# Why do people get so triggered about introducing LGBT characters into movies?



## dpad_5678 (Feb 21, 2018)

I just find it super ironic. Introducing LGBT characters into modern-day movies, is, somehow, seen as "forcing homosexuality and transexuality" on children and on any currently impressionable generation. In that insane logic, any movie with a cisgender person, or a straight couple, is forcing their heterosexuality on the LGBT community. Makes sense, right? No.

Being "gay" is, honestly, just as weird as being straight. It's not weird at all, so it sounds ridiculous. 

 - straight white male


----------



## alevan (Feb 21, 2018)

There is nothing wrong by including LBGT characters into movies and series. As there never was with blacks or asians.

The problem starts, when the character is forced into the show, just for the sake of diversity. Just like with older movies, where the cast is white, but there is one black character (mostly killed of first in horrors), so the critics shut up.

One example: there is nothing wrong if somebody includes a gay character in a movie. Show his sexuality. But if every time he has screen time he has to flount it to the viewers, unnaturally, like he is "special" for his sexuality, not for his abilities or talents, it's unnatural. 

There is difference between natural diversity and forced diversity.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 21, 2018)

You may be lumping multiple groups to create a larger number, one in turn worth making note of.

The ""forcing homosexuality and transexuality" on children" set I reckon I can write off as a small enough number to be of no great interest.

It is the appeasements to the "fiction must represent the percentages of reality, or indeed over represent the percentages of reality, else you are wrong" set in turn giving me boring as shit, or worse still completely unbelievable, characters that bothers me.


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Feb 21, 2018)

I have more of a problem with a rapist actor than seeing an openly gay actor on screen. I threw away my copy of Advanced Warfare because of Kevin Spacey. Could have sold it but it's trash.


----------



## bkifft (Feb 21, 2018)

Would you happen to have an example, where the mere introduction (not replacement, introduction) of a LGBT charter ruffled feathers?


----------



## dpad_5678 (Feb 21, 2018)

alevan said:


> There is nothing wrong by including LBGT characters into movies and series. As there never was with blacks or asians.
> 
> The problem starts, when the character is forced into the show, just for the sake of diversity. Just like with older movies, where the cast is white, but there is one black character (mostly killed of first in horrors), so the critics shut up.
> 
> ...


I understand that, but for example, the character Valkyrie in Thor: Ragnarok was recently confirmed as bisexual in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Her comic book counterpart is also bisexual, and even then conservatives lost their minds everywhere, and saw that a common argument of theirs was that liberals are trying to "make everyone gay/bi".



bkifft said:


> Would you happen to have an example, where the mere introduction (not replacement, introduction) of a LGBT charter ruffled feathers?





dpad_5678 said:


> I understand that, but for example, the character Valkyrie in Thor: Ragnarok was recently confirmed as bisexual in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Her comic book counterpart is also bisexual, and even then conservatives lost their minds everywhere, and saw that a common argument of theirs was that liberals are trying to "make everyone gay/bi".


----------



## YTElias (Feb 21, 2018)

I have no problem with it. Sometimes i even like it


----------



## Bimmel (Feb 21, 2018)

Yuck! Lesbians, gays and hetero - go away with them! And the black, brown, yellow as well. But the worst type of them all are those white bed sheets. Where does that lead us? Animal only movies, please! Humans suck.

Let humans be humans, simple as that. All these discussion are so senseless. Let there be love! ;-)


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 21, 2018)

alevan said:


> There is nothing wrong by including LBGT characters into movies and series. As there never was with blacks or asians.
> 
> The problem starts, when the character is forced into the show, just for the sake of diversity. Just like with older movies, where the cast is white, but there is one black character (mostly killed of first in horrors), so the critics shut up.
> 
> ...


There are a handful of people at my college who act like that that just because that's their character trait. Does it get annoying? Occasionally, yeah. Is it forced or unnatural? No


----------



## YTElias (Feb 21, 2018)

Bimmel said:


> Yuck! Lesbians, gays and hetero - go away with them! And the black, brown, yellow as well. But the worst type of them all are those white bed sheets. Where does that lead us? Animal only movies, please! Humans suck.
> 
> Let humans be humans, simple as that. All these discussion are so senseless. Let there be love! ;-)


Yeah with cats from the game Ghost Trick


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 21, 2018)

Bimmel said:


> Yuck! Lesbians, gays and hetero - go away with them! And the black, brown, yellow as well. But the worst type of them all are those white bed sheets. Where does that lead us? Animal only movies, please! Humans suck.


This _desperately_ needs the sarcasm tag


----------



## Bimmel (Feb 21, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> This _desperately_ needs the sarcasm tag


I hope no one on this planet sympathizes with that. Thought it was idiotic enough.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Feb 21, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> I understand that, but for example, the character Valkyrie in Thor: Ragnarok was recently confirmed as bisexual in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Her comic book counterpart is also bisexual, and even then conservatives lost their minds everywhere, and saw that a common argument of theirs was that liberals are trying to "make everyone gay/bi".


From what I've read, there were just as many people complaining that her sexuality was NOT brought up in the movie.
Imho Marvel was right not to mention it in movie. It brings literally nothing to the story. This would have been a typical case of forced diversity for no purpose.

(and I'm gay, I just don't care about representation)


----------



## dpad_5678 (Feb 21, 2018)

deinonychus71 said:


> From what I've read, there were just as many people complaining that her sexuality was NOT brought up in the movie.
> Imho Marvel was right not to mention it in movie. It brings literally nothing to the story. This would have been a typical case of forced diversity for no purpose.
> 
> (and I'm gay, I just don't care about representation)


That's exactly why they left it in a Blu-Ray exclusive deleted scene (Tessa Thompson also confirmed it on Twitter, but I don't see that as significant as the cut out scene). But the way the conservatrolls laced into that.......holy shit.


----------



## Bimmel (Feb 21, 2018)

YTElias said:


> Yeah with cats from the game Ghost Trick


That would be.. awesome.

And a sweet golden strawberry for noticing my friend. :-)


----------



## YTElias (Feb 21, 2018)

Bimmel said:


> That would be.. awesome.
> 
> And a sweet golden strawberry for noticing my friend. :-)


Aww i played that game so much
I have it on a cartridge with whe original box and it keeps surprising me even tho i played it like 3 times


----------



## deinonychus71 (Feb 21, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> That's exactly why they left it in a Blu-Ray exclusive deleted scene (Tessa Thompson also confirmed it on Twitter, but I don't see that as significant as the cut out scene). But the way the conservatrolls laced into that.......holy shit.



I wasn't aware of that...
But yeah, both sides of the spectrum can be extreme, and both sides are feeding each other.

But I must say, it does annoy the hell out of me when lgbt communities pretend to speak for all of us and complain about petty things like representation. (some people did it for Black Panther too)
They don't speak for all of us, most of us don't care.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 21, 2018)

Who is people?
TBH, I don't like it if they are not subtle.
I hate when they advertise once and again "hey, look, here is the LGBT character we put into the movie, look we're inclusive!".
I mean, I hate if the only reason (very publicised and unsubtle) to put any kind of character is to look like a good PC SJW and nothing else, I think that is insulting for everybody.

Do you mean that?

Now, if there are LGBT characters that... well, are actual good characters with a role that happen to be LGBT, instead of being a shameless and hollow attempt to promote the movie as fakely virtuous, then it is great by me.

I don't like attempts to capitalise and profit on something through faking virtue.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 21, 2018)

The ones that I don't like are "we say our character is LGBT because we're inclusive but never actually write or show anything that confirms that so as to not make anyone who hates gays mad"

I'm looking at you, J K Rowling


----------



## NANASHI89 (Feb 21, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> I just find it super ironic. Introducing LGBT characters into modern-day movies, is, somehow, seen as "forcing homosexuality and transexuality" on children and on any currently impressionable generation. In that insane logic, any movie with a cisgender person, or a straight couple, is forcing their heterosexuality on the LGBT community. Makes sense, right? No.
> 
> Being "gay" is, honestly, just as weird as being straight. It's not weird at all, so it sounds ridiculous.
> 
> - straight white male


I have no problem.

There are people who are upset though, because they see it as MORE of the same insanity that causes Hollywood to lose viewers. Everything has to have LGBT characters, or Black Characters, or Hispanic characters, or...

Here's an idea. If you're gonna add those kinds of characters in movies, make sure they're actually talented?

Not trying to be a magnificent ass, I'm saying use common sense.


----------



## Chary (Feb 21, 2018)

If "being gay" is a character's main trait and personality, then there's no reason to have such a character in the first place, because that's lazy writing. If it's also just a "look! Look! We r brave and put gay person into movie!!!1 pls watch" then there's no reason to have such a character in the first place, as you're just being a tool and using it for a PR marketing scheme. 

No regular person with half a brain is bothered by _well written _LGBT characters_. _


----------



## yusuo (Feb 21, 2018)

JiveTheTurkey said:


> I have more of a problem with a rapist actor than seeing an openly gay actor on screen. I threw away my copy of Advanced Warfare because of Kevin Spacey. Could have sold it but it's trash.


If you're serious that is pretty narrow minded.

It is possible to differentiate someones professional work from their personal life, the guy was a multi Oscar winner and a well respected thespian before said allergations arose

Edit. I will point out I in no way agree with what he done in his personal life, I was just merely pointing out that regardless this man has talent


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 21, 2018)

yusuo said:


> If you're serious that is pretty narrow minded.
> 
> It is possible to differentiate someones professional work from their personal life, the guy was a multi Oscar winner and a well respected thespian before said allergations arose
> 
> Edit. I will point out I in no way agree with what he done in his personal life, I was just merely pointing out that regardless this man has talent


Can we at least agree that regardless of acting talent, he doesn't deserve to have a career in acting going forward?


----------



## kuwanger (Feb 21, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> Her comic book counterpart is also bisexual, and even then conservatives lost their minds everywhere, and saw that a common argument of theirs was that liberals are trying to "make everyone gay/bi".



How about changing the topic title to "Why do bigots get so triggered about introducing LGBT characters into movies?" since it seems that's what the discussion is, unless we're nitpicking (reasonably) what most other people here are saying: if you're not a bigot, you're only triggered when LGBT is the character not a facet of the person.  If you want to know why bigots are triggered by LGBT characters, it's precisely the "facet of the person" that they have issue with.  They've a twisted view of Christianity that at some level associates sin with possession.  They may or may not believe in exorcism of that sin, but they believe that any action to legitimize that sin as normal or that person as okay is a manifestation of evil.

I think that about covers it.  Now if you want to talk about ways to counter bigotry?  Mostly through what Hollywood has been doing:  showing that this Christian sin is not evil to humanitarians.  Then you have to accept that some bigots will become extremist because they feel threatened.  No really way around that. *shrug*


----------



## dpad_5678 (Feb 21, 2018)

yusuo said:


> If you're serious that is pretty narrow minded.
> 
> It is possible to differentiate someones professional work from their personal life, the guy was a multi Oscar winner and a well respected thespian before said allergations arose
> 
> Edit. I will point out I in no way agree with what he done in his personal life, I was just merely pointing out that regardless this man has talent


He stil RAPED people. And by your comment, your saying that Kevin Spacey, as a then-knowm straight male, would be better than anyone playing an openly-gay actor/actress? Now THAT is pretty narrow minded.

Not that any of that really matters; he's a rapist like POTUS.


----------



## yusuo (Feb 21, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Can we at least agree that regardless of acting talent, he doesn't deserve to have a career in acting going forward?


Oh damn right yeah, he lost that right

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



dpad_5678 said:


> He stil RAPED people. And by your comment, your saying that Kevin Spacey, as a then-knowm straight male, would be better than anyone playing an openly-gay actor/actress? Now THAT is pretty narrow minded.
> 
> Not that any of that really matters; he's a rapist like POTUS.


What, where the hell did you get that from, I never mentioned his sexuality, I was merely commenting on someone else's silly statement


----------



## RivenMain (Feb 21, 2018)

My opinions are quite crossed from most here, but I'll explain. I don't have a problem with people admitting their sexuality, but I don't condone homosexuality. I rather see it as a loss of culture than anything else. In a world of tradition and religion their acceptance is seen as giving up their honor to the family that they will not pass on their genes nor their family name. I respect their decision it's their life, but for the safety of other families those shun it as well for fear of it passing to their family and may see it a betrayal of their ancestors. It's that fear that disturbs them publicly displaying gay as good and it will always be that way.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 21, 2018)

RivenMain said:


> My opinions are quite crossed from most here, but I'll explain. I don't have a problem with people admitting their sexuality, but I don't condone homosexuality. I rather see it as a loss of culture than anything else. In a world of tradition and religion their acceptance is seen as giving up their honor to the family that they will not pass on their genes nor their family name. I respect their decision it's their life, but for the safety of other families those shun it as well for fear of it passing to their family and may see it a betrayal of their ancestors. It's that fear that disturbs them publicly displaying gay as good and it will always be that way.


If it makes you feel any better, the Greeks and Romans were just fine with homosexuality, and King James the First authorized the retranslation of the Bible exclusively so the Catholic community would back off about him having sex with his husband


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 21, 2018)

The thing is, it is hard to tell when a group of people are saying "This is a missed opportunity to represent us here" vs "we want representation in everything, no matter what". 

Also, "we don't like this forced representation" vs "we don't like this representation, at all".

To be fair tho, we have some forced heterosexual relationships, all the time. 



RivenMain said:


> My opinions are quite crossed from most here, but I'll explain. I don't have a problem with people admitting their sexuality, but I don't condone homosexuality. I rather see it as a loss of culture than anything else. In a world of tradition and religion their acceptance is seen as giving up their honor to the family that they will not pass on their genes nor their family name. I respect their decision it's their life, but for the safety of other families those shun it as well for fear of it passing to their family and may see it a betrayal of their ancestors. It's that fear that disturbs them publicly displaying gay as good and it will always be that way.


Do you shun everyone that chooses not to reproduce or can't reproduce?


----------



## Minox (Feb 21, 2018)

Chary said:


> If "being gay" is a character's main trait and personality, then there's no reason to have such a character in the first place, because that's lazy writing. If it's also just a "look! Look! We r brave and put gay person into movie!!!1 pls watch" then there's no reason to have such a character in the first place, as you're just being a tool and using it for a PR marketing scheme.
> 
> No regular person with half a brain is bothered by _well written _LGBT characters_. _


Imagine if a protagonist's main trait would be to be straight and nothing else? I mean, who would give a fuck about that character?


----------



## RivenMain (Feb 21, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> If it makes you feel any better, the Greeks and Romans were just fine with homosexuality, and King James the First authorized the retranslation of the Bible exclusively so the Catholic community would back off about him having sex with his husband


I can't call either bad today, but it's still a minority compared to the world around it. Romans were bad with culture rather than law, They do seem to both be connected though with Justinian I who was greek creating many of the laws today. (don't quote me on that as I don't know much of Rome was reading facts though.)



KingVamp said:


> The thing is, it is hard to tell when a group of people are saying "This is a missed opportunity to represent us here" vs "we want representation in everything, no matter what".
> 
> Also, "we don't like this forced representation" vs "we don't like this representation, at all".
> 
> ...


I don't shun them, If we dream of evolution of humanity, to become greater than human then their is no place for the weak. Thats not to say they are any less than human of you or I, but there are many creatures in the world that just exist. Where and in places like Netherlands they use Euthanasia as a way to keep their economy in tact. We can see it as disgusting specifically if your an older being, but identically it's used within Greece and Rome so to a degree.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 21, 2018)

I don't care as long as:

They aren't doing it to be inclusive
They have a role which requires them to be LGBT
They are actually LGBT themselves
They aren't flaunting it every five seconds
EDIT: They also shouldn't just throw a random gay person in there. If it isn't needed for the story, then don't include their sexuality at all.
That's it.


----------



## Lukerz (Feb 21, 2018)

Well actually I... Ahh...  (Thinks over coincidences of stating ones oppion online) Nvm


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 21, 2018)

blujay said:


> I don't care as long as:
> 
> They aren't doing it to be inclusive
> They have a role which requires them to be LGBT
> ...



You want the actors to be that which they portray?

Equally an incidental trait can be done, but I would agree pandering is tasteless at best.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 21, 2018)

blujay said:


> I don't care as long as:
> 
> They aren't doing it to be inclusive
> They have a role which requires them to be LGBT
> ...


Why can't a character be gay "just because"?... I almost think it's worse if the role "requires" them to be gay, unless the show/movie is quite literally about the contrast between queer and straight people


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 21, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> You want the actors to be that which they portray?


Can't tell if sarcasm or not (off my game today). What I am saying is that I don't care if their character is gay or straight or bi or pan or whatever if for no other reason besides them feeling more comfortable in that role.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 21, 2018)

I saw "everything sucks" the other day, and I liked that Netflix series.
- almost off-topic

PS: But actually not off-topic.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 21, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Why can't a character be gay "just because"?... I almost think it's worse if the role "requires" them to be gay, unless the show/movie is quite literally about the contrast between queer and straight people


I can think of a time when the role requires that they be gay.


Spoiler: Beyond Spoilers



In Beyond, one of my favorite TV series recently, Shoemacher is a character that (I assumed straight) had never had their sexuality revealed. In Season 2, Charlie (one of the characters who came from the realm) was asked to get to know Shoemacher's partner through a pregnant mother yoga class. She then got information to break into Shoemacher's house since they live together.



I don't care if they are gay just because, but the last thing that I want is to feel uncomfortable sitting through gay sex scenes just for the case of them being gay. Sex scenes alone make me uncomfortable, and if they are just there to show the sexuality of a character, I wouldn't really like that. There are other, less showy ways of mentioning a character is gay.


----------



## xpoverzion (Feb 21, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> I just find it super ironic. Introducing LGBT characters into modern-day movies, is, somehow, seen as "forcing homosexuality and transexuality" on children and on any currently impressionable generation. In that insane logic, any movie with a cisgender person, or a straight couple, is forcing their heterosexuality on the LGBT community. Makes sense, right? No.
> 
> Being "gay" is, honestly, just as weird as being straight. It's not weird at all, so it sounds ridiculous.
> 
> - straight white male


I have always believed that being gay is just as much a perversion as pedophelia, beastiality, or incest.  I know, I know...  The argument is that gay people are not harming each other, or anybody else. and it's two consenting adults.  If this is the case, then one must ask why incest is illegal and punishible up to 5 years in prison in most states??  In the case of incest between an adult brother and sister, or two cousins, are they not also two consenting adults that love each other, and are not doing harm to anybody, just as the gay couple?????   So just as I would not want hollywood and disney promoting incest, pedophelia, beastiality, etc to my kids, I also don't want them promoting, and normalizing LGBT themes to my kids either.  That's my opinion.  Now I will sit back and experience the backlash by all of you for disagreeing with this perversion.  This day and age is like sodom and gamorrah all over again.  Really sad.  And no, I'm not religious.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 21, 2018)

Incest (e.g. brother-sister) may be illegal in any case due to the strong probability of genetic problems children would carry.
Relations between cousins are not incest, and Americans are crazy, but that is common knowledge.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 21, 2018)

xpoverzion said:


> I have always believed that being gay is just as much a perversion as pedophelia, beastiality, or incest.  I know, I know...  The argument is that gay people are not harming each other, or anybody else. and it's two consenting adults.  If this is the case, then one must ask why incest is illegal and punishible up to 5 years in prison in most states??  In the case of incest between an adult brother and sister, or two cousins, are they not also two consenting adults that love each other, and are not doing harm to anybody, just as the gay couple?????   So just as I would not want hollywood and disney promoting incest, pedophelia, beastiality, etc to my kids, I also don't want them promoting, and normalizing LGBT themes to my kids either.  That's my opinion.  Now I will sit back and experience the backlash by all of you for disagreeing with this perversion.  This day and age is like sodom and gamorrah all over again.  Really sad.  And no, I'm not religious.


When the bait is real

Anyway, the reason incest is a crime usually boils down to "if the girl conceives the child will inevitably be messed up because genetics"

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



sarkwalvein said:


> Incest (e.g. brother-sister) may be illegal in any case due to the strong probability of genetic problems children would carry.
> Relations between cousins are not incest, and Americans are crazy, but that is common knowledge.


Relations between cousins are indeed incest, you either need to be three or four times removed for genetic fuckery to not show up in your children


----------



## xpoverzion (Feb 21, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> When the bait is real
> 
> Anyway, the reason incest is a crime usually boils down to "if the girl conceives the child will inevitably be messed up because genetics"


Not a good argument.  It's not illigal for drug addicts to love each other, and have kids in which the drug abuse will likely lead to birth defects.  What if brother and sister loved each other, and decided to adopt because they were aware of the risks?  Just like many healthy heterosexual couples adopt because they know they have a genetic condition that gives a high risk of a "faulty" baby.  So yeah, that's not really the reason why incest is illigal.  Incest is illegal for the same reason that homosexuality was illegal, frownded upon, and considered taboo for most of human history in most cultures.  For the reason that it's viewed as an immoral perversion.


----------



## DeslotlCL (Feb 21, 2018)

xpoverzion said:


> I have always believed that being gay is just as much a perversion as pedophelia, beastiality, or incest.  I know, I know...  The argument is that gay people are not harming each other, or anybody else. and it's two consenting adults.  If this is the case, then one must ask why incest is illegal and punishible up to 5 years in prison in most states??  In the case of incest between an adult brother and sister, or two cousins, are they not also two consenting adults that love each other, and are not doing harm to anybody, just as the gay couple?????   So just as I would not want hollywood and disney promoting incest, pedophelia, beastiality, etc to my kids, I also don't want them promoting, and normalizing LGBT themes to my kids either.  That's my opinion.  Now I will sit back and experience the backlash by all of you for disagreeing with this perversion.  This day and age is like sodom and gamorrah all over again.  Really sad.  And no, I'm not religious.


Yeah yeah balabing pam pom etc. As long as your kids grow up being tolerant people to the others who dont hurt them or dont do anything bad to them, then we are fine.

It's okay that you dont agree with gay people, it is your opinion an feelings after all. But for the love of god, dont let your kids to be intolerant with people, we all have different point of views, and if at least im respecting yours, respect me and the others who havent done anything bad to you or your kids.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 21, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Relations between cousins are indeed incest, you either need to be three or four times removed for genetic fuckery to not show up in your children


Not in most of the world.

PS: And actually if you look for studies, and though there's an increase in risk of childbearing between first-cousins, it is insignificant and comparable to that of any other couple ten years older IIRC.


----------



## xpoverzion (Feb 21, 2018)

DeslotlCL said:


> Yeah yeah balabing pam pom etc. As long as your kids grow up being tolerant people to the others who dont hurt them or dont do anything bad to them, then we are fine.
> 
> It's okay that you dont agree with gay people, it is your opinion an feelings after all. But for the love of god, dont let your kids to be intolerant with people, we all have different point of views, and if at least im respecting yours, respect me and the others who havent done anything bad to you or your kids.


Are you tolerant with Nazi ideology?  There is nothing wrong with teaching kids what's wrong with certain aspects of the world based on your own values and ideology, and which side of the fence to stand on.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 21, 2018)

xpoverzion said:


> Are you tolerant with Nazi ideology?  There is nothing wrong with teaching kids what's wrong with certain aspects of the world, and which side of the fence to stand on.


Except if you teach them to be intolerant with gays, you are teaching them to fail. Whether or not you believe it is correct is up to you, but for heaven's sake do NOT teach your kids to be intolerant with people. We don't live in a world where actual Nazism is acceptable (neo-Nazis exist but that is a different argument). But we do live in a world where the future will require that relationships between straights and queer, and by teaching them to hate/dislike queers you are only setting them up for failure.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 21, 2018)

xpoverzion said:


> Are you tolerant with Nazi ideology?


Of course not, and of course one of the first standards of Nazi ideology was the extermination of gay people.


----------



## DeslotlCL (Feb 21, 2018)

xpoverzion said:


> Are you tolerant with Nazi ideology?  There is nothing wrong with teaching kids what's wrong with certain aspects of the world based on your own values and ideology, and which side of the fence to stand on.


Well, you just compared apple to oranges...


----------



## SG854 (Feb 21, 2018)

xpoverzion said:


> I have always believed that being gay is just as much a perversion as pedophelia, beastiality, or incest.  I know, I know...  The argument is that gay people are not harming each other, and it's two consenting adults.  If this is the case, then one must ask why incest is illegal and punishible up to 5 years in prison in most states??  In the case of incest between an adult brother and sister, or two cousins, are they not also two consenting adults that love each other, and are not doing harm to anybody, just as the gay couple?????   So just as I would not want hollywood and disney promoting incest, pedophelia, beastiality, etc to my kids, I also don't want them promoting, and normalizing LGBT themes to my kids either.  That's my opinion.  Now I will sit back and experience the backlash by all of you for disagreeing with this perversion.  This day and age is like sodom and gamorrah all over again.  Really sad.  And no, I'm not religious.


Cousin marriages use to be common, and is still common in some parts of the world. Majority of marriages throughout history were between first and second cousins.

One thing about marriage is that it wasn't always about love and marrying for personality. That didn't come until the 1900's. People were focused on survival back then and marriage was based on that. Being able to marry for love today is a luxury that our ancestors didn't have. Love back then meant something different then it does today.


----------



## osm70 (Feb 21, 2018)

xpoverzion said:


> I have always believed that being gay is just as much a perversion as pedophelia, beastiality, or incest.  I know, I know...  The argument is that gay people are not harming each other, or anybody else. and it's two consenting adults.  If this is the case, then one must ask why incest is illegal and punishible up to 5 years in prison in most states?? * In the case of incest between an adult brother and sister, or two cousins, are they not also two consenting adults that love each other, and are not doing harm to anybody*, just as the gay couple?????   So just as I would not want hollywood and disney promoting incest, pedophelia, beastiality, etc to my kids, I also don't want them promoting, and normalizing LGBT themes to my kids either.  That's my opinion.  Now I will sit back and experience the backlash by all of you for disagreeing with this perversion.  This day and age is like sodom and gamorrah all over again.  Really sad.  And no, I'm not religious.





xpoverzion said:


> Not a good argument.  It's not illigal for drug addicts to love each other, and have kids in which the drug abuse will likely lead to birth defects. * What if brother and sister loved each other, and decided to adopt because they were aware of the risks?* *Just like many healthy heterosexual couples adopt because they know they have a genetic condition that gives a high risk of a "faulty" baby.* *So yeah, that's not really the reason why incest is illigal.*  Incest is illegal for the same reason that homosexuality was illegal, frownded upon, and considered taboo for most of human history in most cultures.  For the reason that it's viewed as an immoral perversion.




Yeah.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with incest unless they have biological children. If they either adopt or don't have kids at all, incest is perfectly fine. I see no good reason why it should be illegal or frowned upon.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Feb 21, 2018)

xpoverzion said:


> I have always believed that being gay is just as much a perversion as pedophelia, beastiality, or incest.  I know, I know...  The argument is that gay people are not harming each other, or anybody else. and it's two consenting adults.  If this is the case, then one must ask why incest is illegal and punishible up to 5 years in prison in most states??  In the case of incest between an adult brother and sister, or two cousins, are they not also two consenting adults that love each other, and are not doing harm to anybody, just as the gay couple?????   So just as I would not want hollywood and disney promoting incest, pedophelia, beastiality, etc to my kids, I also don't want them promoting, and normalizing LGBT themes to my kids either.  That's my opinion.  Now I will sit back and experience the backlash by all of you for disagreeing with this perversion.  This day and age is like sodom and gamorrah all over again.  Really sad.  And no, I'm not religious.



