Are Gay Themes Expanding in Video Games?

Are gay characters and themes more acceptable in video games these days?

Gay publication The Advocate examines the issue in Are Games Getting Gayer? For the article, author Bryan Ochalla spoke to, among others, game designer Brenda Brathwaite, author of Sex in Video Games. Braithwaite said:

We still haven’t seen the kind of normalization [of LGBT characters and story lines] that we’ve seen in movies and on TV for some time. We still haven’t had our Brokeback Mountain moment.

It took them a while, but developers… [are] getting hip to the fact that there are LGBT gamers out there who want to control LGBT characters… The almighty dollar talks as much in this industry as it does in any other, and we all know the gay market is nothing to sneeze at in that regard…

 

We also have to stop putting things into games that turn off gay players How many games have you played that put you in control of a male character and then asked you to save a princess?

Openly gay Maxis game designer Jeb Havens (no word as to whether he was impacted by yesterday’s layoff) commented:

[Game developers are] moving away from the stereotype of the angry, homophobic teen boy … toward a broader picture of who is buying and playing games… We’re starting to see a willingness to experiment with stories and characters that would appeal to more diverse audiences.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

383 comments

  1. 0
    Snipzor says:

     Of course they ignore it, they don’t want their outrage to be silenced with information that would prove them wrong. Regardless of how close it is.

  2. 0
    Mr.Pat says:

    Nah, I’ll be "just the same as him" when I start using any and every excuse I can to get out of citing any points of information or facts. I’ve still got a long ways to go before I become that intellectually dishonest.

  3. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    "LGBT characters and story lines shouldn’t be slipped into each and every game, she adds, but “in certain circumstances it not only makes sense but makes the game a richer, more enjoyable experience for everyone.”"

     

    FUnny how no one seems to care about her very next sentance *FACEPALM*

  4. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    I find it funny that this whole article was basically someone saying "Games are becoming more gay friendly" and "Involving gay characters in games would make games more inclusive and realistic" and people are attacking it like she is trying to rip the industry a new one. The article is basically praising the advancement.

  5. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    Hyperbole FTL!

    Every gaming publication? REALLY? I somehow doubt PSM is touting Ocarina of time as the greatest game ever. In fact I think Halo (1,2,3), Mass Effect, WoW, GoW (god and gears), have all held those titals and have all been out since ZOoT. Fanboy arguements don’t make you look intelligent.

  6. 0
    Mr.Pat says:

    If it’s such an "inequality" issue, then why is it that, in states allowing gay marriage, the definition of marriage had to be changed or eliminated alltogether?

    Minnesota (also competing for the title of "America’s most liberal state")

     

    has not even considered anything on gay marriage at all.

    Probably because they don’t want Michelle Bachman reaching even higher levels of psychopath.

  7. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    If it’s such an "inequality" issue, then why is it that, in states allowing gay marriage, the definition of marriage had to be changed or eliminated alltogether?  Could it be that the equality I posited was a legal roadblock?  Actually, yeah it was.  That’s why California (competing for the title of "America’s most liberal state") repealed gay marriage in both the vote and the Supreme Court, and why Minnesota (also competing for the title of "America’s most liberal state") has not even considered anything on gay marriage at all.

    He was dead when I got here.

  8. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Just as I would hope you won’t be particularly bothered by the fact that I think you’re an illiterate douchebag more concerned with screaming the loudest than actually understanding where the people who may or may not disagree with you are coming from.

    He was dead when I got here.

  9. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    The "bullshit psychoanalysis" comes from the fact that those arguments used against me had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with anything I said.  As I’ve pointed out countless times here (which nobody has even commented on) is that I haven’t said what my position on the issue is.  I’ve done nothing more than counter the arguments used to support is, by pointing out flaws in the arguments themselves.  I’ve said this more than once.  You just don’t understand that.  Because I’m not standing with you in any obvious fashion, I must be standing against you, so you attack me.

     

    LEARN TO READ YOU DOUCHEBAGS!

    He was dead when I got here.

  10. 0
    Snipzor says:

     I can’t even go back to Ocarina of Time, and neither can many people. The quality of the game is incredible, but nobody can replay it until it has been years. Contextually, it is one of the best games, but it is in no way as good as some of the games we get today. You sir are trapped in the Nostalgia Zone (Deus Ex on the other hand does not fall into that trap due to its infinite replayability).

