Anti-Gay Campaign Targets EA

Post Reply New Topic

Wow. Just...wow. Where to start?

Sexuality not being fixed does not mean that we should, as a society, favour heterosexual couples over homosexual ones. If anything it means that we should be less judgemental and just let people date who they want. And the incredible heteronormativity of our society is, in my opinion, very troublesome for young people who are questioning their sexuality. If we saw more equal treatment of homosexual relationships in popular culture (say, one in 10 relationship being same sex) then people would see that they are not alone and that they can live a happy life.

And yes, I do want to force society to treat me equally. In fact, in Canada and elsewhere, society is constitutionally required to treat me equally. That is how we got gay marriage legalised. Civil unions are tolerable but essentially they are saying that the love in a homosexual couple is different than that of a heterosexual couple. I would argue that there is an implicit suggestion that homosexual love is inferior. And saying that you oppose gay marriage because it goes against your religion (which is sure the impression I get) is equivalent to saying that someone can't eat a doughnut because you're on a diet.

And yes, I want to change society into one that is tolerant of homosexuals. Duh! That is necessary for equality. I will not be equal as a gay man to you as a straight man if you can talk openly about your wife and family but I can't talk openly about my husband and family.

And finally, it is not only sexual habits which the left feels should be left to people's own business. What clothes they where, what friends they have, what content they look at online, (in some cases) what substances they take into their body, what religion they follow are all things that the left feels is not the business of the state. Recently some groups in Canada have taken to altering the old quote "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation" to "The state has no place in the hard-drives of the nation."

This is all perfectly consistent with the other things which you pointed out which the left will meddle with. These sorts of freedoms and private issues have no effect on the well-being of others. However, driving an SUV emits extra CO2, which contributes to climate change, which will negatively effect the well being of others. Urban sprawl, in addition to requiring more driving, also requires the upkeep of more roads and more civil infrastructure. This means greater strain on the public purse. Which means either fewer services or higher taxes. Both effect the well being of the greater populace.

You don't get it, the whole concept of heterosexually is a jewish invention, it is not the human norm that we've made it into. The human being is far less fixed then people think. The less definitive we are in our bias of one-man, one-woman, the less definitive following generations will become in their living arrangements, and people who would normally have hooked up without he opposite sex will hook up with their own sex because of the absence of this bias. This isn't just about the gay, the gay represents such a small segment of society, and the over-whelming majority of them were born that way. This is about the non-gay, which represents the other 90% of us.

My points with the whole civil unions point is that this isn't about benefits alone. This is about acceptance and tolerance, which the gay movement, and the majority of their supporters (which aren't gay) will achieve if gay marriage is passed. But the unintended consequence is that we will return to the normal way of the world, pre-Judaism, and whole generations of people who would normally have only settled down with the opposite sex will settle down with any sex. If that doesn't matter to you, and you don't mind that kind of inevitable future if we follow this route, then that's fine, but at least acknowledge this fact. In ancient times prior to this bias, sexuality was not understood in terms of man+women or Man/Man and Woman/Woman, it was understood in most ancient cultures as simply which was the giver, and which was the receiver. That is the pagan future that will be if drop our bias on what is an acceptable living arrangement.

Why can't you be gay and talk openly about your wife or husband without gay marriage? It's a matter of whether the person you are talking to is okay with it or not, not whether you are married, as you can get all the benefits of marriage in the form of civil unions. Why can't one be acceptive of the fact that God made you the way that you are, but we both openly affirm the bias that it is better for our society for people who were not born gay to try and settle with the opposite sex? If you feel differently, then thats fine, but for the sake of clarity, this isn't only about equality, it's about a horrible future that relives our immoral ancient past.

Could you explain your donut-diet analogy? I oppose gay marriage because the bible is my moral guide, and it doesn't just make up rules for the benefit of an unknowable unseeable God in the sky; they are all for humanities benefit. If I can say which parts of it are wrong, then how can I say which parts of it are right. If I pick and choose which parts I accept, then I in affect become God and know better then it. some things I like and some things I don't like. And if that's they case, why read the book at all if I already know better then it. So what we do is we acknowledge this biblical preference and we live not in some fantasy made-up world, but in this one, and try to make it better. Even if we could have tolerance and equality without gay marriage, you would probably still push for it anyways, and therein lies our battle.

The Jews did not come up with the concept of hetrosexuality that is obusrd to think or say.

that is fine, I mis-spoke, I meant homosexuality. and certainly with relation to heterosexuality.

The only reason that homosexuality became a sin was because of the Pharisees who made it so as a religious law,

So what you're essentially saying is "whaaaa I think it's wrong cause fairy tales tell me so", right?

Except for the whole dickish bigotry and asking for discrimination thing.


You are being crazy if you actually think gay advocates are pushing to make literature, film, marketing stop being majoritarily heterosexual. I don't think I ever seen any advocate claim anything close to this.

And since you are invading this thread about EA. Then I would assume that you are saying that EA's games are an example of this? Well, be my guest and make a survey about how many gay and heterosexual sex happens in EA's games. And tell me that heterosexual sex is not a wide majority.

It is incredibly hard to understand how your logic that this is as radical as Christian bigots works. EA allows gay sex and it is not disallowing heterosexual sex. It is quite difficult to call both sides equally radical if when one side is up, both kinds of marriage are allowed and while the other is, only one is.
---
Now on to heterosexual marriage being ideal. No, it isn't the ideal. It is merely the requirement for biological reproduction - As such it is unlikely to ever go away or become as infrequent as gay sex, if that's your major fear.

