Dont forget the shots at peoples religions and beliefs as well.
To be fair, I think the reaction to this would be much different if there was the freedom to express a religion at stake.
If someone said "I think people who practice Christianity are immoral and wrong, and I don't want my kids exposed to it. Can we make sure there are no Christians in STO, so I don't have to talk to my kids about Christianity? Besides, Christians have probably been eliminated in the perfect future of Star Trek. But totes no disrespect intended! It's just the controversy!" then that would be a very clear cut rules violation. And don't say it can't happen.
Most religions preach the Golden Rule. It's a good idea. For people on both sides of any debate.
To be fair, I think the reaction to this would be much different if there was the freedom to express a religion at stake.
If someone said "I think people who practice Christianity are immoral and wrong, and I don't want my kids exposed to it. Can we make sure there are no Christians in STO, so I don't have to talk to my kids about Christianity? Besides, Christians have probably been eliminated in the perfect future of Star Trek. But totes no disrespect intended! It's just the controversy!" then that would be a very clear cut rules violation. And don't say it can't happen.
Most religions preach the Golden Rule. It's a good idea. For people on both sides of any debate.
With extremists in the world and others trying to strike down any religion, that thing is an issue now, IMO.
I don't always agree with he quoted poster, but I'm going to have to second this; the amount of arch-conservatives invested in the Star Trek franchise is, frankly, boggling. We all have our prejudices, our limitations of tolerance and diversity, but the number of people on this game who are both self-identified "Trekkies" AND conservatives is interesting.
Not going to dive into the rabbit hole any more than that, but it is something that has baffled me from the beginning.
I would say it's something like 5% or so. Probably admire Kirk's aggressive moves on the ladies but somehow failed to notice the things he said about every social issue that presented itself.
TNG then caused permanent hysterical blindness and deafness.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Depends on what you define as retaliation, I suppose. Sure, people have a right to voice their objections, but then so too do the people who object to those objections. Having objections responded to (or even criticized) is not the same thing as retaliation, even if it is uncomfortable to experience. Saying "This is just what I believe" is not a shield that should protect those beliefs from critical examination.
Objecting to an objection is not retaliation. Otherwise, the original objection would be retaliation, as well.
If you tried to get me fired because I expressed an objection based on my cultural and/or religious traditions, then that would be retaliation.
It's like people trying to get that duck hunting guy fired just because he liked to paraphrase the bible.
That's not cool. (The reason A&E wound up backing off was that had they fired him, the bearded duck hunting guy would have had a very good case to make for religious workplace discrimination, since all he did was paraphrase a passage from his religion's holy book while giving an interview. Surely, if your employer fires you because you dared to talk about the contents of your religion's holy book outside work and on your own time, then that is a clear-cut violation of the Civil Rights Act's protections of religious groups against being discriminated against in employment or housing. Basically, you can't fire people for reading the Bible on their own time, and that is a good thing).
I've been under the impression that while those rules re: forum topics exist, they're not usually anxious to shut discussion down as long as it doesn't turn into this. And so far, for the most part at least, I think we've avoided it.
On the other hand, we may have reached the point where we're mostly talking past each other, rather than to each other...
(Oh, the cotton/poly thing? It's supposed to be a sin to wear clothing made from two kinds of cloth. The Israelites were given a lot of rules whose main purpose was to keep reminding them of who they were, something they seemed to have a little trouble with while waiting at the foot of Mt. Ararat.)
I don't see the problem here, this has been one of the most civil conversations I've seen on here in a while. And I think the general consensus is that while people disagree on marriage, most would like to see equality in the eyes of the law. Striving for civil justice while often agreeing to disagree is essentially how every Trek morality play turns out.
But yeah, I'm probably going to get slapped with a temporary ban or whatever, at least it was fun. Coincidentally, I went to a wedding wedding reception today. It was awful. At least it wasn't one of my friends; one of my girlfriend's acquaintances. I think a TRIBBLE wedding would have been way more fun, or at least on point.
