EA defends itself against thousands of anti-gay letters

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

I never got this whole outrage with Gay Shepherd-its upto the player to make him gay! If you are so offended by the notion of a gay Shepherd then don't fucking choose the gay dialogue options!

dreadedcandiru99:

Kahunaburger:

Pearwood:

That's kind of the point, the debate's over in most places. Virtually all of Western Europe has some equivalent of same sex marriage, designing games just to cater to a few backwards places in America is never going to happen.

The second is that in the context of the Mass Effect setting, gay marriage is not a controversy. Much like how it isn't a controversy in Assassin's Creed II. Settings that aren't the modern world are under no obligation to have their political issues mapped to modern political issues, and it is in fact often strains the suspension of disbelief when they do.

Pretty much this. Support for marriage equality has been steadily trending upward for years, so it stands to reason that by the time we're flying around in space, nobody will think anything of it. Hell, it's pretty much beyond debate now.

The world of Mass Effect show is as completely fine to have sex with aliens, IE interspecies. Gay sex or marriage in a world like that would probably be seen as trivial.

what makes this especially sad is that people seem to be using form letters and signing them rather than actually writng their own.. so you are that passionate about something that you will send a letter but lazy enough to not write one yourself

Apparently whoever is writing these letters doesn't understand what the word "option" means.

My child had a gay encounter in Mass Effect, and now they are a rapist. So I sent EA a letter, what of it?

omicron1:

Kahunaburger:

omicron1:
It seems to me like the spirit of inclusiveness should extend to those of us who think Don't Ask Don't Tell was good policy, and would like to be able to tell Steve Cortez so. You know, rather than being forced to commiserate with him or ignore him completely. But hey, inclusiveness only works one way, right? It doesn't count if you're on the wrong side.

Would you expect a modern game with dialogue options to give you the option to oppose giving women the right to vote?

I expect any game dealing with issues under debate to serve both sides equally. For example: If there is a question dealing with religion, I should be able to respond either as a religious person or as an atheist. If there is a question dealing with gay marriage, I should be able to respond either for or against.

And yet, we can run around and be gay all we want, but I couldn't join the New Canaanites.

chiefohara:
... who are these people that they have enough free time to worry and fret about inane things like homosexuality in computer games?

Seriously?

You'd be surprised. Congress debated whether pizza was a vegetable or not, and guess what? They've decided it was indeed a vegetable, despite that we have way worse matters at hand in America like our economy, crime spree here and there.. not to mention the war with terrorism (Iraq war really but people replace that with terror.)

So in truth, people who have free time or least make free time out of time that should be on bigger matters- feel like they should make a difference for better or for worse. They dislike change, thus feel like they need to do something or their whole world shall crumble down and whatever they're against- shall dominate their lives with strict laws, ect.

It's sad but true. Just because I am not a homosexual myself doesn't mean I have to hate them or whoever supports them. In fact, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, it's just a choice in who you're attracted to *shrug*. Yet, people make a big deal out of little things because they take things to a whole new level. Imagine on American Idol, a singer admits that he's gay and supports children in hospitals. Though it's noble and touching, I bet half of America or least a majority shall complain that the show exposed some very 'inconsiderable' content in front of families or something like that... Mm.

Corporal Yakob:
I never got this whole outrage with Gay Shepherd-its upto the player to make him gay! If you are so offended by the notion of a gay Shepherd then don't fucking choose the gay dialogue options!

Oh my god, your Avatar has a pink Geth on it- that's exposing my family to homosexuality which should never be exposed in the first place! This is going to corrupt me and make me feel very uncomfortable while playing a game that enables me with so many options and choices to choose from.

*Sarcasm*

I have nothing against homosexuality, and what I just did was probably what most people take of something they disagree with and blow it out of proportion. Just because your Geth is pink, doesn't mean you alone are gay. Some guys like my older brother love the color pink and they're straight but even if you're homosexual, it isn't a crime. Especially when you have options to romance any other character then the homosexual man, or lesbian woman.. or a bisexual Krogan. *shrug* What? I bet there is one somewhere within the background, or one that likes fish a lot.

