Anti-Gay Campaign Targets EA

Post Reply New Topic

It's not really daft, it's just taking what you said literally. "You're still doing it, no matter what your reasons," technically includes the reason of having coerced sex to save your life. But the fact that you didn't actually mean to include ALL reasons shows that "You're still doing it, no matter what your reasons" isn't an accurate description of what you were thinking, so there's no discernible pattern to how you're categorizing people's sexual behavior or orientation.

You are the one who expressed yourself in absolutes, not I. You made no exception for coercion in your statement. Why should I read that in?

Clearly you are prepared to draw a line around coercion. What other lines are you prepared to draw? Would you question the sexual orientation of a person who is offered $1 million to perform a same-sex act? $10,000? $100? What amount of money is too small to allow the behaviour to be distinguished from the inducement?

Large sums of money being offered is still being coerced. At that point it becomes a job, really.

I will redefine what I said:

For reproduction or recreational purposes, you're still doing it no matter what your reasons.

Of course you're still doing sex, but you still cannot prove it always have to be connected with sexual orientation. Might as well say to the fluid people who had sex with the same gender for a long time and then lost feeling to the same gender being switched to the opposite gender slowly over time are bisexual even though their orientation has changed to the extent that they ain't feeling anything much for the sexuality they moved away from.

I suppose some people might get bored with one gender and switch to the other. Those folks would be more attracted to novelty, perhaps.

I really hope WBC pickets EA with "God Hates EA" signs

Nevermind major corporations. We are siding with EA!. EA! The non-activision devil of "let's ruin games! "

Payment is no coercion--it's inducement. The two are quite distinct. But no matter, what if large sums of money aren't involved, but some other consideration? How far from your absolutism will you wind up retreating before your argument is exposed for the empty shell that it is?

Speaking entirely ad personam I have no doubt that I am perfectly capable of performing a heterosexual sex act. I have never had a heterosexual fantasy, I have never attempted to have heterosexual intercourse--but there is no doubt that I would be capable of the physical act were it required or were I motivated by some inducement or coercion to do so.

So let's consider this reverse proposition--a person with an exclusively homosexual orientation who lives in a society in which there is no opportunity to establish a homosexual relationship and no outlet for same sex activity. This person's parents arrange a marriage, and the marriage is duly consummated. The person and the person's spouse have a lacklustre, unfulfilling sex life. Is this person heterosexual? Or even bisexual?

No professional would ever confuse the heterosexual activity in such a scenario with a heterosexual or bisexual orientation. Yet you with your wealth of education, training and experience think otherwise.

Fair enough, I know when I'm beaten. I'll concede this one to you.

There's nothing wrong with this letter campaign. EA most likely won't fold, and it's fine too. Why would you want those consumers anyways, and it'll only boost traffic just as it has for Starbucks.

Nothing wrong with writing letters; but there is something wrong with lying about EA being "coerced by gay extremist lobbies" or whatever they're smoking in their pipe these days. My respect for EA has grown for not bowing to this religious bullying

They did the same thing with Ford a few years back, and many companies since then.

What gay advocates want is just as extreme as the extremism coming from those "religious" bully's. They don't just want to marry or be viewed as equals but they also want us drop our bias's on living arrangements and our bias preference for a man and a women as an ideal, as seen peddled by society, film, literature, music, marketing, consumer products, etc. They want a preference-less world, and the assumption they base this on is that sexuality is fixed, so if we have no preferences, gays will inevitably gravitate to gays, and hetero's to other hetero's.

But I don't think sexuality is fixed. The world pre-Judaism didn't either, as shown in their practices, bias's, and living arrangements.

In my ideal world, gays "married" and settled down, as did all people regardless of orientation, and everyone, including gays, affirmed the biblical bias for the man-woman ideal. If you can't meet that ideal, then you can't, and there should be, in society's eyes, legitimate alternatives for those who can't meet this ideal, but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be the ideal.

WTF?!

1. On what logical basis should society favor heterosexual couples over homosexual ones?

2. Why should homosexual marriages not have the same legal benefits as heterosexual ones?

3. Since when is it your or anyone else's business what other people do in their private lives?

1.) They already do in the fairytale storybooks they print. You favor one over the other when you root in children unintentionally that somehow, when they grow up, who they will marry and make love to will be somebody of the opposite sex. That is Bias. We have been doing this for the last 2000+ years, but this wasn't the way of the world until some Desert people called the Jews invented this whole notion of Heterosexuality and Homosexuality. It was new in the human experience, and they were the first recorded ancient people who practiced separating the two, and banning one while upholding the other as the societal bias. Christianity took this to the world, and we've had that bias ever since. That Gays(and the rest of society) do not approve of Brother-Sister love and marriage is testimony to the indoctrination of the Judeo-Christian bias.

2.) Why not just give them Civil Unions with every legal benefit in the book? They don't want that. They are pushing for marriage because that, they believe, is what will give them the view of being "equals" in society, by those doing the viewing... so this isn't for themselves so much as it is to change society into one that is tolerant of the homosexual.

3.) It is odd that people only ask this question with regard to anything sexual related. They never ask that question when a group of people want to start a mens-only club or if someone wants an SUV over an eco-friendly car and to dwell in the developer-heaven of suburban sprawl over a dense-metro or urban dwelling. Then all of a sudden, it's everyones business and people are telling others how they should and shouldn't live... The sexual arena: the only bastion that one cannot touch and the only one that the Left defends to no end.

Oh, and I didn't fully answer number 1.

The logical reason is that sexuality isn't fixed. They are functions of culture, and who we make love is just as influenced by society as it is by nature.

The second supporting reason is that children won't be raised with one of each sex to model. If you think there is no inherent difference between the two sexes, and that there is not something unique that a man can offer a child that a women can't and vice versa, then there is no issue here, and both a man and a women are one of the same.