    Also, "every gaming publication" is an unfalsifiable statement and cannot be considered a valid statement.

  11. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Actually, every gaming publication I’ve ever read agrees with me.  That’s why Ocarina of Time is considered by a vast majority of the industry as the best game ever made.

    He was dead when I got here.

  12. 0
    DjangoDurango says:

    Well, to be honest, during the parts where Dumbledore’s relationship with Grindelwald was discussed, I was thinking that it did sound a little gay. But there’s not enough there to really know without her having said so. It’s very subtle and the thought only occured fleetingly for me (i.e. "I bet there is slash fic of this somewhere."). Rowling explains that he was in love with Grindelwald which, if you read those passages in that context, fits. Somewhere, I once read that the first time she revealed that information was not at Carnegie Hall but to the director of the movies, when they were working on the script for The Half-Blood Prince. She spotted a reference to a female love interest in Dumbledore’s past, which is never mentioned in the books. A rewriting was obviously called for and the reason why was explained to the director.

    She planned it carefully and well in advance. Whether it was a publcity stunt, a joke, or she really did write him as gay as she felt she could get away with, it handles the situation of having a gay character in children’s literature (at this point in time) as well as can be done these days by putting that information out there but not making it so overt as to keep parents from wanting their children "exposed" to gay themes. I think we often forget that those books are written for children. I lean away from the idea of it being a publicity stunt because of that. If it was intended to increase profits, she would’ve written him as more obviously gay and Scholastic would’ve been behind the move. Since Scholatic is hip to how parents think though, it’s likely that she either never brought the idea up to them at all or, if she did, they shot it down in the interests of not upsetting parents.

    Doesn’t mean much for the gay community, though, besides adding another name to the list of fictional gay characters. Like I said before, if you can’t tell someone is gay in the actual work, then there’s little point in saying he is outside of it. Is that a cop out, if she did intend for him to truly be gay? I think so. I’m not going to begrudge her for it, though.

  13. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    I disagree, yes levels and whatnot are stil present, but that doesn’t dictate how the story can develope. I think you’re trying to see videogames as interactive movies, which can and do happen, but they’re no longer videogames.

  14. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Personally, I view the whole thing as a marketing scheme.  By the time she had said that, all 7 books were well beyond the huge sales they generated when they first hit store shelves, and were at the point where sales were either dwindling or holding steady at a far lower rate.  I think it was her way of trying to appeal to a small section of the market, as well as her way of getting a bunch of free publicity for the book.  Besides, it’s not like the statement would hurt her very much, as most people who wouldn’t buy a book with a gay character seemed to be against a character who was a witch (or wizard) in the first place.  I don’t believe she wrote Dumbledore as a gay character; I believe that she was just trying to say that to make more money.

  15. 0
    State says:

    Portal?!?

    I’ve already mentioned Indigo Prophecy above. But you still don’t get it. We haven’t had games that focus specifically on issues and emtions of characters. Games focus on getting to the next stage, doing so and so. And the writing in games just isn’t comparable to that of film or television. Games have the potential to go deeper than both cinema and television due to the possibility of branching where the results of different decisions can be played out. This is why games are still seen as juvenile toys.

    You look at the story and writing in Bioshock, in the gaming industry it seems Oscar worthy but when compared to films it’s just a pretty average film in terms of writing and storyline.

  16. 0
    DjangoDurango says:

    Oh, I agree in regards to Dumbledore. I have always thought that Rowling said that not because it was true, necessarily, but to have some fun at the expense of all the fundamentalists who insisted her books featured "real" witchcraft. You know, an "if they were upset about that, let’s see how they like this!" kind of thing.

    The point I was trying to make though, was that even if she had intended for him to be gay all along, there is nothing in the books that says so, making such a point moot. Having gay characters like that is useless.

    Look at GTAIV; it’s not too big a stretch to see that roid-rage freak eat bull testicles as a person struggling with their sexuality (and everything about the man screams issues).  But then they take the little nancy boy approach, and have a gay character who is basically the worst stereotype (can’t remember his name, but he dates the mayor).

    Regular, well-adjusted, and normal people who happen to be gay would be cool too.

  17. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    Genre no, but drama in games already exists.

    FFVII – Death of Tifa.

    Indigo Prophecy. Heavy Rain.

    Mass Effect. Portal.

    Are you paying attention yet?