This is a typical case of whataboutism, with a added touch of strawmanism for giving an example that simply doesn't apply.

But since we're going this road:
- Incest might still be seen as a taboo, but it could as well be seen as the next thing to blow up and become more accepted. The very reason it's still taboo is because of the implications it can have on children.
- Beastiality uses basically the same reason as pedophelia, aka, they're animals, but they're young and they're babies and they can't give consent (that's the official reason anyway), and so yes, a strong taboo. (oh btw feel free to kill them eat them use them for drug testing no probs)

And somehow, you're trying to turn into derision that indeed, two adult men or two adult women are perfectly able to give consent without actually implying anyone else, to be born or not.

If you wanted a better example, you could have picked a relationship between a man or woman of different ethnicity. It's a much better match to the premise, and it used to be discouraged/judged a few decades ago.
Oh right... that would go against your views, though :/


Also yeah... you're never actually giving any justification as to why being gay is bad other than "it's a perversion". Nor why it wouldn't be possible to have feelings for the same sex. Scrap all that thinking under the key word "believe", and it's a golden ticket for passing judgments without ever having to think too much about it.
You see gay relationships as a perversion. In the very narrow minded concept that sex should only be perpetrated for reproduction, it definitely is a perversion. Just like blow jobs and pretty much all the fantasies of a straight man beside good old missionary.
If your only argument is "it's a perversion", then surely you must be against all of that, since they're all equally perversions.


----------



## blaisedinsd (Feb 22, 2018)

I believe the issue is that LGBTQ lifestyle is seen as immoral according to most major world religions.

LGBTQ these days is basically over represented in the media to the point where most people vastly over estimate how many people are actually LGBTQ.

Any negative representation on an LGBTQ character is criticized by watchdog groups so nearly all LGBTQ characters are idealized superheroes and are sympathetic.

The prevalence and acceptance of LGBTQ culture is seen as a culture war by some where more people will become LGBTQ (and hence immoral) because it is accepted as an equal and alternative lifestyle.  Nature vs Nuture.....the nurture is almost certainly having an effect on how many identify as LGBTQ isn't it?


I think thats why some people get triggered by it...

I am pretty liberal about it but I do have a problem with Transgenders being intimate with people without revealing they are transgender....I have seen discussions where many feel they don't have to and I consider that to be rape.  People are attracted to certain genders, even gay people, you can't give consent if someone is deceiving about their biological sex because of their gender identity....some tansgender persons can fool almost everyone.  I believe a transgender person should be legally obligated to reveal they are transgender before being intimate with someone.  Other than that do what ever you want.  But I guess that is kind of off the topic.....


----------



## deinonychus71 (Feb 22, 2018)

blaisedinsd said:


> I believe the issue is that LGBTQ lifestyle is seen as immoral according to most major world religions.



I consider immoral that the followers of a non-existing god whose fanatics are responsible for so many wars and pain in history and even today still have the balls to tell us what to do, what to think, and who to have sex with.

To the point where you can't say fuck on tv, but you can watch gore anytime
To the point where half of the cursing of the english language is made of religious references
To the point where a president still have to swear on the bible
To the point where you're reminded of that insanity when you look at literally every single dollar bill in the states.

But you know, they can do what they want and believe in whatever creationist lies they want, so long as they let other people think what they want and stop judging them :-)
... Yeah thinking about it, definitely a cultural war.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 22, 2018)

blaisedinsd said:


> I believe the issue is that LGBTQ lifestyle is seen as immoral according to most major world religions.
> 
> LGBTQ these days is basically over represented in the media to the point where most people vastly over estimate how many people are actually LGBTQ.
> 
> ...



I agree with this. Both sides are highly over represented. And it all comes down to the vocal minority.

A little off-topic, but here goes.
All religions where being LGBT+ is viewed as sinful behavior are viewed in a negative light because the vocal minority shouts and tries to rile up their fellow LGBT+ members to fight against these religions. Then, these members fight the religions get angry, shouting about how they are being persecuted for their beliefs. Some of these religions view same-sex relationships as a sin, but not a sin that you cannot recover from. Others view it as punishable by the very depths of hell and unrecoverable. Most religions take this and run with it, saying "Hey! Look at those slobs! What are they doing, having sex every night with their own gender?!?!?!" whereas that is not at all what being LGBT+ is about. And the LGBT+ are shouting "Hey! Look at those imbeciles who believe in bed-time stories! What are they doing, telling us how we can and can't live??!??!?!?!" In my religion specifically, we are trying our best to make sure that people know that we don't hate LGBT+ people, and that we are willing to let them be members of our church as long as they aren't preaching their lifestyle. Being LGBT+ is as bad a sin as watching pornography or pre-marriage sex.

But back on topic, probably the largest reason for these issues is the misunderstanding between the two and the divide being further widened by us not actually talking it out and instead relying on news articles/stories to give us our fill.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



deinonychus71 said:


> so long as they let other people think what they want and stop judging them


that's a two way street my friend.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 22, 2018)

deinonychus71 said:


> To the point where a president still have to swear on the bible


Not to take away from your point, but an elected official can swear on literally anything that they hold in incredibly high regard. It's just that most of them choose the Bible


----------



## deinonychus71 (Feb 22, 2018)

blujay said:


> that's a two way street my friend.



Yep, That's why I would never go about banning all depictions of religions in the medias or in the society.

I'm only asking for them to do the same. Yes forcing lgbt characters for no reason is stupid, but good written characters are more than welcome, just like well written stories about religions or depicting religious characters.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Not to take away from your point, but an elected official can swear on literally anything that they hold in incredibly high regard. It's just that most of them choose the Bible


Thanks for rectifying, I wasn't aware


----------



## Minox (Feb 22, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> Incest (e.g. brother-sister) may be illegal in any case due to the strong probability of genetic problems children would carry.
> Relations between cousins are not incest, and Americans are crazy, but that is common knowledge.


Relations between cousins is incest, just not close enough to matter if it's not done to the extreme. In certain communities like the Pakistani one it's somewhat common for cousins to marry and since that can happen throughout several generations they've in some cases taken it to such extremes that birth defects and abnormalities are much more common than for the general population.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 22, 2018)

Characters are one of the several driving forces behind a plot; without sufficiently interesting and/or relatable characters, the story goes nowhere.  Some people seem to get triggered when LGBT characters appear in a work, and others seem to get triggered when LGBT characters _don't_ appear in a work.  It's a bit silly, to be honest.  However, if the characters aren't sufficiently interesting/relatable, then I don't care if they're LGBT or not; they're boring and I don't like them.

Playing the Devil's Advocate, however, some people don't like having "so many" LGBT characters on-screen because they see it as forcing a sexuality (that an admitted minority of the population is part of) down everyone's throats and are making kids think that it's OK to try being gay, as if it's casual thing.  Those aren't my words, though, and I'm just going to leave it at that.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> The ones that I don't like are "we say our character is LGBT because we're inclusive but never actually write or show anything that confirms that so as to not make anyone who hates gays mad"
> 
> I'm looking at you, J K Rowling


This.  Being gay adds absolutely nothing to Dumbledore's character, at least, from what I've seen from the Harry Potter books/movies.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 22, 2018)

B_E_P_I_S_M_A_N said:


> This.  Being gay adds absolutely nothing to Dumbledore's character, at least, from what I've seen from the Harry Potter books/movies.


Don't get me wrong, I don't mind that he is (or, more appropriately, was -_-) canonically gay. It's that Rowling only announced it after the seventh book was written for the sake of "oh hey look I'm an ally and I CARE", and then also completely went back on that for his upcoming character in the Fantastic Beasts series, presumably because she has something to lose again


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Feb 22, 2018)

I have not seen anyone that has a problem with it and I certainly don't. But there will always be those who are just looking for an excuse to complain. Can't please everyone.


alevan said:


> There is nothing wrong by including LBGT characters into movies and series. As there never was with blacks or asians.
> 
> The problem starts, when the character is forced into the show, just for the sake of diversity. Just like with older movies, where the cast is white, but there is one black character (mostly killed of first in horrors), so the critics shut up.
> 
> ...


That thing with the black person getting killed first still happens in modern movies.


----------



## dAVID_ (Feb 22, 2018)

I really *really *hate forced diversity. I mean sure you can include a homo/lesb character every now and then, but only if it makes the story better, and once!


----------



## dpad_5678 (Feb 22, 2018)

xpoverzion said:


> Are you tolerant with Nazi ideology?  There is nothing wrong with teaching kids what's wrong with certain aspects of the world based on your own values and ideology, and which side of the fence to stand on.


Nazi ideas were to kill all minorities in the most horrific and sufferable ways imaginable. Totally different than accepting that fact of two dudes fucking.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 22, 2018)

I don't get why everyone is so convinced that the diversity is "forced." I mean, there are a lot of obvious examples of that being the case (and the characters tend to be flat and boring because of it), but that's definitely not ALWAYS the case, and having a diverse cast with the right writer/directer can improve a movie beyond what having an all straight/white cast would


----------



## DRAGONBALLVINTAGE (Feb 22, 2018)

Because some people like to get cocky
Or If you say something wrong hey get mad
They Lie http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/20/racis...le-attacked-black-panther-screenings-7327923/
And Just Plain Stupid https://www.huffingtonpost.com/monique-ruffin/gay-civil-rights_b_1168897.html

Why The Fuck Would you say that that's highly offensive

Do I go to every Coming Out thread saying "Good For You Bull Dagger" Or  "Get yo Gay Ass off of here"


----------



## CeeDee (Feb 22, 2018)

Is anyone actually getting pissed over LGBT characters in media?

They shouldn't be.


----------



## Captain_N (Feb 22, 2018)

its because they force it in when its not called for. Its like when wiimote motion controls are forced on the user. Same thing like forcing the motion controls in star fox Zero. lgbt characters should only be there if the cast calls for it, not just because noobs demand it.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 22, 2018)

Captain_N said:


> its because they force it in when its not called for. Its like when wiimote motion controls are forced on the user. Same thing like forcing the motion controls in star fox Zero. lgbt characters should only be there if the cast calls for it, not just because noobs demand it.


To add to this, sexuality in general should be left up to the audience if the plot will not benefit from the explanation of it. It is perfectly fine not to tell people if a character is gay or straight, just let them believe what they want to. I was walking in a store a few days (weeks?) ago when I overheard a lady saying how sometimes she just forgets that some people are straight and assumes everyone is gay. Well, everyone just assume the sexuality. Half the time the sex scenes are there just to sell the show.


----------



## blaisedinsd (Feb 22, 2018)

Isn't forgetting people are straight and assuming everyone is gay delusional?

I wouldn't know about being gay but isn't it correct to assume people are straight because they almost always are?  Isn't gaydar a thing?

Hetero sex scenes sell the show unless your targeting a niche audience.  Isn't that a fact?


----------



## Nerdtendo (Feb 22, 2018)

It's outside of norms. Simple as that *shrug*


----------



## dpad_5678 (Feb 22, 2018)

Nerdtendo said:


> It's outside of norms. Simple as that *shrug*


Being gay is? That's a joke. Being straight is just as "abnormal".


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Feb 22, 2018)

There's a difference between writing a character who happens to be LGBT or a minority and creating a gay character judt to have a gay character.

One of the annoying things about Elder Scrolls Online (which I play regularly) is the amount and portrayal of gay couples in quests. There are a lot of quests involving gay couples who are clearly intended to be more caring than a lot of the straight couples in quests. The problem is that the developers are clearly including them as a publicity move to appear progressive. It's incredibly disproportionate and unnatural, not to mention just insulting. Writing characters (even minor ones) that way just makes it look like they're trying to make gay couples more caring to say "look how caring and accepting we are, please give us more money".


TotalInsanity4 said:


> Why can't a character be gay "just because"?... I almost think it's worse if the role "requires" them to be gay, unless the show/movie is quite literally about the contrast between queer and straight people


Because that borders on bad writing. It's fine to have a gay character but don't make it "just because" for the sake of diversity. If it doesn't have anything to do with the story and they don't have any sort of love interest their sexuality doesn't matter. Unless a character has/had a love interest there's no reason for us to be shown that they're gay, straight, or whatever. I will say that I do think that it's a little less annoying if a character is straight for no reason if only because that won't come up a lot. I doubt anybody is just going to come out of the blue and say "Oh god I love women. They're so hot blah blah blah".


----------



## blaisedinsd (Feb 22, 2018)

Isn't being straight slightly needed for people to sort of be here......you do understand the birds and the bees as they put it right?  In no way does the English language when used properly apply the label of abnormal to being straight.  It's not scientifically correct usage either.  It doesn't even make any sort of legitimate joke to call being straight abnormal either.


----------



## SANIC (Feb 22, 2018)

alevan said:


> There is nothing wrong by including LBGT characters into movies and series. As there never was with blacks or asians.
> 
> The problem starts, when the character is forced into the show, just for the sake of diversity. Just like with older movies, where the cast is white, but there is one black character (mostly killed of first in horrors), so the critics shut up.
> 
> ...


I think that Sailor Moon pulled this off well with Sailor Uranus and Neptune. Both characters are unique but in a sense of them being well fleshed out as characters. They aren't special because of their love for each other, rather they are special for their motives which I will not spoil. They weren't introduced as LGBTQ bait, rather because everyone likes unique characters and that caused conflict between the Inner and Outer Sailor Senshi until they finally found a common ground which produced the holy Grail and allowed Sailor Moon to transform into Super Sailor Moon for the first time.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Feb 22, 2018)

I understand that adding an LGBT character into something JUST to have an LGBT character is dumb as hell, but let's be honest: If a future blockbuster film, such as, I don't know, _X-Men: Dark Phoenix_, had fifty percent of it's characters gay (and their sexuality was implicitly mentioned and not overly discussed) conservatives would STILL go nuts and try to take down the film's rep.

The truth is the right starts to feel threatened, because at one point, being gay was a social sin and now large-score movies include gay characters like it's nothing. They're realizing that their attempts at oppression have failed and they can never topple the LGBT community.



blaisedinsd said:


> Isn't being straight slightly needed for people to sort of be here......you do understand the birds and the bees as they put it right?  In no way does the English language when used properly apply the label of abnormal to being straight.  It's not scientifically correct usage either.  It doesn't even make any sort of legitimate joke to call being straight abnormal either.


Thank you for proving my point. Being straight is just as abnormal as being gay, ie it's NOT abnormal at all.


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Feb 22, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> I understand that adding an LGBT character into something JUST to have an LGBT character is dumb as hell, but let's be honest: If a future blockbuster film, such as, I don't know, _X-Men: Dark Phoenix_, had fifty percent of it's characters gay (and their sexuality was implicitly mentioned and not overly discussed) conservatives would STILL go nuts and try to take down the film's rep.
> 
> The truth is the right starts to feel threatened, because at one point, being gay was a social sin and now large-score movies include gay characters like it's nothing. They're realizing that their attempts at oppression have failed and they can never topple the LGBT community.
> 
> ...


But that still creates an issue of it being very disproportionate. It begs the question of why there would be so many gay characters put in. Most people are straight so if there are as many gay people in focus it does become abnormal. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with being gay, but it's very unrealistic and that can be bothersome for it's own reasons.


----------



## Viri (Feb 22, 2018)

Fallout New Vegas is an example of well written LGBT characters. If people wrote LGBT characters the way Obsidian did, I wouldn't mind.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 22, 2018)

RedBlueGreen said:


> But that still creates an issue of it being very disproportionate. It begs the question of why there would be so many gay characters put in. Most people are straight so if there are as many gay people in focus it does become abnormal. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with being gay, but it's very unrealistic and that can be bothersome for it's own reasons.


Usually if there's one gay person in a friend group, there will be a lot of gay people. They tend to flock to each other because of shared experience, from what I understand from my friends. It's entirely realistic to have a plethora of queer characters, just because densities of the population tend to vary


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Feb 22, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Usually if there's one gay person in a friend group, there will be a lot of gay people. They tend to flock to each other because of shared experience, from what I understand from my friends. It's entirely realistic to have a plethora of queer characters, just because densities of the population tend to vary


That would make sense in the case of something like a sitcom or drama, something actually representative of regular activities and I think that's fine. But we're talking about much more exaggerated fiction here. I mean more in a broader sense of population. If half of the characters in something are gay and they don't have a preexisting relationship and they all just happen to come together becomes a little less realistic. If a bunch of characters from different backgrounds come together and a half or most of them are gay then it might seem a little disproportionate.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 22, 2018)

RedBlueGreen said:


> That would make sense in the case of something like a sitcom or drama, something actually representative of regular activities and I think that's fine. But we're talking about much more exaggerated fiction here. I mean more in a broader sense of population. If half of the characters in something are gay and they don't have a preexisting relationship and they all just happen to come together becomes a little less realistic. If a bunch of characters from different backgrounds come together and a half or most of them are gay then it might seem a little disproportionate.


Does that happen frequently in cinema?...


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Feb 22, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Does that happen frequently in cinema?...


No but that seems like the hypothetical in the scenario I was quoting. I don't keep up with superhero movies, but I can't imagine something like an X-Men movie having a bunch of gay characters working naturally (a bunch as in 50% of the characters).

If something is about gay (I'm including both gay men and lesbians here, using the one word is just easier) characters or it's something more realistic featuring gay characters then it would be fine to have a lot of gay characters. But if a bunch of unaffiliated characters happen to be gay in more of a fantasy setting that's where it could become immersion breaking. I'm talking major numbers like 30-50% here, no issues with a well written gay character and a couple minor characters who might be gay but not forced in for tokenism.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 22, 2018)

xpoverzion said:


> Not a good argument.  It's not illigal for drug addicts to love each other, and have kids in which the drug abuse will likely lead to birth defects.



It very much is. It tends to be called fetal abuse in the US and prosecutions for things relating to it go back decades ( http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/17/us/in-wisconsin-a-rarity-of-a-fetal-harm-case.html ).
It is not without controversy in some circles (I don't know if there is a national supreme court ruling but it was heading that way a few years back, in the UK the alcohol variety was ruled against), some of said circles including groups that deal with the resulting problems but again the notion is not a new one.


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Feb 22, 2018)

xpoverzion said:


> I have always believed that being gay is just as much a perversion as pedophelia, beastiality, or incest.  I know, I know...  The argument is that gay people are not harming each other, or anybody else. and it's two consenting adults.  If this is the case, then one must ask why incest is illegal and punishible up to 5 years in prison in most states??  In the case of incest between an adult brother and sister, or two cousins, are they not also two consenting adults that love each other, and are not doing harm to anybody, just as the gay couple?????   So just as I would not want hollywood and disney promoting incest, pedophelia, beastiality, etc to my kids, I also don't want them promoting, and normalizing LGBT themes to my kids either.  That's my opinion.  Now I will sit back and experience the backlash by all of you for disagreeing with this perversion.  This day and age is like sodom and gamorrah all over again.  Really sad.  And no, I'm not religious.


Fairly certain this is bait but whatever.

Incest is probably illegal because of the increased risk of genetic problems and birth defects. Being interested in people of the same sex poses no such risk does it?

Even if you adopt there's still the risk of birth control failing.

If you think that TV is going to fill your kids' heads with a bunch of stuff you don't agree with then you should probably do some actual parenting so your kids don't take media so seriously and don't learn everything from it or imitate what they see.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> It very much is. It tends to be called fetal abuse in the US and prosecutions for things relating to it go back decades ( http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/17/us/in-wisconsin-a-rarity-of-a-fetal-harm-case.html ).
> It is not without controversy in some circles (I don't know if there is a national supreme court ruling but it was heading that way a few years back, in the UK the alcohol variety was ruled against), some of said circles including groups that deal with the resulting problems but again the notion is not a new one.


It's a little ridiculous that people can get away with doing things they know can harm the fetus. In bars in Canada (may differ by province) you have to have a sign saying that alcohol can cause birth defects but other than that you can legally serve pregnant women.


----------



## Kigiru (Feb 22, 2018)

More or less because it's used to cover up the fact that writers can't create good story and characters. Look for example on Marvel Comics - IT'S DYING because of few creators that make horribly bad, bland and ruining already estabilished characters comic books stuffed with SJW propaganda. If something like that would happen in more broad media like movies or games it would be outright painful to watch.

The fact that we get black, gay, crippled or whatever characters is fine. The fact that creators use the fake diversity to cover up their lacking skills and dissapear behind the backs of loud SJW protesters is pretty much distusting degradation of culture.


----------



## DBlaze (Feb 22, 2018)

People get triggered because it's insanely poorly executed when it happens.
Most of the time, it's being shoved in your face and it expects viewers to give a damn about it.
I'm one of those people. I get triggered when it's forced for the sake of "but hey, we got all this diversity yay us!"

A character should be interesting because he/she/it is interesting for what/who it is and the background he/she/it has.
A character is not interesting because it shoves in your face "i'm gay/lesbian/t******/herma/fluid/liquid/snake/helicopter" without any depth or development at all.

And with that, unless the character's sexuality or gender has anything at all to do with the story, I don't need to know what the orientation of a character is on that field if it has absolutely no impact on anything at all.


----------



## Nerdtendo (Feb 22, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> Being gay is? That's a joke. Being straight is just as "abnormal".


No, being gay is abnormal. At least historically it is. Being straight has been the norm for all of history so people are used to it.


----------



## Procyon (Feb 22, 2018)

They're triggered, because sometimes people are assholes. People often don't know about the history of Rome, and other places where it was perceived as normal. Anyway, I'm glad there is at least representation coming up. Although sometimes I feel like the representation looks fake. Anyway, I like the way how the OP reacts. Kudo's to the OP.


----------



## BlueFox gui (Feb 22, 2018)

if you like gays good, have nothing against good
but if you don't like gays or bi or such things because you want to be different "Oh look i am special, i think different" you can LITERALLY kill yourself because this world don't need cunts like that


----------



## megaswablu (Mar 1, 2018)

cause its different and people don't like change


----------



## Tigran (Mar 1, 2018)

I actually believe persona 4 handled both issues rather well.

Kanji could... or could not be gay. They never specifically stated, and they didn't have to. It was up to the player to decide in that one. 

Also Naoto had a gender crises for a completely different reasons. These were important to the characters and fed deeply into the story at the same time.




xpoverzion said:


> I have always believed that being gay is just as much a perversion as pedophelia, beastiality, or incest.  I know, I know...  The argument is that gay people are not harming each other, or anybody else. and it's two consenting adults.  If this is the case, then one must ask why incest is illegal and punishible up to 5 years in prison in most states??  In the case of incest between an adult brother and sister, or two cousins, are they not also two consenting adults that love each other, and are not doing harm to anybody, just as the gay couple?????   So just as I would not want hollywood and disney promoting incest, pedophelia, beastiality, etc to my kids, I also don't want them promoting, and normalizing LGBT themes to my kids either.  That's my opinion.  Now I will sit back and experience the backlash by all of you for disagreeing with this perversion.  This day and age is like sodom and gamorrah all over again.  Really sad.  And no, I'm not religious.



Seriously dude... Don't be a zubat.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Mar 1, 2018)

Tigran said:


> I actually believe persona 4 handled both issues rather well.
> 
> Kanji could... or could not be gay. They never specifically stated, and they didn't have to. It was up to the player to decide in that one.
> 
> ...



You didn't answer his question. You make it seem like he asked something completely ridiculous when really he has an extremely valid point. Just because the Clinton News Network says something is normal,does not mean that is the case.


----------



## Tigran (Mar 1, 2018)

Maluma said:


> You didn't answer his question. You make it seem like he asked something completely ridiculous when really he has an extremely valid point. Just because the Clinton News Network says something is normal,does not mean that is the case.



I didn't answer his question.. because the first part of my post had nothing to do with his question. 

And I don't listen to CNN as much as various other world new sources. At least I don't listen to "State Sponsored Fox News for Nazi Snowflakes" if you really want to start throwing shade around like that.


----------



## tatripp (Mar 1, 2018)

I watched my Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 for some reason. It's about a traditional Greek family who belong to a conservative Greek Orthodox church. I think they get mad in the first movie because the daughter isn't marrying a Greek guy. Oh, but in the second movie they are completely fine when they find out their gay family member is in love with another man.

I may have gotten it a little mixed up, but that's basically it. Basically, it didn't make sense in the logic of the movie, and I couldn't suspend my disbelief. There was also zero positive effect on the story.

It's like when people complain about movies being too diverse. No one cares if a movie has a diverse cast unless the cast was chosen to meet some diversity quota. Black Panther was a good movie because it had good actors--not because it had black people.


----------



## MeowMeowMeow (Mar 1, 2018)

BlueFox gui said:


> if you like gays good, have nothing against good
> but if you don't like gays or bi or such things because you want to be different "Oh look i am special, i think different" you can LITERALLY kill yourself because this world don't need cunts like that


Could be also the other way around.

Anyway, I have seen the latest exorcist, where the whole season is focused banishing the devil and rituals and blabla. But all of the sudden one of the main character kisses with a guy. 
It triggered me so much, no for the main character being gay but it feel so forced and had nothing to do with the story.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Mar 1, 2018)

tatripp said:


> I watched my Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 for some reason. It's about a traditional Greek family who belong to a conservative Greek Orthodox church. I think they get mad in the first movie because the daughter isn't marrying a Greek guy. Oh, but in the second movie they are completely fine when they find out their gay family member is in love with another man.
> 
> I may have gotten it a little mixed up, but that's basically it. Basically, it didn't make sense in the logic of the movie, and I couldn't suspend my disbelief. There was also zero positive effect on the story.
> 
> It's like when people complain about movies being too diverse. No one cares if a movie has a diverse cast unless the cast was chosen to meet some diversity quota. Black Panther was a good movie because it had good actors--not because it had black people.



Wow lol. I never noticed this but this is a pretty big plot hole.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Mar 1, 2018)

Maluma said:


> You didn't answer his question. You make it seem like he asked something completely ridiculous when really he has an extremely valid point. Just because the Clinton News Network says something is normal,does not mean that is the case.


Clinton News Network... LOL.

The American News "Industry" (and pretty much also the World's) is fucked up beyond return, no matter "affiliation" to Clinton, Trump, or whomever. It's all just popular show, zero news, each one with their irrelevant agenda and no real intention to inform anybody. Fake news come from everywhere and are a real problem, for everybody.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Mar 1, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> Clinton News Network... LOL.
> 
> The American News "Industry" (and pretty much also the World's) is fucked up beyond return, no matter "affiliation" to Clinton, Trump, or whomever. It's all just popular show, zero news, each one with their irrelevant agenda and no real intention to inform anybody. Fake news come from everywhere and are a real problem, for everybody.



America as the mainstream/European view it,is a complete facade. America is run by powerful entities that make decisions based on financial rewards and not on morals/ethics.Whatever is/isn't socially acceptable is all in regards to filling someones ulterior agenda. Trump winning the presidency was a moral victory for everyone that is against the blatant propaganda driven media/educational system. Many of the Europeans making judgement calls on America,have no idea what unique problems arise when you put literally every single person from every country into one place. I could for example say that Germans are very extreme and rigid individuals. In the 1930s it was Nazism and now it is Cultural Marxism. It is almost as if they feel like they owe the world reparations for the Holocaust because they feel some sort of guilt. Maybe you could tell me more since you are from Germany. As a minority that grew up in the US,I cannot comprehend how most people fail to see agendas for what they are. Democrats basically try to cater to every single group in America by feeding them contradictory lies,in 2016 the public got tired of the blatant corruption thus Trump won the election. 32% of the Hispanic vote went to Donald Trump in America,yet CNN and the German News Network never seem to mention this.