I don't see the problem here, this has been one of the most civil conversations I've seen on here in a while. And I think the general consensus is that while people disagree on marriage, most would like to see equality in the eyes of the law. Striving for civil justice while often agreeing to disagree is essentially how every Trek morality play turns out.
But yeah, I'm probably going to get slapped with a temporary ban or whatever, at least it was fun. Coincidentally, I went to a wedding wedding reception today. It was awful. At least it wasn't one of my friends; one of my girlfriend's acquaintances. I think a TRIBBLE wedding would have been way more fun, or at least on point.
I have to agree, while some forums rules might have been broken for the most part people were polite and not trolling or flaming people. It is alright to have conversations with people that don't agree as long as they are civil.
To be fair, I think the reaction to this would be much different if there was the freedom to express a religion at stake.
If someone said "I think people who practice Christianity are immoral and wrong, and I don't want my kids exposed to it. Can we make sure there are no Christians in STO, so I don't have to talk to my kids about Christianity? Besides, Christians have probably been eliminated in the perfect future of Star Trek. But totes no disrespect intended! It's just the controversy!" then that would be a very clear cut rules violation. And don't say it can't happen.
Most religions preach the Golden Rule. It's a good idea. For people on both sides of any debate.
What do you mean? There have been people in these forums that had continually bashed people for their religious beliefs. Just out of nowhere. There have been people who have pretty much said what is in you second paragraph (replace talk to their children with how stupid, idiotic and bigoted people of faith are). While people did stand up against it, there were no calls for the people saying it to be banned from the forums. It did get heated a bit, but there were no calls of bigotry against those who were bashing people of faith (btw, I see several of the same posters in this debate, but claiming to be victimized, what were they when they were the bashers?)
Back then, I respected their right to an opinion but called for a middle ground, that both faith and science can coexist, but the bashing continued. The past few days, I simply asked a question to think out of the box and find another reason, other than homophobia and bigotry, to why some people objected, and was immediately attacked out of the box with insults about my supposed "hating of gays" and such (which is furthest from the truth).
As far as explaining to children goes, teenagers should have already had a degree of exposure to same sex relationships, and had a discussion with their parents about them, just as much as "the big talk", but there are parents that do let their younger children play, and the parent should be filtering the content, because there are topics that the parents need to be ahead of.
The actual discussion of two people that love each other is somewhat simple to explain, but I had a cousin who that discussion went off the rails with her 6 year old daughter inquired about how same sex parent have children, why cant same sex parents have kids, and straight into a biology lesson that my cousin wasn't prepared to give to their child. I've had people suggest to that parents could say "you will understand when you are older", the problem is the child's question isn't answered and they end up finding things out from other people, that might not be a good source. So I can understand the aspect of parents wanting to filter.
Myself, I wouldn't let my children play an MMO, or other socially interactive game, until they are about 13-14 and I would want to play beside them. The ESD chat zone, in itself, is enough motivation for that, not mentioning how some people try and take advantage of children through the internet.
I've been under the impression that while those rules re: forum topics exist, they're not usually anxious to shut discussion down as long as it doesn't turn into this. And so far, for the most part at least, I think we've avoided it.
On the other hand, we may have reached the point where we're mostly talking past each other, rather than to each other...
You are totally right, no one should have to put up with having to listen to a guy with that sort of speech cadence
(Oh, the cotton/poly thing? It's supposed to be a sin to wear clothing made from two kinds of cloth. The Israelites were given a lot of rules whose main purpose was to keep reminding them of who they were, something they seemed to have a little trouble with while waiting at the foot of Mt. Ararat.)
I haven't heard that before, but wouldn't surprise me. A lot of traditional restrictions did get loosened through Rabbinic interpretation during the last diaspora, although it might still be followed by the Orthodox and some of the more literal/traditionalist organizations of Judaism.
I will say that Judaism has some very awesome traditions that work to keep family and community together and remember their history.
Usually the other way around. "Men of God make everyone feel guilty and judged." -- Captain Malcolm Reynolds.
Seriously, when the Bible-thumping starts, it's probably a good time for Trendy to show up.
