Are Gay Themes Expanding in Video Games?
Are Gay Themes Expanding in Video Games?
August 27, 2009
Are gay characters and themes more acceptable in video games these days?
Gay publication The Advocate examines the issue in Are Games Getting Gayer? For the article, author Bryan Ochalla spoke to, among others, game designer Brenda Brathwaite, author of Sex in Video Games. Braithwaite said:
We still haven’t seen the kind of normalization [of LGBT characters and story lines] that we’ve seen in movies and on TV for some time. We still haven’t had our Brokeback Mountain moment.
It took them a while, but developers... [are] getting hip to the fact that there are LGBT gamers out there who want to control LGBT characters... The almighty dollar talks as much in this industry as it does in any other, and we all know the gay market is nothing to sneeze at in that regard...
We also have to stop putting things into games that turn off gay players How many games have you played that put you in control of a male character and then asked you to save a princess?
Openly gay Maxis game designer Jeb Havens (no word as to whether he was impacted by yesterday's layoff) commented:
[Game developers are] moving away from the stereotype of the angry, homophobic teen boy ... toward a broader picture of who is buying and playing games... We’re starting to see a willingness to experiment with stories and characters that would appeal to more diverse audiences.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGIN / REGISTER
Crispy Gamer
GamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 03/21/10 at 12:12pm
JDKJ: DarkSaber: Keefer says he's sorry he put that merciless ass-whupping on you and hopes you'll return to assume your responsibilities as Resident GamePolitics Troll.
JDKJ: DarkSaber: Keefer says he's sorry he put that merciless ass-whupping on you and hopes you'll return to assume your responsibilities as Resident GamePolitics Troll.
Posted 03/21/10 at 09:10am
JDKJ: BREAKING: Skippy, the Bush Kangaroo, to meet with House Democrat Caucus in effort to win over undecided votes for health care reform bill.
JDKJ: BREAKING: Skippy, the Bush Kangaroo, to meet with House Democrat Caucus in effort to win over undecided votes for health care reform bill.
Posted 03/21/10 at 09:02am
JDKJ: BREAKING: Angry mobs of duckbill platypus march on Sydney in opposition to appointment of Skippy, the Bush Kangaroo.
JDKJ: BREAKING: Angry mobs of duckbill platypus march on Sydney in opposition to appointment of Skippy, the Bush Kangaroo.
Posted 03/21/10 at 08:56am
JDKJ: Of 437 koala bears surveyed, 420 preferred women with big tits.
JDKJ: Of 437 koala bears surveyed, 420 preferred women with big tits.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:32pm
Aliasalpha: Ding dong the witch is dead eh? Maybe we'll finally be treated as adults here and women can have small tits again!
Aliasalpha: Ding dong the witch is dead eh? Maybe we'll finally be treated as adults here and women can have small tits again!
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:28pm
JDKJ: Survey says no opinion either way. But approval is high among wombats.
JDKJ: Survey says no opinion either way. But approval is high among wombats.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:25pm
BearDogg-X: JDKJ: What does the wallabies and crocodiles think of Skippy?
BearDogg-X: JDKJ: What does the wallabies and crocodiles think of Skippy?
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:24pm
Andrew Eisen: Beardogg-X - Not staunchly, no. However, only one AG has gone on record as supporting an R18+ rating. The rest either stated no position or declined to comment.
Andrew Eisen: Beardogg-X - Not staunchly, no. However, only one AG has gone on record as supporting an R18+ rating. The rest either stated no position or declined to comment.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:23pm
JDKJ: Of 437 koala bears surveyed, 420 disagree with choice of Skippy for interim AG.
JDKJ: Of 437 koala bears surveyed, 420 disagree with choice of Skippy for interim AG.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:21pm
BearDogg-X: With Atkinson stepping down, the question now becomes was there any other AG besides him that was against R18+? His stepping down does make R18+ more likely to be approved.
BearDogg-X: With Atkinson stepping down, the question now becomes was there any other AG besides him that was against R18+? His stepping down does make R18+ more likely to be approved.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:18pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, Adelaide readers seem pleased with Atkinson's decision. 420 out of 437.
Andrew Eisen: Well, Adelaide readers seem pleased with Atkinson's decision. 420 out of 437.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:15pm
JDKJ: BREAKING: Vacant Aussie AG post to be filled by Skippy, the Bush Kangaroo.
JDKJ: BREAKING: Vacant Aussie AG post to be filled by Skippy, the Bush Kangaroo.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:12pm
Andrew Eisen: Flamespeak - Gamecube and Xbox came out in late 2001 with contollers pretty similar to the Dual Shock. You never know thoug. This Fall may be when the standard controller changes from the Dual Shock to a motion wand. *shudder*
Andrew Eisen: Flamespeak - Gamecube and Xbox came out in late 2001 with contollers pretty similar to the Dual Shock. You never know thoug. This Fall may be when the standard controller changes from the Dual Shock to a motion wand. *shudder*
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:09pm
Flamespeak: at a quicker rate these days.
Flamespeak: at a quicker rate these days.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:09pm
Flamespeak: I believe that was launched in the first part of 1998. 2 years seems kind of fast too, but then again the world seems to move
Flamespeak: I believe that was launched in the first part of 1998. 2 years seems kind of fast too, but then again the world seems to move
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:05pm
Andrew Eisen: Flamespeak - Not when you consider Sony's been using the same controller since the PS1.
Andrew Eisen: Flamespeak - Not when you consider Sony's been using the same controller since the PS1.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:03pm
BearDogg-X: Andrew Eisen: I meant that it won't take as many people to change their votes next election. Besides that, it's become a moot point now that he's stepping down as AG as soon as the election's over.
BearDogg-X: Andrew Eisen: I meant that it won't take as many people to change their votes next election. Besides that, it's become a moot point now that he's stepping down as AG as soon as the election's over.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:02pm
Flamespeak: Seems kind of early considering the PS2 didn't launch until well into 2000.
Flamespeak: Seems kind of early considering the PS2 didn't launch until well into 2000.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:01pm
Andrew Eisen: Fleamespeak - I'd say since around the turn of the century.
Andrew Eisen: Fleamespeak - I'd say since around the turn of the century.
Posted 03/20/10 at 10:01pm
BearDogg-X: BREAKING NEWS: Atkinson will step down as South Australia Attorney-General; will remain in Parliament
BearDogg-X: BREAKING NEWS: Atkinson will step down as South Australia Attorney-General; will remain in Parliament
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
I've always felt the Brokeback mountain was more an exception than a rule, the whole reason it got so much attention was because it broke the mold in many ways, but it isn't a format that Hollywood have noticeably returned to since, so as far as movies are concerned, gays are still often represented in movies as incredibly cliched and stereotyped except for the fwe exceptions such as Brokeback and Phlidelphia.
As for games, can't see I've seen any real evidence, but then again. whilst I'm against gay-bashing, it does need to be noted that quite a small percentage of the population is homosexual, and games and movies are about appealing to the largest number of people possible.
I will admit, movies are still better than games, but whilst the stereotype exists, all forms of media will always tend to shy away from taking that kind of financial risk.
To be fair, video games over represent many different minority groups like Ninjas, Pirates, Samurai, women who sleep with you after the second date and don't mind that you have 4 other girlfriends, nazis, people who have beneficial mutations and Orcs.
I think inclusiveness for LGBT should at least include RPGs. Take FO3 for example. Could have just made Lady Killer and Black Widow non-gender exclusive.
I think a more viable solution would be to make new perks that appealed to NPCs of the same sex.
You know, give the player a choice between choosing a male character who can flirt with certain females, or a male character who can flirt with other males... or both (i.e., you have two perks that do those two things). Of course, I'd imagine it could have some humorous effects on certain characters.
--- I do more than just play games. I draw, too: http://www.silvermelee.deviantart.com
While we're on the subject, Black Widow/Lady Killer were WAY under-utilized in fallout 3.
I agree though, different perks for appealing to the same sex would have been cool and getting both could have been linked to an achievement like "too sexy for this game- you are found to be attractive by people of different sexes and sexual orientation" or something.
That would only work if the NPC's are gay though.
http://www.eliteownage.com/nice
Well that makes sense, the ladies that didn't have a Lady Killer dialogue option were lesbians. That's the only reason that explains why they didn't respond to my avatar's high CH and INT.
why hasnt anyone brought up enchanted arms?
That's probably the worst overstereotyping of a gay character in any game recently.
Dennis my man, do you HAVE to troll the readers with this?
Brokeback Mountain was actually just the first mainstream production of a theme that has been growing in popularity in small cases and indepedent media for years. Nowadays, you see that pro-gay image almost everywhere. Cybernatography is just the latest to join in.
Obviously, the broader games get, the better. As long as the pro-gay games dont end up portaying the non-progressive audience as foul-mouthed XBL homophobes.
Isn't the main character of the next GTA4 expansion going to be gay? Whatever happened to that anyway?
I'd say that the Final Fantasy and Gears of War series are edging closer and closer to a full-fledged gay character. Give it time.
Ah yes, GAY TONY is surely the way forward for gay people in video games.
I am employing sarcasm here, of course. Saying that this character would in any way appeal to a gay audience is like believing that you can reach out to black gamers by putting on a fucking minstrel show. That is what Gay Tony is; gay blackface.
Or appealing to black gamers by using 50 Cent, a very clear stereotype that shouldn't appeal to blac- oh wait.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
actually, if my gamepro is to be trusted, you're supposedly going to play as "gay" tony's assistant or something.
Of course i don't know if this changes anything as i never got far enough in GTAIV to meet this guys so whether he is actually gay, or his assistant is, is something i don't know.
Gay Tony is your character's boss, as far as I know the character you play is heterosexual.
I think it would be better if the gay people stopped trying to make themselves stand out so much. As I've said before, a lot of them treat it like a religion. The reason that the movies tend to make them stereotypical is because a lot of them tend to behave in such a way in order to draw attention to themselves.
I have some friends that are openly gay, and then don't act that way. In truth, how do you KNOW more characters in games aren't gay? If they aren't acting stereotypically, then you don't count them, that's all. What are you looking for, huh? You can either have a side character act flamboyant and such, or you want some regular character to just spout out "I like other men/women!" for no good reason. For all you know, half the crew of the "Tiger Claw" could have been gay.
In truth, a characters sexuality shouldn't really be on display like that unless it is a part of the game. You like women? Fine, what does that have to do with the game? In short, maybe the reason that you don't have "characters" that are gay is that it doesn't really come up much while aliens are shooting at you.
Stop trying to force your morals on us. I'm straight and I'm proud!
Please tell us more about the correct way to be gay. When you're done, perhaps you could instruct some other minority how they can be "one of the good ones".
Well there are plenty of blacks that act like the stereotypical "gangsta" and are thus acting the incorrect version of a black person. A correct version of a black person would not shout "racism" when there isn't any (like a normal human being), would respect women, would wear clothing that doesn't almost completely expose themselves, would learn basic english and actually speak it, and wouldn't mooch off of tax dollars by raising 5 kids from 5 different mothers.
Granted, there are whites that act the same exact way, but living within a few miles of Pontiac and pretty damn close to Flint and Detroit, you definitely see many more black people fitting that negative stereotype.
On an unrelated note, why do people call gays a minority in leiu of different races/religions? Being gay is just one choice in a person's lifestyle/character, yet people treat them like they are from a different race or from a totally different planet. Gay people can be the exact same as straight people, just with a preference for penis over vagina, so I don't see why they have to be pigeon-holed by both gay-haters and the overly-politically-correct as being the gay stereotype.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
Oops, ignore, this was supposed to be a stand-alone post
mogbert
TL : DR translation
Gays need to act more human and less self righteous hormonal twats IE less like the fundies and whiny feminists who hate other women who are prettier than them(IE hate strippers and porn stars because its lowering them selfs to be an object for men always forgetting men are dumb enough to be lead by the eye....s...... ).
