The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter Duke
  • 9,138 comments
  • 447,907 views

I think homosexuality is:

  • a problem that needs to be cured.

    Votes: 88 6.0%
  • a sin against God/Nature.

    Votes: 145 9.8%
  • OK as long as they don't talk about it.

    Votes: 62 4.2%
  • OK for anybody.

    Votes: 416 28.2%
  • nobody's business but the people involved.

    Votes: 765 51.8%

  • Total voters
    1,476
Nothing to do with the medium. Few years before gamergate there was some big report saying children's literature was sexist and therefore enforcing gender inequality from a young age. For gaming in particular I'd argue sexism is an inherent part of it, just like it is with some authors and some directors. Remove that, and you remove their freedom of expression. It's why I believe Kojima is shoving Quiet's boobs in our faces as a big "screw you" to PC and the social justice movement.
Why do you believe sexism is an inherent part of gaming? Certainly the majority of games will be targeted towards men as that's the audience but that doesn't mean it needs to be sexist. It's fine to have eye candy in games but I find it pretty silly when female characters in RPG's go into battle with steel bikinis. It doesn't deeply offend me to my core but it just feels childish to me more than anything. I still enjoy MGS games, and I'm not put off by the boobs but I don't think I'd care if they weren't there.

Aaaand this is where my worry lies with the LGBT lobby. Now they'll hold people to ransom to meet quotas so it's more representative of modern society. Well I'm sorry, but Tarantino shouldn't be made to feature more lesbians because the social justice movement says so. He should instead be free to include, or not include lesbian characters, or lesbian actresses.
Believe what you want I guess but I don't see this happening nor has it happened in the past with similar civil rights breakthroughs.

Me neither, the point was the icon. (And yes, I though Trailer Park boys was a great show from the episodes I watched. My friend thought I was the one who drinks all the time. I don't actually know who the gay characters were)
The character who drinks a lot is Jim Lahey, he's the trailer park supervisor and the main antagonist in the show. He and the assistant supervisor Randy are in an on and off relationship throughout the series which is one of the core story arcs. They get lots of character development and their relationship is presented no differently than any straight relationship in the show.

That's mainly what I'm getting at, it's not about how many LGBT characters there are, but how the subject is treated. It's very telling of how the show treats the subject that you having seen the show a few times, remember Lahey as "the guy who drinks a lot", and not "the gay guy". Gay people in real life aren't defined by their sexuality, and I hope we can have more media where LGBT characters aren't defined by their sexuality.

OK....but who is going to be the next down on their luck group to fight for. Should we put pressure on producers to change the stereotype of nerdy white kids who wear glasses?
I don't know. Probably transgendered people will be the next way the LGBT movement goes. The comparison isn't really relevant as there aren't laws on the books in a variety of countries which restrict the rights of nerdy people, nor are adults unable to be nerdy in public without scorn or negativity. LGBT people are far more than down on their luck.

I also don't really get the rhetorical question about "where does it stop". It stops when people stop being treated unfairly for their identity. In Canada we've had gay marriage for 10-12 years depending on the province and by now it's really not a big thing in the media anymore. Things aren't perfect but we don't have a really big gay rights movement anymore because it's not really a big deal. For the most part LGBT advocacy groups here have moved into being support networks rather than getting into politics or media.
 
Last edited:
We have BOTH a Gamergate thread AND a Political Correctness thread.

If people would like to exercise their debate skills there regarding said subjects, which are only very loosely tangentially related to the topic at hand, please do so there.

Also: (regarding NeoGaf)


Larry Niven
There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it. (Or pretending to follow it)
 
Last edited:
Do you know what obtrusive means?
I do thanks for asking!
Minty
But to address your point, Black History Month happens every year, Columbus Day happens every year, and as sad as it is, terrorist attacks are happening increasingly often. This victory is finally brings us closer to being a truly equal nation, and it very well might effect the site owner or someone close to him personally. Marriage equality is something that has been fought for over very many years, and people have been killed due to the bigotry of others. This marks the beginning of a potential upswing for true equality in this country.