You totally saw what I did just there.

Adam Jensen:
Most of those letters are from Florida? Who knew.

As Tommy Vercetti would say: Dumb.Florida.Morons.

No disrespect to sane people of Florida.

I don't have a problem with gay romance option. I have a problem with how it was integrated in the game. But that's the least of ME3 problems.

I still think we should be able to choose character sexuality in character creator. It would make a lot more sense and it would put a lot of people at ease. In Dragon Age 2 Anders came on to Hawke for no apparent reason. If I had the option to choose Hawke's sexuality from the beginning that wouldn't have happened. Things like that can ruin your playthrough. You're perusing one romantic interest, and at the same time you're developing another one that you didn't want without realizing it. It's just bad game design.

I almost made the same mistake in ME3. Luckily I read about romance options before playing. The game doesn't even tell you that you're perusing a relationship with Cortez until it's too late. I blame the lack of sexual preference choice and I blame the dialogue wheel and Paragon interrupt because they never say what you're actually gonna say or do.

What? The dialouge option to pursue a romance with him is VERY clearly marked. You become friends with him and help him get ovre his partners death, then convince him to go relax on the Citadel That is the friendship path.

If you go talk to him at the bar he thanks you and mentions checking out eyecandy while obviously looking at a guy. Shepard then has the option to say "I am eyecandy too" or "I will be looking at a different kind of eyecandy"

That is where you can start the romance. What is unclear about that?

Zhukov:
Gotta protect them kiddies.

If they see something homosexual in a game they're not supposed to be playing then... good God, they might ask their parents an awkward question or two then go back to not giving a shit. Horrors above!

Truly horrific, the parents might have to do something so crazy as... parenting. o_O

Though, I imagine these letters are more from idiots who are so opposed to homosexuals, they'll attack anything that shows them in a non-negative light.

viranimus:
Ok.

Why is it that we get quotes like

"It's important that companies know these protests represent a fringe interest,"

as it relates to thousands of people protesting the homosexual content,

Are you aware of the background of the organizations who typically launch these complaints and media campaigns? I can call them whatever the fuck I want and "fringe interest" is one of the more flattering I have in mind.

Literally HALF of the playable chars in Dragon Age 2 can be homosexual. 5 out of 10. That does not even account for any NPCs of that persuasion. Thats not giving people options, that is forcing acceptance of an ideology on people when you realize half the char interaction content of the game is take up to what is an actual fringe interest because that means a major portion of your content is taken up out of accommodation.

If all the romanceable characters were openly gay or bi, you might have a point. But here's the thing: Isabella is openly bi and Anders only hits on you of his own volition once. Meaning the sexual orientations of the other characters are defined by what gender you play as and the dialog decisions you make. Think of it as Schrodinger's cat but with sprites instead of cats and their taste in bumping uglies instead of poison gas.

So what's the problem again?

But I call a spade a spade in this respect and inundating that much time/attention to accommodate homosexual fans is at incredibly disproportionate levels whereas it goes well beyond being tolerant, goes beyond accepting, it becomes encouraging.

Encouraging what exactly? My sister is an amateur actress and she has many playthroughs of all her Bioware titles, some of them having played through homosexual romances even though she's straight because she thought that particular incarnation of her character and that particular NPC made a cute couple. She was happy that the game gave her those options because she had fun with it. In other words, she is an actress and enjoys playing the role (get it!) of people different from herself. And those different people are gay just because.

They fail to actually express what is bothering them which is the constant pushing this ideology on people.

I'm still unclear on how exactly homosexuality is an ideology.

Not saying this movement should get any sort of traction, but Bioware should not be dismissing this as some sort of hate when in actuality it is simply resistance to the massive over representation present. Since when did not approving of the things that someone else do become synonymous with hatred as if it was impossible to be against something and not hate that it exists. When did it Ok to be intolerant of intolerance and not viewed as hypocritical?