----------



## BORTZ (Mar 1, 2018)

Because most of the time is overbearing, heavy handed, and poorly written into the story. I usually find that mediums and creators have a hard time adding in LGBT characters without it seeming unnecessary to the story, much like any out of place love interest or story shoe horned into a finished work.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Mar 1, 2018)

Maluma said:


> America as the mainstream/European view it,is a complete facade. America is run by powerful entities that make decisions based on financial rewards and not on morals/ethics.Whatever is/isn't socially acceptable is all in regards to filling someones ulterior agenda. Trump winning the presidency was a moral victory for everyone that is against the blatant propaganda driven media/educational system. Many of the Europeans making judgement calls on America,have no idea what unique problems arise when you put literally every single person from every country into one place. I could for example say that Germans are very extreme and rigid individuals. In the 1930s it was Nazism and now it is Cultural Marxism. It is almost as if they feel like they owe the world reparations for the Holocaust because they feel some sort of guilt. Maybe you could tell me more since you are from Germany. As a minority that grew up in the US,I cannot comprehend how most people fail to see agendas for what they are. Democrats basically try to cater to every single group in America by feeding them contradictory lies,in 2016 the public got tired of the blatant corruption thus Trump won the election. 32% of the Hispanic vote went to Donald Trump in America,yet CNN and the German News Network never seem to mention this.


I am not sure what are you asking me. Though, I couldn't tell you much about Germany, because even if I live in Germany now, I've lived most of my life in Argentina. Sure I can tell you a lot of Argentina if that is what you want to know about. Regarding Germany, sure you can see there's some kind of national guilt after the Holocaust, you can see it out there, but I can't tell you much more.

Regarding what I was talking about in my post, I am saying that the type of journalism that is founded and reaches the people has nothing to do with journalism, it is just all show, "fake news" is a real problem that affects everybody and comes from every source. The problem is not new, but it has become even worse in recent times.

I agree with most of your post actually, but some part of it is kind of confusing and it seems you are implying I pass judgement on Americans; that is not the case, I am not judging Americans, I am just saying that nowadays it has become difficult to find some source of news that can be trusted, "fake news" are all around and come from all sources and parties, and it is even more confusing due to information overload from social media.

PS: Please, be kind and use <ENTER> more often, it is hard to read a wall of text.


----------



## Keyqueen (May 24, 2018)

Chary said:


> If "being gay" is a character's main trait and personality, then there's no reason to have such a character in the first place, because that's lazy writing. If it's also just a "look! Look! We r brave and put gay person into movie!!!1 pls watch" then there's no reason to have such a character in the first place, as you're just being a tool and using it for a PR marketing scheme.
> 
> No regular person with half a brain is bothered by _well written _LGBT characters_. _



So I haven't read past this post but this one really stuck out to me because of an experance I had on a writing forum once. I like to think that I can create pretty in depth character's with realistic personalities. That being said I often don't feel the need to broadcast all their personality traits until or unless it serves a purpose to the overall plot or the characters story line. Sometimes however I may find my characters in situations where such information might naturally come to light. This just so happened in one story that I was posting.

Basically around the 1/3 mark, through casual dialogue with a miner character I "revealed" that the main character is gay. I say "revealed" because it was meant more as a hint then as acual conformation.
After that I got two or three commenters complaining every few chapters that basically amounted to "OMG, Damico's not flanting his gayness enough!" Basically I  could only figure they must be unhappy that my character didn't conform to gay stereotypes and didn't interject his sexual orientation in every paragraph.

Eventually in frustration I remember writing one response that went like this,


"I have spent nearly four years creating this character.
Four years I have spent plotting out his childhood, teens years and early experiences,
Four years I have spent figuring out how those events could have shaped his personality,
Four years I have spent deciding how the traits he gained from these experiences would best shape his life and adventures moving forward,
I have spent so much time trying to build a likable and believable character. Yet Damico stopped being a mere character ages ago. He became something dear and cherished to me, a sort of intellectual child. I have a list of nearly 100 character trait and quarks, many of which can't even be boiled down to a single word yet I know them by heart. If someone asked my for the top twenty Damico being homosexual would not even be something I would consider to mention. Frankly a consider it less the 1 percent of who he is.  
The fact that some can't seem to look past or see him as any thing but his preferences in sex partners is extremely insulting to me."

That pretty much sums up how I feel about having gay or transgender characters in movies and shows. Add them in that's great but don't make a dig duel of it unless it contributes to plot or character development.


----------



## DarthDub (May 24, 2018)

Life is Strange is how you do it right.


----------



## MeowMeowMeow (May 24, 2018)

DarthDub said:


> Life is Strange is how you do it right.


Great game tho


----------



## dpad_5678 (May 30, 2018)

"LGBT characters don't advance the plot or anything."

So passively stating a character is STRAIGHT does ADVANCE a film's plot, but stating a character is gay _just _as passively, for some reason, ruins the flow of the film.

tHE douBLE StANdARDS aRE ReAL


----------



## ShadowOne333 (May 30, 2018)

Thing is that the industry is focusing too much on having diversity just for diversity sake, instead of focusing on an actual good story and well developed characters.

They make the character based around these trends in the actor, and not the other way around like it should be.
The actor should mold to the character, after all they're ACTORS.
If you choose to make an LGBT character just to fit the quota, you're molding the character around the "actor", and well, there's not much acting in it then, is there?

All in all, they shoehorn LGBT characters (and it's not limited to that, as certain movies do play the race diversity card too) just to meet a certain social criteria, and by doing so the overall quality of the film suffers due to this. You take away merits of what could be a good focused and centered movie to make room for characters that are not needed at all, they are just there because "diversity" and so that the production house can say they did.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 30, 2018)

ShadowOne333 said:


> Thing is that the industry is focusing too much on having diversity just for diversity sake, instead of focusing on an actual good story and well developed characters.
> 
> They make the character based around these trends in the actor, and not the other way around like it should be.
> The actor should mold to the character, after all they're ACTORS.
> ...


Uh

Any example of such a film where it seems like a quota is being filled?


----------



## FAST6191 (May 30, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Uh
> 
> Any example of such a film where it seems like a quota is being filled?


https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/mar/03/jj-abrams-bad-robot-diversity-quota-oscarssowhite , this being the people responsible for Star Trek, Star Wars and Mission Impossible. I don't know if the more recent Star Wars films were just bad in general but I can see a path to some of the bad characterisation being the fault of such things.
http://www.bfi.org.uk/about-bfi/policy-strategy/diversity and http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/features/bfi-film-fund-changes albeit that is a target and not a quota per se.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsit...inema-bafta-diversity-film/19127#.Ww5r8yRG1hE


----------



## Minox (May 30, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> "LGBT characters don't advance the plot or anything."
> 
> So passively stating a character is STRAIGHT does ADVANCE a film's plot, but stating a character is gay _just _as passively, for some reason, ruins the flow of the film.
> 
> tHE douBLE StANdARDS aRE ReAL


Could you name a few examples of such things happening?


----------



## DinohScene (May 30, 2018)

Nerdtendo said:


> No, being gay is abnormal. At least historically it is. Being straight has been the norm for all of history so people are used to it.



It isn't.
Roman times, completely normal one had a male lover.
If one would orally satisfy a female, one would be as low as said female socially.

Being homosexual became "abnormal" once some drunk idiot wrote a joke book and for ~2000 years it was "abnormal"

Hell even in prehistoric times, homosexuality was completely normal so yes.
Religion is the cause of it.


----------



## jt_1258 (May 30, 2018)

Like a few others mentioned, it's not an issue if they are included but it's when they shoehorn in the character for the sake of having them their and make sure to regularly push "hay, look, we have a lgbt character, woo"
Agitates me just as much as when movie companies go out and black wash or girl wash an old movie. Why do they feel the need to turn the entire cast black or female? Maybe not the whole cast and crew but at least the prodominant characters.


----------



## GhostLatte (May 30, 2018)

There is not wrong with LGBT or minority characters in movies as long as they were not forcefully introduced. Also, an existing character should not be changed for the sole purpose of diversity in my personal opinion.


----------



## Old (May 30, 2018)

Why do certain folks seem to obsess over _any_ LGBTQ inclusion?  It's simple, really; psychology-101:  Repression.   Ex:  If I *railed* 'against' something all day, every day  --  _"Those damned *grapes*!  Boy, who do those *grapes* think they are?!  I HATE *grapes*!!  Worst fruit EVER, those NASTY *grapes*!!  *Grapes grapes grapesssss*!!" --  _It'd be pretty evident that I had some sort of obsessive fixation with *grapes*, yes?




Nerdtendo said:


> No, being gay is abnormal. At least historically it is. Being straight has been the norm for all of history so people are used to it.



This is factually as well as historically inaccurate.  Get professional help while you're still young, before it's too late and you wake up one day to find you've become a toxic middle-aged Fox drone.

It's a biiiiiiigggggggg world out there, kids; may as well learn to adapt & flourish as opposed to withering on the vine of idiocy.


----------



## JellyPerson (May 30, 2018)

Oscar from The Office is a perfect example of a character that is gay yet isn't forced into the viewers because he is known for being smart rather than being gay. If the only trait a character has is being gay, then he is kind of forcing homosexuality onto the viewers.


----------



## GhostLatte (May 30, 2018)

JellyPerson said:


> Oscar from The Office is a perfect example of a character that is gay yet isn't forced into the viewers because he is known for being smart rather than being gay. If the only trait a character has is being gay, then he is kind of forcing homosexuality onto the viewers.


I could say the same about Gideon from Mr. Robot.


----------



## dpad_5678 (May 30, 2018)

Minox said:


> Could you name a few examples of such things happening?


Deadpool 2.
Negasonic Teenage Warhead stated that Yukio was her girlfriend. Nothing else was said about it for the remainder of the movie. Zip. Nadda. Nothing.
Yet, people still got triggered.


----------



## Nerdtendo (May 30, 2018)

Old said:


> Why do certain folks seem to obsess over _any_ LGBTQ inclusion?  It's simple, really; psychology-101:  Repression.   Ex:  If I *railed* 'against' something all day, every day  --  _"Those damned *grapes*!  Boy, who do those *grapes* think they are?!  I HATE *grapes*!!  Worst fruit EVER, those NASTY *grapes*!!  *Grapes grapes grapesssss*!!" --  _It'd be pretty evident that I had some sort of obsessive fixation with *grapes*, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What are you talking about? Please point me to any point in history where being gay was a normal occurrence.

EDIT: Someone mentioned Roman times. A 30 second Google search showed me this, "Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of _infamia_, excluded from the normal protections accorded a citizen even if they were technically free. Although Roman men in general seem to have preferred youths between the ages of 12 and 20 as sexual partners, freeborn male minors were strictly off limits, and professional prostitutes and entertainers might be considerably older.[2]" so basically, it was okay to use dudes as sex toys but an actual romantic relationship was tabooed.


----------



## Old (May 30, 2018)

Nerdtendo said:


> What are you talking about? Please point me to any point in history where being gay was a normal occurrence.



The level of ignorance here is so stark that I can't tell if you are sincerely clueless or trolling.  (?)  Gay & lesbian sex has existed alongside heterosexual sex since humans first appeared on this planet, obviously.  The animal kingdom engages in gay sex more often than not, as well. 
You really shouldn't try to impose *your* notion of "normality" on the rest of the world.  It's unbecoming and makes you appear foolish.


----------



## Nerdtendo (May 30, 2018)

Nerdtendo said:


> What are you talking about? Please point me to any point in history where being gay was a normal occurrence.





Old said:


> The level of ignorance here is so stark that I can't tell if you are sincerely clueless or trolling.  (?)  Gay & lesbian sex has existed alongside heterosexual sex since humans first appeared on this planet, obviously.  The animal kingdom engages in gay sex more often than not, as well.
> You really shouldn't try to impose *your* notion of "normality" on the rest of the world.  It's unbecoming and makes you appear foolish.


Please return to read my edit. Also, I would hardly consider two pictures proof of the norm. I didn't say homosexuality never existed, I said it wasn't normal.


----------



## matthi321 (May 30, 2018)

cus they dont like gays i gues


----------



## VinsCool (May 30, 2018)

matthi321 said:


> cus they dont like gays i gues


That's pretty much sums it up.


----------



## Minox (May 30, 2018)

VinsCool said:


> That's pretty much sums it up.


Does it though?

From what I've read so far it's more been about how they are introduced in movies. If done in such a way that the topic could be seen as coming up naturally I doubt most people would disagree with it as it could be seen as adding yet another layer to an already complex character rather than just introducing a new character and from the start having the character come out as LGBT with that being the main defining feature of said character. Natural-feeling characters tend to have more features than just their sexual orientation.


----------



## VinsCool (May 30, 2018)

Minox said:


> Does it though? From what I've read so far it's more been about how they are introduced in movies. If done in such a way that the topic could be seen as coming up naturally I doubt most people would disagree with it as it could be seen as adding yet another layer to a complex character rather than just introducing a new character and from the start having the character come out as LGBT with that being the main defining feature of said character.


Well yeah. My reply was generalising quite a bit. Context is all. Indeed well written characters usually wouldn't make such a fuss.


----------



## mikefor20 (May 30, 2018)

Forcing any type of person in to a film,story or whatever because of their body type, sexuality or anything else is an issue.  Why does everyone think they have to be included?  Why does every think they are normal?  You are all freaks. All of you .  Some kind of rare prototype never really meant for mass production.  Why do "people" think they have a right to fit in?  You go out of your way to flaunt your idiosyncrasies.  All of you.  Maybe not all the time but get a bunch of you with similar abnormalities together in the same room and shit happens.  You're a freak. Get over it. Don't ask don't tell was a much more logical solution.  Simple.  If I don't know I can't judge you.  Better than, "I'm gonna tell you something and you can't react in a way that's "normal" to you!"  And everyone deserves to be judged.  You all have explaining to do.  And your group has no right to be represented.  Ever.  What makes you so special that you think everyone would benefit from seeing, talking to or even knowing you in the first place?  This whole "Normal" argument is retarded.  Gay is not normal. IF everyone was exclusively gay the whole species would die.  Why must you pretend your fur-suit isn't weird or that everyone has a collection of nasty porn like you?  It's not normal.  You are nasty.  Just because millions of people do it doesn't make it normal.  Why do people try so hard to not be identified as any type of person but still insist on being labeled normal??!?  *You are not normal*.  Normal is boring anyway.  Everyone has a thing.  Why do I have to except yours?  I don't.  And why should I?  Everyone has gone insane with this PC shit.  Is your life so easy that you have to complicate mine?  I never gave a damn about who anyone slept with until they wouldn't shut up about it.  And being a straight white guy is not a bad thing. And it's straight Damn it!  Cisgender, lol wtf?!?  That just means you think I am to stupid to realize you are calling me straight in a derogatory way.  Like calling me rotund or overweight instead of fat.  By trying not to offend one group you alienate another.  Good going. So selfish.  And whats this BS about double standards?  So what. everyone has double standards.

Stupid person #1  "I have a right to happiness, you can't do what you are doing because it bothers me no matter how it makes you feel!"
Stupid person #2  "I have a right to happiness, you can't tell me what to do because it bothers me no matter how it makes you feel!"

Both double standards and both selfish fucks.

I was dating a girl.  Her Dad hated me but he respected her. He made a few comments about me but that's it.  He let me in his house. Allowed me to stay there (relax we were 19) So she made sure we never flaunted it in his face.  It's not like I said "I am here, get used to it" and started making him sit there and listen to us talk about our relationship.  Did I say "We're adults and nobody can stop me no matter how I feel. I shouldn't have to hide it or even try to get along. I don't have to bend to you , you must accept me!"?  No, I didn't.  I also didn't force myself in to their family functions, photos or lives just to make it so I can feel included.  That would be ridiculous. selfish and sad .  You can accept something.  Tolerate it. And still not want to see it.

All of a sudden the SJWs shat their pants and now everything is out of control!  Why change all the existing franchises?  Make a new one. Lazy bastard. Thor is better as a guy.  It's so fucking lame. Now since were all "Normal" nobody is special and everyone is just weird.  Gender roles are a good thing.  Freedom to break them is awesome but don't tell me that some things didn't go smoother with certain roles set up for people.  And the fact that everyone is so fem means the sharks out there are having a field day.

I am glad people can come out these days but keep it to yourself and those who care.  I don't care. I don't admire your courage. You are not special and you don't deserve a part in a movie or a damn cookie.  Big selfish babies.  Or at least don't be offended when someone calls you weird. You freak!.


----------



## mikefor20 (May 30, 2018)

In the US, 4.1% currently identifies as LGBT (lol just gay was better) Why should gays be in %100 of the media?  I don't make everyone include my culture.


----------



## dpad_5678 (May 30, 2018)

mikefor20 said:


> In the US, 4.1% currently identifies as LGBT (lol just gay was better) Why should they be in %100 of our media?


Alright so by your logic....a gay actor should only get 4.1% of the job opportunities as a straight actor, whether the movie is focused on romance and/or sexuality or not.


----------



## Minox (May 30, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> Alright so by your logic....a gay actor should only get 4.1% of the job opportunities as a straight actor, whether the movie is focused on romance and/or sexuality or not.


I'm confused. Actors are supposed to act, no? Their sexuality shouldn't have anything to do with what the can portray.


----------



## dpad_5678 (May 30, 2018)

Minox said:


> I'm confused. Actors are supposed to act, no? Their sexuality shouldn't have anything to do with what the can portray.


But if we're going to bring everything into a perfect ratio, anyone who identifies as LGBT would only get 4.1% of jobs, if they're only 4.1% of the population. Everyone deserves equal representation.



mikefor20 said:


> Thor is better as a guy.


Just gonna leave this here:


Priestiality said:


> I literally stopped lurking and made an account just to tell you that Nick Fury has been black for nearly 17 years (August 2001). Starting with the Ultimate (Universe 1610) series of Marvel books. The artist designed his look on Samuel L. Jackson with the actors blessing. Seven years later Samuel L. Jackson debuted as the character in the post credits scene of Iron Man. The original, much smaller scale plan for the MCU was to do The Ultimate Avengers story lines, until they realized they could use the movies to basically print money. They didn't "change" anything because Ultimate Nick Fury has ALWAYS been black. When you complain about Miles Morales, you're again citing one of many series that take place in a different universe than both the main continuity and the movies. *Thor is a woman. Thor is also a blonde alien. Thor is also an equine alien (Beta Ray Bill). Thor is also Groot. Thor is also ALL FOUR members of the Fantastic Four (Fantastic Thors). Thor is also a literal frog (Simon Walterson/Throg, Pet Avengers). You're outraged for the sake of being outraged. You are doing the exact thing you accuse SJWs of doing.*
> 
> TL;DR: Find a safe space, snowflake.


Inb4 "Thor was represented as an alien? I, a conservative human, feel victimized."


----------



## Minox (May 30, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> But if we're going to bring everything into a perfect ratio, anyone who identifies as LGBT would only get 4.1% of jobs, if they're only 4.1% of the population. Everyone deserves equal representation.


Exact representation would require forced equality of outcome which is less than ideal. Better to give anyone the chance to do what they want and then their merits will determine how things go.


----------



## mikefor20 (May 30, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> Alright so by your logic....a gay actor should only get 4.1% of the job opportunities as a straight actor, whether the movie is focused on romance and/or sexuality or not.



  That wasn't the point but IF you represent 1:25 why should you be represented 1:2?  Fair is fair. I am just pointing out who really has their thumb on the scales trying to get something to give them an advantage these days.  For a culture who says sexuality doesn't matter some people sure spend a lot of time bitching about it.  Besides, I was talking about putting characters in to something just to have a gay guy. Or putting a gay character in to an existing franchise anyway. Thor was mentioned. Diversity is a selling point these days.  And it's an endless bullshit factory.  You don't deserve inclusion.  Nobody does.


----------



## dpad_5678 (May 30, 2018)

Take something like this into account:





Wade and Vanessa made out vigorously in Deadpool 2, and there were a _*TON *_of sex scenes and make out scenes in the first Deadpool.

So this line:


> This is Yukio. She's my girlfriend.


is oppressive of your heterosexuality, and it's _forcing_ their homosexuality on you, but scenes of Wade and Vanessa literally _fucking _isn't forcing _YOUR _heterosexuality on _them_?


----------



## mikefor20 (May 30, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> Just gonna leave this here:
> 
> Inb4 "Thor was represented as an alien? I, a conservative human, feel victimized."



Thor was a God. Not a Goddess.  Gender fluidity isn't important to everyone. Stop it. Leave my books alone.

Perfect ratio LOL. Missing the point.  You are not normal. Nobody is.  You don't deserve inclusion, nobody does. And I don't care if you are gay straight red yellow purple or a fucking elf.  You are a freak, weirdo.  Keep your shit to yourself. Let it out when suitable but don't think you have a right to be accepted. Neither do you have a right to make other people uncomfortable anymore than they have a right to mess with you. You are not special remember? You are normal.  And you don't need representation in a larger portion of the media. Nor do you deserve it.  Equality, tolerance and compassion are all two-way streets.  If you don't try to be fair nobody will care about you or put up with your shit for too long.


----------



## dpad_5678 (May 30, 2018)

mikefor20 said:


> Thor was a God. Not a Goddess. Gender fluidity isn't important to everyone. Stop it. Leave my books alone.


As mentioned, Thor was also a fucking Alien and a frog.


----------



## mikefor20 (May 30, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> Take something like this into account:
> View attachment 126944
> 
> Wade and Vanessa made out vigorously in Deadpool 2, and there were a _*TON *_of sex scenes and make out scenes in the first Deadpool.
> ...




WOW, Crusade much?  Deadpool?  Way to wag the dog..  Who cares about NSTW?  Like it or not, hetro is the necessary configuration of the species.  Without it you don't exist.  I once again thought you weren't special.  My bad.  Seems you need special consideration.  Negasonic, shit.  Make Wade a TS pygmy  with a french accent and MS and yeah I am pissed.  You would be too. That would ruin Deadpool.  "Click click boop snap fransees!" Please...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

https://gbatemp.net/threads/sjws-are-ruining-everything-we-love.505025/

This thread says it all.


----------



## SG854 (May 30, 2018)

alevan said:


> There is nothing wrong by including LBGT characters into movies and series. As there never was with blacks or asians.
> 
> The problem starts, when the character is forced into the show, just for the sake of diversity. Just like with older movies, where the cast is white, but there is one black character (mostly killed of first in horrors), so the critics shut up.
> 
> ...


There is a paradox to the sex equality and racial diversity dogma that radical leftist's miss.
There is 2 beliefs among those leftists.

Human sexes and race, all have the same minds, and same genetic distribution of traits, interests, and motivations. And one group being hired more than another then is a result of racism or sexism.
Human sexes and race, all have very different minds, genetic traits, backgrounds and view points. So companies must increase diversity to give themselves a competitive advantage. If they only hire one group of people, then then will fall into a narrow mind set, limit diversity in thinking, and not make products that appeal to different types of people. Which equals less money.
Don't you see a huge contradiction in these two points.
People would want equal sex diversity so that one mindset, like feminine or masculine way of thinking, won't dominate the other. They would both act as a counter balance to each other and a better product will be created in the end. If everyone had the same mind, genetic traits and talents, then they are interchangeable, diversity would be irrelevant, and no need to promote diversity, as a way of giving companies a competitive advantage. Same goes for racial diversity.

If diversity really does gives companies a competitive advantage, then that means there is very important, and noticeable sex and race differences in genetics and how differently the minds work. And if people differ in interests and traits, then that means it will produce unequal outcomes in the hiring process, where certain groups of people will be hired more then others, because they are better fit for those roles and are very qualified for those positions. There would be certain groups of people that would dominate CEO positions for example.

So if people have different traits, then equality of outcome will never be achievable in different job positions and levels, unless they include discriminatory job practices that makes one group of people hired over the other, like affirmative action and demographic quotas, that hire people who aren't fit for those positions over people that are a better fit.

*TL;DR* Everyone being genetically similar makes diversity pointless. But genetic differences makes equality of outcome impossible.
So it's either equality or diversity. You can't have both.


----------



## SimonMKWii (May 30, 2018)

SG854 said:


> It also makes sense that there would be more straight and white people in movies because of simple mathematics.
> There are more white and straight people in America. Or in any other white majority places. It's one of those moments where it's a "Duh!" moment.
> 
> There is a paradox to the sex equality and racial diversity dogma that radical leftist's miss.
> ...


Can I please have a TL;DR version of that?


----------



## SG854 (May 30, 2018)

SimonMKWii said:


> Can I please have a TL;DR version of that?


There at the end


----------



## DaFixer (May 30, 2018)

For me I don't care, I only look if the movie is good or not.
Sinds a year i'm good friends with a lesbian coworker, with her I have more fun than the most girl friends that I meet in my life.
Now i'm more open for gay and lesbians.

A married straight white male.


----------



## dpad_5678 (May 30, 2018)

mikefor20 said:


> WOW, Crusade much?  Deadpool?  Way to wag the dog..  Who cares about NSTW?  Like it or not, hetro is the necessary configuration of the species.  Without it you don't exist.  I once again thought you weren't special.  My bad.  Seems you need special consideration.  Negasonic, shit.  Make Wade a TS pygmy  with a french accent and MS and yeah I am pissed.  You would be too. That would ruin Deadpool.  "Click click boop snap fransees!" Please...
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Negasonic Teenage Warhead is shit? Lemme guess.....she's a relatively masculine female. She also has short hair. Two of the many things that seem to set conservatives off, which forms into one: Non stereotypical minorities. 
They don't like peaceful Muslims because OOF! Muh stereotype is dead!
They don't like Indians that don't drive mopeds because OOF! Muh stereotype is dead!
They don't like Mexicans that aren't drug lords because OOF! Muh stereotype is dead!

My point is that conservatism is fueled by stereotypes, ie girls should have long hair and cook/clean a house all day.


----------



## SG854 (May 30, 2018)

Minox said:


> I'm confused. Actors are supposed to act, no? Their sexuality shouldn't have anything to do with what the can portray.


I don't get his point.

It makes sense that there would be more straight and white people in movies because of simple mathematics.
There are more white and straight people in America. Or in any other white majority places. It's one of those moments where it's a "Duh!" moment.

It's like going to Japan, in an Asian majority place, and complain that their aren't enough white people in movies. It's math.
More straight people so more audition for roles in movies, duh. And you would see more straight people ratio wise.


----------



## deinonychus71 (May 30, 2018)

SimonMKWii said:


> Oh-oh, we've got a crazy person here.
> People were saying the exact same thing about _"all the black people"_ back in the 1950s.
> Good luck trying that shit out now.
> 
> ...



I don't agree with is point of view full of stereotypes and fallacies. If you push the argument of "normality" to an extreme while completely ignoring the era in which you live, anyone not living in a cave anymore or listening to nothing but their primal instincts is a freak.
Yes, but there's definitely a middle-ground to find somewhere between his "vision" and hardcore progressists.

You don't change people minds and traditions by just telling them to shut up and deal with it. It never works and it brings friction. Instead, progressive ideas work best when they're done piece by piece, a little bit at a time.
And today there's a major problem with how fast people are expected to change to fit in with progressive ideas. For example, I might be gay, furry and all of that, I still can't process the whole "gender" drama. It's just going too fast, with very little communication other than "you're a terrible person if you don't support this".