Now that I can agree with that!
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Thank you, Zippy. You have indeed seen the meaning of what I posted. You have normal people who happen to be gay, and I don't have any problem with them. Then you have another group, I don't know what to call them, but they run in the same crowd as PETA, radical feminists, and Greenpeace. Pretty much, they are the ones that annoy me.
I do, however, laugh at the comment above yours where the person talks about being "one of the good ones." The idea behind that is that the majority are bad, and the few have to do something different to be good. In fact, this is the opposite. The majority are normal (by definition), and it's the radical vocal fringes that mess it up for them. I worked with a guy for a whole year before I found out he was gay, and he was openly gay. It just never came up, and why should it. One of my best friends in college was a lesbian, and she gave me rides to my girlfriend's (now wife) apartment. Normally my girlfriend is incredibly jealous, but because this girl was a lesbian, she didn't have any problem with us being friends. Also, there is usually more tension ina boy/girl "just friends" situation. But there wasn't this time, and I actually liked that better. So I have no problem with gay people, I have a problem with people who push their choice down my throat at every opportunity. Think of it like hanging out with rabid fanboys all day...
mogbert
People tend to forget to be people and sometimes fall unwittingly into stark stereotypes and don't always stop and really think what it is of what they are talking about.
As for being a good one anyone of any gender can do that just by being youerself . One can convey feelings and words without being snide,holier than thou and disrespectful to another. Being an annoying aggravater will you get you more flame than you spew no matter who you are.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Part of the reason I loathe "pride" parades. I too have gay friends, and each of them hates the way that the "priders" make it a point to "speak out on behalf of the gay community", while the majority of that "community" is ashamed of them just as much as they're ashamed of their racist grandparents. There's "being yourself" and then "being a prick about it".
Also, in Fallout 3, Flak of "Flak and Sharpnel's" is apparently gay, according to the polish translation of the game. You'd have never guessed. On the other side of the spectrum, each new FF character up to this next one (13) has looked more and more feminine.
There are plenty of games where the male character you play has a female love interest. There are a few games where the attractive female character you play has a female love interest. There are few (if any) games where the player will have a male love interest regardless of the gender of the character that the gamer is playing as. I don't remember Lara Croft having a love interest (although I may be wrong).
Teenage boys who play games are so afraid of their sexuality, that games companies simply don't provide male love interests in case these kids think that it might make them gay.
Bully... kind of. There was a single male in each group that you could kiss so the PC was Bisexual.
Or they never really found a place to put it into their story. I mean, they shouldn't insert gay people just to insert gay people, they should put it in when it fits into the story. For all we know, one of the ODST's in Halo 3: ODST could be gay, but we may never find out during the game because it's not very important to the overall story. Hell, Master Chief could be gay, I don't think that it's really stated throughout the entire series.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
There are lots of places where a love interest fits into the story (with Bully it was never integral to the story, yes you made fun of the two boys together but it wasn't a main feature). I see games where the male has a female love interest, but I never see games where the female has a male love interest, let alone a man with a male love interest.
Fair enough that 10% of people are gay so seeing a game with a main homosexual love story would be rare, but for games to feature women that have no male love interests? That's unrealistic and again it comes down to the fact that many gamers are insecure about their own sexuality.
(Or that a fair percentage of military men and gamers are male?)
It has nothing to do with how secure people are with sexuality, it's just the classic story-telling model. How many movies do you know of where a woman rescues men? I thought so. If anything, games are better than movies at providing choices or alternatives to the norm.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
I can't think of many films where a woman saves a man but I can think of many where a woman has a male love interest which almost never happens within gaming. Because the market is aimed towards men the developers will not show a female with a male interest, but they're quite happy to show it round the other way.
If you believe that they only way you can show a love interest is through a man rescuing a woman, well that's just a basic line of thought. Is that how relationships are supposed to start then? In GTA4 the girlfriend was more advanced than that ideology, Niko didnt rescus anyone he was usually hooked up with them. This isn't Mario and Princess Peach stuff.
There can only be so many "grizzled space marine women" before people will start to think that they're only including women to fill a quota. They probably will make a GTA where the main character is a woman someday, if they can make an interesting story that revolves around the concept. Story first, then characters as they fit in. Besides, most of these movies that have women with a male love interest are chick flicks or romance movies or comedies, that don't translate well into video games.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
So games developers have to find a reason for having a female as a lead?!? They have to justify that decision?
Why is it that Lara Croft can't have a male love interest but her male equivalents can? Even in the Tomb Raider films she was allowed to have a male love interest (one example of a film not being a chick flick, romance or comedy) but why not in the games?
So you believe that games that feature a female with a male love interest have to be either a chick game, romance or comedy? But for a male with a female love interest any game genre will do?
Mass Effect seems to break with the rule (although you decide on the lead's gender), you could have a female lead who had a male love interest, but then it again it seemed to be offset with the possibility of a lesbian relationship. The male version of Sheppard could only choose between women, no possibility of a gay relationship there.
"What are you looking for, huh? You can either have a side character act flamboyant and such, or you want some regular character to just spout out "I like other men/women!" for no good reason."
Or you could just put the character together with another gay character and have them show off a normal relationship... or have the gay character show off subtle signs that like someone of the same sex.
I know that it has been done a few times in anime. You can tell the characters are gay and they never have to be flamboyant or sterotypical about it. Show don't tell. Frankly, if you can include a hertoesexual relationship into a game, you could include a homosexual one aswell... a lot of games have some level of storytelling, which includes plenty of side characters who could have anykind of relationship.
Yeah, because anime has always been a model for what normal media is supposed to be.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
My point was that in media you CAN have a gay character that the audience knows is gay, with out making them flamboyant or making them stereotypically gay... only reason i singled out anime was because that's one of the few places i've personally seen or heard it done aside from brookback mountain... i might have seen it done elsewhere, but can not recall.
The reason it works in anime is because of the fact that anime has so much crazy-assed shit going on that nobody CARES about anyone's sexuality. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet that, in gaming or movies nobody CARES about anyone's sexuality anyway. The only reason anyone brings it up is because everyone - gays included - look at people and generally assume hetero, especially in entertainment media.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
If I include a relationship on my game, males would be always hetero and women bi or hetero.
Why is that? Well, I am hetero, I like being hetero and the game is mine, I do whatever I want.
I think that there are not much gays on games, because there are not much gays making games anyway...
And no, I am not homophobic, before someone show that up... I DO believe that being gay is a sin (it is my religion...), but I don't go around accusing gays of being sinners and whatnot, and I even have a colleague that is gay. I study in a university full of gays, the flamboyant type ones, these ones I want distance, usually they are hell annoying among other things, but there are there also lots of gays that are normal people that are gay, and sometimes I don't evne know that they are gays, or I figure only because they have a BF or something, they don't even bother to hit on me (the flamboyant ones sometimes do, and it is utterly annoying, I already had gay people try to "convert" me to be gay too...)
criadordejogos.wordpress.com
And no, I am not homophobic, before someone show that up... I DO believe that being gay is a sin (it is my religion...).
I see those statements as contradictory.
Homophobia is an irrational fear. If you think that being gay is a sin, it does not mean you are afraid of gay people or want to hurt them.
Exactly.
In fact one church that I visited, sometimes the pastor commented, that yes, being gay is a sin, but hating someone is also a sin, everyone should love (fraternally, for those wondering) everyone, regardless of their diffrences, and that gay people were welcome in the church, the only exception is to have some highly sacred jobs within the organization, then gayness was not allowed, and also the church don't allow gay marriage (for obvious reasons).
Like I said, I do believe that being gay is a sin, but also I am not a judge, I am not to go around screaming: YOU ARE A SINNER BECAUSE YOU ARE GAY... That would be wrong according to the religion ethics, and wrong according to the current social norm.
But this also mean, that I reserve the right to don't have "good" characters on my games that are clearly gay. (They may have a unknown sexual preference, but then it is not my problem if people think that it is gay...)
criadordejogos.wordpress.com
It's nice to see someone who actually knows what homophobia is and doesn't fall for the PC BS that says anyone who happens to disagree with homosexuality is a homophobe.
They're only contradictory if you believe that someone has to hate or fear sinners. But most of these churchies believe that everybody is a sinner, so... No. I don't think this is necessarily contradictory.
I take exception to this attitude:
"It's OK for women to be gay because I think two hot women in bed is sexy. But it's not OK for men to be gay because, well... It's just icky."
Maybe if you were more observant you would notice more gay people who aren't stereotypical. Try attending a bear event or going to pride and look for bear related groups and booths. THe bear community is basically big, husky, masculine men and mostly includes guys that look like truckers, body builders, construction workers, etc. etc. etc.
Just because you don't see the non-stereotypical gays doesn't mean they don't exist.
So your friends don't act like media stereotypes, and yet you still think those media stereotypes represent the majority of gay people? Even though you don't know any like that?
Wat.
I think what we're talking about here is more options like in Mass Effect or Fable where your character that you made can be gay if you want them to be. What's wrong with that? If you're this upset over gay people even being acknowledged in games that's just a smidge prejudice.
If both Sai and questionmark1987 look way, WAY up, you;ll see my point as it flies over your head.
I wasn't saying the majority are falmboyant. I'm saying the most annoying ones, the ones that are trying to claim they are being oppressed (help help, I'm being oppressed!) are the flamboyant ones. Almost no one has a problem with the regular ones, the normal people who happen to like other guys or girls.
Let me 'splain... no there is to much, let me sum up. The normal gay people don't complain there aren't enough gay people in games, because they are just enjoying the games. The annoying gay people are complaining there aren't enough gay people in games, because they define gay people as the ones that are annoying. Most of us are saying maybe there are more gay people in games, but they may just be the normal kind that aren't annoying, so you don't notice them.
I am not flamboyant or campy, but I do feel not being able to get married is a hinderance to my happiness. I do feel opressed in work environments when I have to hide my relationship to not feel that my job is threatened. THAT IS OPPRESSED!
I think you're projecting what you percieve onto all of us and that's not fair. It's a lot easier to ignore inequality when you pretend the only people who are complaining or hurt by it are ones that bother you personally.
Yeah almost no one has a problem with them, except they don't want them to get married or have state jobs or employee benfits for their partners who they can't marry. Yes, "normal" gay people don't face any prejudice.
I'm gay. I'm probably what you'd consider to be "normal". I liked being able to have my female character romance another female in Mass Effect, even if it was blue-alien only. My first character in Fable is female with about 6 wives. When it comes to customizing your character being able to do things like that is enjoyable, and again entirely optional.
Well, I will admit this, most CG characters are completely asexual, the number of computer games where any characters sexuality is even referred to, let alone an issue, is a tiny, tiny fraction of the Video Game market in the first place, maybe, however, that will change as Governmental attitudes towards Video Games actually daring to present sex in any way, shape or form starts to to lighten. Harry Potter probably has more sexual references than most computer games.
Agreed, few chracters in videogames even have a sexual/romance life. If you look only on those who do, there are currently quite a few that are (or can be) homosexual: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_characters_in_video_games#After_the_ESRB
But complaining about having to save the princess is REALLY pushing it! I mean, most games that do that are either very old, aimed at kids or use it in a fairy-tale-like setting that is not meant to be taken seriously. If anyone has the right to be annoyed about that, then it is the much larger group of female gamers!
It's about a sense of intitlement and arogance. If the designers/writers/whatever arn't including gay characters then of course it's a negative action. So all you writers/designers/whatevers better start shoehorning gay characters actual gay pride people approve of or we'll be hearing alot more noise.
