Anti-Gay Campaign Targets EA

Post Reply New Topic

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.

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.