EA Joins Human Rights Campaign In Order To Oppose DOMA

I personally think this is a good idea, let business lead the way to get us all on the right side of history. And hey, there's plenty of same-sex relationships and marriages in Mass Effect and Dragon Age.

12 up, 6 down

This might be the dumbest fight since the "war on christmas".

5 up, 5 down

People on all sides need to be more tolerant so we can all believe what we want to believe and life how we want to live. You know... To be free. (as law abiding citizens of course)

If person A is against same sex marriage for religious reasons, then fine. But just remember if you expect to be respected despite your point of view, you need to respect others just the same. The way I see it, maybe person A is against it but is gay themselves. They should be allowed to abstain because of their beliefs. And they should be respected. At the same time, who is person A to deny others their happiness? The law shouldn't be controlling non-harmful ways of life.

Respect is a two way street. EA understands inclusivity. The sooner people there catch on this way of thinking improves society as a whole, the better.

Good for EA. (regardless of personal beliefs)

11 up, 2 down

So well said that I have nothing to add Underdog. Very enlightened approach to a sensitive topic.

3 up, 1 down

I respect someone who may not personally be in favour of gay marriage but does not try to stop others from having that right. However, I have no respect for the people who are actively trying to deny people the right to marry. To me it seems very arrogant for a person to try to impose their beliefs on someone else.

As you said Underdog respect is a two way street and those against gay marriage need to keep their beliefs to themselves and let others be happy.

8 up, 2 down

Dont even know what DOMA is. And who would want to marry more than one woman? One is more than enough hassle. One could say, to much hassle.

1 up, 1 down

It's basically a preemptive measure to stop gay marriage before it begins.

1 up, 1 down

Thanks world. This is an icky subject and if this was a youtube video it would be hells battlefield haha

1 up, 0 down

well, things are definitely looking to me that this nation is losing trust in the Christian God. I'm sure the puritanical values of our nation's founders never imagined a rapidly growing perversion of morality.

While it is very sad to me, it seems somewhat a mockery to have "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" as part of our money and our Pledge of Allegiance. Are those Old Testament 10 commandments still up in the Federal Supreme Court? ,,,

5 up, 7 down

I think there are plenty of Christians who would never dream of suggesting they gave the right to deny a same sex couple their happiness. I know that for a fact. I think they just aren't the ones you hear. You only hear the minority spreading out. The fundamental truth for Christians is that we are all imperfect and in need of God. And we are not in a position to be judgmental. It's supposed to be a religion that shows love and acceptance.

Some people get judgmental and act like because they are religious, thesomehow perfect. Forgetting that fundamental thing they claim to believe. If they were perfect, they shouldn't need to be Christians, by definition of what they believe.

I think most people get that, temjinn, but some use it to create some elitist agenda we should all adhere to. But I know for a fact most are not that judgmental. At least they aren't where I live. (I know the us has a weird Bible belt mentality I'm not to familiar with)

But yeah... Even still, you are right. In a truly free country, religion should be separate from the state. Otherwise, it's just a milder version of fundamentalism.

3 up, 3 down

Christians who believe in the text that records Jesus Christ's ministry and the covenants made between God and Abraham and his posterity would not consider gay marriage a union ordained by God. That's the difference. Peoples' personal Jesus of today seems to ignore or alter the words of His disciples to suit themselves after the manner of their own happiness. What we determine to be our own or someone else's 'happiness' is not justification for it's validity. If we start making decisions and governmental institutions based on what a society determines to make themselves happy we can find ourselves in an amazingly hypocritical and contradictory set of ideals.
To say "In God We Trust" is to suggest a level of obedience to His will and order, but to have a nation claim itself to 'trust' and be indivisible under God, and use the emblem of the 10 Commandments to remind us of our country's justice, justice as interpreted by those who founded this country, yet seeks to support institutions of man that offends the very God too which they submit themselves to is mockery.

and underdog, I understand what self-righteousness is. And yes, Christians are commanded to love all, even those who have homosexual tendencies, but Christians also are expected to conduct their lives after the manner recorded in scripture and open their mouths to make known what's happening here.