And I believe it was the good Sheppard who said "it doesn't matter who/what you believe in, just believe". And that same Sheppard who Captain Reynolds took a liking too, considered part of his family, and sought rabid vengeance for his death. Did that "Man of God" make everyone feel guilty and Judged? I think you'll find that Malcom, while not having a religious epiphany and came back to the flock, concluded that not everyone was as bad as he thought.
I'm not going debate religion with you, but I will say that there have been people that are active on the STO forums, that have gone out of their way to attack people of faith and their religions with out anything spurring it, and very little, if any, repercussions for it. Extremes on any side are that way. That is why I included my statement.
(Oh, the cotton/poly thing? It's supposed to be a sin to wear clothing made from two kinds of cloth. The Israelites were given a lot of rules whose main purpose was to keep reminding them of who they were, something they seemed to have a little trouble with while waiting at the foot of Mt. Ararat.)
It is expected for people to go crazy by expressing their new found freedom after generations of slavery. After all, something similar happens to when people leave the nest.
I have not even played the episode yet, so I can't speak as to what it may or may not contain. I am not going to freak out, or decide it's nothing serious, based on lack of information in that regard.
But I am very dismayed at the way I have seen people acting.
I am going to be very clear on this: I have NO respect for it when anybody decides to mistreat someone based on their sexual orientation. OR their religion. BOTH must be respected IMO, on both sides. It makes me sick to see that I would be judged on the basis of my religion without anyone knowing me, or how I treat people in my life. And anyone who wanted to accuse me of hatred would be in some very hot water, because they would be accusing me of hating family.
It is simple to me: fair treatment for ALL in the workplace, both sexual orientation AND religion, no retaliation, no adverse decisions against anybody because they don't like that someone is TRIBBLE, or that someone is Christian. And fair financial treatment to all: I do not care who files their taxes how, or who gets whose Social Security and government benefits.
As far as marriage, that is a religious institution, and as far as I am concerned the government has no business issuing marriage licenses or even defining what a marriage is. They need to give up that role entirely. As far as I am concerned, the government has zero say in who I consider married, and on the flip side, they do not get to arbitrarily decide who is and is not allowed to file jointly on their taxes, etc. There is only one reason they've ever had an interest in marriage, and that's money and taxation--as in, controlling people. Just one more area where IMO the government deserves no power whatsoever.
If anyone ever makes it a hate crime for me to say that my church has a right to decide who it will and will not permit to be married in the church--as in, attempt to say that it must conduct religious ceremonies against their will--then I will protest that vigorously. Similarly to anyone who attempts to label me a bigot or a hater for saying that. I will not permit that to stand.
On the other hand, when I see ACTUAL cruelty and hatred, which does still exist in an alarmingly casual manner, I will not stand for it because guess what the other thing is that is key to my beliefs? That I should not permit people to degrade each other for any reason. If I see people say things like "that's so TRIBBLE" (and I have actually called people out for that while attending a Christian school, because I felt it was unChristian to say), or worse comments I will not repeat here--or casual stereotyping--then I will say something. If I see bullying, I won't have it. Anyone is free to look at my posts when a certain "church" reared its ugly head this year, if you want to see what my record is.
But I ask that others do not bully or stereotype or name-call in return. That's basic respect and civility.
Like Whamhammer, I would not allow my children on an MMO in my house--and guess what? My mind was made up on that well before this episode was a glimmer in anybody's eye. The chat in zone, particularly ESD, was enough of a deterrent. And the same with some of the hypersexualized stuff that has already BEEN in game for a long time. Yes, I realize STO is not the worst offender in that regard. But it is an offender enough. I would not want daughters or sons to see the way some players think it is all right to portray women, or to treat those with female toons.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I don't always agree with he quoted poster, but I'm going to have to second this; the amount of arch-conservatives invested in the Star Trek franchise is, frankly, boggling. We all have our prejudices, our limitations of tolerance and diversity, but the number of people on this game who are both self-identified "Trekkies" AND conservatives is interesting.
Not going to dive into the rabbit hole any more than that, but it is something that has baffled me from the beginning.