Again, are you familiar with groups like the ones sending the email campaign to EA?

Know my point of all this was simply to point out that there is a thread of validity to resistance to this,

Then they're free to not buy the game rather than trying to police what media I as an adult am allowed to consume.

PaganAxe:

omicron1:

Kahunaburger:

Would you expect a modern game with dialogue options to give you the option to oppose giving women the right to vote?

I expect any game dealing with issues under debate to serve both sides equally. For example: If there is a question dealing with religion, I should be able to respond either as a religious person or as an atheist. If there is a question dealing with gay marriage, I should be able to respond either for or against.

Both times I've played as male Shepard in ME3, I became buds with Cortez (and nothing more as I had other love interests in those run throughs). So it is possible to talk with him without getting him as your love interest. Being the straight character shouldn't automatically make you a homophobe, and being acceptable to homosexuals shouldn't automatically make you homosexual yourself.

Exactly. Very good point. You've just won an award for common sense. Congratulations, they are rarely given out :)

wait so ME3 is MA15+ i think by this age people know that sexual stuff. just because someone sees a bum doesn't make them Satan

Kahunaburger:

omicron1:
It seems to me like the spirit of inclusiveness should extend to those of us who think Don't Ask Don't Tell was good policy, and would like to be able to tell Steve Cortez so. You know, rather than being forced to commiserate with him or ignore him completely. But hey, inclusiveness only works one way, right? It doesn't count if you're on the wrong side.

Would you expect a modern game with dialogue options to give you the option to oppose giving women the right to vote?

Yes. Ashley is a useless piece of racist shit who points guns at me. Pretty sure even javik said I should toss her out the airlock.

They should have to show both sides of the story if it's up for debate? I take it not a lot of you watched Star Trek when it came out. "Oh my god did you see that they had a black person on that show and no one seamed to care that she was black." I think they should have to show both sides of the story in Star Trek, oh wait no they shouldn't they where making a fucking point.

Part of me wishes that they didn't validate this outrage with a response, but I guess it has gone too far for that.

This works as well. Bravo.

Syzygy23:

Kahunaburger:

omicron1:
It seems to me like the spirit of inclusiveness should extend to those of us who think Don't Ask Don't Tell was good policy, and would like to be able to tell Steve Cortez so. You know, rather than being forced to commiserate with him or ignore him completely. But hey, inclusiveness only works one way, right? It doesn't count if you're on the wrong side.

Would you expect a modern game with dialogue options to give you the option to oppose giving women the right to vote?

Yes. Ashley is a useless piece of racist shit who points guns at me. Pretty sure even javik said I should toss her out the airlock.

Personally, I liked Ashley. Once you talked to her and really got to know her through the dialogue, she became a very likeable character. The only issue I have is that Bioware didn't do much to make her an attractive romance option. Hell, Liara got her own DLC in ME2 despite not being particularly important to the story unless you had read the comics. I think they really should have done the same for Ashely if hey wanted people to get more attached to her.

Fr]anc[is:
Because who the hell romanced Jacob.

I did... why isn't there a renegade interrupt to punch the cheating dick in the face? If Bioware does go about the ending-change route that I've heard rumours about, they should also add in a "punch his dickish face in" option.

Poor Eris Shepard. Her only options now are Kaidan (maybe) or being a lesbian (Allers or Traynor). Or she can just swear off the human race and cry in a tub of icecream before venting her frustrations on the reapers and cerberus.

Those poor, poor fools.

... yeah this had nothing to do with the thread. Sorry.
*slinks*

omicron1:

Jitters Caffeine:

omicron1:
It seems to me like the spirit of inclusiveness should extend to those of us who think Don't Ask Don't Tell was good policy, and would like to be able to tell Steve Cortez so. You know, rather than being forced to commiserate with him or ignore him completely. But hey, inclusiveness only works one way, right? It doesn't count if you're on the wrong side.

