Family Research Council Warns of Gay Relationships in The Old Republic

[DAAANtheMAAAN]

Well, understand that MovieBob is also a pretty radical left winger when you get down to his positions on a number of subjects, but that's an entirely differant subject.

I wrote a lengthy post on the subject, but it basically comes down to the issue of niche sexuality, and the simple fact that niche sexuality to someone who is not wired for it is pretty gross.

The issue here is that Star Wars is going beyond the whole bit of saying "gays exist" to the point of "you need to interact with a gay relationship". By definition this means your going to have a companion attached to you of the same gender, who presents an omni-present romantic option should you ever decide to pick it up.

To put things into perspective, in what is hopefully a less contreversial example due to less media exposure and polotics. Fecophilles/Scatologists outnumber homosexuals simply by the numbers (even if there are homosexuals with that kink), to someone who is into that the idea of being pooped on, or smearing themselves or someone else with feces is a turn on. To anyone who isn't into that it's bloody disgusting. You might not care to the point of wanting to hunt them down in their homes and kill them, but you sure don't want to be exposed to them in public or have to hang out with someone you know does that. Now granted I am using one of the grosser, but yet common enough to be well known sexual lifestyles intentionally.

People do have the right to not be exposed to stuff that just grosses you out. You don't want to have some guy in your escapist video game come running up and tell your female character he wants to smear himself with scat and french kiss you with a turd under his tongue. Nor do you want to be forced to have this guy in your ship periodically reminding you that he's into that in case you know.. you change your mind. The same exact thing applies to homosexuals.

See, with a video game it's not a matter of "I don't care what you do on your own time" because the limited game enviroment means that it's ALWAYS on your time since by definition this is being built around you, and actively seeking you out and inserting itself into your gameplay experience.

There is nothing wrong with someome from the overwhelming majority of people saying "you know, I really don't want to be exposed to this". The spam from my protocol droid on my ship is bad enough without some gay dude I am not interested in constantly making innuendos and reminding me he's there and he's gay for the benefit of a very tiny group of people.

We might have to agree to disagree here, but understand the arguement isn't simply one with being upset that gays exist or whatever, and heck, if you want to get technical there are plenty of more numerous fringe heterosexual orientations that just don't represent themselves politically which should be in line before homosexuals for fair represensation if we want to get technical. Once you start saying that we need to start doing full politically correct representations of alternative sexuality... that just opens some crazy doors.

As I also said before token characters are NEVER a good idea. See, it might be a little more defensible if Bioware had intended to write some gay and lesbian characters into the game from the very beginning, but they didn't. This is all about political appeasement, and just like inserting token minorities into established properties, no good is going to come of it, even the people who wanted the character are going to complain about it being too stereotypical, not ethnic (or representitive of the minority in question) enough, being given too small a role, or perhaps even growing to overshadow what the show is supposed to be about entirely.

Whether your pro-gay, anti-gay, or somewhere inbetween the two extremes like me, there is nothing good about what Bioware is doing.... and yes, this never ends, you see groups like this one coming out to complain BECAUSE Bioware is pandering to a political position, so by definition the opposition is making itself heard. These guys didn't come out to oppose Dragon Age in the same way (for example) even if they mentioned it, because there wasn't any activism from the other side responsible in having the homosexual options in that game added in after the fact for purposes of appeasement.

What's more if this goes through, it's going to encourage gay activists to try and push every property they can, whether it makes sense or not, simply to get the press.

I think Moviebob said something else in the same episode, "If your reply to a forum post can qualify as a small novel, you're doing it wrong" (paraphrased). Though I have the feeling that I'm about to do the same thing... Also, I do agree with you on his political views, but the quote was being directed towards anti-gay reporting for The Old Republic. He wasn't addressing it politically so much as culturally.

Now, with that being said, I do understand your issues. Caving in to customer requests usually results in badly shoehorned content and characters. However, given how Bioware typically writes characters pretty well, at least in my opinion, I doubt they'd just wedge a gay option to every same-sex companion you come across. They'd most likely wait until they added new content, giving a few companions appropriate dialogue and development to make the characters at least fairly respectable.

As far as an MMO goes, it's all about the characters the people play. Not everyone is or will want to play a heterosexual character, and there's no harm in giving people the option to swing the other way. Bioware's built up a solid reputation in character design for me, so I have full confidence that they would be able to make a gay relationship respectfully and without resorting to tired stereotypes.

To address another point, people actually DON'T have the right to avoid being exposed to stuff they don't like, at least in the American Bill of Rights. With the freedom of speech comes things that people find unsavory. You are not granted any right to not be offended, but you CAN ignore and disregard the things that offend you. I fully understand your concerns with the game running the risk of an incessant stereotypical gay guy making passes at you at every available turn. While it's certainly hyperbole, it's not out of the question to think that a developer could very easily put something like that in to appeal to customer requests/complaints.
Should that happen in The Old Republic, your only real option is to ignore it. I get that you/anyone else might not want that in your game, but it's an insignificant fraction of the content available, and easily ignored. Keep Dr. Frank-N-Furter around just long enough to complete relevant quests and leave him in the dust, never to be seen again.

In conclusion, I understand that there is a fine line between pandering to fans and maintaining respectable content. There have been times where just appealing to requests end up in horrible content, but at the same time, I won't ever deny the option for that content to be there. Keeping it out simply because someone might get offended is a option that not only alienates a portion of the fanbase, it also send the message that the developer could be trampled over by the constant threat of offended people.

 

[awsome117]

Okay first off you need to understand something. All sexual behavior is governed by chemical reactions and pheremones. This is why things like castration work, you remove part of that chemical system and someone cannot become aroused by anything remotely sexual.

Correct; however a sexuality is not a fetish. These are two separate things. We can get into an entire argument about how you could be born with it, or have a choice in it but now is not the discussion for it.

Someone who is into scatology is chemically reactiong to those acts, just like someone is gay is responding to the chemical signals of their own gender.

Just like someone who is straight responds to the chemical signals of the opposite gender. I'm not arguing that; I'm arguing that fetishes and sexuality are not the same.

A lot of things can cause the same symptoms so I'm not going to get into all the things that could lead to this, from being born that way, to psychological adaption, to other medical conditions that happen to influance those systems.

Indeed, although that can be a debate for another time if you're ever up for it .

This is not "junk science", this is not "pseudo science" it's how things work. We don't understand all aspects of this system, but we DO know it exists, and again we are able to modify behavior through things like castration, and understand why it works.

Yes you can "modify" it, but it doesn't take it away. It just removes the sexual attraction to it. This does not chance your sexual preference though.

Someone who is into scatology, beastiality, or heterosexual are all reacting biologically and it's something inherant to them, the same applies to gays. There is literally no differance between a fetish or sexual orientation since it all comes down to sexual arousal.

Actually there is a very big difference between the two. You can love your significant other and not feel any sexual feelings towards them. I could argue that a lot of fetishes aren't formed when you're born, but this isn't the time or place (if you have want to argue that though PM me, those are always fun).

What turns someone on is natural to them, literally wired into who they are, and their personality and desires build around their biological drives. To someone who is not wired that way such behaviors are frequently abhorrant or gross. This is incidently why sexuality is not a choice, because you do not get to choose how your body's chemical signals are going to react, and various medical conditions that can lead to pheremonal and chemical changes are not something that are consciously regulated.

Yes, and we all have our own fetishes. We are entitled to them and entitled to our privacy with them. However, if someone can walk down the street yelling "I'm straight! I'm straight!", then it should only be fair for everyone else to do the same. Majority or not we all have our natural born rights and we are entitled to them. If we can't have gay characters in video games, we can't have straights either.

The thing is that catering to people with a deviant sexual makeup tends to disgust or repel those who are not wired that way.

Hence why "fetishes" are left in the bedroom. I don't have to tell you mine, and you don't have to tell me yours. You can spin this argument to say "catering to people of certain skin colors tends to disgust or repel those not with the same color." It's literally the same thing as racism. It's not catering, it's giving them their fair and equal representation in the real world we live in.

Even if your not someone who say wants to bust into houses and murder everyone wired that way, you generally do not want to be exposed to this kind of thing. When your dealing with tiny minorities vs. the overwhelming majority the right choices are fairly obvious.

Not many people are born wired to murder. They might be slightly more aggressive than others, but it would take some event(s) leading up to the incident to cause them to murder. Besides, murdering has nothing to do with this. And no, we're not dealing with minorities vs the majority; we're dealing with equal and fair opportunity.

As far as the inclusion of such content in the game, understand that it's NOT optional. Actually pursueing a romance with the character in question is, but not their inclusion.

I fail to see a point here. Gays exist. In a giant universe, gays defiantly exist. So the inclusion of a gay character shouldn't mean anything. He/She will still act the same, by the same and your character will be the same regardless of sexual orientation.

No matter what, the homosexual is going to insinuate itself into your crew, and make it clear that option exists if you want it, for the benefit of the people that are wired that way.

Same as for the opposite gender(s) in the crew. Could I pursue a relationship with them? Sure, because I have the option, but I choose not to.

Having a sexual deviant present,

I'm sorry but that made me laugh so hard. Did you really just call a gay (non-exstant) character a sexual deviant? Are you really one of those guys who thinks every gay person wants to have sex with every guy? He can't just be a person like you, trying to find his other but instead of a girl, it's a guy. Hell, some don't even like anal sex!

who does something you find gross, is pretty off putting, especially when you don't really have a choice in the matter.

You do have a choice though. Many actually; you could use him, don't give affection and don't even talk to him. You could play the entire game without ever using the character. He's there so everyone gets the fair chance they deserve in making the character they want to be.

Oh sure, maybe I'm not participating in scatology, but just by knowing this guy does that and that he's always going to be hanging around and behaving vocally can be quite off putting.

I'm not sure if you've had a bad experience with someone like that, but not all of them are vocal about their "fetishes" (different than sexuality). He will not act differently at all. In fact, you would have to engage in the [flirt] for any type of vocal (which is always implied by the way, they never say "yes, I will have sex with you" when you do choose the [flirt] option) response to occur. If you don't choose it, it literally passes over it and he goes back to being your companion who shoots (or stabs) stuff with no homosexual remarks again.

Likewise, it should be noted that if they do provide an option to get rid of the character it effectively gimps anyone who doesn't want that. After all you have one less companion to send on missions, and one less person for whatever role that character fills outside. Basically giving someone a tangible game bonus for being gay.

What? You can still send him on missions and fetch stuff for you. He's not going to come back and say "I got some lube, and I know you're not gay but lets' do it anyway!". He will literally only be gay in the conversation(s) you flirt with him (which are so few and far between). You're the one excluding him because of his sexual orientation which has nothing to do with his combat or diplomacy skills. This is also why I hate what the army does to gays (and women as well [grrrr rage for another time]). You're not giving the gays a bonus, you're giving them the equal chooses that you would want to get if you were the minority.

As far as the political aspects go, that's 100% accurate. The bottom line is that any person is going to crusade for something that benefits them given the oppertunity.

Damn, preaching about morals and all that and you pull this? For shame. There are more good than bad, just the bad are more vocal. However, I fail to see how having more gay options in games and life are bad. You have the right to choose, as do they. We are all humans, regardless if you find something disgusting or not they are entitled to every right and freedom you have.

The gay rights movement has inertia which is why it's pushing for everything it can get, as opposed to equal, or more numerous groups of sexual deviants who don't have the same kind of political prescence.

