| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it necessary to bring up pedophilia, rape, and bestiality when talking about homosexuality? Let's lay off using these comparisons and return to the topic, which is the presentation of homosexuality in our world setting.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the other side can say the exact same thing. It's not as simple as "don't like it, then don't look". I personally wouldn't want to read about a graphic rape, or see an element of bestiality or child sex. I guess that makes me a bigot, and I'd vocally condemn the idea of Paizo (as an example), including those things for tolerance. For some people, homosexuality is a similar concept. That doesn't make them wrong, or their opinions less valid or worth being heard.
I emboldened part of your post for clarity because, well, legally, ethically & morally, it's incorrect, at best. The people who lump homosexuality with bestiality & pedophilia do so because they are conflating being attracted, emotionally & sexually, to a member of your own sex, to sexually using & abusing another. The two are so different that =/= doesn't even cover it.
It's also a huge double standard because if we take your statement and switch it right around to apply to the other side, I doubt it be held as tolerantly.
"when gays demand homosexuality is presented in mass media of any sort, that's treating those against homosexuality like they don't exist and thus, are not people."
As far as that whopper goes. Wow! how do you walk with brass balls that big?! For most of the history of Broadcast Media, Heterosexuality has not only been the norm, anything other than Heterosexuality has been vilified, marginalized, or ignored.
Presenting 'anything else', be it Homosexuality, Asexuality, or what-have-you, so long as the parties involved are capable of making an informed, conscious acceptance of that relationship, in a light that places it in the same context as the 'norm' Heterosexuality, isn't 'ignoring' people who are anti-gay; it's telling them that gays are people just as much as the anti-gays are.
I see your point there Devil, but when a person opines that Paizo products should not mention such subject matter, that person is using their personal tastes to limit the first amendment rights of others, rather than simply choosing what sort of product to buy.
That is, when you demand "the gays" aren't mentioned in mass media of any sort, that's treating them like they don't exist and thus, are not people.
And the other side can say the exact same thing. It's not as simple as "don't like it, then don't look". I personally wouldn't want to read about a graphic rape, or see an element of beastiality or child sex. I guess that makes me a bigot, and I'd vocally condemn the idea of Paizo (as an example), including those things for tolerance. For some people, homosexuality is a similar concept. That doesn't make them wrong, or their opinions less valid or worth being heard. It's also a huge double standard because f we take your statement and switch it riht around to apply to the other side, I doubt it be held as tolerantly.
"when gays demand homosexuality is presented in mass media of any sort, that's treating those against homosexuality like they don't exist and thus, are not people."
How does demanding that homosexuality is presented in mass media limit anyone's rights? Viewing mass media, including Paizo's products, is a voluntary act, not a compulsory one.
Those of us how support, or just don't mind, homosexuality in Golarion, aren't trying to limit anyone's actions. It's exactly as simple as "don't like, don't look."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"when gays demand homosexuality is presented in mass media of any sort, that's treating those against homosexuality like they don't exist and thus, are not people."
Ah yes, the old canard "fighting oppression is oppressing the forces of oppression" rears its ugly, misbegotten head.
|
Ah yes, the old canard "fighting oppression is oppressing the forces of oppression" rears its ugly, misbegotten head.
"when gays demand homosexuality is presented in mass media of any sort, that's treating those against homosexuality like they don't exist and thus, are not people."
How dare you repress my ability to repress!
Contributor
|
If it relates, the subject of how high magic/fantastic elements would affect sexuality seems ripe for discussion.
Nex alone raises a lot of possibilities. Possibly all of the possibilities.
Magic does seem to address gender dysphoria pretty well. Yet the problem remains is that it is expensive. Just as in our world, an individual who wishes to change their body needs a lot of resources and could end up saving for years or decades to afford it.
Nex has a class issue in that not only are magical resources chiefly available to a wealthy elite, but the elite functions as the monopolists of magic as well. Hence polymorphous sexuality and other diversions would be only allowed to the highest caste, except in as much the poor would be victims of experimentation. I guess that would be a significant problem in many stratified societies (like ancient Rome) - that sexual freedom is more available to those with power than those without it and indeed exemplifies the freedom not extended to those who have less autonomy.A Nexian archmage can pretty much mate with, reproduce with, and love, anything or anyone they want. But there are costs to this. It doesn't seem me that Nex's elite culture cares much for ethics or morality, and hence free will. I mean "For the Magics!" might as well be their national motto.