5 up, 1 down

I guess in my time at redeemer university college, where I got my first undergraduate degree, I missed anywhere Jesus spoke about the topic. He almost never even talked about marriage at all. Abraham didn't either. Actually, Abraham hasn't written anything that's in the Bible.

Only Paul ever talked about homosexuality. That's it. Other areas mentioned orgies in brief, but not homosexuality.

But that's neither here nor there. Jesus ministry was entirely about reaching out to the marginalized. The only people he criticized brutally were self righteous folk like the pharasees who focused more on the law (do s and don't s) than on accepting and caring for people despite their faults or theological errors.

Anyways, Canada is the same. We have "God keep our land glorious and free" in our anthem, and all common wealth countries like us have"God save the queen". Religion is almost out of politics, but not quite. Fortunately, religious values ate often good ones, so the ones worth keeping stick around for all to benefit from, anyways.

(sorry for any poor writing. This is all on my phone today)

---

Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/30/2013 4:10:07 PM

1 up, 4 down

For the record, I have no issue with it being in our anthem. It reflects the hope of or fathers of confederation.

1 up, 1 down

Woo hoo! A computer! lol

"If we start making decisions and governmental institutions based on what a society determines to make themselves happy..."

I know Temjin, and I agree. It's not about passing legislation or allowing something for the sole reason of making people happy. That is indeed a slippery slope. I'm more talking about significant demographics where the biggest harm from not allowing it actually causes people to become marginalized in ways not intended.

Pretend this example does not involve any relationship of any kind. No homosexual sex here. lol

Let's say you're a young guy in your twenties who is attracted to attractive men. In a society that condemns you for that, regardless of what you practice, are you going to feel comfortable talking about your feelings to anyone? What about when you live in a community that actually believes you are now a perverse person because of feelings you cannot explain or control, either because you lack the ability or because it is the way you are.

For you in that situation, it's no longer a question of doing what is right or wrong. It's not a theological issue. In order to fit in, you literally have to -act- or pretend you don't have those emotions, because if you admit to it, you immediately lose the respect on an entire religious community and government. There's a very real reason the LGBT community has a rate of every 1 in 5 people feeling suicidal. (in fact, successful suicide rates among homosexuals is many times that of everyone else. It's sad many feel so alone. When a suicide happens, whether or not they were a homosexual is often one of the first questions asked.)

Certainly having a relationship of any kind is a choice. So I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the very real feelings of being attracted to someone. Having emotional feelings towards a person that you can never express. Not only that, but having something on your mind you cannot talk about, very soon becomes something that CONSUMES you.

When people can't live -normal- lives, it has very adverse effects.

Now, on the relationship side of things. Sure, you can argue from relgious stand points why homosexual marriage is wrong. But tell me why from an objective non-religious stand point is it wrong. Does it spread disease? Contrary to 1950's popular belief, no of course not. Polygamy increases the chance, yes. But not homosexuality. In fact, it's common knowledge that because homosexuals were told they were weird back in the day, many resorted to very negative environments because it was the only place they could express themselves. Many got into very unhealthy polygymous communities that did, in fact, spread disease. Imagine if many of those people were told they should seek a positive and healthy relationship instead?

Does a healthy exclusive homosexual relationship cause psychological trauma or cause psychopathic health concerns to arise? Does it cause people to function in an un-social manner? no.

Literally, the only reason -NOT- to is religion. And that's why I believe this is a particular issue that deserves attention for both sides. Other "feel good" or "human rights" issues have adverse effects on the human psyche and physical health and are worth debate (see legalization of various drugs, for example, or abortion for the trauma it can cause to some women, both physically and psychologically. In all honesty, it needs far more research before the government acts just because women's rights say so. But I'm not discussing that here any further). So yeah, I don't believe we should be too quick to allow everything just because it makes people "happy". Sometimes a religious belief has grounds that are not simply religious.

But making laws for the sole reason that a religion said so... I think we're smart enough now to think more critically than that.

