Overwatch adds another LGBTQ Charcter.

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,105
807
540
You were making a "children shouldn't be harmed" claim, but clearly only applying it to children who grow up to be heterosexual. This is especially wrongheaded when it's clear that if such a scenario causes harm, homosexual children will be the most "damaged" by sexual representation norms in the media. Witness gay men and women staying closeted and having kids for generations in American culture, all the while being miserable. There is no comparable history with heterosexuality.

Here we go again with misrepresenting the argument.
Fair enough, let me clear this up. Here is your explanation for the justified shaming of homosexuality:

Sexuality is the biological drive for reproduction. That means that the default is heterosexuality, biologically, because that is the only way for reproduction to truly work, which in turn develops into heterosexuality being the default culturally. That means that showing heterosexual behavior is seen as normal (within certain limits, obviously), and other forms will be frowned upon, justifiably so. Showing two heterosexual people kissing will not be seen as weird and is therefore not 'confronting', but all the others are, because they are not the biological and cultural standard.
So because a thing isn't a cultural norm, the culture is justified in shaming said thing. This is moral relativism at its worst. Interracial relationships used to be incredibly culturally transgressive and were shamed to the extent of typically killing the minority participant. Was the culture justified in this action since it was breaking a "default"? Witness Greek and Roman society, and weep at them giving no fucks despite heterosexuality still being "the default." It is especially ridiculous when paired with your premise that anti-gay culture is founded upon biological defaults, in an apparent attempt to justify the shaming on something outside of cultural relativism. It's certainly not the case in nature that the animals which express homosexuality get "shunned" by their group. The shaming of gay culture is premised upon the religious consequences of the action (i.e. burning in hell) and the belief that it can "spread" like a disease. Both horribly misguided. God didn't say "Lo, I shall destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because their population will eventually dwindle due to not producing enough offspring, thus deflating their economy! Let's destroy them to... get it over with faster?"

I've explained this multiple times. I have no problem with gay people living their lives as gay people. I have a problem with idealizing and idolizing that way of life. It's really simple.
You're confusing the idea of normalizing with idealizing. And insofar as you could claim it's idealized, it's always done within the broader framework of "consenting adults get to love who they want and their happiness should be paramount," not "being gay is better than being straight, fuck straight people, yea!" as if it's some sort of zero-sum game. It especially absurd to make this kind of claim when the current topic is about a fucking side-story video of a character briefly mentioning how he wasn't a good person to his male partner. Jesus Christ dude.
 
Last edited:

Holgren

Neo Member
Dec 27, 2018
22
17
85
Are you a gay tough guy?
Hell yeah (Depends on what you consider tough).

Still though, the guy said he is not happy with the changes because he is no longer "tough" when the character is the same as it was before. What makes "gay" and "tough" incompatible?
 
Last edited:
Feb 6, 2012
1,321
117
435
Arkage said:
Witness Greek and Roman society, and weep at them giving no fucks despite heterosexuality still being "the default."
It is hard to compare Greeks and Romans to us given drastically different morals in general.

Ihttp://katehon.com/article/truth-about-homosexuality-roman-empire

https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/truth-about-sexuality-ancient-greece-and-rome261012/

https://www.ancient-origins.net/anc...n-law-and-banning-passive-homosexuality-00832

Same sex intercourse with prostitutes, slaves or war captives was considered totally acceptable as it did not threaten a freeborn’s masculinity as long as the Roman citizen took the active role in penetration. Same sex activity amongst soldiers of equal status was punishable by death.
 
Last edited:

Lunk

Member
Oct 4, 2018
130
72
165
Does the charcter HAVE to look like you.
Does the charcter HAVE to have the same sexual preferences.
Does the charcter HAVE to have the same personality style.
Do you even need to relate to the charcter?
To an extent yes, protagonists and game icons do reflect real people, even silly things like Rayman has traits taken from real people. However you can easily argue that the sort we see these days as in Overwatch is an overmarketed and fixated, almost obsessive approach that shines through as being a sort of "what CAN'T we do with this character?" rather than a character design made by taking an unabashed idea you like.
 

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
2,487
3,825
460
To an extent yes, protagonists and game icons do reflect real people, even silly things like Rayman has traits taken from real people. However you can easily argue that the sort we see these days as in Overwatch is an overmarketed and fixated, almost obsessive approach that shines through as being a sort of "what CAN'T we do with this character?" rather than a character design made by taking an unabashed idea you like.
The "you" was referring to "you" the player, specifically. Not a generalized "you" as in human. You can fully well enjoy a game such as Rayman, Bayonetta, or Mafia 3 despite the character looking nothing like you, personally. That was the point of the post.
 
Dec 3, 2013
16,584
9,186
555
The "you" was referring to "you" the player, specifically. Not a generalized "you" as in human. You can fully well enjoy a game such as Rayman, Bayonetta, or Mafia 3 despite the character looking nothing like you, personally. That was the point of the post.
I identify with Om Nom from Cut the Rope. I feel his plight.
 
