? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.