| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In last election i voted for a party in favor of anti-LGBT laws in so far, as L and G cannot marry as marriage is man and woman. Hence, i am supporting a party that would suggest - or more precisely keep the current - laws that are according to paizo evil, which is as calling me evil. And that is somewhat insulting.
Okay, question time:
1) Did you vote for that party *because* of their anti-LGBT stance? (if so, then yeah, you're not going to find any friends here, Paizo staff included)
2) Assuming it was just one of their many policies, if you simply voted for them because the alternative was a party that had more bad policies, then that's nowhere near the same thing.
If we want to take it from a clinical, unemotional, alignment argument:
There's two people fighting. One is the bad guy who slaughtered a continent, but has promised to help you save the village. The other is a demon.
Choosing to assist the bad guy in that fight isn't an evil act. You have good intentions. Maybe he'll go on to slaughter another continent later, maybe he's going to change. Right now though, saving that village is kinda important. It may well be a neutral act, rather than good, but it certainly doesn't make you evil.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um what the heck are you talking about here? People have always had casual sex well before the invention of the pill. There's a reason that the world has midwives who practiced certain herbalism skills.For example, unless someone invented the pill in Golarion, it would be stupid to transfer today man-woman "courting" and "relationship" habits into Golarion. Without reliable contraception women just behave differently in respect to male advances. (I remember totally shocking once a male PC who tried to hook up with some NPC woman, that the women in question was actually thinking he was courting her for marrying - but in her experience there was no casual sex due to risk of pregnancy so she misunderstood what he wanted)
Actualy in the very first sandpoint article in Ap Issue 1 there is a midwife that offers herbal contrseptives
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not the way to save me, if the only difference had been marriage, i would have still voted that way. So while the other issues were more important, it doesnt help me being "evil".
And the rest of your beliefs? Do you feel that one thing is what defines you to the exclusion of everything else? Do you feel it outweighs everything else you do?
Being anti-LGBT (if you're saying that is how you feel) isn't going to get you any fans around here, and is generally seen as an undesirable quality in someone. It's still somewhat of a leap to say that it outweighs everything else you are and do, especially as you're not a deity.
In the deity thread, I believe the outcome (please read it and don't take my word for it) was that a deity that discriminated against LGBT people would have trouble qualifying as "Good". It's been stated in general that equality is a good thing, and discrimination is a bad thing.
If that makes you feel Paizo are flagging you as an Evil person, then you may want to go check the contact addresses page, and email someone there to get a direct answer from them.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is the same, because the pro-natural marriage stance is pro-natural marriage because of certain biological qualities which are guranteed to be absent in L and G marriage. Hence, L and G marriage are treated differently.Being pro-natural marriage isn't the same as discriminating against LGBT marriage (unless I'm misreading the idea of the stance).
Okay, so, setting aside the odious assumptions built into the term "natural marriage," you're making a big assumption there. Just what biological qualities are you talking about?
Are you talking about the ability to have children? Should infertile couples have their marriages declared null and void?
Are you talking about intercourse involving both a penis and a vagina? Should other forms of intercourse be disallowed by law to married couples?
The truth of the matter is that there's really no fundamental difference between a married homosexual couple and a married heterosexual couple. Both couples live together, love each other, share their lives and their possessions, and may choose to raise children if they so desire.
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is the same, because the pro-natural marriage stance is pro-natural marriage because of certain biological qualities which are guranteed to be absent in L and G marriage. Hence, L and G marriage are treated differently.Being pro-natural marriage isn't the same as discriminating against LGBT marriage (unless I'm misreading the idea of the stance).
Okay I am just going to say this. I find the phrase "natural marriage" repugnant.
Hetero marriage is no more "natural" than any other kind. Quit trying to hide your intolerance behind "pretty" words.
It is the same, because the pro-natural marriage stance is pro-natural marriage because of certain biological qualities which are guranteed to be absent in L and G marriage. Hence, L and G marriage are treated differently.Being pro-natural marriage isn't the same as discriminating against LGBT marriage (unless I'm misreading the idea of the stance).
Ugh. Apparently I did misread that one then. I really ought to read up on these things more... apologies, everyone.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The truth of the matter is that there's really no fundamental difference between a married homosexual couple and a married heterosexual couple. Both couples live together, love each other, share their lives and their possessions, and may choose to raise children if they so desire.Probability of a child living with married heterosexual couple to be biological child of the two is (as far as i guess from what little i know about statistics) about 50-90%.
Probability of a child living with a married homosexual couple to be biological child of the two is about 0%.
Thats a difference.
Probability of both members of a hetero couple having a penis is 0%
Probability of both members of a non-hetero couple having a penis is approx. 50%
Same difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's ok Matt, we know what you meant.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though it may be hard for some people of a certain political bent to hear, exclusion and disenfranchisement of others is a negative thing. It follows that its opposite - inclusion - is positive. It is therefore a disconnect in the minds of those people who hold onto their prejudices that they think that taking positive action is somehow a "political stance," when it is simply the decent thing to do.