A lot of fictive magi - Faust comes to mind, with Helen of Troy - and based on the real Grimoires I own, real medieval and renaissance ones - spend a lot of time trying to compel love or lust in their objects of desire. Unfortunately I see the same thing happening, based on human nature, in Golarion.
There's not a lot of difference between that and Arazni's fate.
I see real freedom to love being more an aspect of say, Kyonin, where there's an undercurrent of moral contemplation along with skill with magic, or maybe Hwanggot or other Tian Xia realms (RW China was remarkably accepting of sexual difference until the 19th century).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. No one should have to tolerate someone else's intolerance against a group of people. If there is some so-called agenda, it's that they just want to be treated like people.Bull.
Yeah, I'm gonna agree with Matt on this.
Western Society has reached tipping points in the past that once-held traditional beliefs -- such as women being unable to vote, non-white people not being considered people, left-handed people being witches/evil, different ethnicities shouldn't marry, contraception is immoral, divorce should be illegal, etc. -- are no longer considered true. In time, people who continue to hold to these beliefs in the face of demonstrable facts and popular public opinion are increasingly considered wrong-thinking. Those who use their positions of power and privilege to deny equality for other law-abiding individuals and groups become labeled as discriminatory and/or bigots.
Yeah, I think "bigot" gets thrown around too easily. We are at another crossroads where the majority of society has seen the small incremental progress of L&G people toward equality (sorry, B&T&other peeps, you're still waiting for your moment) and observed that it was not the end of Western civilization; that given the chance, they have every capacity to excel and contribute positively as the hetero majority. But social change can be disconcerting, even frightening, and those who feel frightened/threatened will usually push back. Add in pressures from other parts of their lives (like economic uncertainty, threats or war/terrorism, fears for children's futures), and these people will react even more strongly. That's a natural human/tribal/primate response.
But acting on that response does not make it right, fair, or socially acceptable.
No one is treating "the gays" like they are not people. There is a big jump between gay = inhuman and gay = untasteful/uncomfortable subject matter/right or wrong/etc. . . I personally do not care, but trying to hide behind the double standard that people that are against homosexuality are bigots means your (generic you) simple a hypoctite and just as intolrant of other's beliefs and views as you claim they are. It's a double edged sword you again generic you) want to try to use only for your benefit.
Would you also maintain that it is also ok for a person to find that the mere mention/artwork of a an NPC's ethnicity is "untasteful (sic)/uncomfortable subject matter"? How about that individual making a case to a publisher to deliberately erase/omit any mention of certain ethnicities/skin pigmentations but leave another (Caucasian) in? If erasing ethnicity is not acceptable, why is erasing LGBT people ok?
I imagine game developers, like writers in general, look for ways to help make the experience more real to players/readers. A good way is to include hooks for how the characters have the same universal wants and needs as the audience. The occasional, brief mention of LGBT facets to characters is the same thing. Inclusion of such aspects isn't an agenda, just a simple acknowledgement that these minorities have existed and continue to exist, despite attempts in the past to whitewash these minorities and their positive contributions from history.
I appriciate Golarion's diversity. I also reserve the right to make any changes in the game to fit my audience. If that means removing the paracountess' toys, so be it. If that means changing Ezren to Ezra, so be it.
I can certainly see omitting details of the paracountess (or the Hook Mountain ogres). But why erase, in your example, the breif mention of Ezren's relationship? There are no lascivious details in the text or artwork (has Paizo even mentioned a same-gender kiss in print?). What is it about the mere mention of a non-hetero attraction between two consenting adults that somehow crosses the line into being harmful to impressionable players/readers? Yeah, it's your home game, do what you want... but why are LGBT people automatically censored in it?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think the end times are uppon us, Ambrosia Slaad and I agree on something.
Ambroasia, it's a matter of making it for my audience. If I'm running games for people (or their kids!) who are "squicked" by an element, and I know it, I'll edit that element. Whether it be the paracountess' preferences, or a female/female or male/male coupling.
