EA Defends Itself Against Thousands of Anti-Gay Letters

Well I say by Chrisq · 2012-04-05 04:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Soddom

Re:Well I say by nschubach · 2012-04-05 04:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

I can't help but to side with EA on this... if they want to boycott, fine.

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Re:Well I say by hpa · 2012-04-05 04:13 · Score: 5, Funny

"Streisand effect" anyone?
Re:Well I say by MoonBuggy · 2012-04-05 04:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Well I say by Chrisq · 2012-04-05 04:24 · Score: 5, Funny

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.
yes its true, they are an utter bunch of assholes in many other ways.
Re:Well I say by jellomizer · 2012-04-05 04:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Well I say by adisakp · 2012-04-05 04:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Streisand effect" anyone?
Naw... "Starbucks Effect" ... where anti-Gay protests causes your stocks to rise.

Supposedly Starbucks is doing so well that Microsoft and Apple want the Anti-Gay NOM Group to boycott them as well </satire>.
Re:Well I say by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-05 04:32 · Score: 3, Funny

Well, to the protesters, I simply say, "Fuck you".
"...but, of course, only in a monogamous heterosexual relationship, because otherwise that would clearly be indecent."
Re:Well I say by DJRumpy · 2012-04-05 04:39 · Score: 4, Funny

Interesting that should you mention that ;)

Microsoft, Apple Unite to Demand That the National Organization for Marriage Boycott Them
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-wooledge/microsoft-apple-unite-to-_b_1394821.html
Re:Well I say by Kell+Bengal · 2012-04-05 04:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

This.

That always confounded me - why on earth would an earnest religious person turn away someone from their church, just because they were a sinner? Aren't non-christians the people you -want- to come to church? Afterall, Christ did lunch with sinners, and preached love and compassion. It's become clear to me that many christians (but not all) are not interested in saving souls, but only about their social club that lets them feel superior to people who are not Them - the other, the different, the outsider. It used to be the jews and gypsies until it became unpopular to ostracise them - now it's the gays and muslims.

--
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Re:Well I say by Black+Parrot · 2012-04-05 05:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

This.
That always confounded me - why on earth would an earnest religious person turn away someone from their church, just because they were a sinner? Aren't non-christians the people you -want- to come to church? Afterall, Christ did lunch with sinners, and preached love and compassion. It's become clear to me that many christians (but not all) are not interested in saving souls, but only about their social club that lets them feel superior to people who are not Them - the other, the different, the outsider. It used to be the jews and gypsies until it became unpopular to ostracise them - now it's the gays and muslims.
What's even stranger is that they want to pass laws so that secular law enforcement will coerce everyone into observing their inhibitions. Like that would help anyone get to Heaven, according to their doctrine.
"Religious Right" is just a euphemism for "sex obsessed control freaks".

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Well I say by Black+Parrot · 2012-04-05 05:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

A friend of mines family got kicked out of their church because their new son had down syndrome or touched by the devil as the called it.
Hopefully they realize that they didn't lose anything.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Well I say by jythie · 2012-04-05 05:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Well I say by jythie · 2012-04-05 05:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

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'
Re:Well I say by DesScorp · 2012-04-05 05:17 · Score: 5, Informative

This.
That always confounded me - why on earth would an earnest religious person turn away someone from their church, just because they were a sinner? Aren't non-christians the people you -want- to come to church? Afterall, Christ did lunch with sinners, and preached love and compassion. It's become clear to me that many christians (but not all) are not interested in saving souls, but only about their social club that lets them feel superior to people who are not Them - the other, the different, the outsider. It used to be the jews and gypsies until it became unpopular to ostracise them - now it's the gays and muslims.
That is simply not true. Most churches are open to anyone, and saving souls is task Numero Uno. That doesn't mean that they have to accept conduct, though, which is clearly condemned in the Bible. The idea is to be saved. Part of being saved is "changing your ways", as the Bible teaches. What some people are demanding, however, is that the churches should change for them, accepting things that the Bible teaches against. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Christ taught that salvation was a free gift to anyone that wanted it, but you had to accept it on his terms, not yours.
If someone can't accept that, then so be it. Go about your life elsewhere. But don't demand that churches abandon their teachings and laws to make you feel comfortable. That's not the way it works.

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Re:Well I say by Githaron · 2012-04-05 05:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

As a Christian, while I don't approve of homosexual activity, I would not deny a person who practices such the church or the possibility of friendship. I figure, every person, whether they are Christian or not, not only sins but they sin regularly. Who am I to judge another due to their sin? That is between them and God.
That said, I still believe society has a obligation to hold those accountable take from others who are unwilling to give. For example, murder does not just affect those who volunteer to take part in the event. Stealing is another example.
Flipping to the other side of the coin, barring rape, all participates are willing when participating in sexual immorality of any kind. They sins is just as bad in the eye of God but who am I to stand in there way? I can still try to convince them to change their ways and help them if they choose to change but I would do wrong if I used force to stop their actions.
All this said, I am of course human. I still struggle to overcome my natural human tendencies to judge others and treat them unfairly but I do try to overcome.
Re:Well I say by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-05 05:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

You don't have to side with EA in particular to tell these groups to shove it. The games in question are rated M are they not? You know, the NOT FOR KIDS rating.
The so called concerned parents of these Family oriented groups should already be boycotting the games in question simply because they aren't suppose to be buying them for their kids. And if they're so fucking offended that it's in a game intended for mature adults, they should already be avoiding the game willingly.
Re:Well I say by Altus · 2012-04-05 05:45 · Score: 4, Funny

(2) Have a nice brunch
FTFY

--
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Re:Well I say by SuricouRaven · 2012-04-05 05:46 · Score: 2

There is indeed a Gay Agenda, in the same way that the civil rights movement could be termed the Black Agenda.

It's just basic use of persuasive language. Calling something an agenda can make it sound intimidating and worrying. Even better if you imply the agenda is some sort of secret plan.
Re:Well I say by C0R1D4N · 2012-04-05 05:46 · Score: 4, Informative

It isn't really EA adding in the lgbt love, bioware has been slowly adding more and more over the past decade. Now that they are part of EA and SW TOR being such a huge game it is simply getting mainstream notice.
Re:Well I say by ewanm89 · 2012-04-05 05:49 · Score: 2

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.
Maxim 29.
Re:Well I say by Grishnakh · 2012-04-05 06:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well, thanks to the Streisand Effect, this bunch of assholes at EA are going to profit handsomely because another bunch of prudish, backwards religious assholes are making a big deal out of this silly issue.
Personally, I'm rooting for the assholes at EA. I'm really sick and tired of the religious nuts around here.
(Note that not all religious people are bigoted nuts like these morons; there's a bunch of Christian churches these days which openly state that LGBT people are welcome, generally the Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopals.)
Re:Well I say by lgw · 2012-04-05 07:36 · Score: 3

Wait, what? It's quite normal to disapprove of real-world phenomena while approving of abstract ideals. For example, most people diapprove of how most people look and dress, as they fall sort of the ideal appearance.
I understand your rush to post "look, look, he's a stupid religion guy and I'm not", but c'mon, at least try to make some sort of rational point.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Well I say by cayenne8 · 2012-04-05 07:38 · Score: 5, Funny