Unfortunately the way things seem to go is that one group gets its rights, then the others have to wait their turn. I don't like it and I wish you could be more progressive and faster paced with it, but sometimes gotta take when you can get. Also, stop calling gays sexual deviants. If anything, we should call straight males sexual deviants as apparently we want to have sex with anything that has breasts.

We'd probably see crusades by a United Scatology Front, or Diaperboy Coalition, if they got organized and managed to win some public attention and a political victories.

No we won't, for two main reasons. Once again those are fetishes that stay in the bedroom. Also, you keep picking the most odd and bizarre fetishes, is there a certain reason why...? Two, what are they campaigning for? They have the rights to privacy in their bedroom, so what would they want? What misrepresentation are they getting, or not? If they want to watch movies or play a gay that pertains to a fetish they can get that. A fetish does not define you, nor does it represent who are you. Being straight, gay etc those things can make/break characters. So please, stop trying to lump them up in one thing.

The thing to understand about political movements is that they do not stop, unless they are stopped or ignored.

Or what I think you would like to suggest is to put everyone who doesn't agree with your views into a hole and tell them "Shut up, you have no rights". They have a right to march, to protest and they have their natural born rights, like you and me, to be gay. Saying they shouldn't have kids, shouldn't marry, shouldn't vote shouldn't do anything that either of us do undermines the very foundation of our country, but the very fact of being human.


The more victories they win, they more they decide they want, as power corrupts.
[/quote]
Dude, I think the "power" is starting to go to your head. By your logic, all straight males with power are corrupt because, them being the "majority" win almost EVERYTHING. Tell me, how often do white straight males not win in almost anything they do?

I actually remember when the gay rights movement was all about not being arrested or effectively hunted down.

Yes, damn them for not wanting to be assaulted/beaten or even killed for their sexual orientation. Damn those gays, they win again!

When that was won it turned into the right to be openly and flamboyantly gay,

Yes, and good for them! They deserve it after all the crap they get/have gotten, and that goes for all groups that have been mistreated over the years.

now it's all about being represented in everything, with at least a token character, despite the small numbers.

What? How often do you actually see gay characters? And are they really "token" or just side characters?

Basically saying that you HAVE to have a homosexual character or option, or should be viewed as a bigot,

You should have the option, as it is an OPTION for those that WANT to take it. Like being a bad guy on the light side. Sure MOST would be light side, but SOME want to be dark side and they should have that CHOICE. Much like you have a CHOICE to be STRAIGHT in the game OR NOT. You can literally play through the game and not have sex with ANYONE, because you have that CHOICE. And you (not specifically you, just in general) should be viewed as a bigot for not allowing that CHOICE if, IF they decide to go with it. I don't want to have a same-sex relationship with my crew mate, so I choose not to. It does not effect mine or his character, the way I play or when/how I use him.

and that everyone should have to create in their direction whether it fits their plans or they are wired that way or not.

Then don't pick it or be gay in real life. You can choose, and you know why? BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO. As should they.

Or in short that everyone I do or experience should have homosexuality in it, to bring it into my home, and the schoolplace of my children,

No, but you should tell it's ok to be gay. Don't tell them to be who they are and limit who they can be. Don't advocate freedom when it doesn't suit you. And don't deny them their basic human rights when you have no right to do so. Not everything you do has to have homosexuality attached to it. In fact, if you never tell them it's bad, they'll never know/care! You know why? Because it's not bad.

and that right there is going too far.

No, going too far is telling them that they don't have the rights you do.

Honestly when it comes down to a minority forcing itself upon you,

They aren't forcing it on you, they are letting you know they exist and are people like you and me. You know why we don't have straight parades, or things like that? Because no one ever told you it's bad to be gay, that you should feel ashamed for it or ever physically hurt you or gave you the mistreatment you don't deserve.

that tends to lead to as much or more bigotry than whatever it was trying to overcome to begin with.

Not understanding or accepting others is what leads to bigotry.

Truthfully I think there would be less anti-gay sentiment (which has less to do with religion or morality than you think) if it wasn't for crap like we're seeing with ToR.

That's a lie and you know it. We need less straight white male main/side characters and more open minded developers to show the world there is more than one part of humanity. And we don't get there until we push the envelop.

It's not about who does what with whom behind closed doors anymore,

Really, as that seems to be what this is all about.

it's about screaming their existance (like we didn't know about it)

They should scream it, they should be proud. Do you ever need to express your straightness? No, because YOU DON'T NEED TO. It's ok for you to be straight because someone said it was and someone said it wasn't ok to be gay. You know why? BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T LIKE DIFFERENT THINGS. They wanted it their way and they got it. How is that fair? How is that just? I'll tell you; it's not.

in my bloody video games, and my children's schools or whatever else, and saying I have to like them and they should force approval, and that's obnoxious.

No, it's obnoxious not allowing them to have the same rights and freedoms you have. You don't have to like them, you don't even have to get along with them. You just have to accept they exist and allow them the rights they deserve.

It's like me saying that since I was born with brain damage and can't help it, that everyone should have to spend so much time every day acting like me with my problems,

That doesn't even make sense! I don't act "gay" for gay rights, I am straight and I just allow them to be who they are.

or that there should be a brain damaged character in every piece of media everywhere.. I mean it's biological, it happened when I was a baby, couldn't bloody help it, it's who I am too.

Are you saying Brain damaged people haven't done any achievements for our society? Should they not get a chance to be represented and shown they are people like you and me. In fact, they came out with a new game (name escapes me) about people with disabilities that shows they are normal people who aren't different after all.

You just have to open your mind and accept that even though people are different, we are all people that have all the same rights no matter where you were born/how you were born etc.

 

[Therumancer]

Okay first off you need to understand something. All sexual behavior is governed by chemical reactions and pheremones. This is why things like castration work, you remove part of that chemical system and someone cannot become aroused by anything remotely sexual.

Correct; however a sexuality is not a fetish. These are two separate things. We can get into an entire argument about how you could be born with it, or have a choice in it but now is not the discussion for it.

or that there should be a brain damaged character in every piece of media everywhere.. I mean it's biological, it happened when I was a baby, couldn't bloody help it, it's who I am too.

Are you saying Brain damaged people haven't done any achievements for our society? Should they not get a chance to be represented and shown they are people like you and me. In fact, they came out with a new game (name escapes me) about people with disabilities that shows they are normal people who aren't different after all.

You just have to open your mind and accept that even though people are different, we are all people that have all the same rights no matter where you were born/how you were born etc.

Actually, a sexual deviation is a sexual deviation. The normal course of sexual behavior is heterosexual, period. The entire purpose, even if it's used recreationally, is to propagate the species. Love, arousal, and even the pleasure to encourage it exist simply to make more humans so our species can survive. In an absolute sense homosexuality does nothing except entertain the people involved, and represents a deviation from the norm.

In the end, scatology, BDSM, or homosexuality, anything that arouses someone that does not fit with baseline heterosexual behavior, is an aberration.

Yes, homosexuality exists in nature, we have seen animals engage in such behavior. HOWEVER it's a matter of malfunctioning biology causing arousal by something other than the intended norm. Just as the chemical systems in humans can malfunction, so can those of animals, indeed the similarities between humans and animals (well actually we're animals too) are why animals are used for testing, they deal with most of the same conditions and illnesses than people do.

It's not a point that can be argued at this point, other than for the sake of politics as we know how it works. Gays are not special, and magical, and exempted from the same rules as everything else. The bottom line is they are aroused by something that deviates from the norm and are EXACTLY like those people who get off on pain, or feces, or other assorted things. The only differance is the trigger which causes the arousal to misfire.

The bottom line here though is when you have a group of sexual deviates DEMANDING representation in the media. The point about brain damage (for example) is not that you can't have a brain damaged character if a creator decides one fits one within his work right from the beginning, but the implication that you need to have a brain damaged character to cater to that audience, or else your being discriminatory.

In the case of TOR the big issue here is that there were no gays in the game, and the gay community and it's political supporters are complaining that this is fundementally wrong, and demanding representation, and pretty much pressuring EA/Bioware with the implication that they are bigots if they do not meet this demand. Leading to homosexual charcters being added into the game due to the pressure, when there was no intention to ever have them.

 

[Therumancer]

[
I think Moviebob said something else in the same episode, "If your reply to a forum post can qualify as a small novel, you're doing it wrong" (paraphrased). Though I have the feeling that I'm about to do the same thing... Also, I do agree with you on his political views, but the quote was being directed towards anti-gay reporting for The Old Republic. He wasn't addressing it politically so much as culturally.

Now, with that being said, I do understand your issues. Caving in to customer requests usually results in badly shoehorned content and characters. However, given how Bioware typically writes characters pretty well, at least in my opinion, I doubt they'd just wedge a gay option to every same-sex companion you come across. They'd most likely wait until they added new content, giving a few companions appropriate dialogue and development to make the characters at least fairly respectable.

As far as an MMO goes, it's all about the characters the people play. Not everyone is or will want to play a heterosexual character, and there's no harm in giving people the option to swing the other way. Bioware's built up a solid reputation in character design for me, so I have full confidence that they would be able to make a gay relationship respectfully and without resorting to tired stereotypes.

To address another point, people actually DON'T have the right to avoid being exposed to stuff they don't like, at least in the American Bill of Rights. With the freedom of speech comes things that people find unsavory. You are not granted any right to not be offended, but you CAN ignore and disregard the things that offend you. I fully understand your concerns with the game running the risk of an incessant stereotypical gay guy making passes at you at every available turn. While it's certainly hyperbole, it's not out of the question to think that a developer could very easily put something like that in to appeal to customer requests/complaints.
Should that happen in The Old Republic, your only real option is to ignore it. I get that you/anyone else might not want that in your game, but it's an insignificant fraction of the content available, and easily ignored. Keep Dr. Frank-N-Furter around just long enough to complete relevant quests and leave him in the dust, never to be seen again.

In conclusion, I understand that there is a fine line between pandering to fans and maintaining respectable content. There have been times where just appealing to requests end up in horrible content, but at the same time, I won't ever deny the option for that content to be there. Keeping it out simply because someone might get offended is a option that not only alienates a portion of the fanbase, it also send the message that the developer could be trampled over by the constant threat of offended people.

Understand something about MovieBob, this is a guy who uses multiple video platforms to spew his political views and tends to want to disregard or ignore criticism.

I'll also say that writing long posts is nessicary in response to complicated issues, especially when your argueing from a minority position. In my case my posts are so long because I head off most of the arguements the other side can make, before they even make them, because I've been through a lot of these issues. Sure I could write a short, concise statement, but then it's going to turn into 20 or more responses when people respond to the statement and I wind up having to justify my position in detail anyway. IMO if you can't bother dealing with long posts, you have no business being on internet forums and discussing serious topics.

Now yeah, if I had the time or abillity to sit down and broad cast monologues to an established audience things might be a bit differant. After all, I can say my piece, and it's going to carry a lot more weight than pure text, and if questioned at the length counter opinions would require I could go "TLR" or just choose not to acknowlege alternative viewpoints as well due to the very nature of what I'm doing.

See, by disregarding posts long enough to actually challenge what he says to a largely friendly audience, irregardless of the source, Bob can kind of sidestep criticism by making anyone who could challenge him questionable.

That said I have a lot of respect for Bob on certain topics, he knows a heck of a lot about geek culture, and it was nice to see him go into certain things like the entire Ms. Marvel contreversy which I myself mentioned a few times online. His politics, which he can't help inserting into the rest far too much, well that's something differant. As you can tell I didn't win, but I did at one point suggest that The Escapist declare their features a no-politics zone, and confine Bob strictly to the topic of geek culture as much as he can without inserting left wing rants into his features.

