Maybe I misunderstand the ACLU. Do they cover only civil rights issues, such as an employer dismissing an applicant based on age/race/orientation/religion? Or do they also sue for "character defamation" of a given group, like Jar Jar Binks was supposed to be?

It's an organization of civil libertarians so there's a definite prejudice in favor of more openness and more expression than censorship. Suing a company for something like Jar Jar would be anathema as they're concern is ensure that there's adequate respect for the constitution not necessarily too much.

That's not to say that there aren't cases that are relatively close to the line. I know they touched a lot of raw nerves over that prom case they took on a while back, where the school refused to let a student go with her girlfriend and wear a tux.

But, as a general rule, they're not typically going to get involved in something unless there's a possibility of setting or reaffirming precedent, and most cases of discrimination just aren't going to do that.

So it sounds like it would be the group's individual advocacy organization that would handle such suits, like the NAACP or GLAAD.

Hence the confusion, the ACLU leadership is chummy with the HRC and other advocacy organizations, but that's mostly because a lot of the trouble in the US stems from unconstitutional laws such as DOMA and a lot of the ones that have already been thrown out.

yeah, it could be except for one thing, he didn't said that at all, you're the one who keeps saying it and i'm not sure why, maybe i'm missing something. Can you please quote me the bit in his rant where he suggests dropping romance mechanics in favour of other gameplay aspects ?

"When I say BioWare neglected The Straight Male Gamer, I don't mean that they ignored male gamers. The romance options, Isabella and Merrill, were clearly designed for the straight male gamers in mind. Unfortunately, those choices are what one would call "exotic" choices. They appeal to a subset of male gamers and while its true you can't make a romance option everyone will love, with Isabella and Merrill it seems like they weren't even going for an option most males will like. And the fact is, they could have. They had the resources to add another romance option, but instead chose to implement a gay romance with Anders."

Like i said, he wanted more catering to the straight male gamers at the expense of the implemetation of a gay romance.

Like i also said, he has no idea between the difference of taking an already fully developed Anders, fully VO'ed, fully quested, etc, etc, and adding in the few required bits to turn him into an LI for both genders AND implementing, from scratch, an extra character as an LI catering to straight male gamers only.

Some would frame it like this: If it's nature, then you can't choose not to be gay. If it's nurture, it's a psychological condition, in which case you can choose to address it rather than succumb to it.

Now, me, I just don't care *why* you're homosexual (aside from intellectual curiosity, of course). Although I was using the example as a joke, I do view it in a similar fashion to preference of pancakes or waffles. It just isn't a moral issue to me. But I don't have to like it to think that way. Too many gays act like anyone who doesn't LOVE the idea of man-on-man action is an enemy.

Or you could read his original post as:

Bioware catered to a gay minority at the expense of finishing the aspects of the game meant to appeal to the straight majority of gamers, and also that straight gamers shouldn't be required to experience gay romantic overtures.

Now, he might be wrong, but you (and others) seem predisposed to read it as an attack, which irks me and motivated me to post in the first place.

The same can be said of a sexuality toggle or filter. It would be a matter of a simple variable check, in fact.

I think the truth is that Bioware and EA shorted *everyone* this time. Straight or gay, you got a piece of crap. :-P

Eh, to be honest, I'm somewhat conflicted here. No credible expert in the field considers it to be a choice anymore than one can choose the color of ones skin.

But OTOH, the reality is that it's not a moral topic, there really isn't a right or wrong either. Although, one could make a credible case that one who is straight living as a homosexual would be wrong as would somebody who is gay trying to live as a straight person.

I am and you are. I said "If what he said was this" and "but because what he said was that". I posed a different argument that was more acceptable as opposed to what he actually said.

And Stephen Hawking, a respected scientist and mathematician, claims that he can mathematically prove that something came from nothing (disproving any notion of God, gods, or giant rabbits hatching the universe out of an Easter egg). That doesn't mean that I believe him. Something coming from nothing sounds just about as hokey as those giant rabbits, if you ask me. Expert opinion is often just as biased as amateur opinion.

I'm not sure how you *could* prove a natural origin of homosexuality unless you could identify a gene which causes it. But again, I don't care about its origin because "natural" and "unnatural" (if you can even define those terms in any satisfactory manner) don't necessarily equate to "right" and "wrong".

Maybe. It might not be healthy, but I'd hesitate to call it *morally* wrong.