Jul 23, 2018
158
116
160
So because a thing isn't a cultural norm, the culture is justified in shaming said thing. This is moral relativism at its worst. Interracial relationships used to be incredibly culturally transgressive and were shamed to the extent of typically killing the minority participant. Was the culture justified in this action since it was breaking a "default"? Witness Greek and Roman society, and weep at them giving no fucks despite heterosexuality still being "the default." It is especially ridiculous when paired with your premise that anti-gay culture is founded upon biological defaults, in an apparent attempt to justify the shaming on something outside of cultural relativism. It's certainly not the case in nature that the animals which express homosexuality get "shunned" by their group. The shaming of gay culture is premised upon the religious consequences of the action (i.e. burning in hell) and the belief that it can "spread" like a disease. Both horribly misguided. God didn't say "Lo, I shall destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because their population will eventually dwindle due to not producing enough offspring, thus deflating their economy! Let's destroy them to... get it over with faster?"
I'm not for shaming gays. I already said that. That I am against propagating gayness doesn't mean I want to shame the ones that are gay.
Just like someone being against gun control is not somehow pro mass shootings.
Or just like someone being against open borders doesn't necessarily wants to beat up immigrants.
Or just like someone being anti-feminist doesn't necessarily mean they want to rape women.

You're confusing the idea of normalizing with idealizing. And insofar as you could claim it's idealized, it's always done within the broader framework of "consenting adults get to love who they want and their happiness should be paramount," not "being gay is better than being straight, fuck straight people, yea!" as if it's some sort of zero-sum game. It especially absurd to make this kind of claim when the current topic is about a fucking side-story video of a character briefly mentioning how he wasn't a good person to his male partner. Jesus Christ dude.
I don't know the details of the story of the Overwatch character. That is actually quite an interesting backstory. The thing is though... Would it have more value if it was a partner of the opposite sex? Would it have less? I doubt it... So... Yeah. There is that.

As for normalization vs idealization... Let's use a small branch or product of feminism as an example here... In order for women to become normalized in the army for example, they need to be idealized first. What does that mean? It means that the lesser physical strength of women needed to be downplayed, and standards needed to be lowered in order to allow women to pass certain tests to be able to join. And after they joined, they would be deemed as equally capable as the men that are in the army. It was the idealization of women that was required in order to attempt to reach normalization of women in the army. Ultimately it didn't really work, obviously, but that's another story.
It's not so different with LGBT. Relationships in general are hard. It's definitely not easier if you're a homosexual. There are many more things to take into account and to work through. To pretend it is the same as a heterosexual relationship, you might argue it's a normalization, and I'm sure there are exceptions to everything, but in reality it is an idealization, because the issues are downplayed in an attempt to show things as the same as (sometimes even easier than...) the heterosexual relationship when in reality they aren't.
 
Last edited:
Nov 10, 2013
3,454
964
435

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,105
807
540
I'm not for shaming gays. I already said that. That I am against propagating gayness doesn't mean I want to shame the ones that are gay.
Just like someone being against gun control is not somehow pro mass shootings.
Or just like someone being against open borders doesn't necessarily wants to beat up immigrants.
Or just like someone being anti-feminist doesn't necessarily mean they want to rape women.
Again, you play fast and loose with words like "force" or "propagate." I don't know where you draw the line on any myriad of gay issues (sodomy laws, marriage laws, adoption laws). Maybe you're against gay marriage and gay adoption but you're OK with gays having sex. That really doesn't put you on team "neutral" as far as civil rights and sexual discrimination is concerned. And the fact that you use the word "propagate" makes me think you believe gayness essentially spreads like a disease. That the more it's talked about, the more people will turn gay. Does propagation mean simply a wider acceptance level in society, to the point where your sexual orientation shouldn't matter? Because if so, that is something that is on it's face something we should obvious strive for. Gay marriage is an obvious issue: you're either for it or against it.


I don't know the details of the story of the Overwatch character. That is actually quite an interesting backstory. The thing is though... Would it have more value if it was a partner of the opposite sex? Would it have less? I doubt it... So... Yeah. There is that.

As for normalization vs idealization... Let's use a small branch or product of feminism as an example here... In order for women to become normalized in the army for example, they need to be idealized first. What does that mean? It means that the lesser physical strength of women needed to be downplayed, and standards needed to be lowered in order to allow women to pass certain tests to be able to join. And after they joined, they would be deemed as equally capable as the men that are in the army. It was the idealization of women that was required in order to attempt to reach normalization of women in the army. Ultimately it didn't really work, obviously, but that's another story.
It's not so different with LGBT. Relationships in general are hard. It's definitely not easier if you're a homosexual. There are many more things to take into account and to work through. To pretend it is the same as a heterosexual relationship, you might argue it's a normalization, and I'm sure there are exceptions to everything, but in reality it is an idealization, because the issues are downplayed in an attempt to show things as the same as (sometimes even easier than...) the heterosexual relationship when in reality they aren't.
So... because there are extra difficulties in maintaining a gay relationship, difficulties which almost certainly are products of a discriminatory culture (again, see Greece or Rome), society should therefore feel justified in..... maintaining a discriminatory, stigmatizing culture that creates the very difficulties they face? Again, your vagueness almost seems intentional here. Are you talking about AIDS? Are you talking about bullying in school? Who knows.