Edit: Just to mention, I have run games for my gay and lesbian friends, and wouldn't need to 'censor' elements there. I've also run games for D/s people, often with lots of jokes.
Just like if I'm running a game for kids, I'll not be nearly as graphic on a death scene as I might be with an adult, or might make it more comical.
Adult does 43 HP of shocking grasp damage on a 3 HP mook "Ever put an egg in a microwave? he kind of explodes like that. Reflex save to see how much you got on you."
Child does 43 HP of damage, "His hair stands on end and he kind of twitches, then falls to the ground, smoke curling from his ears."
Likewise if (for some reason) the party encounters a couple in coitus interruptus, for kids it becomes "they were asleep."
@Liz spoilered as it's tangental
...I guess that makes me a bigot, and I'd vocally condemn the idea of Paizo (as an example), including those things for tolerance. For some people, homosexuality is a similar concept. That doesn't make them wrong, or their opinions less valid or worth being heard. It's also a huge double standard...
Actually, yeah, the facts and public opinion are both in, and LGBT people don't harm society any more than hetero people. Individuals can still attempt to hold to anti-LGBT beliefs, or anti-non-Caucasian beliefs, or anti-round Earth beliefs, but they should expect to called on those erroneous ideas when they express them/act on them publicly. (And no, it isn't a double-standard, sorry.)
Your analogy would be akin to saying that because they don't mention left handed people, lefties are being treated like we don't exist, and thus are not people.
In the real world, positive contributions by LGBT people have been erased for hundreds of years. Seeing them also erased/omitted from fictional escapes/entertainment often feels like salt in an old wound for many LGBT readers/players. Simply acknowledging they exist does wonders to help draw in both LGBT and many hetero readers/players. And yes, actually, I would like to see more mention of lefties too... nothing too scandalous , just an brief mention/illustration of the occasional southpaw.
The First Amendment prevents the Government from passing laws interfering with religion* or free speech or right to address the government for grievances. Not Cory, not Paizo, not me.
Can we please save the asides/derails on the U.S. government/Obama vs. Religion for another thread?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Would you also maintain that it is also ok for a person to find that the mere mention/artwork of a an NPC's ethnicity is "untasteful (sic)/uncomfortable subject matter"? How about that individual making a case to a publisher to deliberately erase/omit any mention of certain ethnicities/skin pigmentations but leave another (Caucasian) in? If erasing ethnicity is not acceptable, why is erasing LGBT people ok?I imagine game developers, like writers in general, look for ways to help make the experience more real to players/readers. A good way is to include hooks for how the characters have the same universal wants and needs as the audience. The occasional, brief mention of LGBT facets to characters is the same thing. Inclusion of such aspects isn't an agenda, just a simple acknowledgement that these minorities have existed and continue to exist, despite attempts in the past to whitewash these minorities and their positive contributions from history.
Wanted to hit this seperately.
Yes it is 'OK' for someone to find that the ethnicity is 'untasteful/uncomfortable subject matter'. Everyone has their own options. It is ok for our (hypothetical) gamer to want "less white people" in the art, just as much as "more white people." It's also ok for Paizo or any of us to tell the person to take a flying frak. Passing laws restricting the content is wrong.*
Or to put the shoe on the other foot, 150 years ago, a company like Paizo would be piloried for producing a world like Golarion. But they could still do it. It's easy to ban 'unpopular speech', but what do you do when suddenly the unpopular speaker is you.
*
|
I guess that makes us bisexuals the spy's of this dueling agenda's, for we literately sleep with the enemy. :)Ironically, I've had stories from my female 'bi-' friends that they get treated worse by the lesbians for being bi than the straight women treat them. YMMV of course.
Thats true or has been in my experience, most straight women have no problem with bi women or have questions. Lesbians are more likely to treat you bad, just my personally experience and it is not the majority just more than from straight women. Almost all men support it. :)
|
|
I've heard of similar - basically that the bisexual-oriented person is really gay but maintaining a partially closeted life to avoid trouble with the homophobes or are just being wishy-washy. In effect, they catch trouble from elements of both sides of the sexual orientation. I'm not sure how widespread that problem is, though I personally know one person who has complained of it.