  18. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    You and others are trying to make arguements like the idea that homosexuality is a defect, immoral, or otherwise worse then heterosexuality, a large portion of the population (gay and straight) disagree. Using religion to back it up.

    What debate are YOU watching?

  19. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    I didn’t say it wasn’t normal. But it seems a bit wrong to avoid the idea that gays exist because of that doesn’t it?

    I would like to see more gay "scenery" characters. Like a gay couple walking in the background in a city scene, etc.

  20. 0
    deadgarth says:

    And I’d be scared if an 80 year old woman hit on me.  It’s normal to be a little anxious if people hit on you who you can’t imagine having a physical attraction to.

  21. 0
    JDKJ says:

    "Think of me as you wish . . . ."

    Not that I needed your permission, but it’s good to know that you won’t be particularly bothered by the fact that I think you’re a moron of gigantic proportions.

  22. 0
    Mr.Pat says:

    You really do like ignoring the benefits, rights, and privileges granted through marriage, don’t you? Because in states where gay marriage or same-sex marriages aren’t allowed or recognized, there are many, many couples deprived of them. So yes, there is a substantial inequality issue. If you can’t understand that, then that’s just a sad thing.

  23. 0
    Wormdundee says:

    "You throw that out there, why?  Are YOU afraid it might?"

    "again, are YOU afraid it might?"

    The hell kind of bullshit psychoanalysis is this man? He mentioned those points because they are what many decidely irrational people have said as an argument against gay marriage.

    Also, I should point out that it’s not much of an argument at all, seeing as how you…y’know, didn’t actually respond to his points in any way. All you’ve done in this post is respond with some wacky psychoanalysis to things that he said you MIGHT be thinking as reasons behind your stance against gay marriage.

    So, try responding again.

  24. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Wait, was Austin calling you or Mr. Pat a liberal elitist?

    Sorry for jumping to the conclusion that you were liberal, guess I shouldn’t rush like that. I disagree with your opinions on the current use of gay people in video games, but shouldn’t have started introducing politics into it, because you weren’t suggesting applying laws and government control on the subject.

  25. 0
    metroidprimegmr says:

    Oops, my bad. I thought my posts hadn’t gone through since I couln’t see them, even after refreshing.

    I’d really be grateful if someone could delete all of my posts but the first one, please.

    _______________________________________________________

    Jack Thompson: future Good Burger employee of the month

  26. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Huh, I didn’t know that. There are a lot more libertarians on this site than I thought, yay ^^

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  27. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    The number one cause of aids: having more than one sexual partner.  The number two cause of aids: unprotected sex.  Source: the CDC.  The two groups of people, in order of cases, affected most by aids: black people and gays.  Source: the CDC.

    Saying that gay marriage would allow anyone to marry anyone they want does not contradict in any way my statement about marriage equality.  If you can’t understand that, then you have bigger problems than a lack of gay marriage.

    He was dead when I got here.

  28. 0
    metroidprimegmr says:

    >322 comments

    >arguing about gay people

    https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/795552/Elated%20Gehn.jpg

    I mean COME ON, guys. This is something I’d expect from /v/.

    PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE. That’s all there is to it.

    ___________________________________________________

    Jack Thompson: future Good Burger employee of the month

  29. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    This is to Snipzor, from up top:

    It’s not accepted by the scientific community because of the fact it hasn’t been presented to the public as a viable theory.  If it had been, gay’s around the world would have been on any television station they could talking about it.  You’re the one saying it is, so I respond with your own argument: prove it.

    Also, ctrl+f doesn’t mean jack.  I responded to what someone said that was, quite literally, what I quoted.  You’re the one who apparently can’t read.

    He was dead when I got here.

  30. 0
    Mr.Pat says:

    Since that remark came from the biggest whiner with a persecution complex on the site, I feel this is quite appropriate for here, and just about anything else you accuse others of as a whole:

  31. 0
    Icehawk says:

    Over 300 posts on this.  For what?  Gods below have people become so insecure that they have to attack anything or anyone that does not agree with them?   Drag in marriage (religious based btw and the big 3 religions all say homosexuality is bad so go do the math) if you insist, muddy the waters, dance and distract anything but deal with is layed out. 

    Makes me want to tell the children they are being to fussy and need to take a nap.

