Forums of the Megaverse®

Nightfactory wrote:
Another thing that The Oh-So-Amazing Nate said was this:

The Oh So Amazing Nate wrote:IF I were forced to choose something I dislike about the GBLT community as a whole, it would ostentatious flamboyancy.

This doesn't bother me

This bothers me

Individually they may be wonderful people. But as a group, if anything "offended me" it would be that.

To which I responded:

Nightfactory wrote:What is the difference in this and this?

How is one more acceptable than the other?

The Oh So Amazing Nate did not respond to this, but I think my point is very clear:

Why is it acceptable for women to dress in an ostentatious manner, but it's somehow not acceptable for men to do so? That's sexism, cut and dried. Gender discrimination.

Maybe Nate didn't respond, but I did. And you seem to have ignored it, either on accident or on purpose. But, since you want to bring it up AGAIN, I'll answer again... and can you respond to the question I bring up about the parades?


One is done in a parade down the middle of a street, while the other is done on a stage show

THAT right there makes one more acceptable than the other. We can also go into the many arguments about the parades, but, that's a sidebar. Actually, no, it's not.

So, why is a gay pride parade socially acceptable, but a straight pride isn't? But, to go with that, I think what was trying to be pointed out is that the "hetero community" doesn't go out of their way to try to shove it in the LGBTQQI community's face "We're straight! Deal with it!", while the LGBTQQI community, in large chunks, does feel the need to do just that to the hetero community. Personally, that's what *I* don't find acceptable. That's not about equality, that's about trying to force others to accept.

And, for the record, I can't keep up with whatever is the most recent PC term... LGBT, LGBTQIA, LGBTQQI, LGBTQQIA, or any of the above with the L & G swapped.... it changes way too damned often, so, I'm not even going to bother. If anyone's offended, well, grow some thicker skin.

say652 wrote:I vote for Steve the Transvestite Crazie to be npcd in a rifter. Lol. Just dont forget the pink Mohawk and snake skin nails. Lmao

Actually one gay character that I thought had well writen lines and scenes was one of the adama brothers from the canceled show Caprica. The guy was a mafioso character who busted people's heads and is a general tuff guy. You don't know he's gay till later in the series. Guess what, he's still a bad ass and it doesn't feel contrived. He wasn't running around wearing pink or being effeminate. If anything to me that's just another stereotype. In the film lab I worked at not every gay guy was like that. Heck some were tuff guy types and you'd never know. It's a shame the show was canceled because the writers did a great job of showing different family units besides the male+female ones without it feeling like someone's trying to further an agenda. If anything the writers did a fantastic job making it feel real and not fake. So I think a talented writer can make GBLT characters without it feeling forced.

I will say this I'll tip my hat off to PB the day they enter the 21st century and include in a blurb a same sex couple in one of their books. If Disney can do it, then so can PB. I'm not saying force it on PB, but hopefully when it comes up Kevin will endorse it.

When a straight guy. Gets gas thrown on him and has to whoop the **** outa three rednecks hoping he gets them all down before someone strikes a lighter then and only then. Do you deserve a parade. #PinkViking.

Nightfactory wrote:denial of the identity

No-one is denying anyone's identity...
As an aside, can you please stop calling them GBLTs? You are naming a burger not a minority group and not only is that comparison probably more demeaning to that minority group than anything else in this thread, but it also makes me hungry.

Nightfactory wrote:*snip*

To address those photos...

Painted on: Never seen that in public. NEVER. Wouldn't mind seeing the front view, and seeing just how good the paintjob was...

Skimpy outfit- that should NOT be socially acceptable. She doesn't have the right kind of body to be pulling that off, not to mention the tanlines...

The tennis player: Please, tell me one time that was done outside of a calendar, movie, mens mag, etc... that is a model posed for something, not an actual event going on down the middle of the main street in town.

Super short-shorts & beer- don't know the circumstances surrounding it all, BUT, seeing as it looks like they've been out mudding and are parked on grass, I'm going to go out on a limb and say "not happening down the middle of the main street in town"

Cheerleaders- there's actually been plenty of cases about how the way cheerleaders dress is degrading, and that the entire cheerleader program is sexist and demeaning

Volleyball players: That's actually *mostly* PRACTICAL- there's certain places you just don't want sand getting. Could they also wear loose shorts? Sure, they could. They're also running around on hot sand, under the sun, for hours. Less is better.

Now, am I going to sit here and say that there isn't a level of double standard? No, I'm not. Why is it ok for men to go shirtless, but not women? Why is it socially acceptable for men to sleep with multiple women, but when a woman does it she's called derogatory terms? Why is it considered ok... well, the lists could go on for years.