Ironically, I've had stories from my female 'bi-' friends that they get treated worse by the lesbians for being bi than the straight women treat them. YMMV of course.
I have heard that before from both sides.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Thats true or has been in my experience, most straight women have no problem with bi women or have questions. Lesbians are more likely to treat you bad, just my personally experience and it is not the majority just more than from straight women. Almost all men support it. :)I guess that makes us bisexuals the spy's of this dueling agenda's, for we literately sleep with the enemy. :)Ironically, I've had stories from my female 'bi-' friends that they get treated worse by the lesbians for being bi than the straight women treat them. YMMV of course.
I joke, "The 'ultimate male fantasy' of girl on girl loses a lot of its attraction when your mom is gay."
And of late, "I have two women living with me, and I spend the nights with a chihuahua curled up to me. I'm clearly doing it wrong."
Maybe it´s a weird question, but could you perhaps explain those abbreviations please?
"...L&G people toward equality (sorry, B&T&other peeps,..."
And also SSM?
Probably that is a language problem, but i also couldn´t find them on a quick google.
SSM = Same Sex Marriage.
L & G = Lesbian & Gay.
B & T = Bisexual & Transgendered.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Can we please save the asides/derails on the U.S. government/Obama vs. Religion for another thread?Your analogy would be akin to saying that because they don't mention left handed people, lefties are being treated like we don't exist, and thus are not people.In the real world, positive contributions by LGBT people have been erased for hundreds of years. Seeing them also erased/omitted from fictional escapes/entertainment often feels like salt in an old wound for many LGBT readers/players. Simply acknowledging they exist does wonders to help draw in both LGBT and many hetero readers/players. And yes, actually, I would like to see more mention of lefties too... nothing too scandalous , just an brief mention/illustration of the occasional southpaw.
The First Amendment prevents the Government from passing laws interfering with religion* or free speech or right to address the government for grievances. Not Cory, not Paizo, not me.** spoiler omitted **
Well, keep in mind, lefties have centuries of our own discrimination. My dad was a 'broken leftie' and I remember my own teachers having no idea teaching me how to write. (and worse, we wrote on chalkboards for math, it's hard for a first grader to do addition when he's erasing his own work as he writes! :P) (And that's not even getting into my Paternal great grandfather was a Polish Jew...)
I do think it's a bit of 'artist bias' in drawing right handed people. It's hard to understand how to shift profiles for a leftie. That's why sword fighting us can be such a pain. All the angles are backwards.
I'm agreeing that 'seeing yourself' in the game world might be more attractive, but at the same time, absense != denial.
Tangental spoiler
|
|
Wanted to hit this seperately.
Yes it is 'OK' for someone to find that the ethnicity is 'untasteful/uncomfortable subject matter'. Everyone has their own options. It is ok for our (hypothetical) gamer to want "less white people" in the art, just as much as "more white people." It's also ok for Paizo or any of us to tell the person to take a flying frak. Passing laws restricting the content is wrong.*
Or to put the shoe on the other foot, 150 years ago, a company like Paizo would be piloried for producing a world like Golarion. But they could still do it. It's easy to ban 'unpopular speech', but what do you do when suddenly the unpopular speaker is you.
*** spoiler omitted **
This is not about passing laws though, this is about Paizo products, and bigots who want LGBT content expunged. Those people can take a flying frak, and as a member of the Paizo and LGBT communities I am happy Paizo includes such contemt and have a bigger gripe more towards how background the LGBT content tends to be. Gimme a Pathfinder novel with a gay male or the transgender Grey Maiden as a lead. So far what little LGBT content could at best be considered lip service.
I think the end times are uppon us, Ambrosia Slaad and I agree on something.
"...and I feel fine."
Ambroasia, it's a matter of making it for my audience. If I'm running games for people (or their kids!) who are "squicked" by an element, and I know it, I'll edit that element. Whether it be the paracountess' preferences, or a female/female or male/male coupling.