As far as the rest goes, we are apparently going to have to agree to disagree, but I expected that, as I'm one of the few people on these forums who is NOT extremely left wing and actually comes down to holding anti-gay positions.

In the end, no matter how you dress it up, as soon as an NPC shows up in a game and makes it clear that they are homosexual, they have already hit the yuck buttons of a ton of people. It doesn't even require that they make incessant passes at the player, once they have made themselves clear that in of itself is enough.

See, this goes beyond acknowleging that there are gay people in existance, but to the point of actually saying you HAVE to have a homosexual of each flavor (presumably) on board your ship, your not being given a choice in the matter. This is waving homosexuality in your face, especially seeing as it was NOT intended to be part of the game. If Bioware had decided they had these great character ideas who happened to be gay, or bi, or whatever like with Dragon Age or whatever, and just ran with it, that would be one thing. These characters are being inserted into the game because of demands that we need to have homosexuality waved in front of the face of every player, and present on every spaceship, or it is somehow an insult or bigoted... and that's just plain wrong. We're having token gay characters forced into the game for political reasons, not gay characters just happening to be in the game.

You'll notice I didn't go into this at length because of the potential guy on guy aspects of "Dragon Age: Origins" which is a game I've said a lot of positive things about. That's largely because Bioware didn't throw this stuff in after release due to political pressure.

It's also noteworthy that in Dragon Age: Origins, you can kill the gay male/bi option (Zevran) and never have him present in your camp/party if you so choose. The lesbian/bi option (Leliana) can likewise be bypassed entirely by simply not going into a specific inn and passing through a town, and indeed a few people missed her. In doing so you aren't even heavily penalized, unlike in an MMO like "The Old Republic" where if they say gave you the option to NOT recruit a gay character you'd missed out as far as crafting and resource collection. But perhaps most importantly, they didn't release the game, have a fan outcry of "OMG, no homosexual romance options" and then patch in such characters for purposes of appeasement. Indeed the real girl/model Leliana was based off of was part of the promotion for the game to begin with, showing she was intended to be there from a pretty early development stage.

Now don't get me wrong, as a straight guy who really likes girls, I might actually have some fun playing around with a lesbian romance option. I'm a perv I guess. That said I still don't like the idea of these characters being tossed into the game and me being told that has to be there. Especially seeing as I'm sure there are plenty of girls playing the game who don't want another girl who digs them permanantly berthed on their ship without really having a choice in the matter, especially if they don't want to gimp themselves.

Political pandering is a bad thing. If the Christian group protesting was to instead demand that they insert a vocally Christian character into the game to be properly represented, and pointed out that since they did it with Ashley in Mass Effect that it's bigoted if they don't write a character this time, I doubt many people on the leftward side of the spectrum cheering for a minority group would exactly favor it, and come up with 30 gajillion reasons why not despite the existance of a Star Wars Christmas Celebration Special (lol). Just as there are arguements to be made by heterosexuals, many of whom might not care what anyone else does in their bedrooms, not wanting to have to endure something that grossing them out, there would be atheist liberals screaming that they don't want to have someone else's religious beliefs mentioned even if it wasn't harped on constantly.

Personally I've thought those against this pandering should start a protest that there aren't any human hemaphrodites present in any of Bioware's games.

I'll also respond in brief to something else I'm not going to argue right now. The entire arguement that people should be "over" the issue of homosexuality only has resonance to those who are pro-gay. It's a big issue because there are a LOT of people on the other side as well, and even if the left wing tries to present them all as religious fantatics, they isn't the case even if those with faith based objections are among the most vocal.

Understand also, that a lot of the increasing opposition is from people who have taken the position that they can't support it because of the snowball effect. Saying it's okay that these people exist (ie it's not a crime to be one) is fine by them, saying that they don't have to hide it (ie "don't ask, don't tell") is fine, but when it goes beyond what people do to each other in private.. (ie it's gross, but if it doesn't involve me and I'm not exposed to it, it's fine) your starting to see some problems. Stuff like this protest, and demands that games pretty much HAVE to include such content, well that is bringing it out and waving it in your face. It's been turning into yet another example of tyranny by a minority, largely fueled by politics, and the simple understanding that they can push for more and more while they have intertia. Social movements, of any sort, largely disband when they achieve what they set out to accomoplish, but continue to push until something stops them. I think this is one of the areas where they hit a wall. I think there shouldn't be any gay or lesbian characters in ToR, simply because of the way it was demanded and presented as a right, along with accusations that not providing it amounted to bigotry. Your not a bigot if you don't create something that represents everyone every time you make something.

 

[awsome117]

Actually, a sexual deviation is a sexual deviation. The normal course of sexual behavior is heterosexual, period. The entire purpose, even if it's used recreationally, is to propagate the species.

Well technically true, reproduction was done asexually. Meaning that over the course of time, nature and the creatures involved in it changed. And as such gays/lesbians can propagate or adopt to keep the species going. Even still, sexuality is not a fetish. Just feel like driving that point home.

Love, arousal, and even the pleasure to encourage it exist simply to make more humans so our species can survive. In an absolute sense homosexuality does nothing except entertain the people involved, and represents a deviation from the norm.

Well no, those don't exist so animals can make more animals, they just are a by product of a change in times.

I do agree you have a point there but only a bit. They aren't just "entertained", they want to have a love life like yours or mine. Should they choose to have children, there are many ways they can have them.

In the end, scatology, BDSM, or homosexuality, anything that arouses someone that does not fit with baseline heterosexual behavior, is an aberration.

If you're talking about Man and woman type ordeal, than almost all fetishes aren't an aberration. They have a man and women, who could at some point procreated should they choose. And there is no normal heterosexual behavior, as that would imply all straight males go for the same type of straight female and vice/versa. But again, fetishes and sexuality are not the same.

Yes, homosexuality exists in nature, we have seen animals engage in such behavior. HOWEVER it's a matter of malfunctioning biology causing arousal by something other than the intended norm.

Again true, I agree with on that part. But it's not so much a malfunction as it is different.

Just as the chemical systems in humans can malfunction, so can those of animals, indeed the similarities between humans and animals (well actually we're animals too) are why animals are used for testing, they deal with most of the same conditions and illnesses than people do.

I fail to see any type of point here. Yes what you're saying is true, but you're not telling anything. I have yet to see a real argument as to why gays (or any other minority) get the same representation as the white majority.

It's not a point that can be argued at this point, other than for the sake of politics as we know how it works.

I don't know what you're trying to say here...

Gays are not special, and magical, and exempted from the same rules as everything else.

Except you're (not you just... straight white males I guess) the ones exempting them from the rules by down right denying them representation. It's easy to say "no one's special" when your (our) group gets all the special treatment/representation. But if you in fact think they aren't special, then why shouldn't we talk to our kids about them? Explain who they are? Why can't we talk about homosexuality?

The bottom line is they are aroused by something that deviates from the norm and are EXACTLY like those people who get off on pain, or feces, or other assorted things.

Why do you keep bringing these fetishes (not sexuality) up? There are OTHER non pain, non feces fetishes out there.

And I will agree, that in technicality they do deviate from the norm, but they ARE NOT FETISHES. In which case (by your definition) all humans are sexual deviants because we all have fetishes. In which case we're either all normal or not. Take your pick.

The only differance is the trigger which causes the arousal to misfire.

And that fact we can all have fetishes, but we can't all have different sexualities. Fetish =/= Sexuality. At some point, I'm willing to bet you'll remember that.

The bottom line here though is when you have a group of sexual deviates DEMANDING representation in the media.

Which they should get. They exist, they deserve to be represented SOMEWHERE.

The point about brain damage (for example) is not that you can't have a brain damaged character if a creator decides one fits one within his work right from the beginning, but the implication that you need to have a brain damaged character to cater to that audience, or else your being discriminatory.

Sad world we live in when you realize what you're saying. That something doesn't get done till someone practically bangs done the door to receive their rights. The point I made was; how often do we see a gay (main or side) character that creators made on their own? It didn't start happening till people demanded they have the same representation as everyone else and they still get crap for it.

I mean seriously, what the hell?

In the case of TOR the big issue here is that there were no gays in the game, and the gay community and it's political supporters are complaining that this is fundementally wrong,

Because it is?

and demanding representation,

Damn them for wanting equality! Damn you gays!

and pretty much pressuring EA/Bioware with the implication that they are bigots if they do not meet this demand. Leading to homosexual charcters being added into the game due to the pressure, when there was no intention to ever have them.

Actually no, it seemed your big issue was that having gays in the game would ruin the gameplay experience for some. They are listening to their fans, hearing what they want and they to be able to CHOOSE or have the ability to make a gay character in a role-playing-game, based upon how you want the character to look/act.

Also called updates, adding features that weren't in the first time around later.

Also, I made a lot of points to your remarks and made sure I responded to everyone. I was hoping for the same courtesy as you pretty much ignored almost all of my points, which makes me wonder why bother responding.

 

[Dascylus]

Wow, peoples posts got long... I gotta confess that I did not read any of the above stuff. I wanted to guys cos it looked like you put alot of effort into it.
So lets bring this down to the ol brass tacks...

Most of your character interaction, i.e. Any romances, will be done as part of conversations with your crew that can only happen on your ship or in rest areas. The occasional reference may occur in PvE conversations but outside that it will be entirely something that only you as a player will experience.
Whether you enter into the same sex relationship or a heterosexual one (Or even enter into a relationship at all) will be driven by how you wish to play your character(s).

The question is whether it is right to deny the choice... Much like real life, my opinions don't matter if the life choices of others are not going to signifigantly affect my own choices.

On the same note, if you don't play the game or have some other way of understanding the experience then you should not be offering your opinions. And if you disagree with that then I will start giving you advice on how you can perform improvements in the design of your own home. (Though I have no carpentry, plumbing or electrical skills and I do not know the condition or construction of your house, the logic follows that my opinions would be valid)

 

[dobahci]

Oh those homosexuals, why must they be ruining our world with their showtunes and fabulous sense of decor.

 

[springheeljack]

Of course it has to be star wars
and of course the guy has to make a bunch of shitty star wars related comments

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

It's depressing that we still have this long to go before people openly proud of being bigots aren't laughed out of or shunned from whatever avenue they choose to spew forth their bile.

 

[Bloodtrozorx]

snip

I want to commend this poster for the above post.
I don't understand the willingness to deny one group of people the equal protection guaranteed to all people in the USA. The exclusion of Women, the segregation of Blacks and now the pogrom against homosexuality. It's just changing times, adapt or perish. (in retrospect "pogrom" is a strong term but I'm going to go with it)

 

[FatalFox]

It's 2012...we should be passed all this by now...seriously

We'll be past it when all the old christian extremists and catholic narrow-minded die out and make way for acceptance in the world among people.
I'm thrilled that more game companies, movies and other media explore same sex relationship, something most people have been brainwashed by an old book to label as a spawn of satan or a disgrace towards humanity or whatever, and something many children are raised to think is.
I hate to go into rants, but the mother of someone I know (who had a fatal illness keep in mind!) refused to help her OWN SON because he liked men instead of women. Instances like that should open peoples eyes.
Either way, in conclusion, fuck the conservative asses at the family research council, think about important things like world economy or animal abuse or something.

 

[Therumancer]

In the case of TOR the big issue here is that there were no gays in the game, and the gay community and it's political supporters are complaining that this is fundementally wrong,

Because it is?

It's not though, no group of people is entitled to representation in every work of fiction or aspect of the media.