Maybe just let people celebrate what's important to them, and not be so negative about things just because they didn't also celebrate ____.
If you read my other posts on this page about the history then you'll see why the pandering is so blatantly obvious. To borrow a certain videogame series' tagline:
"Agendas. Agendas never change."
It's nauseating as they jump on the LGBT bandwagon for personal gain.

Why do you believe sexism is an inherent part of gaming? Certainly the majority of games will be targeted towards men as that's the audience but that doesn't mean it needs to be sexist. It's fine to have eye candy in games but I find it pretty silly when female characters in RPG's go into battle with steel bikinis. It doesn't deeply offend me to my core but it just feels childish to me more than anything. I still enjoy MGS games, and I'm not put off by the boobs but I don't think I'd care if they weren't there.

Believe what you want I guess but I don't see this happening nor has it happened in the past with similar civil rights breakthroughs.
Never, happens and definitely doesn't still happen.

The makers of games, books and film should be free to objectify women and include or not include LGBT characters at their discretion. If you don't like it, don't buy it. The movement is going the wrong way towards equality by essentially holding a gun to people's heads and saying "you missed your quota, you should update your thinking to reflect the times". This can sometimes go against story canon, as in the James Bond to be black calls. Let's stick to protesting for the right reasons, such as having an issue with the new Spiderman's casting not for "not representing the times" but for not recognising the rise of the mixed race Spiderman.

Noob616
The character who drinks a lot is Jim Lahey, he's the trailer park supervisor and the main antagonist in the show. He and the assistant supervisor Randy are in an on and off relationship throughout the series which is one of the core story arcs. They get lots of character development and their relationship is presented no differently than any straight relationship in the show.

That's mainly what I'm getting at, it's not about how many LGBT characters there are, but how the subject is treated. It's very telling of how the show treats the subject that you having seen the show a few times, remember Lahey as "the guy who drinks a lot", and not "the gay guy". Gay people in real life aren't defined by their sexuality, and I hope we can have more media where LGBT characters aren't defined by their sexuality.
Looking up the show it was Julian (which was on the money because I always used to go around with that drink and a black t shirt). I agree that's how LGBT characters should be portrayed, but what if I said by removing all stereotypical portrayals you remove the possibility of including an LGBT character that is meant to be interpreted ironically?

Noob616
For the most part LGBT advocacy groups here have moved into being support networks rather than getting into politics or media.
Which is where it should end in America now that they have achieved marital equality.

If people would like to exercise their debate skills there regarding said subjects, which are only very loosely tangentially related to the topic at hand, please do so there.
Yeah that was mainly to highlight where the LGBT rights group go from now seeing as it's very much "Mission Accomplished" in the US, and also to show how the reason people celebrate can be far more important than just the fact they are celebrating
 
Last edited:
... Why is it that you seem to think that the people who believe in political correctness go about conducting themselves in the most politically incorrect way imaginable?

I'm beginning to think that your hatred of political correctness is actually a hatred of having to choose between saying what you want and living with the consequences or saying nothing and having no consequences. Because you clearly want to live in a world where you can say and do as you please without having to suffer any consequences because you expect everyone to simply accept it because you think you're always right and that you always know best - and if ever anyone opposed that, then rather than having a valid point, they're clearly just being unreasonable in enforcing a desire for political correctness.
 
Because you clearly want to live in a world where you can say and do as you please without having to suffer any consequences
Do I? I want consequences that are fair, just and within reason.

I was just discriminated for being half black yesterday but I didn't call the police for his being in violation of a hate law. The man had every right to be a bigoted idiot and the consequences (thank you karma) were that he may not know the extent of damage to his engine. Turns out bigoted idiots are idiots in general.

Now, to get back on topic - this is what I'm talking about:

http://time.com/3938550/gay-rights-bill/

If this passes, what's to stop me saying "I was fired for being gay, give me my job back". Are you going to go through my personal life to discover if I'm gay?
 
No - you'd be the one that'd have to make the case you were fired for being gay.
I think that works more in a country with the culture of Canada (sorry America), but it's not hard to see a future where a lot of single men/women exploit LGBT rights granted with good intentions to become immune from discipline.

