The Game Boy: Gamers' Favorite Copout

85

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Modred189

QFT 

Thank you so much for spelling out so succinctly. 

avatar

Modred189

I have yet to see a video game, including Shadow Complex (Based in part on Card's amazing novel Empire) in which GAY, HOMOSEXUALITY, GAY MARRIAGE, etc has anything to do with the GAME. It's not even HIS game! Some game company loved the books and the IP they represent, and decided to license the material for their use. That's it.

The books does not deal with homosexuality (and as far as I know none of his books do). The movie won't. The game doesn't.

 

So by boycotting this game,  which is very good, gamers are not inflicting any kind of significant harm or message to Card. At all. And on that note, how dare they try and inflict any kind of issue on him for his beliefs? Is he free to believe anything he wishes only to have to keep it silent?

 

End of story: anyone who boycotts this game because Card disagrees with homosexual marriage (a debatable oxymoron inits own right) is short-sighted, most likely is in favor of English style CCTV's and at the least is completely devoid of logic or understanding of American rights. 

avatar

Modred189

On that note, however, the Gamasutra article is exceedingly well written, by someone with admitted bias, which is never apparent in his analysis. I disagree with some of his standpoints, but his promotion of serious messages and ideas in games is spot-on.

Though it is a little hypocritical of him to be ok with playing the game for free, but not buy it... 

avatar

chronium

anyone else have trouble finding a single coherent thought in this article. He spends so much time trying to speak in high english that any argument he tries to explain just falls short of making any sense.

avatar

deadgarth

Gimme a break.  People can believe whatever they want, it's called freedom of religion.  Most people won't boycott something just because someone involved in its creation disagrees with some of their views.  It would be much too time consuming to try and look up the beliefs of everyone who made every product you buy, and you might end up boycotting so much that it would be silly.  

I'm assuming you made this article so biased about gay marriage because you think only the small, dumb minority would disagree with you.  If it's so obvious that gay marriage would be beneficial to our country why hasn't every state legalized it yet?  It's you people who make out the anti gay marriage folks to be hate mongering bigots who are the real problem.  Just because I don't think legalizing gay marriage would be appropriate does not mean I want to kill all gay people and laugh as they burn in hell.  Just like being against the current proposed health care reform does not mean I hate poor people.

avatar

neo1piv14

This article wasn't necessarily about just gay rights. It's about the fact that every time a game raises controversy, we all just hide behind saying "It's just a game." Imagine if the New York Times ran an article that got everyone all pissed off about something, regardless of topic, and when they were confronted about it, they said "Come on, it's just a newspaper." This had almost nothing to do with gay rights as a specific topic, and everything to do with taking our medium seriously. People will boycott movies made by directors they're adamantly against, or that are about topics they're not okay with, but when it comes to games, we let all that drop and are okay with it by dismissing it as 'just a game.' If gamers want games to be taken seriously as an art form or an accepted medium of conveying something more than just wasted time, then we should start with us. Next time a controversial game or developer comes out with something that stirs up a fuss, instead of dismissing it, stand up for it like it were any other medium out there. 

avatar

deadgarth

I agree with you, except I think video games won't gain more acceptance as a media like all others just by stirring up controversies about every belief their creator's have.  The argument that "It's just a game," I think still holds true.  I'm not dismissing the fact that a controversy exists, but the fact is, this controversy about Orson Scott Card would and still does exist even if Shadow Complex never came out.  When I say, "It's just a game," it means that while I'm fine with discussing the beliefs of the game's creators, to me it has no bearing on whether I will purchase or enjoy this game.  It's just a game, buy it and enjoy it or not, that's all there is to it.  Keep the controversy with the people dealing with the people, and when the controversy has to do with the game itself, then we can decide about the merits of boycotting.

avatar

nekollx

 see this i don't get, i get the heath care reform arguments. theirs pros and conson both sides. But what is the "con" besides religious blocks on gay maridge. if Religion could dictate anything then a Cristian man wount be able to mary awicken because "witches shouldn't marry! It's a affront to god!"

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

deadgarth

The discussion of gay marriage does not need to have anything to do with religion, although arguably the whole idea of marriage originated from religion.  I would much prefer to have a logical debate about the pros and cons of gay marriage and by looking at how legalizing it has affected other countries.  I'm not against gay people, I'm against people calling me an idiot or shouting down my opinion when the constitution says we have freedom of thought.  Gays are a very small minority in this country and people want to act like they are as common as straight people.  Not being "normal" isn't necessary a bad thing, but to think that a union between a man and a woman is absolutely no different between two of the same sex, not better or worse in any way, I think is absurd. 