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 30, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/mar/03/jj-abrams-bad-robot-diversity-quota-oscarssowhite , this being the people responsible for Star Trek, Star Wars and Mission Impossible. I don't know if the more recent Star Wars films were just bad in general but I can see a path to some of the bad characterisation being the fault of such things.
> http://www.bfi.org.uk/about-bfi/policy-strategy/diversity and http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/features/bfi-film-fund-changes albeit that is a target and not a quota per se.
> http://www.spiked-online.com/newsit...inema-bafta-diversity-film/19127#.Ww5r8yRG1hE


Huh. Interesting. I guess that explains a little bit about TLJ, although whatever they were doing really seemed to work well for Rouge One

Although that doesn't exactly say anything about character's sexuality



Minox said:


> Could you name a few examples of such things happening?


Virtually any film or show that has a romance subplot where the characters are straight. Which is to say, almost every Disney movie, nearly every Chick Flick (if not every single one), most fantasy adventure movies, quite a few historical fiction films, yadda yadda yadda


----------



## Navonod (May 30, 2018)

Wasn't NTWH gay in the comics?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 30, 2018)

Nerdtendo said:


> What are you talking about? Please point me to any point in history where being gay was a normal occurrence.


Have you ever heard of King James

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



mikefor20 said:


> In the US, 4.1% currently identifies as LGBT (lol just gay was better) Why should gays be in %100 of the media?  I don't make everyone include my culture.


Because, as we know, only one person can ever be in any piece of media at a single time

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> *TL;DR* Everyone being genetically similar makes diversity pointless. But genetic differences makes equality of outcome impossible.
> So it's either equality or diversity. You can't have both.


Most of the time, when people say they want equality across a population, they mean they want equity: which is to say, taking into account the needs and differences in how a group is treated and basing treatment off of that


----------



## Minox (May 30, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Virtually any film or show that has a romance subplot where the characters are straight. Which is to say, almost every Disney movie, nearly every Chick Flick (if not every single one), most fantasy adventure movies, quite a few historical fiction films, yadda yadda yadda


Pure romance films is hardly a shocker given that it's hard to create a romance plot without it being relevant (although I struggle to come to think of a movie where it's explicitly mentioned outright). But other than romance movies you will have to be more specific. Someone being interested in another person during the course of a movie does not require them to state their sexuality, that much ought to be obvious from acting alone.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 30, 2018)

Minox said:


> Pure romance films is hardly a shocker given that it's hard to create a romance plot without it being relevant (although I struggle to come to think of a movie where it's explicitly mentioned outright). But other than romance movies you will have to be more specific. Someone being interested in another person during the course of a movie does not require them to state their sexuality, that much ought to be obvious from acting alone.


I guess I'm trying to figure out what film you're thinking of that there is a voice-over narration saying "this is Matt. He's gay, and he's interested in Chris." Because, like... Sexuality isn't an unnatural thing to come up in conversation, especially if there's an incompatible attraction. And most movies with LGBT characters that I've seen, it's either implied, or we find out when they end up with a love interest, anyway


----------



## gamesquest1 (May 30, 2018)

the issue is it usually ends up just being reverse stereotypes, every girls is a rocket scientist every guy shits a brick when he sees a screwdriver, if you actually wanted to get rid of stereotypes you would do so without still having to hang onto the stereotypes but flipping the roles, the reason why stereotypes exists is because there is a element of observable truth, when you try make a reverse stereotype it just comes across as agenda pushing..........not to say a girl cant be a mechanical engineer, but why does she always have to be THE BEST!!!!! , and they have to make it into a point and make sure that men fail to fix whatever they are working on and have a woman engineer come and belittle them like "oh guiz lol you left off the wing nut you noobz"

meanwhile we see a lot of stereotyping being pushed by the same people i.e "conservative all hate the gayz" and "men are all sexist pigs".....sure way to go "fighting" one side of the argument and propagating the other


----------



## Minox (May 30, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I guess I'm trying to figure out what film you're thinking of that there is a voice-over narration saying "this is Matt. He's gay, and he's interested in Chris." Because, like... Sexuality isn't an unnatural thing to come up in conversation, especially if there's an incompatible attraction. And most movies with LGBT characters that I've seen, it's either implied, or we find out when they end up with a love interest, anyway


Actually, the reply I initially responded to claimed something to the effect that this kept happening in movies with straight characters - that's why I was asking for examples of such things.


----------



## SG854 (May 30, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Have you ever heard of King James
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Which is what equality of opportunity does.

People will be treated differently, like being hired over others, because differences in traits that makes them better fit for those roles. They will produce more and be more effective. Quotas and affirmative action will be discriminatory and hire certain groups people less qualified over groups of people more qualified. Dividing roles based on your best talents will be more effective and produce more wealth. Its like giving a role to draw for Marvel comics to someone who can't draw at all because you want to increase diversity. People will see the ugly drawings and avoid buying the comics, then equals less money.

There will always be unequal outcomes especially if you take into account the Pareto Distribution.


----------



## SimonMKWii (May 30, 2018)

Can people just accept one another?
We're civilised human beings, so can we please all just get along and coexist *happily*?
Issues like this shouldn't exist. 
The issue shouldn't be "oh, there's an LGBT character in a movie, so it's shit and I'm not gonna watch it", it should be "oh, that movie's got terrible reviews, so it's shit and I'm not gonna watch it."


----------



## Clydefrosch (May 30, 2018)

they're insecure, afraid of change and fear that maybe women and poc and women poc and people of varying sexuality might get inspired to change the world.


----------



## gamesquest1 (May 30, 2018)

simple minds make simple assertions.


----------



## mikefor20 (May 30, 2018)

SimonMKWii said:


> Can people just accept one another?
> We're civilised human beings, so can we please all just get along and coexist *happily*?
> Issues like this shouldn't exist.
> The issue shouldn't be "oh, there's an LGBT character in a movie, so it's shit and I'm not gonna watch it", it should be "oh, that movie's got terrible reviews, so it's shit and I'm not gonna watch it."



ok


Can people just accept one another?* Acceptance is a two way street. The homo-phobics deserve acceptance too.*

We're civilised human beings, so can we please all just get along and coexist *happily*?*  LOL no Rodney. Civilized? Please. People fight.*

Issues like this shouldn't exist. *Lots of things shouldn't exist. But they do. *

The issue shouldn't be "oh, there's an LGBT character in a movie, so it's shit and I'm not gonna watch it", it should be "oh, that movie's got terrible reviews, so it's shit and I'm not gonna watch it." *I have heard " There is not enough [email protected]#$% in this movie, TV show,network etc.. don't watch it.  It's a two way street.*
If you have a right to say or do whatever you want, than so does the other guy. You are not special.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gamesquest1 said:


> simple minds make simple assertions.



And damaged minds make the same bad decisions repeatedly.


----------



## Clydefrosch (May 30, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Which is what equality of opportunity does.
> 
> People will be treated differently, like being hired over others, because differences in traits that makes them better fit for those roles. They will produce more and be more effective. Quotas and affirmative action will be discriminatory and hire certain groups people less qualified over groups of people more qualified. Dividing roles based on your best talents will be more effective and produce more wealth. Its like giving a role to draw for Marvel comics to someone who can't draw at all because you want to increase diversity. People will see the ugly drawings and avoid buying the comics, then equals less money.
> 
> There will always be unequal outcomes especially if you take into account the Pareto Distribution.



thats only true when opportunity was actually equal, but there's a whole decade old system in our everyday lifes that even with regulatory approaches still gives certain people better chances irrespective of their actual qualification. and over here, where whites are the majority, they almost exclusively favor white people.
opportunity isn't equal. it simply isn't. just because everyone is allowed to hand in a resume doesn't give them all an equal chance, even if they literally lived clone lives.
they had those studies in pretty much every country, fake application, same qualifications, the non-white ethnic sounding names get less invites.
it's not necessarily racism either, its natural to feel like you know Jonathan Smith better and feel his letter of application is more honest and trustworthy than that of Ahmed Hdiab. its only natural, but the decision in smiths favor isn't objective and hdiab is definitely going to have a harder time even getting the foot in the door unless he gives up his last name through marriage or whatever.

in tv and movies, its executives and managers only forwarding clients for certain roles (no one would forward a chinese american for the main part in any show that wasn't specifically asking for a chinese american, for example) and the same is true in the workplace.
you're ignoring that there's literally always thousands of people qualified enough to do literally any work. its not 'if we chose the female or the korean, we chose the worst applicant' its 'it literally doesn't fucking matter they're all good and will be underpaid, but our entire hiring structure is filled with aging old men that believe a woman cant get the same results a man can and a poc couldn't possibly show the same work ethics as me, a white dude, so we prefer the white dude.'


----------



## mikefor20 (May 30, 2018)

I would like to say I believe in equality, but you want a special kind of equality. One that protects you and your interests. Not one  that protects everybody.  I live in Sf Bay area.  This equality shit is out of control here. You cant even have a men's room anymore.  That's fine. Now men have to deal with the tampon can next to the toilet and the women have to deal with piss all over the seats 98% of the time so 1% can feel better about their lavatory selection.


----------



## gamesquest1 (May 30, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> thats only true when opportunity was actually equal, but there's a whole system that even with regulatory approaches still gives certain people better chances irrespective of their actual qualification.
> in tv and movies, its executives and managers only forwarding clients for certain roles (no one would forward a chinese american for the main part in any show that wasn't specifically asking for a chinese american, for example) and the same is true in the workplace.
> you're ignoring that there's literally always thousands of people qualified enough to do literally any work. its not 'if we chose the female or the korean, we chose the worst applicant' its 'it literally doesn't fucking matter they're all good and will be underpaid, but our entire hiring structure is filled with aging old men that believe a woman cant get the same results a man can and a poc couldn't possibly show the same work ethics as me, a white dude, so we prefer the white dude.'


way to go stereotyping, personally from what I have seen most of the time men are more inclined to try hiring women while women are more inclined to try hiring women predominantly

everyone should get equal opportunity, it not anyones fault if 200 guys apply and only 1 woman and 2 guys get the job, the odds were on that outcome, but some people seem to think the woman should get a equal chance so its just a 1:1 chance completely disregarding that its not just 2 genders applying for a role, its 200 individual's, everyone should have a equal and fair chance, same goes for a role where there is 200 women and 1 man, he shouldn't get any special treatment just because they want to increase "diversity" and I'm pretty sure people would rage if that argument was made

and speaking from personal experience there was a trans guy in a place I used to work at, and they were TERRIBLE at their job, they kept leaving early, turning up late, being rude and disrespectful to people for no reason and the department boss was instructed by HR that in no uncertain terms were forbidden from issuing any sort of reprimanding as it would be painted as being transphobic.....no it wasn't transphobia, it was a shitty person who knew they had _real_ special privileges and could do whatever they wanted


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 30, 2018)

mikefor20 said:


> Acceptance is a two way street. The homo-phobics deserve acceptance too.


"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
-Karl Popper, 1945


----------



## Clydefrosch (May 30, 2018)

gamesquest1 said:


> way to go stereotyping, personally from what I have seen most of the time men are more inclined to try hiring women while women are more inclined to try hiring women predominantly
> 
> everyone should get equal opportunity, it not anyones fault if 200 guys apply and only 1 woman and 2 guys get the job, the odds were on that outcome, but some people seem to think the woman should get a equal chance so its just a 1:1 chance completely disregarding that its not just 2 genders applying for a role, its 200 individual's, everyone should have a equal and fair chance, same goes for a role where there is 200 women and 1 man, he shouldn't get any special treatment just because they want to increase "diversity" and I'm pretty sure people would rage if that argument was made
> 
> and speaking from personal experience there was a trans guy in a place I used to work at, and they were TERRIBLE at their job, they kept leaving early, turning up late, being rude and disrespectful to people for no reason and the department boss was instructed by HR that in no uncertain terms were forbidden from issuing any sort of reprimanding as it would be painted as being transphobic.....no it wasn't transphobia, it was a shitty person who knew they had _real_ special privileges and could do whatever they wanted



there's so much nonsense in this.

1. your anecdotal anecdote about female and male hiring practices is based on what exactly? 

2. make up a fantasy situation to prove your point much? come on, there's like 2 or 3 sectors out of the hundreds of tousands of jobs where such an application pattern could happen sometimes.
almost any job is open for any gender and applications by gender rarely exceed the 40 to 60 distribution.

also not even quotas for diversity don't turn that opportunity into a 50 50 chance for the one woman either. besides quotas not being kept on a regular basis to begin with, no one hires anyone like that. even if the goal is to increase diversity, if the only diverse applicant was unfit, but they found 2 guys going miles beyond what they were looking for, they'd hire the guys and go for another round of hiring.

2.2. childcare and elderly care jobs, those that until recent years were like 96% female, have looked more for male workers too and no one raged about that. 

3. even more anecdotal evidence, what in the world would being trans have to do with that work ethic? i would bet you literally all my belongings that if you looked deep inside, you'd have dozens more of bad workers that weren't trans.
also, i don't believe that story either. that's not how protection rights work. 


and in all that, lets please not ignore that 'the best gets the job' hasn't exactly been reality 100 years ago either, when there was no issue about women in the workplace at all.


----------



## xpoverzion (May 30, 2018)

Because for a lot of people, gay is an immoral perversion, whether you are a religious nut, or an athiest.  Just like incest, no need to be normalizing such a perversion.  How would you like it if the movies started normalizing relationships between brother and sister?  Or mother and son, etc....  One could take the gay argument here and say that these related family members are two consenting adults, who love each other, and  aren't hurting each other, or anybody else.  With the thourough libtardisation of society, it wouldn't surprise me if incest becomes the next movement that everybody supports with pride marches.


----------



## gamesquest1 (May 30, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> there's so much nonsense in this.
> 
> 1. your anecdotal anecdote about female and male hiring practices is based on what exactly?
> 
> ...


yeah I do have several other examples of bad workers, except there wasn't ever any pushback from HR to avoid firing/disciplining them for their behaviour and because of that its never got to the point where everyone in the office was like "wtf how are they still here" but I guess its easier to just say "nah that's not been documented by a carefully crafted study so it didn't happen" lived experience is good when it suits I guess


----------



## dpad_5678 (May 30, 2018)

mikefor20 said:


> ok
> 
> 
> Can people just accept one another?* Acceptance is a two way street. The homo-phobics deserve acceptance too.*
> ...


Accepting homophobes would be counteracting LGBT rights. I don't accept racists, homophobes, etc.
My Uncle called a black waitress a n*gger at a restaurant when she got his order wrong. Wanna know how I accepted that?
After we left, I punched him in the face in the parking lot, walked my ass back into the building, and _assisted the waitress in pressing charges_. 

And no, networks are not boycotted for simply _not_ including LGBT characters. They're boycotted if they explicitly mention a stance AGAINST any gay, trans, etc person, which they should be.


----------



## J-Machine (May 30, 2018)

personally i only care if it feels forced or like they did it blatently for the marketing. shoe horning in a minority is just as bad as not having them represented on purpose imo


----------



## leonmagnus99 (May 30, 2018)

my friend, people nowadays get triggered about nearly everything.


----------



## gamesquest1 (May 30, 2018)

leonmagnus99 said:


> my friend, people nowadays get triggered about nearly everything.


that's it, I'm triggered


----------



## DarthDub (May 30, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> Accepting homophobes would be counteracting LGBT rights. I don't accept racists, homophobes, etc.
> My Uncle called a black waitress a n*gger at a restaurant when she got his order wrong. Wanna know how I accepted that?
> After we left, I punched him in the face in the parking lot, walked my ass back into the building, and _assisted the waitress in pressing charges_.
> 
> And no, networks are not boycotted for simply _not_ including LGBT characters. They're boycotted if they explicitly mention a stance AGAINST any gay, trans, etc person, which they should be.


And here we have the tolerant left. You just proved Mike's point on people being violent. Are you not self-aware enough to realize that maybe to get along, we shouldn't resort to violence. I can respect differing opinions, can you?


----------



## SG854 (May 30, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> thats only true when opportunity was actually equal, but there's a whole decade old system in our everyday lifes that even with regulatory approaches still gives certain people better chances irrespective of their actual qualification. and over here, where whites are the majority, they almost exclusively favor white people.
> opportunity isn't equal. it simply isn't. just because everyone is allowed to hand in a resume doesn't give them all an equal chance, even if they literally lived clone lives.
> they had those studies in pretty much every country, fake application, same qualifications, the non-white ethnic sounding names get less invites.
> it's not necessarily racism either, its natural to feel like you know Jonathan Smith better and feel his letter of application is more honest and trustworthy than that of Ahmed Hdiab. its only natural, but the decision in smiths favor isn't objective and hdiab is definitely going to have a harder time even getting the foot in the door unless he gives up his last name through marriage or whatever.
> ...


Businesses do not care about race or gender. Their main concern is money. Who ever can produce the most wealth for them. If blacks had an innate ability that makes them more effective over whites in certain jobs, then they would mostly hire blacks. Like the NBA. If women produced more wealth, or more effective in certain areas, or more likely to apply for certain jobs then they would get hired over men, and those jobs would be female dominant. Like in psychiatry, family medicine, pediatrics and gynecology. Hardly low paying minimum wage jobs.

When you hire 20 people to make music for you, but only 2 gets the majority attention, because they have quirks and talents that makes them stand out, then it is smarter to invest all your money on those 2 people, to advertise, promote and make prettier music videos, and mostly ignore the other 18 because that will generate you the most profits. Its better to invest in them to make them even better and produce you even more money. There is unequal investment, but when you have limited money, investing on what will generate you the most wealth is the smarter thing to do. Because if you invest in people who do not get much attention it will be costly and you will loose lots amounts of money.

Same applies with investing and hiring certain groups of people that have talents that will make you the most money.



gamesquest1 said:


> way to go stereotyping, personally from what I have seen most of the time men are more inclined to try hiring women while women are more inclined to try hiring women predominantly
> 
> everyone should get equal opportunity, it not anyones fault if 200 guys apply and only 1 woman and 2 guys get the job, the odds were on that outcome, but some people seem to think the woman should get a equal chance so its just a 1:1 chance completely disregarding that its not just 2 genders applying for a role, its 200 individual's, everyone should have a equal and fair chance, same goes for a role where there is 200 women and 1 man, he shouldn't get any special treatment just because they want to increase "diversity" and I'm pretty sure people would rage if that argument was made
> 
> and speaking from personal experience there was a trans guy in a place I used to work at, and they were TERRIBLE at their job, they kept leaving early, turning up late, being rude and disrespectful to people for no reason and the department boss was instructed by HR that in no uncertain terms were forbidden from issuing any sort of reprimanding as it would be painted as being transphobic.....no it wasn't transphobia, it was a shitty person who knew they had _real_ special privileges and could do whatever they wanted


Correct, there are studies where women are hired at a 2 to 1 ratio over men in STEM, and even start with higher pay then men with same qualifications. The reason is because they want to avoid lawsuits. Since women hardly go into STEM, women is like a rarity every business is trying to compete for, so they are more in demand. Having as many women as you can makes you look better when someone complains about sexism. You can claim see we have a bunch of women here we are not sexist. Business compete hiring women so they offer higher pay, and say come work for me instead of over there and we will give you more money.

Managers usually describe Women as walking lawsuits waiting to happen. They don't wan't hire women because women more often sue then men, but at the same time if they don't hire women, they would loose business because people would protest and not buy their products. Thats why twitter is full of businesses basically gloating and making a scene saying, see we treat women equally here we have lots of women.


----------



## Minox (May 30, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> 1. your anecdotal anecdote about female and male hiring practices is based on what exactly?


There was a study done in Australia using blind recruitment that appeared to show that female candidates were being favored over male ones.


----------



## dpad_5678 (May 30, 2018)

No


DarthDub said:


> And here we have the tolerant left. You just proved Mike's point on people being violent. Are you not self-aware enough to realize that maybe to get along, we shouldn't resort to violence. I can respect differing opinions, can you?


Except I'm not a violent person, but I won't allow my 6'3 towering Uncle to get away with abusing a 5'1 waitress (she was as tall as my sister, and she's 5'1). Normally I'd try to settle things verbally, but I've seen my very own flesh and blood have racial outbursts like these. No more. Alt Righties like him need to know their place. Everyone else > Racists.

Yes, and the left is the violent side. LAWL.


----------



## Minox (May 30, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> Accepting homophobes would be counteracting LGBT rights. I don't accept racists, homophobes, etc.
> My Uncle called a black waitress a n*gger at a restaurant when she got his order wrong. Wanna know how I accepted that?
> After we left, I punched him in the face in the parking lot, walked my ass back into the building, and _assisted the waitress in pressing charges_.
> 
> And no, networks are not boycotted for simply _not_ including LGBT characters. They're boycotted if they explicitly mention a stance AGAINST any gay, trans, etc person, which they should be.


How is violence going to teach your uncle anything? Using violence on someone that you disagree with to make them not do it again is just using fear tactics to force your will through.


----------



## gamesquest1 (May 30, 2018)

its all anecdotal, I have heard anecdotal evidence can just be called made up 

I think sometimes people want to believe there is rampant racism everywhere to justify their outrage, I have a feeling if your uncle was a blatant racist you would have found out about it before you go chill out and haver a nice meal with them, let alone continuing to have your meal and only confronting him once you left, maybe all the racism is hiding in these peoples heads so they think everyone thinks like that


----------



## dpad_5678 (May 30, 2018)

Minox said:


> How is violence going to teach your uncle anything? Using violence on someone that you disagree with to make them not do it again is just using fear tactics to force your will through.


I've tried having civilized discussions with them before, but I'm not taken seriously because they're devout Catholics (surprise surprise, lol) and I'm an agnostic. I got fed up with them feeling that they're above everyone. Eventually, non violent people have a breaking point as well and that was mine. He was charged and lost his job and IBM after I personally emailed his supervisor about the incident.

So, yeah, having your ass handed to you by a 5'11 95lb 16 year old, losing your reputation, and losing your job should be a big wake up call that what you're doing _does. not. work._



gamesquest1 said:


> its all anecdotal, I have heard anecdotal evidence can just be called made up
> 
> I think sometimes people want to believe there is rampant racism everywhere to justify their outrage, I have a feeling if your uncle was a blatant racist you would have found out about it before you go chill out and haver a nice meal with them


Except he's not the only person in the family, and it wasn't a one-on-one dinner with him. There are some decent people in my family but most are trashy (I literally have to teach my younger cousins not to hate gay people, while the rest of my family, including their very own parents, are trying to teach them the opposite).
As I said, I don't support violence, but my generation (I'm 16, but I don't know what my generation is officially called) is much more educated than, say, people who were born in the 50's. I try to educate people are completely incompetent (ie racists, homophobes), and most of the time I do not succeed at doing so. If they want to be racist, fine. If they want to use the N word privately, fine. But once you start to racially abuse someone in front of me in public, you bet your ass there will be an issue. 

TL;DR: I tried to educate them. They don't wanna hear it. They're no longer "ignorant", they're idiotic and a stain on society.


----------



## gamesquest1 (May 30, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> I've tried having civilized discussions with them before, but I'm not taken seriously because they're devout Catholics (surprise surprise, lol) and I'm an agnostic. I got fed up with them feeling that they're above everyone. Eventually, non violent people have a breaking point as well and that was mine. He was charged and lost his job and IBM after I personally emailed his supervisor about the incident.
> 
> So, yeah, having your ass handed to you by a 5'11 95lb 16 year old, losing your reputation, and losing your job should be a big wake up call that what you're doing _does. not. work._
> 
> ...


honestly if that was me I would have confronted him in the store and left and that's all there is too it, feel free to be a witness if the waitress wanted to press charges, but idk its seems like a weird messed up scenario, I can only judge from personal experience, being in a different country I guess there would be difference in culture , but I don't think I have ever heard anyone act like that in public except for weird drunk louts having arguments with people (and they generally don't seem like the kinda people who would be holding down a job or any position of power anyway)


----------



## dpad_5678 (May 30, 2018)

gamesquest1 said:


> honestly if that was me I would have confronted him in the store and left and that's all there is too it, feel free to be a witness if the waitress wanted to press charges, but idk its seems like a weird messed up scenario, I can only judge from personal experience, being in a different country I guess there would be difference in culture , but I don't think I have ever heard anyone act like that in public except for weird drunk louts having arguments with people (and they generally don't seem like the kinda people who would be holding down a job or any position of power anyway)


Some (not most or all, but a good chunk) of Americans have absolutely no filter. They feel the first amendment entitles them to spew out ever abusive, disruptive, and aggressive thought or opinion that they have. I've seen it first hand in public many times.
How should I put this......
"I don't like xxx" = Free Speech
"N**ger" = Hate Speech

And yes, they drink _a lot_.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 30, 2018)

SimonMKWii said:


> Can people just accept one another?
> We're civilised human beings, so can we please all just get along and coexist *happily*?
> Issues like this shouldn't exist.
> The issue shouldn't be "oh, there's an LGBT character in a movie, so it's shit and I'm not gonna watch it", it should be "oh, that movie's got terrible reviews, so it's shit and I'm not gonna watch it."


Has anybody really been advocating for that in this thread or are you just doing a strawman?
Most people seem to be going with a variation on the theme of "write whatever characters you want, if you include them to fill some quota then historically there are an awful lot of examples of you ending with weakly characterised characters that add little to the story you are telling", some also find a problem with it on an intellectual level (see the equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome thing). I want good stories and weak characters and go nowhere plot threads and padding do not make for such a thing.



xpoverzion said:


> Because for a lot of people, gay is an immoral perversion, whether you are a religious nut, or an athiest.  Just like incest, no need to be normalizing such a perversion.  How would you like it if the movies started normalizing relationships between brother and sister?  Or mother and son, etc....  One could take the gay argument here and say that these related family members are two consenting adults, who love each other, and  aren't hurting each other, or anybody else.  With the thourough libtardisation of society, it wouldn't surprise me if incest becomes the next movement that everybody supports with pride marches.



Incest is a harmful act, fumbling genitals matching your own can be just as loving and whatnot as fumbling genitals not like your own. To that end your analogy fails. If it is a perversion then what is it a perversion of? Nature? Pah we ignore that all the time. Religion? Who cares, it is of less and less relevance by the day and most countries purposely distance their law making aka ethics from it.



dpad_5678 said:


> My Uncle called a black waitress a n*gger at a restaurant when she got his order wrong. Wanna know how I accepted that?
> After we left, I punched him in the face in the parking lot, walked my ass back into the building, and _assisted the waitress in pressing charges_.


While it certainly makes you a dick I am at a loss for what charges could be pressed in that instance, and indeed I would be troubled at there being the ability to press charges for basic words.


----------



## Sliter (May 30, 2018)

I just think that it's bad when they get a straigth character and make a " new version that is LGBT" instead of a new character at all... 

or even worse, when they do it, with a bad reference... like the last power rangers 2017 movie, Trini was lgbt there, but why? if it had to be someone must be Billy! the actor was gay and bullied for it back there, he deservered that reference...
This way it look ttally forced, since looks like they haventt even thinked about it lol


----------



## dpad_5678 (May 30, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> While it certainly makes you a dick I am at a loss for what charges could be pressed in that instance, and indeed I would be troubled at there being the ability to press charges for basic words.


Gets order, realized he was given Coors Light instead of Heineken, and he got a cheese steak instead of the ravioli he ordered.
Sits up, gets _way_ too close to the waitress (12 inches, I'd say) and says in a not-so-loud yet no-so-quiet voice "Of cousre a n**ger's gonna get my order wrong."
His body language was very strange; it's like he's in a permanent state of intoxication (always sweating, can't maintain proper eye contact, slight stumble while walking).

He was charged with Harassment and Disturbing The Peace. Should've gotten jail time, but Florida's a state full of idiots.




