EA Hosting Panel on Homophobia in Gaming

[Timbydude]

Gah, I get really mad when this topic is brought up. But, I'll be civilized about my response.

To me, the "gay rights" craze strikes me as one that is completely unfounded. It tries to be what the black civil rights movement was in America, but without an actual basis for the complaints.

The reason why RACISM is bad is that you simply can't choose your race. Therefore, it's unfair for people to discriminate against you based on that, since you had no control over it to begin with. That's why I completely support groups against racial discrimination. It's a good cause.

But, that just doesn't apply to gays. I'm sorry, but I just don't see an argument for a group of people that chooses to do something and then complains that people put them down for it. No one seems to care about discrimination against Christians or Jews, but as soon as someone says the word "******", you can rest assured that it'll be plastered all over the news as an atrocious act.

Simply put, we can't cater to specific groups of people just because of the choices they make. To you who say that homosexuality isn't a choice (though there's absolutely no hard data in either direction), I just don't understand your logic. No matter how much the inside of you feels homosexual tendencies, you can't honestly tell me that people are internally *forced* to act on those urges. I just hope that this whole craze dies down soon, so we can focus on infinitely more important issues in society.

EDIT: And, for the record, I have nothing against gay people. In fact, a few of my close friends are gay. It's the vehement campaigning that societal rejection of a CHOICE should be labeled as "discrimination" that just makes me mad. If you want to make fun of my religion, by all means go ahead. I might not like it, but you're certainly not discriminating against me; believing in it was my choice and I'm prepared to take all the insults you can throw at me as a result. That was part of the decision process in the first place. Why can't the gay and lesbian community learn to do the same?

 

[cobra_ky]

I... really don't get it. Either I'm blind to blatant homophobia in games or it's so little it's pratically not there. The gamers themselves I can see because, well, every other word I hear is a gay slur.

I agree, what is all this about?
I haven't seen or heard anti-gay slander online at all. Is this about the insults that are used by the more ranty and angry gamers. Because words such as 'Fag' are commonly accepted insults, even though personally i find the word annoying and distateful.

<a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.90841>this is what it's about. systematic (though unintentional) discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by the game companies themselves.

 

[cobra_ky]

wheels just keep on turnin':

Simply put, we can't cater to specific groups of people just because of the choices they make. To you who say that homosexuality isn't a choice (though there's absolutely no hard data in either direction), I just don't understand your logic. No matter how much the inside of you feels homosexual tendencies, you can't honestly tell me that people are internally *forced* to act on those urges. I just hope that this whole craze dies down soon, so we can focus on infinitely more important issues in society.

most people want friends. nothing internally forces you to go out and make friends, but it can be incredibly damaging psychologically not to, especially when it's against your will.

 

[squid5580]

Ok let me put this a different way. A man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family is still guilty of theft right?

Not necessarily: if the only way to feed his family is to take bread without paying for it, he's not guilty of theft.

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

Now, that defense is never available because if your family is on the verge of starvation you can always take them to a hospital for medical treatment so that stealing a loaf of bread is never the lesser-of-all-evils. However, if it came down to your family starving or you stealing a loaf of bread by some crazy circumstance, you're perfectly within your rights to take the loaf of bread.

As long as that was your motive--if your family is starving and you steal a loaf of bread and then you sell it and spend the money on yourself, well, then you are guilty of theft.

No matter what motivated him he stole something and should be punished the same way as the next guy who steals a loaf of bread for kicks. I don't think there should be different degrees of murder or assault or anything like that.

Well, that changes everything.

See, you're not against hate crimes--you're against any system where motive is taken into consideration in distinguishing between crimes. You don't just want to overturn the laws that gay rights activists have gotten passed, you want to overturn centuries of Anglo-American legal tradition.

And hey--maybe you do. However, you should be more accurate, and when you argue against the wisdom of hate crime laws, you should make it clear right up front that your reason for being against them is actually a pretty radical one.

I thought I had when I said

Any violent crime is a hate crime. Doesn't matter to me if it white on white, black on black or homosexual on homosexual or it is all mixed up they are all hate crimes. There should not be a special sentence for KKK member who kills a black person vs a white man killing another white man. That just reeks of inequality.

Even though I used the KKK example which seems to have been taken out of context.

Going on to the different degrees of murder I don't think it really matters to anyone but some outdated law that a person was killed spur of the moment or it was premeditated. I doubt it would make the family of the victim feel any better knowing that the victim was beat to death on a whim. Or make them feel worse that it was all planned out. And I know it doesn't matter to the victim.