I guess it's not there for the same reason there isn't an option to start a White Power rally on the Citadel and telling every other race that pure White children will inherent the Universe. Bigots would be the only people who would be mad that their preferred punching bag is equally represented in their entertainment products. It's comparable to when people complained about there not being a "foot fetishism" option in Mass Effect 3 because they weren't "fairly represented" like Gay players were.

Operating under the assumption that any particular viewpoint is bigoted or somehow inferior to others is a sad way to debate, christophobe. (Hey look, intentionally comical hypocrisy!)

Fact: A very large portion of America, as well as smaller portions of much of Europe and a vast majority of third world countries, disagree with you on this issue.

Fact: The vast majority of them are not bigots or homophobes. They simply disagree, whether for religious or logical reasons - neither of which renders them or their opinions irrelevant.

Fact: Referring to one's opponent in a derogatory fashion does not resolve an issue, nor is it good logical form.

With these three facts established, please realize that the issue of what homosexuality is, and whether it is an essential, immutable state of being, will remain present and controversial for a long time yet, and as such it is wrong to legislate or make public decisions based on one side's answer this unsolved question.

Limecake:

omicron1:
Yes - but there is not an option to disagree with the concept.

But there is! you can choose to not sleep with anyone from the same sex! disagreeing with the concept is not the same as a universal ban of gay sex.

regardless of how this 'debate' turns out, gay people will still exist.

When you talk to Cortez, you have two options: Commiserate, or commiserate. At no point in the game are you given a choice, through dialogue or action, to disagree. All you can do is accept BioWare's version of Shepard, or shut up and walk away. As a series built around player->main character projection, the absence of this option is both highly suspect and rather rude. I can be any Shepard I want, as long as she's liberal.

What? Your shepard is incapable of lying, or thoughts? There's more people who have bigoted thoughts, than there are ones who scream it from the rooftops. Just because one piece of dialogue might insinuate you have no problem with a certain issue, doesn't mean it's supposed to be taken at face value.

Pearwood:

omicron1:

You are beginning from the invalid postulate that homosexuality is similar in classification to race or gender - that it is inborn, impossible to alter. As long as your arguments rest on postulates that are not accepted by both sides, no conversation may take place.

At this point, I have said my piece, outlined my positions. I'm not moving from them. Good day to y'all.

Actually I didn't mention that. You said you aren't a homophobe, I asked how you can justify saying that when you're saying gay couples don't deserve the same legal rights. Either you don't think gay people should be treated equally or you're letting your religion or whatever get in the way of what is a purely legal matter.

As for whether it's impossible to alter, try finding a gay person who's been in denial and ask him or her if they were happy during that time.

Wait, wait - this person thinks that homosexuality is something that can be altered? Yes, because people want to be discriminated against for no legitimate reason. That makes perfect sense.

There is no legitimate reason for this outcry. People need to grow up.

omicron1:
When you talk to Cortez, you have two options: Commiserate, or commiserate. At no point in the game are you given a choice, through dialogue or action, to disagree. All you can do is accept BioWare's version of Shepard, or shut up and walk away. As a series built around player->main character projection, the absence of this option is both highly suspect and rather rude. I can be any Shepard I want, as long as she's liberal.

Shepard isn't the only liberal person, in the Mass Effect context humans have largely abandoned discrimination amongst themselves. Ethnicity, sexuality and other differences have been largely forgotten in a world where humans come from many planets and colonies. Meeting alien races probably changed attitudes as well, its much easier to find common ground with other humans when you have live with other species that are so different and can be a new target for discrimination. Even then many humans are beginning to see what they have in common with other races rather than the differances.

Kahunaburger:

omicron1:
It seems to me like the spirit of inclusiveness should extend to those of us who think Don't Ask Don't Tell was good policy, and would like to be able to tell Steve Cortez so. You know, rather than being forced to commiserate with him or ignore him completely. But hey, inclusiveness only works one way, right? It doesn't count if you're on the wrong side.