Also, your army analogy is really strange. You are reading the minds of those who originated the military policy on male-female testing and coming to the bizarre conclusion that women having to do less than men is idealizing them, despite this explicitly creating a culture in which women are viewed as inferior precisely because of this policy. If they were actually "idealizing" women then they would have lowered the standards for the men down to the female standard level, as that would be the "new norm." And regardless, most of the shedding of requirements comes down to recruitment numbers. Additionally, the difficulties women face in the army are based primarily around physiological limitations. The difficulties gays face in society are based primarily around discriminatory belief systems. Nobody in society demands people naturally produce kids or be damned, yet that is the only criteria you can honestly use "against" them in relation to heterosexuality.
 
Feb 25, 2018
234
117
170
Personally not at all. I have never played a video game and thought or cared about what race or sexuality a character is. People that worry about these things generally aren’t gamers, but people looking to make a talking point for their agenda IMO.
Dude we know it's IN YOUR OPINION. SMFH you just said it, don't backpedal or apologize for stating your thoughts
 
Last edited:

Makariel

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,117
820
345
It’s a strange hypocracy to be for children being exposed to things of a certain nature ok yet in countries where younger people are given in marriage it’s considered backward and barbaric.


What good comes out of masturbation, fornication, artificial contraception or homosexuality?


Why do you hate fun?

Give me one good thing that isn’t rooted in self gratification or selfishness.


I don't know if you've noticed, but you're in a gaming forum. In the section on "gaming discussion". What about gaming isn't rooted in self gratification or selfishness? If you want to preach about the immoral and the lost why not try in "Off-Topic"?
 
Likes: guggnichso
Oct 2, 2018
208
483
200
I don't play Overwatch so I don't really care about this so much.

If Blizzard wants Overwatch to be something like a "flagship" game for the LGBTQ community then, honestly, I think that's pretty cool.

It looks like out of 29 playable characters they only have 2 that are LGBTQ so I'm not sure why this is any kind of big deal. If anything they should do a lot more.

For me, Overwatch is exactly the kind of game where you should see loads of diversity as you can basically say to players that all of the characters are fun to play but you can choose the one that's most fun for you. I like it.

I am still cynical though and wouldn't be surprised if this is an entirely corporate move by Blizzard.
 
Jul 23, 2018
158
116
160
Again, you play fast and loose with words like "force" or "propagate." I don't know where you draw the line on any myriad of gay issues (sodomy laws, marriage laws, adoption laws).
You don't have to know exactly where I draw the line either. It's not as if I need your approval for my views. You can ask and I will tell you. But it doesn't seem like you like nor really want the answers, and honestly, I don't care if you do or don't. Just know that we'll be going further off-topic if you want to pry. As for the sodomy laws specifically, I don't think it's hard at all to know what my stand would be on that... I don't care what someone does in their bedroom as long as they're not harming anyone or anything else.

Maybe you're against gay marriage and gay adoption but you're OK with gays having sex. That really doesn't put you on team "neutral" as far as civil rights and sexual discrimination is concerned.
You think being neutral is a good thing? Where the ones that were 'neutral' in Nazi germany doing a good thing? And no I'm not saying gays are like Nazis, before I get accused of that too. The point is that being neutral is not always the correct position. Additionally, I don't care about gay marriage. If they want to get married, it's their life. I do disagree with whatever institutions being forced to marry gays, and I am definitely not for gays adopting children, although there are a few exceptions, because, you know, life is complicated.

Let me elaborate, since apparently everything I say is vague... If a kid is left an orphan, and the only people willing or able to take care of the child is a gay couple, by all means. The problem is when children are seen as some sort of commodity. If you're in a gay relationship, by default you forsake the possibility to have children. That you require other means to do it is a testament to what I said previously, about these relationships being more complicated than heterosexual ones. And tie that to the fact that LGBTs are more likely to have mental issues than heterosexuals, and straight people simply should be higher on the priority list for adopting children than gay people. Yeah, you don't like that, but that is what is required at this point. Whether their mental health issues are caused by society or not, it is not in the best interest of the child to go with people that are more likely to have mental health issues. And yes, everyone should actually go through a mental check before being able to adopt, but that's another story for another time.

But rather than me giving the issues regarding gay couples raising children, I'll let this article to the talking;

Millie Fontana – Growing up with two mothers forced me to be confused about who I was and where I fit in the scheme of the world

And the fact that you use the word "propagate" makes me think you believe gayness essentially spreads like a disease. That the more it's talked about, the more people will turn gay. Does propagation mean simply a wider acceptance level in society, to the point where your sexual orientation shouldn't matter? Because if so, that is something that is on it's face something we should obvious strive for.
Sexual orientation shouldn't matter for certain jobs, although for some jobs it inevitably matters. Examples?
I doubt many men would feel comfortable getting a massage from a gay dude.
I doubt many women would feel comfortable with a trans woman as their gynecologist.