    Tell you what, go ahead and make the gay themed games for those that have interest.  Just be prepared to lose your shirt.  It was mentioned that game developers listen to the allmighty dollar, this is truth.  Regardless of what the more rapid gays and the supporters thereof would suggest the majority of society is still straight.  Not likely that straight people are going to a buy a game that forces them into the role of being gay.  Sorry. 

    Understand that at this time I honestly dont give a flying damn about any claimed "rights".  No one has the right to demand that society will bow to thier whims or that the laws will be rewritten for them.   If you want a thing earn it.  Want a gay based game then make it for pay for it.  

    Put up or shut up. 

    Attack my politics or my religion (or more accurately the lack thereof), it does not matter.  I am not going to mold myself and my beleifs just to make another person happy while they will not return the same amount of respect. 

  32. 0
    Mr.Pat says:

    Its funny how your "turning it around" is very familiar to your usual persecution complex you carry around on here, so excuse me if I call that a load of BS from you.

    As for your gaps, you didn’t ask for them before, you asked for a review of your arguement, which I gave you. But since you, as per usual, rudely dismissed them as nonexistent, here’s just a couple for now.

     

    Mostly unrelated point – a majority of homosexuals do not have monogomous relationships.  This is why AIDS is still an issue amongst homosexuals.  Therefore, since marriage is all about monogomy, the love argument for gay marriage cannot be used.

    Of course you won’t cite anything for it though, being as intellectually dishonest as you are.

     

    Straight men can’t marry other men, nor can straight women marry other women.  Since straight people can’t marry people of their same gender, claiming that gay people can’t marry people of the same gender is inequal is logically and factually wrong.  Also, nowhere is there a law saying gay people cannot marry someone of the opposite gender, as straight people can.  Once again, claiming inequality doesn’t fit.

    Wrong and misleading. Wrong because same-sex marriage is legalized in Massachusettes, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, and several nations as a whole – and in not one of them do they ask for your orientation or a reason for the marriage in the first place. Misleading because you know damn well that gay couples receive frequently denied the same rights, benefits, and priviledges straight couples are because of the fact they can’t get married in many states – I’ve even gone as far as to list and cite (because I actually think its good to be credible) everything gay couples are denied in previous topics here, and I’ll be doing it again in another post here. and before you chime in that they should just move to one of the places I listed, thats not an option for everyone. Your assertion that because straight people can’t marry the same gender that they’re perfectly equal is intellecually dishonest and misleading because its nothing but a black-and-white arguement that leaves several gray areas out intentionally.

  33. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    That’s because I’m not arguing against gay marriage.  I’ve said that countless times.  I said that in the post.  All I was pointing out is the holes in the argument FOR gay marriage.  If you’re going to argue for something that will (whether you like it or not) change the face of our nation, you need solid, logical arguments.  I have yet to see any arguments for gay marriage that would meet this standard.  These are the only two arguments I’ve ever heard for it.  Everything else I’ve heard from supporters of gay marriage are reasons why those who oppose gay marriage ABSOLUTELY MUST be uber-religious homophobes more concerned with political dominance than anything.  If that’s really the only argument you have, along with the two flawed arguments I’ve discussed, you’re not going to win the cause, as you’re making a mess that can’t be cleaned up.

    He was dead when I got here.

  34. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    What does that have to do with anything?  Aion looks fucking awesome, so your lesbian friends would be retarded to not be interested.  The only reason I won’t play it is that it will have a subscription fee.  The only game I’d be able to get with a fee is Star Trek Online, and, since I saw the trailer for Guild Wars 2, I don’t know if I even want STO anymore.

    He was dead when I got here.

  35. 0
    Snipzor says:

    "This is why AIDS is still an issue amongst people."

    AIDS can be contracted by anyone, and it is more prevalent in urban areas with low education standards. Stop pushing this bullshit about gays not being "monogomous".

    "claiming that gay people can’t marry people of the same gender is inequal is logically and factually wrong."

    No, what would be intellectually wrong would be your entire comment. If there was gay marriage, here’s a small hint as to what would happen. People can marry people regardless of gender. Your argument is filled with logical fallacies.

    Your points are completely idiotic.

  36. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    The reason I used those examples as what you might be worried about is that unfortunatly they are some of the most common examples (especially the fear of religions being forced to recognize gay marriage against their beliefs) used to argu against gay marriage and gay rights in general. My post was responding to you but it was a broader post to address anyone reading who is against gay marriage.