Wow I'm so sick of these posts. Gay people need to just call the whaaaambulance already. Stop trying to force the mainstream to see your lifestyle choices as perfectly healthy and normal. This is a free country, we can believe whatever we want.
Stop trying to imply that their lifestyle choices are not healthy and normal, and they might stop having to defend themselves?
Some people like Bondage, other people think it is unhealthy and abnormal, who's right?
THIS, a thousand times over.
As long as everyone involved is fully informed, uncoerced and adult, stay out of it. Doesn't matter if they're straight, gay, poly, S&M whatever. What goes on between people is their business.
...Do they have to be human though? I mean if a dog or house wants to have sex with a human...that IS consent. Just saying.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
How do you have sex with a house?
Find a big enough hole? Or a long enough cynlinder.
Female horses have vaginas, like females of most animals. Or, you could be Mr. Hands and...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Pinyan
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
You didn't say horse. You said house. So basically, the question was, "how do you have sex with a building?"
---
He was dead when I got here.
....*facepalm* dammit. My bad. I still continued to read it as "horse". Stupid stupid stupid. House. Horse. ugh.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
When you said horse, I realized what happened and rofled.
---
He was dead when I got here.
Install a vagina/penis in the wall. Could you imagine...?
"Oh, my God, I love this house sooo much! Uh uh uh uh--oh, yeah!"
XD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game on, brothers and sisters.
I don't care what you choose to do in your own home that's in the bounds of legal activity. They are trying to force their opinions of the naturalness of a gay lifestyle on everyone else. So, until they stop attacking our beliefs by pretending only idiots have them, I'll continue to defend mine.
And if you're implying moral relativism is the way to go, don't even start, the entire view is a logical paradox.
Why must you constantly disgust everyone by flaunting your heterosexuality everywhere you go? It's just plain wrong and upsetting my children.
Bilogically speaking, you don't have children without being heterosexual.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Yeah no way there are any men/women who were so far in the closet they entered into an unhappy marriage to please their parents/society at large and had children. Also, there is no such thing as Lesbians who use a sperm donor in order to have a child and it is just a myth that anyone who is, in fact, homosexual tries very very hard to be heterosexual to the point of engaging in intercourse with the opposite sex, potentially unprotected. All those possibilities are urban myths.
It's ok though, I understand what you meant to say: the opinions of people who don't have children don't matter and should not be taken into account.
Shut. the fuck. up. Surely jedi knows of sperm donors and of closet homosexuals, he was just speaking from a general standpoint.
God you take everything far too seriously. He made a general statement and you had to flip out and point out a ton of contradictions (that probably rarely happen as it is) as if he was claiming his statement to be 100% true.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
People like fremen will always take what they want to take. I'm not offended by what he said, because what he said proves the fallicy of his viewpoints. Not that the views themselves are wrong or bad or whathaveyou, but that he doesn't know enough of either side, much less both, to have an educated opinion on the subject. He sees nothing more than biggotry, and sees it with nothing more than anger.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
You make a gross exaggeration to argue your side, I make a gross exaggeration to argue my side, thus I am the bad guy. Right. makes sense.
I made no exageration. You need male sperm and a female egg to make a baby. Male sperm will not mix with male sperm to make a baby, nor will a female egg mix with a female egg to make a baby. You sidestepped this fact by responding with the assumption that artificial insemination is available to all lesbian couples, or that all homosexual couples would be able to adopt. Neither could be further from the truth. Also, with the whole "Octomom" incident, clinics that offer artificial insemination are much more strict nowadays on who they would perform that operation on. Sadly, this will affect lesbian couples before a lot of others.
---
He was dead when I got here.
Gay males produce sperm and lesbian females produce eggs. Homosexual people have children all the time, we just don't always have sex to do it. So your point was ignorant and wrong.
I'd only be wrong when sperm and egg aren't needed to make children, without cloning. Apparently you need to go back to high-school biology class.
---
He was dead when I got here.
You can create a child with artificial insemination in a doctors lab without any sexual intercourse, apparently you need to catch up on the last 50 years of medical science.
The problem is, that sexual activity, outside of rape, requires sexual stimulation. I'm married, I know (lol). So, even in the examples you cite, with the exception of the lesbian couple, heterosexuality was involved. In response to the lesbian couple, bilogically speaking, only the birth mother is the parent of the child. That's the case legally speaking in most states of the Union (if not all, I'll admit I'm not totally educated on the rights of homosexual couples as it relates to children in all fifty states). Therefore, my statement still stands, that bilogically speaking, a couple needs to be hetero for children to come from it.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Yes. I was just pointing out how fucking annoying it is that people use their kids to say something like "How dare you expose my children to your evil conservative war mongering! How dare you expose my children to homosexuals! How dare you expose my children to guns! etc".
But you were the one that brought the children into this.
---
He was dead when I got here.
Precisely, as a parody of those who constantly feel the need to bring their children's exposure to EVIL all the time.
Uhhmmm....fremen? You forgot the little "/sarcasm" thing at the end of your post. If you don't include it where it's meant to be, people will think you're being serious. I mean, I saw the sarcasm in your post because I read it aloud in my head, but I'm not sure others did the same or saw where you were coming from....'kay?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game on, brothers and sisters.
Biology is kind of an irrevelant point though with modern technology/society.
Not really. The biology involved is always going to raise ethical concerns. I actually fear for the day biology is irrelevant, because on that day, we will cease to be human.
---
He was dead when I got here.
Given that homosexuality exists throughout the entire animal kingdom, please explain what is unnatural about it.
Guess what, last I checked humans are different from the rest of the animal kingdom. Basing normality on the way other animals behave is rediculous. So, if homosexuality is perfectly natural, no different at all from heterosexuality in terms of value to the community, then there would be nothing wrong with 100% of the population being gay? Except then our population would ceast to exist over time unless we started having surrogates.
No, they're not different. We respond to the same type of conditioning and stimuli that animals do. Don't pretend we aren't animals, we are.
Gee, just because 100% is bad, 0% is the only acceptable answer? Please tell me you're not ignorant enough to think that's a real argument.
When I made up that 100% example, it was not to argue about the bad or goodness of homosexuality. It was to argue about it being natural as a lifestyle that benefits the community. I think being gay is more about the benefits to the individual, wheras straight people are typically the ones procreating.
You honestly believe we are no different from animals just because of our biological responses? Why do we even have institutions and laws then? Because we are not the same as other animals, we are able to make decisions for the good of the community as a whole instead of just doing what our instincts tell us to do.
"Over procreation" was a capital offense when religion ruled government and thus ruled law as such being different was a crime because it was against the religion that spurned order threw draconia. Modern laws are made to balance the needs of the individual with society not maintain a antiquated society thats balances itself upon the backs of the individual.
Also if you believe in evolving creation the things animals do are part of our history as what they do to survive made us over time. As I said one can find similarities in the animal kingdom of human behaviorism but once you account for the human conscious mind and its emotional heart things like gender become 2nd to the fact we are people/individual's first and social roles 2nd.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
I agree with you that a government ruled by a religious institution is not something we would at all want. To me, it's not about being different that's the problem, it's about what the government should encourage and what it should discourage. I don't think the goverment should encourage gay marriage not because I see it as wrong, but because I don't see it as benefiting our society in any tangible way. The government exists to make laws that will benefit our community, not to make laws based on individuals personal belief systems.
I'm afraid I do not believe in the evolution of one species to another. That's why I personally don't think studying monkeys, while interesting, should have any real impact on the way we view humanity. There may be correlations to our behavior and these are interesting to study, but in your view if monkeys were close to our previous form, then the way they do things should be seen as obsolete.
deadgarth
There are problems with this line of thought we are over populated as it is, and I must add that religion is not part of the legal marriage process and most modern governments focus on civil/individual rights. Because of these issues marriage is something that contracts through the state 2 human adults in matrimony. You can not have a government that says individuals have rights can own guns but can not get married this means for any reason something can be made illegal on a whim because those in power say so.
Animals live by many instincts and those varied instincts can be very similar to what humans do but its merely part of the world we live in, we are part of the world not "THE WORLD" as it were. "Gays" are nothing more than one other part of humanity that is no better or worse than any other part, just because some (and you hread me SOME) can not procreate is not a issue as humanity will always have plenty of people to sire offspring's even if females would have full control over their body you still would have a surplus of humanity but under the most extreme of circumstances.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
You want a tangible way gay marriage supports society? Adoption.
A gay couple is more likely to adopt than a straight couple (since the gay couple has fewer options). It's much easier for a married couple (regardless of gender) to adopt than a non-married couple. So gay marriage will reduce the number of kids that have to grow up in orphanages or bouncing around the foster home, leading to more well-developed adults in the long run.
This would only be an effective argument if A: All gay couples adopted, which wouldn't be the case, and B: All adoption agencies would adopt to a gay couple, which still wouldn't be the case. From what I understand, gay couples wanting to adopt are the exception, not the rule. Also, a majority of adoption agencies in the US are operated by churches, most of which would not adopt to an openly gay person, much less a gay couple.
---
He was dead when I got here.
I disagree with part A. Even if only 1% of gay couples wanted to adopt, that's still more kids out of the system and into a loving home. Also, you can't claim that gay marriages have to have a kid to be worthwhile, since straight marriages aren't required to have one.
As for B, that doesn't change anything. It merely limits the number of adoption agencies the gay couple can go to. In some ways, this makes gay marriage even more important, since it increases their chances of successfully adopting at an agency that does let gay couples adopt.
You're slipping into the fallacy that if we can't reach 100%, we might as well go with 0%. The fact is, even if only some gay couples can only adopt from some agencies, it's still a good thing.
uhg.. just.. Arg! Reading your posts is what cancer must feel like!
Point 1 - Stop using this 'good for the community' argument over and over. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and, as you may or may not know, human communities SUCK anyways. Have you ever made a decision with the community in mind? have you gone to the super market and thought, "How will buying this box of cereal impact my neighbors?" No, because no one does that, because there are billions of humans on this planet and the way we structure our society makes it so we don't have to give a f*** about them.
Point 2 - Human People don't procreate for the good of the species, that's what condoms exist. You may have noticed that our biggest blight int he world is too many people all f***ing things up at the same time. Most countries don't need more people because they either can't feed them, or their overloaded as it is.
Point 3 - Yes, we are still animals, despite having laws and institutions. Animals do the same thing. In wolf packs, the strongest wolf asserts authority and leads and protects the rest of the pack. It's simple, but it's a form of law and order among that species. In fact, most animals enforce personal laws through claiming territory, cohabitation, and generally helping each other survive.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because our Government is so grand and huge that it must work, because it's run by many corrupt idiots who have no idea what they're doing and whose interests usually lie with those who offer them the most money. Once more, the community has nothing to do with it, stop hiding behind such a paper thin argument.
The only thing that seperates us from animals is that we are smarter. When it comes down to it, we are still have chemicals in our brains that have influence over our actions. The strength of our minds may allow us to make choices, but that doesn't mean we do not have those instincts.
Animals help serve as proof of homosexualty as not being a matter of choice, but as a natural growth burned into someone at birth; and since homosexuals were BORN that way, i think that qualifies their actions as being natural. For them to fight their homosexualty would in essence be unnatural.
Hey, what if 100% of the world's population was made up of herteosexual people who never wanted to have children? they become couples, get married but none of them ever have children because none of them want to... What would happen to our world?
One of the biggest flawed arguements against homosexuals would have to be "they can't procreate"... Why? beceause their are many heterosexual couples that choose not to procreate... by all means, if you take a stand against gays because they can not procreate then you should rail against all straight couples that choose not to procreate because they are just as guilty; their relationship is about "benefiting the individual"... and hell we can add those who can't reproduce to that list aswell; there are people in this world who for one reason or another have trouble reproducing... by your logic, these people should not be permitted to have a relationship because they can not procreate...