And, right now, I'm doing the research on the straight pride parades..... unfortunately, the only mention is pro-LGBT sites filled with derogatory commentary about people planning them... such voices of tolerance!

Ok its LGBT Jussayin. And being T. Its not a choice at all its not a lifestyle its just who we are.

say652 wrote:Ok its LGBT Jussayin. And being T. Its not a choice at all its not a lifestyle its just who we are.

As a B I'll second that.

Goliath Strongarm wrote:
So, why is a gay pride parade socially acceptable, but a straight pride isn't? But, to go with that, I think what was trying to be pointed out is that the "hetero community" doesn't go out of their way to try to shove it in the LGBTQQI community's face "We're straight! Deal with it!",

Wait... Wut? ... I mean... you.... wut??

You've never heard of gay bashing? Or prejudice lobed at people for their sexual preference? You've never heard of religions bashing gay people, or 100s of other examples? I mean... can you seriously say that with a straight face? There's entire businesses set up around the (idiotic) concept of 'Curing' gay people of being gay.

How can someone in 2014 USA actually say with a straight face no straight people shove it in the LGBT communtie's face that they're straight and deal with it? It happens all the time. There's entire countries that out law being gay. One has recently to the point where LGBT people can be stoned in the streets.

Yes, many people do shove it in the LGBT people's face that they are straight and to deal with it. More over they take it a step further and harass, discriminate, persecute, assault, beat, stone, and even kill gay people, both in singular, on a private basis and en mass in some places, as federal law.

To act like it never happens is either..... astoundingly naive, or shockingly revisionist.

Goliath Strongarm wrote:

while the LGBTQQI community, in large chunks, does feel the need to do just that to the hetero community.

In "Large chunks" or VOCAL Chunks? The KKK is a very vocal (Not as much as they used to be) Chunk, So are the Black Panthers (Again not as much as they used to be) But are either groups "Large Chunks of their respective groups? How many white people are actually in the KKK? How many black people are in the Panthers?

Same thing goes for the LGBT Community, as per their parades and even in politics. Most people aren't in those groups, even if those groups are loud and attention gathering.

Goliath Strongarm wrote:

Personally, that's what *I* don't find acceptable. That's not about equality, that's about trying to force others to accept

So... you don't accept them as equals because you're being told to accept them as equals? That harkens back to "people should know their place" Sort of thinking.

The LGBT people aren't asking for 'special' rights or 'special' privilege. They're asking for -equal- rights and -equal- privilege. I.E. What you or I have simply for breathing. Which, -is- their right. Even if they've been denied it.

You're saying you're upset they're demanding it.

If they had it... they wouldn't have to demand it.... that 'it' Being what you've had, with out contestation, from birth.

See the problem here?

You object, to someone demanding, the same level of rights you already possess, because they happen to demand it, as equal people.

If you don't like gay rights parades... don't attend them. I personally don't like NASCAR.... Know what? I don't go to NASCAR Races. Nascar is fine with that. The people that love Nascar is fine with that. The guys IN the Nascar race? Also fine with that.

Same thing goes for a parade. If you don't like it. Don't go.

Just don't act like they're some how harming you.

Goliath Strongarm wrote:
And, for the record, I can't keep up with whatever is the most recent PC term... LGBT, LGBTQIA, LGBTQQI, LGBTQQIA, or any of the above with the L & G swapped.... it changes way too damned often, so, I'm not even going to bother. If anyone's offended, well, grow some thicker skin.

You don't have to 'keep up'. Unless you're purposefully trying to hurt someone with it, it's all good.

That being said, telling someone to grow thicker skin, is another way of devaluing what is important to them. Which is, of course part of the problem. Something to the tune of

"I'm sorry if I'm not up on the most recent acronym for the group, So I'll use LGBT, and in doing so, I mean no offense, it's just the one I know and is short and easy to type. I don't mean to offend anyone with it. I'm straight, and that's the one I know."

Is alot nicer than, "I'm not even going to bother, if anyone's offended, well, grow some thicker skin"

Damn straight I'm whats called a T-girl. I feel like I'm wearing a costume like something isn't right dressed as a guy. A girl can wear mens clothes and isn't called a T-boy. And its different than a crossdresser I take no sexual gratification from what to me anyway is normal. Wake up shave brush teeth hop in shower shave legs etc. Towel off put a cute outfit an some makeup and start my day like everyone else.