 

[Timbydude]

wheels just keep on turnin':

Simply put, we can't cater to specific groups of people just because of the choices they make. To you who say that homosexuality isn't a choice (though there's absolutely no hard data in either direction), I just don't understand your logic. No matter how much the inside of you feels homosexual tendencies, you can't honestly tell me that people are internally *forced* to act on those urges. I just hope that this whole craze dies down soon, so we can focus on infinitely more important issues in society.

most people want friends. nothing internally forces you to go out and make friends, but it can be incredibly damaging psychologically not to, especially when it's against your will.

1. I don't think sexual urges fall into quite the same category as making friends. Sexual urges can be acted upon or repressed. When repressed, the damage they cause is minimal, unless you buy into Freudian theory which has more or less been rejected by most psychologists over the years.

2. We can also look at the other side of that "friend-wanting" group. Most of us go out and make friends because, well, we want them. There is that group in society who actually does *not* want friends, and feels an equivalent urge to not venture out and socialize. They are still widely mocked as "losers", "weirdos", "creeps", and the like. Yet, I still don't consider that discrimination since it was their choice to follow that internal urge to remain anti-social. Accordingly, we don't see rallies by members of Antisocial People of America or something like that to end discrimination against people who dislike talking, simply because they chose to follow that urge and we classify it as a choice.

Now, as I said, sexual urges do not fall into the same category as friend-making in the "psychological damage" category, but the principle of "You have an urge. Do you follow it?" can certainly be applied to both scenarios.

 

[cobra_ky]

1. I don't think sexual urges fall into quite the same category as making friends. Sexual urges can be acted upon or repressed. When repressed, the damage they cause is minimal, unless you buy into Freudian theory which has more or less been rejected by most psychologists over the years.

sexuality is much, much more than sexual urges. there are stable homosexual couples that genuinely love each other. once you start interfering with love, then you can really hurt people.

2. We can also look at the other side of that "friend-wanting" group. Most of us go out and make friends because, well, we want them. There is that group in society who actually does *not* want friends, and feels an equivalent urge to not venture out and socialize. They are still widely mocked as "losers", "weirdos", "creeps", and the like. Yet, I still don't consider that discrimination since it was their choice to follow that internal urge to remain anti-social. Accordingly, we don't see rallies by members of Antisocial People of America or something like that to end discrimination against people who dislike talking, simply because they chose to follow that urge and we classify it as a choice.

that's because the APA doesn't like having meetings.

seriously though, if i called you a fat, lazy, nerd because you play video games and post on a video game forum, you wouldn't get offended? if the government outlawed video games, you wouldn't mind, would you? wanting to play video games is just a psychological urge, after all. you wouldn't have any problem being forced to ignore it, would you?

 

[Xvito]

I call people fags/gays/faggots all of the time. Even though I do this I'm still the least homophobic person that I know...

To me they're just insults, because people get offended by me using them. As long as nobody gets hurt it's all okay.

--Xvito, keeping it indifferent.

 

[Therumancer]

My thoughts on the subject of homosexuality are well known from other threads, so I will be keeping this specifically to the target. My thoughts are as follows:

#1: Gays, whether anyone wants to say so or not, are what is called a "minority" this means they are substantially outnumbered by non-gays. Intentionally inserting homosexuality into products as part of some kind of affirmitive action process is inherantly wrong. While not specifically the subject here, I can see it going there.

#2: Gays openly mock themselves, and not all kinds of gays like the other kinds of gays. Flaming "Queens" and portrayals like "Bruno" (from the movie) are contreversial on several differant levels.

#3: Being in a free country you have the right to vocally dislike someone. There is no law saying you CAN'T hate gays or any other group. What's more I think censorship policies among private media (which is what this is coming down to) are inherantly wrong as this is giving private industry more power than even the goverment was intended to have when it comes to speech.

Like it or not, you have every right to sit around and rag on gay people, and frankly if substantial numbers people do/think this it's not really appropriate to start regulating them because some people don't like them.

This can be extended to everything covered under "political correctness". Part of free speech is not having to vocally approve of everything out there.

#4: Yes terms like "gay" or "fag" have a negative connotation, as does implying that anyone or anything is "Gay" (especially when it comes to men). Heck I'd even go so far to say as one of the reasons it succeeds in mass media/communications is that despite what everyone says when questioned for political correctness, the majority of people agree with this. Knocking homosexuals is common because it's mainstream humor despite what everyone wants to think.