Another benefit would be the fact that we inch closer to over populating the world as too many are being born and not enough are dying... Frankly, it's actually a good thing for some people to go through life without procreating, as they do not contribute to the inevitable over population of the world
when it comes down to it, there is actually some good society benefit to those that can not procreate... We have a lot of unwanted children in the world; children who either lost their parents, or were given up by their parents... We have orphanages... And one thing that couples who can not procreate can do is give such children a home... Sure straight couples can do this too by choice, but couples that can not procreate have more insentive too seeing as they do not have a choice. They can either adopt an unwanted child, or they have no children (much like heterosexual couples that choose not to procreate or adopt)
Another benefit would be the fact that world is slowly inching towards over population... More people are being born than they are dying... frankly, its actually a good thing for some people to go through their lives without adding to the inevitable over population.
I'm not sure I agree that overpopulation is a real problem, personally I'm not planning on having children at all at least at this point in my life, so I'm not advocating that every relationship must produce offspring to be valid either. I think being human is in large part all about not doing what our natural tendencies suggest. It would be "natural" for me to have sex with every woman who I found attractive, but I think it is more beneficial for me to not follow that desire. Using my brain, I can counteract what would be destructive behavior.
If being gay means your not going to procreate, fine. I do think not being able to procreate is a valid argument, however. You don't think that it is nature's overall intention to increase in numbers? Animals don't choose to procreate or not because of what it will do to their population, they go with their instincts completely.
If I have children in the future, I would be more likely to adopt, because I agree that giving already existing children a home is more important.
deadgarth
So your argument is you don't like gays because they are gay... thats ok, its silly but so what I believe that God is love and life not devision and pettiness that what definitions we give god are small and narrow minded. If god can create all then coming to us in different forms to force us to get over ourselves and see things more figuratively should be something thats mused on much more than it is. I am silly to think and do what I do, I don't mind being wrong I am only human after all.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
You think that's my argument because we differ on the definition of a gay person. You think people are born gay, I think the scientific evidence for that is lacking, but I'm willing to admit that it is a real possibility. Whether you are attracted to the same sex by choice or not, you still have the ability to decide if you will act on those inclinations. I'm attracted to women, if I could change that it would be very difficult if not impossible. Yet I hold back my desires to in order to remain faithful to one woman because of my belief system and the reasons I have that belief system. So you see, you think I don't like gay people, where in actuality I don't like their behavior. You may think that's the same thing, I understand why, but my friends or people I've come in contact with who are gay don't seem to have aproblem with the way I interact with them.
deadgarth
It dose not matter if its nature or nurture its a reasonable thing humans want to do IE have a relationship that sires no children gender dose not equate to the nature of relationships as human relationships are built upon feelings far more than hormones. This is not about sleeping around,casual sex,ect,ect but having a deep relationship with another that goes beyond placated normalities such as those who are complete opposites or have different social standings, feelings turn a cold cruel world upside down when one's heart is fueled by love that turns the literal into the figurative and vise verse.
For the sake of being absolutely right you cast aside what it means to be human and for that you have my pity.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
"This is not about sleeping around,casual sex,ect,ect but having a deep relationship with another that goes beyond placated normalities such as those who are complete opposites or have different social standings"
What's stopping this from already ocurring? I have no problem with it.
By saying they can not get married you make them less than human.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
By saying that a man and a man cannot share in an institution that is currently defined as being for a man and a woman I am making them less than human?
Yes, because you are saying that our love is less worthy of recognition then yours, thus we are lesser people then you, thus we are less human.
Actually, no he's not. He's saying that you can't be considered second-class citizens solely on the basis of a law having been written that, due to the way it's written, doesn't apply to you.
---
He was dead when I got here.
Ok so let me get this straight. I cannot claim that because a law made to provide the governments citizens with a set of protections does not cover all of that government's citizens that the uncovered group are recieving second class protections?
General marriage law didn't include the words man and woman until gays started trying to get married.
You sir, are an idiot.
And again i reiterate... how is a homosexual couple different than a heterosexual couple that can't procreate? how is a homosexual couple different than a heterosexual couple that can procreate, but chooses not to? By saying that homsexuality is wrong because they can not procreate, but say heterosexualty is fine even when they can't/choose not to procreate, then you are holding a DOUBLE STANDARD. What is bad for one group, is ok for another... in fact, by not procreating yourself, you are also a HYPOCRITE... you are commiting the same crime you accuse Homosexuals commiting... by your own logic you should not be engaging in relationships... as you put it before, you are just benefiting the individual and not procreating... you are trying to say two things that can not be said without holding a double standard... so again i ask, why is it bad for homsexuals not to procreate, but fine for heterosexuals not to procreate?
Not to mention you should get your story straight... does the nature as seen in animals matter or not... part of your arguement is that humans are different than animals and therefore what animals do is irrelevant (in order to negate the arguement that homsexuality occurs in animals as proof that homsexuality in humans is natrual), but now you are bringing up animals and nature back to the arguement against gays... But to answer your question, procreation is indeed a survival instict and a part of nature... but that does not change the fact that homosexualty DOES naturally occur in animals despite that... hell, in theory, homosexuality could actually be natures way of saying "you're species is fucking too much and not dying fast enough", and could actually be a form of natural population control
I think he has a bias against gays and other issues with them just enough to wish that society says that gays can not marry but not enough to say they be outlawed, its a reasonable personal issue we all have them and some of which can be easily dismissed under some scrutiny. IMO I don't really care who you are with as long as not 2 girls then I'll get jealous....and it makes me lonely... >>...but I regress modern society has a enough rules when it really needs more freedoms....
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
I don't think gays should be included in our current institution of marriage, the whole argument stems from marriage as a religious or legal institution. If they had all the same benefits of marriage through a legal "union," that's fine with me. The argument of the right to raise children would come after that and would probably be very controversial as well.
Homosexual couples do just fine raising children, and can do so without making the child gay
Goddamn, just admit that you have no good reason for your above statements and get on with it. I mean...read your last sentence, you are seriously suggesting that homosexual couples should not be allowed to raise children?
Personally, I think legally, only civil unions should exist. If, religiously, you want to get 'married' you can go ahead and do that after.
So far all your arguments have been contradictory and hypocritical. I get the feeling that you just dislike homosexuals because you think they're 'icky' or something, I don't know. So, you're scrambling for reasons for why they shouldn't be on the exact same footing as heterosexual couples.
I don't know why you are so hostile to my viewpoint, I agree completely with your second paragraph. I made no statement saying that gays should or should not be able to raise children, I was merely saying that it would be the next logical controversy after the gay marriage one is finally over.
My main reason why homosexual relationships should not be treated the same as heterosexuals ones is because they are not the same. I don't know how it can get any more obvious than that.
deadgarth
Well at least you can admit you are baist, the trouble then comes there is no good reason to not allow a small proration of people to marry since the constitution protects them and religion alike. It took years to have blacks treated as human don't forget interacail and inter creed marriage was banned at one time and things are no different with gays.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Your right, it is a double standard if I believe it's wrong for homosexuals to not procreate and right for heterosexuals to choose not to. That's not what I believe. I was trying and failing to point out my belief that the ability to procreate is what makes a union "natural." I cannot effectively argue this point any further as I'm not a scientist who has studied the behaviors of the animal kingdom.
But your belief is flawed... Saying that having the ability to procreate makes the union natural, looses all value when you say it's fine for said people not to procreate. What's the point of having the ability to procreate if you do not make use of it... if you are not going to use it, then the ability becomes meaningless and therefore becomes irrelevant... Those who choose not to partake into procreation are, as you put, only benfiting the individual. Their relationship is one of pure self indulgence.
Furtharmore, there are people who are born with trouble giving birth. These people, just like homosexuals do not have the ability to reproduce... A relationship with such a person, by your logic, is unnatural.
I'd say we have an over abundance of pride.
It's been theorized by some scientists that homosexxuality is a natural form of population control to avoid extinction of a species due to lack of sufficient resources to support it.
deadgarth
Thats the funny thing about coupling and human coupling specifically there will be more unwanted children in the world than "unwanted" couples. You can find similarities in the animal kingdom about monogamy and paring behaviorism. But humans have 2 things that make them human and not instinctual animals with no consensus, and that is the mind and the heart these 2 things makes us human not male not female not stuck to obligatory gender or customary roles. Humans are secondarily a gender and primarily people first.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
It's interesting because I was researching the Bonobo monkey not so long ago, it's a good animal to investigate for two reasons, firstly, it has the closest chromosone match to humans of any animal, secondly, they live in a Matriarchal, and sexually open structure, anything from Homosexual interaction to even parent-child sexual interactions are permitted within the group.
What is also interesting about Bonobo monkeys is that these traits make them the most pacifistic of all the primates, and the link between the societal structure, the sexual openness and the pacifism is almost certainly causal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior
Ya but take away all that sex and they get pissy. ^_~
LOL
if you get down to Matriarchal and Patriarchal social structures theres not going to be a huge difference in how things play out some still get out casted perhaps the "better" males are kept and mated with the female hierarchy(the ebst chosen of the famles prehaps) make for a better offspring where in a Patriarchal the less submissive females will be outcasted, of cores this might help spurn the spreading of gene variety in the region.
Hell humans for eons under religion have mated blood relatives to maintain bloodlines and "purity" and what do we know of this these days such things create alot of genetic issues.The social issues derived from mating siblings/blood relatives might have more to do with the subconscious annoyance with nobility and royalty more than what we know of genetics.
The thigns we find so "normal" we have to take abnormal steps to protect it is also quite interesting.The delusions and perceptions of the mind are quite fascinating no?
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
I feel I should point out that these genetic issues you refer to are far overblown. It's really only an issue if you have children with immediate family. There have been studies done on children from first cousins and the increased rate of defects is only about 2-3%. That's about the same rate as having children when you're in your late 30's.
And one of the reasons its over blowen is how its seen befor genetics were known it was soemthign that was looked down on from the normal prespective of the populace.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Aww, it's the little "The rest of the animal kingdom doesn't do it!" excuse! That's so cute...but it's WRONG! Observe, mortal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0vGamcQIYs
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
http://www.livescience.com/animals/080516-gay-animals.html
http://www.thethinkingblog.com/2008/10/animals-gone-wild-homosexuality-in.html
P.S. Careful with that last one; there are some...pictures...in it. Enjoy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game on, brothers and sisters.
You're actually wrong, as humans and dolphins are the only species in the entire animal kingdom that have sex for any reason besides procreation. Since homosexual sex doesn't involve procreation, you're just completely full of shit.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Tell that to a dog that will hump anything tell that to gay squirrels....
heterosexuality is highly over rated bisexauilty is where its at :P
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Aside from humans and dolphins, animals mate for no reason other than procreation. Animals hump to show dominance. Responsible pet owners know about that.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Well it dose induce hormones and other feel good stuff.
Any animal can have sex only humans make love.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Well...it's more-so bisexuality that is prevalent in animals. Just saying, lots of animals are bi but few are completely homosexual.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
True, but as I've stated, sex among animals is instinct-based, which is rarely (if ever) the case in human beings.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Perhaps humans would naturally be bisexual if we weren't raised to be (probably) straight? I think that I'd probably be bi if I grew up in a totally preference-free environment, perhaps our instincts tell us that we want pleasure, whether it be from males or females.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
The problem with this argument is that it's double-edged. By claiming that we're straight because we live in an environment that's generally pushing us to be straight, you make the claim that there'd be no gay people. We know that's not the case. You're also making an argument that gays can be "gotten rid of," based on upbrigning. We know that this, also, is not the case.
Pleasure isn't instinctual. If it were, the crazier of my fellow conservatives wouldn't be screaming about teen pregnancy. The only instincts that humanity has not overcome are eating, sleeping and procreation. Two are based on a physical need, and the third is based on a genetic one.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Ok then, I have no real desire to respond to personal attacks. I don't think having the belief that promoting gay lifestyles as beneficial is incorrect makes me a bigot.