Giant2005 wrote:

Nightfactory wrote:denial of the identity

No-one is denying anyone's identity...
As an aside, can you please stop calling them GBLTs? You are naming a burger not a minority group and not only is that comparison probably more demeaning to that minority group than anything else in this thread, but it also makes me hungry.

While I DISAGREE with Nightfactory on the first part of this... Just because someone doesn't agree, or believes that it's a CHOICE doesn't deny anyone their identity.

My wife hasn't decided if it's a choice or not that I'm a gamer, but, she accepts (reluctantly) that it's part of my identity. She doesn't like it, but she accepts it's real.

I don't know if it's a choice or not that my writing professor thinks she's an amazing instructor, and highly intelligent, but it's part of her identity (she's highly wrong in her beliefs, but, it's part of her identity). Many of her students disagree with her, but, we're not standing there telling her she can't be the way she is.

As for the second part of Giant's post, GBLT, LGBT, BLTG, LBTG, TLBG.... you can add Q, QQ, QQI, QQIA.... scramble the letters however you will (but if you use the A, it goes at the end, because it stands for "allies").

To show you how times change though...
LGBTQQIA... Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, and Allies.

I remember when Queer was a derogatory term, when used for homosexuality. But now, it's not only OK, it's used BY the LGBT community in their longer abbreviations?

Intersex, for those that say hermaphrodites don't fall under the category, yes, they DO count as one of the subcategories under Intersex. It's also possible to live your whole life as intersex and never know.

Kind of why the weaker ones any how ARE forced to live in a closed society. I wear my lil black cocktail dress and go shoot pool at a biker bar. I'm extremely lucky I can defend myself most arent monkey strong treeclimbers with decades of martial arts training. I'm not gonna cry and I'm not gonna back down. Cross the line I will take your teeth. Just like the Spartan code no retreat no surrender. But again I'm a lot diffetent. Yea I'm a small guy 5'9 a size 8. Still not ok to call me names words hurt and anger me. Imma take your teeth. Put hands on me yea imma take your teeth. But not everyone is a warrior. #PinkViking

Nightfactory wrote:

The Oh So Amazing Nate wrote:I do not dislike GBLT people. I disagree with their lifestyle choice, (I believe it is a choice, that is my right. If you do not, that is your right.) but I do not dislike them as a group. I like or dislike people on an individual basis. I know people who are gay and am friendly with them. We're not best friends, but we're not bitter enemies either. To say that I dislike an entire group of people based on a single defining characteristic is to accuse me of discrimination and bigotry.

If this is not bigotry, then I don't know what is. ...snip

Bigotry.....Is there not a Hated of the person/race component that is in bigotry?*rhetorical*
Jesus said to hate the Sin and Love the sinner.

TOSAN did not say he hated the people for the choices they have made. Just that he disagrees with choices they have made.
And you are making a mountain out of a molehill, being hypersensitive to the point of blowing everything out of proportions.

If just disagreeing with some 'special interest' group makes a person a bigot then EVERYONE is a bigot. Because everyone disagrees with somebody or another's own "special interest" group. Unions, Churches, Business owners, black, white, red, yellow, northerners, southerners, rich, poor, the 1%'ers, etc...etc....etc...

And yes, the term 'lifestyle choices' is the proper one. It is not any of the hate laden derogatory names that have been used before. Thus not spreading the hate that goes along with those other labels.

And it does lay down that everybody makes a choice to peruse what lifestyle they peruse.

Pepsi Jedi wrote:You've never heard of gay bashing? Or prejudice lobed at people for their sexual preference? You've never heard of religions bashing gay people, or 100s of other examples? I mean... can you seriously say that with a straight face? There's entire businesses set up around the (idiotic) concept of 'Curing' gay people of being gay.


How can someone in 2014 USA actually say with a straight face no straight people shove it in the LGBT communtie's face that they're straight and deal with it? It happens all the time. There's entire countries that out law being gay. One has recently to the point where LGBT people can be stoned in the streets.

I have heard of those things. And not only do I not find them acceptable (most don't), that isn't the same as saying "you HAVE to approve of the way I live my life". No, people DON'T have to approve of it. And, honestly, they don't have to ACCEPT it. It's your life, live it. You're just going to have to deal that there will be plenty of people who don't approve, won't approve, and don't HAVE TO. Just as I deal with plenty of family members who tell me, constantly, how I need to find Jesus and be Christian. Will I ever have their acceptance and approval about me being pagan? Nope. Do I care? Nope.

As for the country that recently passed Sharia Law, I'd care to point out that it isn't targeting LGBT people any more than it targets Christians, Jews, and any number of other people. It wasn't an "anti LGBT" law, but them enacting Sharia Law.