And again, we agree on the paracountess. But LGBT "coupling"/"coitus interruptus" is never mentioned in the RPG products (I'm not familiar with most of the fiction line). I can't recall a single depiction/mention of an LGBT kiss or even hand-holding. Just brief (and quite chaste) mentions/hints of "so-and-so was NPC X's significant other/crush." Are those instances really so beyond-the-pale/harmful to players/readers in a game that has no problem depicting killing/combat and theft as everyday occurrences? You don't seem to have a problem describing lethal injuries as perfectly acceptable, even comical. Why are hints at non-hetero consenting relationships taboo when killing isn't?
I don't mean this a moral judgment on you, the players, or their parents; I am genuinely puzzled about what makes LGBT relationships too objectionable to be presented in any form. If a non-adult is cognizant enough to understand the difference between violence in the real world and fictional depictions, how are they somehow harmed by the slightest mention of LGBT people? Especially if hetero relationships and all the myriad complications are perfectly ok to detail often and at length. (And I'm definitely not arguing for graphic depictions of any carnal acts, hetero or LGBT.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have heard that before from both sides.I've heard of similar - basically that the bisexual-oriented person is really gay but maintaining a partially closeted life to avoid trouble with the homophobes or are just being wishy-washy. In effect, they catch trouble from elements of both sides of the sexual orientation. I'm not sure how widespread that problem is, though I personally know one person who has complained of it.
Ironically, I've had stories from my female 'bi-' friends that they get treated worse by the lesbians for being bi than the straight women treat them. YMMV of course.
As have I ad nauseum.
I really appreciate the (very few) POSITIVE bisexual role models that are out there. Usually, we're always depicted as nymphos, or cheaters, side-switchers, attention grabbers, liars, or orgy-drowners. In reality, I'm the most monogamous person I've ever met in my life and have been in love with the same woman now for 9 years. Doesn't make the way I look at Michael Fassbender or Edward Norton any less queer just because I'm in love with a woman, nor does it negate any of my previous ALSO monogamous relationships.
I can't stress how offensive gay = eroticism is, mostly because bi = ALL THE EROTICISM to so many people. Seriously, there's a lot more to us than sex - to boil it down like that negates some of the greatest LGBT artists, such as Little Richard, Freddie Mercury, Ian McKellen, Clive Barker, Rob Halford, the list goes on. All of those men offered us something deeper than their sexuality.
You can think its gross what two men do together, and I will continue to shudder when I remember that Al and Tipper had relations together, as do Mittens and Ann.
If you read homosexuality, and your brain goes straight to hardcore porno, and you STILL claim to be straight, I don't know how to help you.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
This is not about passing laws though, this is about Paizo products, and bigots who want LGBT content expunged. Those people can take a flying frak, and as a member of the Paizo and LGBT communities I am happy Paizo includes such contemt and have a bigger gripe more towards how background the LGBT content tends to be. Gimme a Pathfinder novel with a gay male or the transgender Grey Maiden as a lead. So far what little LGBT content could at best be considered lip service.
Coridan,
It's not about 'bigots' (I do think that word gets thrown around too much. By you're own statements you're 'bigoted' against the opinion of it being expunged.) It's about if it's 'OK'. Paizo, you, me, anyone can hold their own opinions about the belief, but it is alright. Cory is perfectly fine to write 'Straightfinder' and make an all heterosexual campaign setting. If he can market it, more power to him.
From a purely cynical viewpoint, I'm pretty blunt in what I do and don't believe. People may not agree with me, but at least they know where I stand. I'd rather know that someone is what I'd call close minded, then speculate.
|
|
I have heard that before from both sides.I've heard of similar - basically that the bisexual-oriented person is really gay but maintaining a partially closeted life to avoid trouble with the homophobes or are just being wishy-washy. In effect, they catch trouble from elements of both sides of the sexual orientation. I'm not sure how widespread that problem is, though I personally know one person who has complained of it.
Ironically, I've had stories from my female 'bi-' friends that they get treated worse by the lesbians for being bi than the straight women treat them. YMMV of course.
It is not true btw. Sexuality is a gradient, not a toggle. As a bisexual man I am mostly attracted (physically and emotionally) to people who blur the lines of gender (feminine guys, tomboyish girls). I do not speak for the tastes of all bi men, but I am certainly not just a closeted gay (being engaged to a guy makes that kind of hard lol)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think various Paizo employees have made it clear, both in this thread and elsewhere, that Paizo actively supports inclusiveness, and that it has no intention of ceasing to portray same-sex relationships or LGBTQ characters in our content, so I see no point in continuing to complain about it here.