I agree with sentiment, tho: To thine own self be true. ;-)

The difference being an expert can tell the difference and an amateur just thinks he can. "Everyone's biased so it's all just opinion, maaaan" is intellectually lazy. Just because something sounds funny or incomprehensible doesn't mean it's false, or inherently on the same level as other things that sound funny or incomprehensible. It's the entire reason the scientific method exists... our intuition only really works on a scale suited to our everyday existence, and even then it's flawed more often than it should be. Falsifiability and repeatable tests (along with plenty of math) are about the closest way we can try to understand the far reaches of science without tripping over our own intuition along the way.

And nature versus nurture doesn't equate to lack of choice versus choice, not does nature inherently mean "genetic."

Well, I didn't exactly say that, now did I? In this particular case, for example, I've yet to encounter evidence moves the matter out of the realm of opinion and into the realm of relatively certain fact. I didn't say that it's impossible to prove one way or another. I even proposed that genetic proof would suffice (despite its irrelevancy to me given my stated perspective on the matter as a non-moral issue).

Also, I'd argue that it's intellectually lazy to just "Trust the experts cuz they know what they're talking about, maaan."

Agreed to a certain extent, but you'll still have a tough time convincing me that *literally* zero (0) somehow becomes one (1) as Hawking says.

The problem with some scientists is that they often fail to recognize the present limits of science. There is a tendency to treat our best scientific guesses as unassailable fact that should be accepted without question by everyone. Militant atheists and scientists are just as bad as religious nutjobs and extremists in my book.

It depends on the case, sure. Don't feel like arguing it because, as stated, it's not even my line. ;-)

I'm not saying "trust the experts no matter what," I'm saying "realize that the experts, pretty much by definition, know more about the subject than you." If you're going to knock it, go right ahead, but be aware that saying "it don't feel right" isn't a rebuttal, particularly when it comes to obscenely high-level math where common intuition pretty much breaks down entirely. Me as well, but let's be honest: would either of us even understand the equation if he showed it to us? Bizarre mathematical gymnastics have gotten us plenty of amazing technology, some of which you and I are using to debate this right now. This is one of those subjects where I'm just content to say I don't understand enough about the claim either way and will defer to those who can actually make heads or tails of it. I don't know of any scientists who actually do this. I mean, I'm sure there are somewhere, but by and large I see this coming from people who argue about science on the internet, which is hardly the same thing as actual scientists.

Anybody who actually cares about science not only has no issue with it being questioned, it's actively encouraged. That's how progress is made. The issue is when people seem to think looking at a rigorously tested conclusion and saying "nuh uh" counts as a rebuttal or a falsification, and it doesn't. There are a myriad of ways to go about tearing down a scientific theory (and as an aside, I hate how that word gets misused and abused in this context), and god knows there's plenty of strife within the scientific community itself over varying competing theories (string theory is a minefield), but it all involves actual science.

And in the mean time we work with what we have, not because anybody is under the impression that it's perfect but because it's what we have. It's like a fixer-upper of a house: you improve it piece by piece, but you still have to live in it during the process because it's preferable to sleeping in the rain.

I think there might appear to be more of a gulf between our viewpoints than actually exists because of the nature of the two examples in this case. I'm mostly onboard with you when it comes to matters like medicine, physics, engineering, geology, or biology. Social sciences not so much given their basis on data inferred from statistics and studies rather than proofs (if that makes sense... starting to get tired here & I still have about two hours to go...). This would be why I proposed genetics as a good final arbiter on the matter. Hawking's claim pretty much contradicts one of the most elementary and basic notions of the mathematics that he uses to support it.

You are super lucky if you've never encountered the militant atheist. I have a more enjoyable time at the dentist.

Anyways.... we're pretty far off-topic, & I don't think we actually disagree on all too much here, & I'm getting tired, so it's on to lighter topics and funny YouTube videos for me. :-)

I was under the impression that we were talking about militant scientists, not atheists. I'm not really sure how or why you're conflating the two, and I have no particular interest to turn this into a religious discussion of any sort, especially in a thread relating to homosexuality (being a gay man, it's a pretty touchy subject and I prefer to not go near it).

Maybe because atheists are the ones who most often attempt to wield science as a weapon. But that's neither here nor there. I actually came back to post this link - in an awesome coincidence, it was the first recommended video when I opened YouTube:

Einstein vs Stephen Hawking - Epic Rap Battles of History #7