I'm fine with them having the same "rights" as married people, so they can visit their loved one in the hospital and make those kinds of decisions that you would want the most important person in your life to make, but don't call it marriage.  I agree with Orson Scott Card that changing the definiton of a word that has meant what it does since the existence of human beings just because a minority want to force everyone else to accept their unions as equally benefical to society, is absurd. 

avatar

nduanetesh

I like how you put "rights" in quotation marks as if you meant it sarcastically.

Also, can you seriously believe that the word "marriage" "has meant what it does since the existence of human beings"?  You're asserting that when the first humans were forming the first language (which certainly wasn't English, FYI) that on the top of their "To Do" list was create the word "marriage", and give it an unchangeable definition that would stand for the rest of the existence of humanity.   You're also asserting that no culture ever in human history has defined "marriage" as anything other than the union of a man and a woman.  Are you disregarding the existence of bigamy? polygamy? Do you realize that same sex marriage has existed previously in human history?

So, not only has "marriage" not had an unchanged definition "since the existence of human beings", but words in English change their meanings all the time--despite the argument that we can't go changing the definition of marriage, for some reason.  English is a very flexible language that is constantly evolving.  How many words are used to describe the computer you're sitting in front of right now, that had different meanings 50 years ago?

Finally, you say, "I'm against people calling me an idiot."  Well, so am I.  But if I went around saying that the term "BFFs" had been around since the beginning of humanity and had never changed its definition, and that all homosexuals could only eat steaks if they were willing to call them "edible meat slabs", then I'd expect people to make comments.

 

Now, all that being said, the point of this article was not to discuss gay marriage, but rather to discuss gamers' stance on whether or not games are actually an art form.  Way to miss the point with your knee jerk reaction.

avatar

deadgarth

I put "rights" in quotation marks because I was elluding to my belief that the entire controversy about gay marriage is not really about rights at all.  We already have equal rights under the law.  I don't have the right to marry another man in my state any more than someone else does.   When you talk about the "rights" that gays are missing out on by not being able to marry, it's usually the ones that no one disagrees about, like hospital visitation rights for significant others, etc.

Ok, I'll forfeit the point about marriage meaning what it has for all time.  I think it's meant what it has in the last few thousand years.  Your argument that English words change meanings all the time is a good one.  Instead of inviting all the controversy on changing an already existing word, howewer, why not use a different one, or just "union"?  If our language is so flexible why not use a word other than marriage? I also don't think the word marriage is as flexible a word as you think it is.  That is because it's not merely a word that is used to describe something like "cool" or "hot," its a word that is used as the definition of an institution.  In what world do you think the word "government" is likely to change its definition?

My reaction had to do with the obvious viewpoint of the author of the article, I've already acknowledged previously that I agree with the posters talking about how this debate is centered on video games as a valid form of media.

avatar

nekollx

 which gets right back to my point, legal maridge isnt caleld that its a "union" a "traditional maridge"involves "maried under the eyes of god" and "a liscent of union between a man and a woman" the law only changes the stipulations of the contract.

 

You can be maried under god but not the law

under the law but not god

Both

neither

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

deadgarth

Well this whole thing is just confusing then.  If in fact legal marriage has no basis whatsoever on the religious institution then why use the same word to describe it?  You say that legal marriages are in fact called unions, but the media certainly does not seem to present it this way.

I will probably be getting married in the next year or so.  I want the benefits of a legal union, so of course I would get "married" under the law, but I have no real desire to get married by a pastor.  I could care less who marries us, even though I do hold to the religious definition of marriage. 

You see why this is so confusing? lol

avatar

nekollx

 sensationalism

 

Basicly every maried couple has the big fancy wedding with a pastor and signs a "maridge liscence" with the state. Wich thanks to Political Corectlness probably replace man and woman with "significent other" some time before Gay marige ever came up.

 

without the liscence as far as the state is concerend you just spent thousands of bucks on a fancy dress, some cake, and a ring.

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

nekollx

 the thing is though technically they arent "maried" even in legal states

 

their are 2 elementls to maridge: Church and State

 

the law allows the state part but only your "pastor" allows the chruch part. Plenty of stright couples are legally but not religiously maried.

 

so Legally what cons are there to a state approvied union of a a 2 men or 2 weomen that isnt present in man+woman?

 

THAT i don't get.

