Slashdot Mirror
EA Defends Itself Against Thousands of Anti-Gay Letters
donniebaseball23 writes "Video game publisher Electronic Arts has not only had to defend itself against 'worst company in America' labels, but GamesIndustry International has revealed that EA's been receiving thousands of letters protesting the inclusion of same-sex relationship content in games like Mass Effect and Star Wars: The Old Republic. The campaign against EA appears to be led by Florida Family Association and the Family Research Council. The letters threaten to boycott purchase of EA games if the company won't remove the LGBT content, and many allege that EA was pressured by LGBT activists to include the content, which they say is forcing LGBT themes on children playing the games. 'This isn't about protecting children, it's about political harassment,' said Jeff Brown, VP of corporate communications."
Anyone who voted for EA over Walmart as the worst company has no idea what they are talking about.
So: Being gay is wrong. Gays can't be open about their sexuality. Gays don't get the same rights as heterosexuals.
So yes, that absolutely does make you anti-gay.
Does this make me anti-gay?
Yes:
I oppose gay marriage.
That's the problem. You don't want gay couples to have all the rights associated with marriage that married people have, like residency rights, visitation rights, and all the various tax benefits, such as estate tax, etc.
So yeah, pretty much by opposing gay marriage, you are acting to make life worse for gay people just because they are gay. Own it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It might actually be even stranger than the normal Streisand-related backfiring; there's a theory floating around that EA are actually deliberately exploiting the increased publicity of this to divert attention away from the fact that they're an utter bunch of assholes in many other ways. No idea whether it's true or not, but seemed worth mentioning.
Except it's not being promoted aside from how the public has taken it upon itself to run with it.
You don;t have to pursue the homosexual options in the game, they are optional.
*On a more personal note, if you against gays having the same rights (marriage) as straights, you kind of are by definition anti-gay.
"I'm not a misogynistic I just think woman should be kept in the kitchen."
"I'm not racist I just think blacks should have stayed on the plantations."
If it was strictly a matter of theology I would agree it should be up to the church, but so long as the insurance companies cannot insure a domestic partner, nor the government grant tax benefits to domestic partners, nor hospitals allow visitation to domestic partners; then it is a federal mater and the church should have zero say.
Don't think of it as siding with EA.
Think of it as siding with your neighbors, your friends, your co-workers, and your family members.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Far too many religious people define themselves by what they hate, and measure their own worth by how much hatred they can stir up.
Personally, I'd like to see all these hateful "Family" outfits treated the same way as other hate mongers that are currently dealt with harshly by law, like neo-Nazis and Islamists.
they have the right to marry what ever woman they want
So you're pro lesbian but anti male/male union? Odd, but not unprecedented.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I believe homosexual acts are a sin.
Fine. Many people believe eating bacon is a sin.
I believe homosexuality should not be promoted.
Fine. I don't think boxing should be promoted. Doesn't seem to stop them.
I oppose gay marriage.
Here is where it is not-so fine. If you are actively trying to suppress two consensual adults from entering into a mutually beneficial contract because of their gender, you are anti-gay. Maybe you're ok with civil unions; that makes you less anti-gay and just deluded in believing that separate-but-equal will work this time.
no comment
Does this make me anti-gay?
Yes:
I oppose gay marriage.
That's the problem. You don't want gay couples to have all the rights associated with marriage that married people have, like residency rights, visitation rights, and all the various tax benefits, such as estate tax, etc.
So yeah, pretty much by opposing gay marriage, you are acting to make life worse for gay people just because they are gay. Own it.
Being anti-gay marriage does not necessarily mean you are anti-gay. It depends on your motivation for anti-gay marriage AND your definition of marriage. Personally, I consider marriage a religious ceremony, if religions or religious people do not believe in gay marriage, fine. That said, I ABSOLUTELY believe that the rights and privileges that the government grants to heterosexual marriages must be made available, at all governmental levels, to same-sex couples. I defy anyone to provide me with any legal argument, with no religious aspect, to why same-sex couples should not be granted equal rights.