In fact, let's go further than that, because once again you nitpick a word to pretend I'm vague and then you associate it with the worst possible meaning in an attempt to paint me as some kind of demonic gay-hater.
A man, independent of sexual orientation, is seen as a threat if he works with children in day care. People are quick to assume he's a pedophile for working there. It goes as far as people calling the police if a man is standing somewhere near a park where children are playing. But do people care enough to speak up about that? That seems to be a much bigger issue since it affects a much larger portion of the population, including gays. But no. They don't. Because the media is too busy demonizing men because of feminism, and praising women and the LGBTQ movement specifically. Do you see why it's a propagation now? It has nothing to do with seeing being gay as some sort of disease.

And lastly, I will simply refer to this article again;
https://www.ntd.com/mother-forces-s...ights-at-risk-for-offering-choice_262028.html

Gay marriage is an obvious issue: you're either for it or against it.
It's not that simple. It's that black and white thinking that allows these issues to escalate. That "us vs them" mentality is extremely destructive.

Simple question. Why should a University be able to turn down someone that does not qualify since they don't have the necessary criteria to study there, but, a Church should be forced to marry gay people, even though they do not qualify to the standards set by the Church?
Why can a disco turn down whomever they wish by whatever stupid standard they hold, but gay people are not allowed to be turned down for their marriage?
Why is a church free to turn down marrying anyone, but not gays?

And no I'm not religious nor do I like churches. But the point is, if you want to get married as a gay couple, go ahead. But don't force someone to marry you that doesn't want to marry you. What is so difficult to understand about that? I have constantly said this, and I'll say it again. Imposing things on others is generally bad.

And now you can tell me whether I'm for or against gay marriage, since it's such an obvious issue according to you.
 
Last edited:
Jan 26, 2018
261
210
245
Do you guys read what you post afterwards? It is cringe af to come from the op to this last page to see how the thread derailed... and this veiled prejudice some have is disgusting

"Oh my God, this manly guy is gay" Dude... Their reading is more natural than half the representation for Gays in any industry at least.

Most gays are not those feminine eccentric guys, but normal dudes that simply like other man. Deal with that, this is reality.
 
Last edited:
Feb 22, 2009
223
148
620
Ottawa, Canada
Do you guys read what you post afterwards? It is cringe af to come from the op to this last page to see how the thread derailed... and this veiled prejudice some have is disgusting

"Oh my God, this manly guy is gay" Dude... Their reading is more natural than half the representation for Gays in any industry at least.

Most gays are not those feminine eccentric guys, but normal dudes that simply like other man. Deal with that, this is reality.
That's what shocked me about the bigotry from people like Hoya. It's 2019, we're supposed to be past the notion that being gay and being tough (physically or mentally) are mutually exclusive concepts. This thread ideally wouldn't exist because a character being LGBT shouldn't elicit a pearl-clutching gasp... or whining and moaning, as we've also seen here.
 
Likes: guggnichso
Nov 5, 2016
3,462
2,227
270
I don't care where (just far)
Like i said, most people, not everybody, but i admit that my wording was bad. I didn't mean to say that people want to play a character who's exactly like themselves. What i meant was men will often pick a male character and women will often pick female characters, if given the choice.
This isn’t even necessarily true. You’re projecting. You don’t speak for anyone else.
 
Apr 24, 2011
1,580
243
495
Houston, Texas
This isn’t even necessarily true. You’re projecting. You don’t speak for anyone else.
I don't think this person intends to speak for anyone, I believe they're just making estimations based off of statistics and reports made by developers of games featuring male and female character choices.

However, that isn't necessarily enough to establish any sort of standard in regards to the subject.
 

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,105
807
540
You think being neutral is a good thing? Where the ones that were 'neutral' in Nazi germany doing a good thing? And no I'm not saying gays are like Nazis, before I get accused of that too. The point is that being neutral is not always the correct position. Additionally, I don't care about gay marriage. If they want to get married, it's their life. I do disagree with whatever institutions being forced to marry gays, and I am definitely not for gays adopting children, although there are a few exceptions, because, you know, life is complicated.

Let me elaborate, since apparently everything I say is vague... If a kid is left an orphan, and the only people willing or able to take care of the child is a gay couple, by all means. The problem is when children are seen as some sort of commodity. If you're in a gay relationship, by default you forsake the possibility to have children. That you require other means to do it is a testament to what I said previously, about these relationships being more complicated than heterosexual ones. And tie that to the fact that LGBTs are more likely to have mental issues than heterosexuals, and straight people simply should be higher on the priority list for adopting children than gay people. Yeah, you don't like that, but that is what is required at this point. Whether their mental health issues are caused by society or not, it is not in the best interest of the child to go with people that are more likely to have mental health issues. And yes, everyone should actually go through a mental check before being able to adopt, but that's another story for another time.

But rather than me giving the issues regarding gay couples raising children, I'll let this article to the talking;

Millie Fontana – Growing up with two mothers forced me to be confused about who I was and where I fit in the scheme of the world
And growing up in a heterosexual relationship, especially one explicitly intolerant of homosexuals, can leave children who turn out to be gay not only confused but fearful for their life. You don't seem to understand that any argument you make about "harming kids" is applicable to homosexual kids raised or influenced under heterosexual norms. And that in fact there vastly quantities of heterosex couples that hate gay people and would kick their child out of their house if they were gay. There is no equivalent idiotic belief system in gay culture.