Sliter said:


> I just think that it's bad when they get a straigth character and make a " new version that is LGBT" instead of a new character at all...
> 
> or even worse, when they do it, with a bad reference... like the last power rangers 2017 movie, Trini was lgbt there, but why? if it had to be someone must be Billy! the actor was gay and bullied for it back there, he deservered that reference...
> This way it look ttally forced, since looks like they haventt even thinked about it lol


I agree 100%, although nothing in that movie made any sense at all.


----------



## xpoverzion (May 30, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Has anybody really been advocating for that in this thread or are you just doing a strawman?
> Most people seem to be going with a variation on the theme of "write whatever characters you want, if you include them to fill some quota then historically there are an awful lot of examples of you ending with weakly characterised characters that add little to the story you are telling", some also find a problem with it on an intellectual level (see the equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome thing). I want good stories and weak characters and go nowhere plot threads and padding do not make for such a thing.
> 
> 
> ...



"if it is a perversion (being gay) then what is it a perversion of??"  

Incest is a detrimental perversion because if everybody started doing it, the population would be severely hindered with genetic disorders.  Nature makes it so that this is obvious, and to be avoided by intelligent creatures.  Being gay... Well let's just say that if everybody was gay, then the human species would go extinct!!  That makes it more of a perversion, and threat to the vitality of a species than incest.  So for this reason, nature has it built into us innately to view it as a perversion.  And don't give me the argument that nature creates gays, so nature must be selecting for it in some way.  Nature also creates pedophiles, down syndrome, and 1000's of other diseases and mental disorders.  Homosexuality is just another mistake among many that nature can make.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 30, 2018)

Minox said:


> How is violence going to teach your uncle anything? Using violence on someone that you disagree with to make them not do it again is just using fear tactics to force your will through.


Believe it or not, it appears to be doing quite a bit for the white supremacist community. I've seen stories of key players in the movement being effectively forced out of society by various figures, including losing job interviews, family, and the ability to go anywhere without fear of being tackled (I'd pull up some sources but Google doesn't want to give me anything except Richard Spencer when I type in "alt-right afraid of being punched")


----------



## Old (May 30, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Believe it or not, it appears to be doing quite a bit for the white supremacist community. I've seen stories of key players in the movement being effectively forced out of society by various figures, including losing job interviews, family, and the ability to go anywhere without fear of being tackled (I'd pull up some sources but Google doesn't want to give me anything except Richard Spencer when I type in "alt-right afraid of being punched")



Beating down nazis - both figuratively AND literally - is not only a pleasure it's a DUTY!  Hell, I've got buddies online that regularly 'out' these pigs, causing them to lose their jobs/homes/lives/etc.  K-A-R-M-A!

That spencer gif is a favorite.  Never gets old.  I hope it's one of (many) things that plays on a continuous loop in the dotard's cell.


----------



## Dominator211 (May 30, 2018)

While we have come a long way in tolerating LGBTQ people. But it is still not perfect we need to work together and people that cant support them are blind to tolerance and as long as those people prevail there will be more intolerance.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 30, 2018)

xpoverzion said:


> "if it is a perversion (being gay) then what is it a perversion of??"
> 
> Incest is a detrimental perversion because if everybody started doing it, the population would be severely hindered with genetic disorders.  Nature makes it so that this is obvious, and to be avoided by intelligent creatures.  Being gay... Well let's just say that if everybody was gay, then the human species would go extinct!!  That makes it more of a perversion, and threat to the vitality of a species than incest.  So for this reason, nature has it built into us innately to view it as a perversion.  And don't give me the argument that nature creates gays, so nature must be selecting for it in some way.  Nature also creates pedophiles, down syndrome, and 1000's of other diseases and mental disorders.  Homosexuality is just another mistake among many that nature can make.



"If everybody started doing it"
Same could be said of any number of things (if everybody gave up farming, if everybody decided to do one speciality, if everybody focused on their career until they were 50 and thus infertile...). It is not the case though.

Incest has demonstrable and immediate negative effects, fumbling genitals matching your own does not have any above and beyond baseline. 
Your analogy still fails.

Equally on nature selecting for it then there is that argument too (the grandparent effect/it takes a village to raise a child, general notions of specialisation and more all go into that one), not that I care about it here.

"So for this reason, nature has it built into us innately to view it as a perversion"
That sounds like something we can test for. Anecdotally I have seen multiple kids ask and by utterly nonphased by people with matching genitals show affection, some of which went on to grow up and find themselves heterosexual) which would point at it being a learned behaviour at least a far as observing. What happens when you consider it for yourself may be a different thing.

"is just another mistake among many that nature can make"
In psychiatry you will tend to find disorders described with lines like "[description of behaviours] which is causing harm or distress to themselves or others". Given no real additional harms or distress is observed in many people fumbling matching genitals we appear to have trouble reaching disorder levels.



Old said:


> Beating down nazis - both figuratively AND literally - is not only a pleasure it's a DUTY!  Hell, I've got buddies online that regularly 'out' these pigs, causing them to lose their jobs/homes/lives/etc.  K-A-R-M-A!
> 
> That spencer gif is a favorite.  Never gets old.  I hope it's one of (many) things that plays on a continuous loop in the dotard's cell.


Political violence is not a good thing, and I absolutely can not support it when violence is not threatened or happening first.


----------



## Old (May 30, 2018)

Dominator211 said:


> While we have come a long way in tolerating LGBTQ people. But it is still not perfect we need to work together and people that cant support them are blind to tolerance and as long as those people prevail there will be more intolerance.



"Tolerating", eh?  Rather condescending/uninformed wording.   Or, you could simply do the normal/psychologically sound thing, and _*just not give a shit what consenting adults do with their genitals*_.

It's terribly disheartening that we are still even _having_ this conversation in 2018, ffs, tsk tsk tsk....'thanks' yet again, rust belt/culturally backwards mindsets, sigh....
_"Them darned QUEERS make me awful uncom'ferble!!"  _


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 30, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Political violence is not a good thing, and I absolutely can not support it when violence is not threatened or happening first.


I'd normally agree, except that any violence coming to white supremacists/alt-right/nazis is retaliatory in nature, considering their ideology calls for entire subsets of the population to be wiped out


----------



## Old (May 30, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Political violence is not a good thing, and I absolutely can not support it when violence is not threatened or happening first.



Beating nazis isn't "political violence" in the very same way that shooting a rapist isn't "murdering your sister's lover".  Monsters behaving as monsters, nothing "political" about it.

Millions of American GIs - and British SAS - would *strongly* disagree with your (apparent?) stance on nazism.  When one chooses to don that symbol & adopt those 'ideals', he/she forfeits their humanity....


----------



## FAST6191 (May 31, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'd normally agree, except that any violence coming to white supremacists/alt-right/nazis is retaliatory in nature, considering their ideology calls for entire subsets of the population to be wiped out





Old said:


> Beating nazis isn't "political violence" in the very same way that shooting a rapist isn't "murdering your sister's lover".  Monsters behaving as monsters, nothing "political" about it.
> 
> Millions of American GIs - and British SAS - would *strongly* disagree with your (apparent?) stance on nazism.  When one chooses to don that symbol & adopt those 'ideals', he/she forfeits their humanity....



On shooting a rapist then assuming it is not in flagrante then that gets tricky.

I have heard the "their ideology calls for therefore" thing before (I think it was a video on someone going through the antifa handbook and the reasoning for things). I don't buy it for a moment. No violence unless violence is first started, simple words themselves are not violent. Let them speak and espouse what they want. Sunlight is a wonderful disinfectant.

Were I there when he was sucker punched then the one doing the punching would have got a kicking from me, assuming it was looking like it was going to continue anyway.


----------



## gamesquest1 (May 31, 2018)

Old said:


> Beating nazis isn't "political violence" in the very same way that shooting a rapist isn't "murdering your sister's lover".  Monsters behaving as monsters, nothing "political" about it.
> 
> Millions of American GIs - and British SAS - would *strongly* disagree with your (apparent?) stance on nazism.  When one chooses to don that symbol & adopt those 'ideals', he/she forfeits their humanity....


exactly how Nazis rationalized their decisions to kill millions of people, the real issue is collectivism, gang up and use your collective power and group identity to force your will on others, anyone who has that mindset would have happily joined the Nazi party if they were in Germany during the Nazi uprising, many people just jump on the most popular collectivist mantra in the hopes of gaining power and resources via preferential treatment.

yes Nazi-ism is terrible, but its a mentality that still exists but have found a way to disguise its ugly existence


----------



## Delerious (May 31, 2018)

Old said:


> Millions of American GIs - and British SAS - would *strongly* disagree with your (apparent?) stance on nazism.  When one chooses to don that symbol & adopt those 'ideals', he/she forfeits their humanity....



You say that they forfeit their humanity, but I don't necessarily agree with that. I do believe that they forfeit a good portion of humanity, but does that necessarily make them wicked as a whole? What about those people who are racist, and yet they devote themselves to service for others, like being a caretaker, or a fireman. And what if that nazi fireman just so happened to save your child from a fire? Would you still want that person to be beaten? The fact is that one wicked aspect of a person doesn't make them entirely evil. The American constitution states that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness unless we start using those rights to infringe on the rights of others. Sure, someone may be a nazi, but until they start infringing upon the rights of others, they still have those same, inalienable rights. You may not like it, and you don't have to. But freedom of belief is what the western world takes great pride in.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 31, 2018)

Delerious said:


> You say that they forfeit their humanity, but I don't necessarily agree with that. I do believe that they forfeit a good portion of humanity, but does that necessarily make them wicked as a whole? What about those people who are racist, and yet they devote themselves to service for others, like being a caretaker, or a fireman. And what if that nazi fireman just so happened to save your child from a fire? Would you still want that person to be beaten? The fact is that one wicked aspect of a person doesn't make them entirely evil. The American constitution states that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness unless we start using those rights to infringe on the rights of others. Sure, someone may be a nazi, but until they start infringing upon the rights of others, they still have those same, inalienable rights. You may not like it, and you don't have to. But freedom of belief is what the western world takes great pride in.


Alternatively, what if it's a Nazi firefighter that REFUSES to rescue someone. Or, more realistically, a Nazi police officer that uses their authoritative position to either get away with murder or refuse life-saving assistance?

Not saying I necessarily disagree with everything you said, but "what if" is an awful argument because nobody really knows


----------



## Delerious (May 31, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Alternatively, what if it's a Nazi firefighter that REFUSES to rescue someone. Or, more realistically, a Nazi police officer that uses their authoritative position to either get away with murder or refuse life-saving assistance?
> 
> Not saying I necessarily disagree with everything you said, but "what if" is an awful argument because nobody really knows



Then that person needs to be charged to the fullest extent of the law. True, what ifs aren't always great arguments. All I'm saying is that one wicked aspect of a person doesn't make them entirely wicked, and until they do commit an act, or in the case of the fireman or policeman, refuse to act for the sake of someone over something as petty as race, then why wish the worst upon them until you know the full content of their character?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 31, 2018)

Delerious said:


> Then that person needs to be charged to the fullest extent of the law. True, what ifs aren't always great arguments. All I'm saying is that one wicked aspect of a person doesn't make them entirely wicked, and until they do commit an act, or in the case of the fireman or policeman, refuse to act for the sake of someone over something as petty as race, then why wish the worst upon them until you know the full content of their character?


Well... When you ARE the law, that's really not an option, as your buddies at the station are the ones who have the choice whether or not to charge you. That's why the recent 'bout of expositions from Antifa have come about, because at this point the only way to even force a racist officer out of the police force is public pressure


----------



## Old (May 31, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Well... When you ARE the law, that's really not an option, as your buddies at the station are the ones who have the choice whether or not to charge you. That's why the recent 'bout of expositions from Antifa have come about, because at this point the only way to even force a racist officer out of the police force is public pressure



Yep, the 'blue wall of silence' is VERY real.  It's foolish and ignorant to believe otherwise.  Racist doctors refusing to touch patients of color, homophobic rescue workers purposely denying services to trans people, etc. etc.  Welcome to the *real* (sick) world, kiddies.  I've experienced it firsthand.  Nazi pigs abound, and sadly they've been feeling even more empowered as of late for obvious reasons.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 31, 2018)

I hate to ask this, but why do people get triggered when movies, TV shows, etc don't include said characters?  They're just actors, or in some cases, entirely fictional (i.e. characters in novels).


----------



## Delerious (May 31, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Well... When you ARE the law, that's really not an option, as your buddies at the station are the ones who have the choice whether or not to charge you. That's why the recent 'bout of expositions from Antifa have come about, because at this point the only way to even force a racist officer out of the police force is public pressure



Hard to debate the policeman thing, as federal and state laws are different. I would imagine that if an investigation is called for, then such investigations could, and probably should happen. Policeman aren't the law, nor are they above it. They are only supposed to enforce it. If they are doing something that puts them into question, I would assume, or at least hope that there is a system in place for these types of people to be investigated. Either way, I'm not trying to defend these types of people, as these are the type of d-bags that probably ought to be subject to capital punishment.



the_randomizer said:


> I hate to ask this, but why do people get triggered when movies, TV shows, etc don't include said characters?  They're just actors, or in some cases, entirely fictional (i.e. characters in novels).



As others have stated before, it's not so much the inclusion of the character, but when it either A) Feels forced, or B) Feels like just another piece of marketing bait, which - well - Hollywood has been guilty of plenty of times. In both cases, it's kinda degrading to the group, especially when it doesn't feel genuine.


----------



## weiff (May 31, 2018)

My issue is when they take a character with no established or partially established preferences and make blanket statement of "They have always been 'x' since the beginning of canon until we decide that it no longer suits us to be that way." Without consulting the original creator to determine if they were, they are forcing pointless agenda on characters just to as some said "represent." I have no problem with people creating a new persona that is established as LGBT, just stop forcing it on the pre-existing ones.

I am mostly referring to the Iceman and Lando reveals for evidence.


----------



## spotanjo3 (May 31, 2018)

Oh boy. Here we go again. Sighing. Drama. Why can't we just get along and move on ? Jeez.


----------



## Old (May 31, 2018)

weiff said:


> My issue is when they take a character with no established or partially established preferences and make blanket statement of "They have always been 'x' since the beginning of canon until we decide that it no longer suits us to be that way." Without consulting the original creator to determine if they were, they are forcing pointless agenda on characters just to as some said "represent." I have no problem with people creating a new persona that is established as LGBT, just stop forcing it on the pre-existing ones.
> 
> I am mostly referring to the Iceman and Lando reveals for evidence.



To be fair, Lando was always portrayed as a freewheeling player.  'Freaky deaky', as it were.  I saw ESB in the theater, and the general consensus at the time was "maaaaannn, this guy exudes sexuality....seems like the type of dude that would stick his dick in ANYthing!"
The sort of character that the term 'omnisexual' was *designed* for.


----------



## Delerious (May 31, 2018)

azoreseuropa said:


> Oh boy. Here we go again. Sighing. Drama. Why can't we just get along and move on ? Jeez.



No. We all hate each others faces.

Joking aside, nothing wrong with debate until it becomes hateful. Which, hopefully it doesn't reach that point again. I realize I'm rather late for the party on this one though, so maybe I ought to have left the discussion alone.


----------



## SimonMKWii (May 31, 2018)

mikefor20 said:


> ok
> 
> 
> Can people just accept one another?* Acceptance is a two way street. The homo-phobics deserve acceptance too.*
> ...


Why should homophobes be accepted?
They specifically choose to hate gay people for ridiculous reasons.
Why accept a mindset that is rooted in hate and nonacceptance?


----------



## Navonod (May 31, 2018)

SimonMKWii said:


> Why should homophobes be accepted?
> They specifically choose to hate gay people for ridiculous reasons.
> Why accept a mindset that is rooted in hate and nonacceptance?


Everyone has a right to believe or think what ever they want. They are human. Be a better human and accept the fact that you can't change their hateful minds to fit your believes.


----------



## SimonMKWii (May 31, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Everyone has a right to believe or think what ever they want. They are human. Be a better human and accept the fact that you can't change their hateful minds to fit your believes.


Except they _can_ change their beliefs, unlike gay people and their sexuality.


----------



## Old (May 31, 2018)

SimonMKWii said:


> Except they _can_ change their beliefs, unlike gay people and their sexuality.








Cheers!


----------



## Navonod (May 31, 2018)

SimonMKWii said:


> Except they _can_ change their beliefs, unlike gay people and their sexuality.


Yes you're right they can if they wanted to. You can't force people to change their beliefs. Just like you can't force a gay person to be straight.


----------



## The Catboy (May 31, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> I hate to ask this, but why do people get triggered when movies, TV shows, etc don't include said characters?  They're just actors, or in some cases, entirely fictional (i.e. characters in novels).


It's not so much that people are upset that they aren't including them, but more (myself included) are upset by lack of representation and or proper representation. Take Deadpool for a second, he's a known pansexual character, yet they almost never show this and when they did they only make a joke of this fact. In the comic he was commonly shown in both a joking and serious manor flirting with pretty much everyone, especially Spider-man. So it's upsetting to see such an open character be so reserved for whatever reason.
Most people want LGBT+ characters to have just a better representation in media instead of being one of the common tropes (joke character, stereotype, struggling character, etc.) It's very rare to see an LGBT+ that isn't shoehorned in and not a trope. Going back to Deadpool 2, they actually did a decent job with Negasonic and Yukio, not the best, but better than most. Their characters and relationship is an example of what people want more of with LGBT+ characters.


----------



## Old (May 31, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> It's not so much that people are upset that they aren't including them, but more (myself included) are upset by lack of representation and or proper representation. Take Deadpool for a second, he's a known pansexual character, yet they almost never show this and when they did they only make a joke of this fact. In the comic he was commonly shown in both a joking and serious manor flirting with pretty much everyone, especially Spider-man. So it's upsetting to see such an open character be so reserved for whatever reason.
> Most people want LGBT+ characters to have just a better representation in media instead of being one of the common tropes (joke character, stereotype, struggling character, etc.) It's very rare to see an LGBT+ that isn't shoehorned in and not a trope. Although going back to Deadpool 2, they actually did a decent job with Negasonic and Yukio, not the best, but better than most. Their characters and relationship is an example of what people want more of with LGBT+ characters.



*See post #198*


----------



## The Catboy (May 31, 2018)

Old said:


> *See post #198*


That sounds like work and I am only paid enough to exist in this reality, not work in it.


----------



## YukiYolo (May 31, 2018)

The people here calling for violence in response to words are absolutely infantile. Certainly worse than those they hate. No wonder people blast Antifa and radical leftists as being hypocritical thugs. 

Sticks and stones. Have you still not understood that people won't be forced to conform through being shouted down or victimized via unreasonable acts of violence? The average person thinks you are no better than the Nazi you both seem to hate and emulate. That the idea that the only acceptable opinions are yours and those who hold contrary thoughts or beliefs need to be met with violence is as ironic as one could imagine and it's sad so many are lacking the self-awareness to realize it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 31, 2018)

YukiYolo said:


> The people here calling for violence in response to words are absolutely infantile. Certainly worse than those they hate. No wonder people blast Antifa and radical leftists as being hypocritical thugs.
> 
> Sticks and stones. Have you still not understood that people won't be forced to conform through being shouted down or victimized via unreasonable acts of violence? The average person thinks you are no better than the Nazi you both seem to hate and emulate. That the idea that the only acceptable opinions are yours and those who hold contrary thoughts or beliefs need to be met with violence is as ironic as one could imagine and it's sad so many are lacking the self-awareness to realize it.


So what do you think of Richard Spencer being punched


----------



## 3DPiper (May 31, 2018)

This may have already been posted (sorry, couldn't read 11 pages) but a great example of when forcing a gay character into a show ruffled feathers was with the Star Trek movie "Beyond" where they made Sulu a gay character. Even the George Takai, the original actor who played Sulu, *and who IS gay*, said that was very unfortunate and Roddenberry would have never done it. The character wasn't gay, but they changed it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 31, 2018)

3DPiper said:


> This may have already been posted (sorry, couldn't read 11 pages) but a great example of when forcing a gay character into a show ruffled feathers was with the Star Trek movie "Beyond" where they made Sulu a gay character. Even the George Takai, the original actor who played Sulu, *and who IS gay*, said that was very unfortunate and Roddenberry would have never done it. The character wasn't gay, but they changed it.


I guess I hadn't noticed?... Then again I'm not a huge Trekkie, even though I have made it a point to see all the new films


----------



## Navonod (May 31, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So what do you think of Richard Spencer being punched


So you want to punch people for having their own beliefs? I honestly don't care about what happens Richard Spencer but like all people
he has a right to his beliefs no matter how hateful it is. You can't force people to change if they don't want to.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 31, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> So you want to punch people for having their own beliefs? I honestly don't care about what happens Richard Spencer but like all people
> he has a right to his beliefs no matter how hateful it is. You can't force people to change if they don't want to.


You can't, but if they insist on spreading hateful ideologies you can definitely make them think twice about it around other people


----------



## Navonod (May 31, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You can't, but if they insist on spreading hateful ideologies you can definitely make them think twice about it around other people


Okay while you're at it punch Jeremiah Wright to.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 31, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> Okay while you're at it punch Jeremiah Wright to.


I fail to see how Rev Wright's preachings are in any way hateful or dangerous, if that's what you're implying


----------



## Navonod (May 31, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I fail to see how Rev Wright's preachings are in any way hateful or dangerous, if that's what you're implying


I guess you missed his racist rants.


----------



## The Catboy (May 31, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> So you want to punch people for having their own beliefs? I honestly don't care about what happens Richard Spencer but like all people
> he has a right to his beliefs no matter how hateful it is. You can't force people to change if they don't want to.


Punching someone for their believes is not ok, that being said NAZIism is an inherent threat towards other people and should not be tolerated. Does this mean I think they should be punched for walking down the street? No, because even though they are literally the worst humans ever, they still haven't wronged anyone just yet. But it doesn't mean I believe they should be allowed to spread their NAZI ideologies and attempt to push them into politics. I personally think the best way to deal with them is to either attempt to help them or shut them down.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 31, 2018)

Shutting people down sends them underground though and lends their beliefs some measure of credence. We can demonstrate this quite happily, and indeed the reverse with a nice example of that probably coming from the superman vs the kkk radio drama http://mentalfloss.com/article/23157/how-superman-defeated-ku-klux-klan .



Lilith Valentine said:


> It's not so much that people are upset that they aren't including them, but more (myself included) are upset by lack of representation and or proper representation.



I have never quite figured out the lack of representation thing, and it seems prone to drawing increasing numbers of lines, but I find myself curious at the form various people reckon it should take. We have already covered how I find the "must represent percentages of reality" set to be rather silly, though not as much as the "if are "disadvantaged" or "not one of the dominant groups in society" (bonus points if you have multiple such traits in one character) then consider over representation" set. The very same thing that allows me to enjoy stories featuring characters with traits far different to my own, and not being bothered by there being a general lack of stories with characters like me, going in for this one.

"in the comics"/"the original creator"
I might ask if this falls under the banner of "is this why it is called an adaptation?"? It might be a factor in it being a poor, or perhaps good, adaptation but key word is still adaptation.

Might go for another actually.
If forced and unbelievable characters is too abstract for some then instead as a thought exercise replace the trait from the gay alphabet soup umbrella with something like "really likes table tennis", does it add to the work? Does it in fact detract and should have been left on the editing room floor? Doing nothing per se is not bad but a general rule of editing is "if you can trim it then you should".

Deadpool 2 was mentioned. So the girl from the first film had a girlfriend and that was apparently well done? It was not done badly (if nothing else the character was reduced from an already small role) but compared to something like Six Feet Under then that is laughable. That said I did not think Deadpool 2 was anywhere near as tight as Deadpool 1, classic "surprise hit needs a quick sequel and up the pandering to our focus groups" type thing for me and thus I am not inclined to hold it up for anything.


----------



## gamesquest1 (May 31, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Shutting people down sends them underground though and lends their beliefs some measure of credence. We can demonstrate this quite happily, and indeed the reverse with a nice example of that probably coming from the superman vs the kkk radio drama http://mentalfloss.com/article/23157/how-superman-defeated-ku-klux-klan .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


humour is one of the greatest weapons against negative ideologies, even during the height of WW2 satire and mockery were a integral part of ensure people didn't just cower in fear, sure what was happening was terrible, being the but of a joke makes people think twice about joining up to an ideology, while acting scared and fearful just makes weak people think "ah hah if I join that group people will be scared of me", this is why there was any sort of rise of the "alt-right/neo-nazis" not because people suddenly believe all that stuff, but because they are being painted as the big bad force to be reckoned with instead of the tiny far fringe group of people farting in the wind

but sometimes people need an enemy to satisfy their own blood lust, I guess if it gives them an enemy to go punch and point to and say "look this is why we need total control over everyone", it also allows them to just dismiss any form of disagreement with them as "oh well you don't like "X" that must make you a "insert enemy of the week here"


----------



## The Catboy (May 31, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Shutting people down sends them underground though and lends their beliefs some measure of credence. We can demonstrate this quite happily, and indeed the reverse with a nice example of that probably coming from the superman vs the kkk radio drama http://mentalfloss.com/article/23157/how-superman-defeated-ku-klux-klan .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You really only took part of my post though and left out the part where I mentioned what I mean by "poor representation." Most of the time when there's an LGBT+ character they often fall into common tropes that just don't work with anyone. They are often the gay character who's struggling or the gay character who's just a stereotype, basically them being there just doesn't come off naturally and feels more disingenuous than anything else. Basically most of the time them being LGBT+ is treated as their role as a character and very rarely anything more. Deadpool 2 did it right by simply just having her so naturally there and it wasn't a big deal. Deadpool's reaction was shock that she got a "Pinkie Pie," having expected her girlfriend to be completely different was actually sincere and their reactions were just as equally within character. Nothing about the sense nor the characters felt forced nor shoehorned into the story. Thus a great example of adding LGBT+ in a natural manor.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (May 31, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> I guess you missed his racist rants.


I guess I did, wanna bring me up to speed?


----------



## FAST6191 (May 31, 2018)

I try not to take things out of context and generally act in good faith and don't think I deviated from that ideal there, however if you want to go with the post above then so it goes. We appear then to be seeking much the same thing, which is to say good characters, though we may differ on the finer points. That said on most occasions where I see someone complain about "lack of representation" they are more or less incapable of being satisfied, and while not quite to that level in yours it risks being read as along those lines.

"common tropes"
Tropes themselves are not bad.

Back on Deadpool 2 then I would still maintain if that is "good" representation then I don't know what people push for such things so much for. It stopped short of complete tokenism but in the same way I had no clue as to the sexuality of the lucky character, one with far more screen time and impact on the story, and did not care then yeah.


----------



## mikefor20 (May 31, 2018)

SimonMKWii said:


> Why should homophobes be accepted?
> They specifically choose to hate gay people for ridiculous reasons.
> Why accept a mindset that is rooted in hate and nonacceptance?



Because you cant choose who to accept.  Just like you preach acceptance for people with your quirk.  Everyone's opinion should be taken in to account.  Just like they shouldn't ignore yours.  After all, the things you think are your rights and everything you do being loving and accepting things are still contingent on the other person having a similar view of yours.  Just like the Homophobic and his pals.  You strike down all of their statements like they do to you.  It's all two-way. You must be accepting of all people in order to have true acceptance.  Or , maybe, you could just, I don't know, keep it to yourself?  Stop advertising that you are gay?  Maybe instead of demanding inclusion you should practice privacy?  A little discretion?  Not that you shouldn't be allowed to come out. but, maybe you shouldn't expect everyone to deal with it?  Maybe just keep it between your friends?  Seems like you could just think about somebody else and try not to make them uncomfortable?  I know I'll catch a lot of flack here but if the issue were anything else, people would say the same thing.  I have a gay cousin.  Nobody told Grandma.  Why should they?  She is 90, catholic and we respect her.  Telling her and causing her the distress and possibly a heart attack would be selfish as hell.  So everyone agreed to leave it alone.  Too bad for my cousin.  But he can handle  keeping it discreet,  He's not a selfish asshole baby.  Glad my Cousin came out to us.  Glad he kept it from her.  He allowed her to remain comfortable.  Nice guy.  She may be Homophobic but none of that matters if you are discreet.  Discretion, try it!