I remember a couple years back, conservatives in Texas petitioned to have the publishers creating history books pose conservative elements throughout the 20th Century and into this one in a more "positive" light, though they did nothing to deny the very events that caused their political allies to appear to have involved themselves in negative behavior. Again, they did not deny the negative behavior, they just wanted it spun to make themselves look better. Of course, the correct alternative to lying to entire generations about history and one's place in it, would be to come down on the right side of history in the first place, but again, this is the same disconnect in the minds of those of a certain political bent, that I have already mentioned.
My advice would be, if you do not wish to be offended by the inclusion of, and decent behavior shown to those who are different from you, the solution is not to continue to exhibit your own negative and exclusive behavior, but to come to terms with what is the right and decent treatment of your fellow human beings.
Nothing short of that will ever impress posterity, nor allow you to be shown in a positive light down the line. In short, if you treat people badly, you have no leg to stand on, nor right to complain about the repercussions.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is the same, because the pro-natural marriage stance is pro-natural marriage because of certain biological qualities which are guranteed to be absent in L and G marriage. Hence, L and G marriage are treated differently.Being pro-natural marriage isn't the same as discriminating against LGBT marriage (unless I'm misreading the idea of the stance).
Excuse me, but marriage is not "natural." I am married, but even I know that marriage is a human construct. It does not exist in nature, and therefore cannot be defined as "natural." Same sex marriage, being also a human construct, is just as "natural" as any other form of marriage.
The closest thing nature comes to this are animals that mate or pair for life. But guess what? Some animals pair bond with members of their same sex. Not just humans (whose history of same-sex marriages and same-sex pair bonding is as old as human history itself, BTW). And there is plenty of same sex activity in the animal kingdom.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot be FOR a human construct for some humans, but not for all humans. You cannot hide your reasoning behind phony concerns for what is "natural" when it comes to something humans invented for their own political and familial advantages.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, childbirth is a magical and wondrous thing, and I can accept that the biological parents of a child have a very strong bond with that child. However, I also know that there are parents of adopted children, children born from a surrogate mother, and step-parents of children who have lost one of their biological parents one way or another, who give their children all the love they have to give and do everything they can to ensure their well being.
I'm not accusing anybody of denying that fact, per-se,but let me just ask this: if you're willing to accept so many different kinds of families already, why should the junk between the parents' legs matter so much?
And yes, I know that there are other differences between men and women, but regardless of those differences every study I know of has shown that children raised in same-sex households are no less healthy or happy than children raised by opposite-sex couples.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If paizo decided to exclude non-heterosexual people any product they wrote would, by virtue of exclusion of such people, be making an equally blatant political point. Just not one you'd notice.
Who say excluding?
Its one thing to have non-heterosexuals in story and another to have "its evil to treat some consenting adult relationsships in any way different from others" as a uncompromising tenet of lawful good.
Okay. If Paizo were to include such discrimination and not identify it as evil, then they'd be making an equally blatant political point. Just not one you'd notice.
|
|
What's really sad is that it is 2013 and we are still having these types of conversations. Will the day ever come when bigotry (in sheep's clothing) has gone the way of the dodo bird?
Yes. But not while humanity is still alive. Minimised, frowned upon, marginalised, possibly. Gone completely? Not really. A lot of people, even perfectly nice people, will need someone to other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gay people exist in the real world. Why wouldn't they in Golarion?
And if it really gets your pants in a twist, change that part of the path. No one is forcing you to play the AP exactly as written.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If RPGs (and Internet) existed in 1813, this thread would be about if there should be black people* in RPGs.
* assuming somebody would be brazen enough to consider them human.
In 1913, whether women should be included.
In 2113, we will be discussing solar butterflies from Zeta Centauri.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thirded. It's not politics, it's treating people like people.This.
It's not politics.
And it's not anything new either. We've had LGBT characters in the world since Pathfinder #1. And LGBT characters at Paizo much longer than that.
I don't consider this an accurate statement.
There has most certainly been the presence of LGBT characters all along. And cool.
But the nature of that presentation has changed.
It has become notable as a priority to shoehorn front and center examples repeatedly.
I'll applaud you for simply being inclusive.
But the quality of the adventure experience has started to suffer because every time you turn around you get a slap in the face reminder that you're not in some fantasy world of adventure that happens to be openly and positively diverse, but instead you're in front of Paizo's soapbox for commentary of the real world. (And if you are trying to repeat something until you change the way people perceive it then, right or wrong, that is the absolutely politics)
If you want to treat LGBT characters as equal and have them be perceived that way, then for gods' sake treat them that way. It has become a joke amongst my group that if any two non-blood-related adults have an emotional attachment that drives any aspect of the campaign plot, they will be non-hetero. That is equality and that isn't progress.
You are a private company and even if I disagreed with your goal I would be violently opposed to anyone who wanted to stop you. But even agreeing with your goal the evolution of social commentary to the detriment of the roleplaying merit is a real problem. (again, the early stuff where the presence was consistent didn't even raise an eyebrow. It seemed a perfectly valid part of a detailed and rich setting)
If you are willing to sacrifice some of the quality of roleplaying to push this effort, then more power to you. But you can't have your cake and eat it too here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the quality of the adventure experience has started to suffer
I don't consider that to be an accurate statement.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm running Reign of Winter right now and an opposite-sex relationship certainly DOES drive the plot forward in the first two books (two of them, actually - Nadya being a widowed mother means that her relationship with her late husband, through the proxy of her children, is driving her motivations; and Nazhena's desire to gain vengeance for her slain lover, Radosek - killed by the PCs in Part 1 - is another major hetero-related plot driver).