But truth be told many more women are open to being or have been bi than men.
Well, it is different for men and women. Women can experiment, they can dabble, hell, its often been said that most women are only 1 strawberry daquiri away from kissing another chick.
Women, can experiment, and still be considered on the home team.
Men? Nope....you suck one cock...and your gay.
Plain and simple.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Well I say by Grishnakh · 2012-04-05 08:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, you're making the mistake of lumping all religious people together. It's a bit like saying that all white people are genocidal maniacs because of the actions of the Germans in the 1930s.
In case you haven't noticed, there's now protestant churches which have openly gay ministers. That directly contradicts your statement that "only the secular part of the religious society ... accepts homosexuality". You can't appoint an openly gay person a preacher without implicitly accepting homosexuality in a non-secular way. Of course, these churches (nor all the other ones which are accepting of LGBT people) don't get much press the way the bigoted ones do. There's also been a lot of schisms among protestant churches, with congregations breaking off and leaving denominations because they don't like the acceptance of homosexuality, female preachers, etc., but the accepting churches aren't going away (though they do seem to becoming more and more a minority among American churches, as the fundamentalists continue to grow in numbers and power, along with ultra-right-wing political thought).
Re:Well I say by minijedimaster · 2012-04-05 08:26 · Score: 2

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.
The key phrase there being "earnest religious person". This does not automatically infer someone is a christian. Applying that same phrase to a muslim, would you assume an "earnest religious person" is a muslim because they blow themselves up? Of course not.
1 Corintians 5: 9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
Referring specifically to the "wolf in sheep's clothing", someone who claims to be a "brother or sister" (ie christian) but acts in the complete opposite of the Word's commandments and bearing no fruit as a follower of Christ. As stated in reference to those who make no claims of being part of the body " What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church."
Long story even longer, while as a christian I will not make excuses for the sins people commit (including mine), I am tasked by my lord to inform them that there is a better way. This way allows us all to be forgiven and therefore conquer sin and death resulting in everlasting life with God. The word teaches performing homosexual acts is rebellion against God and the way he made us. I am to denounce the sin, but love the sinner as Jesus teaches:
Luke 6: 27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
Re:Well I say by Grishnakh · 2012-04-05 10:07 · Score: 2

In a two-sided battle, you have to root for someone. Or you could just ignore the whole thing altogether, but if you choose that method, then you can't be posting in this discussion. So, though I don't like either side very much, I'd have to root for EA here. Of course, I'd be happier to see both sides just disappear altogether (the religious nuts fade into obscurity and EA go out of business to be replaced by smaller game companies), but in this particular battle, my favor goes to EA.
Re:Well I say by RsG · 2012-04-05 11:48 · Score: 2

Bingo.
EA has almost nothing to do with the gay content of their games. They're the publisher for fucks' sake, at best they're not getting in the way. They are due perhaps a smidge of credit for not demanding bioware remove the "offensive" content, but no more than that. Doesn't make them the good guy, and doesn't even come close to compensating for the way they treat their developers. One brief moment of apathetic social activism doesn't outweigh a decade of abuse.
The reason they're getting flooded with angry emails from the religious right is that the people sending the letters know fuck all about who makes what decision, and I will freely believe the person up the thread who said they're hoping to capitalize on the Streisand effect for free publicity. Why address your flaws when you can paint your critics as a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth homophobes with an axe to grind?
Now, that being said, will they lose sales for ME3 and TOR because the people who sent angry letters staged a boycott? Nope. Can't boycott something you were never going to buy in the first place. The gamers I've known who dislike gays (and I don't mean "use gay as a general purpose slur", every idiot tween with a headset does that) aren't going to boycott the games, because it takes a hell of a lot more than an optional same sex relationship to dissuade them. At best a few people will give those two games a miss.
The people I've known who would boycott a piece of fiction over having even the tiniest touch of "the gay" aren't in the gamer demographic. They might matter to Hollywood, but gaming is a niche they already disapprove of.

--
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Re:Well I say by Grishnakh · 2012-04-05 13:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

You might want to go read up on the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Re:Well I say by Avoiderman · 2012-04-05 17:44 · Score: 3, Funny

Dear America - can you see why we sent you the Puritans now? We are sorry, but very glad they are no longer here. Yours, the UK.
Re:Well I say by samoanbiscuit · 2012-04-07 00:13 · Score: 2

he upheld the entire law verbatim,
Well, does that mean you don't eat shellfish, stone adulterers in your community, and display tokens of your daughters virginity in public the day after the wedding night?
I'm sick of christian apologists condemning something because there is a law about it in the OT, then backtracking by saying "Jesus represents a NEW covenant" when confronted with slavery, murder and the rest of that bronze age morality that modern society considers evil.

Ugh by An+Ominous+Coward · 2012-04-05 04:12 · Score: 5, Funny

Are these bastards really going to make me side with EA on something? I need a shower.

Re:Ugh by TubeSteak · 2012-04-05 04:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't think of it as siding with EA.
Think of it as siding with your neighbors, your friends, your co-workers, and your family members.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Ugh by Ironix · 2012-04-05 04:30 · Score: 5, Funny

Want some company?

--
Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
Re:Ugh by JosephTX · 2012-04-05 04:48 · Score: 5, Funny

I live in Texas. My neighbors, co-workers, and family members are more likely the ones I shouldn't be siding with.
Re:Ugh by cvtan · 2012-04-05 05:16 · Score: 2

Only thing worse would be if Fox News sided with EA on this and then did a story about how the ending of Mass Effect 3 was the best ever.

--
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Re:Ugh by TubeSteak · 2012-04-05 05:54 · Score: 2

I live in Texas. My neighbors, co-workers, and family members are more likely the ones I shouldn't be siding with.
Holy dogshit! Texas! Only steers and queers come from Texas.
And you don't much look like a steer to me, so that kinda narrows it down.
/25 years and that Texas joke is still a winner.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!

Conflicting by Hatta · 2012-04-05 04:13 · Score: 2

Who is more evil here? I'm going to say the FFA and FRC, but I don't think they're evil enough to get me to buy an EA product just to spite them.

If this were any other company than EA (well also Ubisoft and Sony), I'd write them a kind letter and buy the product. I hope the normalization of homosexuality isn't impeded because no one is willing to defend EA.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Re:Conflicting by tbannist · 2012-04-05 04:58 · Score: 4, Informative

From my perspective, the FRC is a scourge upon the United States. They exist solely to advocate for censorship of everything they disagree with, because if they don't like it, nobody else should be allowed to see it either. The most ridiculous part is that most of the people who send the letters in don't ever watch anything they're complaining about. They don't want to risk exposure to "that degenerate material" so the FRC employs people to scan shows and find things that they can be offended at, and then provide their membership with a form letter they can use to bombard the latest victim with complaints from people who never watched what they've been told to be offended about.
The evil the organisation does isn't limited to what they actually complain about, companies avoid airing things they know the FRC will be upset about, particularly when Republicans have control of the FCC, because it can be very costly to run afoul of their arbitrary prejudices.
EA mostly makes games that suck. I don't think there's much competition in the evil category here.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:Conflicting by mr100percent · 2012-04-05 05:02 · Score: 4, Informative

The FFA isn't exactly a real organization. They appear to be one single man with a website, who sent letters to Viacom threatening to boycott the advertisers over an episode of Degrassi which delt with LGBT issues in school, and sent letters to TLC threating to boycott the advertisers unless they cancelled the reality show "All-American Muslim" for, and I'm not making this up, only showing non-terrorist Muslims living in America. The controversy over the latter actually got them more attention than they deserve, and many people on the Far Right signed up for their mailing list.