    Also I’ve yet to see one thing you’ve posted make any kind of logical arguement against anything.

  37. 0
    Snipzor says:

     Location of reposting of most of the comment for Jedidethfreak:

    2) Suck it. Also if there is no evidence to support a belief, it isn’t a theory. Scientific theory is based on facts and is strengthened through further evidence. The fact that the digit ratio theory is still a theory shows how wrong you are, and just because a few scientists go against it doesn’t show anything because that’s what peer review is you pillock (And if the peer review against it is less than the peer review failing to go against it, well logic dictates that it is still valid). Now show some bloody scientists who have a powerful theory that supports your bullshit (LINK AND CITATION NEEDED, as were the caps and bolding of that phrase) or you’ll continue to be the man who makes shit up as he goes.

    3) No, people argue that THE TREATMENT of sexuality is the same as the treatment of racial minorities. There is no denial, and just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Try going to a few reading comprehensions classes before making assumptions in a thread.

  38. 0
    Snipzor says:

     1) Sure, we all know what you meant, it just contradicts what you actually said.

    2) Suck it. Also if there is no evidence to support a belief, it isn’t a theory. Scientific theory is based on facts and is strengthened through further evidence. The fact that the digit ratio theory is still a theory shows how wrong you are, and just because a few scientists go against it doesn’t show anything because that’s what peer review is you pillock (And if the peer review against it is less than the peer review failing to go against it, well logic dictates that it is still valid). Now show some bloody scientists who have a powerful theory that supports your bullshit (LINK AND CITATION NEEDED, as were the caps and bolding of that phrase) or you’ll continue to be the man who makes shit up as he goes.

    3) No, people argue that THE TREATMENT of sexuality is the same as the treatment of racial minorities. There is no denial, and just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Try going to a few reading comprehensions classes before making assumptions in a thread.

  39. 0
    Snipzor says:

    1) Sure, we all know what you meant, it just contradicts what you actually said.

    2) Suck it. Also if there is no evidence to support a belief, it isn’t a theory. Scientific theory is based on facts and is strengthened through further evidence. The fact that the digit ratio theory is still a theory shows how wrong you are, and just because a few scientists go against it doesn’t show anything because that’s what peer review is you pillock (And if the peer review against it is less than the peer review failing to go against it, well logic dictates that it is still valid). Now show some bloody scientists who have a powerful theory that supports your bullshit (LINK AND CITATION NEEDED, as were the caps and bolding of that phrase) or you’ll continue to be the man who makes shit up as he goes.

    3) No, people argue that THE TREATMENT of sexuality is the same as the treatment of racial minorities. There is no denial, and just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Try going to a few reading comprehensions classes before making assumptions in a thread. 

  40. 0
    Snipzor says:

     To Jedidethfreak:

    1) Sure, we all know what you meant, it just contradicts what you actually said.

    2) Suck it. Also if there is no evidence to support a belief, it isn’t a theory. Scientific theory is based on facts and is strengthened through further evidence. The fact that the digit ratio theory is still a theory shows how wrong you are, and just because a few scientists go against it doesn’t show anything because that’s what peer review is you pillock (And if the peer review against it is less than the peer review failing to go against it, well logic dictates that it is still valid). Now show some bloody scientists who have a powerful theory that supports your bullshit (LINK AND CITATION NEEDED, as were the caps and bolding of that phrase) or you’ll continue to be the man who makes shit up as he goes.

    3) No, people argue that THE TREATMENT of sexuality is the same as the treatment of racial minorities. There is no denial, and just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Try going to a few reading comprehensions classes before making assumptions in a thread.

  41. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Um, no…I was projected upon.  I merely turned it around.  Also, thanks for pointing out those "gaps" in my logic…oh, wait, all you did was say the same shit you say everywhere else.  No suprise.

    He was dead when I got here.

  42. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    Actually, Rowling did state that if she knew that saying Dumbledore was gay would get her so much attention, she would have included it in the books.

  43. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Even when taken by themselves, most games since the N64/PS1/Saturn/Dreamcast era are not anything more than what’s been done to death already.  Games are stagnant, and have been for some time.  However, merely having a character come out saying "I’m Gay" isn’t going to fix that.

    He was dead when I got here.