I think what you have encountered is that once a person stops pigeon-holing, or being pigeonholed into lump sums, people have more in common than one would think. There are so many aspects of Conservatism, Liberalism, Libertarian-ism, etc. that you can't lump sum them into liking one thing or another because they agree/disagree with "x". There are Liberals who are against same sex marriage and then there are the Log Cabin Republicans.
I think what you have encountered is that once a person stops pigeon-holing, or being pigeonholed into lump sums, people have more in common than one would think. There are so many aspects of Conservatism, Liberalism, Libertarian-ism, etc. that you can't lump sum them into liking one thing or another because they agree/disagree with "x". There are Liberals who are against same sex marriage and then there are the Log Cabin Republicans.
Yep, labels do not work on people...that's the other reason stereotyping fails, on either side.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
The actual discussion of two people that love each other is somewhat simple to explain, but I had a cousin who that discussion went off the rails with her 6 year old daughter inquired about how same sex parent have children, why cant same sex parents have kids, and straight into a biology lesson that my cousin wasn't prepared to give to their child. I've had people suggest to that parents could say "you will understand when you are older", the problem is the child's question isn't answered and they end up finding things out from other people, that might not be a good source. So I can understand the aspect of parents wanting to filter.
Myself, I wouldn't let my children play an MMO, or other socially interactive game, until they are about 13-14 and I would want to play beside them. The ESD chat zone, in itself, is enough motivation for that, not mentioning how some people try and take advantage of children through the internet.
this game is for ages 12+ so any parent allowing their child to play this at 11 or younger has no real say in the 'what about the children' stakes, it is all on them. as for children 12+ any 12yr old that is unaware of same gender relationships, is very likely taking having home schooling, again that is down to the parent not the developer. i agree with you on ESD chat, if i was to label anything in game as sometimes worrying.. ESD is it! it is all too often this games equivalent to walking into your parents room as a child and really wishing, really really wishing, you could rewind and erase that particular memory.
as a parent when asked by a very young child where do babies come from, as with most things the easiest answer is to just tell them the truth, always best to start with when a mummy and a daddy love each other (that sets the precedent of it being something that comes from a place of love) etc etc, and for TRIBBLE/TRIBBLE couples, or explaining about their options, again tell the truth, when 2 people really love each other but they cant have a baby themselves they can adopt, surrogate etc etc. (in my mind the process and situation surrounding a same gender couple is no different to the situation of a heterosexual couple who cant have children)
children are like sponges, if they are really interested in what they are hearing, they'll jump right in that bath and soak everything you tell them up, and there is nothing wrong and everything right with an inquisitive mind. if they aren't that interested they'll dip a toe in the bath and then change the subject.
the funny thing with raising children.. there is never really a particular time for anything, any time is the right time.
I wouldn't rate the ESD chat or some of the trolling behaviors that can exist in game or elsewhere to be 12+. More like 18+.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Even those who don't take it so far that it becomes a career or overriding pursuit, they still find guidance in Star Trek in their pursuit of self-improvement. They seek to banish prejudice and primitive thinking from their own lives and to live up to the ideals of treating others with respect no matter who and what they might be, and to value knowledge and logic and individuality as preferable to conformist slavery to tradition. They seek to transcend what Star Trek portrays as humanity's flaws, things like greed and violence and selfish, warlike tendencies.
The Original Series in particular is full of philosophy and moral lessons, with a clear set of guiding principles that are espoused as true and correct. And to a fault these principles are liberal to the point of being radical. Star Trek is a progressive vision, of a future where virtually everything that conservatives value are relics of history long since abandoned.
I still fail to see how conservatives could find anything to appeal to them in Star Trek.