Adoption agencies screen parents for mental issues, so your blanket stereotyping of gay couples as "literally always worse than a hetero couple" is ridiculous. I'd rather have a kid go to a mildly depressed gay couple than some super emotionally-balanced fundamentalist Christian heterosex couple that thinks being gay damns you to eternal hellfire (which is not a disqualifying belief), which would inevitably cause more suffering upon a gay child than a gay couple would impose upon a hetero child.

Sexual orientation shouldn't matter for certain jobs, although for some jobs it inevitably matters. Examples?
I doubt many men would feel comfortable getting a massage from a gay dude.
I doubt many women would feel comfortable with a trans woman as their gynecologist.

In fact, let's go further than that, because once again you nitpick a word to pretend I'm vague and then you associate it with the worst possible meaning in an attempt to paint me as some kind of demonic gay-hater.
A man, independent of sexual orientation, is seen as a threat if he works with children in day care. People are quick to assume he's a pedophile for working there. It goes as far as people calling the police if a man is standing somewhere near a park where children are playing. But do people care enough to speak up about that? That seems to be a much bigger issue since it affects a much larger portion of the population, including gays. But no. They don't. Because the media is too busy demonizing men because of feminism, and praising women and the LGBTQ movement specifically. Do you see why it's a propagation now? It has nothing to do with seeing being gay as some sort of disease.

And lastly, I will simply refer to this article again;
https://www.ntd.com/mother-forces-s...ights-at-risk-for-offering-choice_262028.html
https://www.ntd.com/mother-forces-s...ights-at-risk-for-offering-choice_262028.html

Many women go to male gynos, so I don't get why you think trans would matter. And most men wouldn't want a massage from a man period if given a choice, regardless if the man was a homosexual or not. Most women wouldn't give a solitary fuck about a lesbian giving them a massage. Your examples are picked apart so easily its as if you really haven't fully thought through them before throwing them out there.

Also, I don't know what world you're living in, but a man simply standing "near a park where children are playing" is not something people call 9/11 for. Usually a man has to be doing something like staring at the children for extended periods of time, talking to them, approaching them, etc to warrant suspicion. And your opinions on how men are perceived seem pretty strange. I would not view a man working in a daycare as a pedophile just because of his gender, and I don't think most people in general do either. I'm also not sure why people would "speak up" about your hypothetical injustices, as there's literally nothing to say unless your examples are actually statistically meaningful, which I find highly doubtful unless you produce some receipts.

And lastly, your link is totally irrelevant to anything you said in the previous paragraphs, and is instead about an apparently very confused child with a very confused set of heterosexual parents. Right-o.

It's not that simple. It's that black and white thinking that allows these issues to escalate. That "us vs them" mentality is extremely destructive.

Simple question. Why should a University be able to turn down someone that does not qualify since they don't have the necessary criteria to study there, but, a Church should be forced to marry gay people, even though they do not qualify to the standards set by the Church?
Why can a disco turn down whomever they wish by whatever stupid standard they hold, but gay people are not allowed to be turned down for their marriage?
Why is a church free to turn down marrying anyone, but not gays?

And no I'm not religious nor do I like churches. But the point is, if you want to get married as a gay couple, go ahead. But don't force someone to marry you that doesn't want to marry you. What is so difficult to understand about that? I have constantly said this, and I'll say it again. Imposing things on others is generally bad.

And now you can tell me whether I'm for or against gay marriage, since it's such an obvious issue according to you.
Gay marriage is in effect and yet churches aren't forced to marry gays if they don't want to because that has nothing to do with gay marriage equality under national and state law, which was the actual concern and focus of the the whole gay community. Changing the goal posts from "are you for gay marriage" to "should churches be forced to marry gay people" to make the situation more complicated than it is is silly, especially in a day and age where Churches can be entirely circumvented, and I would doubt gay people want to make a pastor who hates them central to their ceremony.
 
Last edited:
Likes: JareBear
Nov 10, 2013
3,454
964
435
I memed about Soldier being gay a while ago and I got what I wanted.

Now you gotta tell us whether he's a top or a bottom. This is important to me, someone who doesn't play the game. (Considering buying the Soldier nendo now though.)
I got a pc copy of Overwatch for sale if you want to get that sweet sweet solider 76 action. 10 bucks man.
 
Jul 23, 2018
158
116
160
You're extremely good at nitpicking the things you want to reply to, and fully ignoring whatever would be difficult to reply to. And then you claim that everything I say is easily disproved. You basically completely ignored the article of the girl raised by lesbian mothers. And despite the point of the other article being a perfect example of queerness being forced upon a child, you twist it as if that's a problem with heterosexual parents, despite the mother obviously being a huge pusher for queerness, against the child's own will.
As for;
churches aren't forced to marry gays if they don't want to
https://pjmedia.com/faith/2017/02/23/lgbt-group-announces-plan-to-invade-church-space-in-ohio/

Let's see what other excuse you make up for that one.

But don't expect me to reply anymore. Can't really have an honest debate with someone that is being purposefully dishonest in order to demonize someone else.
 