If you want to discuss homosexuality in Golarion, that's on-topic. If you want to point out that we have tons of female-female relationships in our content but few male-male ones, that's on-topic. If you want to discuss Chelish views of same-sex relationships, feel free to do it here.
If you want to discuss the intersection of homosexuality and real-world politics/culture/religion, go do it in the off-topic forum.
So I'll repeat it for the third time:
You are welcome to change whatever you don't like about modules, PFS scenarios, etc. in your personal games. You're welcome to say whatever you like about same-sex relationships and the people who are in them -- elsewhere.
But don't bring it here.
It's not OK to be a bigot. It's legal to be a bigot. It shouldn't be banned, but it should be called out when it happens.
Is your goal to call anyone against homosexuality a bigot in every one of your posts?
Talk about narrow-minded.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I don't mean this a moral judgment on you, the players, or their parents; I am genuinely puzzled about what makes LGBT relationships too objectionable to be presented in any form. If a non-adult is cognizant enough to understand the difference between violence in the real world and fictional depictions, how are they somehow harmed by the slightest mention of LGBT people? Especially if hetero relationships and all the myriad complications are perfectly ok to detail often and at length. (And I'm definitely not arguing for graphic depictions of any carnal acts, hetero or LGBT.)
I don't take it as one, no worries.
There are no overt descriptions of the paracountess playing with her food either, but it's easier to not answer the question of 'why does she have cuffs in her room, uncle Matt?'
I *am* dealing with hypotheticals here. I've never been asked to censor a reference in a game, like I said above, I do 'self censor' some violence if there are kids in the room. I'm a 90's kind of guy 1890's.
Look at it from this POV, my sister's pretty devout (so am I, but she's more churchy) if I were to go up and run a game for my niece, nephew, and their friends and my sister warned me "Billy's parents are pretty twitchy about this, so can you downplay the religious elements?" I'm going to refer to the clerics of Urgotha as 'evil cultists' and the party will heroically smite them. If little Billy goes home and say "I want to worship Caydan Calian" then I lose him as a potential player, the kids might lose him as a friend, and my sister gets stinkeye when she walks into church. Let me get the kid hooked, then I can explain the difference between the false gods of the game and the G_d we worship*
Likewise, if the parents are 'sex outside of marriage is bad' types, I'll not have Shayless (from RotR) hurry out of her bustle, but I *will* have her dad come to the conclusion she was. That way I avoid the discomfort of the parent and the kid.
I look at it as being a guest. You don't bring pork chops to your Muslim neighbor, I don't bring in 'mature' elements unless I know it's ok. That goes for male and female. If I portray Ezren and Harsk as being boon companions, that's enough for now.
(Amusingly I've argued that part of the 'slash fic' mentality comes from a lack of male/male, female/female couples in lit. I mean if you don't have your Romeo and Mercutio parings, of course the urge to make Frodo and Sam more than friends comes to mind.)
*
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Back on topic...
I think it was suggested in the past that Homosexual flings were a province of the nobility in lands like Taldor, while the peasant class there would be more likely to frown on it.
"Prince Philip was seen with William again!"
"Don't worry my huband, my lord, it's a phase. He'll marry when he needs to. Or do I need to remind you when I walked in on you and the baron?"
vs.
"Billy! Stop screwin around with the stableboy! How am I supposed to get any grandkids to run the farm that way!"
Post-F5 Edit: And sorry, Jessica/Mods for repeating real world issues here. Spoilered now, but please delete if it derails.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. No one should have to tolerate someone else's intolerance against a group of people. If there is some so-called agenda, it's that they just want to be treated like people.Bull.
I'm intolerant of paedophiles.* Buggering little children is wrong, and I don't want them 'treated like people'. I'm intollerant against terrorists. I don't want to tolerate them, I've a vested interest in wanting them dead.
(And no, I'm not comparing homosexuals to either group. Don't even try that strawman).
Anyone who's read my FB page knows my stands on "Same Sex Marriage" (or just google "The_Livewire" and "Fred" on the Gaypatriot.net site) so I'm not going to go over that again.