----------



## leon315 (May 31, 2018)

ONE THING tc is still not aware and must understand is: this world still not accept well LGBT, people are just PRETEND that they are OK with, but this simply a moral duty forced by modern civility, i'm sure any ordinary people are disgusted about LGBTs.

Anyway Putin is a real dude who made a great choice to gays people, i highly recommend all LGBT tempers to visit Moscow, it will be a very instructive trip


----------



## The Catboy (May 31, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> I try not to take things out of context and generally act in good faith and don't think I deviated from that ideal there, however if you want to go with the post above then so it goes. We appear then to be seeking much the same thing, which is to say good characters, though we may differ on the finer points. That said on most occasions where I see someone complain about "lack of representation" they are more or less incapable of being satisfied, and while not quite to that level in yours it risks being read as along those lines.
> 
> "common tropes"
> Tropes themselves are not bad.
> ...


Tropes aren't always a bad thing unless they are just bad tropes. If it's a common series of themes that appeals to no one, not even the target audience, then it's simply not a good trope. Admitted Deadpool 2 did suffer horribly from having too many characters and too little screen time for anyone, the addition of a lesbian couple was still handled far better than most movies. It's not a perfect scene, but an example of doing it right by comparison. Although I do wish those two got more screen time in general, 98% of Yukio's screen dialog was just "Hi Wade! :3" which was cute and in character for her, but also really just sugary filler. Basically the example is an example of just making them naturally there and worked into the movie without them being forced in there. They could have done better, but they also could have done worse.


----------



## WDragon (May 31, 2018)

I really don't mind straight , gay's or Lgbt character if they are a part of the movie. I find it idiotic to force them into the script for the sake of social acceptance and moral. I find this very anti-climatic.


----------



## Navonod (May 31, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I guess I did, wanna bring me up to speed?


Quit being lazy and google it. Lol

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lilith Valentine said:


> Punching someone for their believes is not ok, that being said NAZIism is an inherent threat towards other people and should not be tolerated. Does this mean I think they should be punched for walking down the street? No, because even though they are literally the worst humans ever, they still haven't wronged anyone just yet. But it doesn't mean I believe they should be allowed to spread their NAZI ideologies and attempt to push them into politics. I personally think the best way to deal with them is to either attempt to help them or shut them down.


Well good luck with that.


----------



## Bitchplease (Jun 1, 2018)

WDragon said:


> I really don't mind straight , gay's or Lgbt character if they are a part of the movie. I find it idiotic to force them into the script for the sake of social acceptance and moral. I find this very anti-climatic.




what would make it a part of the movie? if they write in a gay/trans/bi/queer whatever person into the script its part of it right?


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 1, 2018)

That is a way.

Generally though all forms of entertainment are horribly limited on time and audience attention span so if you take the time to characterise someone then it wants to be the main character's arc, serve said arc in some way, characterise a supporting character or serve to establish the setting.

When however the, for want of a better term, tumblr set whines, bitches, pisses and moans for characters to have traits just because, tries to tell writers of such things what they should be and otherwise tries to get in the way of telling a good story then we said to see people truly take issue.


----------



## WDragon (Jun 1, 2018)

Bitchplease said:


> what would make it a part of the movie? if they write in a gay/trans/bi/queer whatever person into the script its part of it right?



Yes exactly, example: A movie about this kind of character's or i don't know a reason for that particular character to be there. Any type of movie may apply.  You prefer they just throw those character's just because it help the community to be accept or cash on them?

Cinema is supposed to be entertainment not a platform for civil right.  If you want civil acceptance join a political party.


----------



## SimonMKWii (Jun 1, 2018)

Okay, this is getting fucking stupid now, unwatching this shithole of a thread.


----------



## ItsKipz (Jun 1, 2018)

>controversial question in OP

>12 pages

y i k e s

On topic, I think it's fine to include LGBT characters into movies (and i'm straight) just because that is how real people are, and movies should try to show off real things that happen in the real world, like LGBT characters.


----------



## Bitchplease (Jun 1, 2018)

WDragon said:


> Yes exactly, example: A movie about this kind of character's or i don't know a reason for that particular character to be there. Any type of movie may apply.  You prefer they just throw those character's just because it help the community to be accept or cash on them?
> 
> Cinema is supposed to be entertainment not a platform for civil right.  If you want civil acceptance join a political party.




yes thats  exactly what i want, i want diversity in what i watch, thats life! people are fat, thin, white, black, gay, bi, queer, trans, funny, angry 
I cannot see why diversity makes it any less entertaining.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 1, 2018)

ItsKipz said:


> >controversial question in OP
> 
> >12 pages
> 
> ...


What did you expect? Two comments from each side agreeing? This is how debates work, If you weren't aware.


----------



## WDragon (Jun 1, 2018)

Bitchplease said:


> yes thats  exactly what i want, i want diversity in what i watch, thats life! people are fat, thin, white, black, gay, bi, queer, trans, funny, angry
> I cannot see why diversity makes it any less entertaining.



Hey! i am all about diversity. God know Hollywood is in dire need of diversity. I'm open for everything that life as to offer, but do not mix anti-climatic and wishful thinking. You want a movie about trans or with trans character be my guest and go watch one!
But do not force your own personal taste in every movie just for the sake of your own selfish diversity.

I know they exist, i live in MTL so yeah we are very open for every type of person they are nor persecuted. Look i don't want to spend a lifetime arguing with you. They exist, we are all aware. Saw one today make me though about this conversation lol. Some movie's will have some and some don't.

But hell like any other type of character's that exist in the universe we don't need to see them every in very film.

I hope it make sense, English as you can all see is not English!

Shit i will gain a level today. Anyone as some Don nearby


----------



## Bimmel (Jun 1, 2018)

I get triggered by straights in movies, so I only watch gay movies.

They are so shitty. :-(


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 1, 2018)

SimonMKWii said:


> Okay, this is getting fucking stupid now, unwatching this shithole of a thread.


What is getting stupid? It is possibly getting a bit repetitive but I am not sure what makes this rank around shithole.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jun 1, 2018)

Old said:


> To be fair, Lando was always portrayed as a freewheeling player.  'Freaky deaky', as it were.  I saw ESB in the theater, and the general consensus at the time was "maaaaannn, this guy exudes sexuality....seems like the type of dude that would stick his dick in ANYthing!"
> The sort of character that the term 'omnisexual' was *designed* for.


Did we watch the same movie? The character I saw was a charming scam artist gone straight. A man who, even when threatened with violence by the most powerful and evil force in the galaxy, decided to join ranks with the rag-tag group of rebels out of the goodness of his heart. I don't think he had enough screen time to imply anything other than that.


----------



## Old (Jun 1, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> Did we watch the same movie? The character I saw was a charming scam artist gone straight. A man who, even when threatened with violence by the most powerful and evil force in the galaxy, decided to join ranks with the rag-tag group of rebels out of the goodness of his heart. I don't think he had enough screen time to imply anything other than that.



Opinions; we've all got 'em.   I'm telling you what it was like in 1980, I'll assume you weren't there for the full cultural impact. 

Take this 'thread' as an example....I'm _sure_ the OP had intended there to be an open and sincere dialogue on the subject, but due to the high concentration of ignorance and vileness that exists here, it's basically devolved into 'Gaslighting for Homophobes 101'.


----------



## mightymuffy (Jun 1, 2018)

Old said:


> Opinions; we've all got 'em.   I'm telling you what it was like in 1980, I'll assume you weren't there for the full cultural impact.


Good first sentence, ruined on sentence 2.... I was also there in 1980, yet still have no idea what you're going on about with Lando there..

Back to topic, maybe I've got too old and uninterested in movies.. but I just don't see any of this triggered stuff?? It's almost as if, and don't get me wrong here, I've got plenty of gay and lesbian friends, but it's almost as if the LGBT extremists are making this up just to start shit - most of my lesbian/gay friends hate this hyperbole as much as I do..
Unless it's a nationality-cum-cultural thing: here in the UK and Europe the whole LGBT 'thing' seems much more 'accepted' here, whereas in the US....(and I could probably hand pick certain States out!)


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 1, 2018)

mikefor20 said:


> Because you cant choose who to accept.


Sure you can. I literally quoted you with the words of an Austrian professor who watched WWII happen and formed a thesis speech on what to do about it for future generations

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DrGreed said:


> Quit being lazy and google it. Lol


That is... The laziest argument tactic I've ever seen. But for what it's worth, I did Google him, and I saw nothing particularly negative. You're going to need to steer me in a specific direction


----------



## Hanafuda (Jun 1, 2018)

alevan said:


> There is nothing wrong by including LBGT characters into movies and series. As there never was with blacks or asians.
> 
> The problem starts, when the character is forced into the show, just for the sake of diversity. Just like with older movies, where the cast is white, but there is one black character (mostly killed of first in horrors), so the critics shut up.
> 
> ...




That's pretty much it. Something I've seen recently that doesn't make a lot of sense to me are statistics on this issue, i.e. only 63 of 312 movies in 2017 had a LGBT in a major character role (I totally made that up, so please don't bother with correcting it), as if we need quotas on this or something. I saw a movie a few years ago called, "Moon," with Sam Rockwell. Except for some faces on a viewing monitor for several minutes, he was the only character in the film. But he wasn't gay. One more for the "not diverse enough" column, I guess.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Sure you can. I literally quoted you with the words of an Austrian professor who watched WWII happen and formed a thesis speech on what to do about it for future generations
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> That is... The laziest argument tactic I've ever seen. But for what it's worth, I did Google him, and I saw nothing particularly negative. You're going to need to steer me in a specific direction



All you have to do is google his name and you get this. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2008/03/blind_faith.html
Seriously lol. The dude preaches hate speech especially against Jews. But you want to ignore that because he is black.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> All you have to do is google his name and you get this. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2008/03/blind_faith.html
> Seriously lol. The dude preaches hate speech especially against Jews. But you want to ignore that because he is black.


I'm not ignoring anything, I just don't know enough about the situation to say anything one way or another. Given that apparently Fox News wrote an article about something pertaining to him yesterday I'm semi-inclined to say it's sensationalist media taking something out of context, but again... I don't know

I guess I'm confused as to why you're trying to use this as a "gotcha," though. I don't support racism of any sort, but if I'm reading that article correctly (which, admittedly, I may not be, given that I'm tired as shit after pulling consecutive 8 hour retail shifts), the worst that could be said about Rev Wright is that he thinks that white people in some way contribute to the AIDs epidemic specifically within the black community, whereas you have Nazis (the people I was talking about) marching with tiki torches chanting "blood and soil" and saying that all Jews must die

Edit: And also, no, I don't get that result when searching Google. Google specifically tailors search results to be "relevant" to previous online activity, so it's possible that it's giving us different results


----------



## Navonod (Jun 2, 2018)

That's not the only article and it's the most tame. Last time I linked something extreme it made you uncomfortable. This isn't really "gotcha I win" but more of a here punch this guy to because he is just as bad as a klan member.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> That's not the only article and it's the most tame. Last time I linked something extreme it made you uncomfortable. This isn't really "gotcha I win" but more of a here punch this guy to because he is just as bad as a klan member.


Thaaaaaaat's a stretch and you know it. And as I've said in the previous pages, physical violence is only necessary when all other options have been exhausted

Besides, if you're saying "do this because he's just as bad," then yes, it is because you're trying to say "gotcha I win." I'm looking at the Wikipedia page for his controversy and I'm seeing unsavory things there, but nothing that would make me believe that he would be ready to kill an entire group of people if asked


----------



## Navonod (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Thaaaaaaat's a stretch and you know it. And as I've said in the previous pages, physical violence is only necessary when all other options have been exhausted
> 
> Besides, if you're saying "do this because he's just as bad," then yes, it is because you're trying to say "gotcha I win." I'm looking at the Wikipedia page for his controversy and I'm seeing unsavory things there, but nothing that would make me believe that he would be ready to kill an entire group of people if asked


See I would agree to your whole necessary evil argument but it's not like Klansmen are running around murdering people like they used to. At least not anymore than other gangs. They just do a stupid rally and leave. That's it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> See I would agree to your whole necessary evil argument but it's not like Klansmen are running around murdering people like they used to. At least not anymore than other gangs. They just do a stupid rally and leave. That's it.


http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...-violence-one-man-stabbed-20160227-story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-virginia-overview.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...lates-leaving-dark-corners-interne/418100001/

I'm not going to pretend that the KKK is as violent (active? noticable? I don't know what the right word is I suppose) today as it was in the 60's, but saying that all they do is rally (which it feels like you're implying "peacefully") is turning a blind eye to some rather disturbing atrocities that have been growing more and more commonplace


----------



## Dvdxploitr (Jun 2, 2018)

There is nothing wrong with LGBT characters in video games or any media.  However, as it's been said, if they feel the need to flaunt it, that's when it becomes an issue.  Take a show like "Will & Grace" for example...it's about a gay guy that lives with his straight female friend.  The actors humor is what makes the show what it is.  Even though Will is the more "straight" acting and Jack is the feminine one, their humor make the show what it is.  You also have Karen & Grace who are the straight females in the show that are humorous as well.  The actors that played the characters did a really good job of playing their characters.  In fact, the actor that played Will in the show is really straight.  Another example of characters playing gay in shows and doing a good job of it is Showtime's "Queer as Folk".  While the characters play gay in the show, half of them are really straight, yet if you saw the show, you'd think they were ALL gay because they have all been shown having same-sex encounters.  In video games, Fable had the option for you to have your character to be gay.  It wasn't forced, you made your character be the person who you wanted him/her to be.  Now, if you were to go to the LGBT section of TV/movies on NetFlix, you'll find a bunch of poorly written/acted movies that involve gay characters that mainly just focus on hooking up with someone for the most part.  They are terrible and all they do is give someone an excuse to watch a movie that has gay sex in it so they don't get busted for having porn in their browser history.  The vast majority of the LGBT themed movies on there are practically the same thing....all about sex or finding a boyfriend (or girlfriend if it's a lesbian themed movie).  Mainly, what it comes down to, does the character FIT into the role.  If you are playing a game like Call of Duty where the whole objective is to kill everyone and you put a clown making balloon animals in it, that wouldn't make sense and therefore it wouldn't fit...but if you are playing Grand Theft Auto, well, you can pick up female hookers, I think they should let you pick up male hookers too!  It fits, that exists.  Why not add a male strip club in the game too?  I mean, they exist as well and could fit in the GTA world considering picking up hookers and going to the strip club is optional, so if you wanted to go into a male strip club, that could be an option too.  It wouldn't really be out of place.  I'm sure there are plenty of gay people (myself included) that play GTA games and even I get a laugh out of picking up the female hookers and going to the strip club for a lap dance.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...-violence-one-man-stabbed-20160227-story.html
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-virginia-overview.html
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...lates-leaving-dark-corners-interne/418100001/
> 
> I'm not going to pretend that the KKK is as violent (active? noticable? I don't know what the right word is I suppose) today as it was in the 60's, but saying that all they do is rally (which it feels like you're implying "peacefully") is turning a blind eye to some rather disturbing atrocities that have been growing more and more commonplace



It was peaceful until protesters came along and provoked them.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> It was peaceful until protesters came along and provoked them.


I hate to say it like this but the protesters wouldn't be there if the Klan members weren't, either

Plus, no. It wasn't. If your definition of a "peaceful protest" is a bunch of masked guys in robes waving torches and spears while shouting racial obsenities to intentionally illicit a violent response, then I suppose you could make a case for it, but no. KKK rallies, and by extension, MOST alt-right rallies, are not peaceful


----------



## Proto-Propski (Jun 2, 2018)

The problem mainly comes from the bad taste given from alot of early shows/movies when LGBT was still an early movement where they tried to just shoe horn the characters sexuality into a plot (whether it fit there, or not) just to be "all inclusive" instead of actually giving the respect to fleshing out what the character is besides just being another generic LGBT Character.

it's more of an issue with the fact no one was willing to make a quality LGBT character in Games/Movies/Shows, and because of that no one believes a quality LGBT character can/will exist. (when they do, but the're just few in far between)


----------



## Navonod (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I hate to say it like this but the protesters wouldn't be there if the Klan members weren't, either
> 
> Plus, no. It wasn't. If your definition of a "peaceful protest" is a bunch of masked guys in robes waving torches and spears while shouting racial obsenities to intentionally illicit a violent response, then I suppose you could make a case for it, but no. KKK rallies, and by extension, MOST alt-right rallies, are not peaceful


But were they physically hurting anyone before the protesters showed up? Think of them as annoying little kids and ignore them. Easy.

Edit: Honestly you can easily compare the klan and antifa rallies/attacks. Faces covered up, shouting racial obscenities intentionally to get a violent response, and child like antics. The only difference is one hates black people and the other hates white people.


----------



## alexg1989 (Jun 2, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> I just find it super ironic. Introducing LGBT characters into modern-day movies, is, somehow, seen as "forcing homosexuality and transexuality" on children and on any currently impressionable generation. In that insane logic, any movie with a cisgender person, or a straight couple, is forcing their heterosexuality on the LGBT community. Makes sense, right? No.
> 
> Being "gay" is, honestly, just as weird as being straight. It's not weird at all, so it sounds ridiculous.
> 
> - straight white male




No, being gay is not as weird as being straight, because being straight is not weird at all. Every species on this planet has as it's main goals survival and multiplication. The function through which humans multiply is heterosexual sex. It's how things are supposed to be. Being straight is how it is supposed to be. That can be gleaned from the fact that damn near every single species is this same way. Male + Female. Up to now, there is still no real proof of how homosexuality even comes to be. Is it entirely genetic or entirely environmental, or a mixture of both? No one can say for sure. You can cite studies that support every viewpoint. The most convincing theory I've seen is the germ theory. Look it up,

and yeah, movies are a form of entertainment. Impressionable people, pretty much everyone really, but mostly kids and women moreso than men, are easy prey to the propaganda that is so often pushed in all forms of entertainment, including movies. This is not the kind of thing that should be fucked with. Boys are supposed to be boys. Girls are supposed to be girls. Boys are supposed to like girls and girls supposed to like boys. Boys are meant to grow into men and girls are meant to grow into women. There are anomalies that occur, and that's also normal, but that doesn't mean those anomalies should be promoted or celebrated.

- straight black hispanic male


----------



## kumikochan (Jun 2, 2018)

DinohScene said:


> It isn't.
> Roman times, completely normal one had a male lover.
> If one would orally satisfy a female, one would be as low as said female socially.
> 
> ...


In that regard being a pedophile was also normal in ancient times because girls at the age of 12 had to go to virginity temples to let them get fucked and their virginity taken by old priests. There are countless of instances all over time stuff like that being the norm. Then you also got the constant raping of slaves in Rome and even going so far as doing homosexual things with kids and raping them because they were a slave. You also have incest wich was a normal thing in Egyptian and Roman times and going so far till the 1800 with the Habsburg family line in Europe. Not saying that I don't agree with you but in ancient Rome it wasn't all that pretty. What you said also isn't entirely true. If you were gay only in Rome they would look at you as someone inferior. Being bisexual was the norm and not being homosexual


----------



## Navonod (Jun 2, 2018)

alexg1989 said:


> No, being gay is not as weird as being straight, because being straight is not weird at all. Every species on this planet has as it's main goals survival and multiplication. The function through which humans multiply is heterosexual sex. It's how things are supposed to be. Being straight is how it is supposed to be. That can be gleaned from the fact that damn near every single species is this same way. Male + Female. Up to now, there is still no real proof of how homosexuality even comes to be. Is it entirely genetic or entirely environmental, or a mixture of both? No one can say for sure. You can cite studies that support every viewpoint. The most convincing theory I've seen is the germ theory. Look it up,
> 
> and yeah, movies are a form of entertainment. Impressionable people, pretty much everyone really, but mostly kids and women moreso than men, are easy prey to the propaganda that is so often pushed in all forms of entertainment, including movies. This is not the kind of thing that should be fucked with. Boys are supposed to be boys. Girls are supposed to be girls. Boys are supposed to like girls and girls supposed to like boys. Boys are meant to grow into men and girls are meant to grow into women. There are anomalies that occur, and that's also normal, but that doesn't mean those anomalies should be promoted or celebrated.
> 
> - straight black hispanic male



LOL. Funniest thing I've read. Germ Theory does apply to some diseases but being gay is not a disease.

- predominantly straight white male in gay relationship. Or bi idgaf.


----------



## Bitchplease (Jun 2, 2018)

alexg1989 said:


> No, being gay is not as weird as being straight, because being straight is not weird at all. Every species on this planet has as it's main goals survival and multiplication. The function through which humans multiply is heterosexual sex. It's how things are supposed to be. Being straight is how it is supposed to be. That can be gleaned from the fact that damn near every single species is this same way. Male + Female. Up to now, there is still no real proof of how homosexuality even comes to be. Is it entirely genetic or entirely environmental, or a mixture of both? No one can say for sure. You can cite studies that support every viewpoint. The most convincing theory I've seen is the germ theory. Look it up,
> 
> and yeah, movies are a form of entertainment. Impressionable people, pretty much everyone really, but mostly kids and women moreso than men, are easy prey to the propaganda that is so often pushed in all forms of entertainment, including movies. This is not the kind of thing that should be fucked with. Boys are supposed to be boys. Girls are supposed to be girls. Boys are supposed to like girls and girls supposed to like boys. Boys are meant to grow into men and girls are meant to grow into women. There are anomalies that occur, and that's also normal, but that doesn't mean those anomalies should be promoted or celebrated.
> 
> - straight black hispanic male




This is By far the most stupid and ignorant thing I have ever read about how gender works.

There are a lot of animals who have both male and female parts, there are male seahorses who carry the littles.
Many species are gay yet not extinct .

Gender has a part nature and a part nurture, boys will be the boys we teach them to be. Same with girls.
Men are not smarter and females are not better in cleaning that is nurture and teached by others. Nature is the fact that woman can breastfeed, carry a child have their periods, and hormones.

We are really not born that different brain wise. You are just taught to see everybody that way.


Girls like cars, gaming, computers and boys like pink, dolls, and dress up if you would only let them.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 2, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> It was peaceful until protesters came along and provoked them.


So your logic is, it's fine for groups like the KKK to hold a rally, but it's not ok for people to be upset about it?
Side note, there is no such thing as a "peaceful protest" when it comes to groups like the KKK and neo-NAZIs. Just because they aren't swinging, doesn't make them "peaceful." They are protesting to remove rights from people and spread racism, that's not "peaceful"


----------



## DinohScene (Jun 2, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> In that regard being a pedophile was also normal in ancient times because girls at the age of 12 had to go to virginity temples to let them get fucked and their virginity taken by old priests. There are countless of instances all over time stuff like that being the norm. Then you also got the constant raping of slaves in Rome and even going so far as doing homosexual things with kids and raping them because they were a slave. You also have incest wich was a normal thing in Egyptian and Roman times and going so far till the 1800 with the Habsburg family line in Europe. Not saying that I don't agree with you but in ancient Rome it wasn't all that pretty. What you said also isn't entirely true. If you were gay only in Rome they would look at you as someone inferior. Being bisexual was the norm and not being homosexual



bisexuality is part of homosexuality.

Yeh, times change but then again, 500 years from now, people will look back and mention how primitive our society was.
Just natural progression.


----------



## alexg1989 (Jun 2, 2018)

Bitchplease said:


> This is By far the most stupid and ignorant thing I have ever read about how gender works.
> 
> There are a lot of animals who have both male and female parts, there are male seahorses who carrys the littles.
> Many species are gay yet not instinct.
> ...



>Says what I typed is ignorant is stupid, but doesn't know the difference between extinct and instinct, and doesn't know what "damn near" means, "teached"...

Honestly boy, you sound like you just graduated first grade. Please do some more growing up


----------



## Bitchplease (Jun 2, 2018)

alexg1989 said:


> >Says what I typed is ignorant is stupid, but doesn't know the difference between extinct and instinct, and doesn't know what "damn near" means, "teached"...
> 
> Honestly boy, you sound like you just graduated first grade. Please do some more growing up


Im sorry my autocorrect issues are so strong! If you know what I’m trying to say maybe just discuss that instead of my spelling and grammar. I guess you went on that route because you got nothing to say about the true facts I gave you! 



Don’t address me as boy please! Don’t asume that’s what I am!


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 2, 2018)

"Progressives" hated Solo for not demonstrating Lando as pan in the movie.
"Conservatives" hated Solo for many things including that Lando is pan.
I don't really care what sexuality Lando is. Though I agree with the progressives that it should be shown, not told. Still no idea what pan is though, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what it means among people who use it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DrGreed said:


> It was peaceful until protesters came along and provoked them.


You mean was peaceful until people covering their faces started assaulting them.



Lilith Valentine said:


> So your logic is, it's fine for groups like the KKK to hold a rally, but it's not ok for people to be upset about it?
> Side note, there is no such thing as a "peaceful protest" when it comes to groups like the KKK and neo-NAZIs. Just because they aren't swinging, doesn't make them "peaceful." They are protesting to remove rights from people and spread racism, that's not "peaceful"


Theres a difference between saying you're upset and provoking someone.

Also, I'm sure I don't have the full picture, but every time I've seen a news article describe someone on the alt-right as racist/facist/nazi, the article provides no example of this.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 2, 2018)

Proto-Propski said:


> The problem mainly comes from the bad taste given from alot of early shows/movies when LGBT was still an early movement where they tried to just shoe horn the characters sexuality into a plot (whether it fit there, or not) just to be "all inclusive" instead of actually giving the respect to fleshing out what the character is besides just being another generic LGBT Character.
> 
> it's more of an issue with the fact no one was willing to make a quality LGBT character in Games/Movies/Shows, and because of that no one believes a quality LGBT character can/will exist. (when they do, but the're just few in far between)



I don't know if I can +1 that. There might be some still with memories of such things (we are talking about the 50s onwards right?*) but most here seem to take issue with the newer waves (maybe the last 7-8 years) of such things, ones where people get very vocal about having characters without regard for characterisation, plot, pacing... generally telling a story and start saying "just needs to be there", "need to make up for lost time" and "[estimates of demographic breakdown] your show needs to be that".

*late 60s but whatever


Like I watched some random Dr Who spinoff set in a high school a few months back. Various characters in there seemed to be thrown in and given traits and I was all "what is this bollocks?", mainly as however many years before I remember watching stuff like Skins where there were really well done characters.

Earlier I mentioned Six Feet Under, one of the main characters in that is gay and watching that all play out over the series was some amazing TV, possibly some of the best I have ever seen.

I never saw the US version of Queer as Folk but saw a few of the UK version, more graphic than some might care for but still well executed. I could probably make similar comments about the US and UK versions of Shameless.

Someone mentioned Will and Grace, standard US style sitcom so was not for me but the ones I saw were absolutely fine. On the other hand I saw a show called Gimme Gimme Gimme (a UK style sitcom) some years ago and it was not bad at all


Give me more things like that if you want, keep your token efforts and forced nonsense though.