I don't think having the belief that Israel as a state can do no wrong makes me a Zionist.
I don't think having the belief that promoting racial equality as beneficial is incorrect makes me a bigot.
I don't think having the belief that promoting gender equality as beneficial is incorrect makes me a sexist.
I don't think having the belief that promoting current "theory" that the Earth is round as beneficial is incorrect makes me a flat earther.
I don't think having the belief that promoting unions as beneficial is incorrect makes me anti-union.
I don't think having the belief that promoting Bigfoot as beneficial is incorrect makes me anti-Bigfoot.
I don't think having the belief that promoting Ted Kennedy as beneficial is incorrect makes me someone who disagreed with what Ted Kennedy accomplished.
I don't think having the belief that promoting equal-pay-for-equal-work as beneficial is incorrect makes me a bigot.
Obviously you think I'm a bigot. Fine, I don't care. In my world being a bigot means personally attacking and persecuting people or a group of people because of their lifestyle, race, sex, etc. I don't hate or persecute anyone, I may find a person's behavior objectionable, but I sometimes do things that I myself wouldn't approve of either. Why do you think that having an opinion about something means I'm intolerant? Why are you so intolerant of my intolerance?
big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Well that explains why you don't think you're a bigot, you have no idea what the word actually means. One is left wondering if you actually know what "homosexual" means.
O feeman I think youer flameing again :P
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
If calling a spade a spade is flaming...then FLAME ON!
Feeeman
*roasts marshllos and makes smores* =^0^=
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
"one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
Being intolerant of a belief or behavior is not the same as being intolerant of a person's right to live. I'm pretty sure my current gay friend and past acquantances didn't feel like they were being hated or persecuted in their interactions with me.
Obviously you are extremely intolerant of my viewpoint and others who agree with me. So what are you, by your definition?
It is fun when bigots try to define tolerance in such a way that it also protects them. This is not how tolerance works and any sane person knows you really CAN'T tolerate intolerance.
This is how we should react to bigots: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street
Who said you're against their right to live? Not I. I merely pointed out that by saying that homosexuality is not positive or equal and should not be promoted as such you are intolerant of that "lifestyle".
I'm intolerant of those who oppose human rights and equality, that's intolerance based entirely on actions and not ethnicity, culture or lifestyle.
I love this. By your own argument, you're a bigot, as you treat anyone who's beliefs are different than yours with hatred and intolerance.
Also, there's a difference between having a problem with gay people, and having a problem with people who think that the gay lifestyle should be lived out in the streets. I'm straight, but how many "straight pride" parades are there? How many straight-person support groups are there? His point, which you, by your own post are biggoted towards, is that anyone who is outspoken about their lifestyle should shut up, as being outspoken is out of the norm, and is annoying to most, and insulting to some that even share such a lifestyle.
If someone was gay and telling outspoken gay people to shut up, would you call them a bigot?
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Is it hard, living life as a mutant? I speak of course about your supernatural ability for cognitive dissonance. It's easily the most powerful display of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen. You're like the wolverine of hypocrites.
If pointing out that someone's statement is contradictory through example is "hatred and intolerance" then you may also be the most thin skinned individual on the planet. I suppose it's a drawback to your amazing ability to hold two contradictory ideas in your head without realizing it.
Fremen, the definition of biggotry that you posted perfectly describes your posts in this particular tangent of the thread. Deadgarth explicitly said he had no problem with gays, just didn't personally think that being outspoken was doing them any favors. You, on the other hand, attacked him personally, accusing biggotry where none existed. How me pointing this out to you cognitive dissonance, or hypocrisy? Also, to prove my point, you attack me (albeit, in a hilarious, yet ill-contrived manner) with the same uneducated zeal that you attacked Deadgarth with.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
In what ways did I show intolerance to him as a person? In what ways did I show hatred for him as a person?
Please use complete sentences and cite your sources.
You said, and I quote, "Enjoy your impotent forum posts, Deadgarth, society is actively progressing in spite of your lot because better people have the resolve of a noble cause to endlessly fight through this." This post implies that, in your opinion, Deadgarth has no right to live in the world you envision this becoming, for no reason than he doesn't completely agree with your viewpoint on an acceptable level of homsexual outspokenness, which, as I have stated twice, fits the definition of biggotry you posted. You first question the sexuality of Deadgarth with the impotent comment, then claim that his opinion, while protected by the Constituion of the United States, makes him a biggot, as no other proof of overt biggotry by Deadgarth has been submitted by anyone. You then claim that he, and his "lot," as you put it, are merely an enemy to be defeated. Again, citing the US Constitution, his opinion alone does not make him an enemy, as alluding to such is akin to censorship. We on GP, I think, are all against censorship. Before you try to make some sort of an excuse, remember that censorship is censorship, and once it's used, it becomes easier to use in the future.
Also, where did I not use a complete sentance?
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
jedidethfreak
I belive he is more attackignt he mindset rather than the person.
But the trouble is he is for lack of a better trem biggoted becuse he feels a poration of the populace should have less rights becuse of whom they sleep with.
I mean if anyone wants that we might as well go back to a class/cast based soscity where its more imporant to be who you are rather than what you are..... mmm or would that be what you are and not who you are in this context.....mmmmmm *tilt* mmmm *tilt* mmmm*falls off chair*.....aarrrgggg....thinking is painfull!!!
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
Oh of COURSE. I'm so sorry you are absolutely correct it was very insensitive of me to use my telepathic powers to invade the mind of CortenPlus and force him to make that post.
However, it was awful of you to possess Glenn Beck and force him to call Obama a racist. You've potentially permanently harmed that poor man's livelihood and I'm not even sure why you would do such a thing. Then again, it was pretty bad of me to invade George W Bush's mind and force him to say there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The fact you're so quick to assume I'm posting with multiple handles makes me wonder if you aren't doing that yourself.
Fremen, I made a mistake. For that mistake, I'm sorry. I would edit the post, but for some reason it won't let me.
You didn't need to be a dick about it.
You still haven't told me where I used an incomplete sentance.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
I was parodying English teachers who for some reason always told us "Use complete sentences and cite your sources", not criticizing you.
It seems as if you can only edit posts before they get replied to. Or something.
Share with me your laments over there not being a White Entertainment Television.
I'm not lamenting in any way, but you're proving my point. The mention of such is deemed a laughingstock, but BET is considered mainstream, and to have a problem with the idea of a television station marketed to blacks is seen as a racist mindset. I don't know about anyone else, but I see a double-standard there. Any double-standard that is offensive to a minority in America is deemed illegal, but any double-standard against a straight white male is deemed okay by society. If you think I'm lying, look at the PGA. There are women-only golf clubs around the country, but when the PGA want's to play the Men's Masters tournament at a men's-only club, it's seen as sexist, a boycott is demanded, a lawsuit is filed, and the club is now open to either gender. Do I have a problem with women-only clubs? Absolutely not. Open as many as you want. However, to demand women-only golf clubs while closing men-only golf clubs is sexist, no matter how you slice it (no pun intended).
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Well in todays PCist world anyhting thats mostly of one race is racist....unless its not white..... =0-o=
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
My point exactly, Zippy.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Hang on now, who said that gay lifestyles are beneficial? It's just as beneficial as any heterosexul lifestyle, so in comparison, they are exactly the same.
I'm going to put it in black and white here. You think that a certain group of humanity (homosexuals) should not have the same rights (marriage) as the rest of humanity (heterosexuals). That makes you intolerant, and prejudiced against homosexuals. I await your attempts to somehow make this statement not true.
I think your argument is flawed. Marriage is not a right, it's an institution that is regulated by the government. It's like saying a business that wants to hire computer technicians should be forced to allow firemen to fill those roles because to exclude them would be intolerant.
Homosexuals are not a different class of humans. They don't have their own separate system of laws to live by. If they cannot legally marry the same sex, neither can I. If they want civil unions that give all the same benefits as marriage, fine. But that's not what a majority of them seem to be fighting for. Like you, what they really want is for us to promote homosexuality as being equal to and the same as heterosexuality.
Civil unions don't have equal rights. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/how-hospitals-treat-same-sex-co...
In what way is homosexuality a less valid sexuality than heterosexuality?
If homosexuals are not a different class of humans, and if we take it that it is self evident that all humans are created equal, why is the pairing of any two humans different from the pairing of any two other humans? From whence does your argument that human beings are in-equal spring from? note: we are not talking about jobs, we are talking about affection which requires absolutely no qualifications at all. (Forest Gump, for example, did not know much but he knew what love is)
My point is civil unions should have equal rights and I think this would be a much better cause for the gay population to work towards.
There's no way I can persuade you of the differences in merit between homosexuality and heterosexuality because these are mostly based on personal beliefs. By your last paragraph you ignore the innate differences between genders, if you believe there are or not, I don't know. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are not different classes of humans, but there is an innate physical difference between male and female.
What makes homosexual relationships different from heterosexual is the fact that men are different from women. A relationship between two men will be different from a relationship between a man and a woman because different genders are involved.
If there are no less valid forms of sexuality, then what prevents us from adopting polygamy or any other institution based on affection between human beings?
So men and women should be treated differently under law. Based on gender, men and women are not equal and therefore should not be treated equally by the laws of the nation. This is exactly what you just said.
Actually, that's not what was said at all.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
lol you live in a country without hate speech laws and you think this is a good thing
In response to "why aren't both genders treated equally inasmuch as a merger of property and debts is concerned?" he responded thusly: "What makes homosexual relationships different from heterosexual is the fact that men are different from women. A relationship between two men will be different from a relationship between a man and a woman because different genders are involved."
I'm attempting to engage in actual conversation rather than an argument here.
But nowhere in any of that was a demand for genders to be treated differently under the law. You found something that wasn't there. Also, your argument is based on the legal fallicy of marriage only being a contract between two parties. Marriage, since time eternal, has been an agreement between two families over the continuing of the respective bloodlines. This is something that a homosexual couple cannot do, under any circumstance. Unless and until such a historical stereotype over marriage in general can be overcome on a national scale, demanding something a lot of people disagree with is going to do nothing but create strife. That is what people like you don't understand.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Marriage has had many different definitions throughout different societies. Historically it has included polygamy, the transfer of property from a Father to the Husband and even the loving bond between man and chicken. Education used to be defined as segregated and that was accepted by the majority. Brown v. Board of eduction didn't change the views of the public but eventually the public came to grips with the thought that separate but equal was anything but. Demanding something a lot of people disagree with may create nothing but strife in the short sighted view of history but positive change towards a more equal society is often worth it.
I dunno though, your arguments are pretty persuasive. Maybe Lincoln was wrong after all because emancipation sure did cause a lot of death and misery.
It will only create positive change if the world is ready for said change. Slaves wanted freedom in this country for a long, LONG time before then, and America had tried many times to free them since before the Revolution. It took that long because too many people couldn't agree, and was changed because enough people agreed that it was time for change. If anything, now still isn't the right time for change because a lot of people in America voted for "change" and didn't get the kind of change they thought they were promised.
Also, before you think I'm a cold-hearted bastard, remember that gay people, as an established group, haven't suffered historically the way black people have. That suffering was a great motivator for change. No black person wanted to be a slave. However, there isn't consensus among gay people whether or not being called gay is derogatory, much less whether or not being outspoken is worthwhile, or whether or not demanding the right to marry someone of the same gender is a good idea.