Cory has every right to his opinion, as much as I disagree with it. He doesn't have a right (only Lisa and Vic do) to post on these message boards. Or to put it another way, "You have the freedom of speech, you do not have a right to my bullhorn."
And everyone has an agenda. Paizo wants to portray same sex couples as part of their universe, that's part of their 'agenda'. I want to live alone with a small dog, that's part of my 'agenda'. Defense of Marriage wants to keep the definition of marriage between a man and a woman, that's their 'agenda'.
It is easy, and lazy to demonize the 'other'. Not everyone who stands against you wants you destroyed, for example.
I appriciate Golarion's diversity. I also reserve the right to make any changes in the game to fit my audience. If that means removing the paracountess' toys, so be it. If that means changing Ezren to Ezra, so be it.
*** spoiler omitted **...
And in my statement, I never said that he didn't have the right to believe what he wanted or even that he couldn't say it. He's even welcome to edit it out of his adventure. I can't stop that. And I'd even defend that right, much to my chagrin, but I believe that all voices are to be heard and you can't silence anyone. What I said was that just because you believe in some conviction doesn't make you right. And just because you believe in a conviction that is hateful towards a group of people doesn't make you right nor does it garner respect. You don't just automatically get respect for believing in any little thing. I wouldn't respect someone that wanted women to stay in the kitchen, nor wanted minorities to have less rights, so why the f%%* would I respect anyone that wants homosexuals to remain oppressed? And freedom of speech goes both ways. If someone has the right to say something hateful about a gender, sexuality, or ethnicity, then of course someone else would have the right to call them out on it. Furthermore, I hate that Widow tried comparing forward thinking people that fought oppression for social freedom and advancement of the sciences to people that "fight the oppression" of those that are themselves being depressed. That is simply ludicrous. No one is going around lynching homophobes or getting in the way of their right. You say it's easy and lazy to demonize others, and while that is true, I think it's the homophobe side that needs to keep that lesson in mind more so than the people getting kicked around. When you spread a hateful opinion, you can damn well expect people to hate you right back.
You'll have to excuse me for my own fervency in this because I've spent my entire life dealing with people who express their opinions on how they hate my ethnicity and think that I need to show them some kind of respect because they believe in that opinion. I'm Puerto Rican and my girl friend is Caucasian. I've had people stare at me with disgust when I hold hands with her in public. I had an old couple come up to me on our anniversary and tell me that I should be ASHAMED for "taking her from honest white folks." I've been told I'm going to hell because I'm Puerto Rican and Catholic, because apparently the former means I'm the latter. I've had a game master tell me that I can't play minorities in DnD and that RPGs shouldn't have non-European settings because the world is Eurocentric and if any of those other cultures mattered, they would be in charge now. In my youth, I've had people of different races fight me because I'm Puerto Rican, or in the case of other Hispanic people, I'm not Puerto Rican enough. The principal himself told me I had to respect the kid's right to call me a wetback. Can you imagine being 8 years old and being told by an adult that I have to respect someone calling me that?
I've had fellow gamers in high school surprised that this "sp*c" can do the math involved in playing DnD and can read English. I've even been beat up by an ex's cousins because they hated the fact that their baby cousin was dating a "dirty wetback". In each and every one of those instances, no one but my father helped me. He's the one that taught me to never take shit from anyone. When teachers and the principal ignored my pleas for help, it was my father that taught me how to box and fight back. It was him that taught me to push back when people push you around and it's a lesson I've had to use time and time again. So yes, anyone can say whatever opinion they want. It doesn't mean they are right, nor do I have to respect their opinion, especially if it's hateful or expressing violence of some kind. Using your examples, I wouldn't respect a pedophile nor a terrorist for expressing their opinion. They absolutely have the right to say it, but I wouldn't respect them for it. And they would have to deal with my right to tell them how terrible they are as human beings.