Really it's not the job of censors to come in and start smacking the populance down in the name of political correctness. Rather the continueing issues say a bit about actual popular opinion. It's really the job of the gay community to change the perceptions rather than the job of those in the media to edit everything to be politically correct and hope it takes from there.

A connected issue to this is of course that of "one way hate" where it's okay for minorities to hate on the majority (and are given a platform) but not okay in reverse. If anything this helps fuel the flames of problems similar to this. In "gay" terms you can look at humor dealing with a flamboyantly gay queen turning his "cutting wit" on straights as an example.


#5: It is not the job of the goverment OR the media to try and force people to conform to the ideals that the people in charge of those institutions want. If it's a rampant "problem" that people use gay as an insult almost universally, and people's careers can still be ruined by outing them as gay (usually when it comes to men) it's something society either resolves on it's own, or does not.

In general civil liberties issues are resolved by the minds of the general populance changing. Trying to brutally force people to change their minds with a media/govermental sledgehammer just breeds resentment.

Back during the 1960s for example while the media and goverment both wound up playing roles, a lot of the information technology and techniques being employed today simply did not exist. It wasn't possible for a bunch of "game" companies to get together in a politically correct panel and have it mean anything.

If anything I think they need to back waaay the heck off.

What's more my currently fear is that as an extension of meetings like this, we're going to start seeing words "bleeped" out due to online voice/text sensors a lot more frequently, and perhaps some requirement that every game feature at least one major character who is obviously and flamboyantly gay (despite the reception this garnered with Enchanted Arms).

Just envision the cast of Final Fantasy VII if they used such a policy and decided that someone like Barret or Vincent drew the honor of being "it" and had their personality overidden with that of "Bruno" and given as much screen time/focus as Cloud and his relationships for politically correct reasons.

Not to mention the entire spin that could be put on drawing Barret as your partner for the stage play thing.

Strangely I very much doubt the game would be remembered as such a classic.

I mention Final Fantasy VII because it had a giant joke on cross dressing as a very minor detail and it wasn't exactly politically correct (played entirely for laughs when you go to rescue Aeris close to the beginning).

You take it from that level and extend it (ala Enchanted Arms) and welcome to mockery-ville.

>>>----Therumancer--->

 

[tehbeard]

EA is doing something GENUINELY GOOD???

I think hell just froze over.

[small]..........I saw a few pigs flying too..........[/small]

Here here.

I hate to say this but there can never be a safe space for LGBT's in games if they insist on probcaliming to be a LGBT. Thanks to the internet retards are able to spread hate wherever they want, and giving them ammo (i.e. announcing your a LGBT) is a very bad idea. In online gaming, the best policy is to present only a gamertag and avatar as identifying you. Any more and morons use it as cannon fodder when you beat them.

 

[KaiusCormere]

Ok let me put this a different way. A man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family is still guilty of theft right?

Not necessarily: if the only way to feed his family is to take bread without paying for it, he's not guilty of theft.

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

Now, that defense is never available because if your family is on the verge of starvation you can always take them to a hospital for medical treatment so that stealing a loaf of bread is never the lesser-of-all-evils. However, if it came down to your family starving or you stealing a loaf of bread by some crazy circumstance, you're perfectly within your rights to take the loaf of bread.

As long as that was your motive--if your family is starving and you steal a loaf of bread and then you sell it and spend the money on yourself, well, then you are guilty of theft.

No matter what motivated him he stole something and should be punished the same way as the next guy who steals a loaf of bread for kicks. I don't think there should be different degrees of murder or assault or anything like that.

Well, that changes everything.

See, you're not against hate crimes--you're against any system where motive is taken into consideration in distinguishing between crimes. You don't just want to overturn the laws that gay rights activists have gotten passed, you want to overturn centuries of Anglo-American legal tradition.

And hey--maybe you do. However, you should be more accurate, and when you argue against the wisdom of hate crime laws, you should make it clear right up front that your reason for being against them is actually a pretty radical one.

I thought I had when I said

Any violent crime is a hate crime. Doesn't matter to me if it white on white, black on black or homosexual on homosexual or it is all mixed up they are all hate crimes. There should not be a special sentence for KKK member who kills a black person vs a white man killing another white man. That just reeks of inequality.

Even though I used the KKK example which seems to have been taken out of context.