I say we meet in the middle, you and I. When gay people around the world can all agree that the right to marry someone of the same gender is necessary, then we'll discuss.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
I'm glad to see your concession there at the end, but on a side note I would note that if we are to categorize gays and lesbians as an ethnic group then they've been sent to Nazi death camps, killed or jailed as a punishment for violation of Sodomy Laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory which still exist in many places to this day. Maybe a stay in Auschwitz or being hung by the neck until dead under the Buggery act isn't quite as bad as slavery but IDK, seems pretty oppressive to me.
Okay, you wanna bring up auschwitz, what was the Gay-to-Jew ratio there? We all know what Auscwitz was about. We also know what Hitler was all about. If you didn't have blonde hair, blue eyes and a crazy amount of intelligence, and weren't a non-Jew, you were going to a death camp. As for your argument about the sodomy laws, I saw a big green checkmark next to America citing that homosexual activity was legal across the country since 2003.
Finally, a life choice cannot, by definition, be defined as an ethic group. I, as a white man, can't decide to be a black man, or a Mexican, or Puerto-Rican. I can choose to live as them, yes, but that doesn't make me a member of their ethnic group. Human sexuality, as is argued by gays, isn't a product of upbringing. I believe this. However, as the human genome has been mapped, and nobody's found the "gay" gene, it isn't genetic either. Therefore, it's either a choice, or a defect. I don't think anyone on this board would argue it's the latter.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
So people who haven't been put through horrible oppression or slavery shouldn't be given equal rights? I guess that means we need to round up all the WASPs in America and force them to build some pyramids so we can later free them and give them equal rights once they have gone through as much suffering as the Jews, Native Americans, Blacks, Polish and Gypsies.
In all seriousness, it took a lot of marches in the 70s and 80s which for some reason are absent in history books although they happened right around the same time as the equal rights for blacks/women/hispanics which were covered (to a certain extent) in most high school history books.
Here's the problem that you're missing. There isn't a right that I have that they don't. I don't have the right to marry a man because I'm straight. If I did, then there'd be inequality.
---
He was dead when I got here.
By that logic, if it was compulsory to praise Jesus then believers and non believers alike would have equal rights because everyone has to praise Jesus.
Another way to look at it is this, if a man wants to marry a woman that is legal, however if a man wants to marry another man that is illegal therefore it is discrimination against men. REVERSE DISCRIMINATION OMG!
Your example has nothing to do with my logic, as the federal government cannot tell people what to believe. Also, your second statement is not discriminatory in any way, as no man has the right to marry another man. If some men did, then it would be.
---
He was dead when I got here.
Wow your complete myopia to things that prove your logic false is simply mind blowing. How do you even survive in a world you observe through such a small looking glass?
So help legalize gay marriage and everyone can have the right to marry whatever gender partner they wish. I'm sorry but there's not a logical arguement that can stand that says gay marriage will in anyway hurt society, and I can pose several that show how it will help society.
I didn't say anywhere that it would hurt society. I merely said that the argument for gay marriage based on equality was false, and pointed out how it was false.
---
He was dead when I got here.
I've already pointed out why your logic in that arguement was incorrect.
1) I don't think he was doing a Holocaust Olympics to see who was treated the worst. In fact, by your logic the people who were the minority of those who were killed don't matter and shouldn't be recognized. Which is quite disgusting, please clarify.
2) Genetics isn't a game of Where's Waldo, you can't just look at something and say "That's the idiot gene, all humans posess it". In fact it doesn't exactly have to do with genetics, it can though. Brain activity or hormone balances. In fact scientists are 100% sure it isn't a choice because there is zero proof to suggest it is. Even stating that it is a defect is signs of your bias or your poor attempts to force an outcome. Please refrain from such comments.
3) Your concept of sexuality seems quite... innacurate.
1) I did not say that anyone involved in the Holocaust suffered "more," but to imply that gays were the target is incorrect and misguided. I told him such.
2) By calling homosexuality the result of brain activity or hormone imbalance, you're arguing that homosexuality is, in fact, a defect. I explicitly said it wasn't. Also, I have never heard of any scientist saying that homosexuality is absolutely not a choice. In order to say that, the root cause of human sexuality in and of itself would have to be known without a doubt. Since that hasn't happened, and it couldn't have, because if it has this wouldn't be an issue, stop making shit up to discredit me (oh, wait, you can't do that, because I don't agree with you).
3) I've never discussed my concept of sexuality, so how could you possibly call it inaccurate?
---
He was dead when I got here.
Every human and animal behavior is the rsult of brain chemistry, by your logic heterosexuality is a defect.
1) Actually, gays were among the victims of the holocaust. Guess where the upside down pink triangle came from. To ignore a group that was a victim of the Holocaust, you must go quite low.
2) It might be a defect if you consider being left-handed a defect (Among billions of things). But I would like to see some citiations of scientists arguing it is a choice to be gay (Note the specific use of words, "Choice to be gay", sexual activities mean nothing). Most research on sexuality are still undecided on any specific reason as to the type of a person's sexuality. Just because the research has no conclusion yet doesn't mean that you have to go to your default position that has no actual ground (Shokingly enough the digit ratio theory does have ground, and takes away the little credibility the "choice" argument has).
3) One of your sentences in an earlier post made a rough comparison between the color of skin and ones sexuality, in which you implicitly and unknowingly made the claim that sexuality is a choice.
HELP! HELP! I'M BEING COMPRESSED!!!
1) I know gays were victims of the Holocaust. That's because gays, Jews, blacks, the Irish, the retarded, those with birth defects, the sick, the elderly, and pretty much anyone else that wasn't blonde with blue eyes didn't fit into someone's ideal of humanity. To argue that gays were the primary focus of such, as you did, is revisionist history.
2) This point contradicts your earlier posts. You said before that 100% of scientists said it wasn't a choice. Now you claim nobody knows. Which one is it? If nobody knows, how could you rule out the possibility of it being a choice?
3) I didn't unknowingly argue that sexuality is a choice. I straight out said it. No proof has been presented by anyone to suggest otherwise. Also, if you actually paid attention, I wasn't comparing the color of someone's skin to sexuality. I pointed out that someone's choice of lifestyle doesn't make an ethnic group. Therefore, being gay is not it's own ethnic group.
---
He was dead when I got here.
1) "... among the victims..."
I think you need to learn some reading comprehension, because you were the one who stated:
"but to imply that gays were the target is incorrect and misguided"
And we know that they were one of the targets. Now stop trying to change what I said when I can pull up my own quotes as well as your own.
2) No you silly little man, scientists know damn well it isn't a choice because there is no proof to suggest that, and if you actually bothered to look up the digit ratio theory, then you would know through common sense that it couldn't be because of biological signals. But you wouldn't actually look things up that do not support your unscientific "theory".
3) The point you made is a strawman, because nobody is suggesting that sexuality is the exact same as an ethnic group, but I along many other people are saying that both are not a choice and both are being treated badly because of it. I don't even know why I bothered to respond to a strawman, but that's how I do things.
1) You know damned well that I meant they weren't the only target. I've discussed this.
2) I did look up the digital ration theory, and understand it to not be a theory accepted by the scientific community. I like how you left that out, seeing as how it makes your whole argument worthless. Also, just because no proof supports a theory, scientists do not disregard such theory, as it would have to be proven wrong in order to do so. Since there is nothing absolutely disproving the theory of choice, you're wrong.
3) You totally missed the argument, apparently. Someone WAS arguing that sexuality made an ethnic group. I pointed out that that isn't the case. How about you read the whole thread before commenting on what I say, as it will give you the context?
---
He was dead when I got here.
1) Sure, we all know what you meant, it just contradicts what you actually said.
2) Suck it. Also if there is no evidence to support a belief, it isn't a theory. Scientific theory is based on facts and is strengthened through further evidence. The fact that the digit ratio theory is still a theory shows how wrong you are, and just because a few scientists go against it doesn't show anything because that's what peer review is you pillock (And if the peer review against it is less than the peer review failing to go against it, well logic dictates that it is still valid). Now show some bloody scientists who have a powerful theory that supports your bullshit (LINK AND CITATION NEEDED, as were the caps and bolding of that phrase) or you'll continue to be the man who makes shit up as he goes.
3) No, people argue that THE TREATMENT of sexuality is the same as the treatment of racial minorities. There is no denial, and just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Try going to a few reading comprehensions classes before making assumptions in a thread.
1. It didn't contradict anything I said. I said that gays were not the focus of the Holocaust, as was posited. Gays were A focus, but not THE focus.
2) This has not been accepted by the scientific community. I said that. You suggested it was, when you said "100% of scientists" believed this theory. Sound's like somebody is backpedalling now.
3) The comment that I responded to is "I believe that someone's sexuality is an ethnic group." Sexuality does not make an ethnic group. That was the extent of my argument. Maybe you should learn reading comprehension, and take some general grammar courses as well, as your posts suggest that English really isn't your strong suit.
---
He was dead when I got here.
1) Sure, whatever you say.
2) Where's your proof that it hasn't been accepted (Case closed until you can provide citations)? You've given no proof to suggest anything.
3) Yeah... don't make up quotes. There is such a thing as "ctrl+f", you misunderstood somebody and that's not my fault.
This is over until you can provide anything to support your horseshit. This is also over because I can't even read your comments at this point.
Men and women are treated differently under the law, jackass. Just look at what happens when a man claims he was being beaten by a woman (in cases when such was actually the case). Which, of the two, do you think was hauled away?
As a man who was beaten and who had a hell of a time getting law enforcement to believe him I don't understand why you think this is an excusable practice and why it should go on.
What? You lost me.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Well for one thing he's saying that because law enforcement officers do not treat everyone equally that means the law is biased. Laws (should not) be baised, per some sup court decision i can't recall at the moment. I was just saying that I agree about law enforcement officers not believing that men can be the victims of abuse, but don't understand why that should act as a reason to support laws that favor some people over others based on ethnicity, sex, religion or sexual orientation.
Look at laws concerning alleged spousal abuse, divorce law, and law concerning custody rights in particular to see that the two sexes are, in fact, NOT equal to the law.
Sorry, I was talking about Federal Laws and you were originally talking about State Laws apparently. Yeah, some states are really weird in that they take the "lolz women are property and unable to get a job" point of view with divorce laws but then hand over the kids to the mom anyways...
That's not what he's talking about. Here's one example of what he is - in America, due to lack of forethought and, recently in New York, legal precedence, men cannot be raped by women, as in order for a sexual act to occur, the man would need to be sexually aroused. Even though arousal does not constitute consent from a woman, according to the state of New York, it does from a man. As such, men cannot be raped by women.
---
He was dead when I got here.
Well, that's just stupid. Damn those liberal activist Judges! Kinda links in to the way prosecutors/Judges/the public treat female pedophiles in a fundamentally different way from male pedophiles.
The type of people you apparently vote for allow such.
---
He was dead when I got here.
LOL yes because ideologies are defined by the two major political parties and nobody can have opinions that agree with one and other opinions that disagree with that same party.
Do you deny voting liberal democrat? If you vote liberal democrat, this is what becomes of that vote. I'm not saying you don't have a right to disagree with some of those policies, but you should take some responsibility for their enactment, as it is you who voted for people who support such policies. That's why I say the exact same thing to my wife when she complains about President Obama's policies. She voted for him, so she voted for everything he wants.
---
He was dead when I got here.
Hospitals can have whatever visitation policies they want. Nobody has a right to visit anyone in a hospital.
---
He was dead when I got here.
Right, but here is the flow of things: "civil unions are the same as marriage why can't gays be satisfied by that?!" "actually civil unions aren't treated the same as marriage by hospitals with regards to visiting spouses and on many documented occasions hospital staff have made damn sure that gay couples don't get to spend their last moments on earth with each other". I deftly demonstrated one of the many ways in which civil unions are different from marriage, as proved by the fact you had to drop that tactic and pick up an argument based on the premise that Hospitals are not places of healing but instead one of the last bastions of treating some people less equal than others.
