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."
Soddom
Are these bastards really going to make me side with EA on something? I need a shower.
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
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.
Aren't you a bit old to have an imaginary friend?
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?
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.
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.
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?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
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?"
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.
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.
George Takei has offered up his name as an alternative to gay, so you can support Takei Marrage instead.
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!".
(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!"
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.
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.
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.
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
These same people rant and rave about Sharia Law coming to America, because they're worried it would move in on their turf.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.