Going on to the different degrees of murder I don't think it really matters to anyone but some outdated law that a person was killed spur of the moment or it was premeditated. I doubt it would make the family of the victim feel any better knowing that the victim was beat to death on a whim. Or make them feel worse that it was all planned out. And I know it doesn't matter to the victim.

It's strictly a judgement on the criminal - and society judges that crimes committed in a planned manner (1st degree murder) are more heinous than crimes of passion (2nd degree murder) and that criminals of the first group who planned the crime, are more cold-blooded, and cruel, and that the sentence should be stricter. The same logic is applied to hate crimes...we are judging the criminal not just on their actions, but on their intent. A group of college kids who get into a bar fight and beat someone can be charged with assault, but a group of guys in the KKK who beat a black guy are more morally repugnant. It's nothing to do with the action they did being "worse" for the victim, it's the values they are upholding that go against society, and that those values deserve extra punishment.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

Spoken like a bunch of teenage, mostly-suburban heterosexual white males.

Fixed that for ya.

wait, suburban? what does that have to do with it?

EDIT: also, as an ex-teenage, suburban, heterosexual white male, i can't help but feel slightly offended.

Being a hetrosexual white male means you aren't allowed to get offended when someone generalizes us like that. Sorry mate. Dem are da rules.

Maybe the fact that you are allowed to walk down the street holding hands with a white woman without fear of being attacked will compensate for the overwhelming bigotry you apparently face.

I really hate to be the reality check type person but I have never met anyone who didn't face some sort of bigotry at some point in thier lives for some stupid reason. i face it all the time due to the fact I have long hair.

Fair 'nuff. But I sure hear "fag" and "jew" being tossed around as insults in WoW (don't play xbl) a lot more than I hear "longhair" and "hippie." In fact, I never hear "longhair" or "hippie."

More to the point, it took me about 15seconds to find a recent report of a man who was beaten to death for being gay: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Gay_teen_beaten_to_death_with_book_in_homophobic_attack&in_article_id=517656&in_page_id=34 . I'm pretty sure that even during the anti-Vietnam protests, men weren't getting beaten to death for having long hair-unless somebody thought they were gay.

Stating that we all face bigotry is true, but it is also disingenuous. We do not all fear for our lives when we walk down the street. The problem of anti-gay hatred is real, and EA is taking a positive step by addressing it.

And my guess is if you spent those 15 seconds you could find a story about a HWM beaten to death walking down the street who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. And of course not everyone fears for thier lives walking down the street. Why? Because some of those people are the threats we fear. No minority has the market cornered on violence against them. Not today anyways. Although it is a much better story than your average white male getting killed by a thug while walkin home from work.

And I believe your article there is where the energy of these groups should be focused. Not on words that have dual meanings that some consider hurtful. Firt end the real violence then we can have a roundtable discussion about what can be done about the expression "that is so gay". Unless of coursew you believe that the stupid ad* was money well spent.

* The stupid ad I am refering to is a TV commercial I caught 1 Sat. morning during my weekly cartoon marathon. 3 females are in a store. 1 is a lesbian and she is playing the part of the cashier. 1 of the customers says "that is so gay". When they get to the cashier she says "that is so Emily".

The argument that anyone can be beaten to death for being in the wrong place and the wrong time doesn't work. Of course anyone can be beaten to death on the street, but gay people have that risk and then have the problem of gay-targeted violence added on top of that. If you are gay, there are a lot more wrong places and wrong times than there are if you are straight.

As for the "That's so gay," I think you have no idea how corrosive that phrase is to gay people. I'm no wilting flower, I don't go to bed torn with the heartache of it, but every time I hear it I grind my teeth a little, and believe me, my teeth are starting to get kinda worn down after all these years. It's a little thing but its a little thing that happens all. the. fucking. time. I am so, so done with it, and with the inherent idiocy of the usage. Allow me to translate this into what the person is actually saying: "This is something that displeases me in ways I lack the emotional awareness or vocabulary to actually express with any precision or meaning."

Though come to think of it, in a lot of cases, gayness is also something that displeases them in ways they lack the emotional awareness or vocabulary to actually express with any precision or meaning. So maybe it really is "totally gay" after all

I'm also wondering, how was the cashier identified as lesbian? Did she dress a particular way or have a pink triangle button on? I mean, if they all looked the same, how do you know. You seem to think that only gay people object to anti-gay language or discrimination. Or, y'know, just idiotic, vague expressions of generalized disapproval.