Yes, many people do shove it in the LGBT people's face that they are straight and to deal with it. More over they take it a step further and harass, discriminate, persecute, assault, beat, stone, and even kill gay people, both in singular, on a private basis and en mass in some places, as federal law.

And there are plenty of places where that happens to people based on religion, or skin color, or any number of other factors. I'm not saying those are right, and they are isolated cases, with exception being the Middle East and parts of Africa.

As federal law? Can you please inform me of one country where it's ok for someone to be killed for homosexuality outside of Sharia Law, which says it's ok to kill Christians, Jews, and plenty of others?

In "Large chunks" or VOCAL Chunks? The KKK is a very vocal (Not as much as they used to be) Chunk, So are the Black Panthers (Again not as much as they used to be) But are either groups "Large Chunks of their respective groups? How many white people are actually in the KKK? How many black people are in the Panthers?

Same thing goes for the LGBT Community, as per their parades and even in politics. Most people aren't in those groups, even if those groups are loud and attention gathering.

I'll give you that. VOCAL chunks.

Goliath Strongarm wrote:
Personally, that's what *I* don't find acceptable. That's not about equality, that's about trying to force others to accept

Pepsi Jedi wrote:So... you don't accept them as equals because you're being told to accept them as equals? That harkens back to "people should know their place" Sort of thinking.

That's not what I said. I didn't say I don't accept them as equals, I didn't say that I don't find THEM acceptable. What I don't find acceptable is the behavior of "You have to accept and approve of this, and if you don't, you're WRONG!!"

The LGBT people aren't asking for 'special' rights or 'special' privilege. They're asking for -equal- rights and -equal- privilege. I.E. What you or I have simply for breathing. Which, -is- their right. Even if they've been denied it.

And I agree whole-heartedly with equal rights.

You're saying you're upset they're demanding it.

No, I'm saying I'm upset with the manner that some are using to demand it, and the attitudes some shove forward. I agree people have the right to be L, G, B, T, Q, Q, or I. I just also happen to believe that other people have the right to DISAPPROVE. *GASP* What?! Someone who disagrees has rights?! SHOCKER!!

If they had it... they wouldn't have to demand it.... that 'it' Being what you've had, with out contestation, from birth.

It's funny people always think they know everything.

You object, to someone demanding, the same level of rights you already possess, because they happen to demand it, as equal people.

Just don't act like they're some how harming you.

I guess those police officers are volunteering their time? And the fire fighters? None of that is taxpayer money, right? And the traffic inconveniences don't affect anyone who might disapprove of gay rights? And the businesses aren't affected in any way, right?

That being said, telling someone to grow thicker skin, is another way of devaluing what is important to them.

Actually, no, it's the words from a person who has spent a large chunk of their life in an environment where being easily offended is a problem. And the same person who thinks that people today are WAAAY too worried about hurt feelings and being offended. It's not about devaluing anyone- it's about the simple fact that if MY choice to not worry about the right PC phrase is offensive to you, you're going to have a really hard time in life, because there's going to be a lot more people saying a lot worse.

And Night, before you go calling people out, maybe consider that they're
A) Doing something besides just sitting here reading the boards
B) Responding to other posts

You cant change a persons mind. At best you can get them to keep their opinions to themselves.

Nightfactory wrote:Hey, look at that: Goliath Strongarm claimed that it's not socially acceptable for men to wear skimpy outfits in public. When I successfully rebutted his argument - demonstrating many examples of it being socially acceptable for women to wear skimpy outfits in public - he refused to respond directly to the argument.

The Oh So Amazing Nate (who orginally brought up the issue that GS is defending) did not respond either.

If you're someone who is on the fence about the issue brought up in the OP, please note those who are most vocal in voicing their opposition seem to have a great difficulty in responding to direct rebuttals to their arguments.

Draw your own conclusion.

First, I was making other posts, AND doing stuff besides just sitting here at the boards, hoping and waiting for your response. Sorry, you're not that important in my life.

Second, that's a twist of what I had said- you're REALLY good at doing that.

None of the images you provided were over the top flamboyant displays, such as the one you posted. I didn't say anything about it being SKIMPY. I take more offense at the balloon peakcock tail thing he had going on than the skimpy outfit. It was the taste of the display, not the amount of flesh uncovered.

In fact, it's LEGAL for men to wear even skimpier outfits than women do. And it's socially acceptable, IF you have the body for it. If you have as much belly hair as I do, nobody wants to see that over a speedo. Hell, I don't think even my wife would.

The ostentatious display is what's not socially acceptable.