That has nothing to do with the law, though. The law cannot (at least, not yet, depending on Obamacare) tell a hospital who it can and cannot keep away as visitors.
---
He was dead when I got here.
Incorrect, any hospital that is provided any funds by the government is required to allow the married spouse of an individual visitation unless no visitation by anyone is allowed. A civil union is not recognized the same way.
But not a whole lot of hospitals get government funds, anyway. A vast majority are privately funded.
---
He was dead when I got here.
You have no idea how big an idiot you are, do you?
If, from the entire universe of hospitals in the United States, we remove VA hospitals, state-, county-, and city-run hospitals, and private hospitals that nevertheless accept Medicaid and Medicare patients, how many hospitals do you think remain? A vast majority? O.K. If you say so.
Have you ever tried relying on facts which actually exist in the real world? Instead of just making shit up out of thin air?
This is exactly why people like jedi are so frustrating to debate or argue with. You can't reason with someone who has no grasp on reality.
Wow what are you? Stupid, 2 or just blatanlty ignorant to keep yourself from feeling wrong?
Incorrect again. Spouses and immediate family (mother, father, brother, sister and children) have the right to see any family member in the hospital UNLESS : 1. That family member has specifically asked NOT to see that person. 2. THe family member is in the hospital under suspicious circumstances (IE someone comes in shot or stabbed, no one gets in until the situation is understood) 3. The person wishing to visit the patient is ill and the patient is in a state of reduced immune system from disease, illness, injury or treatment.
Under all other circumstances the hospital CANNOT deny the spouse, mother, father, brother, sister, or child of the patient visitation.
" Like you, what they really want is for us to promote homosexuality as being equal to and the same as heterosexuality."
And why is that wrong? That's one thing you have thus far failed to prove in all of your postings... how/why are homosexuals not equal to heterosexuals? And we already went through the procreation arguement... as when you use that arguement you are inturn equating gays to heterosexuals you can not procreate as well as heterosexual couples that choose not to procreate; and thus not proving your point.
Yeah it's a free country. So other people are free to believe it IS healthy and normal. Idiot.
I was responding in frustration to people trying to inject gays into video games just because they think we should and thus assuming that we believe what they do or we're idots. I was not saying they don't have the right to believe what they do. Nice name calling, really thought provoking and informative.
Why do you have to deal with gays in games? Maybe for the same reason I have to deal with giant bouncing boobs in any game with a female in it? Or why we should expect to see a racially diverse cast in a game. Because WE EXIST! I'm sorry me being alive and being BORN gay bothers with you. Go read the bible, it's ok, there's only a few respected gay individuals and couples in that.
Because game developers couldn't possibly WANT to include gay themes in their games, right? Just seems to be a pretty big double standard you have there, which is why I called you an idiot.
1) I don't get all of these "We need gay people in video games". How do you know if a character is gay? It's not like they have to go on television to say they are gay. Look at Dumbledore, he is gay, but you would of never known that if you read purely the Harry Potter books. That was only reviled after J.K. Rowling was asked about Dumbledore's love life by some kid or something like that.
2) If you look at video games, many video game characters could be asexual as far as we know. You don't know for sure that they are straight, they never say.
3) There are video games that give you a choice of being gay such as Kotor 2, Fable, Mass Effect, Fallout 3, etc.
4) How the hell are character going to reveal their love life in many video game. Are they going to they going to randomly tell their comrade "I am gay" while shooting nazis?
Becuse being gay today is lie being black in the late 60's early 70's you have rights but you are dissmissed in some places as less than human.
So its not a bad question to ask now and then.
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
You're overlooking one thing. Romantic subplots. Most games have them, but they're almost always heterosexual. There's usually a female reporter, or a pilot, or someone else who helps the hero save the day, and in the process the two fall in love.
Much like we need more female protagonists, I think the industry would benefit from starting to consider homosexual subplots. It would have to be a gradual process, much like (as pointed out higher up) Brokeback Mountain is still unique for it's subject material. Video games' interactive element could speed things up considerably, however, since you can (as the games you listed in 3 do) make it optional.
We don't "need" it at all. If the story is compelling and happens to have a gay guy or (gay or straight) romantic subplot, then so be it. They shouldn't just insert gay people just to insert gay people, that would be like forcing a game to have Republicans, Democrats, Greens, and Libertarians just for the sake of being "fair."
However, they should also not avoid putting gay people in. They should just go with the flow.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
This yes ^_^
Exactly, but what about a busy street scene? Would it really hurt anyone to have ONE gay couple of NPCs not involved at all in the story walking around in the background? THIS is the kind of inclusion being discussed.
When I walk down the street in real life I rarely see couples holding hands, let alone gay couples holding hands. What games would have a busy street scene like one that you're referring to anyways? If it's GTA, then a city would probably have the occasional gay couple, but I doubt the thought has occured to R* if it isn't already in a GTA game (I guess someone should email them and suggest that). If it's a sandbox game that takes place in the past...then it wouldn't be realistic in most areas, given the veeerryyyy negative stigma towards gays in the past. If it's on a military base, then it'd be unrealistic given the rules against relationships (gay or otherwise). I just don't see many situations where you WOULD see a gay couple holding hands walking down the street, much like I don't see many situations where a straight couple would be holding hands walking down the street. =/
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
Infamous, Prototype, ANY Final Fantasy, God of War (homosexuality was extremely prevalent as a sexual vice in Greece and Rome). ANY fantasy game could have it without causing any issue to the story. For god's sake you can believe magic and super powers but gay couples walking around in the background would somehow not make sense?
I see plenty of people holding hands, or cuddling on park benches, or touching hands/arms, etc while shopping and conversing. Gay and straight. These are the kinds of things designers need to ad more of to make games feel less empty and lifeless.
Hah, empty and lifeless to you maybe. Become their boss if it means so much to you, that way they can cater to your every whim and fancy.
Working on it. And no not all the games I mentioned are empty and lifeless, in fact those ones are some of the better ones because they have scenery people. My point is that if you're going to be putting these scenery people in anyway, what does it hurt to have a gay or lesbian one here or there (unless it's totally outside the possibility in the setting such as in Assassin's Creed.)
Agreed.
Did it not occur to you that, in all of humanity, homosexuality is the exception, not the rule? Because of this, homosexuality in gaming is, and should be, the exception, not the rule.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Now as for the topic at hand I would say yes with a the cavort of romance and sexuality as a story element is becoming more and more used thus as it is used gays get dragging kicking and screaming into the shallowly cliche lime light too :P
Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
I always had thought that King of Fighters was the first pro-gay series since 1994.
The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): http://thelostlevel.blogspot.com/ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com/
"We also have to stop putting things into games that turn off gay players"
This is the only line I really object to, you can't expect every game to not include things that turn you off, it's unrealistic and unfair to those who may enjoy them. Just remind yourself that not every game tries to appeal to everyone and there very well may be niche games that the majority of people (or at least yourself) may find weird and unappealing. This is OK.
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
Shhhh, if people don't want to experience something let them throw a blanket over it. Atleast they'll be happier in trying to ignore it's existance. </whisper> ;)
I think this refers to overly stereotyped characters and gay bashing. I mean once in a while is fine and sometimes even a bit funny, but when it's all that exists it gets to be a bit insulting.
And yet, the next line is about a man saving a princess. That's what "turns off" gay gamers? They should stop putting that into games?
Maybe Mario saved Peach and Link saved Zelda because they're good people, not because they were trying to get in bed with princesses. No one ever said what their sexual orientations were. Insisting that they were straight is insisting they were rewarded with hanky panky, which is of course, sexist. Equality is great and all, but this just seems like people trying to find something to make a big deal about. I believe there's a term to describe those kinds of folks. Hmmm, what is it I'm thinking about.....oh yeah, "whiners".
(Is it still politically correct or okay to make fun of emos/whiners/attention whores?)
Projecting much? For one thing it became quite clear in later titles that those characters were paired up. For another thing why are you assuming that others believe Zelda and Peach are sluts who have nothing to offer in thanks other than sex, as if women are nothing but vending machines for pleasure? If your comment is any indication, "Insert coin, receive blowjob" is the label you put on the fairer sex.
I actually got the vibe that the previous poster is female. Maybe you are over-analyzing.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
I think this article has gotten you all riled up fremen. Stop searching for shadows in the dark.
It's all he's good at, really.
If I was getting upset by any of this I wouldn't have bothered with this. Upsetting you and deadgarth etc is actually fun and easy and its amazing how I can get the same results as trolling without actually trolling. TBH if Champions Online was up today I probably would have just read the story, thought to myself "well this is going to rile up Austin Lewis and his merry men" then gone off to some super heroic adventures.
Heh, the fact you invest so much time into trolling when you say you're not is adorable.
Hahaa. I'm the one upset? I think you're mistaken.
I'm not the one constantly ranting like a douchebag (see your idiocy at the bottom of the page). You know what I'm going to do after I finish this post, and finish reading the new comments? I'm gonna take my Gibson Les Paul off the wall, go to my basement, and play guitar while my wife plays FFVIII (we've been working on beating it this week because she never did and I never got the Eden GF). While I'm down there, I'm going to probably have a beer or three. Before I go to bed, I'll check on my son, lock the doors, and then turn out the lights. And I won't care one wit what you had to say. Because, at the end of the day, you haven't upset anyone except yourself.
Night night jackass.
There's no hate like neocon hate.
Because I'm the one whipped up into a hateful frenzy. Oh, wait, that's your liberal chum thefremen up there. Damnedest thing.
Well you've certainly resorted to ad hominems more than anyone else in this topic, so yeah, point stands.
Sure I have princess. Because, of course, if you're not a liberal, anything mean you say is ad hominem. If you're a liberal, it's fine. Fairly sure that your liberal chum thefremen started us off, calling people bigots, making shit up, and overall acting like Jack Thompson.
And I see we can add projection to the list too, no surprise there. I'd also be careful who you accuse of being like Jack, you've got a few similarities to him too, but go ahead and cry persecuted, its generally expected now.
Mr.Pat, you are the LAST person on GP that should call anyone out on crying persecuted.
---
He was dead when I got here.
Since that remark came from the biggest whiner with a persecution complex on the site, I feel this is quite appropriate for here, and just about anything else you accuse others of as a whole:
This, essentially.
At least you admit that you're just the same as him.
Nah, I'll be "just the same as him" when I start using any and every excuse I can to get out of citing any points of information or facts. I've still got a long ways to go before I become that intellectually dishonest.
Champions Online sux and is for care bares. Go pre order Aion Online, it's a real game you nuub!!!!1111bbq
To use the "mah friends" thing, out of the lesbians I know, all of them are going to be playing Aion, none will be joining me in Champions. WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?
What does that have to do with anything? Aion looks fucking awesome, so your lesbian friends would be retarded to not be interested. The only reason I won't play it is that it will have a subscription fee. The only game I'd be able to get with a fee is Star Trek Online, and, since I saw the trailer for Guild Wars 2, I don't know if I even want STO anymore.
---
He was dead when I got here.
Wow. You just made a simple assumption of his/her mindset regarding women. And then you ran with it so fast that you ended up taking that line of thought to an unlikely extreme without stopping to realize that your assumption was just that: an assumption.
You know, come to think of it, one point of contention against Link being straight in Ocarina of Time (aside from the tights and tunic) is the fact that he becomes friends with several females of the course of the game (most of whom grow up into attractive young women, even Ruto), rescues many of them, yet only seems to be genuinely interested and intrigued in Shiek (before finding out it wasn't a dude at all).
Think about it. O.o :D
Yes, because the only driving force behind every human action is sex.
I'm sorry to hear that humor doesn't exist on your planet. That is sad tidings indeed.
Sarcasm doesn't translate well in print.... :P
I thought the eyeballs and smiley face carried it across pretty well. Some peoples sarcasm detectors just aren't very finely tuned.