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,105
807
540
You're extremely good at nitpicking the things you want to reply to, and fully ignoring whatever would be difficult to reply to. And then you claim that everything I say is easily disproved. You basically completely ignored the article of the girl raised by lesbian mothers. And despite the point of the other article being a perfect example of queerness being forced upon a child, you twist it as if that's a problem with heterosexual parents, despite the mother obviously being a huge pusher for queerness, against the child's own will.
As for;

https://pjmedia.com/faith/2017/02/23/lgbt-group-announces-plan-to-invade-church-space-in-ohio/

Let's see what other excuse you make up for that one.

But don't expect me to reply anymore. Can't really have an honest debate with someone that is being purposefully dishonest in order to demonize someone else.
No, I didn't ignore the article. I addressed it by pointing out that for every article you find about a hetero person complaining about having homosexual parents, I can find 100 article by gay people saying their parents kicked them out of the house and/or physically assaulted them and/or sent them to Pray the Gay Away Bible Shaming Camp and/or they tried to kill themself and/or did kill themself because of asshole hateful heterosexual parents. Your single article does nothing to prove that heterosexual children are especially victimized by this situation, and to make that case is absurd in the face of the significant hatred gay America faced and still faces.

The other article was not about a child being forced into "queerness." It had to do with the child's gender identity, not it's sexual orientation. Is what the mom is doing dumb? Yes. Does it have anything whatsoever to do with a gay person or gay community targeting this heterosexual mom, convincing her that her son needs to wear dresses? No. Does it have anything to do with the current guidelines on identifying if your child is trans? No. You're literally blaming the gay community for stupid shit that hetero individuals are doing because they're dumb and vindictive and clearly in the middle of an angry divorce.

As for your new article, it is irrelevant concerning the narrative about whether gay people demonstrating affection for each other in public is "forcing" it upon others and harmful to hetero children, which was your original claim, as well as irrelevant to the OP which was about an Overwatch character being gay, which was the original trigger for you to enter the topic despite being apparently completely uninformed about the details of the OP. And here you are complaining about me picking out what I want to reply to! Anyway, your new article is about whether a Church has to rent out their commercially advertised property to gays. Not whether it has to marry gay people. The problem was the the language of the bill made no differentiation between "sacred/protected" spaces vs commercial property. For example if a church owns a gazebo and advertises it as a public event space and it's used for all manner of events nothing to do with religion, do they have the right to deny gay people access by claiming "actually it's sacred ground." It is different from other cases in that the gay person or group is not demanding anyone perform a service for them, like designing and baking a cake. And in any case, the Ohio House never ended up passing the bill so literally nothing came of the whole thing. No lawsuits were ever filed. And if they had been taken to court assuming they had denied a gay group, it would've come down to how explicit the Church was in its contracts with previous individuals, whether they ever bothered to confirm sexual orientation previously, etc. Yawn.

I mean, this also kind of avoids the whole elephant in the room that conservative Christian ideas around gay people are stupid as fuck. Imagine if, instead of the Bible hating on gays the Bible hated on blacks. So then we would have people like you claiming Christians should be able to publicly deny black people all sorts of services because "religious freedom." Take it even further and imagine white slave owners in America back in the day thinking they had a Christian religious right to own black people as slaves. Oh shit. So much for the sacred religious freedom to own humans as property!

Also lol @ claiming I'm painting you as a horrible monster. You're the one who said gays are justifiably "frowned upon" by society, and that when the public sees two gay people kissing they should rightly think it's weird and confrontational, and that hetero couples should always be given priority over homo couples for adoption. Own up to your own words.
 
Last edited:
Likes: guggnichso
Nov 30, 2012
11,991
740
690
It looks like out of 29 playable characters they only have 2 that are LGBTQ so I'm not sure why this is any kind of big deal. If anything they should do a lot more.
Who is making this a big deal?

It's only the insecure LGBTQ community who make this a big deal. It's usually them who demonstrate their sexuality and rub it to the faces of others.

There's this assumption that if a character hasn't come out and confirmed their sexuality it automatically means they are straight. You do the same and assume only 2 characters are LGBTQ but how do you know this? Is it confirmed that all the others are straight? Is it because you think straight people don't tend to make their sexuality a big deal (which contradicts your post)?

Simply put, who do you like to fuck should not be an important part of your character, unless it's a dating game or there is a story where the sexuality of the characters matter. Nobody cares otherwise. And if it seems i make this a big deal right now it's because i'm tired of the pandering and virtual signaling. That's the part that is a big deal for me, not the characters themselves.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2, 2018
368
328
215
This isn’t even necessarily true. You’re projecting. You don’t speak for anyone else.
No, i don't speak for anyone else. Like somebody already said it's because that's just how it is based on the numbers we have. I've already provided an example on page 4.

Most people can relate to male, female or gay characters. But like i said that doesn't change the well-known fact, that males often pick male characters and females often pick female characters. (i.e. World of Warcraft, US servers, ~26% are female gamers (https://kotaku.com/study-shows-which-video-game-genres-women-play-most-1791435415) -> https://realmpop.com/us.html).
 
Oct 2, 2018
208
483
200
Who is making this a big deal?

It's only the insecure LGBTQ community who make this a big deal. It's usually them who demonstrate their sexuality and rub it to the faces of others.