Would you expect a modern game with dialogue options to give you the option to oppose giving women the right to vote?

I really do not see why Shepard can let thousands of innocent people die knowingly over the course of 3 games but not be homophobic. So you have a renegade option on every single issue you come across, ranging from battle to politics, but all of a sudden a gay person pops up and you can only have one option? Seems rather strange.

Im not saying there straight out shouldnt be gay people in the games or whatever, and im not saying you should be able to burn them at the stake, but come on.

J Tyran:

omicron1:
When you talk to Cortez, you have two options: Commiserate, or commiserate. At no point in the game are you given a choice, through dialogue or action, to disagree. All you can do is accept BioWare's version of Shepard, or shut up and walk away. As a series built around player->main character projection, the absence of this option is both highly suspect and rather rude. I can be any Shepard I want, as long as she's liberal.

Shepard isn't the only liberal person, in the Mass Effect context humans have largely abandoned discrimination amongst themselves. Ethnicity, sexuality and other differences have been largely forgotten in a world where humans come from many planets and colonies. Meeting alien races probably changed attitudes as well, its much easier to find common ground with other humans when you have live with other species that are so different and can be a new target for discrimination. Even then many humans are beginning to see what they have in common with other races rather than the differances.

Eh, I guess it kinda makes sense. It just straight out feels wrong to have my Shepard discriminate against everything in the universe but stop at homosexuals.

You are beginning from the invalid postulate that homosexuality is similar in classification to race or gender - that it is inborn, impossible to alter. As long as your arguments rest on postulates that are not accepted by both sides, no conversation may take place.

Wrong, actually. Your argument is circular, and illogical. If Side A says the earth circles around the sun, and you keep saying no, the sun circles around earth, you're simply factually wrong, just like you are factually wrong about homosexuality not being inborn. We do not need to handle your arguments as equal, because your arguments have no factual basis.

Science proved this 30 years ago, and in all those decades, even the most rabid anti-gay groups have failed to alter a single gay person. It's even in your own anti-gay media. Even people that claim to have gone through it report that they still have homosexual urges every day, and only are able to continue by massive prayer. But the homosexual urges don't leave. YOUR OWN ANTI-GAY MEDIA SAYS IT. It's hilarious that even your side fails to prove your own arguments.

Face it: You can keep saying that 1+1=3. The other side will keep pointing out that no, it's 2, deal with it.

You will indeed have to deal with it.

omicron1:

Fact: A very large portion of America, as well as smaller portions of much of Europe and a vast majority of third world countries, disagree with you on this issue.

Not a fact. Only a minority in America disagrees with gay marriage. The only non-american countries where a majority "disagrees" with homosexuality have the same violence against gay people (usually fanned by american christian preachers, see Uganda, where american christian fanatics stirred anti-gay riots), and also have massive violence and legislation against women.

Consequently, the same places in the US that whine about gay marriage also have issues with women. See the current health care debate. Viagra is paid for, yet the pill (which is needed to combat cancer for many, many women) is under debate by people so clueless, they think you need to take the pill after sex every time.

Opposition to gay marriage is directly linked to ignorance, sadly. I have never seen logical opposition to it that holds up to facts.

Logical, the response would be:
"I don't want to marry same-sex, but what others do consentually does not concern me."

This is the only logical opposition to gay marriage: That you yourself don't do it, but that others can do it if they want to.

Fact: The vast majority of them are not bigots or homophobes. They simply disagree, whether for religious or logical reasons - neither of which renders them or their opinions irrelevant.

Not a fact. Opposition to gay marriage is by nature bigoted. There is no "logical" reason to oppose it, because none exist. Medically, psychologically, scientifically, and socially, there is no drawback, and only advantages in allowing gay marriage.