Nightfactory wrote:If you're someone who is on the fence about the issue brought up in the OP, please note those who are most vocal in voicing their opposition seem to have a great difficulty in responding to direct rebuttals to their arguments.

And, hey, let's not even pretend that at this point, it's even close to the OP. The OP was strictly about including a character in a PB book.

Also, I didn't say I was AGAINST IT. You keep trying to lump me in on that side, but, I'm not. I'm just not FOR it. I didn't vote, because there wasn't a spot for "I don't care one way or the other". I'm not undecided, I just don't CARE if it's done or not, and was silly enough to post that.

And because of that, some decided to try to demonize me, and attack me for it- which just shows how far the tolerance really goes, right? Everyone has to agree, or they're the bad guys?

Nobody has a RIGHT for any kind of anything in a PB book, except Kevin. This topic mutated into the overall "gay rights" argument- and, as is typical, anyone that didn't jump on board and go "oohh YAY for GAY!" was attacked- anyone that DARED say that they weren't pro-gay was labeled a bad guy.

Definitely the way to win support!

Nightfactory wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

TOSAN did not say he hated the people for the choices they have made. Just that he disagrees with choices they have made.

Calling one's very existence a "choice" is a matter of hate in my opinion. I don't see how someone can assert that they "accept" GBLT people and at the same time assert that the fact that they are GBLT is merely a choice like deciding whether to eat chicken or fish.

First, there are PLENTY of things in life that are a "choice" that don't equate to the CHOICE of chicken or fish. And nobody said it was the same level of choice, so go ahead, keep painting people as bad as possible.

So, you're saying that LGBT individuals are DEFINED by their sexuality? Because that IS what you just said- it's their very EXISTENCE. That's the ugliest and most degrading thing I've read on this whole thread.

Nightfactory wrote:You're certainly welcome to believe that, but I feel this is a civil rights issue (both in terms of the greater argument and that of Palladium Books). Calling me "hypersensitive" strikes me as an Ad Hominem, Sir.

Please, explain to us how this is a civil rights issue as far as PB goes? REALLY do explain, because you just opened your mouth, and shoved your foot into it.

Calling GLBTs a "special interest group" is akin to calling black people a "special interest group" or calling Jews as "special interest group".

Are we talking about a group fighting on behalf of a specific demographic? Yes? Then yes, we're talking about special interest group.

I disagree with you that humans rights are a "special interest".

Good. Then anyone, ANYONE has the basic human right to believe that it's a choice. So, hey, why are you attacking Nate for stating that he believes it's a choice?

Also, since the OP is about including a character in a game book, please, how is that a human right?

When an external group labels another group something other than their chosen name, how is that not derogatory?

So, white is derogatory? The chosen term is "caucasian". Black is derogatory now, too. "Of African descent" is the proper way. Straight is derogatory, since it's "hetero".

You REALLY need to grow up, and learn what's actually derogatory, and what's being overly sensitive.

Being GBLT is not a "lifestyle" any more than being Black or Latino or Jewish is a "lifestyle".

[/quote]

Oh, good, so you're agreeing it IS a lifestyle. I know plenty of Jewish people who would gladly inform you that being Jewish IS a lifestyle. It permeates every bit of everything they do.

Being Latino (which definition would you like? There are a few) actually can be a huge factor on an individual lifestyle, and many times CAN dictate the environment that shapes an individual.

You used black- that's derogatory. I'm sure you meant "individuals of African descent", right? And unfortunately, many people DO view that as a lifestyle. They allow their skin color to define them. Should it be? No. But to many, it is.

Nightfactory wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:

Nightfactory wrote:denial of the identity

No-one is denying anyone's identity...

That's it? That's your whole argument? "It's not true because I say it's not true". Great argument.

Also, The Oh So Amazing Nate is - by his own words.

Okay I'll bite...
Firstly, Nate never said anything of the sort your own brain invented that concept.
Secondly, I didn't elaborate because I thought the notion of someone's identity being solely defined by their genetics was insane and didn't need elaboration. My identity is shaped by my experiences and how I have reacted to and learned from them. It goes without saying that my identity isn't the same as it was when I was first born although my genetic structure is the same - my decisions have shaped my identity and nothing that Nate said denies that the LBGT community have an identity. Whether or not they have an identity (And of course they do, insinuating otherwise is farcical beyond belief) is completely independent of whether or not they have a choice in their sexuality.
In fact, I'm sure the majority of the LBGT community would be offended at your notion that their identity is based on their sexuality - in reality, their sexuality has only the most minor of impacts on their identity, much the same as it is for everyone else. They are people just like you and me, try to remember that.

Xxy lets see who's smart. I was made this way.