I don't have to think a thing is perfect or always gets everything right, to have fun watching it or for it to capture my imagination. As a writer, I can also say that the areas where I don't always agree or where I think that the law of natural consequences would lead to problems that got swept under the rug--that creates tension, which creates drama, which creates PLOT. :evil grin:
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
As far as marriage, that is a religious institution, and as far as I am concerned the government has no business issuing marriage licenses or even defining what a marriage is. They need to give up that role entirely. As far as I am concerned, the government has zero say in who I consider married, and on the flip side, they do not get to arbitrarily decide who is and is not allowed to file jointly on their taxes, etc. There is only one reason they've ever had an interest in marriage, and that's money and taxation--as in, controlling people. Just one more area where IMO the government deserves no power whatsoever.
i'm not religious, but want to get married in a registrars office and make my relationship official and binding, are you saying that i shouldn't be allowed to do that?
actually ignore this.. it is late in the day, and would take this too far OT
i'm not religious, but want to get married in a registrars office and make my relationship official and binding, are you saying that i shouldn't be allowed to do that?
I would expect there'd be civil paperwork for all couples as long as the government continues to determine benefits and taxes that way. Now I would be HAPPIEST if the government butted out of even that, and went with a kind of taxation and benefits structure that didn't even require them to do that, and then they would have no involvement in people's private relationships whatsoever. But barring that, I would say let religious institutions define marriage, and have the civil paperwork that all couples of all orientations file, be completely secular and non-religious.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
this game is for ages 12+ so any parent allowing their child to play this at 11 or younger has no real say in the 'what about the children' stakes, it is all on them. as for children 12+ any 12yr old that is unaware of same gender relationships, is very likely taking having home schooling, again that is down to the parent not the developer. i agree with you on ESD chat, if i was to label anything in game as sometimes worrying.. ESD is it! it is all too often this games equivalent to walking into your parents room as a child and really wishing, really really wishing, you could rewind and erase that particular memory.
as a parent when asked by a very young child where do babies come from, as with most things the easiest answer is to just tell them the truth, always best to start with when a mummy and a daddy love each other (that sets the precedent of it being something that comes from a place of love) etc etc, and for TRIBBLE/TRIBBLE couples, or explaining about their options, again tell the truth, when 2 people really love each other but they cant have a baby themselves they can adopt, surrogate etc etc. (in my mind the process and situation surrounding a same gender couple is no different to the situation of a heterosexual couple who cant have children)
children are like sponges, if they are really interested in what they are hearing, they'll jump right in that bath and soak everything you tell them up, and there is nothing wrong and everything right with an inquisitive mind. if they aren't that interested they'll dip a toe in the bath and then change the subject.
the funny thing with raising children.. there is never really a particular time for anything, any time is the right time.
To the most part, I agree with you with a caveat attached. Certain children/people have a right time for discussions, as do parents. Its up to the parents to be the best judge of when the best time is for their children.
I also would take exception to your statement about homeschooling being the only situation where a child of 12 hasn't encountered a same sex couple. There are plenty low population areas where its likely to not meet a same sex couple. Heck, my wife didn't meet a same sex couple until she was earning her Masters Degree in the mid 90's (I will agree times have changes since then, but still). I think in the almost decade of where I am living, I think I have only noticed three, maybe four, same sex couples, and I am fifty miles outside a major city.
I'll agree with that but I had to type that reply quickly as I had to dash off to work. It wasn't the best choice of words for what i was trying to convey but I didn't have time for a better one.
What I was trying to say is it's -like- a religion in that it is a philosophy that illuminates a way of life and inspires people to follow the principles it espouses. The parallels are not 1-to-1, of course, but there are many for whom Trek is a vision that people aspire to as a shining example of how things should be. It inspires them. And while they don't believe it's a thing that really exists, they believe it is a thing that -should- exist and work hard to bring it to life however they can.
For some that comes in the form of social and political activism to bring our society closer in line with Star Trek's liberal utopian ideals, and for others it's all about science and engineering to bring the technology into being so that it can enhance the lives of countless millions. And for some it's about pure science and discovery, the enlightenment of the collective human mind by pure research and scientific advancement for the sake of knowledge itself.
Even those who don't take it so far that it becomes a career or overriding pursuit, they still find guidance in Star Trek in their pursuit of self-improvement. They seek to banish prejudice and primitive thinking from their own lives and to live up to the ideals of treating others with respect no matter who and what they might be, and to value knowledge and logic and individuality as preferable to conformist slavery to tradition. They seek to transcend what Star Trek portrays as humanity's flaws, things like greed and violence and selfish, warlike tendencies.