Notice that your arguments are the exact same as the arguments used by people arguing against interracial marriage, down to this very argument you just used and science being clear that your argument is nonsense.

Fact: Referring to one's opponent in a derogatory fashion does not resolve an issue, nor is it good logical form.

Which is precisely why anti-gay stuff has no place in games. Anti-gay stuff is derogatory and thus should be kept out of games.

With these three facts established, please realize that the issue of what homosexuality is, and whether it is an essential, immutable state of being, will remain present and controversial for a long time yet

No, actually. It's not controversial outside of bigoted spaces, and will not remain present, because we've already solved this issue. There's just a few stragglers that are way behind the science (or outright ignore it, like you do).
Much like we already solved the same argument on interracial marriage, or the issue of the pill. Doesn't stop people like you using the same argument there, which is equally silly.

At no point in the game are you given a choice, through dialogue or action, to disagree. All you can do is accept BioWare's version of Shepard, or shut up and walk away.

Sounds realistic to me. :)

Elmoth:

omicron1:

Jitters Caffeine:

I guess it's not there for the same reason there isn't an option to start a White Power rally on the Citadel and telling every other race that pure White children will inherent the Universe. Bigots would be the only people who would be mad that their preferred punching bag is equally represented in their entertainment products. It's comparable to when people complained about there not being a "foot fetishism" option in Mass Effect 3 because they weren't "fairly represented" like Gay players were.

Operating under the assumption that any particular viewpoint is bigoted or somehow inferior to others is a sad way to debate, christophobe. (Hey look, intentionally comical hypocrisy!)

Fact: A very large portion of America, as well as smaller portions of much of Europe and a vast majority of third world countries, disagree with you on this issue.

Fact: The vast majority of them are not bigots or homophobes. They simply disagree, whether for religious or logical reasons - neither of which renders them or their opinions irrelevant.

Fact: Referring to one's opponent in a derogatory fashion does not resolve an issue, nor is it good logical form.

With these three facts established, please realize that the issue of what homosexuality is, and whether it is an essential, immutable state of being, will remain present and controversial for a long time yet, and as such it is wrong to legislate or make public decisions based on one side's answer this unsolved question.

Limecake:

But there is! you can choose to not sleep with anyone from the same sex! disagreeing with the concept is not the same as a universal ban of gay sex.

regardless of how this 'debate' turns out, gay people will still exist.

When you talk to Cortez, you have two options: Commiserate, or commiserate. At no point in the game are you given a choice, through dialogue or action, to disagree. All you can do is accept BioWare's version of Shepard, or shut up and walk away. As a series built around player->main character projection, the absence of this option is both highly suspect and rather rude. I can be any Shepard I want, as long as she's liberal.

What? Your shepard is incapable of lying, or thoughts? There's more people who have bigoted thoughts, than there are ones who scream it from the rooftops. Just because one piece of dialogue might insinuate you have no problem with a certain issue, doesn't mean it's supposed to be taken at face value.

I can VAGUELY see his point. You can play your Shepard as a violent, racist asshole with hate coursing through their body in place of blood, who solves all of their arguments with a pistol or their fists, and ends up with no qualms about genociding multiple alien species... but you can't have a Shepard who's vocally intolerant of same-sex relationships.

I guess it's because it's safer to be biased against made-up things in games rather than real ones...

Buretsu:

Elmoth:

omicron1:

Operating under the assumption that any particular viewpoint is bigoted or somehow inferior to others is a sad way to debate, christophobe. (Hey look, intentionally comical hypocrisy!)

Fact: A very large portion of America, as well as smaller portions of much of Europe and a vast majority of third world countries, disagree with you on this issue.

Fact: The vast majority of them are not bigots or homophobes. They simply disagree, whether for religious or logical reasons - neither of which renders them or their opinions irrelevant.

Fact: Referring to one's opponent in a derogatory fashion does not resolve an issue, nor is it good logical form.