You are right. That was my bad in assuming that she was a lesbian. My apologies.

This whole we are a target is a media knee jerk reaction tool. Like I said it is a far more interesting news article to say they were the target of gay bashing without knowing all the facts. That news article said nothing about what lead up to the attack. I am sorry but the attack was "allegedly launched after Alker discovered Mr Causer was gay" is not fact but it makes a much better news story, which gets more hits which equals more money. Anything could have happened before the attack. If the homosexual community was the only group targeted by violent crimes you would have a point. Are there any studies to prove that they are more likely to be targeted? No. Why? Because what the actual motivation behind these crimes may not be homosexual hate. A straight man beats and kills a homosexual male in an alley. Does that automatically make it a hate crime? No. The killer may not have even known the victim was gay. Could be a simple mugging gone bad. And you think it is only gay people who could become the target of a hate crime??? Seriously that is not an arguement. A white person can be the target of a black group who hate white people. Or vice versa. Or how about the terrorist who hate Americans? Nazis and Jewish people. And this kind of human behaviour is not something that just popped up when the homosexual community formed and collectively came out of the closet. Look in any history book. Anyone who is different than another group they try and kill each other. Sorry but a group of people not liking the group of people you are a part of doesn't make you special. It makes you human.

Usually, the hate crime is readily identifiable by the repeated shouting of anti-gay epithets. I know this because I've been there. I've been followed down the street with my girlfriend by a pack of guys threatening to kick my lezzie dyke ass and had to go stand in a store waiting for them to get bored and leave. We were lucky we were on a busy streets with too many witnesses for them to attack us there. There was such a frequent problem with gay-bashing in the gay neighborhood in my city, we had to form a community patrol to walk people safely to their cars and to stand watch over the bus stops. I suppose you could argue that the attackers didn't know their victims were gay, but the fact that they saw their victims coming out of gay bars and the fact that they were yelling, "You fucking fag! I'm going to kill you!" would indicate otherwise.

And you are right, it didn't just start happening when gay people started coming out of the closet. It's been going on for a very long time. There have been overt anti-gay campaigns in Victorian Britain, pre-WWI Germany, Nazi Germany of course, where homosexuals were put in the concentration camps with pink triangles on their sleeves to indicate that they were imprisoned for being gay.

If the homosexual community was the only group targeted by violent crimes you would have a point. Are there any studies to prove that they are more likely to be targeted?

We don't have to be the only targeted group to be a targeted group. Just because black people are targeted doesn't mean that gay people and Jewish people can't be targeted too. The point is the targeting itself.

Look in any history book. Anyone who is different than another group they try and kill each other. Sorry but a group of people not liking the group of people you are a part of doesn't make you special. It makes you human.

Each other? That would suggest that the violence is somehow mutual. Have you been reading the history books? Gay people aren't waiting outside of straight bars to beat up straight people. Say what you want about the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam, there has never been a group along the lines of the KKK that conducted a century-long campaign of murder and terror against white people just because they were white. I've not heard of any Jews systematically killing Germans. If you are simply going to deny the existence of targeted violence toward specific demographic groups, I don't think there's any point in further conversation on this matter.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

I guess I should put in my profiles that I am a white male, and announce to everyone I'm playing with that I am in fact white, because this is important info in video games. Sounds pretty nuts, to me. And, if I did happen to get into a room of people that didn't like whites, well I guess I shouldn't have been spouting off at the mouth so much.

When I'm playing a game on XBL, I don't want your life story. I don't even care what your name is. I just want to buckle down and win. If you choose to open yourself up to criticism, in my opinion, you may not deserve it but shouldn't be ignorant that it is coming.

You don't have to announce it - everyone assumes that what you are right out of the gate. I joined a new guild in WoW and everyone kept refering to me as "he". Once I corrected them, they assumed I was straight. How do I know this? They asked if I had a boyfriend. I told them I didn't have a boyfriend because I was gay and there was this looooooooong silence in the previously active guild chat. I could have concealed that I was gay but if I didn't, the flirting would commence (and it did anyway "Well, if you ever change your mind..."), and besides, why should I? I could have let them continue to believe I was a straight guy, but why should I? Now, I'm glad to say being gay is not an issue with my guild, but the fact is, most gay people don't run into the room yelling "Hey everyone! I'm gay!" They get outed by questions honestly answered or by objecting to anti-gay language.

Believe me, I'm not ignorant that it's coming, and I don't deserve it, but I am not just going to stand there and take it in a game any more than I would in real life.