I for one by maroberts · 2012-04-05 04:13 · Score: 5, Funny

Am, in the interests of balance, going to boycott EA games unless they have more lesbian content.

It's only fair after all.

--

Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon

Re:I for one by retroworks · 2012-04-05 05:22 · Score: 2

That's two EA boycotts. I'm personally more concerned about the Blue skinned people hooking up with the white skinned girls... let's boycott them for that, too.

--
Gently reply

Re:Anti-Gay? by alendit · 2012-04-05 04:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Fuck you!

Walmart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-05 04:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Anyone who voted for EA over Walmart as the worst company has no idea what they are talking about.

Re:Walmart by badboy_tw2002 · 2012-04-05 05:41 · Score: 2

The outcome is easy to understand when you think of the juxtaposition of "People who rabidly vote in online polls" and "People who think EA is the devil because Dungeon Keeper 3 didn't come out."
Messing up the economy? Monopolist practices? Fuck that shit, they killed Westwood!!@#!@!!

Re:Anti-Gay? by An+Ominous+Coward · 2012-04-05 04:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

So: Being gay is wrong. Gays can't be open about their sexuality. Gays don't get the same rights as heterosexuals.

So yes, that absolutely does make you anti-gay.

umm, really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-05 04:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't think that Evangelicals are big market for these kind of games anyway. Another political stunt by the bigots on the extreme fringes.

Re:Anti-Gay? by shippo · 2012-04-05 04:16 · Score: 4, Funny

Aren't you a bit old to have an imaginary friend?

So, protect you from *yourself*?? by crazyjj · 2012-04-05 04:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

In those games, you actually have to ACTIVELY PURSUE gay relationships. So are these groups arguing that game makers have an obligation to stop good Christians from their *own* desire to pursue gay relationships? Because I'm pretty sure that eliminating the POSSIBILITY of gayness in a game is not going to make them all into good Christian heterosexuals, especially if they're *that* determined to pursue the gay endings.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?

Re:So, protect you from *yourself*?? by CannonballHead · 2012-04-05 05:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, remember that religious people are incapable of logical reasoning.
As a "religious person," I feel entirely convinced you have logically come to this conclusion.

My bad, religious people are unable to accept reality as well.
As well as this. Well, this one makes sense, as long as you define reality as what you believe to be true; thus, anyone who thinks differently is denying reality.
Re:So, protect you from *yourself*?? by TheDarkMaster · 2012-04-05 05:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:Anti-Gay? by serviscope_minor · 2012-04-05 04:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Does this make me anti-gay?

Yes:

I oppose gay marriage.

That's the problem. You don't want gay couples to have all the rights associated with marriage that married people have, like residency rights, visitation rights, and all the various tax benefits, such as estate tax, etc.

So yeah, pretty much by opposing gay marriage, you are acting to make life worse for gay people just because they are gay. Own it.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.

EA doesn't have to defend itself. by bmo · 2012-04-05 04:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's not like the FRC are going to buy their software anyway.

Caving to the likes of the FRC is not going to get them anywhere and they should simply circular-file the letters, which are easy to spot because they are all identical. It's too bad that a lot of companies cave to tactics like this. Do they come out ahead after? Nope.

--
BMO

There is no same sex relationships in SWTOR by Shivetya · 2012-04-05 04:19 · Score: 3, Informative

It does not currently have them. There are some suggestive conversations between different characters but is as close as it gets. Top it off with how bad the in game romance story lines are and I serious doubt any self respecting gay person would want to see the Bioware developers take a stab at it.

I mean, the scripts used make the prequel love story between Anakin and Padme look downright Academy Award material.

Then toss in the fact it all is a computerized version of "Choose your own Adventure" and its painfully obvious you could choose to totally ignore that direction in any conversation.

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.

Re:There is no same sex relationships in SWTOR by Chris+Burke · 2012-04-05 04:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

There are some suggestive conversations between different characters but is as close as it gets.
That's more than enough. These people don't want to be even subtly reminded that gays exist. Wanting to be able to exist in society without having to hide their identity, and creating entertainment that acknowledges that homosexuals exist, is "shoving the gay agenda down people's throats".

Then toss in the fact it all is a computerized version of "Choose your own Adventure" and its painfully obvious you could choose to totally ignore that direction in any conversation.
The mere fact that they are aware of its existence is enough.
And does it matter?
Think of it this way: If instead of an RPG where you basically craft whatever character you want and all the romance subplots are optional, what if it was a game about an openly gay character (with or without 'romance', and with appropriate age rating), and playing that character was the only option? Would that make their complaints legitimate?

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Re:Anti-Gay? by firex726 · 2012-04-05 04:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Except it's not being promoted aside from how the public has taken it upon itself to run with it.
You don;t have to pursue the homosexual options in the game, they are optional.

*On a more personal note, if you against gays having the same rights (marriage) as straights, you kind of are by definition anti-gay.
"I'm not a misogynistic I just think woman should be kept in the kitchen."
"I'm not racist I just think blacks should have stayed on the plantations."

If it was strictly a matter of theology I would agree it should be up to the church, but so long as the insurance companies cannot insure a domestic partner, nor the government grant tax benefits to domestic partners, nor hospitals allow visitation to domestic partners; then it is a federal mater and the church should have zero say.

Re:Anti-Gay? by OzPeter · 2012-04-05 04:20 · Score: 5, Informative

I believe homosexual acts are a sin. I believe homosexuality should not be promoted. I oppose gay marriage.

Does this make me anti-gay? No way. Hate the sin and love the sinner. We are all children of God.

By denying gay people respect and what they want - yes you are anti-gay

BTW being gay is natural. If not then why did God create all those gay animals? See Biological Exuberance:Homosexuality and Natural Diversity which lists the gay and bisexual nature of over 300 species as seen in the wild.

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?

Yoda says.... by cayenne8 · 2012-04-05 04:23 · Score: 5, Funny

....Crossing light sabers, forbidden it is...!!

:)

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Re:Yoda says.... by butalearner · 2012-04-05 04:35 · Score: 4, Funny

I see your schwartz is as big as mine.
Re:Yoda says.... by aamcf · 2012-04-05 08:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

is there some sort of middle ground? I mean, if someone wants their game character to be in a same sex relationship that's fine, it's their game, but if it's part of the story line that is exposing me to things I really don't wanna see.... i don't think that is ok, and the game should make that clear before purchase.
Do you object to characters having opposite-sex relationships too? It seems to me that you should either allow both same-sex and opposite sex relationships, or ban both.
If you "don't wanna see" same-sex relationships in games because you don't want to see them anywhere, then tough. We are people too you know, and I'm not going to pretend my husband is a platonic friend just because you don't feel comfortable seeing two people who love each other.
Re:Yoda says.... by aamcf · 2012-04-05 08:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Relationships are not about reproduction. They are about love, companionship, mutual support, sex, and so on. Those things don't require the couple to be opposite-sex.
Many religions do consider it a sin to be gay, but they usually consider belonging to other religions (or none) to be sinful too. That hasn't stopped religious diversity becoming mainstream in many many places.
Re:Yoda says.... by pluther · 2012-04-05 11:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

Letting a character you are playing in a game have the option to pursue a same-sex relationship within that game is not forcing anything on you. Get over it.
How come you people never complain about the inter-species relationships?