  44. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    I disagree with your second paragraph.  We’ve already been turning away from scoring, and RPG’s are getting better at storytelling, but true drama in gaming is a long way off.  I think that, after the next decade, in order for gaming to evolve and expand, it’s going to have to move in a more drama-oriented direction.

    He was dead when I got here.

  45. 0
    Mr.Pat says:

    I haven’t seen him reccommending physical harm on someone, wheras I just have to look a few posts up to see you doing that though.

     

    Imagine that.

  46. 0
    thefremen says:

    Since Dumbledore was born when the Buggery act was still law he might have been really far into the closet but if anything she did absolutely no characterization to indicate his sexuality one way or the other, the man seemed a-sexual if anything. Anyways doesn’t matter much anymore since Snape killed Dumbledore. 

  47. 0
    Mr.Pat says:

    And I see we can add projection to the list too, no surprise there. I’d also be careful who you accuse of being like Jack, you’ve got a few similarities to him too, but go ahead and cry persecuted, its generally expected now. 

  48. 0
    Mr.Pat says:

    Quite piss-poor, actually. All you did was jump on the defensive/persecuted (again) and go into wild projection (again) while leaving substantial gaps in your "logical arguements" and, surprise surprise, never citing a single "fact" or "point" in how many posts in this thread? The only thing you even got right was how marriage has more often than not in the past been used as a contract, often arranged, of mutual benefit for the parties involed – after that you basically went back into your standard shithole of a posting while projecting your hatred onto the other side.

    So basically, this is par for the course from you.

  49. 0
    thefremen says:

    Yeah I gotta apologize for that, although Austin_Lewis is pretty easy to troll as far as most conservative issues go, he actually hasn’t had a history of raging out against the homos. Should have said "Father Time" instead.

    BTW, not so sure if "liberal elitist" can be applied to someone who’s been part of demonstrations trying to get Feinstein out of office and isn’t elite in any sense of the word.

    But yeah, sorry, I did indeed attribute a point of view to you which did not apply, please don’t report me to OBAMA’S EVIL DEATH PANEL. 

  50. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Sure I have princess. Because, of course, if you’re not a liberal, anything mean you say is ad hominem.  If you’re a liberal, it’s fine.  Fairly sure that your liberal chum thefremen started us off, calling people bigots, making shit up, and overall acting like Jack Thompson.

  51. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    I forgot.  When a liberal like thefremen makes baseless accusations and acts like a douchebag, it’s ok.  But when I mock him for being such a whiny bitch, it’s hateful. 

    This seems to be popping up a lot lately.

  52. 0
    thefremen says:

    To use the "mah friends" thing, out of the lesbians I know, all of them are going to be playing Aion, none will be joining me in Champions. WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW? 

  53. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Again, I’ve never said anything for or against gay marriage.  I never said that gays getting married would affect my marriage in any way (funny, because it won’t.  You throw that out there, why?  Are YOU afraid it might?).  I never thought humans would die off (again, are YOU afraid it might?). The economy is already in the toilet (arguably because of uber-liberals in the House and Senate, which is funny because they’re the ones pushing for gay marriage).  I never argued that more children would become gay, because everybody knows that gay people raising children don’t necessarily raise gay children.  All I did was post two logical arguments that prove two arguments for gay marriage are patently false.

    What your problem is, is that you are so hateful of anyone who MIGHT disagree with you that you project fallicies to them.  I have proven this, right here.

    How’s that for an argument, MrPat?

    He was dead when I got here.

  54. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    As far as Gay-Bashing online goes, just seems to me that ‘The First Amendment’ is more important than ‘Common manners’ to some people to be honest.

    Just because you can state any opinion you wish, doesn’t always mean you have to state that opinion, a certain amount of intelligence is expected to be used, and I’d hardly say ‘Call of Duty’ etc, is the Forum to be expressing it in, it’s not an invitation to have radical opinions purely because you can.

    I don’t think the people saying it are actively homophobic, I don’t think they are the sort of people who go out and beat up gays, but I do think most of them are ignorant, selfish pricks who don’t care about anything other than themselves, they call people gay and queer as an insult because they think that gays are somehow ‘less than human’, it wouldn’t be used if it wasn’t, but it doesn’t take 5 minutes of thinking of other people, people totally unrelated to whatever tanrum they may be throwing, but that’s obviously too much effort.