Jesus, is it that subtle? I hardly think it even needed the emotes to suggest it was a joke. All I did was make a crack about Link being gay, that alone should have been indication that I was joking. Maybe I should have included Link crossing a rainbow bridge to get into a magic castle, right down the street from the Big Fairy. -.-
... And yes- at 17-19 (around about the age Adult link probably was in OoT), sex probably IS driving force behind all human (or Hylian) action. :P
NOTE- THE ABOVE WAS A JOKE, INSERT LOL HERE ---> ________
There you go! Make sure you put that in each time you're trying to make a joke. hopefully someone will think twice about acting indignate about it....
YUR NAM STARTS WITH A KAY, I FIND THT OFFFENSI!V
K has many straight and erect lines, like erect penises, and that offends me =O
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
The problem with this post is that Mario does get it on with Peach (well, as close to it as Nintendo would allow) and that Link and Zelda are actually brother and sister, according to the subtext of Link's Awakening and the WindWaker series.
I like where you were going, chopsticks, you just failed epically at it.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
I got the impression thatall the Links from game to game were different. Some does not equal all?
All of the Links and all of the Zeldas and all of the Ganons are reincarnations of the ones before them. They are linked eternally to each other.
Like I said though. My conclusion is based on subtext of five different Zelda games. I forgot to mention A Link to the Past, which is directly connected to Ocarina of Time, and then Twilight Princess, so I guess that makes seven. Okay - seven games that connect Link and Zelda as bro and sis, according to subtext.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Games still haven't had their Gone with the Wind or Citizen Kane moment, let alone a Brokeback Mountain moment. There are very few games (if any) that could be considered to be of the same quality as the aforementioned films, whilst games can have excellent gameplay they simply don't have the same quality of writing. Bioshock is considered as having some of the best writing in gaming, but when compared to that seen in cinema it just doesn't compare, it's no where near the same quality.
Video games have had their moments, though. Not movie moments, because it's just not something that can be done precisely like movies, but powerful enough ones- the kind of moments that just wind you because of how powerful the scene is, etc..
One that did it for me was the remains of the Jedi Enclave in KOTOR 2, when the Exile is standing before the last three remaining jedi masters- the music and dialogue (some of which was done by Ed Asner) were just... perfect. Stirring, really.
You're right about KOTOR, but you missed his point entirely. Gaming, as an entertainment medium, has not released a truly epic masterpiece to compete with something along the lines of Citizen Caine or Gone With the Wind. This is because gaming as a story-telling medium isn't the greatest, because games that control the story aren't prized anymore as control is taken away from the gamer, and games that allow gamers to control the story can't concentrate on an epic story because they have to allow for branching paths in said story. I believe that breakthroughs in gaming-as-a-story-medium are coming, but until then, there will be no Citizen Caine-Gone With the Wind-Wizard of Oz-Star Trek-Star Wars (circa 198)-Titanic, all of which would have to come before Brokeback Mountain.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
True, all true- but he was referring to "moments" initially. Start-to-finish, there may only be a handful of game that could compare, but if the key-word is "moments", then many gamers will be able to name a bit more.
... that don't include Aeris dying. Seriously, the way some people talk about that scene, it sounds like they're whacking to the scene of Elias being gunned down in Platoon.
The problem with the "moments" argument is I don't consider Brokeback a "moments" movie. From start to finish it was revolutionary, and worthy of its place next to Citizen Caine, Gone With the Wind and the like. However, movies as entertainment, just like gaming, wasn't widely accepted, and still has those that oppose it due to content. Gaming, to be accepted, needs to evolve the way that movies did. However, using movies as a model, homosexuality as a focus in gaming is a long ways off. Probably not as long a ways as it was in movies, but a long way nonetheless.
Also, you're right about Aeris. I thought for the longest time that I was the only person like "meh, saw it coming." Sheik being Zelda, though, now THERE's a shocker.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
No, jedidethfreak is on the money here. You misunderstand the use of the word "moment" both from my post and that of the article, the moment is not about a scene in a film or a game, but a cultural moment. The Brokeback Mountain moment is seen as the point at which gay themed films became accepted by the mass public and critics alike. Games are no where near that point in time (or moment), they are no where near those moments of other critically acclaimed films, those moments which changed the public perception of film amongst other things.
I am doubtful that we will ever see a "drama" genre within gaming, a genre that focuses on character's emotions and issues, not on high scores or achieving certain feats. Fahrentein had a good try at it, but the last third of that game lost it and went down a typical game story type path (of supernatural beings and the "one"). The writing of that was not of the same quality seen in cinema. Fahrentein also had a realistic depiction of a gay man in it too as well as realistic sex which served a purpose to the story, not for titillation.
I disagree with your second paragraph. We've already been turning away from scoring, and RPG's are getting better at storytelling, but true drama in gaming is a long way off. I think that, after the next decade, in order for gaming to evolve and expand, it's going to have to move in a more drama-oriented direction.
---
He was dead when I got here.
Genre no, but drama in games already exists.
FFVII - Death of Tifa.
Indigo Prophecy. Heavy Rain.
Mass Effect. Portal.
Are you paying attention yet?
Portal?!?
I've already mentioned Indigo Prophecy above. But you still don't get it. We haven't had games that focus specifically on issues and emtions of characters. Games focus on getting to the next stage, doing so and so. And the writing in games just isn't comparable to that of film or television. Games have the potential to go deeper than both cinema and television due to the possibility of branching where the results of different decisions can be played out. This is why games are still seen as juvenile toys.
You look at the story and writing in Bioshock, in the gaming industry it seems Oscar worthy but when compared to films it's just a pretty average film in terms of writing and storyline.
I disagree, yes levels and whatnot are stil present, but that doesn't dictate how the story can develope. I think you're trying to see videogames as interactive movies, which can and do happen, but they're no longer videogames.
games becoming gayer? yes there hasn't been a good release in ages!
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
He's talking about the fact that games generally aren't as good as they used to be. He's using the word gay as a derogatory term.
I thougt it was hilarious. I also thought it was hilarious that you missed it.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Ah I see, very clever of him. I probably missed it because there have been a ton of good games released, and they're released all the time.
I disagree. A vast majority of the critically acclaimed games that have come out in the past years have been shooters and rpgs, all of which have been done. Nobody has really pushed any envelopes with gaming in about a decade, but this is due to the popularity of gaming as a medium. You can put out what's been done and it'll sell. It's popularity has stymied real ingenuity.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Portal. That is all.
You're finding a great game, but I said the majority. I could name a bunch of great games, too. However, I was talking about how a majority of the games coming out aren't pushing the envelope.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
By the very definition the majority of games won't be innovative or top 10% amazing. That's kind of the point. You don't compare them to some standard, you compare them to eachother and a very small few come out on top.
Even when taken by themselves, most games since the N64/PS1/Saturn/Dreamcast era are not anything more than what's been done to death already. Games are stagnant, and have been for some time. However, merely having a character come out saying "I'm Gay" isn't going to fix that.
---
He was dead when I got here.
If this is realy what you think you're woefully ignorant of gaming in the last 8 years.
Actually, every gaming publication I've ever read agrees with me. That's why Ocarina of Time is considered by a vast majority of the industry as the best game ever made.
---
He was dead when I got here.
I can't even go back to Ocarina of Time, and neither can many people. The quality of the game is incredible, but nobody can replay it until it has been years. Contextually, it is one of the best games, but it is in no way as good as some of the games we get today. You sir are trapped in the Nostalgia Zone (Deus Ex on the other hand does not fall into that trap due to its infinite replayability).
Also, "every gaming publication" is an unfalsifiable statement and cannot be considered a valid statement.
Hyperbole FTL!
Every gaming publication? REALLY? I somehow doubt PSM is touting Ocarina of time as the greatest game ever. In fact I think Halo (1,2,3), Mass Effect, WoW, GoW (god and gears), have all held those titals and have all been out since ZOoT. Fanboy arguements don't make you look intelligent.
I almost missed it at first, then I remembered the shitstorm created the past couple weeks because of the use of gay as a derogatory
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
One of the reasons I found it hilarious.
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Everytime you call something or someone gay, you piss off Miley Cyrus and that racist bitch Wanda Sykes. That singular realization is a great motivator to use the pharse more often.
Don't forget Hillary Duff!
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
Or Snipzor!
---
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.
Yeah, who cares what ordinary gays think, this is just about pissing off specific people...
All the homosexuals I know seem to not care. Hell, one of them was saying he thought it hilarious that WANDA SYKES, of all people, was telling people not to say 'that's gay'.
Or do gays with an education not count as 'ordinary'?
None of my gay friends have a problem with the use of the word gay. They use it in all of it's myriad forms. They also wish the gays demanding gay marriage would shut up, because they believe, as I do, that it'll come when the time is right.
(I'm just waiting for someone to say I have to be lying, because I'm a conservative, so I can't have gay friends, and even if I did, they're gay, so they would be offended by anyone who says gay, or anyone who doesn't think gay marriage should be made legal in the US. I'm waiting because it's happened to me on GP before.)
---
He was dead when I got here.
I know what you mean. If you try to support an argument by saying that you know people of said group, they'll always call bullshit, even if you're telling the truth.
-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-
Because knowing people of a certain group isn't supporting evidence of an argument. Personal experience doesn't really count for much either. I mean, all my Canadian friends are just fine with waiting 5 years and paying tons of cash to become a US citizen so why can't the same be said of Mexicans? Conservatives usually aren't religious at all, I know this because of my conservative friends who love Rush Limbaugh and automatic weapons who are atheists as well.
Now, both those statements are entirely true, but neither can be applied universally and the first one doesn't really contribute anything as far as whether or not immigration needs to be reformed or what direction that reform should be in.
But we aren't the ones applying our arguments universally. Those that we use those arguments against try to use theirs universally. We're telling them they can't with our proof that they are incorrect in such an attempt.
---
He was dead when I got here.
You and others are trying to make arguements like the idea that homosexuality is a defect, immoral, or otherwise worse then heterosexuality, a large portion of the population (gay and straight) disagree. Using religion to back it up.
What debate are YOU watching?
When have I ever made a religion-based argument?
---
He was dead when I got here.
Notice the "and others" statement.
"We also have to stop putting things into games that turn off gay players How many games have you played that put you in control of a male character and then asked you to save a princess?"
We also have to stop putting things into games that turn off straight players. How many games have you played that put you in control of a male character and then asked you to save a prince?
It's fun to turn things around. But in all serious, it sounds like she now wants to completely remove anything from games that could offend gay people. Since it sounds like rescuing a princess while being a male character would offend gay people, we will 'have to stop putting things into games' like that. Only rescuing princes from now on guys!
I really don't think there's that much to complain about. I suppose you could put some more subtle hints in that some certain character is gay, but beyond that, having something like one of the characters in COD4 just randomly shout out that they're gay, or do something stereotypically gay, would be ridiculous. I'll agree with her in general, but really. We don't need to stop putting things into games that offend gay people, because that would be a bit silly. If we took out everything from games/movies/books that offended someone, we wouldn't have any of those mediums.
"LGBT characters and story lines shouldn’t be slipped into each and every game, she adds, but “in certain circumstances it not only makes sense but makes the game a richer, more enjoyable experience for everyone.”"
FUnny how no one seems to care about her very next sentance *FACEPALM*
Of course they ignore it, they don't want their outrage to be silenced with information that would prove them wrong. Regardless of how close it is.
[Game developers are] moving away from the stereotype of the angry, homophobic teen boy
Wait, what? What games is this guy referring to when he says "homophobic teen boy"? I can't think of any games off the top of my head where a teenager has said anything about gays.
I think he means "the stereotype of the angry, homophobic teen boy" as their target audience.