--
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Re:Yoda says.... by hairyfeet · 2012-04-05 12:04 · Score: 2

So don't stare at them? I never understood this whole straight males being afraid of gays thing, I'm a straight male and when some guy would make a pass i'd just say 'Thanks for the compliment, don't play for that team" and walk on by. Is that REALLY so hard? i mean you don't see the women freaking the hell out if they see a lesbian couple do you?

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Yoda says.... by SpryGuy · 2012-04-05 14:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Heterosexuals force their sexual preference on everyone all the time. They have pictures of their partners on their desks, they hold hands in the street, they kiss in greeting or parting, they flaunt their relationships via wedding bands for all to see, you see their relationships and even graphic sexual portrayals of them from every book, magazine, TV show, movie, billboard, ad, etc.
Basically you're saying you're SHOCKED that acknowledging that gay people exist and should have the same rights to live and love and be visible as anyone else isn't a bad thing. You think that respect only goes one way, apparently.
Perhaps you might ponder seeing things from other people's perspectives, or walk a mile in other people's shoes. The Closet is not a healthy place, and you have no fundamental right to have everyone conspire to keep you ignorant of the existence of people different than you.
Existing is not "forcing their sexual preference on others". We're not talking about RAPE here. We're talking about human beings simply existing in life, like anyone else, with the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else... and not having to jump through hoops to hide in order to avoid offending your delicate and ridiculous sensibilities.

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Re:Yoda says.... by SpryGuy · 2012-04-05 14:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

There are racists in the world who hate seeing non-whites treated as equals... should games featuring people of color carry a "WARNING" in order to avoid offending those racists?
Of course not.
So why should a game carry a "warning" in order to avoid offending heterosexists, homophobes, and anti-gay bigots?
Listen to what you're advocating here.
Ignorant bigotry won't go away as long as everyone caters to it. If you're an ignorant bigot offended by something perfectly normal, then tough. Sucks to be you. (note, I'm not saying YOU are an ignorant bigot... I'm saying 'in general').

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't

Haters gonna hate by benjfowler · 2012-04-05 04:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Haters gonna hate by Black+Parrot · 2012-04-05 05:41 · Score: 2

Far too many religious people define themselves by what they hate, and measure their own worth by how much hatred they can stir up.
Excellent observation.

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.
When law enforcement acts like they're supposed to (in the USA), such extremists only get nailed when they start breaking laws.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

SOE Did This Ten Years Ago in SWG by eldavojohn · 2012-04-05 04:24 · Score: 2

Um, in Star Wars Galaxies ten years ago you could have same-sex marriage and inter-species marriage. Where was the outcry then?

You know with all the families that deal with neglect, abuse and other problems you'd think Florida Family Association and the Family Research Council would have other topics to tackle that are just a tiny bit more important than whether or not a parent is too shitty to talk to their child about homosexuality in media. For crying out loud, people, really?

You know, you have a right to be homophobic, I can't tell you how to raise your children. But don't fuck up my kid while you're at it. "Mommy, why was I able to marry my best friend in the SWTOR?" "Because some people are homosexuals and we believe that's wrong so don't ever do it in real life." There, was that so hard? Please let the rest of us move forward while your ignorance dies with you, okay?

--
My work here is dung.

Re:Anti-Gay? by Kenja · 2012-04-05 04:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

they have the right to marry what ever woman they want

So you're pro lesbian but anti male/male union? Odd, but not unprecedented.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"

Re:Anti-Gay? by thermostat42 · 2012-04-05 04:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

I believe homosexual acts are a sin.

Fine. Many people believe eating bacon is a sin.

I believe homosexuality should not be promoted.

Fine. I don't think boxing should be promoted. Doesn't seem to stop them.

I oppose gay marriage.

Here is where it is not-so fine. If you are actively trying to suppress two consensual adults from entering into a mutually beneficial contract because of their gender, you are anti-gay. Maybe you're ok with civil unions; that makes you less anti-gay and just deluded in believing that separate-but-equal will work this time.

--
no comment

Re:Anti-Gay? by PPH · 2012-04-05 04:26 · Score: 2

I believe homosexuality should not be promoted.

What do you mean by 'promoted'? Should heterosexuality be promoted? Out of context, probably neither should. But if you are going to portray hereto behavior, then it would be reasonable to expect about 10% LGBT activity as well. In keeping with the demographics of society. I'm not asking for a quota. But until your so-called homosexual behavior far exceeds 10%, I don't think there's any 'promoting' going on.

I believe homosexual acts are a sin.

Then don't perform them.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:Anti-Gay? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-05 04:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Does this make me anti-gay?

Yes:

I oppose gay marriage.

That's the problem. You don't want gay couples to have all the rights associated with marriage that married people have, like residency rights, visitation rights, and all the various tax benefits, such as estate tax, etc.

So yeah, pretty much by opposing gay marriage, you are acting to make life worse for gay people just because they are gay. Own it.

Being anti-gay marriage does not necessarily mean you are anti-gay. It depends on your motivation for anti-gay marriage AND your definition of marriage. Personally, I consider marriage a religious ceremony, if religions or religious people do not believe in gay marriage, fine. That said, I ABSOLUTELY believe that the rights and privileges that the government grants to heterosexual marriages must be made available, at all governmental levels, to same-sex couples. I defy anyone to provide me with any legal argument, with no religious aspect, to why same-sex couples should not be granted equal rights.

Don't like it, don't buy it by davidwr · 2012-04-05 04:27 · Score: 2

Games are a luxury item, not a necessity.

If you don't like it, don't buy it.

If you want to pressure a company, organize a boycott. But do so based on facts and your well-documented position, not on innuendo and supposition.

In the free market, money talks. If enough would-be customers agree with you, the company's stockholders will get the message. If the company's customers pretty much ignore you, then oh well.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.

Re:Anti-Gay? by Kenja · 2012-04-05 04:28 · Score: 5, Informative

Your bible does not say homosexuality is a sin. It just says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I interpret that to be an endorsement of anal sex or cunnilingus. You cant lie with a man as you would with a woman, the holes dont line up. And of course that same section of the book says you are going to hell for eating shell fish, for wearing linen and cotton at the same time and for not stoning to death a disobedient daughter.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"

Re:Anti-Gay? by minkowski76 · 2012-04-05 04:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Eliminating privileges of marriage be better? by davidwr · 2012-04-05 04:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Anti-Gay? by robthebloke · 2012-04-05 04:31 · Score: 2

Does this make me anti-gay?

Yes, very much so.

We are all children of God.

No, we really are not.

"It's OK to be Takei" by Picass0 · 2012-04-05 04:33 · Score: 5, Funny

George Takei has offered up his name as an alternative to gay, so you can support Takei Marrage instead.

Don't buy the EA propaganda by SoTerrified · 2012-04-05 04:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

I have it on good authority (No, I can't reveal my source) that this is EA responding to being voted the worst company of 2012 by Consumerist.com. The higher-ups are worried about the bad press right before the stock holders meeting, so they are deliberately trying to spin the negative press as being tied to their support of LGBT. However it's pretty obvious that the voters at the Consumerist were much more focused on EA's price gouging and charging extra for downloadable content just to get the basic content, anti-competitive measures and a host of other issues.

So when you hear EA saying "They hate us because we're taking a stand for human rights", you know the truth is "They hate you because you mercilessly squeeze every dollar out of your customers, you provide horrid customer service and because you deliberately hold back game content as DLC, making the customers feel like they're being blackmailed instead of being consumers."