As for homophobia in gaming, eh, homophobia in gamers is more of an issue for me, and honestly, if we are talking about bias by omission, I'm less interested in gay characters than female characters.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Spoiler: Point the first.

If I called you a motherf**ker right now, would we be friends? Probably not. You don't know me. We don't have a shared background. We're strangers. From the implied meaning of the term, I'm calling you something that's on the books offensive.

If I called a woman a *****, would there be smiles and hugs? No. For women, it's an insult that regards them as a female dog.

So, knowing this, why, oh why do people of non african-american descent use the stupid worn out "why can't I call black people 'ni**ers'" defense?

Seriously. You all probably call your close friends all types of names and curses, but the second someone you don't know calls you those same names you'll be ready to fight. This is not a new development, nor is it a unique development special only to black people. What it seems to be just a few people who want to be allowed to be offensive in a whole different level and try to paint themselves as victims because they can't.

Spoiler: Point the Second.

I stated this on the 'gaymers' thread, but it's not like people have 'Gayzian' 'MyPeen+UrPeen=<3' as names. But they happen to be of a certain group or sexuality and they sign on and it's thrust upon them. No one wants to go to a situation where who he or she is is not only being mocked, but being acceptably mocked. As it's ok because it's fine to talk about these people since they aren't as good as us. A few posters here bemoan how it's acceptable to bash on white people, and they have EVERY REASON TO DO SO. It's not cool to make fun of white people because it's acceptable. Because it isn't. Whites are human too, as we all.

That's all these gaymers are doing. The same posters in this very thread who said that they get discriminated against because they are white males and complained about it, you're just seeing the exact thing you were doing put in action with these people.

Should there be a forum to discuss the white male gamers plight? Possibly. As long as it's about acceptance and fair treatment instead of a bunch of teenagers complaining that they have to stop their stupid rhetoric spewing from the safety of their bedrooms.

Spoiler: Question the first

Can someone please explain the mentality of people who don't want to respect others but then demand that everyone respects their position and ideas? That seems completely asinine. How can anyone ask for that and truly expect it to happen?

 

[cobra_ky]

What's more my currently fear is that as an extension of meetings like this, we're going to start seeing words "bleeped" out due to online voice/text sensors a lot more frequently, and perhaps some requirement that every game feature at least one major character who is obviously and flamboyantly gay (despite the reception this garnered with Enchanted Arms).

i agreed with you completely up until this point. your fears are unfounded and betray a fundamental misunderstanding of homosexuals and what they want.

first off, as i've explained a couple times in this thread, gays think there is TOO MUCH censorship already. people want to say "i'm gay" in their profiles, and if 12-year-olds call them faggots because of it, well then so be it. a lot of game companies didn't understand that, and for some reason they thought a mandatory "don't ask, don't tell" policy would keep everyone happy.

not to mention that it's pretty much impossible to censor audio in real time.



as for your second fear, requiring gay characters in games is just so ridiculous, i'm not even sure how to address it. but the vast majority of homosexuals absolutely hate stereotypically flaming gay characters, the same way that most black people hate racist stereotyped black characters. That some individuals may actually live up to these stereotypes is beside the point. What most homosexuals want to see more than anything are homosexual characters they can relate to; fairly normal people who happen to be attracted to the same sex.

the problem with this, of course, is what so many people have said in this thread already: "if you don't say anything, then no one will know you're gay". unlike most other minorities, homosexuals generally aren't identifiable by their physical appearance. which is why, unless they're a giant flaming feathered stereotype, most of the time you don't even notice they're gay.

Just envision the cast of Final Fantasy VII if they used such a policy and decided that someone like Barret or Vincent drew the honor of being "it" and had their personality overidden with that of "Bruno" and given as much screen time/focus as Cloud and his relationships for politically correct reasons.

Not to mention the entire spin that could be put on drawing Barret as your partner for the stage play thing.

Strangely I very much doubt the game would be remembered as such a classic.

Barret already had his personality overwritten by Mr. T. and that didn't seem to affect its popularity much.