With these three facts established, please realize that the issue of what homosexuality is, and whether it is an essential, immutable state of being, will remain present and controversial for a long time yet, and as such it is wrong to legislate or make public decisions based on one side's answer this unsolved question.

When you talk to Cortez, you have two options: Commiserate, or commiserate. At no point in the game are you given a choice, through dialogue or action, to disagree. All you can do is accept BioWare's version of Shepard, or shut up and walk away. As a series built around player->main character projection, the absence of this option is both highly suspect and rather rude. I can be any Shepard I want, as long as she's liberal.

What? Your shepard is incapable of lying, or thoughts? There's more people who have bigoted thoughts, than there are ones who scream it from the rooftops. Just because one piece of dialogue might insinuate you have no problem with a certain issue, doesn't mean it's supposed to be taken at face value.

I can VAGUELY see his point. You can play your Shepard as a violent, racist asshole with hate coursing through their body in place of blood, who solves all of their arguments with a pistol or their fists, and ends up with no qualms about genociding multiple alien species... but you can't have a Shepard who's vocally intolerant of same-sex relationships.

I guess it's because it's safer to be biased against made-up things in games rather than real ones...

It's a real grey area. There's a lot of points for and against. In the first game you could be slightly bigoted towards Ashley's religion. So I get that some bigotry in ME3 could have been realistic. But on the other hand, it doesn't stop a player from defining his character as not wanting anything to do with homosexuality. And really, why should Bioware put time and effort into making bigoted dialogue?

omicron1:

Savagezion:

omicron1:

I expect any game dealing with issues under debate to serve both sides equally. For example: If there is a question dealing with religion, I should be able to respond either as a religious person or as an atheist. If there is a question dealing with gay marriage, I should be able to respond either for or against.

Isn't there an option to not have gay sex in the game? I am confused.

Yes - but there is not an option to disagree with the concept.

That's probably because disagreeing with someone else being gay is like disagreeing with someone else having a sandwich. It doesn't affect you.

omicron1:
I should not have to support your position, or refrain from stating mine, in the public sphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Sigh... I need to get out of Florida. This state just drains me of any hope for an accepting humanity.

Zhukov:
Gotta protect them kiddies.

If they see something homosexual in a game they're not supposed to be playing then... good God, they might ask their parents an awkward question or two then go back to not giving a shit. Horrors above!

But....but....what about that books written 3,000 years ago that said homosexuality (in a completely different context to today's homosexuality) is wrong? We can't forget that or the world will end!

Well, those mongoloids are losing. The world is developing past them right beneath their feet. Of course they're going to be vocal and whiny about having one of their caveman-traditions taken away, and of course it'll only highlight the fact that we're developing past them.

Also, I'm willing to bet that almost noone of these tossers have any problems with femshep's gay adventures...

I just read the form letter, and any respect I might have for these people went right out the window!

"The overwhelming number of players on Star Wars games is children who [...]"

Bad grammar... Shameful...

omicron1:

Jitters Caffeine:

I was raised in the Church, so you really need to watch your mouth. I never said I had anything against any religion, you're just assuming I do because I think it's wrong to discriminate against people because they're different. And I'm not ASSUMING that discrimination against a group of people is Bigotry, I'm outright saying it. Based on the fact that the definition is intolerance based on personal prejudices towards another group of people. You're basically saying gay people shouldn't exist, and just because other bigots like to get together and talk about how much they hate a particular group of people doesn't make them right. It just makes them a higher concentration of hateful people.

My apologies for my ill-judged jab; it applies well to ~70% of Escapistgoers. Nonetheless, the principle remains the same - it is an attempt to saddle one's opposition with negative terminology and judicial bias, just as the terms "homophobe" and "bigot" are.