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

jcollins

The big thing that the gay folks talk about is that unless they have "marriage" they don't have the same rights in hospitals and financially as married people do.  Civil Unions *should* do the same thing, but they don't (Civil Unions differ per state, whereas Marriage is the same). 

Personally, I think they'd have more luck getting Civil Unions to have the same rights across the board vs. getting gay marriage.

 

avatar

nekollx

 which is basicly a example of Church influences state.

 

originally there was just the "maridge liscence" now they have a "real liscence" and a "civil union liscence" when really theire should just be the one.

 

Letthe bibble thumpers have their maried under god and let everyone from hindu, gay, morman, wicca, and so on have their state approved civil union. Why is their even 2 kinds of the legal contract?

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

deadgarth

I don't think there are cons to state approved unions of gays other than personal beliefs that can be argued.  For example, I think that by legalizing gay marriage, more gay couples will be encouraged to raise children, I don't see this as a positive.  Yes, I know that there are millions of terrible straight parents, but I'm dealing with the overall statistics and if all parents in the world were great, heterosexual parents would be a better environment to raise children in my opinion. 

I think that's really the main con when you talk about gay unions.  I do think a lot of the trouble we are in with this controversy is because of the difficult distinction between marriage as a religious institiution and as a legal institution.  I think there would be far less controversy if we merely started talking about legalizing gay "unions" rather than "marriages."  Then they would have the same rights as "married" people, but it wouldn't be called marriage.  Then, the next controversy would be about the right to raise children, which is extensive and I'm not educated enough to go into in depth.

avatar

Modred189

Here's a drawback to legalizing gay marriage: COST

Let's assume that the GLBTQ community is correct (and I do not think they are) in taht 10% of the population falls under that acronym. If this were true, and we legalized the marriage of the folks to one another there would be an astronomical increase in several specific and real costs.

First is health insurance. Right now, many of these folks pay for their own health insurance (and the accompanying high premiums) because they do not have a spouse with a job that provides benefits of health insurance to spouses. If you legalize gay marriage, you add a large number of folks to this pool, necessarily driving up YOUR premiums. In addition, the GLBTQ community has always represented a higher risk category, not just in relation to AIDS/HIV. If you look at the research (google it) they have higher risks of other fatal diseases (STD's and otherwise) and high risk activities. Again, this will drive your costs up.

Second, look at the national costs. You will incur 10% (or more) MORE divorce cases, spousal battery, alimony, child support etc cases, the accompanying paperwork costs and administrative costs. Guess who pays for these: YOU. Out of your taxes.

This, when the current administration (like it or hate it, I haven't decided yet) wants you to pay for others insurance as it is, AND is already going to have to increase taxes to fund it.  

 

Finally, and this is a little off the cost v benefit analysis,  the GLBTQ community is eventually, though not necessarily soon, going to disappear. Think about it, there is most likely a genetic cause for these conditions. One that by definition decreases the likelyhood for procreation and gene spread. Eventually the defect, whether it be in the individual, or in the mother exhibited during gestation, will wind itself out of the population. Lower birth rate + higher risk for fatal diseases= bye bye. And who knows, maybe we will eventually be able to detect these issues early on in a fetus' development and prevent it or identify it at least, like in down's syndrome?

avatar

nekollx

 all good points up to the genetics line.

You are aware homosexuality has been around and dipicted since the romans AT LEAST.

So if it hasent "Weeded it self out" since Ceaser what make you think it will in the next decade?

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

Modred189

You're thinking on too much of a macro scale. That's only Bout 1500 years ago, and who knows what the original source is. Ultimately it HAS to have a genetic basis, as do all things biological. Somewhere, there is a gene or series of genes that causes, leads to, contributes to (whatever) the mechanism which incorrectly assigns gender attraction or gender, period, is this group of people.  

ButI guess this is getting off track, and the nature of the difference in GLBTQ people (some kind of birth defect) raises some interesting questions. Would people feel the same if Card had said something similar about those with cleft palates, or birthmarks, or down's syndrome or any other series of genetic anomalies?

Maybe he is supporting eugenics!?!?!  ;-) 

avatar

deadgarth

I doubt the attraction to the same sex as being a genetic anomaly will ever be an accepted possibility untill we make a huge leap in progress in our understanding of human DNA.  While I would agree that this is a possible explanation, even conceiving this kind of possibility would most likely get us labeled as bigots.  (Which is what I have been labeled as in the Gamepolitics discussion on this topic).  Unfortunately, having been labeled this way, it prevents the other side from acknowledging our ability to think logically and any evidence presented is immediately discounted as looney.