Case in point, we have a ongoing issue with a member of staff but can't get rid of her because she has falsely accused individuals of touching her and making inappropriate remarks about her religion - a double whammy. It's far cheaper and less stressful for an NHS hospital to limit the effects of her incompetence than take her to trial.
 
Yeah that was mainly to highlight where the LGBT rights group go from now seeing as it's very much "Mission Accomplished" in the US, and also to show how the reason people celebrate can be far more important than just the fact they are celebrating

Like I said, if it's an issue regarding Political Correctness, and what you perceive as furthering that particular agenda, or enabling people to abuse the "discrimination" button (as if that doesn't already happen, anyway, on both sides, take it to that thread..
 
...Apologies for my intrusion, but I came across this, and had to share it with you guys. It's not mine, though.

ng8ul.jpg
 
The makers of games, books and film should be free to objectify women and include or not include LGBT characters at their discretion. If you don't like it, don't buy it. The movement is going the wrong way towards equality by essentially holding a gun to people's heads and saying "you missed your quota, you should update your thinking to reflect the times". This can sometimes go against story canon, as in the James Bond to be black calls. Let's stick to protesting for the right reasons, such as having an issue with the new Spiderman's casting not for "not representing the times" but for not recognising the rise of the mixed race Spiderman.

The hyperbole. Noone's holding a gun to anyone's head when it comes to issues of representation. All that's happening (and I'm talking about the gaming world here btw) is people sharing their opinion, sometimes passionately. If you're really concerned with the makers' right to do what they want, you should direct your anger towards publishers and focus groups. They're the ones with the "guns". People's opinions will only change things if the devs allow them to influence them. The publishers, focus grousp/marketing etc. however are the ones with the power to force them.
 
Last edited:
There's some evidence to indicate human sexuality is evolving due to the clothing we wear, the food we eat, and certain chemicals in the environment.
 
...Apologies for my intrusion, but I came across this, and had to share it with you guys. It's not mine, though.

ng8ul.jpg

It's funny for sure. Here's the thing though, I know people who are gay who got "married" without it being legally recognized and who are now separated. Let me tell you, without the courts to enforce stuff, it is a mess. I mean, people literally trying to steal stuff from each other and get away with it. Legal divorce is probably one of the best reasons for gay marriage. Without it, gay people have been getting into amazing disputes over common property.
 
It's funny for sure. Here's the thing though, I know people who are gay who got "married" without it being legally recognized and who are now separated. Let me tell you, without the courts to enforce stuff, it is a mess. I mean, people literally trying to steal stuff from each other and get away with it. Legal divorce is probably one of the best reasons for gay marriage. Without it, gay people have been getting into amazing disputes over common property.

...Wow, what you said just reminded me of a Chris Rock stand up show that I was lucky to see, waaaaaay back like 10+ years ago. One of the skit was Chris making fun of George Bush and his... lack of willingness to commit a definite answer to anything except legalizing same-sex marriages. What he said there was R-rated so I can't repeat it, but the reason why it got stuck in my memory was what he said afterwards - in that instance it made a perfect sense ( to me, at least.)

Chris infamously said, something along the lines of: "Why stop gay people from getting married? They have every right to be 🤬 miserable as everyone else!!" :lol:
 
I think that works more in a country with the culture of Canada (sorry America), but it's not hard to see a future where a lot of single men/women exploit LGBT rights granted with good intentions to become immune from discipline.
The company I was a manager for had a lawsuit just like this where a woman who is black got fired and claimed it was racial discrimination. The company's lawyers pointed out our percentage of African American employees and asked for evidence that this specific case had to do with race, as there was no history of such behavior by the company.

An LGBT person claiming discrimination better be able to prove it through actions in their individual case and a history of a culture like that at the company.

There's some evidence to indicate human sexuality is evolving due to the clothing we wear, the food we eat, and certain chemicals in the environment.
Sounds intriguing. If only you had linked to it.
 
it's not hard to see a future where a lot of single men/women exploit LGBT rights granted with good intentions to become immune from discipline.

For you, naturally it's hard. What's actually happened is that the rights of LGBT people have simply been brought into line with others. There are no extra rights or allowances. Guess what? Some LGBT people are nasty, manipulative liars. Equal rights doesn't change that.
 