Just as gays are not everywhere in real life, they are a tiny minority, they are not going to be everywhere in creative works.

Once you start saying that every group of people is entitled to be in every work of fiction or it's bigoted, you have to start asking "where are the Pygmies?" and questions like that. There are more Pygmies and Negitos (look it up, similar to a Pygmy) than there are homosexuals.

For that matter what about Hemaphrodites, or She Males? When is the last time you've seen a serious work of fiction or game where you had some "girl" show up who has a penis, or a "guy" with the private parts of a woman.

The issue here is that there is no assumed entitlement. Gays have the same rights as anyone else. Nobody is going to ban a work because there is a gay character in it, nor are there laws prohibiting it. There you go, they have the same rights as anyone else.

and demanding representation,

Damn them for wanting equality! Damn you gays!


Actually it's not about equality, it's about saying you HAVE to put homosexuals into everything or your bigoted. The same, ridiculous case being made here can be applied to numerous other groups, many of which are larger than homosexuals. If you start saying this is reasonable, than you are ultimatly saying that nothing should be created that does not have a member of every ethnicity, religion, and sexual deviation present in it and given focus time. In short you could create nothing by those standards.

and pretty much pressuring EA/Bioware with the implication that they are bigots if they do not meet this demand. Leading to homosexual charcters being added into the game due to the pressure, when there was no intention to ever have them.

Actually no, it seemed your big issue was that having gays in the game would ruin the gameplay experience for some. They are listening to their fans, hearing what they want and they to be able to CHOOSE or have the ability to make a gay character in a role-playing-game, based upon how you want the character to look/act.

Also called updates, adding features that weren't in the first time around later.

Also, I made a lot of points to your remarks and made sure I responded to everyone. I was hoping for the same courtesy as you pretty much ignored almost all of my points, which makes me wonder why bother responding.[/quote]

I didn't ignore your points, I responded to them, perhaps not as you wanted, but I did. Largely your trying to respond by playing semantic games, and ignoring common sense. In the end you believe what your defending is fair and reasonable, and are willing to go to any lengths to represent it, no matter how ridiculous what your saying is when examined. What's more a lot of what your saying was already covered in my initial points, trying to say "no it's not" is not a rebuttal when what I said stands on it's own. Simply put, after long experience with this subject, I am not going to let it degenerate into circular arguements, or defenses made of liberal strawman arguements. Ultimatly a lot of what your saying is based on personal morality about what is right and wrong as well, when none of that is an absolute which is why we're having this discussion. "Because it's wrong" is not an arguement when that position is ultimatly what the dispute it about.

The thing to understand here also is that these are "features" being added into the game due to demands and threats by a tiny group of people. It's not something Bioware had any intention of doing, and even made a very clear statement as to their intent and plans for the product "no gays in Star Wars". What your dealing with is a minority and it's political supporters threatening to label them as bigoted if they do not insert such characters and try and trash the business and product. Bioware's initial statements stand, and there is no way to dispute their intent, I mean it's right there. That's how they wanted their creative work to be.

This is sort of like blacks getting together and demanding a black character be added into a Sitcom just because it's "too white". Then you see the token minority added in and it destroys the show, because really the character doesn't belong in the show and it's dymanic, and the writer is forced to find something to do with it to appease political correctness. The problem with "token minorities" accross the spectrum has been a topic of debate for years. This is simply gays getting into the act.

To be entirely blunt there are so few homosexuals overall that they are not omni-present in everything, and as such it makes sense that there wouldn't be any in situations represented in the media.

What's more, another side point to consider is that with homosexuality created by broken chemical signals, the condition might have been cured with the technology of Star Wars. This is not to say that anyone runs around with needles attacking adult homosexuals or anything, but simply that they probably have technology where they can adjust babies in the womb or shortly after birth to ensure that they are pefectly healthy, that means a normally functioning chemical system and heterosexuality. Other conditions that might later lead to these kinds of chemical imbalances could very well be corrected by healing technologies like Bacta which rebuilds the body the way it's supposed to be off of blueprints. So basically if the parts of your body that are responding to the wrong pheremones and chemical signals are doing that, it simply resets them back the way they are supposed to be.

A lot of people might not like this point, given the whole "OMG, Homosexuality is not a disease" position, but in reality we know it's a medical condition because we know basically how sexual attraction and receptors work, why castration does what it does, and similar things. Being gay is inherant to someone with those problems, and feels normal and natural to them, but that's what their body is telling them and the brain-oriented part of it builds them around. That doesn't change that it IS a medical condition as there is nothing magical about it, it's all driven by biology. It's something that would disappear due to general healing and the guarantee of bodily health, without nessicarly being attacked directly. There not being any gays in Star Wars at all, is actually a defensible position even if you won't like it and try and rage against it for moral and political reasons based on what you want to believe and what is going on right now.

 

[Therumancer]

Wow, peoples posts got long... I gotta confess that I did not read any of the above stuff. I wanted to guys cos it looked like you put alot of effort into it.
So lets bring this down to the ol brass tacks...

Most of your character interaction, i.e. Any romances, will be done as part of conversations with your crew that can only happen on your ship or in rest areas. The occasional reference may occur in PvE conversations but outside that it will be entirely something that only you as a player will experience.
Whether you enter into the same sex relationship or a heterosexual one (Or even enter into a relationship at all) will be driven by how you wish to play your character(s).

The question is whether it is right to deny the choice... Much like real life, my opinions don't matter if the life choices of others are not going to signifigantly affect my own choices.

On the same note, if you don't play the game or have some other way of understanding the experience then you should not be offering your opinions. And if you disagree with that then I will start giving you advice on how you can perform improvements in the design of your own home. (Though I have no carpentry, plumbing or electrical skills and I do not know the condition or construction of your house, the logic follows that my opinions would be valid)

The basic arguement is this.

Some guy who does something you find personally disgusting and abhorrant in the sexual area comes up and makes a pass at you. Your grossed out. Fine, your not going to do anything about this, but then the guy moves into your house and your like "WTF, I live here" but your told you have to deal with this so he'll be properly represented in your life and you have no reason to be upset about it or your a worthless bigot. Sure, maybe the guy doesn't rape you or anything, but he goes around making the occasional referance about his sexual orientation just in time to make you periodically feel queasy or put off, and reminds you that your an object of lust for him even if your off limits.

See, that's the issue, a companion in Star Wars moves into your house, your ship and is present. Even if the guy doesn't do much, if you find the behavior abhorrant you don't want him around and to have this waved in your face, even occasionally.

The arguement largely used to defend gay rights, and the big one that defined the movement, was that it shouldn't matter what people do to each other in private. The thing is that this isn't a private behavior among a minority group when your playing an escapist video game and you have to be exposed to something you find gross because of political pressures.

You might be saying "It's differant" but really it's not.

I also think a lot of people miss the differance between tolerance and acceptance. A lot of people who might be tolerant of something and let it go on without doing anything about it, do not accept it and want to be exposed to it constantly. That's ultimatly one of the failures of this entire movement in pretty much saying you HAVE to like and approve of gay people, and want to be exposed to them constantly.

I mean sure, gay people exist, that's fine, but that doesn't mean you want one living in the same house with you. Sure you might make an exception on an individual basis, but in ToR your pretty much having someone on-high saying "there will be homosexuals present on your space ship" and there will be nothing ambigious about this. It's not going to be dressed up but basically someone is going to show up and say "hey, I'd like to take you up the butt/muff dive you... not interested, well okay I'm moving into your ship, if you change your mind I'll be down here pining over you". Sorry, that's a bit much.

A lot of people argueing the point miss that a lot of what I'm saying is against it being mandatory. If they say gave you an option upon character generation as to whether to have a gay character present, that might be fine. If you say no, then you get another companion who isn't gay (nor nessicarly romancable) in it's place to grant crafting parity.

See, whet your saying I *HAVE* to have the gay material, that's taking away MY choice. I'm sorry but people have the right to not be exposed to things they feel are disgusting in their own media.

 

[Therumancer]

It's 2012...we should be passed all this by now...seriously

We'll be past it when all the old christian extremists and catholic narrow-minded die out and make way for acceptance in the world among people.
I'm thrilled that more game companies, movies and other media explore same sex relationship, something most people have been brainwashed by an old book to label as a spawn of satan or a disgrace towards humanity or whatever, and something many children are raised to think is.
I hate to go into rants, but the mother of someone I know (who had a fatal illness keep in mind!) refused to help her OWN SON because he liked men instead of women. Instances like that should open peoples eyes.
Either way, in conclusion, fuck the conservative asses at the family research council, think about important things like world economy or animal abuse or something.

Which is actually propaganda in of itself. Those opposing homosexuality are not nessicarly doing so out of religious or moral reasons. Indeed as one of the few people (perhaps the only person) taking the "against" stance in this thread, you will notice I did not ONCE mention religion.

Of course then again to be fair while my overall position doesn't involve religion, I haven't been argueing about homosexuality itself and my position about it in general either and won't be doing so in this thresd (but if anyone is curious I'm sure there are back messages about it).

While we have a Christian group taking point here in the article that started this thread, the actual issue has nothing to do with them. The issue with Bioware largely has to do with the abillity of the majority to not be exposed to something they find gross. See, even if you don't care what two people do in a back room on their own time, and tolerate it, it doesn't mean you want to expose yourself to it constantly.

With ToR your dealing with fully fleshed companion characters being created to cater to homosexuality. This isn't a situation where someone is going to come up, make a pass or innuendo, and then disappear if you say no. It's a matter where the character is going to more or less move into your house/ship and make it clear they are there pining for you if
you decide you want to go gay, as that is literally the point of the character, and the ONLY reason Bioware is creating it, no matter how they dress it up, since Bioware stated clearly it was not going to insert gays into the game early on. They are doing this in response to left wing threats and implications that by not doing this they are in some way bigoted.

To be honest this is less an issue with gay rights in paticular, but an issue that also applies to "token minorities" accross the entire spectrum of media. Every minority demanding a character like them in anything out there, even if they don't care about it otherwise. If you meed all those demands you wind up with nobody being able to create anything of value or interest because they are saddled with trying to fulfill a political requirement. It's a substantial topic of debate, and honestly due to the extremely tiny numbers, and the fact that a lot of people who tolerate their existance are grossed out by the act of gay sex itself (they just aren't wired for it), I think homosexuality fares less well in arguements than many other minorities that push for the same thing.

There is a differance between tolerating something, and wanting to accept it into your life and embrace it. When you go from pushing for tolerance to the other, you go from any defendable position of being right, to being dead wrong because your basically argueing to oppress and change someone else... pretty much what most minority groups are fighting against then they start out. This is incidently a problem with politics, and an example of how they snowball, when organized minority groups get a whiff of power, they start to pick fights and force themselves on the majority as a combination of payback, and to justify their own existance so the people at the top can retain their power through controlling blocks of people. The head of a black or gay rights coalition is just some guy if he's not controlling that organization, if he keeps it organized... going after anything, he's thuse important because he can direct those people to do what he wants, and sell his favor to leaders around the time of elections, pressure companies, and do all kinds of other things.

My opinion of homosexuality itself aside, the movement had some legitimate points (which I won't debate for or against rightt now) when it pushed to not be hunted down and imprisoned, and not to be punished out of hand if someone became known to be gay. Beyond that though it became dead wrong, and things like what your seeing here are exactly the kind of political ridiculousness that a lot of people were concerned about in trying to stop them from getting going. This is EXACTLY the kind of crap that the early gay rights movement said it wouldn't get up to "because it was differant from other groups that got out of hand". Even seeing parodies of "what, do you think we're going to demand gay soap operas beamed into your living room?"... uh yeah... that's a few years past now.