There's this assumption that if a character hasn't come out and confirmed their sexuality it automatically means they are straight. You do the same and assume only 2 characters are LGBTQ but how do you know this? Is it confirmed that all the others are straight? Is it because you think straight people don't tend to make their sexuality a big deal (which contradicts your post)?

Simply put, who do you like to fuck should not be an important part of your character, unless it's a dating game or there is a story where the sexuality of the characters matter. Nobody cares otherwise. And if it seems i make this a big deal right now it's because i'm tired of the pandering and virtual signaling. That's the part that is a big deal for me, not the characters themselves.
There's a 10 page thread on it right here and I've read plenty about it all over the internet. Seems like almost everyone is making it a big deal. It was a pretty notable event.

I don't see how they are insecure. I think it's pretty cool if Overwatch wants to be a sort of vocal LGBTQ focused game and I think it's awesome if the community completely embraces that.

If Overwatch sets itself up prominently as a supporter of the LGBTQ community then that's brilliant.

It more or less fits things that people have been asking for. The franchise is relatively young so it's not like anyone is rewriting or changing well established characters and franchises.

For sure, a characters sexuality is not important. For us. For some people that is a big deal and I am fine with Overwatch being the game that lets them have that.

A new franchise with a specific vision of diversity and inclusion that they never tried to hide. They hear their fans demanding LGBTQ characters and they oblige. Good. They should stick to their vision and they should cater to their actual fans. They aren't rewriting history or messing around with established characters.

Is it "virtue signalling"? Hell yes. Is it pandering? For sure.
That's OK though. This game always set itself up that way and it's cool that they are doing what their fans want. The fans seem real happy about it too.

And, yeah, straight people do make their sexuality a big deal. It's just that it's pretty much the majority of people are straight so it seems just normal to see that. You can go to any major city in the world on any given weekend night and see the place full of straight people making a big deal about their sexuality. Fair enough they aren't saying "I am soooo fucking straight everyone" but that's because it IS assumed. They are still expressing their sexuality in a very open way.

Non-straight people kind of do have a need to make some kind of "big deal" about their sexuality to set themselves apart from the majority anyway.
Otherwise people will just assume they are straight.
 
Jan 18, 2018
171
89
190
So... in Street Fighter 2 in game
We learn Guile has a wife and kid that he loves.
We learn that Ken has a girlfriend that he loves and marries (and later has a kid with).

So we know, that they are at least heterosexual (maybe they are bi, who knows). Nobody bats an eye.

In Overwatch we learn, that some of these charactes (don't play, don't follow the lore) have or had loved ones, who, as far as we know, identifies them at least as homosexual ( Soldier 76 confirmed through official tweet) through appendages like comics.
"Everybody" loses their shit about it.

Exaggeration for the lulz.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Saruhashi
Feb 2, 2018
368
328
215
There's a 10 page thread on it right here and I've read plenty about it all over the internet. Seems like almost everyone is making it a big deal. It was a pretty notable event.

I don't see how they are insecure. I think it's pretty cool if Overwatch wants to be a sort of vocal LGBTQ focused game and I think it's awesome if the community completely embraces that.

If Overwatch sets itself up prominently as a supporter of the LGBTQ community then that's brilliant.

It more or less fits things that people have been asking for. The franchise is relatively young so it's not like anyone is rewriting or changing well established characters and franchises.

For sure, a characters sexuality is not important. For us. For some people that is a big deal and I am fine with Overwatch being the game that lets them have that.

A new franchise with a specific vision of diversity and inclusion that they never tried to hide. They hear their fans demanding LGBTQ characters and they oblige. Good. They should stick to their vision and they should cater to their actual fans. They aren't rewriting history or messing around with established characters.

Is it "virtue signalling"? Hell yes. Is it pandering? For sure.
That's OK though. This game always set itself up that way and it's cool that they are doing what their fans want. The fans seem real happy about it too.
You just gave an example for what he's saying.

I don't think Overwatch or Blizzard wants to "sets itself up prominently as a supporter of the LGBTQ community ". They just do something that's normal in our society (and maybe a little bit inspired by business decisions) and people like you come up with things like that Overwatch is now a vanguard game and bright light for the LGBTQ community, which it simple isn't. It isn't a game only for the straight either. It is just a fucking normal game that everyone can enjoy, no matter their race, skin color oder sexuality. Unfortunately there will always be people on both more extreme sides who don't get it, but that's the way it is.


Non-straight people kind of do have a need to make some kind of "big deal" about their sexuality to set themselves apart from the majority anyway.
Otherwise people will just assume they are straight.
Why would they set themselves apart from the majority? If a straight person wants to date a gay person, than the gay person can tell the straight person that he/she is gay as soon as the straight person approaches him. There is no need for anybody to constantly set themselves apart from other people because of rather unimportant traits, that really don't matter for most people.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2, 2018
208
483
200
Why would they set themselves apart from the majority? If a straight person wants to date a gay person, than the gay person can tell the straight person that he/she is gay as soon as the straight person approaches him.
True but in a society where straight is the norm and the majority is it really any surprise at all that people who are not straight see that as a big component of their identity?

Given that it is a big part of their identity does is not then make sense that they would want to express that openly?