What I am saying is very simple: You can believe whatever you want, do whatever you want, as long as you don't make me believe it or respect your actions. I should not have to support your position, or refrain from stating mine, in the public sphere. I should not be barred from adopting children because they might grow up to believe as I do. I should not have to cater a wedding I disagree with. You may disagree with me, but you may not ban me from discourse or make my beliefs hate speech - not before proving that they are wrong. Until that point - while homosexuality is still undecided as to its very nature, whether it is intrinsic or extrinsic - attempting to enforce your view of the issue is tantamount to tyranny. That is all.

Pearwood:

Right. They just want same-sex couples to never have the same legal rights married couples have. Not at all discriminatory. Argue your case all you want but don't bother trying to pretend it isn't rooted in homophobia, your argument is saying gay people don't deserve the same legal rights. If we were living in some kind of alternate universe where marriage was a purely religious ceremony and didn't confer any kind of legal status then we could discuss this properly without there being any homophobia or accusations of homophobia but that's not the case.

You are beginning from the invalid postulate that homosexuality is similar in classification to race or gender - that it is inborn, impossible to alter. As long as your arguments rest on postulates that are not accepted by both sides, no conversation may take place.

At this point, I have said my piece, outlined my positions. I'm not moving from them. Good day to y'all.

Okay. So you just want to be able to say you hate gay people, but you also don't want people to say they don't like you because you don't like gay people.
..........May you possibly be a Reaper?

Also, your point about gay people being gay by choice is not only wrong (based on the current studies of the matter, not your own view), but it also makes little sense. I mean why be gay at all if you can choice not to? While we are here, when/why did you decide to be straight? Granted, one point there is correct. Being gay is not determined by your DNA like your your skin color, but rather it is more like a DNA/birth defect. Obviously it would be a bit hard to pass down a trait such as being gay. However, homosexuality is not completely unnatural as it has be shown in more than just our race (human). It has also appeared in birds, dogs, dolphins, and even apes.

That said you don't have to stop disliking homosexuality simply because it is determined by random chance. And while it is not completely what you wish to have, there is a moment in ME3 where you tell your dead husband having gay buddy that you don't like gay sex (If your a man in game at least). It is not exactly going up to him and saying "Homosexuality is evil, and are evil for being gay. Have a good day.", but you get what you can right?

Any who, why/what may I ask do you find disagreeable about a man or a women being gay anyway? Other than "I don't like homosexuality because homosexuality is wrong" (circular logic makes for bad foundations). How does anyone being gay specifically affect your happiness? Other than when you are unable to make fun of a gay man in a video game, obviously.

Why are people complaining about this?
IT'S AN OPTION! Playing Mass Effect 3 doesn't instantly turn your Shepard into a homosexual, it's something you work at to achieve because you want to. Also, I'm fairly sure that people complained about this aswell but, couldn't a femshep go lesbian if you wanted to in the previous two games? Double standards much?

These games are rated a 18+ and a 16+, so they shouldnt be playing Mass Effect and Star Wars: The Old Republic anyway. If the parents have anything against LGBT content, then they shouldn't be purchasing theses games for their kids anyway. On another note, this is an ever growing world, an Homosexuality is now widely accepted, so any homophobes out there will have a hard future if they still refuse to accept it.

omicron1:

Yes - but there is not an option to disagree with the concept.

Perhaps it's because bigots are extinct in Mass Effect's future? There also isn't an option in Mass Effect 2 to tell Jacob to get his ass to the cotton field where he belongs.

Fact: A very large portion of America, as well as smaller portions of much of Europe and a vast majority of third world countries, disagree with you on this issue.

Argumentum ad populum. That's latin for "I don't give a fuck what the angry mob thinks."

Fact: Referring to one's opponent in a derogatory fashion does not resolve an issue, nor is it good logical form.

If one is debating for the point 'blacks shouldn't be able to marry whites', it's accurate to call them racist. If someone advocates against the rights of gays, it's equally accurate to call them homophobic.

it is wrong to legislate or make public decisions based on one side's answer this unsolved question.

We better take a time machine to the 1800s and consult slave masters on their opinion of freeing the slaves.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked