EA defends itself against thousands of anti-gay letters

[Zeema]

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

 

[Syzygy23]

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.

 

[Eddie the head]

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.

 

[subtlefuge]

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.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

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.

 

[solemnwar]

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*

 

[Michael826]

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.

 

[J Tyran]

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.

 

[zefiris]

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.

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.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

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.

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.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

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

 

[Muspelheim]

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...

 

[Imp_Emissary]

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. [http://catholicexchange.com/canada-orders-pastor-to-renounce-his-faith/] I should not be barred from adopting children because they might grow up to believe as I do. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896] 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.

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.