     

  55. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    I agree with almost everything you said.
    The only thing I take issue with (and you’re not the only one who mentioned it) is this whole ‘Albus Dumbledore is gay’ issue.  I don’t believe he was ever intended to be a gay character.  I think that, after finishing the books, after the sales were dropping off a bit, she claimed that in order to get a little bit of publicity.  If he was really gay, and that had been her intent, and she had a spine, she would probably have mentioned it earlier.  The fact that she waited until after all her books were published and basically said ‘oh yeah, Dumbledore is gay’ was just a cheap publicity stunt.

    I agree, we need more gay characters that don’t feel shoehorned or stereotypical.  Look at GTAIV; it’s not too big a stretch to see that roid-rage freak eat bull testicles as a person struggling with their sexuality (and everything about the man screams issues).  But then they take the little nancy boy approach, and have a gay character who is basically the worst stereotype (can’t remember his name, but he dates the mayor).

    Personally, I think in RPGs, it’d be cool to let you hit on whoever (within reason), and you could determine your own orientation.  But I don’t think we need to shoehorn gay stereotypes into games.  That’s so gay.

  56. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    His post is just classic liberal elitist hatred.

    Also, I’m libertarian, not conservative.  I believe that gays have every right to be legally married, just no right to be married in certain churches.

  57. 0
    Arell says:

    Teenage boy, perhaps.  But the "homophobic" tag is unnecessary.  Liking aliens and guns and space marines and lesbian sex with a blue chick, doesn’t have anything to do with homophobia.  So adding the "homophobic" tag implies that ALL teenage boys are homophobes.

  58. 0
    DjangoDurango says:

    I also approve of this idea. I feel religion, apart from the practice of such being protected, has no place in our laws. Therefore, if religious institutions want to keep marriage to their own definition, they should lobby to have marriage no longer recognized by the government. This serves the dual purpose of taking away the idea that marriage is only between a man and a woman (since churches would then be able to determine on their own whether they will marry gay men and women or not) and leaving no reason why all civil unions shouldn’t be equally observed.

  59. 0
    DjangoDurango says:

    My, won’t you look at all these people arguing over gay rights and gay marriage without actually having any knowledge of the issues involved!

    I must agree that there is nothing about rescuing a princess that should turn off a gay player. Brathwaite is ridiculous for implying that there is. I don’t think I’ve ever played a game in which the protagonist was more than remotely similar to me. I would imagine the same is true of most gamers. How many of us are plumbers? Mafiosi? Archeologists? Death row inmates turned snuff film stars?

    As far as I’ve seen, the gay characters that have been in games (The Sims, MMO’s, and the like notwithstanding) have not, until recently, been portrayed as positive characters or taken seriously. If gay themes are indeed expanding in videogames, I look forward to seeing it. However, I certainly hope that the conservative suggestion of just having characters who are never actually said to be gay (à la Albus Dumbledore) is ignored. It reminds me very much of the attitude gay "leaders" had prior to the 70’s, that they should silently back straight politicians who were merely tolerant of them rather than having their own leadership. All that ever got them was dragged out of their bars, beaten by the police, arrested, publicly outed in the newspapers, and subsequently fired from their jobs.

    A gay character doesn’t need to be "shoehorned" into the story of most games. Is it really that hard for a character to simply be gay and not have that be the thing about them? I think it shows lack of character depth if it is. That would be a larger "problem" for a game in my opinion.

  60. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    I think that polygamy should be legal, to be honest. If you want to be legally bonded to 3 women and a dude, I say power to you. However, legal bondage should be a seperate thing from marriage, as marriage is chiefly a religious thing and should be kept seperate from the state. In other words: I want to be legally bonded to my wife, and share the same legal benefits of any currently married couple, but I don’t wish to be "married" to her because I do not have religious beliefs or following at a church.

    That way, everyone wins. It’s fair (any set of consenting adults can become bonded and enjoy certain legal rights, regardless of gender/race), it further allows the seperation of church and state, it allows churches to continue to decide who they want to "marry…" It basically solves all of the problems at once.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  61. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Who, Austin? Austin hasn’t done shit in this thread, and doesn’t even seem particularly sided on the political spectrum (yes, he is conservative, but that isn’t readily apparent in this thread, only his common sense is apparent in this thread).