Spoilered since I missed Jessica's post. It's off topic.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
And in my statement, I never said that he didn't have the right to believe what he wanted or even that he couldn't say it. He's even welcome to edit it out of his adventure. I can't stop that. And I'd even defend that right, much to my chagrin, but I believe that all voices are to be heard and you can't silence anyone. What I said was that just because you believe in some conviction doesn't make you right. And just because you believe in a conviction that is hateful towards a group of people doesn't make you right nor does it garner respect. You don't just automatically get respect for believing in any little thing. I wouldn't respect someone that wanted women to stay in the kitchen, nor wanted minorities to have less rights, so why the f&&% would I respect anyone that wants homosexuals to remain oppressed?
I focused on the 'no one should tolerate the intolerant' part. (Which to me sounds as silly as 'Only Sith deal in absolutes') I didn't see him as silencing anyone, nor did I see him 'trying' to silence Paizo. He was expressing his beliefs. Just like people expressing their dislike of hillbilly imbred orgres resulted in fewer inbred hillbilly ogres.
Aside, I'm an old fashioned sexist. In Matt's ideal world, the woman *could* stay in the kitchen, while the man was the breadwinner. Part of the reason I'm trying to get ahead is so I *can* provide that life if I suffer traumatic brain injury and get married again. I'm not about to force that lifestyle on anyone, (I think Jessica would fly from WA just to kick my aft) but I want to be able to offer that. Because I'm a guy, and if I can't provide stability for my family, I don't deserve one.
(Amusingly one of my girls feels this way, and it drives her girlfriend crazy)
|
I just don't understand the fixation with gay and no mention(let alone saturation of media) for any other alternate sexuality. When did we last see the positive role model argument used for BDSM couples? Age/species can become a whole different bag in a world of 40 year old elven children or an adult elf with a child's age (to them) adult 18 year old human or anthropomorphic animals so pedo and bestiality become valid to look at.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I just don't understand the fixation with gay and no mention(let alone saturation of media) for any other alternate sexuality. When did we last see the positive role model argument used for BDSM couples? Age/species can become a whole different bag in a world of 40 year old elven children or an adult elf with a child's age (to them) adult 18 year old human or anthropomorphic animals so pedo and bestiality become valid to look at.
Lady Heather? :-)
Less seriously, my Calistran bard says, "Sex is great, with a partner it's better. With a partner who can cast cure light wounds and remove disease it's awesome."
Goblins do it in the street.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Goblins do it in the street.
It really doesn't even have to be a street. It can be a driveway. Or dirt trail. Or sock drawer. The goblin lifestyle doesn't quibble about such trivialities, or regular goblin versus blues versus monkey goblin relationships.
And yes, I would like to see a Pathfinder novel with a goblin protagonist/lead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is your goal to call anyone against homosexuality a bigot in every one of your posts?
Talk about narrow-minded.
I'm really interested in hearing your reasons for being against homosexuality that aren't bigoted.
I just don't understand the fixation with gay and no mention(let alone saturation of media) for any other alternate sexuality. When did we last see the positive role model argument used for BDSM couples?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[But they frighten the horses.
[Doesn't go there]
It really doesn't even have to be a street. It can be a driveway. Or dirt trail. Or sock drawer.
Or in the corner of the Homosexuality in Golarion thread?
[Waggles eyebrows]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When did we last see the positive role model argument used for BDSM couples?Yep, no media coverage for that whatsoever.
Speaking as a borderline member of the BDSM community, those books do not:
a) Present BDSM relationships in anything resembling a positive light.
b) Present emotionally healthy relationships period.
And yes, I would like to see a Pathfinder novel with a goblin protagonist/lead.
It would have to be a picture book. No wordy words.
When did we last see the positive role model argument used for BDSM couples?Yep, no media coverage for that whatsoever.Speaking as a borderline member of the BDSM community, those books do not:
a) Present BDSM relationships in anything resembling a positive light.
b) Present emotionally healthy relationships period.
I've heard the opposite from others (though they're all pretty much in agreement that the relationship is, at its core, dysfunctional). I haven't read the series, so I can't speak to it myself, but it appears to be a matter of opinion (and divided opinion, at that).
|
|
I just don't understand the fixation with gay and no mention(let alone saturation of media) for any other alternate sexuality. When did we last see the positive role model argument used for BDSM couples?Yep, no media coverage for that whatsoever.
You pointed out one book. Would one book about a unhealthy gay couple have been good enough instead of gay characters in damn near every major tv show and entire shows about it?