Geez. by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-04-05 04:36 · Score: 2

Of all the things to hate EA for, they choose progressive gay rights? I'd say I have to side with EA on this, but I'm choosing to believe BioWare had the cubes convince EA to let them put it in.

One of the very best things about the additional "same-sex" content was how completely UN-weird it was, and I applaud the developers for treating a historically delicate subject as standard fare. Hell, Cortez almost made me cry when I found out he lost his husband; that was definitely NOT the usual "zomg gheys!" giggle-treatment. Even the treatment of inter-racial relationships still doesn't have that level of dignity in entertainment media.

I figure if a vampire can eat a fetus out of the uterus of the woman he impregnated with his zombie spawn on screen, and the only protest is the quality of the acting, two dudes can make out in a video-game just peachy.

Pure Pwnage? c. 2004 by Torodung · 2012-04-05 04:37 · Score: 2

It's incredible how this all started with Jeremy asking EA to "suck his balls," way back in 2004. Who knew they listened to customer feedback?

Well, EA can still suck my balls, and there's no religious group that will intimidate me from making such a request.

http://www.purepwnage.com/ has the full video, but there's egregious ad-portals in front of them. So you only have to sit through one, it's Season 1, Episode 3. The whole thing's worth watching, but the quote is at 4:14.

As for fundamentalist family groups, they can suck my balls too. I can only hate on EA so much.

Re:Anti-Gay? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-05 04:38 · Score: 3, Funny

That's a lie. I do not have the right to marry what ever woman I want.
I'm a straight male, and I just tried to marry my coworker by saying "It is my right to marry you, as it is my right to marry any woman I want!"

And weird I got an invite for a meeting from HR where the meeting location is in the lobby outside security.

Re:Any Different? by darth+dickinson · 2012-04-05 04:38 · Score: 2

In other news, its not like they force the LGBT encounters on you in the game. You pretty much have to consciously chose them.

Finally, some sanity. You have to consciously seek out any "intimate relationship" with the other characters, whether homo- or hetero-sexual in nature. In fact I think it's even possible to go through the first two games without *any* type of sexual relationship (haven't played ME3 yet, but I would assume the same is true there as well).

Re:Anti-Gay? by OzPeter · 2012-04-05 04:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

citing nature's activities as defense of homosexuality is entirely illogical.

I disagree. A lot of anti-gay stance is based round the concept that being gay is a choice and not a fundamental attribute. By showing that animals are gay as well means (among other things) that either God has given animals the ability to choose to be gay or not, or that being gay is natural.

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?

Re:Anti-Gay? by An+Ominous+Coward · 2012-04-05 04:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

That is such semantic nonsense. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they romantically love. Homosexuals do not have that right in most of the United States.

Political harassment? by minkowski76 · 2012-04-05 04:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think EA needs to check their facts. Sending in letters to let a corporation know you do not approve of their behavior isn't 'harassment', it's freedom of speech, which is precisely why it is enshrined within the founding documents of the United States of America, and simply because letter senders speak from a position many deem 'unacceptable' doesn't violate that groups right to speak on behalf of their beliefs, unless you think everyone is required to accept homosexuality. Seems to me EA also missed the part whereby some thousand or more game-players exercised their right to free speech with respect to Mass Effect 3's ending, which seems odd to me, as it would appear it's quite acceptable to decry a video games ending like children throwing a tempter tantrum, but if you write a company to criticize their choice to popularize life-styles that conflict with your personal and cherished beliefs, your letters are labeled 'political harassment'. But I guess manipulating the masses is one good quality of every successful video game company. For the record, I'm a independent atheist, but everyone has the right in my opinion to say what they want, and if the US continues trending in it's current direction, the following link portends our future: http://catholicexchange.com/canada-orders-pastor-to-renounce-his-faith/ Not really where I want to see civilization trend.

Re:Anti-Gay? by Kenja · 2012-04-05 04:40 · Score: 2

Why should people get tax breaks for signing a paper?

Ask the corporations. Actually, there's your answer. If couples want extended rights, they should incorporate.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"

Re:Anti-Gay? by MozeeToby · 2012-04-05 04:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

The real problem is that the word "marriage" has a religious meaning. I propose we remove the word from all federal, state, and local laws and documents, replacing it with civil unions (with rights and responsibilities identical to those currently attributed to marriage). All current marriages are automatically converted over to the (functionally identical) civil unions and any couple of legal age and standing (neither member already part of a civil union) may fill out the paper work and be legally joined. Leave the word marriage to mean "joined by a church"; which, of course, any couple, gay or straight, could also have performed as part of forming their civil union.

There, everyone has their religious freedoms, everyone has identical rights, everyone is happy right? Oh wait no, the religious wackos (and no, I don't mean that to be everyone who is religious is wacko) will throw an ever loving hissy fit, yelling at the top of their lungs that "the gays won" and "you're destroying marriage!".

The Homosexual Agenda by 0100010001010011 · 2012-04-05 04:44 · Score: 4, Funny

(Not Mine but worth reading through. I honestly think some people believe 15:33 is going to happen).

8:00 a.m. Wake up. Wonder where you are.

8:01 a.m. Realize you are lying on 100 percent cotton sheets of at least a 300 count, so don't panic; you're not slumming.

8:02 a.m. Realize you are actually in your own bed for a change. Wake stranger next to you and tell them you are late for work so won't be able to cook breakfast for them. Mutter "sorry" as you help him look for his far-flung underwear. You find out that you tore his boxers while ripping them off him last night, so you "loan" him a pair of boxer-briefs, but not the new ones because you never intend to see him again.

8:05 a.m. Tell the stranger, whose name eludes you, "It was fun. I'll give you a call," as you usher him out the door, avoiding his egregious morning-breath.

8:06 a.m. Crumple and dispose of the piece of paper with his telephone number on it when you get to the kitchen.

8:07 a.m. Make a high protein breakfast while watching the Today show. Wonder if the stories you've heard about Matt Lauer are true. Decide they must be.

8:30 a.m. Italian or domestic? Decide to go with three-button Italian and the only shirt that is clean.

8:45 a.m. Climb into red Z4 and try not to look too much like Barbie driving one of her accessories as you pull out of your underground parking. Revos or Armanis? Go with Revos.

9:35 a.m. Stroll into office.

9:36 a.m. Close door to office and call best friend and laugh about the guy who spent the night at your condo. Point out something annoying about best friend's boyfriend but quickly add "It doesn't matter what everyone else thinks, just as long as you love him."

10:15 a.m. Leave office, telling your secretary you are "meeting with a client." Pretend not to notice her insubordinate roll of her eyes (or the cloying "poem" she has tacked to her cubicle wall).

10:30 a.m. Hair appointment for lowlights and cut. Purchase of Aveda anti-humectant pomade.

11:30 a.m. Run into personal trainer at gym. Pester him about getting you Human Growth Hormone. Spend 30 minutes talking to friends on your cell phone while using Hammer Strength machines, preparing a mental-matrix of which circuit parties everyone is going to and which are now passe.

12:00pm Tan. Schedule back-waxing in time for Saturday party where you know you will end up shirtless.

12:30 p.m. Pay trainer for anabolic steroids and schedule a workout. Shower, taking ten minutes to knot your tie while you check-out your best friend's boyfriend undress with the calculation of someone used to wearing a t-back and having dollars stuffed in their crotch.

1:00 p.m. Meet someone for whom you only know his waist, chest and penis size from AOL M4M chat for lunch at a hot, new restaurant. Because the maître d' recognizes you from a gay bar, you are whisked past the Christian heterosexual couples who have been waiting patiently for a table since 12:30.

2:30 p.m. "Dessert at your place." Find out, once again, people lie on AOL.

3:33 p.m. Assume complete control of the U.S., state, and local governments (in addition to other nations' governments); destroy all healthy Christian marriages; recruit all children grades Kindergarten through 12 into your amoral, filthy lifestyle; secure complete control of the media, starting with sitcoms; molest innocent children; give AIDS to as many people as you can; host a pornographic "art" exhibit at your local art museum; and turn people away from Jesus, causing them to burn forever in Hell.

4:10 p.m. Time permitting, bring about the general decline of Western Civilization and look like you are having way too much fun doing it.

4:30 p.m. Take a disco-nap to prevent facial wrinkles from the stress of world conquest and being so terribly witty.

6:00 p.m. Open a fabulous new bottle of Malbec.

6:47 P.M. Bake Ketamine for weekend. Test recipe.

7:00 P.M. Go to Abercrombie & Fitch and announce in a loud voice, "Over!"

Re:The Homosexual Agenda by TuringTest · 2012-04-05 05:15 · Score: 2, Informative

That's called "knowing people" and has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

--
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Re:The Homosexual Agenda by DrGamez · 2012-04-05 06:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

I don't think I'm very good at being gay if this is the kind of agenda I'm supposed to be living.
9:00am Go to work
5:00pm Come home from work
7:00pm Cook dinner for partner and myself
12:00am Sleep

Other than the obligatory orgy every other week there isn't much difference from a straight couple I'd imagine.
Re:The Homosexual Agenda by Whorhay · 2012-04-05 07:18 · Score: 4, Funny

I stopped reading as:
"8:01 a.m. Realize you are lying on 100 percent cotton sheets of at least a 300 count, so don't panic; you're not slumming."
Which I couldn't disagree with more. 300 count is definitely slumming it, I'm getting itchy just thinking about it.

Re:Anti-Gay? by MozeeToby · 2012-04-05 04:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Until the word "marriage" loses it's legal definitions, being anti-gay marriage is, by your own statements, being anti-gay. Reality is that civil unions don't exist in most states in the US and many places where they do exist aren't legally identical to marriage. I agree with you, marriage should be a religious ceremony, the problem is that according to the laws of the land it also is a legal agreement. Until the two concepts are separated you can't be for one and against the other. And besides, the pro/anti-gay marriage debate is focused exclusively on the legal aspects, there's absolutely nothing stopping a gay couple having a religious marriage ceremony, it just wouldn't be legally binding.

Re:Anti-Gay? by LanMan04 · 2012-04-05 04:45 · Score: 2

Personally, I consider marriage a religious ceremony

except that it's not, because you can get married by a justice of the peace/judge/whatever.

--
With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re:Anti-Gay? by nedlohs · 2012-04-05 04:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because gays are icky.

That is after all the underlying reason for the viewpoint.

Re:So, why don't they... by pnewhook · 2012-04-05 04:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Anti-Gay? by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-04-05 04:48 · Score: 2

The problem with this position is the original assumption of homosexuality as a sin. You and your ilk are not empowered to decide that homosexuality is wrong in the first place. In fact, you should be careful, for ye are judging, lest ye be judged, and the transparent way your judgement is packaged isn't fooling anybody.

It's just as logical for me to say that I love you but hate your sin of being named 3arwax. You could be a good person, if only you'd get away from your addiction of using 3s in place of Es. Does this make me anti-numeral? No way. Hate the sin, not the sinner. Sounds pretty stupid when I pass judgement on you from an utterly baseless position I've picked for no good reason, doesn't it?

Re:Anti-Gay? by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-04-05 04:51 · Score: 2

Heh... I'm hoping this is ironically funny and missed the joke. From this ridiculous position I could argue that black folks have historically had the same rights as white folks; all they ever needed to do to exercise them is stop being black.

Sounds like an EA PR story ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-05 04:51 · Score: 5, Funny

Are these bastards really going to make me side with EA on something? I need a shower.

Just think of it as an EA PR story. Its not like ignoring thousands of letters is something new to them. Its just business as usual.

Re:Anti-Gay? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-05 04:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't know how many people would agree with me, but I would say 100% yes, it would be better. Personally, I don't believe the word "marriage" has any place in law. Marriage is a religious ceremony that was given legal status a few thousand years ago when everyone was religious, and we've spent the last couple hundred years trying to decouple the religious aspect without changing terminology. This creates a situation where separation of church and state becomes impossible, as any change to the legal status of marriage is viewed as a change to the religious status of marriage, when in fact we're talking about two entirely different things. I do not support government recognition of marriage in any way.

I would support a government system that allows two people, any two people, to file paperwork allowing them to declare joint ownership of assets, joint filing of taxes, sharing of benefits, and any other legal statuses that legislature decides is appropriate. It should be required that these people share joint residency, but sex, race, and whether these people decide to share bodily fluids should have no legal bearing. If two heterosexual, same sex roommates decide they'd like to enter this type of arrangement, that's fine with me (thought breaking of this contract obviously still has legal significance, since you are declaring joint ownership of assets, so it should not be taken lightly). If people decide they'd still like to stand before friends, family and/or religious authority and declare their eternal love for each other, that's also fine with me, but it's between them and their church, not them and the government. But in the end, the current legal definition of marriage just boils down the federal government taking an interest into what two consenting adults choose to do with their genitalia, and no matter what Rick Santorum thinks, I cannot possibly see any justification for that.

The wierd priorities and prudishness of Americans by JustNiz · 2012-04-05 04:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Firstly let me state that I'm not gay.
That said, I accept that homosexuality has been found to be a natural part of the animal kingdom (not just humans) since the beginning of all life, as far as smarter people than me can tell.
Blowing peoples brains out with assault weapons is absolutely not natural.
Yet look at which issue the American parents are worried that their kids might learn about.
Personally I don't believe there's much of a cause/effect thing with kids becoming more violent just from playing violent video games, but there's always gonna be a very low percantage of freakish kids that will prove any theory wrong.
I prefer believe that glorifying hard violence is far more dangerous to younger kids minds than showing people of the same sex kissing.
But then the real fault is actually with the parents that let those kids play these games in the first place, even though they're often clearly marked 18+.
Lets move the blame back to where it belongs, on the parents for not properly shielding and educating their kids instead of doing that very American thing of finding everyone/anyone else to blame instead of acknowledging their own failures.

Re:So, why don't they... by cayenne8 · 2012-04-05 04:58 · Score: 3, Funny

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.

The ultimate in customization!!

I thought most people liked more choices and ability to customize here on Slashdot....you're not saying more choices are a bad thing, are you?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Call them what they are: American Taliban. by Beelzebud · 2012-04-05 05:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

These same people rant and rave about Sharia Law coming to America, because they're worried it would move in on their turf.

Re:Anti-Gay? by Y2KDragon · 2012-04-05 05:01 · Score: 2

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!".

I would agree to this with one additional provision. A couple MUST have a civil, not religious, joining for the legal status to be in place. Meaning, if it happened in a church, it's not legal.

Am I the only one? by ShadowOfMe · 2012-04-05 05:02 · Score: 2

Am I the only one thinking the if those moron bigots want to protect their children they should not let them play games that have a "Mature" rating?