 

[Del-Toro]

Erm, ok, here's the problem. I think that gay people are being a little to sensitive here. I mean, if you are talking about things like your sexual preference, religious or political views, or any such characteristic about yourself on a online game, you are not playing the game. I do not play a game of Halo to debate Obama's policies. If I want to talk about stuff like that, I talk to the gamers I actually know, have played with for a while, and find myself calling online friends. The people who I talk with the subjects online on are people I often play with and usually talk to on a daily basis. If you find yourself in a game of Halo saying you are gay, you are just asking for someone to tell you off. Let me explain. If you were gay, and had just met someone in real life, would one of the first things you say to them be 'I'm gay, just so you know, I'm gay'. No. Now turn this the other way, say someone you just met immediatly stated they were gay to you like that. Would you not feel like that subject was pushed onto you and in a quite rude manner. The only time I really see that topics like this should come up is in a natural way of conversation, not automatically forced out into the open to have people start making judgements. That way prejudices can not be made on a person without getting to know them on a personal level, instead of a shallow one.

Rephrased:

Erg, that rant came out a little bit longer and messier then I had hoped but the ending point is still there. And upon rereading I'm sorry that I jumped around all over the place. My basic point is that subjects like this are not meant to be talked about in front of strangers. They are meant to be talked about with people you know and like. If someone came up to me and started saying how much they believed in God and stuff like that, I would start makings judgements against them and probably not want to talk to them anymore. It alienates people and puts judgements and ideas in a person's head that may not be true. If I got to know someone on a personal level, and actually had a friendship of some form starting with a person, their religious, sexual, and politcal views would have less of an impact on me and it would be much harder for someone to have prejudice against the other for it.

I happen to think you are 100% right, because there is no reason for anyone, in a game of Halo, to announce their orientation, race or religion. Such is the art of asking for trouble. Gay gamers can complain about being heckled online but in reality they brought it on themselves by announcing it to everyone for I'm sure no real reason and if they had kept it quiet then things would have gone better. Sexual orientation is not the business of other online players, therefore my solution to this problem is don't ask, don't tell, just play the damned game. There was a documentary about the whole Matthew Shephard thing and someone stated that part of the prejudice was because gays and lesbians tend to wear it on their sleeves, so it comes accross as on obsession or singular focal point in their lives. You don't hear alot of online gamers announcing their race or religion so why is orientation any different?

 

[Treblaine]

No, not really. Samuel L. Jackson has kind of built his career around a good number of those stereotypes, and he's done plenty, I think, to reduce the amount of prejudice. Media about Italian mobsters have actually contributed to raising the level of acceptance of Italian-Americans. Everyone loves an Irish bar. Gays on floats are really no different from Irish serving Guinness.

What's wrong with Jewish and Black ghettos? What about Italian or Chinese ghettos? Plenty of cities celebrate a Little Italy section or a Chinatown. The problem with the Black ghetto is not that it represents segregation, but the violence and lack of prosperity. Plenty of Blacks celebrate the history of a place like with the interest in the Harlem Renaissance.

Not to mention the fact that gays themselves carved out the "gayborhoods" of America: they are much different than any other example of segregation, in that more than any other example, it was segregation chosen by the minority for purposes of protection.

Actually, it did--your skinhead culture celebrated Jamaican culture which they saw as 'manly' but went Paki-bashing because they never could identify with their culture.

If you think the characters played by Samuel L. Jackson are the worst black racial stereotypes then you are quite delightfully naive. Number one, he normally plays confident, thoughtful and charismatic parts, shouting "************" is not a black stereotype, the very white John McClane had been doing that since the 80's. In fact if I had to think of a black actor in Hollywood, I would say Sam Jackson has been most successful at avoiding racial typecasting considering the wider history of African Americans on film.

I'd also say gangster rappers fit a similar mould to Italian Mobsters, it certainly doesn't cast them as meek and submissive as African Americans were cast for the best part of their American history. Gays still suffer from lack of assertion, in most media you are likely to find them acting more girly than any female.

As to Jewish Ghettos, how about just Jewish neighbours? In pre-1930's Germany (before Hitler and the Nazis came to power) Jews were almost fully integrated into German society, the Ghettos formed again when society inexplicably turned against them mainly because the increasingly popular Nazi party cast them as the scape goat.

I will accept various Chinatowns, Jewish districts and so one as a necessary evil, it is hardly the perfect solution. I also see some purpose of minorities all living in one area as they will have far more potency in one voting area than spread out evenly, politicians will care more about getting their vote. Also immigrants have been able to more effectively preserve their culture by living in "Ghettos".

But the same cannot apply to a gay ghetto as the population does not grow as there is no reproduction, the only way the gay population can stay up is if there is a steady stream of migrants from all over the country with no common culture, only a common experience of being unaccepted their their home-towns and forced to leave their family, friends and entire lives.