    Frankly, I’m a bit confused by your post…

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  62. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    A gay man being able to marry a woman does not promote his right to the pursuit of happiness, I’m sorry you’re too dense or hateful (I don’t know which) to see this. I’m sorry the idea of some gay couple you don’t even KNOW getting married makes you think your marriage will somehow be diminished, or the human race will die off, or the U.S. economy will fail, or more children will become gay, or whatever logical fallacy you’ve cooked up in your mind to make yourself feel better about this view. The fact of the matter is, it won’t. Gay people getting married won’t really change anythign for anyone except (GASP) gay people.

    Let me put it this way. By supporting gay marriage, at no expense or disparagement to yourself you have the opportunity to further the happiness of THOUSANDS of individuals in this country. You have the opportunity to create more stable homes for children with gay parents. You have the ability to create more wealth (which means more spending and a more stable and growing economy). You have the ability to further the ability for people to take care of and support the people they love and devout themselves to already.

    What possible REAL arguement can you place against that? I’ve studied this debate academically, socially, economically and religiously for the last 8 years. I have never once found a single arguement that either wasn’t based on lies (like religions being forced to agree with gay marriage) or disregard for reality (the human race will die!!!) in that entire time. PLEASE give me one reason to have some semblance of faith in the intelligence of the opposition that has somehow prevented this eventuality from happening already. I would really love to have one reason to restore my faith in humanity. Because the anti-gay marriage initiative has all but made me feel that humanity is a failed experiment.

  63. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    The remark was because most AAA games are targetted at a pubescent overhormoned stright teenage boy who finds boobs and girl on girl action hot but thinks two guys kissing is uglier then pictures of what happened at gitmo.

    I’m sorry, Mass Effect was a nod to the LGBT community, but it still fell squarly in the homophobic teenage boy catagorey.

  64. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    By the very definition the majority of games won’t be innovative or top 10% amazing. That’s kind of the point. You don’t compare them to some standard, you compare them to eachother and a very small few come out on top.

  65. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    I think this refers to overly stereotyped characters and gay bashing. I mean once in a while is fine and sometimes even a bit funny, but when it’s all that exists it gets to be a bit insulting.

  66. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    If someone made a game that had gay people as a focus, and said game actually took itself seriously (unlike just about any flash game out there), do you really think I’d have a problem with it?  What have I said, anywhere, that would suggest that?  I’ve never even said how I personally feel about gay marriage, that I can remember anyway.  What I have said was the fallicies of the arguments for gay marriage.  For example:

    Argument for:  It’s about love.

    Fallicy:  Marriage, until the hippie movement, was rarely about love.  Until the turn of the century, it was commonplace across the country to have arranged marriage, and even after that, marriages were more about mutual benefit than love.  Since the hippie movement, marriage has been about love.  That’s why half of marriages end in divorce.  Mostly unrelated point – a majority of homosexuals do not have monogomous relationships.  This is why AIDS is still an issue amongst homosexuals.  Therefore, since marriage is all about monogomy, the love argument for gay marriage cannot be used.

    Argument for:  It’s about equal rights.

    Fallicy:  Straight men can’t marry other men, nor can straight women marry other women.  Since straight people can’t marry people of their same gender, claiming that gay people can’t marry people of the same gender is inequal is logically and factually wrong.  Also, nowhere is there a law saying gay people cannot marry someone of the opposite gender, as straight people can.  Once again, claiming inequality doesn’t fit.

     

    Think of me as you wish, but these are valid points.  Nobody argues against these points.  Nobody has here.  All anyone says in response is "biggot" or "homophobe," which only translates to "I can’t argue with your logic, so I’ll attack you personally, because it’s the only thing I have left."

    He was dead when I got here.

  67. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    But we aren’t the ones applying our arguments universally.  Those that we use those arguments against try to use theirs universally.  We’re telling them they can’t with our proof that they are incorrect in such an attempt.

    He was dead when I got here.

  68. 0
    Baruch_S says:

    I guess I really don’t care. I don’t buy WW II or racing games because the elements and themes don’t interest me; I probably wouldn’t buy an overtly gay-themed game for the same reason. If the LGBT community has more games that appeal to them, great for them. They can buy those games, and I’ll stick to buying games that interest me.

  69. 0
    SlyFox says:

    Wow.  You just made a simple assumption of his/her mindset regarding women.  And then you ran with it so fast that you ended up taking that line of thought to an unlikely extreme without stopping to realize that your assumption was just that: an assumption.

Leave a Reply