But this issue is different. It comes down to the core of people's being. In an exclusive loving relationship, as long as people don't flaunt it (no one should, straight or gay), it hurts no one, it's cooperative and social living, and it allows people to express a loving emotion. Not a negative emotion... an emotion of acceptance and love. Again... so long as people are committed to each other. I'm typically against polygamy still. haha

That's why, despite my own religious beliefs, I have no issue accepting people the way they are and respecting them for the value they bring to society. How they live and who they love in their personal lives is none of my business. If I become close enough friends with them, then yeah... once I have a close enough relationship, I might have an opportunity to share the core and founding reasons of what I believe and why. And you know what? I want them to know I care about them as people. And I want them to know that they don't deserve to be hated because of their emotions. And I want them to know they are an accepted part of our society, so long as they continue to live respectfully and set positive examples for the children of our communities. They are our coaches, our friends, our teachers, our family members, our doctors... everything.

And quite frankly, Temjin... the only hypocracy going around is when people say they accept each other... but only once they fill certain criteria.

Yes... live lives fulfilling to your creed. And set an example based on those beliefs. But that is -NOT- the governments job in a truly free society. Imagine how Christians would feel in an Islamic regime controlled government... Religion just doesn't mix with politics well. It -always- does more harm than good. That doesn't mean a politician can't act out of a foundation of religion... Certainly, it is the foundation of who they are as a person at their core, and presumably, they've been elected because of who they are... but they certainly should not make decisions "because the religion says so." That's where I draw the line. That's a far slipperier slope, if you ask me.

Just -some- of my thoughts. I battled with this topic personally for quite some time. After enough time in social services, I've learned a lot about people that I was never taught in catechism.

---

Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/30/2013 4:53:53 PM

2 up, 1 down

What about the people who don't believe in the Christian God, or any god at all? Freedom of religion as enshrined in the Constitution means that the federal government cannot force citizens to abide by the laws of a certain faith. Just because you are conservative christian does not make you right.

And since you mentioned the 10 commandments, which doesn't talk about marriage, gay or otherwise, why don't we focus on the most important one that nobody seems to care about: Thou Shalt not Kill. That one gets ignored a lot. If you want to literally interpret the bible word for word, then no jew or christian should ever join the military or support a war effort, or support capital punishment for that matter. It doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill, except for when you think they deserve it"

3 up, 3 down

@ Underdog

Paul was not the only one to mention homosexuality in the Bible. Leviticus 18:22 calls it an abomination, that book was written by Moses.

The word effeminate is used too and is a frowned upon trait to have.

I believe that God really exists and that he makes the rules.

1 up, 2 down

Religion has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage in America, we let atheists marry.

4 up, 1 down

The bible also says that you shouldn't eat pork or shellfish. Should we make bacon and lobster illegal in america?

2 up, 1 down

@ World

Atheists can't prove God doesn't exist, but they still believe that way. It requires faith to believe in something you can't prove. Their faith makes them religious.

1 up, 1 down

Reryan the bible says not to eat unclean animals. In the new testament it said that it is no longer considered a sin to eat those things. However science shows that eating bottom feeders and top of the food chain creatures is not as good as eating foods low on the food chain. Fruits, vegetables, grains, and herbivorous animals. That is because of toxic bioaccumulation basically.

So even if you did follow biblical teachings it wouldnt make it illegal.

I kind of agree that the ten commandments should be the ones we pay attention to the most. But also the number one most important thing that Jesus said was, Love god and your neighbour with all your heart basically. But the point of all that stuff too is if your a christian you believe that god died for your sins and that you can be forgiven no matter what you do. The only person who can judge you is god, so in the end, everyone should be tolerant, and non judgmental and should be loving and caring to everyone, no matter what their beliefs are.

I am not a "christian" by the way. I have my own issues with the bible and can't dont take everything in it literally. I believe in god, and a higher power though. Believe that intention and praying does work and that sort of thing. So I don't know what that would classify me as but yeah.

2 up, 0 down

Leviticus also says not to wear clothes woven with two kinds of materials, don't cut hair off the sides of your head, don't touch the skin of a dead pig (FOOTBALL!!!), don't hug your wife when she's on her period (ok, that might just be good advice)... BUT fortunately, we CAN burn people who sleep with their in-laws, stone people who don't believe what we do, and we can own slaves.