Regardless of where you stand on homosexuality, citing nature's activities as defense of homosexuality is entirely illogical. Animals, within the context of their natural environs, commit a variety of acts humans would never even think to tolerate within civilization, so when you say "well, look, all the animals do it so it's immediately acceptable for humans to do it, too" you offer me, and everyone else, the unmitigated authority to condone pretty much anything.
For the most part the "Gay Agenda" is just to be treated like a normal citizen. Usually when people who have exposure to LGBT people realize this. And that they are not some evil group of people trying to stop us "Heteros" doing what we feel is natural to us. Actually by making them outcasts in society you force them to go to locations and socialize with people that are less desirable.
We Don't want you in our church. So they won't go to your church. Not going to church they will not be exposed to the other values that you find good.
Being exposed to a diverse set of people is usually a good thing, you are not shocked at everything that goes on. And the fact that you lived in backwater area with no exposure to your people won't change their ways just because you think it is wrong.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Would eliminating privileges of marriage be better?
Well, it would be fairer.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I have it on good authority (No, I can't reveal my source) that this is EA responding to being voted the worst company of 2012 by Consumerist.com. The higher-ups are worried about the bad press right before the stock holders meeting, so they are deliberately trying to spin the negative press as being tied to their support of LGBT. However it's pretty obvious that the voters at the Consumerist were much more focused on EA's price gouging and charging extra for downloadable content just to get the basic content, anti-competitive measures and a host of other issues.
So when you hear EA saying "They hate us because we're taking a stand for human rights", you know the truth is "They hate you because you mercilessly squeeze every dollar out of your customers, you provide horrid customer service and because you deliberately hold back game content as DLC, making the customers feel like they're being blackmailed instead of being consumers."
citing nature's activities as defense of homosexuality is entirely illogical.
I disagree. A lot of anti-gay stance is based round the concept that being gay is a choice and not a fundamental attribute. By showing that animals are gay as well means (among other things) that either God has given animals the ability to choose to be gay or not, or that being gay is natural.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
That is such semantic nonsense. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they romantically love. Homosexuals do not have that right in most of the United States.
The real problem is that the word "marriage" has a religious meaning. I propose we remove the word from all federal, state, and local laws and documents, replacing it with civil unions (with rights and responsibilities identical to those currently attributed to marriage). All current marriages are automatically converted over to the (functionally identical) civil unions and any couple of legal age and standing (neither member already part of a civil union) may fill out the paper work and be legally joined. Leave the word marriage to mean "joined by a church"; which, of course, any couple, gay or straight, could also have performed as part of forming their civil union.
There, everyone has their religious freedoms, everyone has identical rights, everyone is happy right? Oh wait no, the religious wackos (and no, I don't mean that to be everyone who is religious is wacko) will throw an ever loving hissy fit, yelling at the top of their lungs that "the gays won" and "you're destroying marriage!".
This.
That always confounded me - why on earth would an earnest religious person turn away someone from their church, just because they were a sinner? Aren't non-christians the people you -want- to come to church? Afterall, Christ did lunch with sinners, and preached love and compassion. It's become clear to me that many christians (but not all) are not interested in saving souls, but only about their social club that lets them feel superior to people who are not Them - the other, the different, the outsider. It used to be the jews and gypsies until it became unpopular to ostracise them - now it's the gays and muslims.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Until the word "marriage" loses it's legal definitions, being anti-gay marriage is, by your own statements, being anti-gay. Reality is that civil unions don't exist in most states in the US and many places where they do exist aren't legally identical to marriage. I agree with you, marriage should be a religious ceremony, the problem is that according to the laws of the land it also is a legal agreement. Until the two concepts are separated you can't be for one and against the other. And besides, the pro/anti-gay marriage debate is focused exclusively on the legal aspects, there's absolutely nothing stopping a gay couple having a religious marriage ceremony, it just wouldn't be legally binding.
Sure, then we can have switches for everything. It can default to all white male, then switches to add female, black, gay, atheist, muslim, disabled whatever. That way the people who live with their heads up their ass can pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
I don't know how many people would agree with me, but I would say 100% yes, it would be better. Personally, I don't believe the word "marriage" has any place in law. Marriage is a religious ceremony that was given legal status a few thousand years ago when everyone was religious, and we've spent the last couple hundred years trying to decouple the religious aspect without changing terminology. This creates a situation where separation of church and state becomes impossible, as any change to the legal status of marriage is viewed as a change to the religious status of marriage, when in fact we're talking about two entirely different things. I do not support government recognition of marriage in any way.