 

[awsome117]

It's not though, no group of people is entitled to representation in every work of fiction or aspect of the media.

Yes they are. They have the same amount of rights to representation as you or me.

Just as gays are not everywhere in real life,

No, they pretty much are everywhere. You probably pass by them when you walk/go somewhere. You know what the best part is? You don't notice it! You know why you don't notice it? Because they are exactly like everyone else.

they are a tiny minority, they are not going to be everywhere in creative works.

Yes they are. You can't just make a world and say there are no gays in it. That would be out right lying. And don't say they wouldn't belong there because again, that's just lying and ignorant.

Once you start saying that every group of people is entitled to be in every work of fiction or it's bigoted,

Because it's true! You can't form a world in which humans inhabit and NOT have any other groups of people other than straight white males/females. That is just insane. Now whether the groups in question have an important role in the game or not is up to the developers.

you have to start asking "where are the Pygmies?" and questions like that. There are more Pygmies and Negitos (look it up, similar to a Pygmy) than there are homosexuals.

Those are terms to describe shorter than average people in ethnic groups (which those terms are considered offensive by the way). In which case, they are represented.

For that matter what about Hemaphrodites, or She Males? When is the last time you've seen a serious work of fiction or game where you had some "girl" show up who has a penis, or a "guy" with the private parts of a woman.

Exactly, we should have them in more! Although technically, they are lumped in with the Gay/Lesbian group, which is a shame as they have their own unique problems they deal with. But then again, not many games I play (I don't know what games you play though) where characters start dropping there pants and start humping. They deserve the same treatment and representation as everyone else and the fact you call them out makes it seem like you're above them or better than them.

The issue here is that there is no assumed entitlement.

Stop assuming yours and then we can get the ball rolling. You can't say that no one should have entitlement when you literally keep saying "we shouldn't have them represented in certain instances" That is hypocrisy to the letter.

Gays have the same rights as anyone else.

Then let them have their rights! You're the one arguing we shouldn't have them in schools, tell our children about them and have them excluded from certain things. And you can't even say they have the same rights as we do when YOU pointed out that they were marching and fighting not to get beaten or arrested for being gay. How is that even close to being the same as you or me?

Nobody is going to ban a work because there is a gay character in it, nor are there laws prohibiting it. There you go, they have the same rights as anyone else.

They have. Sooooo many times have they denied the publications of works done/with gays in them. To even say otherwise is pure ignorance. And no they don't have the same rights! Look at the states of the U.S. and tell me how many of them allow gay marriage. Or find a newspaper article/anything about gays being beaten to death for being gay. Where you ever beaten for being straight? Do you know anyone who was beaten for being straight? They do NOT have the same rights as us, and it's damn time for that to change.

Actually it's not about equality,

It's completely about equality, but please do go on.

it's about saying you HAVE to put homosexuals into everything or your bigoted.

Much like having to have multicultural/colored cast/characters. It's sad we have to FORCE people to put stuff like that in because if we don't, it doesn't happen.

The same, ridiculous case being made here can be applied to numerous other groups,

Please tell me you don't mean fetishes. Please. But as I said before, it goes in a line and unfortunately the next group will wait until their turn comes up. It is incredibly unbelievable, but it's the way things are done and it's better than nothing.

many of which are larger than homosexuals.

For example...?

If you start saying this is reasonable, than you are ultimatly saying that nothing should be created that does not have a member of every ethnicity, religion, and sexual deviation present in it and given focus time. In short you could create nothing by those standards.

As opposed to creating fictional works with only straight white males/females (as they are the "majority")? And yes you could create works like that. You know why? IT WOULDN'T CHANGE A THING IN THE UNIVERSE. It would just them the fair and equal representation that everyone gets.

I didn't ignore your points, I responded to them, perhaps not as you wanted, but I did.

There were plenty of points you flat out ignored (as you did again this time around). A few key ones were: Why do you keep lumping fetishes and sexuality together? Why do you keep going to those really obscure fetishes (such as playing with poop and BSDM)? And most importantly, why can't are kids be aware/around gay people?

Largely your trying to respond by playing semantic games, and ignoring common sense.

I have pointed out common sense so many times I wonder what you definition of "common sense" is.

In the end you believe what your defending is fair and reasonable, and are willing to go to any lengths to represent it, no matter how ridiculous what your saying is when examined.

I suggest you read exactly what you're writing. If it's wrong to defend the rights and freedoms of everyone, I hate to see your version of right.

What's more a lot of what your saying was already covered in my initial points, trying to say "no it's not" is not a rebuttal

Whatever I said I defended with logical points. The one time "Because it is?" was because I didn't think anything else needed to be said. Also, completely ignoring other valid points and questions is not a good way to have a debate. I make sure to respond to every point/remark you make. Even when you make true claims, I say "I agree".

when what I said stands on it's own.

No it doesn't. In fact the only leg you have to stand on is "chemical imbalance". Like I said, you have a point there. The other points you made are made with ignorance/hypocrisy (that I guess I should have known you wouldn't have noticed) that would only make sense if you convince yourself it does.

Simply put, after long experience with this subject, I am not going to let it degenerate into circular arguements,

You're the one going in a circle by not answering/responding to the valid questions I asked (Which you can see a few quotes up).

or defenses made of liberal strawman arguements.

What strawman arguments have I made? You're points are nothing but nonsensical ignorance/hatred based around "No one is special, but straight white males get to call the shots". You also never admitted that since gays get more and more victories that they become corrupt with power, that all straight white males in power are all corrupt. THAT is a strawman argument.

Ultimatly a lot of what your saying is based on personal morality about what is right and wrong as well,

More like based around fairness and equality, but if that comes with being moral I'm ok with that.

when none of that is an absolute which is why we're having this discussion.

That is true, morality can vary from person to person. However, what is absolute is that we are all humans and we all have the right to equality. Or as a famous quote once said "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". There are more basic human rights which you are basically flat-out denying to some people because they think differently than you.

It is not morality to allow humans to live freely, it is FACT. To deny anyone the same rights as you receive does not make you above them, it puts you beneath them.

"Because it's wrong" is not an arguement when that position is ultimatly what the dispute it about.

You're correct, the argument is about the choices we as humans are allowed to make. Whether virtual or in reality.

The thing to understand here also is that these are "features" being added into the game due to demands and threats by a tiny group of people.

It's how things get done. I suggest you look up some major changes in history due to some "tiny groups demanding change". You'll find a lot. It also makes sense seeing as how games (especially MMOs in particular) change due to fans wanting something that wasn't previously in before.

Also the people who are complaining about this are a very small group of people. Just something to think about.

It's not something Bioware had any intention of doing, and even made a very clear statement as to their intent and plans for the product "no gays in Star Wars".

I'm still trying to find where exactly they said that. If you can share a link, that would be most helpful. But as of right now, I have found more evidence of them saying they would add Same Gender Relationships to ToR in post-launch rather than at launch.

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=189316&page=48

It's on page 47/48, there should be an official statement near the bottom.

What your dealing with is a minority and it's political supporters threatening to label them as bigoted if they do not insert such characters and try and trash the business and product. Bioware's initial statements stand, and there is no way to dispute their intent, I mean it's right there. That's how they wanted their creative work to be.

Well no, as they have stated they will add them after launch. They didn't want their creative work to be like that, or they wouldn't have even acknowledged the "tiny minority" group.

This is sort of like blacks getting together and demanding a black character be added into a Sitcom just because it's "too white".

Which happens (not often because there aren't any pure white shows anymore).

Then you see the token minority added in and it destroys the show, because really the character doesn't belong in the show and it's dymanic,

In what way WOULDN'T a minority fit in? Because they would have to be the stereotypical type character? That's like saying a black/white person can't get a long with a group of predominately white/black people.

and the writer is forced to find something to do with it to appease political correctness.

He could write a non-stereotype character who does what all the other characters do, just be black.

The problem with "token minorities" accross the spectrum has been a topic of debate for years. This is simply gays getting into the act.

Because it's wrong to exclude certain individuals from a group for being just like you or me, just a different color, sexual orientation or gender. Until you can give a solid fact about how these groups of people ruin "normality" I can't take anything you say as serious.

To be entirely blunt there are so few homosexuals overall that they are not omni-present in everything,

Yes they are, there just isn't as many who are open about it for fear of what might happen to them.

and as such it makes sense that there wouldn't be any in situations represented in the media.

No it doesn't make sense, at all. I don't even know how to respond to this as it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Ignore them because there aren't as many as us yah that makes sense.

What's more, another side point to consider is that with homosexuality created by broken chemical signals, the condition might have been cured with the technology of Star Wars.

Well that does make somewhat of a good point, it falls flat when you realize there is inter-species relationships/breeding and still fetishes in the Universe of Star Wars. So no, they didn't "cure" homosexuality.

This is not to say that anyone runs around with needles attacking adult homosexuals or anything, but simply that they probably have technology where they can adjust babies in the womb or shortly after birth to ensure that they are pefectly healthy, that means a normally functioning chemical system and heterosexuality.

Read point above. Even as a giant star wars fan, I don't know much about Star Wars medical/birthing procedures so you'll have to get some evidence for me to believe such a thing(s) can happen.

Other conditions that might later lead to these kinds of chemical imbalances could very well be corrected by healing technologies like Bacta which rebuilds the body the way it's supposed to be off of blueprints.

Well... no. "When a patient was exposed to bacta, the bacterial particles within sought out wounds and promoted rapid tissue regeneration while preventing the emergence of scar tissue."

From Wookieepedia.

So basically if the parts of your body that are responding to the wrong pheremones and chemical signals are doing that, it simply resets them back the way they are supposed to be.

Bacta doesn't really do... that.

A lot of people might not like this point, given the whole "OMG, Homosexuality is not a disease" position,

Because it isn't. And bacta or whatever you could think of wouldn't "cure" it.

but in reality we know it's a medical condition because we know basically how sexual attraction and receptors work, why castration does what it does, and similar things.

Castration doesn't stop you from being gay, it just stops your sexual attraction. You can still love another man/woman without being sexuality attracted to them. Otherwise most old people would be a lot lonelier than they are now.

Being gay is inherant to someone with those problems, and feels normal and natural to them, but that's what their body is telling them and the brain-oriented part of it builds them around.

Because it is natural to them, and you should let it be natural to them.

That doesn't change that it IS a medical condition as there is nothing magical about it, it's all driven by biology. It's something that would disappear due to general healing and the guarantee of bodily health, without nessicarly being attacked directly. There not being any gays in Star Wars at all, is actually a defensible position even if you won't like it and try and rage against it for moral and political reasons based on what you want to believe and what is going on right now.

You have no concrete evidence saying "there are no gays in Star Wars because of ______". You're stating (very unlikely) possibilities with just "Well what IF". That is not a defensible position; that is just throwing something at the wall and hope it sticks.

So when you come up with clear evidence and documentation that gays not only have been cured but also don't exist in Star Wars I'll be the first to apologize. Until then, you're just grasping at straws and making things up on the spot.

When you feel like actually arguing, please bring up some actual points.

 

[Therumancer]

[

That doesn't change that it IS a medical condition as there is nothing magical about it, it's all driven by biology. It's something that would disappear due to general healing and the guarantee of bodily health, without nessicarly being attacked directly. There not being any gays in Star Wars at all, is actually a defensible position even if you won't like it and try and rage against it for moral and political reasons based on what you want to believe and what is going on right now.