That expression of identity then sets them apart from the majority, right?

This seems pretty normal to me. That someone who is not part of the majority or the norm likes to express that in open ways.

I am sure there are many people who are under the LGBTQ umbrella who just also like to keep themselves to themselves and not draw attention to it. However, I would not begrudge anyone who does want to make a big deal out of it.
 
Feb 2, 2018
368
328
215
True but in a society where straight is the norm and the majority is it really any surprise at all that people who are not straight see that as a big component of their identity?

Given that it is a big part of their identity does is not then make sense that they would want to express that openly?

That expression of identity then sets them apart from the majority, right?
Why is being gay a big part of their identity that at the same time must be expressed in every possible way? What does change in a relationship, which is not a romantic relationship, between a gay and a straight person? How does being gay alter such a relationship? What does a gay person expect from others, when he or she is gay and they're not in romantic relationship?

If you are gay. That's okay. If you are straight. That's okay. If i don't want to fuck you, i don't need to know if you're gay because it changes nothing for me, for you and between us.


This seems pretty normal to me. That someone who is not part of the majority or the norm likes to express that in open ways.
There's a difference between expressing and living your life the way you want, which is totally fine, compared to telling everybody that you're gay and expect others to change because you assume you're different.
 
Last edited:
Nov 24, 2018
1,463
915
210
Wtf? You guys don't discuss your romantic or not romantic but sexual relationships with your male friends? Then I don't think you have real friends. It's not weird a homosexual person may wanna discuss his/hers openly as others do without weirding people out or seeing them wish he/she didn't. I had a gay friend who came out much later (and then had to go live in another city with his sister until he got back on his feet because his parents didn't take it well at all) and used to tell us about this or that gorgeous blue eyed girl he met @ his job waiting tables and was going out with only to eventually tell me, yeah, those were all guys Alex. It's pretty sad, my community certainly can be pretty backwards about these things so I perfectly understand the lying. Some people here appear just as backwards. If you prefer "friends" to lie or not discuss anything beyond work and hobbies, not even families, eh. This has nothing to do with idealizing, just showing normal people in normal relationships, not sick, weird, disgusting or provocating. That a story with a guy shown in passing to have had a boyfriend got this many reactions only shows we're really far from the idealizing you pretend to fear and much closer to ostracizing them. My 2 cents, bye.
 
Last edited:
Jul 23, 2018
158
116
160
Why is being gay a big part of their identity that at the same time must be expressed in every possible way? What does change in a relationship, which is not a romantic relationship, between a gay and a straight person? How does being gay alter such a relationship? What does a gay person expect from others, when he or she is gay and they're not in romantic relationship?

If you are gay. That's okay. If you are straight. That's okay. If i don't want to fuck you, i don't need to know if you're gay because it changes nothing for me, for you and between us.




There's a difference between expressing and living your life the way you want, which is totally fine, compared to telling everybody that you're gay and expect others to change because you assume you're different.
Glad to see at least some of us in here understand the difference between individuals living their own lives and institutional/systemic pushing of an agenda to idealize a minority.
 
Feb 2, 2018
368
328
215
So you don't discuss your other romantic relationships with your friends? Why is it weird a homosexual person may wanna discuss his/hers just as openly without weirding people out? I had a gay friend who came out much much later and used to tell us about this or that gorgeous blue eyed girl he was going on with only to eventually tell me yeah those were all dudes, I just didn't feel free to discuss that with you guys at the time. It's pretty sad to have to live like that.
It's not weird and i never said that. If a gay person wants to talk about their gay relationships with a straight person than where is the problem? If one of your friends has a problem with you being gay and you talking to him about your gay relationsships and he hates you for this than fuck this friend and walk away. You will always meet people who can be assholes. That's not exclusive to gay people.

I don't know why your friend didn't feel free to discuss his gay relationships with you guys in the past and don't see how this is connected to this topic. Did any of you guys said something against gay people? Probably not, even if the media or other political parties are constantly trying to draw this picture. Maybe that's the problem.
 
Last edited:

Makariel

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,117
820
345
I originally thought making Solider 69 gay was a bit silly but Blizz can do with their characters whatever. After 10 pages of discussion here I now fully support Blizzard in their decision and wish their whole Overwatch roster turns into a veritable LGBTQ+ circus. Bring it on!
 
Likes: betrayal
Feb 2, 2018
368
328
215
I originally thought making Solider 69 gay was a bit silly but Blizz can do with their characters whatever. After 10 pages of discussion here I now fully support Blizzard in their decision and wish their whole Overwatch roster turns into a veritable LGBTQ+ circus. Bring it on!
It's always appreciated if someone makes a post without even knowing what people said on any of the 10 pages. But at least you're a gold member, so even if your posts don't add anything to the thread because you obviously didn't read the posts, i gave you a like.
 

Makariel

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,117
820
345
It's always appreciated if someone makes a post without even knowing what people said on any of the 10 pages. But at least you're a gold member, so even if your posts don't add anything to the thread because you obviously didn't read the posts, i gave you a like.
Funny thing is that I was posting myself on previous pages, so what you accuse me of is a bit funny. You must have followed the discussion really carefully if you were not blinded by the gold username :D