There is a difference between being called a christian and BEING a christian.
You will know them by their fruits. If they inspired hate towards anyone then they were not christians.

I am also sorry that you think that there are homosexual christens, but there are none. There are Christens that have troubles with homosexual urges, Yes. However, those who claim to be both Christian and homosexual are just fooling themselves and others. This is another thing about the difference between being a Christian and being called a christian.

Accepting those who sin as people is much different from opposing the sin they chose to do.(Note: Everybody has sinned so I'm not leaving anybody out with this one.)

Civil Rights is one thing and is not what is being talked about here. And will not be dragged into it by your posted link.

Calling GLBTs a "special interest group" is akin to calling black people a "special interest group" or calling Jews as "special interest group".

Nope, cause black and Jews have no choice in the matter of being of the race they are. However, because of the history of hate propagated against the two groups in the old world and in the US your comparison is only slightly corollary.

Because everyone disagrees with somebody or another's own "special interest" group. Unions, Churches, Business owners, black, white, red, yellow, northerners, southerners, rich, poor, the 1%'ers, etc...etc....etc...

I disagree with you that humans rights are a "special interest".

They are special and an interest....but then again you seam to have missed the point. I've been talking about how defining who is a bigot. And just saying that anybody who does not automatically agree with you and will not be persuaded to your viewpoint is not how you define what a bigot is.

When an external group labels another group something other than their chosen name, how is that not derogatory?

Gee the way you put it it is like the English calling the Nihonjin Japanese is derogatory.

Being GBLT is not a "lifestyle" any more than being Black or Latino or Jewish is a "lifestyle".

GS handled this one quite nicely.

Nightfactory wrote:You're certainly welcome to believe that, but I feel this is a civil rights issue (both in terms of the greater argument and that of Palladium Books). Calling me "hypersensitive" strikes me as an Ad Hominem, Sir.

Actually what is being discussed right now is a Corporate rights issue. Since what is being talked about is PB adding LBGT char to their official canon.

And I stand by my initial comments that PB should not officially taking a side and let the individual GMs deal with this issue.

Nightfactory wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:

Nightfactory wrote:

Giant2005 wrote:

Nightfactory wrote:denial of the identity

No-one is denying anyone's identity...

That's it? That's your whole argument? "It's not true because I say it's not true". Great argument.

Also, The Oh So Amazing Nate is - by his own words.

Okay I'll bite...
Firstly, Nate never said anything of the sort your own brain invented that concept.

I see you skipped over my comment in which I called out your circular argument. Just commenting.

Let's break down your argument:

You are asserting that saying someone's identity is a "choice" does not constitute denying their identity (that's my argument). Could you please elaborate on your reasons for this?

Secondly, I didn't elaborate because I thought the notion of someone's identity being solely defined by their genetics was insane and didn't need elaboration.

First, that's a rather strange argument to me. Are you asserting that a Black person shouldn't define their identity as a Black person by the fact that they are genetically Black? If not, please elaborate on your point.

Second, when a subject is being debated and you made a claim, it is incumbent on you to back up your claim. This is understood everywhere.

My identity is shaped by my experiences and how I have reacted to and learned from them. It goes without saying that my identity isn't the same as it was when I was first born although my genetic structure is the same - my decisions have shaped my identity and nothing that Nate said denies that the LBGT community have an identity.

I honestly don't see how you can say that. Nate said that being LBGT was a "choice". This implies that GBLT people's very existence is fictional (ie. not empirical). This is overtly stating that being LGBT effectively doesn't exist.

Whether or not they have an identity (And of course they do, insinuating otherwise is farcical beyond belief) is completely independent of whether or not they have a choice in their sexuality.

Fair enough. Please demonstrate why being heterosexual is not a "choice" while being homosexual is.

In fact, I'm sure the majority of the LBGT community would be offended at your notion that their identity is based on their sexuality

Pardon me when I say ROFLMAO.

Please see this organization, and this organization, and this organization, and this organization, and this organization, and this organization. Please feel free to contact them, send them a link to this thread, and suggest that they should be offended that their identity is based on their sexuality.

in reality, their sexuality has only the most minor of impacts on their identity, much the same as it is for everyone else.

You are so wrong that it's painful to see. GBLT people in the USA, despite some Federal and State protections, still face an incredible amount of discrimination at the personal level. Outside of the USA, homosexuality is punnished by the death penalty in Sudan, Mauritania, Nigeira, Somalia, Uganda, and United Arab Emirates. Please read this Wiki article about GBLT rights by country. You will see that in multiple countries their rights are sharply curtailed.