No, only 1 in 40. by Animats · 2012-04-05 05:03 · Score: 4, Informative

Isn't the figure that 1 in 10 people is LGBorT?

No, only about 1 in 40 in the US. See "Sex in America, a Definitive Survey" 2.8% of men, 1.4% of women. 1 in 10 in the largest 5 cities, much lower in more sparsely populated areas. Data based on detailed interviews with 3400 people randomly selected, not self-selected.

Re:Anti-Gay? by An+Ominous+Coward · 2012-04-05 05:07 · Score: 4, Informative

Heterosexuals (and maybe 50% of the time bisexuals) can marry a person they romantically love, if that person is able to give consent and does so.

In most of the United States, homosexuals are NOT able to marry a person they romantically love, even if that person is able to give consent as does so.

That anyone can claim that this is not depriving homosexuals of equal rights is astounding.

Re:Anti-Gay? by Black+Parrot · 2012-04-05 05:10 · Score: 2

I believe homosexual acts are a sin

Biologists, OTOH, realize that it has something to do with the organization of your brain.

Do you think lefties are sinners? People used to try to make them use their right hands.

You're condemning people for what they are, not for some "vice" that they elected to adopt.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:Anti-Gay? by s73v3r · 2012-04-05 05:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Being anti-gay marriage does not necessarily mean you are anti-gay.

Yes, it does. It means that you are against an entire class of people having a fundamental civil right.

It depends on your motivation for anti-gay marriage AND your definition of marriage.

No, it doesn't. If you're against people having equal rights, you're against that class of people.

Personally, I consider marriage a religious ceremony

Tough titties, that hasn't been how it's been for a long ass time. Since before the US was founded, actually.

if religions or religious people do not believe in gay marriage, fine.

Then they can just not have them, and not perform them. What's so hard about that?

Re:Defends itself, or its writing? by Xaedalus · 2012-04-05 05:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't know, I thought in ME3 they portrayed the gay characters exceptionally well. That scene where Cortez posts the vid of his dead husband to the memorial wall was heartbreaking for me. I finally got what "Don't make me into an anchor" meant, and I cried. Or when Samara prepares to execute herself because she cannot carry out the Code against her own daughter.

--
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.

Re:Anti-Gay? by Wild_dog! · 2012-04-05 05:14 · Score: 2

But you can marry the one you love. A gay person cannot.
There are lots of right gay people don't get to have as a result.

Re:Anti-Gay? by multimediavt · 2012-04-05 05:14 · Score: 2

Let's also not forget to mention that neither of these games are for "children". The Star Wars one is rated "T" for teen, and Mass Effect is rated "M" for mature. At worst, the Star Wars game rating might need to be upgraded to "M". Other than that, this is just nonsense. There is a rating system, an asinine established system for dealing with the content of games because parents can't raise their kids without help from a beauracracy.

These groups have a voice and a way to effect change through the rating system, and they have the right to protest, but you can't send harassing communications to a person or corporation with demands. You're going to be ignored or prosecuted if it goes too far, and rightfully so. Yes, you have a right to have and voice an opinion. No one is taking that away from you, but you do have to express those opinions in appropriate ways and appropriate places if you want your opinion to be respected. Otherwise, you're not helping society, you are a menace to it.

Re:Viewpoints aside... by Sir_Sri · 2012-04-05 05:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Mass effect 3 has an "M" for mature rating. If children are playing it then the parents should take it away from them.

It's up to BioWare/EA/developers and publishers what rating they want to aim for on a game, the same as movies. You can disagree with ratings in general or specific, so, for example, I tend to think that by 15 or 16 you should be able to figure out that gay people exist and the content in mass effect is not going to somehow damage your brain. But if you're an 8 year old there is nothing in mass effect that is really suitable for your maturity level, the whole story, theme, romance etc. are a bit too grown up for that.

Just because it's a video game doesn't make it for children. People who can't grasp that aren't worth dealing with. They have ratings on them so parents can make intelligent decisions about what their kids should be playing or watching, and how much parental oversight might be required.

Re:So, why don't they... by DrgnDancer · 2012-04-05 05:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

There's a pretty simple way to avoid same sex relationships in the game... don't flirt with characters of the same sex. Seriously, Bioware handles relationships worse than Stephenie Meyer. The conversation paths necessary to get into "romance" with an NPC are pretty much lit up with landing lights. It's not like you're going to be choosing random friendly options and suddenly realize that the character has fallen for you.

Ironically one of the things that upsets FOM about the idea of same sex relationships in The Old Republic (which don't actually exist yet, despite what the article says, they're promised for a future update), is that you might inadvertently interact with people having same sex relationships with *their* NPC companions. Never mind that there's no interaction with other people's companions, and you can't possibly know what the romantic status of any companion relationship is for someone else. You might get gay cooties from grouping with someone who is having freaky sex with his avatar's virtual friends while you're not looking.

--
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.

Hm. by JustAnotherIdiot · 2012-04-05 05:15 · Score: 2

There's a lot of reasons why EA is an incredibly shitty company, however, this is not one of them.
Also, correct me if i'm wrong, but EA is simply publisher for the games listed, and did not have a hand in the actual content.
These letters should be shot off a Bioware instead.

--
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?

Re:Anti-Gay? by ceoyoyo · 2012-04-05 05:18 · Score: 3, Informative

"You cant lie with a man as you would with a woman, the holes dont line up."

I've never tried personally, but I'm told the problem is actually a missing hole.

"and for not stoning to death a disobedient daughter."

Now now, Leviticus, at least that part, is one of the few bits of the bible that aren't sexist. You were supposed to stone your disobedient son to death too.

Re:Anti-Gay? by Black+Parrot · 2012-04-05 05:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

BTW being gay is natural.

So is wanting to punch someone in the face when they do something to make you angry. Doesn't mean I have to actually punch people in the face.

The difference is that a gay couple that wants to get married is a pair of consenting adults, whereas you and whoever owns the face presumably aren't.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:Anti-Gay? by tbannist · 2012-04-05 05:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm not trying to pick on you here, but there's a problem with your belief: it's wrong. Marriage is a legal status conferred by the government. Religious ceremonies exist only to keep the church in people's lives. Many people are married in non-religious ceremonies, are atheists not really married because they aren't religious?

The whole marriage is religious thing is an invention to justify opposing various marriages on religious grounds. Whether it's used to justify opposition to marrying blacks, inter-race couples, gays or lesbians, it's always been a invented reason. There's one legitimate definition of marriage and it's not religious. If religions want to have their own super-hetero-god-fearing-marriage, they can have it, but it shouldn't be recognised by the government as anything other than a civil marriage.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical

Re:Anti-Gay? by tbannist · 2012-04-05 05:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Technically, if you can find a consenting adult who'll let you punch them in the face, you should be free to go at it. I think there might even an underground group of punching enthusiasts who run something called "boxing matches".

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical

Re:Anti-Gay? by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-04-05 05:26 · Score: 2

You are correct, of course, that black people had separate laws and rights, although I don't think it changes the meat of my argument.

Still, please allow me to cowardly shift my argument to that of women's rights, then. Did women, also, have a set of different rules and rights from men, or were the rights that men were granted simply not granted, also, to women? I never paid too much attention to my history classes, but I seem to recall the drive was for women to be granted all the same basic rights and privileges that men had always received.

The bird's-eye view is: there is a group of people who is unable to achieve what another group of people IS able to achieve based on the way the laws are written. If expanding the laws to include the first group of people does not harm the second group in any way, why on earth should the laws not be expanded?