----------



## Navonod (Jun 2, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> So your logic is, it's fine for groups like the KKK to hold a rally, but it's not ok for people to be upset about it?
> Side note, there is no such thing as a "peaceful protest" when it comes to groups like the KKK and neo-NAZIs. Just because they aren't swinging, doesn't make them "peaceful." They are protesting to remove rights from people and spread racism, that's not "peaceful"


You can be upset all you want but confronting them is what they want. You can easily ignore them. It only got violent when other people showed up and started exchanging words.


----------



## Coto (Jun 2, 2018)

'Let's put biological standards on moral standards and see how society explodes", this is how religion, politics, and "lower, animal like" sort of manipulative tools work. Been doing human rights stuff way before (circa 1998) when I was barely a kid. Irony it is, indeed.

Hypocritical people are irony as well, they were turned into it, and they will return to it, hypocrisy will last, but that people won't.

These movies sell dreams, but also dreams that involve current society goals. Sort of manipulation food for people who lack values.

That's why educating and supporting others is helpful, you somehow break the chain, and is it hard? oh ffs it is.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> You can be upset all you want but confronting them is what they want. You can easily ignore them. It only got violent when other people showed up and started exchanging words.


So your grand solution is... What, exactly? Allow them to keep gaining traction by leaving rallies unopposed until they have enough manpower to actually do what they want like they were in the 60s?


----------



## SG854 (Jun 2, 2018)

Bitchplease said:


> This is By far the most stupid and ignorant thing I have ever read about how gender works.
> 
> There are a lot of animals who have both male and female parts, there are male seahorses who carry the littles.
> Many species are gay yet not extinct .
> ...


We are very different brain wise and you just described why. Women mainly give birth, breast feed, and raise children, so they need biological differences in their brain and some psychological orchestration to help them to achieve these tasks. Sex differences in some areas are really large. So its hard to believe a very small simple change in the tone of voice, or how long you make eye contact will have huge effect on interests, activities and preferences of a kid.

This is clearly visible in countries with the most equality between sexes and where people are free to pursue what they want. If not raising kids at home, they mainly get into careers that is similar to raising kids like nursing, medicine, social work and teaching, which are areas that have human interaction. Any women thats is in STEM is rare and less typical, they are the exception. Countries that have lots of women in STEM usually have less gender equality. And women from those places enter in STEM not because of interests, but because they are forced into it to earn money. If there is no differences between men and women, then whats all this fuss with all these genders? Male and Female are the same right and are interchangeable.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So your grand solution is... What, exactly? Allow them to keep gaining traction by leaving rallies unopposed until they have enough manpower to actually do what they want like they were in the 60s?


"I may not like what you have to say but I will defend your right to say it"
If this is a consequence of that, then it is one we have to bear or at least address when there is an actual issue. Assuming that is that though; I mostly see a fringe movement I can for the most part ignore for myself and encourage all but a select few (almost certainly nobody that ever participated in a black block or thought it a good idea). Being worried about the KKK or Nazis is probably less useful than being worried about being hit by a meteor.
Otherwise the world is big enough and ugly enough to take a few words.


----------



## Bitchplease (Jun 2, 2018)

The reason they choose for those jobs has much to do with genderroles and sexism not with brains. It’s about being told some jobs or careers are to hard or not for girls and some are really not that accepting towards female. 

There is a long way to go. 

I did say there is a difference but not in the way boys will be boys and girls will be girls. That has a lot to do with nurture. A feminist open minded single mother will raise a very different child than a very strict Christian household.

Those boys will not be the same children. That’s nurture. Yes biology makes a difference but woman are not better in housekeeping we are brought up in a way we know more about it. Again nurture. We are not housewives by nature as men are not smarter.  People are still not free to pursue what they want!! This again depends on your upbringing and the changes your early life gives you.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 2, 2018)

I really don't give a shit what the character's sexual orientation is, so long as the character is well written and interesting, they can be anything.  Having said that, what DOES annoy me is when an established character suddenly out of nowhere receives a sexual orientation that was never implied before all for the sake of trying to make the cast more diverse.  What immediately comes to mind is making Lando a pansexual in Solo, when that was never even hinted at in the OG Star Wars trilogy.  If they wanted a pansexual in the film, why not create a new character that is that, instead of retconning what we already believed to be the case.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

MikaDubbz said:


> I really don't give a shit what the character's sexual orientation is, so long as the character is well written and interesting, they can be anything.  Having said that, what DOES annoy me is when an established character suddenly out of nowhere receives a sexual orientation that was never implied before all for the sake of trying to make the cast more diverse.  What immediately comes to mind is making Lando a pansexual in Solo, when that was never even hinted at in the OG Star Wars trilogy.  If they wanted a pansexual in the film, why not create a new character that is that, instead of retconning what we already believed to be the case.


I agree with most of what you said, but what's the issue with Lando being pan? He never really had an implied sexuality in the original trilogy, other than "frequently"


----------



## smf (Jun 2, 2018)

Bitchplease said:


> Yes biology makes a difference but woman are not better in housekeeping



Women statistically tend to be more motivated to keeping a clean house.

Women are less motivated to go out and work and provide for a man to stay at home.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

smf said:


> Women statistically tend to be more motivated to keeping a clean house.
> 
> Women are less motivated to go out and work and provide for a man to stay at home.


And do you think that's because of a biological drive, or due to how we raise girls?


----------



## Navonod (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So your grand solution is... What, exactly? Allow them to keep gaining traction by leaving rallies unopposed until they have enough manpower to actually do what they want like they were in the 60s?


They can do what ever they want now. As they did at that last rally when a van pulled up with a group of klansmen then they started stabbing people AFTER protesters gave them the attention they wanted.
If they would have left them alone nothing would have happened. Just like bikers. Don't mess with them at their rallies and nothing bad happens. Obviously you can defend yourself if they attack you.

Edit: I mean come on. They are like little kids playing call of duty screaming racial slurs on xboxlive. If you let that get to you then I don't know what else to tell you.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I agree with most of what you said, but what's the issue with Lando being pan? He never really had an implied sexuality in the original trilogy, other than "frequently"



Well that's the point, he's been an established character for decades with not a single hint of him being a pansexual, and now suddenly he is.  Why not just give that trait to a brand new character instead of needlessly shoehorning the attribute into the established and beloved character, upsetting fans of the character and what they believed him to be.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

MikaDubbz said:


> Well that's the point, he's been an established character for decades with not a single hint of him being a pansexual, and now suddenly he is.  Why not just give that trait to a brand new character instead of needlessly shoehorning the attribute into the established and beloved character, upsetting fans of the character and what they believed him to be.


I don't see why it should be upsetting, though. And I don't see exactly how it's "shoehorned in"; I feel like it fits his character, and it doesn't conflict with anything we know about him up to this point


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I don't see why it should be upsetting, though. And I don't see exactly how it's "shoehorned in"; I feel like it fits his character, and it doesn't conflict with anything we know about him up to this point



Well imagine your favorite character that's been established for decades, say Batman.  And Batman was always portrayed as good with the ladies, but only good with the ladies.  And suddenly after 40 years of loving that character and believing you understand that character, its been revealed that in all the panels they didn't illustrate, he was fucking any and everything, including possibly robots. You can't tell me that you don't understand how that would upset fans of that character.  I'm not even much of a fan of Lando, but I don't approve of retcons in general, especially for a character that's been established for decades.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 2, 2018)

MikaDubbz said:


> Well imagine your favorite character that's been established for decades, say Batman.  And Batman was always portrayed as good with the ladies, but only good with the ladies.  And suddenly after 40 years of loving that character and believing you understand that character, its been revealed that in all the panels they didn't illustrate, he was fucking any and everything, including possibly robots. You can't tell me that you don't understand how that would upset fans of that character.  I'm not even much of a fan of Lando, but I don't approve of retcons in general, especially for a character that's been established for decades.


I guess I don't necessarily see what the problem would be there, either. Maybe that's just a difference in thought process


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

alevan said:


> There is nothing wrong by including LBGT characters into movies and series. As there never was with blacks or asians.
> 
> The problem starts, when the character is forced into the show, just for the sake of diversity. Just like with older movies, where the cast is white, but there is one black character (mostly killed of first in horrors), so the critics shut up.
> 
> ...


This is pretty much all you need for this thread. There are great examples of gay characters in media. Characters like Arcade Ganon are excellent examples of homosexual characters in media because their defining trait is not their homosexuality, which should be the fucking standard for diverse characters. The original point to diversity was looking at all the generic, buff n bald straight white males that were so prevalent in media, video games especially, and saying "ok, this shit's really boring, why not mix it up," but people have taken this to mean "ok, we should have a black/latino/obese/gay/trans/jewish/whatever character because at least it isn't white!"

When everyone is painfully generic, it doesn't matter how diverse they are. They, ironically enough, become less diverse. It's one of those situations where everyone is "unique" but so two dimensional that they may as well just be straight white buff n balds.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I guess I don't necessarily see what the problem would be there, either. Maybe that's just a difference in thought process



The problem is that it's just a massive retcon done in an attempt to gain more modern viewers.  Its a lie, Batman was never a pansexual, but oh wait, he was, you just didn't know, and he fucked the shit out of his batmobile all the time you just didn't know it.  It'd be such a pointless horribly shoehorned in change to the character, that I really struggle to understand how you can't see how that would upset fans of the character.  Sure not every fan would be upset, but it would absolutley upset a lot of them, and it would serve no great purpose either, it'd just be a stupid change to make.  Again, just make new characters have such attributes if they want that kind of character in there.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The ones that I don't like are "we say our character is LGBT because we're inclusive but never actually write or show anything that confirms that so as to not make anyone who hates gays mad"
> 
> I'm looking at you, J K Rowling


Yeah fuck Rowling. When she tweets things like "actually a jewish person went to hogwarts" it's literally just for brownie points.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> Yeah fuck Rowling. When she tweets things like "actually a jewish person went to hogwarts" it's literally just for brownie points.



Agreed, her revealing after all the books were done that, "Oh, Dumbledore was gay the whole time." Was so stupid. Like what purpose does that serve?  Your books and movies are over, you told us everything about that character we needed to know for the story you were telling us.  And this actually goes both ways in my mind.  Dumbledore's sexuality was never revealed in the books, as it had nothing to do with the story in question; her revealing that he was gay after the series is just as pointless to me as if she revealed he was straight the whole time instead.

Though, now it may start to serve a purpose that he was gay with these Fantastic Beasts movies, but even still, that was clearly never the plan when she did reveal that Dumbledore was gay long before Fantastic Beasts was gonna be a series of movies.  Even still, I'm doubtful it will serve any purpose in the movies anyway.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Jun 2, 2018)

MikaDubbz said:


> Agreed, her revealing after all the books were done that, "Oh, Dumbledore was gay the whole time." Was so stupid. Like what purpose does that serve?  Your books and movies are over, you told us everything about that character we needed to know for the story you were telling us.
> 
> Though, now it may start to serve a purpose with these Fantastic Beasts movies, but even still, that was clearly never the plan when she did reveal that Dumbledore was gay long before Fantastic Beasts was gonna be a series of movies.  Even still, I'm doubtful it will serve any purpose in the movies anyway.


If it's a one off comment with a character who never really had an established sexuality I think it's harmless. Stupid, like, really stupid, but also harmless. She needs to fuck off with it either way though. If she wants a gay character, she should write one, instead of trying to retroactively make everything gay/jewish/whatever


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> If it's a one off comment with a character who never really had an established sexuality I think it's harmless. Stupid, like, really stupid, but also harmless. She needs to fuck off with it either way though. If she wants a gay character, she should write one, instead of trying to retroactively make everything gay/jewish/whatever



Oh I agree, don't get me wrong, it doesn't upset me that she revealed his sexuality.  It bothers me that she said so after everything was said and done as if it matters or makes some sort of difference at that point when it never had any importance in the books whatsoever.


----------



## Coto (Jun 2, 2018)

MaverickWellington said:


> but people have taken this to mean "ok, we should have a black/latino/obese/gay/trans/jewish/whatever character because at least it isn't white!"



Speak for yourself, I haven't seen any USA guys (around GBATemp at least), saying "we should have a black/latino/obese/gay/trans/jewish/whatever character because at least it isn't white!". Sure, I know USA and Mexican people don't really get along, but why using that as an excuse for providing such hateful example?

lol


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 2, 2018)

Coto said:


> Speak for yourself, I haven't seen any USA guys (around GBATemp at least), saying "we should have a black/latino/obese/gay/trans/jewish/whatever character because at least it isn't white!". Sure, I know USA and Mexican people don't really get along, but why using that as an excuse for providing such hateful example?
> 
> lol


Pretty sure that's exactly the kind of conversation they've been having at Lucasfilm ever since Disney acquired them.  Perhaps not in those words, but they've made a very clear effort to get a diverse cast that isn't just white guys (and droids and aliens).  I personally don't care how much diversity the films have, but it is pretty obvious that they've made a blatant effort to get a real diverse cast.


----------



## Coto (Jun 2, 2018)

MikaDubbz said:


> Pretty sure that's exactly the kind of conversation they've been having at Lucasfilm ever since Disney acquired them.  Perhaps not in those words, but they've made a very clear effort to get a diverse cast that isn't just white guys (and droids and aliens).  I personally don't care how much diversity the films have, but it is pretty obvious that they've made a blatant effort to get a real diverse cast.



But the people behind Lucasfilm get paid to build content. I am asking honestly, to any member that may be in GBATemp.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jun 2, 2018)

Coto said:


> But the people behind Lucasfilm get paid to build content. I am asking honestly, to any member that may be in GBATemp.



Oh I thought you were saying just in general, cuz its pretty obvious in hollywood right now that more than ever they're trying to get more actors beyond white people in their films.


----------



## Deleted member 377734 (Jun 2, 2018)

An Honest question.
Why is it that when someone is gay, that is the only thing  most other people will focus on ? not about what sort of person they are, what they do and whatnot, they just fixate on the fact that they are gay. and then most guys assume gay guys want to get in their pants. not that they might not be attracted to them, just like you're not attracted to every woman or guy you see. but they let that one trait define that person. someone explain why ?


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 2, 2018)

DrGreed said:


> You can be upset all you want but confronting them is what they want. You can easily ignore them. It only got violent when other people showed up and started exchanging words.


That's honestly pseudo-intellectual garbage and doesn't actually do anything to hinder them. Their entire end goal is literally stripping rights away from people and having them kill. They aren't protesting because they don't have rights, they are protesting because they don't want others to have rights. Tolerating them and giving them space/peace to protest only shows that they are welcome to continue future public acts and they will get worse. You are only helping them, not anyone else.



FAST6191 said:


> "I may not like what you have to say but I will defend your right to say it"
> If this is a consequence of that, then it is one we have to bear or at least address when there is an actual issue. Assuming that is that though; I mostly see a fringe movement I can for the most part ignore for myself and encourage all but a select few (almost certainly nobody that ever participated in a black block or thought it a good idea). Being worried about the KKK or Nazis is probably less useful than being worried about being hit by a meteor.
> Otherwise the world is big enough and ugly enough to take a few words.


They have the right to say it, but they are not free of retaliation for doing so. As well I actually have a very valid reason to be worried about hate groups in my location. There's actually an extremely high amount of Neo-NAZI groups and even a KKK meeting place in my area that I didn't even know about until moving here. It's actually extremely common for me to help customers who have all kinds of NAZI symbols tattooed on them and or wearing NAZI paraphernalia. Nothing has happened to me thus far, but it's still alarming to me that there's such a high number of these people in my area and they are starting to become more public about it. Being that I am trans and a person who works in customer service, I feel it's very valid for me to worry about these people. Just because they are respectful to me when cameras are looking, doesn't mean they are going to be the same when I am walking home from work.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 3, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> They have the right to say it, but they are not free of retaliation for doing so.



It depends what the retaliation is. Again I am absolutely opposed to the physical stuff that the likes of people operating under the banner of antifa seem to be putting out there. If you don't want to let them join your clubs, have your jobs and such like then fine, righteous even, but the physical stuff is wrong and the trying to deny them the option to speak (the shouting down, disruptions, fire alarms and what have you) seems silly at best.

He who instigates the fight, which is typically the one that throws the first punch, is the arsehole. It is a really simple concept and if followed then nobody gets hit and that is a good thing.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 3, 2018)

Girl here just wanting to chime in that I'm from a very masculine family and I was basically raised for traditionally male stuff, yet I feel much more compelled and fulfilling to do traditionally female stuff like taking care of people.
I keep getting told off and told to get a well paying job in IT but I just have no instinct to do so. My only interest in IT is to the extent of tending to mine and my family's tech, like a mom stitching a damaged teddy bear.


----------



## AdenTheThird (Jun 7, 2018)

I think people get triggered because it can contradict beliefs, religions, and feelings in some cases and people don't want their children seeing that. For example, I am Christian, and know that many Christians (including myself) believe that being gay, transgender, etc. is against God's law in the Bible.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jun 7, 2018)

Why do people get butthurt at the lack of homosexuals in movies?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 7, 2018)

Haloman800 said:


> Why do people get butthurt at the lack of homosexuals in movies?


I'm not particularly convinced that anyone does. They just get excited when there is LGBT representation in a movie they enjoy, for obvious reasons. The two aren't equivalent


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 7, 2018)

Haloman800 said:


> Why do people get butthurt at the lack of homosexuals in movies?


People only really get annoyed when movies and characters are badly written, and I think I gave that answer to this thread a millennia ago. How is this still going on? Is this the new "milk is bad for you" thread?


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 7, 2018)

As an LGBT person I feel alienated when people obsess over an LGBT character.
Why can't we just treat LGBT people in movies like it's a pretty normal thing to come across like it is in real life.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Jun 7, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> I think people get triggered because it can contradict beliefs, religions, and feelings in some cases and people don't want their children seeing that. For example, I am Christian, and know that many Christians (including myself) believe that being gay, transgender, etc. is against God's law in the Bible.


I don't want to get into a religious argument with you or anything, I don't object to your faith, but I want to know how you'd respond to a common critique of that line of thinking.

If science has proven that being gay is not a choice and is highly correlated with factors at birth, why would God create people who he was then against the existence of?

What would your response be to that? Am I interpreting your theology wrong? Let me know.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 7, 2018)

Snugglevixen said:


> As an LGBT person I feel alienated when people obsess over an LGBT character.
> Why can't we just treat LGBT people in movies like it's a pretty normal thing to come across like it is in real life.


Exactly


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Jun 7, 2018)

Snugglevixen said:


> As an LGBT person I feel alienated when people obsess over an LGBT character.
> Why can't we just treat LGBT people in movies like it's a pretty normal thing to come across like it is in real life.


Every time I've seen that happen, it's come off as excessively cringey. Then you also get into some weird fetishization by certain crowds, I think you know what I'm talking about.


----------



## AdenTheThird (Jun 7, 2018)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> I don't want to get into a religious argument with you or anything, I don't object to your faith, but I want to know how you'd respond to a common critique of that line of thinking.
> 
> If science has proven that being gay is not a choice and is highly correlated with factors at birth, why would God create people who he was then against the existence of?
> 
> What would your response be to that? Am I interpreting your theology wrong? Let me know.


First off, thank you for being polite. Secondly, in the Bible, it is said that God created man and woman to love each other and them only. The Bible states that being gay is a sin. The reason we are gay is because of the devil, who tempts us into sin and tries to get us to think that it's all right. God is not against our existence. But He does give us freedom to do what we choose, and sin often tempts people because of that.

Again, if you don't agree with this, it's fine, but I'm just answering your question based on what you told me.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Jun 7, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> First off, thank you for being polite. Secondly, in the Bible, it is said that God created man and woman to love each other and them only. The Bible states that being gay is a sin. The reason we are gay is because of the devil, who tempts us into sin and tries to get us to think that it's all right. God is not against our existence. But He does give us freedom to do what we choose, and sin often tempts people because of that.
> 
> Again, if you don't agree with this, it's fine, but I'm just answering your question based on what you told me.


Thanks for your response! Wanted to understand your side a bit.


----------



## Teslas Fate (Jun 7, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> I just find it super ironic. Introducing LGBT characters into modern-day movies, is, somehow, seen as "forcing homosexuality and transexuality" on children and on any currently impressionable generation. In that insane logic, any movie with a cisgender person, or a straight couple, is forcing their heterosexuality on the LGBT community. Makes sense, right? No.
> 
> Being "gay" is, honestly, just as weird as being straight. It's not weird at all, so it sounds ridiculous.
> 
> - straight white male



I'm 13 and straight (yet at the slightest bisexual), I have 2 friends 1 gay the other lesbian and had 2 bisexual girlfriends I'm fine with them because they're the same as you a me, to be honest at times it can get weird but every one is, I'm even proud to say that I saw love, Simon and actually loved the movie but did look away at the end reason being I was with a friend who is straighter than a ruler and didn't want to be deemed gay. After seeing it I learn gays are alright and don't agree that they go to hell like my grand father would like to think.



AdenTheThird said:


> First off, thank you for being polite. Secondly, in the Bible, it is said that God created man and woman to love each other and them only. The Bible states that being gay is a sin. The reason we are gay is because of the devil, who tempts us into sin and tries to get us to think that it's all right. God is not against our existence. But He does give us freedom to do what we choose, and sin often tempts people because of that.
> 
> Again, if you don't agree with this, it's fine, but I'm just answering your question based on what you told me.


This is also Gbatemp which is a place where people go to talk about the illegal things that they do with electronics which is also a sin if you think about it but do we care nah I don't think so


----------



## Teslas Fate (Jun 7, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> People only really get annoyed when movies and characters are badly written, and I think I gave that answer to this thread a millennia ago. How is this still going on? Is this the new "milk is bad for you" thread?


Bro how's that got to with the topic
And bro this a thread were we agree on one thing and that's Gays are alright

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



@AdenTheThird said:


> I think people get triggered because it can contradict beliefs, religions, and feelings in some cases and people don't want their children seeing that. For example, I am Christian, and know that many Christians (including myself) believe that being gay, transgender, etc. is against God's law in the Bible.


I'm christian and I don't believe that


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 7, 2018)

PokeGlitcher04 said:


> Bro how's that got to with the topic


Well, I am stating it myself there.
I think people get annoyed only when characters are badly written. _*It has all to do with the topic.*_
Many times in movies they try to be "inclusive" in a very shallow way, that is, they just put in an LGBT character that is not well written, and they just put it in there to say "we're being inclusive", so people don't get angry by the introduction of LGBT characters per se, but by the lack of effort as they are putting badly written characters in and almost treating it like a fad to draw viewers in.


----------



## Teslas Fate (Jun 7, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> Well, I am stating it myself there.
> I think people get annoyed only when characters are badly written. _*It has all to do with the topic.*_
> Many times in movies they try to be "inclusive" in a very shallow way, that is, they just put in an LGBT character that is not well written, and they just put it in there to say "we're being inclusive", so people don't get angry by the introduction of LGBT characters per se, but by the lack of effort as they are putting badly written characters in and almost treating it like a fad to draw viewers in.


Adding in LGBT characters to a movie  isn't a fad it's just Hollywood's way of moving with today's world now that it's been accepted and to be honest love,Simon LGBT Character was the main character which wasn't "poorly written"


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 7, 2018)

PokeGlitcher04 said:


> Adding in LGBT characters to a isn't a fad it's just Hollywood's way of moving with today's world now that it's been expected and to be honest love,Simon LGBT Character was the main character which wasn't "poorly written"


Of course it isn't a fad, and that is what is angering: when writers treat it like a fad and just drop in a badly written character, putting no effort at all, just to draw viewers in. That is quite annoying. I don't think anyone really complains about well written LGBT characters, well no one sane at least, you must know the world has many irrational people that live in denial, but they would argue about anything.


----------



## Teslas Fate (Jun 7, 2018)

sarkwalvein said:


> Of course it isn't a fad, and that is what is angering: when writers treat it like a fad and just drop in a badly written character, putting no effort at all, just to draw viewers in. That is quite annoying. I don't think anyone really complains about well written LGBT characters, well no one sane at least, you must know the world has many irrational people that live in denial, but they would argue about anything.


K I agree with you now  to me your explanation/answer was unclear at first


----------



## AdenTheThird (Jun 7, 2018)

PokeGlitcher04 said:


> Bro how's that got to with the topic
> And bro this a thread were we agree on one thing and that's Gays are alright
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...


Well, I don't know what to say. Everyone is different.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 7, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> First off, thank you for being polite. Secondly, in the Bible, it is said that God created man and woman to love each other and them only. The Bible states that being gay is a sin. The reason we are gay is because of the devil, who tempts us into sin and tries to get us to think that it's all right. God is not against our existence. But He does give us freedom to do what we choose, and sin often tempts people because of that.
> 
> Again, if you don't agree with this, it's fine, but I'm just answering your question based on what you told me.


As a former practicing Christian, I know of the six verses typically used to say that homosexuality is a sin. I also know that they are relatively easily debunked

I'm not going to knock anyone for believing what they want to, but don't use your belief system as a justification of hatred/dislike of a certain group of people. (That wasn't directed at you so much as in general)


----------



## Viri (Jun 8, 2018)

I figured this would fit in this topic. Another year, another pride video that gets down voted to hell. Funny how this video is made by the same company that demonetizes LGBT videos.



Spoiler


----------



## AdenTheThird (Jun 12, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> As a former practicing Christian, I know of the six verses typically used to say that homosexuality is a sin. I also know that they are relatively easily debunked
> 
> I'm not going to knock anyone for believing what they want to, but don't use your belief system as a justification of hatred/dislike of a certain group of people. (That wasn't directed at you so much as in general)


It's not really hatred. It's just justification for what I do. I don't hate LGBT people, but I do believe that what they are doing is wrong. Does that make sense?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 12, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> It's not really hatred. It's just justification for what I do. I don't hate LGBT people, but I do believe that what they are doing is wrong. Does that make sense?


Understandable. Is that any reason to prevent them from doing... Well, anything, though?


----------



## AdenTheThird (Jun 12, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Understandable. Is that any reason to prevent them from doing... Well, anything, though?


No. Not at all.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 12, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> No. Not at all.


And even if you don't understand, or don't like why they are the way they are, does that give you permission to tell them that they are living life is in any way incorrect?


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 12, 2018)

Last of Us 2 made me think of this thread. Ellie, despite having a whole back story and already confirmed to like girls, I still see people spamming "sjw" all across the internet. I'm sure some are trolling and joking, but I'm sure a lot of them are serious. Most of the time, it isn't about gay people with bad storytelling (as if you can't have bad storytelling with straight people), but about some people simply not wanting to see it, but just wouldn't admit it. If Ellie was straight the whole time and shown her kissing guys, I doubt anyone would be claiming that it was "forced" or any other common complaints.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jun 12, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Last of Us 2 made me think of this thread. Ellie, despite having a whole back story and already confirmed to like girls, I still see people spamming "sjw" all across the internet. I'm sure some are trolling and joking, but I'm sure a lot of them are serious. Most of the time, it isn't about gay people with bad storytelling (as if you can't have bad storytelling with straight people), but about some people simply not wanting to see it, but just wouldn't admit it. If Ellie was straight the whole time and shown her kissing guys, I doubt anyone would be claiming that it was "forced" or any other common complaints.