I would support a government system that allows two people, any two people, to file paperwork allowing them to declare joint ownership of assets, joint filing of taxes, sharing of benefits, and any other legal statuses that legislature decides is appropriate. It should be required that these people share joint residency, but sex, race, and whether these people decide to share bodily fluids should have no legal bearing. If two heterosexual, same sex roommates decide they'd like to enter this type of arrangement, that's fine with me (thought breaking of this contract obviously still has legal significance, since you are declaring joint ownership of assets, so it should not be taken lightly). If people decide they'd still like to stand before friends, family and/or religious authority and declare their eternal love for each other, that's also fine with me, but it's between them and their church, not them and the government. But in the end, the current legal definition of marriage just boils down the federal government taking an interest into what two consenting adults choose to do with their genitalia, and no matter what Rick Santorum thinks, I cannot possibly see any justification for that.
These same people rant and rave about Sharia Law coming to America, because they're worried it would move in on their turf.
This.
That always confounded me - why on earth would an earnest religious person turn away someone from their church, just because they were a sinner? Aren't non-christians the people you -want- to come to church? Afterall, Christ did lunch with sinners, and preached love and compassion. It's become clear to me that many christians (but not all) are not interested in saving souls, but only about their social club that lets them feel superior to people who are not Them - the other, the different, the outsider. It used to be the jews and gypsies until it became unpopular to ostracise them - now it's the gays and muslims.
What's even stranger is that they want to pass laws so that secular law enforcement will coerce everyone into observing their inhibitions. Like that would help anyone get to Heaven, according to their doctrine.
"Religious Right" is just a euphemism for "sex obsessed control freaks".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
A friend of mines family got kicked out of their church because their new son had down syndrome or touched by the devil as the called it.
Hopefully they realize that they didn't lose anything.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I always preferred 'The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, no more, no less'. Still EA is a huge organization, and it is possible to deride them for some things while giving them props for others.
Being anti-gay marriage does not necessarily mean you are anti-gay.
Yes, it does. It means that you are against an entire class of people having a fundamental civil right.
It depends on your motivation for anti-gay marriage AND your definition of marriage.
No, it doesn't. If you're against people having equal rights, you're against that class of people.
Personally, I consider marriage a religious ceremony
Tough titties, that hasn't been how it's been for a long ass time. Since before the US was founded, actually.
if religions or religious people do not believe in gay marriage, fine.
Then they can just not have them, and not perform them. What's so hard about that?
I recall years ago hearing a good summary of the Gay Agenda....
(1) Not get killed
(2) Have a nice lunch
There person rounded it off by pointing out that 'our demands are simple'
Well, remember that religious people are incapable of logical reasoning.
As a "religious person," I feel entirely convinced you have logically come to this conclusion.
My bad, religious people are unable to accept reality as well.
As well as this. Well, this one makes sense, as long as you define reality as what you believe to be true; thus, anyone who thinks differently is denying reality.
BTW being gay is natural.
So is wanting to punch someone in the face when they do something to make you angry. Doesn't mean I have to actually punch people in the face.
The difference is that a gay couple that wants to get married is a pair of consenting adults, whereas you and whoever owns the face presumably aren't.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I'm not trying to pick on you here, but there's a problem with your belief: it's wrong. Marriage is a legal status conferred by the government. Religious ceremonies exist only to keep the church in people's lives. Many people are married in non-religious ceremonies, are atheists not really married because they aren't religious?
The whole marriage is religious thing is an invention to justify opposing various marriages on religious grounds. Whether it's used to justify opposition to marrying blacks, inter-race couples, gays or lesbians, it's always been a invented reason. There's one legitimate definition of marriage and it's not religious. If religions want to have their own super-hetero-god-fearing-marriage, they can have it, but it shouldn't be recognised by the government as anything other than a civil marriage.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
As a Christian, while I don't approve of homosexual activity, I would not deny a person who practices such the church or the possibility of friendship. I figure, every person, whether they are Christian or not, not only sins but they sin regularly. Who am I to judge another due to their sin? That is between them and God.