You have no concrete evidence saying "there are no gays in Star Wars because of ______". You're stating (very unlikely) possibilities with just "Well what IF". That is not a defensible position; that is just throwing something at the wall and hope it sticks.

So when you come up with clear evidence and documentation that gays not only have been cured but also don't exist in Star Wars I'll be the first to apologize. Until then, you're just grasping at straws and making things up on the spot.

When you feel like actually arguing, please bring up some actual points.

I've already covered and slammed most of your "rebuttals" and you can get the answers to a lot of what you said by just re-reading what I've already posted. Circular arguements and "no, that isn't true!" is exactly why I so rarely bother to engage in discussion on the topic. Like most of what your saying, this always boils down to people trying to defend long-held beliefs based on propaganda from the movement they are defending. For example when you say early on that gays are NOT a tiny minority, that is hardly the truth, it's simply a matter of the movement trying to make itself seem bigger than it actually is through it's arguements, and also relying on promoting the perception that there are a lot more gays who are "afraid to speak". It's a typical political trick used by all kinds of small groups, the KKK for example was infamous for making themselves seem like some huge, omni-present boogieman in their hayday, and while large they weren't even close to what they lead people to believe, secrecy having been their best weapon before they were broken open. Just as the KKK did a lot through the implication that there were entire towns literally waiting to jump out with their white sheets, and lead a grass roots resistance capable of defeating the FBI or national guard (and thus hopeless to oppose) the truth was far differant which is why they were beaten. The same applies to the gay rights movement which likes to say that there are "tons and tons of gays, all around you, and you don't know it" but that's basically the same general thing.

While beyond the scope of what's being discussed you have to remember that statistics are compiled by people with a specific agenda, and people trying to prove an agenda use only the statistics that support them, or present them in a way that does. When your dealing with a situation where the media has become biased towards one side and carries it's political agenda with it for whatever reason, and the opposition can't get anything worth "fair time" with things being declared "debunked" when they haven't been, or at least not by sources just as anonymous as those they claim presented the other side.

One statistic increasingly being outed, despite all the odds, that semi-relates to this is the defense that gay men are statistically proven to not be more likely to attack children than straight men. Criticisms of some of those studies, largely fueled by anger over groups like NAMBLA (look them up) have lead to some of those studies being examined to find that typically the stats are compiled by using "homosexuals" in general rather than gay men, even if it's spun to look that way. Meaning they toss lesbians into the mix as well. Given than lesbians are not known to attack children, just as women in general are far, far less likely to committ violent crimes, become seriel killers, or whatever, this leads to a lot of those studies being themselves rendered irrelevent. If you look at a population that was doubled to begin with, you wind up with a lot of numbers that show gay men as being twice as likely (at least) of going after children. Liberals hate this point, as does the gay rights movement, but it's a pretty solid criticism, and again you'll notice NAMBLA is named after gay men, not after Lesbians and engages in direct activism on the subject, and does things like hire lawyers to protect child molesters... being successful enough at it, where one casino I worked for (which was at the time the largest in the world... Foxwoods) was actively intimidated by them and adjusted it's policies accordingly. Basically they got to the point where they would rather some kid get dragged off and molested, or raped to death in the woods outside, than deal with the suits from preventing such things. That's not how they stated it of course, but that's the bottom line. One of the reasons why I've ever looked into those statistics a while back, or no as much about NAMBLA as I do.

I'm not going to argue any of that, I pretty much already know what you and other people here are going to say about it. I mention it in connection to this topic only to point out that there is a LOT of misdirection involved here, and that includes by the gay rights movements and their supporters themselves. Has there ever been a study published in the mainstram media SAYING that gay men are twice as likely to attack children? Of course not, the media would never permit it. But at the same time people have challenged existing studies on the grounds mentioned above and you never hear about it. NAMBLA and it's sheer power and how deep it's fingers go into all of this is something that tends to be avoided because it's inconveinent... and just like the KKK the group makes itself out to be much bigger than it is.

Of course none of that really matters to the point we're discussing which basically comes down to the simple fact that even if none of that was true your still basically looking at a situation where a minority wants to insert itself into everything irregardless of who it insults or offends. Then of course that minority probably sits around wondering why everyone hates them or finds them obnoxious.

I also wanted to make it 100% clear that even if I'm not going to fight this out right now (this will likely be my last message) that there is a WHOLE other side to this which you might disagree with or dislike, but has just as much behind it as everything you represent and want to believe. THAT is why the issue endures, you simply want to dismiss everything that disagrres with you, and try and make it out to see like your dealing with a lot of junk science, mindless bigots, and religions fanatics, and dismiss all of the very well reasoned arguements being made on the other side out of hand because you want to believe the facts you happened to be spoon fed unconditionally. You'd be surprised how many people in these arguements have even HEARD of NAMBLA or looked at statistics and considered what the statistics actually say, such as when someone uses a statistic compiled with members of
the entire homosexual/bi-sexual community being applied to one segement of it.

Now, in response to the bit I quoted, which will be my last comments in this thread, because it's becoming circular, going no where, and I've already said what needs to be said for the sake of representing the other side to some extent in a hostile crowd. This wasn't a debate I expected to "win" as I mentioned when I started out:

What I said was that the lack of homosexuals could be justified in Star Wars. Incidently it was BIOWARE, not me, that said that homosexuals did not exist in Star Wars. I simply pointed out why they might not exist and how it could be justified or explained. You might not like it, but the point remains that position could be defended as making sense within the universe, or at least the "Old Republic" timeline Bioware is writing which is after all
their baby and they can kind of decide the canon for. If they used the logic I mentioned, this does not mean that the same technologies would exist come the movie timeline, or during previous cycles before that, just during that age. I won't go into it in detail since it would be long and get even more off topic, but basically Star Wars is a universe without free will that works in cycles with good and evil getting chances to rule the universe. To the man on the street it doesn't seem to matter much, and everyone believes they have free will. Force users are simply what The Force works through to control the universe and guide the cycles, with midochloria and "power levels" mostly reflecting how important a given person is to the plans of The Force. This is incidently why you have prophecies and such (which you might notice come true) and other things. I could say a lot more about it, but basically the general tech level remains fairly stagnant with few massive differances between say The Old Republic and the "Modern" movie timeline in turns of weapons, spaceships, etc... however specific technologies are lost during the cycles of warfare and good and evil each taking their respective turns as the dominant force, and of course the chaotic periods of balance in between. Purely an academic point.

In the end, what it comes down to is Bioware said flat out "no homosexuals in The Old Republic". This lead to a political outcry forcing them to insert gay romances into the game to avoid accusations of bigotry. The basic attitude by supporters is that anyone who might find this gross doesn't have any rights even if they vastly outnumber the people who want it.

As the position could be justified easily within the Star Wars concept, without intruding on other periods if another writer not in Bioware's backyard chose to do something differant for another era... really you can't make any arguements saying this couldn't be the case within their writing... and THAT is my point... and if you read Bioware's comments about gays not existing... well, that pretty much spells out what they intended even if they did not give in-game lore reasons for it as part of that statement. Anything at this point is them altering their writing to accomodate a tiny minority of people and their supporters.

Truthfully part of the reason why I bothered to mention a lot of the crap about statistics and NAMBLA, is I get the impression that a lot of young liberals like to support movements that piss off the establishment as a matter of course. That's one of the problems with the left wing being tied so heavily to the counter culture, a lot of the time it's all about going contrary to what he majority of people are comfortable with, for the sake of doing it. To be hones a lot of people defending something like this probably really aren't dense enough to think token minorities are a good idea within the media, and might even get upset in other works they like when extraneous, politically motivated characters are forced in. They just like the idea of millions of people who might not care what other people do in their private lives behind closed doors, being grossed out by having it waved in front of them. Like it or not, that's been a problem with a lot of "issues" supported by the youth since long before I was born, and one of the reasons so many adults look back on the crap like this they did and supported and come to realizations that they were a group of idiots. Of course at the same time the cycle continues because the new generation of responsible adults is rarely able to put an end to the stupidity. You know the old "If your not a liberal when your young you have no heart, if your not a conservative when your old, you have no brain" thing, which I believe was one of Churchill's more memorable lines on politics not directly related to the war (though I could be wrong on the origins, it's a very valid point no matter who said it). Then again, that sort of reflects on me because I represented a lot of pretty extreme leftist stuff when I was younger, but then I grew up and became actually worldly and experienced, as opposed to merely thinking I was.

At any rate I think we're done here, everything that has been said on the subject has been said, and all that's going to happen is we're going to get further off topic and wind up re-stating the same exact things that won't convince anyone else anymore than the last several times they have been said.

 

[Dascylus]

We are Star Wars fans right?
We all understand how the darkside works right?
Now look at Therumancers comments... Is he sharing his opinion or inciting yours?
Can someone remind me of the old internet axiom about feeding things?

Or ignore the above questions and answer me this... Do you think Therumancer has played SW:TOR?

 

[DAAANtheMAAAN]

That said I have a lot of respect for Bob on certain topics, he knows a heck of a lot about geek culture, and it was nice to see him go into certain things like the entire Ms. Marvel contreversy which I myself mentioned a few times online. His politics, which he can't help inserting into the rest far too much, well that's something differant. As you can tell I didn't win, but I did at one point suggest that The Escapist declare their features a no-politics zone, and confine Bob strictly to the topic of geek culture as much as he can without inserting left wing rants into his features.

To be honest, I brought up the "long post" quote just to give you a hard time. I'm don't seem to be very good at conveying sarcasm in text, so apologies on that one.
Now, the Escapist never would've taken your suggestion to heart. As much as you or anyone else may not like to hear about it, Bob and everyone else on the site has every right to say whatever they want on this site, because unlike radio and TV, the internet still upholds the right to free speech. There's nothing wrong whatsoever with someone mentioning his political views and opinions. What's wrong are the people who take offense to being exposed to it. You're not left wing and I get that, neither am I. People who post these videos and posts have every right to say what they want to say without having to resort to offense-clearing censorship, and it's up to us, the viewers, to take what we disagree with with a grain of salt.

As far as the rest goes, we are apparently going to have to agree to disagree, but I expected that, as I'm one of the few people on these forums who is NOT extremely left wing and actually comes down to holding anti-gay positions.

In the end, no matter how you dress it up, as soon as an NPC shows up in a game and makes it clear that they are homosexual, they have already hit the yuck buttons of a ton of people. It doesn't even require that they make incessant passes at the player, once they have made themselves clear that in of itself is enough.

See, this goes beyond acknowleging that there are gay people in existance, but to the point of actually saying you HAVE to have a homosexual of each flavor (presumably) on board your ship, your not being given a choice in the matter. This is waving homosexuality in your face, especially seeing as it was NOT intended to be part of the game. If Bioware had decided they had these great character ideas who happened to be gay, or bi, or whatever like with Dragon Age or whatever, and just ran with it, that would be one thing. These characters are being inserted into the game because of demands that we need to have homosexuality waved in front of the face of every player, and present on every spaceship, or it is somehow an insult or bigoted... and that's just plain wrong. We're having token gay characters forced into the game for political reasons, not gay characters just happening to be in the game.

You'll notice I didn't go into this at length because of the potential guy on guy aspects of "Dragon Age: Origins" which is a game I've said a lot of positive things about. That's largely because Bioware didn't throw this stuff in after release due to political pressure.