Re:Anti-Gay? by badboy_tw2002 · 2012-04-05 05:32 · Score: 2

That already happens with a marriage license. And technically, anyone licensed to perform a marriage is an officer of the government (for the specific purpose of signing marriage licenses), and they are permitted to do their duties anywhere. Saying it has to happen at a specific place is like saying "All notaries must never allow anything to be signed in a church" or "lawyers can't meet their clients in coffee shops". Its nonsensical.

Bending over backwards and changing the name of shit just to suit some people is idiotic. They need to get with the program and understand that the word is duel use and saying "we're married in the eyes of the state" does not mean "the FSM has blessed this holy union and our souls will be forever entwined on the great fork of destiny" or whatever else might offend you.

Re:Anti-Gay? by gfreeman · 2012-04-05 05:33 · Score: 2

A set of laws that work for a society of heterosexuals do not necessarily work for a group of homosexuals.

I think the only people who can decisively answer that are the homosexuals themselves. And they want the same set of laws - to allow to adults who love each other to get married.

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.

You don't seem to "get" evolution... by F69631 · 2012-04-05 05:38 · Score: 2

I guess I'm replying to a troll but this "How can there be gays if we evolved?" is so common (and so wrong) way for people to think that it's worth an answer.

Evolution works on the level of a community, not on that of an individual. Let's say that there are two communities of 100 people. In community A, there is a gene that increases your likelihood to be homosexual and in community B there is no such gene. In A, one of every 10 children is gay and in B, everyone is straight. So the claim is that "A produces 10% less children in each generation and as time goes on, the community (and with that, the gene) will disappear".

That holds true only assuming that the homosexuals have no positive effect on the community. If the presence of (statistically) more effeminate/less threatening men in the community A increases the survival rate of the reproducing people in any way by enough to offset the 10% slowed down reproduction, the community that has this gene stays competitive. I can think of some ways through which that could happen but I'm not an anthropologist and the exact mechanic isn't that important for this argument so I won't give it a shot at this time.

Of course that's oversimplification: It assumes that homosexuals never breed (which certainly isn't the case), that sexual orientation is constant (whether you can choose it or not, it's pretty common for especially bisexuals to have mostly-straight and mostly-gay phases in their life), doesn't take into account the fact that it could be a defect and still survive (if communities that kill everyone who is different have less chances to survive than those who tolerate differences - even defects - to some degree), etc. etc... But the point is this: Evolution and homosexuality don't conflict in any way

Re:Anti-Gay? by Moridin42 · 2012-04-05 05:39 · Score: 2

Well.. since conceiving a child is no prerequisite to raising a child, I'd say you've got no point either.

--
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.

Lets call a spade a spade... by TedTschopp · 2012-04-05 05:40 · Score: 2

Lets be honest, many times the relationships are not homosexual, they are xenosexual.

--
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien

Re:Any Different? by residieu · 2012-04-05 05:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Anti-Gay? by Avoiderman · 2012-04-05 05:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

So you would ban hetro marriage for infertile people, or women past child bearing age? Otherwise I suspect you are being inconsistent, and trying to cover up prejudice? No marriage wasn't created for making babies - it was created for maintaing control of land for the upper classes. Did you kknow marriage wasn't a religious sacrement in Christianity before the 1700s? Have a look at the history of marriage - it is relatively recent that the poor in society took it up. And yes there is a history male unions prior to christianity (albeit in a minority of cultures).

How would letting same sex couples turn anything over - are you misreading it and assuming someone wants it to be compulsory? Seriously two men marrying will not hurt you or impact on your life. Get some charity in your soul and stop hating please.

Re:So, why don't they... by FictionPimp · 2012-04-05 05:58 · Score: 2, Informative

In ME3, I was being a good friend to my old war buddy, and they he asked if I wanted to have sex with him. I was unprepared, shocked, and in fact, remember when he told me in the first game he liked girls.

Bioware really screwed that whole thing up just to add gay sex. It was pandering and didn't even fit the character in question. The same thing happened in DA2. Just being nice to ander leads to gay sex. You have to literally berate and scream at everyone of the same gender if you want to be safe. I have no problem with gay characters, but those two instances both felt very forced.

Re:Get out of my face by spire3661 · 2012-04-05 06:08 · Score: 2

Recognizing that I have no right to tell two humans they cant love each other is not the same thing at all as being comfortable watching two guys making out. Male homosexuality is gross to me on a PERSONAL level, that does not mean i wish them harm or to 'go away', only that I dont really enjoy witnessing it.

--
Good-bye

Re:"Family" by SuricouRaven · 2012-04-05 06:11 · Score: 2

It's a convenient codeword. It would be too drawn-out to refer to them as the 'Republican anti-gay pro-life Christian pro-school-prayer anti-hpv-vaccine abstinance-only-supporting association.' Over time, the word 'family' as just come to be a form of political shorthand for a whole package of highly-correlated political positions.

Re:Anti-Gay? by SuricouRaven · 2012-04-05 06:18 · Score: 2

There's a verse in Romans that reads "Because of this [false religion], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones." It's the closest the bible may get, but as it so often a problem it's practically impossible to figure out what it's supposed to mean. A lot of anti-gay Christians point to this as a clear condemnation of lesbianism, but that could be seen as them reading their expectations into the next - it's a possibility, but 'unnatural relations' could just as easily mean masturbation, or bestiality*, or adornment with fine clothing**, or even that the women were so bold as to forget their place as the submissive partner and try to seduce the men into bed.

*The old 'The enemy tribe fuck goats!' insult has been going around from the ancient world to the modern redneck joke.
**Also condemned in Leviticus - and the word is translated as 'lust' here, but it's also used elsewhere to simply mean 'strong desire' without any sexual element.

Re:Anti-Gay? by SuricouRaven · 2012-04-05 06:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

The big problem here is that church-marriage and state-marriage are both *called* marriage, and in the minds of most people are just two aspects of the same thing. The root of the problem isn't practical, or theological, or legal: It's linguistic.

They Let Their Children Play Them? by Greyfox · 2012-04-05 07:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

And it's the gay sex bothering them? Not, say, the 6 year old kid that gets killed in the opening scenes of the game or the sniper rifle headshots that make heads explode like watermelons? Or the humans being turned into zombie-like creatures? Yeah, exposing your kid to off-screen same-sex hookups in those games isn't what's making you a terrible parent, there.

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Re:Anti-Gay? by CRCulver · 2012-04-05 07:59 · Score: 2

Did you kknow marriage wasn't a religious sacrement in Christianity before the 1700s?

Wrong. If marriage wasn't a sacrament before the 1700s, then Martin Luther couldn't have rejected it as a sacrament nearly two centuries earlier. Are you unaware of this debate among the first Protestants? Anyway, as it happens, liturgical texts for marriage as a sacrament go back to the early Byzantine era (mid-first millennium).

Re:So, why don't they... by aamcf · 2012-04-05 08:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

For example, the gay pilot was ok. He tells you he's gay, acts interested, and you can let him down. The other guy though, I replayed ME1 to be sure, and he tells you he's straight. It was an obvious plot problem imho.

True. After all, nobody has ever said they were straight when they haven't meant it, or were confused, or thought they were straight until they found themselves in the right circumstances.

Slashdot Mirror

EA Defends Itself Against Thousands of Anti-Gay Letters

135 of 1,069 comments (clear)