People also complain about bad storytelling with straight people, all the time. It is only that the "straight people" trait is not used and remarked once and again as if it were an important part of the character/story, only to show up it was a shallow copypasted detail that was brought to attention without writing the character properly. People would also find it stupid if it was remarked once and again that a given character is "straight" without any payoff or meaning to that remark, if you remark something it should be with a purpose, Chekhov's gun. That said, there is always irrational people that will complain about anything, perhaps Last of Us and Ellie are well written and people complain because they are idiots, I've never played the game series so I don't know.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 12, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> First off, thank you for being polite. Secondly, in the Bible, it is said that God created man and woman to love each other and them only. The Bible states that being gay is a sin. The reason we are gay is because of the devil, who tempts us into sin and tries to get us to think that it's all right. God is not against our existence. But He does give us freedom to do what we choose, and sin often tempts people because of that.
> 
> Again, if you don't agree with this, it's fine, but I'm just answering your question based on what you told me.


Actually going off the Bible, God actually didn't give us free will and actually punished humans for getting free will. Eve was tempted by a talking snake (which some say was Satan and I've heard some also believed it was a previous Goddess, but I can't seem to find too much on that anymore.) Still free will wasn't something that was seen as a good thing in the Bible and humans were ultimately punished for getting it and thrown out of the Garden of Eden.
As for the statements about homosexuality, to my knowledge they are part of the Old Testament. It's always seemed rather odd to continue to follow them, but yet find it ok to eat shellfish, pig's meat, allow women to enter Churches when they are on their period or after birth, and so many other rules that no one follows from the Old Testament. The New Testament has some debated quotes that hinge entirely on how one translates the Greek text, but ultimately vaguely talk about homosexuality. Basically entire notion of the Bible to discourage homosexuality, but ignore other rules is rather debatable onto itself.
I am not trying to disrespect you, but the entire notion that Homosexuality is a sin needs to also bring up the argument as to why homosexuality is singled out, but the rest of the rules are ignored? It's always come off as rather odd that it's ok to eat ham, but not ok to be homosexual when they are both mentioned in Leviticus.

Bonus fact: My fursona's name (and username) is from the Bible.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 12, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Actually going off the Bible, God actually didn't give us free will and actually punished humans for getting free will. Eve was tempted by a talking snake (which some say was Satan and I've heard some also believed it was a previous Goddess, but I can't seem to find too much on that anymore.) Still free will wasn't something that was seen as a good thing in the Bible and humans were ultimately punished for getting it and thrown out of the Garden of Eden.
> As for the statements about homosexuality, to my knowledge they are part of the Old Testament. It's always seemed rather odd to continue to follow them, but yet find it ok to eat shellfish, pig's meat, allow women to enter Churches when they are on their period or after birth, and so many other rules that no one follows from the Old Testament. The New Testament has some debated quotes that hinge entirely on how one translates the Greek text, but ultimately vaguely talk about homosexuality. Basically entire notion of the Bible to discourage homosexuality, but ignore other rules is rather debatable onto itself.
> I am not trying to disrespect you, but the entire notion that Homosexuality is a sin needs to also bring up the argument as to why homosexuality is singled out, but the rest of the rules are ignored? It's always come off as rather odd that it's ok to eat ham, but not ok to be homosexual when they are both mentioned in Leviticus.
> 
> Bonus fact: My fursona's name (and username) is from the Bible.


For future reference, the Serpent = Satan thing is loosely based off of a single verse later in the OT that mentions "Lucifer" (oh, yeah, the whole "Lucifer is Satan" story is up in the air, too, since it never mentions that he's a fallen angel). So cannonically speaking, the serpent was literally just a very clever animal


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 12, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> For future reference, the Serpent = Satan thing is loosely based off of a single verse later in the OT that mentions "Lucifer" (oh, yeah, the whole "Lucifer is Satan" story is up in the air, too, since it never mentions that he's a fallen angel). So cannonically speaking, the serpent was literally just a very clever animal


Honestly I've heard so many different ideas tossed around about the Snake that it's hard to keep up with. For preservative, my dad's Protestant church taught that it was Satan who was the Serpent, the Catholic churches in my town however taught that it was "fallen angel," and vaguely alluded to it to being Satan. Then of course there's idea that I've heard tossed around that it was a previous Serpent Goddess that early Jewish people turned into a devil-like character to disregard the older religion. Of course then there's the idea that it was literally just a smart snake that could talk. In my years of religious research I've never found a solid answer to this character and honestly I've come to conclusion that I don't think there is a solid answer.


----------



## Tigran (Jun 12, 2018)

It was either Dark Matter... Or a guy trying to get a bunch of fruit flavored samurai street dancers to fight for the next stage of evolution.


----------



## AdenTheThird (Jun 12, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Actually going off the Bible, God actually didn't give us free will and actually punished humans for getting free will. Eve was tempted by a talking snake (which some say was Satan and I've heard some also believed it was a previous Goddess, but I can't seem to find too much on that anymore.) Still free will wasn't something that was seen as a good thing in the Bible and humans were ultimately punished for getting it and thrown out of the Garden of Eden.
> As for the statements about homosexuality, to my knowledge they are part of the Old Testament. It's always seemed rather odd to continue to follow them, but yet find it ok to eat shellfish, pig's meat, allow women to enter Churches when they are on their period or after birth, and so many other rules that no one follows from the Old Testament. The New Testament has some debated quotes that hinge entirely on how one translates the Greek text, but ultimately vaguely talk about homosexuality. Basically entire notion of the Bible to discourage homosexuality, but ignore other rules is rather debatable onto itself.
> I am not trying to disrespect you, but the entire notion that Homosexuality is a sin needs to also bring up the argument as to why homosexuality is singled out, but the rest of the rules are ignored? It's always come off as rather odd that it's ok to eat ham, but not ok to be homosexual when they are both mentioned in Leviticus.
> 
> Bonus fact: My fursona's name (and username) is from the Bible.


In the Bible, God created the Earth, and man in his own image. He intended for man to live forever, and created the Garden of Eden to house them. He created Eve to accompany Adam, and gave them free will, stating that the only thing they couldn't do was eat from the Tree Of The Knowledge of Good and Evil. Eve was looking at the Tree one day, when Satan, in the form of a snake (In Christianity, there is only one God, Satan was a fallen angel). He tempted Eve and lied to her, in order to get her to take a bite. She did, and in turn gave it to Adam, who took a bite as well. At this point, God saw what they had done and was angry. He cursed the two, banishing them from the garden for listening to Satan. Satan received eternal punishment as well, but it was too late. Sin had already entered the world. 
That's the story of the Beginning in my own words, referenced from the NIV Bible.

As for the content and not current sinning standards, eating ham and all the sacrifice and ritual rules were eliminated when God sent his One and Only Son to Earth to die for all of our sins. After He did, the eating ham and such rules were no longer necessary. Homosexuality, along with the other basic rules and Laws stated in the Old Testament, are still in place because Jesus dying on the cross did not affect those laws directly. Sorry for the long reply.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> And even if you don't understand, or don't like why they are the way they are, does that give you permission to tell them that they are living life is in any way incorrect?


I guess this is what I'm trying to say: We don't believe in homosexuality, but we don't publicy shun people who do. We might talk with people about their life choices or ask them why they do it, etc., but telling them that they're sinning makes people angry and doesn't help anyone.


----------



## Tigran (Jun 12, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> As for the content and not current sinning standards, eating ham and all the sacrifice and ritual rules were eliminated when God sent his One and Only Son to Earth to die for all of our sins. After He did, the eating ham and such rules were no longer necessary. Homosexuality, along with the other basic rules and Laws stated in the Old Testament, are still in place because Jesus dying on the cross did not affect those laws directly. Sorry for the long reply.



Good.. That means I can still kill you for wearing cloth of two fibers.


----------



## AdenTheThird (Jun 12, 2018)

Tigran said:


> Good.. That means I can still kill you for wearing cloth of two fibers.


That;s not what I meant...
-sigh-...


----------



## Tigran (Jun 12, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> That;s not what I meant...
> -sigh-...



You specifically said those laws still apply.


----------



## AdenTheThird (Jun 12, 2018)

Tigran said:


> You specifically said those laws still apply.


That wasn't a moral law. That was a law placed to separate people from high priests, and doesn't apply now.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jun 12, 2018)

Unless it's porn, or there is some sort of romantic element to the movie I really don't care if the character is gay or straight or has sex with toasters....  Just blow up the damn Death Star and stop making out with your sister... like eww... lol

Also on the subject of being gay or straight, I don't think seeing it on TV or the movies is going "turn" anyone gay... I think it's a genetics thing and at least for most people isn't a choice that can be influenced by any exposure to gay things. I say most people because I think the exception might be bi sexual people who really do feel attracted to both sexes? (I literally do not know if it's a real thing from my perspective you either are a woman and I like that a lot or a man and possible friend yet nothing more, but I digress.)


----------



## Tigran (Jun 12, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> That wasn't a moral law. That was a law placed to separate people from high priests, and doesn't apply now.



And this is why most people see Christians as hypocritical assholes. 

You can't say "Oh.. This law applies... but that one doesn't... Even though they are literally in the same book right next to each other! Our god is a God of LOVE AND PEACE!!! Please ignore the fact he told soldiers to bash children against rocks and rip the wombs from women.... BUT DON'T YOU DARE ABORT! LOVE AND PIECE! Lets also forget that he was a complete dick with the tower of babel.. LOVE AND PEACE!" 

And may I also remind you that Jesus basically said "Shut your trap about your religion it's between you and god and no one else!"

Yet 98 percent of Christians can't abide that either.


----------



## AdenTheThird (Jun 12, 2018)

Tigran said:


> And this is why most people see Christians as hypocritical assholes.
> 
> You can't say "Oh.. This law applies... but that one doesn't... Even though they are literally in the same book right next to each other! Our god is a God of LOVE AND PEACE!!! Please ignore the fact he told soldiers to bash children against rocks and rip the wombs from women.... BUT DON'T YOU DARE ABORT! LOVE AND PIECE! Lets also forget that he was a complete dick with the tower of babel.. LOVE AND PEACE!"
> 
> ...


The law was in place so that people wouldn't practice the same methods as high priests... it's quite difficult to explain without offending anyone.
There are verses in the New Testament, today's law, about being homosexual and this is why it is not practiced among Christians. It is also referenced in the Old Testament, and that is why people are getting confused and angry.
I'm sorry. This is a very complicated and difficult topic to cover, and I understand your feeling. i'm sorry.

Also, I don't remember anything about the rocks and the ripping wombs from women, and He stopped the Tower of Babel because man was trying to reach Heaven for self pride. Where are you getting your information?


----------



## Tigran (Jun 12, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> The law was in place so that people wouldn't practice the same methods as high priests... it's quite difficult to explain without offending anyone.
> There are verses in the New Testament, today's law, about being homosexual and this is why it is not practiced among Christians. It is also referenced in the Old Testament, and that is why people are getting confused and angry.
> I'm sorry. This is a very complicated and difficult topic to cover, and I understand your feeling. i'm sorry.
> 
> Also, I don't remember anything about the rocks and the ripping wombs from women, and He stopped the Tower of Babel because man was trying to reach Heaven for self pride. Where are you getting your information?


Same place you do.. The bible. In fact I can name the book and verses for the ripping wombs from women, and the fiber and homosexuality in the Old testament, and Jesus saying to keep your trap shut in the new testament.  Can you give me book and verse in the new testament about homosexuality being a sin?

Oh.. you also forgot about the seeds... but I'm sure that's some "High Priest" bullshit too


----------



## AdenTheThird (Jun 12, 2018)

Romans 1:26-27:

For this reason, God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.
The seeds was said to accompany the previous law. You are correct in that.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 12, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> In the Bible, God created the Earth, and man in his own image. He intended for man to live forever, and created the Garden of Eden to house them. He created Eve to accompany Adam, and gave them free will, stating that the only thing they couldn't do was eat from the Tree Of The Knowledge of Good and Evil. Eve was looking at the Tree one day, when Satan, in the form of a snake (In Christianity, there is only one God, Satan was a fallen angel). He tempted Eve and lied to her, in order to get her to take a bite. She did, and in turn gave it to Adam, who took a bite as well. At this point, God saw what they had done and was angry. He cursed the two, banishing them from the garden for listening to Satan. Satan received eternal punishment as well, but it was too late. Sin had already entered the world.
> That's the story of the Beginning in my own words, referenced from the NIV Bible.


Again, feel free to read the Creation story again, it never says the Serpent was either Satan or Lucifer.

Plus you'll find Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other as to what day certain things were created on, but that can be chalked up to creative liberties being taken to make various tellings of the story fit into one narrative. The same thing happens later with the story of Abraham; it's generally accepted that there were multiple verbal accounts that were compiled and attempted to fit together once the Torah was written


----------



## AdenTheThird (Jun 12, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Again, feel free to read the Creation story again, it never says the Serpent was either Satan or Lucifer.
> 
> Plus you'll find Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other as to what day certain things were created on, but that can be chalked up to creative liberties being taken to make various tellings of the story fit into one narrative. The same thing happens later with the story of Abraham; it's generally accepted that there were multiple verbal accounts that were compiled and attempted to fit together once the Torah was written


What version of the Bible are you getting this from?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 12, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> Romans 1:26-27:
> 
> For this reason, God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.
> The seeds was said to accompany the previous law. You are correct in that.


I feel it's also necessary to mention that every verse in the New Testament on homosexuality was written by Paul, a man known to contradict Jesus' teachings on multiple occasions

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



AdenTheThird said:


> What version of the Bible are you getting this from?


The NIV, same as you, although I personally studied out of the NRSV

Edit: if you want to read up on the understanding of either 4 or 5 authors of Genesis, look into this and do some digging for yourself: http://www.religioustolerance.org/jepd_gen.htm


----------



## Tigran (Jun 12, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> Romans 1:26-27:
> 
> For this reason, God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.
> The seeds was said to accompany the previous law. You are correct in that.



What that says is God went "Whelp.. No more protection for you... so now your carnal desires go nuts." Which.. still kinda makes him at fault. Not to mention if it was men and women at fault, why do we constantly find homosexuality in animals that never bit of the fruit? 



TotalInsanity4 said:


> I feel it's also necessary to mention that every verse in the New Testament on homosexuality was written by Paul, a man known to contradict Jesus' teachings on multiple occasions
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Also... For Pride to be a deadly sin... Allah seems to have a lot of it. "Oh no! Man is working together to reach the heavens... Better make them have endless wars and kill themselves all eternity of it! Oh no! They are worshipping things that arn't me! Better go wipe out mankind except for one family!" Let's not forget about the thousands he purposefully set up to die. He specifically hardened Pharaoh's heart to Moses' pleas so the Pharaoh would ignore them.... Then sent the plagues... So he is soley responsible for killing thousands of innocent people there as well. And lets not forget even in modern times all the kids and people he kills randomly. Hell.. For an onipotent god... He can't even protect people in his own damn churches. *Which again shouldn't even exist cause Jesus said to knock that shit out.*

Mathew 6:5-6  "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their reward. 6But when you pray, go into your inner room, shut your door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.…"

In other words.. Keep that shit to yourself.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 12, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> Romans 1:26-27:
> 
> For this reason, God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.
> The seeds was said to accompany the previous law. You are correct in that.


 You better condemn the gays then if thats what God wants. If God wants people to see homosexuals as immoral, then you better make sure you are doing what God wants, and condemn them, or else that might mean no heaven for you.

People can interpret the Bible how ever they want, but does God want that? He might want you to interpret it a very specific way, and follow specific rules. If you interpret it however you want, and miss the original message, and not do what God originally wanted you to do, which then might anger your God and he will probably banish you. Which means people can't interpret the Bible however they want. They better interpret it correctly to avoid anger from their God. So you better interpret it correctly, and do what God wants or else bad things could happen to you.


----------



## Tigran (Jun 12, 2018)

Well my question.. If the bible is the "WORD OF GOD" why are there so many damn versions of it. If it is the absolute "WORD OF GOD." there should be no variations at all.


----------



## Kigiru (Jun 12, 2018)

> Fighting over an over 2000 years old book that has over 2000 different interpretations and translations.

Lel, just lel. This discussion is hilarious, please continue.

I have nothing against Gays, transexuals or any other people... but if you put a label "We have gays!" on shit, it's still in fact a shit. There are good products that are directed to people that like LGBT+, but they dissapears under the shit that has big, famous titles like Star Wars. Add to that overall hostility and being pro-censorship of people trying to be loud, visible faces of LGBT or BLM or any other movement like that and there are reasons to avoid these themes. There's no pleasure from watching bad movie and then after saying that i don't like it being called a "fucking white male" or something.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 12, 2018)

Tigran said:


> Well my question.. If the bible is the "WORD OF GOD" why are there so many damn versions of it. If it is the absolute "WORD OF GOD." there should be no variations at all.


People can argue the Bible all day and say the Bible doesn't or does say this or that. But in the End it's what God wants. No matter how right or wrong you interpret the Bible, no matter how many times the Bible was altered from its originally source, you must interpret it correctly, and gets Gods originally message from the heavily altered Book, or else that might piss of their God and possibly no heaven for them. If God want them to kill all Gays then they better do it. Or bad things could happen.

Does God care if they don't follow what he wants? Who knows? But better play it safe and kill gays just in case. Or maybe god doesn't want you to kill gays and you won't go to heaven if you do. Its like a gamble, make a choice, better interpret correctly or their could be pain and suffering for you.


----------



## AdenTheThird (Jun 12, 2018)

Tigran said:


> Well my question.. If the bible is the "WORD OF GOD" why are there so many damn versions of it. If it is the absolute "WORD OF GOD." there should be no variations at all.


Because the original wasn't in English and there have been multiple attempts at translating that over the years.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> People can argue the Bible all day and say the Bible doesn't or does say this or that. But in the End it's what God wants. No matter how right or wrong you interpret the Bible, no matter how many times the Bible was altered from its originally source, you must interpret it correctly, and gets Gods originally message from the heavily altered Book, or else that might piss of their God and possibly no heaven for them. If God want them to kill all Gays then they better do it. Or bad things could happen.
> 
> Does God care if they don't follow what he wants? Who knows? But better play it safe and kill gays just in case. Or maybe god doesn't want you to kill gays and you won't go to heaven if you do. Its like a gamble, make a choice, better interpret correctly or their could be pain and suffering for you.


Going to heaven doesn't rely on bad choices on Earth. It relies on if you accept the Lord into your heart and ask him to forgive you for your sin.


----------



## Viri (Jun 13, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Last of Us 2 made me think of this thread. Ellie, despite having a whole back story and already confirmed to like girls, I still see people spamming "sjw" all across the internet. I'm sure some are trolling and joking, but I'm sure a lot of them are serious. Most of the time, it isn't about gay people with bad storytelling (as if you can't have bad storytelling with straight people), but about some people simply not wanting to see it, but just wouldn't admit it. If Ellie was straight the whole time and shown her kissing guys, I doubt anyone would be claiming that it was "forced" or any other common complaints.


I played the first Last of Us, and got bored half way. But then someone streamed it, and I seen the ending. I hated the ending, I would have shot and killed her to get the cure and save the world. 

Seeing the new game last night reminded me of that.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 13, 2018)

AdenTheThird said:


> As for the content and not current sinning standards, eating ham and all the sacrifice and ritual rules were eliminated when God sent his One and Only Son to Earth to die for all of our sins. After He did, the eating ham and such rules were no longer necessary. Homosexuality, along with the other basic rules and Laws stated in the Old Testament, are still in place because Jesus dying on the cross did not affect those laws directly. Sorry for the long reply.
> I guess this is what I'm trying to say: We don't believe in homosexuality, but we don't publicy shun people who do. We might talk with people about their life choices or ask them why they do it, etc., but telling them that they're sinning makes people angry and doesn't help anyone.


Putting the Eden story aside because my post was a very horrible TL: DR version of the story.
The New Testament doesn't seem to mention that homosexuality was omitted from those sins, expect for the lines Romans 1:26-27. These lines also seem to spark a lot of debate if it's condemning homosexuality directly or condemning those who experiment with their sexuality and there's also a debate saying that it's actually condemning Pagan worship.
This all being said, it seems rather odd for the same deity to be able to create an entire everything and yet get bent so out of shape about someone's sexuality. But to really answer the question, no one really chooses their sexuality, it just happens. Just like how you know your sexuality and gender is the same as others.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jun 18, 2018)

Not so much "TRIGGERED!!!" but how gay, lesbian, etc characters are handled, sometimes if not _a lot_ they're forced and shoved in our faces as if the director and all involved in the show/movie/game couldn't have made that relationship feel normalized without telling us "Look, they are gay and you gotta accept that!". It's kind of the same shit with laughtracks; "Laugh now because it's funny!".

Strand from FearTWD is a gay dude and they did a good job with him but the show now lost Madison (she was fired for being too old or some bullshit) and Nick so I'm probably gonna give up on FearTWD. Each episode just feels like a chore to watch (those damn flashbacks every now and then).

Madison and Troy would have made a wonderful couple but I'm getting off-topic now.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jun 18, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> no one really chooses their sexuality



This is a seriously flawed logic you have and it opens doors to people who want to be accepted for being sick fucks. If a pedo wants to say that, then he/she will and if an incest person does, the same goes along. There has been talk about 'Pedosexual' being added to LGBTQ and whatever other letters it uses. It probably will be added to the movement because of inclusion, diversity, progressive thinking and what else may come along with it.

Now, there's also other ones like; People who sexually love animals, People who love dead people, People who marry anime characters, Trans-Racial People and so on. Like you say, no one really chooses their sexuality.

58 genders apparently exist so anything can happen, I guess.

Anyway, anyone who's gay, lesbian, trans or bisexual is fine and I don't give a flying fuck but you got to realize your common sense goes against yourself and people fucked in the head are free to exploit your own logic to get in and make it legal.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 18, 2018)

I dare say you are the one with flawed logic.

While I am not entirely convinced that nobody chooses, to say nothing of the Kinsey scale, I have no problem believing that most do not.

The thing is though all those covered by gay alphabet soup are not inherently harmful/harmful above baseline (if two gay friends break up we have a consultation with Drs Beam and Daniels just the same as two with opposite genitals sort of thing). By and large the point of the movement is to get that concept recognised, stable and any relevant legal code sorted. I might take arguments to the effect of the militant wing of that is rather larger than the current situation needs but different discussion for a different day.

The matters of which you speak do risk harm to themselves or others and thus can not fall under that. Whatever talk of pedosexual being added you have heard is talk by fucking morons or false flag operations.

It may be that some pull double duty -- I am sure the same person that can talk someone who is gay down from the ledge that has grown up under some kind of religious nonsense can also help someone supplant the desire to touch kids.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 19, 2018)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> This is a seriously flawed logic you have and it opens doors to people who want to be accepted for being sick fucks. If a pedo wants to say that, then he/she will and if an incest person does, the same goes along. There has been talk about 'Pedosexual' being added to LGBTQ and whatever other letters it uses. It probably will be added to the movement because of inclusion, diversity, progressive thinking and what else may come along with it. *My logic isn't flawed, it was a simplistic explanation for something more complicated.  A person can choose the terms they use to describe themselves and they can chose how they express themselves, those are choices. But is also to say that who is male and only loves men isn't a matter of choice, it's something out of their own control and attempts to control this have almost always been a failure (some claim to have had success, but there's debate if their claims really hold up.) Pedosexuality isn't being added and there's no talk about it being add, that was made up by 4Chan to discredit the LGBT+. It won't be added because pedosexual isn't a real sexuality, it's a made up sexuality by 4Chan. Diversity leading to accepting pedophilia is the same argument as same-sex marriage will bring acceptance to pedophilia. It's a junk argument with no actual backing beyond manipulation.*
> 
> Now, there's also other ones like; People who sexually love animals, People who love dead people, People who marry anime characters, Trans-Racial People and so on. Like you say, no one really chooses their sexuality. *Most people who do these acts still tend to keep within their own sexuality. Basically most people who have sex with animals who are heterosexual still tend to only have sex with animals of the different sex, same goes for necrophilia. These also aren't normal acts and often are part of contributing factors, such as mental illness. Trans-race isn't real, race isn't a matter of choice and is mostly genetic adaptions that people went through to adapt to their locations and dealing with the climate of that location. There are social aspects, but that's a different topic and doesn't bring credibility to trans-race.  *
> 
> ...


Just because I simplified something doesn't mean it goes against me. You brought up junk arguments that are always brought up and easily shot down with a little research.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jun 20, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Just because I simplified something doesn't mean it goes against me. You brought up junk arguments that are always brought up and easily shot down with a little research.


There. You're now trying to deny it that you're the only one who can use the excuse of "I was born the way I was!" but research can be modified so you're left with your own logic against yourrself.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> relevant legal code sorted


It was illegal before for gays to marry and it's legal now. Laws can be changed so anything is possible.

Just be ready for the day when Pedos, Necros and all those fucks get accepted legally as a "sexuality." The goodness of the LGBTQ+ organization and not to forget BLM. BLM had the brilliant idea (the only good one they ever had) of police officers to wear bodycams and now since the race-baiters are being exposed, it's "racist" for cops to wear bodycams. haha

The world works in funny ways.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 20, 2018)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> There. You're now trying to deny it that you're the only one who can use the excuse of "I was born the way I was!" but research can be modified so you're left with your own logic against yourrself.










> Just be ready for the day when Pedos, Necros and all those fucks get accepted legally as a "sexuality."


I do feel as though it's worth mentioning that there's a "movement" spawned by 4chan specifically to discredit transgender people called "kindergender" that is effectively what you're describing as "pedosexual", and that the LGBT community has completely renounced it and by and large do not recognize it as an orientation, for obvious reasons


> BLM had the brilliant idea (the only good one they ever had) of police officers to wear bodycams and now since the race-baiters are being exposed, it's "racist" for cops to wear bodycams. haha
> 
> The world works in funny ways.


I guess I'm confused as to why you thought it relevant to bring BLM into the mix, but even more so as to where you got the idea that literally anyone thinks that other than anecdotally


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 20, 2018)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> There. You're now trying to deny it that you're the only one who can use the excuse of "I was born the way I was!" but research can be modified so you're left with your own logic against yourrself.


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lgbtp-adding-letter/
It took me 2 seconds to debunk your opening statement. Side note, I never said anything about being "born this way." Though it starts early on in development, sexuality and gender is still something develops over time.



Saiyan Lusitano said:


> It was illegal before for gays to marry and it's legal now. Laws can be changed so anything is possible.


It was illegal due to Christian-based laws, otherwise it wasn't an issue in most cultures before the spread of Christianity. Native Americans used to hold same-sex wedding in this country long before Europeans decided to impose their own law onto the land.



Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Just be ready for the day when Pedos, Necros and all those fucks get accepted legally as a "sexuality." The goodness of the LGBTQ+ organization and not to forget BLM.


There's no movement within the LGBT+, legal, or even public pushing for any of that to happen. There have been fake movement by 4chan like "cloversexuals" and "age-fluid," all movements were made in an attempt to discredit the trans community.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 20, 2018)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> It was illegal before for gays to marry and it's legal now. Laws can be changed so anything is possible.


It was illegal because of historical hangups. When they actually finally got around to sitting down and thinking about it they realised "wait a second, this marriage between two consenting adults despite matching genitals harms nobody and is actually against the fundamental notions of our lawmaking" (people being free to live their lives as they will, give or take those things which harm others or society). As such it was changed.

Paedophilia, zoophilia*, necrophilia and such are all demonstrably harmful for various parties involved. As such I do not expect a change here.

*technically it is not presently illegal in many parts of the US and may never have been in some places, even in many places where there is a law against it then it will be a rather mild one like mistreatment of livestock and probably not in the sexual misconduct realm.




Saiyan Lusitano said:


> of police officers to wear bodycams and now since the race-baiters are being exposed, it's "racist" for cops to wear bodycams. haha



I did find that amusing actually.


----------