It's also noteworthy that in Dragon Age: Origins, you can kill the gay male/bi option (Zevran) and never have him present in your camp/party if you so choose. The lesbian/bi option (Leliana) can likewise be bypassed entirely by simply not going into a specific inn and passing through a town, and indeed a few people missed her. In doing so you aren't even heavily penalized, unlike in an MMO like "The Old Republic" where if they say gave you the option to NOT recruit a gay character you'd missed out as far as crafting and resource collection. But perhaps most importantly, they didn't release the game, have a fan outcry of "OMG, no homosexual romance options" and then patch in such characters for purposes of appeasement. Indeed the real girl/model Leliana was based off of was part of the promotion for the game to begin with, showing she was intended to be there from a pretty early development stage.

I will agree to disagree. I can't change your views on pro/anti-gay issues, nor will I attempt to. You're entitled to them, however much I disagree. So I'll end this argument after I get this post out of the way, just want to speak my piece first.

Now, I've been researching the hell out of the gay companions in The Old Republic. While not actually playing the game, I've been looking up every page I can get my digital hands on to get more info on it.
What I do know is that TOR, like the other recent Bioware games, is a fully voiced game. Every character, especially companions, have voiced dialogue and their stances change depending on the actions of the player. To keep this in check, Bioware simply can't "patch in the gayness", it has to wait for content expansions. Expansion packs and DLC that give the game more areas and fully voiced characters will THEN include potentially homosexual characters. It's not a throwaway, Bioware is showing that they understand that in an MMO, the options available to a player are paramount.
On top of that, I highly doubt that you'll even notice that you have a homosexual character in your party until you get further along in their dialogue options. I mean, even gays want to flirt before they start porking it, you know? It would be like any other relationship through the Bioware games, where they'll usually show their interest after you do. Even if you do accidentally stumble across the romantic dialogue, you can typically nip the character's interest in the bud fairly easily thereafter if you aren't interested.

Now don't get me wrong, as a straight guy who really likes girls, I might actually have some fun playing around with a lesbian romance option. I'm a perv I guess. That said I still don't like the idea of these characters being tossed into the game and me being told that has to be there. Especially seeing as I'm sure there are plenty of girls playing the game who don't want another girl who digs them permanantly berthed on their ship without really having a choice in the matter, especially if they don't want to gimp themselves.

Not so much a perv as a bit hypocritical. If you're taking the anti-gay stance, it doesn't help your cause if you're cool with lesbians, even if only in a fetishistic way.
Now, another bit on the gameplay, as far as I've read, and I'm sure the actual players of the game will confirm or correct me here, you can only have 6 companions at any given time. One droid, and five people you encounter throughout the game. Again, these come and go based on your advancement through the game, so I don't think all of them are permanently assigned to your ship. Once they have what they need from you, they'll either stick around to help you out or go about their own business. The relationship options aren't available for every character, and it's not being shoved down your throat.

Political pandering is a bad thing. If the Christian group protesting was to instead demand that they insert a vocally Christian character into the game to be properly represented, and pointed out that since they did it with Ashley in Mass Effect that it's bigoted if they don't write a character this time, I doubt many people on the leftward side of the spectrum cheering for a minority group would exactly favor it, and come up with 30 gajillion reasons why not despite the existance of a Star Wars Christmas Celebration Special (lol). Just as there are arguements to be made by heterosexuals, many of whom might not care what anyone else does in their bedrooms, not wanting to have to endure something that grossing them out, there would be atheist liberals screaming that they don't want to have someone else's religious beliefs mentioned even if it wasn't harped on constantly.

Now, to flex my nerd muscles here, it was the Star Wars Holiday Special. It was the wookiee holiday, "Life Day", not Christmas. ... It still sucked, though.

This is all a matter of understanding the source content. There's no place for a Christian character in Star Wars or Dragon Age because Christianity doesn't exist within them. It worked in Mass Effect because while the advancement of humanity had made Christians a minority in a then rather secular culture, it made the Ashley more endearing for holding to her beliefs, even if I did disagree with them.

To extend that point, the Star Wars universe, like Mass Effect, takes place in an entire galaxy. Dozens, if not hundreds of colonized and civilized worlds just as many unique sentient races exist within this galaxy. The universe what would seem to be a technological and cultural apex, and the thought of there not being at least a handful of homosexuals among them is a silly prospect.

I'll also respond in brief to something else I'm not going to argue right now. The entire argument that people should be "over" the issue of homosexuality only has resonance to those who are pro-gay. It's a big issue because there are a LOT of people on the other side as well, and even if the left wing tries to present them all as religious fantatics, they isn't the case even if those with faith based objections are among the most vocal.

No argument here. Again, I disagree, but it's not my place to change a view like that.

Stuff like this protest, and demands that games pretty much HAVE to include such content, well that is bringing it out and waving it in your face. It's been turning into yet another example of tyranny by a minority, largely fueled by politics, and the simple understanding that they can push for more and more while they have inertia. Social movements, of any sort, largely disband when they achieve what they set out to accomoplish, but continue to push until something stops them. I think this is one of the areas where they hit a wall. I think there shouldn't be any gay or lesbian characters in ToR, simply because of the way it was demanded and presented as a right, along with accusations that not providing it amounted to bigotry. Your not a bigot if you don't create something that represents everyone every time you make something.

I'll admit, after reading a lot of posts and articles over the issue, Bioware's 180 on the issue is rather distressing, but I believe it's because they underestimated what their players wanted. Game studios don't do a turn around like this towards a political group or a protest, they change because they hear the voices of their players, their legitimate customers. The players are all that matter here. Political groups that rally against these things are likely never to even consider playing the game. Had they heeded to the controversy from political groups, the sex scenes in Mass Effect would've been deleted the day after their mention on Fox News.

All I've really been trying to convey is that while I'm not saying your political views are wrong, your view on the content is.
To put this in analogy, lets say that you hate fish (hypothetically). You go to a restaurant and overhear the table next to you asking a waiter why they don't have fish on the menu. A few days later, you find that fish has been added to the menu, and you're upset. The fish purely an optional dish, but you insist that it be removed because YOU don't like it, other customers be damned.

The whole point is that it isn't what you or I think, (...especially since neither of us have played the game...) it's about what they players want. TOR is a game that will continue to have updates and content expansions for at least a couple of years, and while it won't be immediately, homosexual relationships will be added. What we have to do is to simply have the grace to move beyond it and let it go, because in the end it's not about whether or not WE like the fish. As long as at least one person enjoys it, it'll stay on the menu.

And with that, I'll be happy to leave the rest to "agree to disagree".

 

[awsome117]

I've already covered and slammed most of your "rebuttals" and you can get the answers to a lot of what you said by just re-reading what I've already posted.

Same to you. I have answered your rebuttals at every turn, but you haven't made any counter arguments as to why my points are wrong. You keep bringing up the same thing; "Gays and other non-straight white male groups have the same rights but shouldn't have the same equality as you or me". That is your argument, justify anyway you want.

Circular arguements and "no, that isn't true!" is exactly why I so rarely bother to engage in discussion on the topic.

Because you're the one making circle arguments and keep forcing it to go in a circle. I keep asking why gays shouldn't have the same equality and respect as you or me. Which you never answer.

Like most of what your saying, this always boils down to people trying to defend long-held beliefs

Um, You're doing that to? Hence the argument. However, these aren't long-held beliefs these are basic human rights and freedoms that is being flat-out denied. When people march and demand equal rights, they probably didn't have it at that point.

based on propaganda from the movement they are defending.

I defend them like I defend the rights and equality of everyone. No one should be above or even consider themselves certain groups of people because they are different. That does not mean we have to get along or like one another, just that we respect the rights of each group every human has.

For example when you say early on that gays are NOT a tiny minority,

They aren't. Just like the Blacks weren't a tiny minority, or the women, or the Jews or any other group that faces the same type of discrimination.

that is hardly the truth, it's simply a matter of the movement trying to make itself seem bigger than it actually is through it's arguements, and also relying on promoting the perception that there are a lot more gays who are "afraid to speak".

Whether or not they are as giant as you don't seem to think shouldn't matter. A group being misrepresented and facing inequalities is wrong. That is not a moral issue. That is a human issue. Whether the group is 100 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 it doesn't matter the size. Inequality is still terrible all the same.

It's a typical political trick used by all kinds of small groups, the KKK for example was infamous for making themselves seem like some huge, omni-present boogieman in their hayday, and while large they weren't even close to what they lead people to believe, secrecy having been their best weapon before they were broken open. Just as the KKK did a lot through the implication that there were entire towns literally waiting to jump out with their white sheets, and lead a grass roots resistance capable of defeating the FBI or national guard (and thus hopeless to oppose) the truth was far differant which is why they were beaten. The same applies to the gay rights movement which likes to say that there are "tons and tons of gays, all around you, and you don't know it" but that's basically the same general thing.

Well, what other "small groups" are you talking about for one; two, the KKK were still a large group whether or not they were as big as they claimed they still committed horrible acts against many minority groups; and three, they weren't campaigning for the same basic and human rights that the KKK had. The KKK had more rights than gays and blacks at their peak. Which is sad isn't it?

While beyond the scope of what's being discussed you have to remember that statistics are compiled by people with a specific agenda, and people trying to prove an agenda use only the statistics that support them, or present them in a way that does. When your dealing with a situation where the media has become biased towards one side and carries it's political agenda with it for whatever reason, and the opposition can't get anything worth "fair time" with things being declared "debunked" when they haven't been, or at least not by sources just as anonymous as those they claim presented the other side.

Yes, that is how things work. You find the things that support your argument. But again, it's not the size of the group, it's what the group is campaigning for that's important.

One statistic increasingly being outed, despite all the odds, that semi-relates to this is the defense that gay men are statistically proven to not be more likely to attack children than straight men.

One statistic does not an argument make. Besides, you provide no evidence or even documentation of said study with any type of scientific support. Also, this is not related at all. That's like saying in a topic about inter-racial relationships that "statistically black people cause most crime"

Criticisms of some of those studies, largely fueled by anger over groups like NAMBLA (look them up)

Are you claiming that most homosexuals are pedophiles? Sexual orientation doesn't have anything to do with pedophilia.

have lead to some of those studies being examined to find that typically the stats are compiled by using "homosexuals" in general rather than gay men, even if it's spun to look that way. Meaning they toss lesbians into the mix as well. Given than lesbians are not known to attack children, just as women in general are far, far less likely to committ violent crimes, become seriel killers, or whatever, this leads to a lot of those studies being themselves rendered irrelevent.

This whole thing is irrelevant as nothing you say has ANY factual evidence backing any of what you just said.

If you look at a population that was doubled to begin with, you wind up with a lot of numbers that show gay men as being twice as likely (at least) of going after children.

Where are you pulling these stats from?

Liberals hate this point, as does the gay rights movement,

Because such statistics are completely insane!

but it's a pretty solid criticism, and again you'll notice NAMBLA is named after gay men, not after Lesbians and engages in direct activism on the subject,

You're bringing up two separate points entirely. There is no possibly reason to bring this up as NAMBLA is an organization for Men and boys, which is different than homosexuality. NAMBLA even states that such relationships aren't always gay. I don't even see what criticism you're bringing up here as it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the topic at hand; which is allowing/not allowing Same-Sex Relationships in The Old Republic. You're going way off topic.

and does things like hire lawyers to protect child molesters... being successful enough at it, where one casino I worked for (which was at the time the largest in the world... Foxwoods) was actively intimidated by them and adjusted it's policies accordingly. Basically they got to the point where they would rather some kid get dragged off and molested, or raped to death in the woods outside, than deal with the suits from preventing such things.