I have found the commentors on MPC to be much more civil and able to converse without resorting to personal attacks.  Thanks for your thoughts.

avatar

nekollx

 adding tothat point, at one point does a trait get considered a defect or simple "random building block"

Homosexuality has existed since the Roman era, i think ive even seen some evidence of the Egyptians. Several Thousands years of history isn't enough then what is?

Is dark skin a genetic defect?

Blue eyes?

Freckles?

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

deadgarth

A "random building block" I think is typically percieved as a defect when it falls outside the norm and has a negative impact on behavior or function.

Certainly the physical characteristics you mentioned would not fall into this category as there is no impact on one's behavior.  An albino person is closer to the definition of an anomaly because of the rarity and the other consequences such as eye problems that I just looked up on wikipedia.

Nature vs. nurture will remain a huge debate because of how hard it still is to prove either way and how they both seem to contribute differently depending on the situation.

avatar

nekollx

 but what if it's proven blue eyes are predisposed to blindness? Freckles to Cancer? Dark skin to lowered neuron count?

would these then be defects? even though they have existed for the diration of modern man?

 

What if a perfect ideal is discovered one with no pre disposition to any condition is found.

 

Is anyone outside that norm a "abberant?"

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

deadgarth

I doubt it will be possible to purge ourselves of every genetic defect through gene therapy and I'm not sure that would be a good thing overall.  If your examples are proven, America would probably just explode all over itself.  Can genetic defects be defects just because they contribute to an unwanted condition?  I would say that because there are so many people with blue eyes and freckles that nature has already shown they are not an anomaly, but how many gay people do there need to be for us to accept them as completly normal and equal to straight people?  I sure don't know.

avatar

nekollx

 so then you conceed that homosexuality could prove as valid as blue eyes given enough time and evidience? So then i present my question again.

 

Their were gay men in egypt. How much longer do they need to exisit to prove etheir validity?

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

Modred189

That's impossible. Homosexuality (as opposed to the separate 'homosexuals') is by definition and nature, due to the sexual nature of human reproduction, a degenerative condition to the species. It lowers birth rates, decreases genetic diversity and spreads fatal diseases. 

avatar

deadgarth

I don't think the length of time they have existed works as an argument either.  Murderers have existed forever, yet their behavior has not been validated.

avatar

nekollx

 and yet i don't see anyone saying "murder is a desiease we can cure with gene therapy"

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

deadgarth

That's because most people agree that gay people are not made through life experiences, but from birth.  With murderers, on the other hand, it is widely believed that it is often upbringing and life experiences that shape a personality into one that can commit murder.  Maybe some murderers had an agressive or sociepathic gene, but our court system has shown to hold most responsible for their own actions.

avatar

nekollx

 by your logic then everything is genetic.

So tell me if i found a cure for heterosexulality how would you feel?

 

Full disclosure: I am a heterosexual male.

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

deadgarth

I think it is easier to see something as having a genetic cause, when it is something that is very very difficult to alter without a change in biology.  While it may be difficult to argue that homosexuality is an anomaly, it may become possible to change the gene that causes what sex we are attracted to.  If we reach a point where DNA can be changed to suit our desire, that is sure to be a sci-fi fan's dream.

It has been argued that many addictions can be linked to having an addictive personaliy and do aspects of your personality originate in your DNA?  I have a hard time believing that if I were raised to think that homosexuality was the acceptable standard that this would change the sex I'm attracted to, but it probably would change my behavior.

avatar

nekollx

 i can see the point on children, i don't agree but i see the poitn but it's imaterial to the main subject.

 Besides a man and woman cna just pop out a bun while a gay couple has to either adopt or go invetro (if women) then the question becomes which is the lesser of 2 evils

 

Leaving the kid in a orphanarium or with two men/women?

 

Which do you think Little Orphan Anne would choose?

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

deadgarth

I know those kinds of hypotheticals are hard to argue against, I'm not educated enough on the subject to do it effectively.  There's no scientific way I know of to objectively base these kinds of decisions.  Would on orphan rather stay an orphan, or live with racists, clowns, or just mean parents.  I don't think we can use these hypotheticals to validate our opinions because no one can tell the future.  How do you know if a specific individual would turn out better being raised in an orphanage or with gay parents or even with straight parents for that matter?  No one knows for sure, that's why the closest we can get to scientific studies of these outcomes is generalized statistics.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.