Gay ghettos only exist due to intolerance of the wider nation.

Also don't think because Skinheads plagiarised Jamaican style those racists thought any better of Jamaicans than Pakistanis. Don't know of any Pakistani stereotype of being unmanly. Quite simply Asians (British terms for people from India/Pakistan/etc) are the biggest target because they make up the largest immigrant population. Skinheads are like the KKK in the USA, underground and completely unaccepted by mainstream, yet now they have merged and morphed with football hooliganism, Skinhead is mostly an obsolete term in the UK as it has become apparent the class-ist connotations as almost all working class males clip their hair short or shave it off regardless of their prejudice or lack thereof.

But the homophobia I see in America is far more mainstream, even in shows like Will and Grace, do you think some redneck, even if forced to watch it, do you really think that would challenge his prejudices on homosexuals? A show like Torchwood (BBC) would challenge perceptions; a gay protagonist who is assertive, brave and knows how to fight as well as having a strong commitment to his family. The Wire was a very under-appreciated US show, it has a similar assertive homosexual protagonist. Two in fact. Unlike anything usually presented on US tv but The Wire broke all conventions, maybe that is why it did so relatively poorly yet has such a cult following at the same time.

Everyone can be split into two categories. Those who have watched The Wire... and those who have not.

WATCH IT!

 

[Treblaine]

Maybe, maybe not. That's not what you're arguing, though. You're arguing that motive shouldn't be a factor. You're arguing that it shouldn't make a difference to a family to know that their relative was killed as a result of an argument between friends that got heated and turned physical and tragic as opposed to knowing that their relative was murdered in the course of someone trying to rape them.

The family will NEVER be happy, the law was never there to make them happy. The law is there for JUSTICE.

Now the notion of justice is something extremely hard to pin down, it is far more then just revenge, it is the mechanism which holds society together when altruism seems to break down as individuals deliver harm on others. The punishment must fit the crime, or else the punishment itself becomes a crime.

 

[Ossum]

I'm going to go totally off-topic here, but...

Yes, I agree with that, and I've said as much on one of the Prop 8 threads that pop up here. The thing is with time there WILL be gay marriage, but it will come through the legislature and the will of the people, not through things like propositions and supreme court rulings.

If anything the way gay activists behave in the US baffles me. I live in Australia where gay people have no rights, no marriage or civil unions. If we want to have a recognized relationship we have to wait many years, go through reams of paperwork and fight in court to prove we love each other, and then they give us the privilage of being considered a de facto couple, only with less recognition than a straight de facto couple. I and my monogamous partner of five years would LOVE to get a civil union. It's not the same obviously but seeing activits in the US screaming for more can sometimes feel like being a hungry person in a third world country reading an overweight food critic's negative review for a five star restaurant.

I can definitely understand your perspective on this one; as a strong supporter of gay marriage (hell, any stable, healthy marriage is a Good Thing to me) it seems rather silly the process you have to go through to get recognized.

From what I understand, civil unions vs. full marriage here is treated as an equality issue, which by the rhetoric and by precedent has its underpinnings in earlier civil rights movements, such as suffrage and segregation battles. Thus, any percieved difference in availability or status between groups is not well tolerated for long. It's the "all men are created equal" part that really gets us worked up, reading "men" as "people" of course.

There's also a very strong social aspect to it. It's difficult, from what I've heard and read, for gay couples to be socially recognized as such in the US if identifiers like "my wife" or "my husband" can't be used. When people ask after the status of a couple, descriptions like "my partner" often cause a lot of necessary description and explanation. It would be much easier to address one's partner as husband or wife, as those terms carry various meanings, such as unavailability, commitment, shared responsibility, etc. That isn't really possible with civil unions, being mainly a legal construct.

It perhaps gets lost in the debate, but it's not so much about gay people getting married like straight people do. It's more about equality of rights; if you are a person, then you have the same rights all other people do. Once the gay or straight label is gone, you are left with People, and People should be able to marry People.

Also, civil rights battles in the US tend to focus on battleground states, where key legislation can be passed, which slowly filters to the other states and finally to federal policy. I and probably many others can only hope that once the US becomes a gay-marriage legal country, a similar influence might be felt elsewhere, as acceptance of gay marriage grows.

All it takes is time and shared experience. In fact, one of the LGBT groups here (I forget which) had a series of billboards pointing out that nearly everybody knows at least one gay person, Out or not, which I thought was a very powerful message.