They are people just like you and me, try to remember that.

You're a real [what happens when you poke your finger with a needle] for making such a mocking comment to me.

Wow. Just... wow. And not in a good way.

So, saying that something is a CHOICE destroys someone's identity? Really? How? PLEASE, explain? Even if someone was silly enough to tell me my skin color was a CHOICE, it doesn't deny my identity! It doesn't matter if someone says it's a choice, or it's a chemical imbalance, or if it's genetics, or anything else- that does NOT affect their actual identity any! At the BASIC level, their sexuality doesn't define them, any more than my sexuality defines me!

You posted a whole bunch of LGBT rights groups... None of them said anything about being DEFINED by their sexuality. And in fact, we've had a few stories pop up on this thread, talking about being a member of the LGBT community... none of those stories indicated that anyone was DEFINED by their sexuality.

You ask Giant to demonstrate why being heterosexual is not a "choice" while being homosexual is.

Why? He didn't suggest either thing either way. So why try to use that? Is it because he actually negated the argument you were trying to make, and pointed out how bigoted you were coming across as?

When he pointed out that their sexuality is only a minor aspect of their identity, you try to bring up the whole rights thing.... but, that isn't their identity. A persons identity is MUCH more than their sexuality, or their skin color, or any other single factor. To think otherwise really IS either homophobic, or heterophobic.

You do a lot of twisting of peoples words, and pointing to the side on tangent topics.

Try actually sticking to what people say, and to the topic at hand.

say652 wrote:Xxy lets see who's smart. I was made this way.

That's nice. I was made, some things were decided by my genetic code, other things were formed by my experiences in life.

Nightfactory wrote:Are you asserting that a Black person shouldn't define their identity as a Black person by the fact that they are genetically Black?

YES! The notion that their identity should be defined by their skin colour is insanely racist and the same applies to the LBGT community - defining their identity by their sexuality is equally offensive. People are more than what it seems your narrows views cater to. We are multi-faceted creatures shaped by numerous defining moments, each of which is infinitely more significant than skin colour or sexuality.
As long as people continue to look at the world through that lens, equality is an impossible dream.
At least you have managed to successfully convince me that the plight of thew LBGT community (and seemingly the black community) is far from where it needs to be - my thought that they have almost won their campaign already was obviously extremely inaccurate.

Nightfactory wrote:
And, despite all your fancy talk, you still did not respond to my rebutall.

Actually, I did- go back and read ALL the posts. Don't try to ignore things just because you don't like them.

What? I've gotten my own topic locked before because it went so far off topic it could not be brought back on topic. I was glad to do it too.

And since he was afraid I wouldn't want it public, I'll post myself...

Apparently, Nightfactory is putting me on his FOE list because of my "attitude"... I guess that's the attitude of:

Everyone's equal
Nobody's sexuality defines who they are
People have a right to an opinion different than someone else's beliefs
Putting a token character in a book isn't really doing anything, and therefore, really doesn't matter
Having a character from the LGBTQQI community in a book isn't a right- NO kind of character is a "right", to anyone.
When you try to twist peoples words, I'll call you on it.


Yep, I'm a horrible person!

Holy Mackerel!!!
I go to visit my mom, visit my grandmother, go fishing with my brother, get something to eat, do my laundry, and watch some TV and all of a sudden I'm called out because I didn't immediately respond to a post that twisted my words and then attacked me personally!! What has this forum come to?

Nightfactory quoted me with the following text.

The Oh So Amazing Nate wrote:I do not dislike GBLT people. I disagree with their lifestyle choice, (I believe it is a choice, that is my right. If you do not, that is your right.) but I do not dislike them as a group. I like or dislike people on an individual basis. I know people who are gay and am friendly with them. We're not best friends, but we're not bitter enemies either. To say that I dislike an entire group of people based on a single defining characteristic is to accuse me of discrimination and bigotry.

He singled out the following lines by highlighting them.

The Oh So Amazing Nate wrote:I do not dislike GBLT people. I disagree with their lifestyle choice, ......................................
To say that I dislike an entire group of people based on a single defining characteristic is to accuse me of discrimination and bigotry.

None of the selected text asserts what he claims about me. All it can say is that I disagree with the LGBT lifestyle.

Nightfactory wrote:If this is not bigotry, then I don't know what is. The term "lifestyle choice" was coined by conservative Christian fundamenalists. It is a denial of identity: it says, essentially, "Your identity does not exist. You simply choose to be different." Not agreeing with homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgenderism on a moral level is one thing. But completely denying it is quite another in my opinion.