The Original Series in particular is full of philosophy and moral lessons, with a clear set of guiding principles that are espoused as true and correct. And to a fault these principles are liberal to the point of being radical. Star Trek is a progressive vision, of a future where virtually everything that conservatives value are relics of history long since abandoned.
I still fail to see how conservatives could find anything to appeal to them in Star Trek.
Just a question, do you have anyone close to you that is a conservative? That you have an honest real understanding of?
Comments
To be fair, I think the reaction to this would be much different if there was the freedom to express a religion at stake.
If someone said "I think people who practice Christianity are immoral and wrong, and I don't want my kids exposed to it. Can we make sure there are no Christians in STO, so I don't have to talk to my kids about Christianity? Besides, Christians have probably been eliminated in the perfect future of Star Trek. But totes no disrespect intended! It's just the controversy!" then that would be a very clear cut rules violation. And don't say it can't happen.
Most religions preach the Golden Rule. It's a good idea. For people on both sides of any debate.
With extremists in the world and others trying to strike down any religion, that thing is an issue now, IMO.
Usually the other way around. "Men of God make everyone feel guilty and judged." -- Captain Malcolm Reynolds.
Seriously, when the Bible-thumping starts, it's probably a good time for Trendy to show up.
already tweeted and reported this thread.
just a Fyi.
Good.
/10characters
I would say it's something like 5% or so. Probably admire Kirk's aggressive moves on the ladies but somehow failed to notice the things he said about every social issue that presented itself.
TNG then caused permanent hysterical blindness and deafness.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Objecting to an objection is not retaliation. Otherwise, the original objection would be retaliation, as well.
If you tried to get me fired because I expressed an objection based on my cultural and/or religious traditions, then that would be retaliation.
It's like people trying to get that duck hunting guy fired just because he liked to paraphrase the bible.
That's not cool. (The reason A&E wound up backing off was that had they fired him, the bearded duck hunting guy would have had a very good case to make for religious workplace discrimination, since all he did was paraphrase a passage from his religion's holy book while giving an interview. Surely, if your employer fires you because you dared to talk about the contents of your religion's holy book outside work and on your own time, then that is a clear-cut violation of the Civil Rights Act's protections of religious groups against being discriminated against in employment or housing. Basically, you can't fire people for reading the Bible on their own time, and that is a good thing).
On the other hand, we may have reached the point where we're mostly talking past each other, rather than to each other...
(Oh, the cotton/poly thing? It's supposed to be a sin to wear clothing made from two kinds of cloth. The Israelites were given a lot of rules whose main purpose was to keep reminding them of who they were, something they seemed to have a little trouble with while waiting at the foot of Mt. Ararat.)
Indeed, that's about all I can say without starting a forum fire...
Suffice it to say, this subject is anachronistic...
I won't be back in this thread and I suggest to everyone to just let it be lost to the dustbin of forgotten threads.
But yeah, I'm probably going to get slapped with a temporary ban or whatever, at least it was fun. Coincidentally, I went to a wedding wedding reception today. It was awful. At least it wasn't one of my friends; one of my girlfriend's acquaintances. I think a TRIBBLE wedding would have been way more fun, or at least on point.
I have to agree, while some forums rules might have been broken for the most part people were polite and not trolling or flaming people. It is alright to have conversations with people that don't agree as long as they are civil.
What do you mean? There have been people in these forums that had continually bashed people for their religious beliefs. Just out of nowhere. There have been people who have pretty much said what is in you second paragraph (replace talk to their children with how stupid, idiotic and bigoted people of faith are). While people did stand up against it, there were no calls for the people saying it to be banned from the forums. It did get heated a bit, but there were no calls of bigotry against those who were bashing people of faith (btw, I see several of the same posters in this debate, but claiming to be victimized, what were they when they were the bashers?)