I say it's good to consider some things in OT scripture with a dose of modern relevance. Paul certainly did, and he regularly brought everyone back to the whole bit about loving each other.

Also, no rights for women, please.

Leviticus is an outlier from the rest of scripture because it's the only book that doesn't have a focus on relationship (with each other, our world, and God). It's just law.

---

Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/31/2013 1:25:20 AM

2 up, 0 down

(In reply of the first post. I didn't read it all after lol.)

Mmmm just for the record, Bible contains murder and slavery. It even encourages slavery LOL. I don't think that's still around...

You can still say proudly that you believe in God without totally reflecting a way of life that is more than 2000 years old :P

---

Last edited by Neo_Aeon666 on 1/31/2013 10:12:26 PM

0 up, 0 down

Good for EA, everyone should have the right to marry whoever they want. I really have no respect for people who try to deny someone else equal rights.

7 up, 3 down

Good for them. The federal government should absolutely stay out of people's sex and romantic lives. Good for EA and the many other corporations who are, as World said, getting on the right side of history.

2 up, 2 down

My thoughts on the subject - First and foremost, several of you here at PSX are on my PSN friends list and you may (or not) have noticed that I routinely use my PSN comment bubble for quoting scriptures and quotes. These come from various inspirational people and books that I have come accross. But I'll get into the spiritual side of this discussion in a bit.

With that said, I have known quite a few homosexual people in my lifetime. I have disliked some, and had got along well with others. The same could be said about hetrosexual people in my life. If a person is a jerk, I will label them as such regardless of skin color and or sexual preference. I generally do not have an issue with anyone and accept everything as long as I am treated with respect.

However... I do not agree with what homosexuals are doing for a couple of reasons, althought both them tie in together in meaning.

First off, even if you believe someone is born gay, I must point out to simple science. It takes a man and woman to have child and that is all there is to it. Every gay person has a mother and a father when it comes down to it.

Secondly and biblically speaking, when God created Adam he noticed that he was alone. God in turn took part of Adam and created a woman, not another man. This was done with obvious reason as both Adam and Eve had different "parts" per se as both are required to produce a child. Last time I checked, man has never been able to have a child without a woman and vice versa.

With all that said, I, as a believer in Jesus Christ am NOT the person to judge you for something that the Bible says is wrong. If you are friendly I will be your friend.

4 up, 1 down

So.. does that reason translate as well to the unfortunate men and women who (no matter their sexual orientation) are unable to produce a child despite having the parts? Or the married couples who have no desire to have children? :P

---

Last edited by VampDeLeon on 1/30/2013 9:54:46 PM

1 up, 1 down

I don't believe allowing gay marriage will suddenly turn people gay, men all over aren't just going to suddenly say "wait i can marry a guy, cool i'm going to do that" lol its laughable to think people think that, there will still be heterosexual couples having kids and some will be gay. Its just something in their chemistry that attracts them to the same sex no different than we are to the opposite sex. The world will not go down in flames suddenly, people need to think more rationally and not so emotional.

2 up, 3 down

Well since most of EA's games sucks, they have to draw in any crowd they can to buy their games.

EA would support Cows marrying Monkeys if it meant more cash flow.

Stupid move imo. Politics is just a bad game to play.

End of Line.

1 up, 2 down

It's not a move people do for politics. It's a move companies do to support an inclusive workplace. EA is international, which means most countries they are based in have to identify as an equal opportunity employer.

It's the forward moving way of the free world.

2 up, 0 down

EA published some of the most awesome games of the generation :P

Sure they do some shovelware but it doesn't change the fact they publish some gems too :D

0 up, 0 down

I don't care if you're for it or against it. Constitutionally the government should have nothing to do with and the only reason anyone cares is because of money. If the government didn't provide financial benefits to married couples this wouldn't be an issue.

Government shouldn't be involved in straight or gay marriage, marriage is a religious practice. File every ones taxes individually and leave marriage in the church.

Then companies wouldn't have to throw their hat at it at all.

---

Last edited by kraygen on 2/1/2013 7:49:29 AM

1 up, 1 down