That sounds tragic and I'm sorry that such things occur, but this has nothing to do with gay rights. NAMBLA and GSA (Gay-Straight Alliance) are two different entities.

That's not how they stated it of course, but that's the bottom line. One of the reasons why I've ever looked into those statistics a while back, or no as much about NAMBLA as I do.

See point above.

I'm not going to argue any of that, I pretty much already know what you and other people here are going to say about it.

You know we'll call you out on how you're trying to lump two separate organizations with completely different goal/agendas into one thing? That is complete BOLLOCKS.

I mention it in connection to this topic only to point out that there is a LOT of misdirection involved here,

The one you're causing, yes. You keep trying to lump very different and distinct things into one category where the only connections that they "Seemingly" have are when you make vague lines to connect them.

and that includes by the gay rights movements and their supporters themselves. Has there ever been a study published in the mainstram media SAYING that gay men are twice as likely to attack children?

Because that statistic is complete BOLLOCKS. Anyone who isn't insane would know this and do background checks, research into who did the study, the study and all that jazz. It would be shown to be complete BOLLOCKS (slowly becoming my favorite word) as many other "statistics" that try to get released.

Of course not, the media would never permit it. But at the same time people have challenged existing studies on the grounds mentioned above and you never hear about it. NAMBLA and it's sheer power and how deep it's fingers go into all of this is something that tends to be avoided because it's inconveinent... and just like the KKK the group makes itself out to be much bigger than it is.

Just read above and see how completely insane you sound. Have someone say out loud to you what you're typing.

Of course none of that really matters to the point we're discussing which basically comes down to the simple fact that even if none of that was true your still basically looking at a situation where a minority wants to insert itself into everything irregardless of who it insults or offends.

What and who are being insulted? Just there sheer presence insults the very holy ground you walk on? The gays are just mucking up our perfect straight-white male world with their...gayness. I suggest you get off your mountain peak and come down to the real world we live in.

Then of course that minority probably sits around wondering why everyone hates them or finds them obnoxious.

Yes, as you're the minority here (As only a select few actually agree with what you say). You should understand shouldn't you? Being picked on for your beliefs, wondering why people don't like you and all that. The comparisons are almost uncanny. Here's a FACT; most people DON'T hate gays, MOST tolerate them. The people who are "higher up" in the government are a minority compared to those that tolerate and accept gays.

I also wanted to make it 100% clear that even if I'm not going to fight this out right now (this will likely be my last message)

Yep, we you're realize your argument is just batshit crazy it's probably best to hightail it out before things start to get more interesting.

that there is a WHOLE other side to this which you might disagree with or dislike, but has just as much behind it as everything you represent and want to believe.

Which is what exactly?

THAT is why the issue endures, you simply want to dismiss everything that disagrres with you,

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU AREN'T SEEING THIS SO I'LL CAPS LOCK SO MAYBE YOU CAN SEE WHAT EXACTLY YOU WROTE AND HOW EXACTLY YOU DOING IT. You see, I don't dismiss everything that disagrees with what I believe. If I did, I would be on your side. I accept the differences we have in the world and do I like all of it? NO, but I understand and accept them and allow them their rights.

and try and make it out to see like your dealing with a lot of junk science, mindless bigots, and religions fanatics, and dismiss all of the very well reasoned arguements being made on the other side out of hand because you want to believe the facts you happened to be spoon fed unconditionally.

These ARE NOT WELL REASONED ARGUMENTS. And again, look at what you're typing and what you're preaching. If you can't follow you're logic then don't argue.

You'd be surprised how many people in these arguements have even HEARD of NAMBLA or looked at statistics and considered what the statistics actually say, such as when someone uses a statistic compiled with members of the entire homosexual/bi-sexual community being applied to one segement of it.

NAMBLA =/= GSA. You are drawing invisible lines to dots that aren't even on the same page!

Now, in response to the bit I quoted, which will be my last comments in this thread, because it's becoming circular, going no where,

Because you literally say nothing! The whole response I made to your response was about NAMBLA and attacking children. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING WE HAVE BEEN ARGUING. You just spew out information regardless if it fits or not just to write long responses in hopes no one will care/notice or pass it over.

and I've already said what needs to be said for the sake of representing the other side to some extent in a hostile crowd. This wasn't a debate I expected to "win" as I mentioned when I started out:

Because such flawed arguments do not deserve to win.

What I said was that the lack of homosexuals could be justified in Star Wars.

The "What IF" has no bearings on this. So no it can't be justified.

Incidently it was BIOWARE, not me, that said that homosexuals did not exist in Star Wars.

Please show me where. I'm still waiting for that article.

I simply pointed out why they might not exist and how it could be justified or explained.

Which don't make sense if you actually know star wars as more than that "Stuff in the future".

You might not like it, but the point remains that position could be defended as making sense within the universe,

No it can't, and if you bothered to read my response before this one, you would know that. "What IF" is not evidence nor good example.

or at least the "Old Republic" timeline Bioware is writing which is after all
their baby and they can kind of decide the canon for.

In reality, canon is made by everyone. You can choose to accept things in the universe or not. That's the beauty of art. You see it as you want to see it.

If they used the logic I mentioned,

I fail to see any logic in anything you said about how to cure gays in star wars.

this does not mean that the same technologies would exist come the movie timeline, or during previous cycles before that, just during that age.

Or means that gays disappear/reappear throughout the universe.

I won't go into it in detail since it would be long and get even more off topic,

Why, you love going off topic just look at this response!

but basically Star Wars is a universe without free will that works in cycles with good and evil getting chances to rule the universe.

That's how our world works too. And what do mean without free will?

To the man on the street it doesn't seem to matter much, and everyone believes they have free will. Force users are simply what The Force works through to control the universe and guide the cycles, with midochloria and "power levels" mostly reflecting how important a given person is to the plans of The Force. This is incidently why you have prophecies and such (which you might notice come true) and other things. I could say a lot more about it, but basically the general tech level remains fairly stagnant with few massive differances between say The Old Republic and the "Modern" movie timeline in turns of weapons, spaceships, etc... however specific technologies are lost during the cycles of warfare and good and evil each taking their respective turns as the dominant force, and of course the chaotic periods of balance in between. Purely an academic point.

Necessary block of info in here!

In the end, what it comes down to is Bioware said flat out "no homosexuals in The Old Republic".

Did they say ever or yet. Such little details chance everything. Also where.

This lead to a political outcry forcing them to insert gay romances into the game to avoid accusations of bigotry.

Or maybe they do want to give Gays a chance at relationships they want to participate in.

The basic attitude by supporters is that anyone who might find this gross doesn't have any rights even if they vastly outnumber the people who want it.

Actually no, WE (the people who want it) outnumber YOU (the people that don't want it). So you're wrong in more ways than one.

As the position could be justified easily within the Star Wars concept, without intruding on other periods if another writer not in Bioware's backyard chose to do something differant for another era... really you can't make any arguements saying this couldn't be the case within their writing... and THAT is my point... and if you read Bioware's comments about gays not existing...

I don't see that comment. All I see is them saying those terms don't exist. As such they never said the actual relationships don't exist.

well, that pretty much spells out what they intended even if they did not give in-game lore reasons for it as part of that statement. Anything at this point is them altering their writing to accomodate a tiny minority of people and their supporters.

I suggest you read the actual article. It doesn't THEY don't exist, just the TERMS. Wording is a tricky *****.

Truthfully part of the reason why I bothered to mention a lot of the crap about statistics and NAMBLA, is I get the impression that a lot of young liberals like to support movements that piss off the establishment as a matter of course.

Yep, want to give gays equal rights to piss off "the man". I'll let you know I love my government, my country and (some of the time) love the people in charge. It's not the establishment I hate, it's the people in charge who don't believe that everyone deserves the same amount of rights.

Also you want to stand you get that stick out of your butt. It's starting to affect your thinking.

That's one of the problems with the left wing being tied so heavily to the counter culture, a lot of the time it's all about going contrary to what he majority of people are comfortable with,

I'm not actually left wing. If anything, you would classify me as independent as I like a lot of ideas on both sides. And no, this about HUMAN RIGHTS not "Ewww how could they do that!?". Again, most people are comfortable with gays, the ones that aren't are the most vocal though.

for the sake of doing it.

Hell yah! Then after we give the gays their rights, we dance on the White House Lawn! JUST BECAUSE WE CAN! That will show "The Man"!

To be hones a lot of people defending something like this probably really aren't dense enough to think token minorities are a good idea within the media, and might even get upset in other works they like when extraneous, politically motivated characters are forced in.

Um no. A lot of people defending their rights believe that everyone deserves the same amount of freedoms as everyone else. Unfortunately, we have to force these characters in for them to actually get representation for anything, otherwise it doesn't get done.

They just like the idea of millions of people who might not care what other people do in their private lives behind closed doors, being grossed out by having it waved in front of them.

What?

Like it or not, that's been a problem with a lot of "issues" supported by the youth since long before I was born, and one of the reasons so many adults look back on the crap like this they did and supported and come to realizations that they were a group of idiots. Of course at the same time the cycle continues because the new generation of responsible adults is rarely able to put an end to the stupidity. You know the old "If your not a liberal when your young you have no heart, if your not a conservative when your old, you have no brain" thing, which I believe was one of Churchill's more memorable lines on politics not directly related to the war (though I could be wrong on the origins, it's a very valid point no matter who said it). Then again, that sort of reflects on me because I represented a lot of pretty extreme leftist stuff when I was younger, but then I grew up and became actually worldly and experienced, as opposed to merely thinking I was.

You clearly aren't worldly if you don't think we should have the same rights.

At any rate I think we're done here, everything that has been said on the subject has been said, and all that's going to happen is we're going to get further off topic and wind up re-stating the same exact things that won't convince anyone else anymore than the last several times they have been said.

I never got off topic, I simply responded trying to get us back on topic.

And that's the point of arguing. Sooner or later someone will have to give, and I hope it's your side.

 

[Therumancer]

You clearly aren't worldly if you don't think we should have the same rights.

[.[/quote]

See, that right there pretty much invalidates just about every point your trying to make, and why I just say "we'll have to agree to disagree" and drop out.

If you were paying attention I've been VERY clear that I don't think ANY group is ENTITLED to representation in media works. Gays, Blacks, Latinos, Whites, etc... it's all up to the creator and his intention. When you say "we have to be represented here" your not crusading for equal rights, your trying to force yourself onto others.

If someone chooses to put a gay character into a game, they aren't going to be arrested for it, but sayig that they have to do it or they are a bigot is something entirely differant. Not to mention would render the entire creative process incapable of producing anything meaninful if applied to every group out there.

There is a differance between the right to not be surpressed out of hand, and the right to have your inclusion forced into everything.

Granted it IS a big issue, and not one that applies only to gays. I very much doubt you've never objected to a creative work you've liked being ruined or reduced in quality due to the politically correct insertsion of token minorities and/or minority cultures not intended by the creators or writers to meet political quotas or avoid accusations of bigotry. You might say otherwise, but everyone has dealt with it, and it's a frequent topic of discussion (on a lot of levels) throughout all of geekdom and one of the reasons people so deeeply dread things going mainstream because of how the creators frequently lose control over their own properties to politics. You might think your paticular minority group is differant here, simply because you belong to it, but your not, and what your seeing with ToR is exactly the kind of thing you've likely complained about happening elsewhere with other groups you don't belong to.

You MIGHT have a point if Bioware had not clearly stated their vision for the property to begin with. No matter what is said, their intent as the creators is a matter of record. Everything else is political pressure to force a minority representation just like we've seen with other works for decades now.