Back then, I respected their right to an opinion but called for a middle ground, that both faith and science can coexist, but the bashing continued. The past few days, I simply asked a question to think out of the box and find another reason, other than homophobia and bigotry, to why some people objected, and was immediately attacked out of the box with insults about my supposed "hating of gays" and such (which is furthest from the truth).
As far as explaining to children goes, teenagers should have already had a degree of exposure to same sex relationships, and had a discussion with their parents about them, just as much as "the big talk", but there are parents that do let their younger children play, and the parent should be filtering the content, because there are topics that the parents need to be ahead of.
The actual discussion of two people that love each other is somewhat simple to explain, but I had a cousin who that discussion went off the rails with her 6 year old daughter inquired about how same sex parent have children, why cant same sex parents have kids, and straight into a biology lesson that my cousin wasn't prepared to give to their child. I've had people suggest to that parents could say "you will understand when you are older", the problem is the child's question isn't answered and they end up finding things out from other people, that might not be a good source. So I can understand the aspect of parents wanting to filter.
Myself, I wouldn't let my children play an MMO, or other socially interactive game, until they are about 13-14 and I would want to play beside them. The ESD chat zone, in itself, is enough motivation for that, not mentioning how some people try and take advantage of children through the internet.
You are totally right, no one should have to put up with having to listen to a guy with that sort of speech cadence
I haven't heard that before, but wouldn't surprise me. A lot of traditional restrictions did get loosened through Rabbinic interpretation during the last diaspora, although it might still be followed by the Orthodox and some of the more literal/traditionalist organizations of Judaism.
I will say that Judaism has some very awesome traditions that work to keep family and community together and remember their history.
And I believe it was the good Sheppard who said "it doesn't matter who/what you believe in, just believe". And that same Sheppard who Captain Reynolds took a liking too, considered part of his family, and sought rabid vengeance for his death. Did that "Man of God" make everyone feel guilty and Judged? I think you'll find that Malcom, while not having a religious epiphany and came back to the flock, concluded that not everyone was as bad as he thought.
I'm not going debate religion with you, but I will say that there have been people that are active on the STO forums, that have gone out of their way to attack people of faith and their religions with out anything spurring it, and very little, if any, repercussions for it. Extremes on any side are that way. That is why I included my statement.
It is expected for people to go crazy by expressing their new found freedom after generations of slavery. After all, something similar happens to when people leave the nest.
But I am very dismayed at the way I have seen people acting.
I am going to be very clear on this: I have NO respect for it when anybody decides to mistreat someone based on their sexual orientation. OR their religion. BOTH must be respected IMO, on both sides. It makes me sick to see that I would be judged on the basis of my religion without anyone knowing me, or how I treat people in my life. And anyone who wanted to accuse me of hatred would be in some very hot water, because they would be accusing me of hating family.
It is simple to me: fair treatment for ALL in the workplace, both sexual orientation AND religion, no retaliation, no adverse decisions against anybody because they don't like that someone is TRIBBLE, or that someone is Christian. And fair financial treatment to all: I do not care who files their taxes how, or who gets whose Social Security and government benefits.
As far as marriage, that is a religious institution, and as far as I am concerned the government has no business issuing marriage licenses or even defining what a marriage is. They need to give up that role entirely. As far as I am concerned, the government has zero say in who I consider married, and on the flip side, they do not get to arbitrarily decide who is and is not allowed to file jointly on their taxes, etc. There is only one reason they've ever had an interest in marriage, and that's money and taxation--as in, controlling people. Just one more area where IMO the government deserves no power whatsoever.
If anyone ever makes it a hate crime for me to say that my church has a right to decide who it will and will not permit to be married in the church--as in, attempt to say that it must conduct religious ceremonies against their will--then I will protest that vigorously. Similarly to anyone who attempts to label me a bigot or a hater for saying that. I will not permit that to stand.
On the other hand, when I see ACTUAL cruelty and hatred, which does still exist in an alarmingly casual manner, I will not stand for it because guess what the other thing is that is key to my beliefs? That I should not permit people to degrade each other for any reason. If I see people say things like "that's so TRIBBLE" (and I have actually called people out for that while attending a Christian school, because I felt it was unChristian to say), or worse comments I will not repeat here--or casual stereotyping--then I will say something. If I see bullying, I won't have it. Anyone is free to look at my posts when a certain "church" reared its ugly head this year, if you want to see what my record is.