Nightfactory wrote:To me, denial of identity is the worst form of hate. It says that the person does not deserve to be recognized; that they are a non-entity and, therefore, should not have the same rights as others.

He further goes on to equate my disagreement with the lifestyle of the LBGT community with the treatment of the Jewish people by Nazi Germany and the treatment of people of African descent during racial segregation. Both of these accusations are false, demeaning, and intolerable.

Never once in my original text or in the parts he chose to single out did I ever say that I denied lgbt people their identity. Never once did any of my statements say that I even disliked the LBGT community as a whole or that I felt that their rights should be taken away. These are false statements made by Nightfactory in an attempt to slander me and defame my character because I disagree with his viewpoint.

I stated in an earlier post I stated that if this behavior persisted I would report him and that I would dislike him. Guess what?! Both thing are happening now.

Just to make sure Nightfactory and everyone understands (supporters and non-supporters), I CHOOSE to dislike Nightfactory based on his actions (he persists in calling me a racist and a bigot) not because of his identity or stance on the OP topic (or whatever it has derailed off into).

Ninjabunny wrote:Actually the idea that it is a choice is what brought us to the current point. I am as straight as they come, I can not tell you with a straight face that I made a choice to be straight. My best friends brother is as gay as they come! (I mean think steep type that's him) he will say the same at no point was he ever attracted to women. It's not a life style choice it's just life. The sooner everyone just gets a grip on that the better.

This exactly. Anyone who calls it a "lifestyle choice" doesn't understand. It was a "lifestyle choice" for the Jews to hide what they were in Nazi Germany. It was not a lifestyle choice that they were born to Jewish families. Hiding the fact you are LGBT would be a "lifestyle choice". Being that is a part of who they are. Who they were born as. Yes you can change religion a lot easier than you can change your brain chemistry. Still a big difference between a "lifestyle choice" and a person who is LGBT and would like to see people like themselves represented in the media they like or the games they play.

Ninjabunny wrote:I am cool with a few GLBT NPCs being in future books. Hell they have been a part of civilization for thousands of years. I am honestly ashamed of some peoples responses on this thread.

me too. I think the "straight pride" people prolly fit in pretty well at a KKK rally. At least the white ones would.

Kryptt wrote:

say652 wrote:I vote for Steve the Transvestite Crazie to be npcd in a rifter. Lol. Just dont forget the pink Mohawk and snake skin nails. Lmao

Actually one gay character that I thought had well writen lines and scenes was one of the adama brothers from the canceled show Caprica. The guy was a mafioso character who busted people's heads and is a general tuff guy. You don't know he's gay till later in the series. Guess what, he's still a bad ass and it doesn't feel contrived. He wasn't running around wearing pink or being effeminate. If anything to me that's just another stereotype. In the film lab I worked at not every gay guy was like that. Heck some were tuff guy types and you'd never know. It's a shame the show was canceled because the writers did a great job of showing different family units besides the male+female ones without it feeling like someone's trying to further an agenda. If anything the writers did a fantastic job making it feel real and not fake. So I think a talented writer can make GBLT characters without it feeling forced.

I will say this I'll tip my hat off to PB the day they enter the 21st century and include in a blurb a same sex couple in one of their books. If Disney can do it, then so can PB. I'm not saying force it on PB, but hopefully when it comes up Kevin will endorse it.

Really was a great show.

say652 wrote:When a straight guy. Gets gas thrown on him and has to whoop the **** outa three rednecks hoping he gets them all down before someone strikes a lighter then and only then. Do you deserve a parade. #PinkViking.

pretty much

Goliath Strongarm wrote:Now, am I going to sit here and say that there isn't a level of double standard? No, I'm not. Why is it ok for men to go shirtless, but not women? Why is it socially acceptable for men to sleep with multiple women, but when a woman does it she's called derogatory terms? Why is it considered ok... well, the lists could go on for years.
...

it is not illegal or immoral for women to go topless in public in my city of Madison, WI.

Gender identity and discrimination are definitely hot button topics and we've seen that folks are getting more interested in talking about each other than about discussing the topic at hand.

Seeing as this topic has reached the point where far more heat than light is being generated, I've locked it down.

As a final note to the original topic, based on the writings we have seen, it seems to me that Palladium and its authors generally favor the principles of diversity and inclusiveness. I do not believe that there is any intentional slight in the absence of any group in Palladium's publications. If this absence was deliberate, I suspect it was intended to avoid potential upset rather than to cause it.

If you feel that any group is under-represented in Palladium's writings, I recommend you write them directly and as if there is a reason that characters of that type have not been included. Alternatively you can write for the Rifter with such characters in your work.