Oh I meant heterosexual people exploiting LGBT rights. How would people prove they weren't gay.

There might be a couple of isolated cases. But that's because there always be rotten apples in the basket.
 
Fair enough. Perhaps my experience is limited because my experience is with an employer that can't afford to contest these claims.
 
You should have just said chemicals. It is not clothing or food specifically, but the chemicals that may be in them.
I stand corrected. But these are not what I recall initially seeing that sparked my curiosity. Somewhere out there are more stories about the synthetic fibers in clothing and plastic food packaging that carry the chemicals to us.
 
I stand corrected. But these are not what I recall initially seeing that sparked my curiosity. Somewhere out there are more stories about the synthetic fibers in clothing and plastic food packaging that carry the chemicals to us.
That is the gist of what the links you provided said, but in the end it is just chemicals. When you said clothes I was thinking along the lines of psychological effects of changing fashion trends. That said, none of it links directly to homosexuality and at worst it is theorized to be linked to earlier developing sexuality. But like most theories of this nature there is only limited data and no fully proven causation. One of the Wiki links even had a "citation needed" marker for the comments regarding the effects on sexual development.

So far, the only cases I have heard that make sense to me are the cases where various forms of hormones get into the water supply. That is one where we know the hormones can have an affect, as we use them medicinally for that purpose. It is easy to see how a constant low dose over time could have a mild version of the effects we strive to get from a full dose medication.
 
That is the gist of what the links you provided said, but in the end it is just chemicals. When you said clothes I was thinking along the lines of psychological effects of changing fashion trends. That said, none of it links directly to homosexuality and at worst it is theorized to be linked to earlier developing sexuality. But like most theories of this nature there is only limited data and no fully proven causation. One of the Wiki links even had a "citation needed" marker for the comments regarding the effects on sexual development.

So far, the only cases I have heard that make sense to me are the cases where various forms of hormones get into the water supply. That is one where we know the hormones can have an affect, as we use them medicinally for that purpose. It is easy to see how a constant low dose over time could have a mild version of the effects we strive to get from a full dose medication.
PLEASE feel free to ignore the entirety of the issues and questions raised - I mostly do too, since I don't really give a poot and there's nothing we can do about it anyway. I did notice that men were said to be feminized and women to be masculinzed by the effect of some of these chemicals. But like I said, you're welcome to it, and it seems to suit society just fine, so no worries, mate. I'm very sorry I brought it up.
 
Last edited:
PLEASE feel free to ignore the entirety of the issues and questions raised - I mostly do too, since I don't really give a poot and there's nothing we can do about it anyway. I did notice that men were said to be feminized and women to be masculinzed by the effect of some of these chemicals. But like I said, you're welcome to it, and it seems to suit society just fine, so no worries, mate. I'm very sorry I brought it up.

But if men and women are equal "beneficiaries" of hormone-infused water then won't they receive additional hormones in equal balance? Or are people already "maximised" on their gender-specific hormones and can only attain top-ups of additional types? I have no idea, just asking... :)
 
But if men and women are equal "beneficiaries" of hormone-infused water then won't they receive additional hormones in equal balance? Or are people already "maximised" on their gender-specific hormones and can only attain top-ups of additional types? I have no idea, just asking... :)

Sorry, I really know very little about hormones, chemistry, and how these may affect the human over time. I now suspect they may not. I regret my initial post.
 
I hate how most websites thinks were all living in America.

HOWEVER

Im glad LGBT are now recgonise by government. They can now protect their own rights and any prejudices. Even as religious as i am, i recgonise that these people exists, you know, like people on different race, beliefs, etc. These are one step towards society.

We have our own values anways as long as we didnt force it or obstruct our connection to others, which is entirely another thing.

Now, if we can destroy all prejudices, not just LGBT.
 
I hate how most websites thinks were all living in America.

HOWEVER

Im glad LGBT are now recgonise by government.

It's not like before this ruling gay people had no rights. They could still call the cops if someone stole their wallet. It's just now they can enter into a state-recognized marriage contract.


Now, if we can destroy all prejudices, not just LGBT.

The supreme court ruling didn't destroy any prejudice. It's still perfectly legal to be prejudiced in the US.
 
Back