But I ask that others do not bully or stereotype or name-call in return. That's basic respect and civility.
Like Whamhammer, I would not allow my children on an MMO in my house--and guess what? My mind was made up on that well before this episode was a glimmer in anybody's eye. The chat in zone, particularly ESD, was enough of a deterrent. And the same with some of the hypersexualized stuff that has already BEEN in game for a long time. Yes, I realize STO is not the worst offender in that regard. But it is an offender enough. I would not want daughters or sons to see the way some players think it is all right to portray women, or to treat those with female toons.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I think what you have encountered is that once a person stops pigeon-holing, or being pigeonholed into lump sums, people have more in common than one would think. There are so many aspects of Conservatism, Liberalism, Libertarian-ism, etc. that you can't lump sum them into liking one thing or another because they agree/disagree with "x". There are Liberals who are against same sex marriage and then there are the Log Cabin Republicans.
Yep, labels do not work on people...that's the other reason stereotyping fails, on either side.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
this game is for ages 12+ so any parent allowing their child to play this at 11 or younger has no real say in the 'what about the children' stakes, it is all on them. as for children 12+ any 12yr old that is unaware of same gender relationships, is very likely taking having home schooling, again that is down to the parent not the developer. i agree with you on ESD chat, if i was to label anything in game as sometimes worrying.. ESD is it! it is all too often this games equivalent to walking into your parents room as a child and really wishing, really really wishing, you could rewind and erase that particular memory.
as a parent when asked by a very young child where do babies come from, as with most things the easiest answer is to just tell them the truth, always best to start with when a mummy and a daddy love each other (that sets the precedent of it being something that comes from a place of love) etc etc, and for TRIBBLE/TRIBBLE couples, or explaining about their options, again tell the truth, when 2 people really love each other but they cant have a baby themselves they can adopt, surrogate etc etc. (in my mind the process and situation surrounding a same gender couple is no different to the situation of a heterosexual couple who cant have children)
children are like sponges, if they are really interested in what they are hearing, they'll jump right in that bath and soak everything you tell them up, and there is nothing wrong and everything right with an inquisitive mind. if they aren't that interested they'll dip a toe in the bath and then change the subject.
the funny thing with raising children.. there is never really a particular time for anything, any time is the right time.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I don't have to think a thing is perfect or always gets everything right, to have fun watching it or for it to capture my imagination. As a writer, I can also say that the areas where I don't always agree or where I think that the law of natural consequences would lead to problems that got swept under the rug--that creates tension, which creates drama, which creates PLOT. :evil grin:
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
i'm not religious, but want to get married in a registrars office and make my relationship official and binding, are you saying that i shouldn't be allowed to do that?
actually ignore this.. it is late in the day, and would take this too far OT
I would expect there'd be civil paperwork for all couples as long as the government continues to determine benefits and taxes that way. Now I would be HAPPIEST if the government butted out of even that, and went with a kind of taxation and benefits structure that didn't even require them to do that, and then they would have no involvement in people's private relationships whatsoever. But barring that, I would say let religious institutions define marriage, and have the civil paperwork that all couples of all orientations file, be completely secular and non-religious.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
To the most part, I agree with you with a caveat attached. Certain children/people have a right time for discussions, as do parents. Its up to the parents to be the best judge of when the best time is for their children.
I also would take exception to your statement about homeschooling being the only situation where a child of 12 hasn't encountered a same sex couple. There are plenty low population areas where its likely to not meet a same sex couple. Heck, my wife didn't meet a same sex couple until she was earning her Masters Degree in the mid 90's (I will agree times have changes since then, but still). I think in the almost decade of where I am living, I think I have only noticed three, maybe four, same sex couples, and I am fifty miles outside a major city.
Just a question, do you have anyone close to you that is a conservative? That you have an honest real understanding of?