That said, I still believe society has a obligation to hold those accountable take from others who are unwilling to give. For example, murder does not just affect those who volunteer to take part in the event. Stealing is another example.
Flipping to the other side of the coin, barring rape, all participates are willing when participating in sexual immorality of any kind. They sins is just as bad in the eye of God but who am I to stand in there way? I can still try to convince them to change their ways and help them if they choose to change but I would do wrong if I used force to stop their actions.
All this said, I am of course human. I still struggle to overcome my natural human tendencies to judge others and treat them unfairly but I do try to overcome.
They don't want gay couples portrayed as normal. They want their children to know they should be ostracizing any of their peers who come out as gay.
The difference between you and me is that I do not believe that something is true. I go after the facts and do experiments to see if it's true or not true. Reality is not reality because you believe it or not, it just is.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
is there some sort of middle ground? I mean, if someone wants their game character to be in a same sex relationship that's fine, it's their game, but if it's part of the story line that is exposing me to things I really don't wanna see.... i don't think that is ok, and the game should make that clear before purchase.
Do you object to characters having opposite-sex relationships too? It seems to me that you should either allow both same-sex and opposite sex relationships, or ban both.
If you "don't wanna see" same-sex relationships in games because you don't want to see them anywhere, then tough. We are people too you know, and I'm not going to pretend my husband is a platonic friend just because you don't feel comfortable seeing two people who love each other.
No, you're making the mistake of lumping all religious people together. It's a bit like saying that all white people are genocidal maniacs because of the actions of the Germans in the 1930s.
In case you haven't noticed, there's now protestant churches which have openly gay ministers. That directly contradicts your statement that "only the secular part of the religious society ... accepts homosexuality". You can't appoint an openly gay person a preacher without implicitly accepting homosexuality in a non-secular way. Of course, these churches (nor all the other ones which are accepting of LGBT people) don't get much press the way the bigoted ones do. There's also been a lot of schisms among protestant churches, with congregations breaking off and leaving denominations because they don't like the acceptance of homosexuality, female preachers, etc., but the accepting churches aren't going away (though they do seem to becoming more and more a minority among American churches, as the fundamentalists continue to grow in numbers and power, along with ultra-right-wing political thought).
Relationships are not about reproduction. They are about love, companionship, mutual support, sex, and so on. Those things don't require the couple to be opposite-sex.
Many religions do consider it a sin to be gay, but they usually consider belonging to other religions (or none) to be sinful too. That hasn't stopped religious diversity becoming mainstream in many many places.
Heterosexuals force their sexual preference on everyone all the time. They have pictures of their partners on their desks, they hold hands in the street, they kiss in greeting or parting, they flaunt their relationships via wedding bands for all to see, you see their relationships and even graphic sexual portrayals of them from every book, magazine, TV show, movie, billboard, ad, etc.
Basically you're saying you're SHOCKED that acknowledging that gay people exist and should have the same rights to live and love and be visible as anyone else isn't a bad thing. You think that respect only goes one way, apparently.
Perhaps you might ponder seeing things from other people's perspectives, or walk a mile in other people's shoes. The Closet is not a healthy place, and you have no fundamental right to have everyone conspire to keep you ignorant of the existence of people different than you.
Existing is not "forcing their sexual preference on others". We're not talking about RAPE here. We're talking about human beings simply existing in life, like anyone else, with the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else... and not having to jump through hoops to hide in order to avoid offending your delicate and ridiculous sensibilities.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
There are racists in the world who hate seeing non-whites treated as equals... should games featuring people of color carry a "WARNING" in order to avoid offending those racists?
Of course not.
So why should a game carry a "warning" in order to avoid offending heterosexists, homophobes, and anti-gay bigots?
Listen to what you're advocating here.
Ignorant bigotry won't go away as long as everyone caters to it. If you're an ignorant bigot offended by something perfectly normal, then tough. Sucks to be you. (note, I'm not saying YOU are an ignorant bigot... I'm saying 'in general').
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't