My case has largely been a secular one. The ancients of almost every ancient culture were never concerned with the gender, it was always more concerned with doing something to someone, the penetrator versus the penetrated, the giver and the receiver. It was Jews who declared distinctions and made moral the man-woman bias, and immoral any other arrangement, which were freely and respectively practiced in the ancient world. It is then safe to say that the human norm in what was and has been a male-dominated world is: men doing anything and everything, regardless of the morality of the act and its relation to him.

Eternal words.

There is no secular case against homosexuality. None. You wanna know why? Because it doesn't matter who people are having sex with to any one but themselves. If it's consensual, the only possible arguments are religious in nature.

I'm curious to hear why you think homosexuality is morally wrong from a secular viewpoint...

Vexcalibur, how do you de-bias then a biased culture? Our culture has been pushing the bias, and it can be as simple as simply asking a female child which mate its barbie doll should have, and only offering her male barbie dolls, and then only offering other female barbies only as friends, or to have a non-sexual relation to the barbie. If you don't think our sitcoms, music videos, or media don't peddle this male-female bias, then I don't know what to say... other then those of us who live in the normal world are surrounded by it.

That is the only way they (gay advocates, which are largely not gay) can achieve this is to not have any bias's at all, as one preference is as good as the other. But they can think this because a sizable portion of gay advocates also think that sexuality is fixed. Which I do not.

I just made that case above. Because sexuality is not fixed. Does the bible say that sexuality is not fixed? That is both a secular case, and I feel, it is the reason why the Bible banned homosexuality in the first place. When you view the bible as what it originally was, to destroy false Gods, clue you into the nature of God, to destroy paganism, and to spread ethical monotheism, then all of this makes sense. It was written to benefit an unknowable unseeable who you can't harm, it was to benefit humanity who you can harm.

The religious part of my argument is that Judaism introduced this bias that we all hold today. Even the bias against Incest comes from Judaism. What is ones case against incest? If it is love, then it is love, and how is that anyless unholy then the love of a homosexual. That homosexuals have that bias against incest doesn't sit well on logical grounds, and little do they know, but they get that bias from the Torah and the Jewish people.

Your entire argument is religious. You are still hanging on to the false point that homosexuality is in some way wrong. What does it matter if sexuality is fixed or not? Why does it matter to you if some dude chooses to blow another dude?

If you'd like to make an argument that actually means something, leave religion behind and bring something important in to the mix. The bible is in no way applicable to modern life.

I don't find this question relevant and I don't think you have made a justification to your argument that it is.

Before I continue this discussion, I need to ask you, MarketAndChurch, Do you think consensual sexual acts such as Kissing, Oral Sex, Anal Sex and etc between two people of the same gender, taking the appropriate hygiene measures is morally wrong? Yes or No. This answer is key to actually understanding what is it that you are trying to say, and I guess that you should be able to easily reply Yes or No.

Edit: I am asking this because:

If you don't think homosexual sex is wrong: Then who cares sexuality is fixed or not? If sexuality isn't fixed, the "worst case scenario" is that more people will choose to have gay sex. It would be their choice, and there is nothing wrong with homosexual sex.

If you think homosexual sex is wrong: Then the reason you oppose to homosexual advocates is not because you think sexuality is not fixed, but because you think homosexuality as a whole is wrong. If you thought sexuality is not fixed, you would still hate homosexual sex. Thus you should be explaining your reasons why homosexuality as a whole is wrong, rather than divert the discussion about how sexuality is not fixed.

In both cases, the whole thing about it being fixed or not is really a bogus argument.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 12 Apr 2012, 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

And that is relavent because? To me that indicates that we should be all the more open to people having a non-traditional sexuality.


I really don't see why more diversity in couples is a problem. Diversity makes the world interesting.


I wasn't saying I can't talk about my partner without being married. I was saying that is that it is a double standard if someone is fine with straight people talking about their love-life and not gay people. And why is it better for people to settle with the opposite sex? The studies that have been done show no evidence of that. And what is the horrible future that will happen? The past immoral for many reasons other than homosexuality--the Old Testament is filled with bloodshed.


Oh goodness. You're telling me to acknowledge a something from the bible and not live in some made up fantasy world? That's just too rich! The doughnut analogy comes from the fact that allowing gay marriage will not force you to participate. Your soul is safe, or whatever. Telling someone else that they can't be in a gay marriage because it will harm their soul is equivalent to telling someone they can't eat a doughnut because it is fattening--that's their choice and whatever they choose it won't effect you. And there is NO EVIDENCE that gay relationships harm society. None. Well, at least no reputable evidence. Studies done by churches, for instance, I would hardy consider reliable. You also have to balance whatever the so-called harm to society caused by gay marriage is with the harm done to gay people by not being able to marry. Studies have shown that relationships between a married couple, are healthier than between long-term unmarried partners. I think, although I can't remember for sure, marriage was better even than civil unions. And in any case, from a societal point of view, how is allowing civil unions any better than allowing gay marriage? It has the same effect, legally. At worst you'll have healthier, more stable relationships. Even I'll admit that the fight for the right to marry is largely a symbolic one.

From back when there was the same sex marriage debate in Canada:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeCuHwphU0M[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d19NlpwsgEQ[/youtube]