Explicitly heterosexual relationships driving the plot forward - but that was probably overlooked by the people complaining about LGBT characters because that's supposedly "normal."
Adjust for the invisibility of normalcy and you quickly come to realize that all media - including RPGs - are drenched with heterosexuality. We're just socially encouraged to treat that as "normal" and ignore it.
The truth of the matter is that there's really no fundamental difference between a married homosexual couple and a married heterosexual couple. Both couples live together, love each other, share their lives and their possessions, and may choose to raise children if they so desire.Probability of a child living with married heterosexual couple to be biological child of the two is (as far as i guess from what little i know about statistics) about 50-90%.
Probability of a child living with a married homosexual couple to be biological child of the two is about 0%.
Thats a difference.
Why does the child necessarily need to be the biological child of both parents? And you realize that kids with gay parents grow up just fine, right?
Seriously, once you take the religious aspect out of it I don't know of anyone who opposes gay marriage.
I can't get my head around anyone who can seriously argue against gays getting married - presumably the opponents are 'straight', so why would they care?
Two people adults want to be happy, gel with society, have a healthy relationship and pay their taxes... sorry what was the complaint again?
But the quality of the adventure experience has started to sufferI don't consider that to be an accurate statement.
That seems like an opinion to me, hard to say it's right or wrong.
But the quality of the adventure experience has started to sufferI don't consider that to be an accurate statement.
@KSF - Agreed.
@BryonD - I'm not entirely sure how you're implying the quality is suffering, unless you mean the writing standard has gone down somehow (in which case I can't see how the choice of character sexuality has anything to do with it.)
The relationship between Anevia and Irabeth, while extremely important to the characters in question and covering what I feel is a very nice subplot, isn't essential to the adventure as a whole (Incidently, some people have tried to use that to say that it therefore has no place in the AP, but removing the nonessentials just means making bland, subplotless, boring adventures. The majority of monster encounters are nonessential too, if looked at that way :) )
So, if you feel it's an issue then just ignore, overlook, or downplay it and get on with focusing on other NPCs or beating the demons back into the worldwound. The overall amount of related text is probably going to be no more than a page in total across all six books, so it's not like it's a big issue of wasted space for people that don't want to use it. I can't see how that equates to a drop in AP quality, though.
If you feel a particular monster encounter isn't relevant to the story and will not be enjoyable in the game, you can choose to skip that just as easily.
It's your game. Play it how you want to play it, tailor adventures to your group's needs, and do whatever you do to enjoy it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two sides in the sense that major opposing political factions exist.Personally, I don't think are two sides in this matter. It's no different than the other two. Sorry that you're not able to see that.
In that sense, there were two major opposing sides in the American Civil War. And there have been often been two major opposing sides with regards to other civil rights issues. Doesn't mean that the perspective of both sides have equal merit.
And to clarify, I can understand debating about how best to go about LGBT representation, within Paizo products and in general.
Though I strongly disagree with some things that Wiggz and BryonD are saying in this regard, feel they're very wrong in this regard, and though I think what Paizo is doing and has been doing with LGBT characters is absolutely fantastic, I can see where there's a bit of room for discussing just what is the best approach to LGBT representation, which I think is the debate that Wiggz and BryonD are trying to engage in. Which seems to be different from the debate you're trying to engage in.
But on LGBT rights, including same-sex marriage, no, that's the same as minority rights and womens' rights. It's pretty much a black and white issue.
In last election i voted for a party in favor of anti-LGBT laws in so far, as L and G cannot marry as marriage is man and woman. Hence, i am supporting a party that would suggest - or more precisely keep the current - laws that are according to paizo evil, which is as calling me evil. And that is somewhat insulting.
I wouldn't call you evil. Misguided or misinformed, sure. And I'm still not seeing where Paizo is specifically calling you evil.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't the very fact that this and similar threads exist prove that perhaps Paizo advocating on behalf of LGBTQX.etc might not be the best decision for them as a company to take?
That would depend on whether they want to be known for
a) supporting equality.
b) supporting bigotry just to keep a part of their customer base happy.
or
c) having no real feelings one way or the other, that just takes a neutral standpoint so as not to offend anyone.
I used to be a c), by the way. Then one day I came to the conclusion that really wasn't much better than b).
Everyone draws the line somewhere. Sometimes we're afraid to draw the line where we believe it should be, in case it costs us financially. Sometimes we come to terms with it and draw that line anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Explicitly heterosexual relationships driving the plot forward - but that was probably overlooked by the people complaining about LGBT characters because that's supposedly "normal."
Adjust for the invisibility of normalcy and you quickly come to realize that all media - including RPGs - are drenched with heterosexuality. We're just socially encouraged to treat that as "normal" and ignore it.
That seems to be the real issue here.