245

I think Africa as whole is quite a conservative continent, Uganda for example is where a bill passed, in 2014, to have homosexuality be punished by the death penalty. Thankfully it was struck down in the courts. I believe in my country, South Africa, most people have conservative views and being gay can still ostracize you from your family. But the weird thing is that we have the most progressive laws with regards to gay rights when compared to our neighbors in the continent, even though the population itself in South Africa is not progressive.

This, I believe, was due to the constitution we had and the judges on the Constitutional Court which granted gay marriage, forcing the government to pass a bill legalizing homosexual marriage (not a civil union but a proper marriage). If only others in the continent will follow but that will take some time.

There is this law expert in my country who said that he believed that South Africa is probably the only country in the world where gay couples have more rights than straight couples - in paper at least. If you are in a homosexual relationship and have been with your partner for many years and they die without leaving a will behind. You are legally entitled to inherit from your partner even though you were both unmarried. The same cannot be said for straight couples. I thought it was kind of funny, just throwing it out there.

246

And that is exactly the point I was making when talking about Serbia; that woman who just served you a bunch of food and is the nicest warmest human being you’ve ever seen may also be a woman who disowned her only son, a gay man, because he brought “shame to the family” and she “can’t walk through the neighborhood with her head held high anymore from all the shame”. And it’s not that she’s an evil human being, it’s just that she was shaped by the country and the culture and the circumstances she grew up in. And different countries have different cultures and different histories. Think about this for a moment: how much of why we today think that the Nazis are evil is because they lost the war? History books are written by the winners. Had Hitler taken over the world for example, for years and years people would be told that Jews were evil and that the Nazis were “the good guys” who cleansed the world of the “evil Jews”. Think about how there is a bunch of historical figures who committed atrocities, but we think of them as “good guys”, so to speak, because that’s what we were thought for years until it entered our collective opinion. And no, I’m not a Nazi apologist if anyone was wondering.

And the problem with an “objectively good moral thing” is that there isn’t really this universal objective rule book that determines what is right and what is wrong. Even that is open to interpretation, and interpretations widely disagree. Let’s say I disagree with your perception. Why am I wrong and you right, or vice versa? What is the “referee” that’s going to determine that? The law of majority? What if I disagree with the criteria used to decide who is right and who is wrong. Hell, people already do that, that’s why atheism exists.

It’s funny because I’ve seen a lot of examples from the US on the Internet about sexism that just wouldn’t happen here. Hell, you just elected Donald Trump as president, while in Serbia, a gay woman has just been elected Prime Minister. And no-one actually has a problem with that, Serbs are like “I don’t give a shit who you sleep with as long as you do your job right”. The thing where Serbia is homophobic is public displays of homosexuality that are seen as “indecent” and the marriage and adoption of kids because the majority of Serbs have traditional family values.

3 Likes
247

That is indeed a good question. I will leave it for someone with more personal experience on that regard. :slight_smile:

Most rural societies are bound to be conservative, I think.

I think maybe we are starting to mix the perception of what is morally wrong with what is objectively morally wrong. I have what is probably a pretty arrogant and self-righteous take on it, but while I admit that subjectivity should determine the degree of morally wrong things we are willing to accept, there are objectively good and bad things. Killing millions of people is bad, no matter what Nazis thought about it and how would people see it had Germany won the war. I might accept that a certain person can be mostly good despite having bad moral ideas, but I can’t accept that “right” and “wrong” are just subjective and relative. Even if I do accept that the degree of our perception of unacceptability of a certain wrong thing must change according to historical periods (war is Antiquity was pretty normal, so I can’t judge Julius Cesar’s actions according to my current day’s views on violence), I don’t really believe that that does apply to our own days, especially regarding at least slightly-educated and middle-age or younger folks.

I might be willing to accept that a person isn’t evil, but I don’t question that her thoughts and ideas are wrong. And queer-phobia, to me, is objectively wrong.

2 Likes
248

If you are comfortable with the term or if it’s the accepted umbrella term can also depend on the native language/country you come from. While it has a meaning as slur (like gay too just by the way) in english, in most other languages the term queer only got popular because of things like queer theory and queer studies. In those languages it basically lacks the history as slur and that’s why in other languages it’s still the most common and most accepted umbrella term. In Austria and Germany for example it’s quite rare to hear about lgbtq+ but queer is at least in the community well accepted (outside the community the people who don’t know the term are the majority…).

I for example just have no negative expiriences with the term because in my native language it is no slur. I still wouldn’t use it for people who may have different expiriences as me (so, basically the whole English speaking population), but I use it for me personally and in my native language as umbrella term for the lgbtq+ community.

Most of them also think that non-binary people (if they even exist for them) or straight trans people (as if trans people wouldn’t suffer the most marginalization and violence of the whole community) have no place in the community (it’s really fascinating to see the overlap), so basically they are full of shit in my humble opinion.
I mean I understand the theory of united on the outside, discussion on the inside, especially as the expiriences of the all the identities under the umbrella term are in various ways quite different from each other (but I also could make an argument for the expiriences of people under the same identity being quite differently based on circumstances, etc so there is that too), but these people just want to shut others out and hide behind the explanation “we just want to protect our community”, no matter the number of good reasons why such a sentiment in this cases is ridiculous. But I guess such people are everywhere to find…

5 Likes
249

But who determines what is objectively morally right or wrong?

250

In my personal experience? It will vary/depend on the person. I’ve got a relative or two who because of religious beliefs, can’t really accept me being lesbian. However, they never went out of their way to insult me and they will invite my girlfriend with me to family events, even if it makes them uncomfortable. The worst I can say in that example is that there might have been an awkward conversation or two which was never repeated…of course, I was also the type to point out the hypocrisies/lies/etc. in their own faith if they push the issue. I mean, the biker against gays…yet is tattooed…which is also against their own faith?

For the above people, then we do stay in touch, even if it is tough.

On the other hand, I’ve had people who might be warm and loving, but if they exclude my girlfriend, acting as if she didn’t exist? No, in that case I would withdraw (much like @Havenstone has noted).

2 Likes
251

Ideally by having the person in question self-designate somewhere on their journey of discovery towards adulthood. In more advanced sci-fi/magical societies the physical body likely becomes highly malleable and all but the very poorest and outcast could probably afford to change if it were necessary for them to become who they are.

Problem is there tends to be discrimination even in such racial groups, you can have the mc always be a Polish Jew forced into the ghetto during the Nazi occupation, but if he’s gay he’d still be discriminated against by his fellow Jews too, and that’s just an unpleasant real-world example.

Guess I’m lucky to have a mostly non-religious family then, some were a bit stand-offish (mostly in the mistaken belief that gay guys want to hump the bones of any other guy, family or no apparently. :unamused: ) after I first came out, but that’s all been resolved. The more difficult issues between me and my family actually came from me becoming an activist, a lawyer and a possible wannabe politician as many consider themselves virulently “apolitical” and politics no place for a “decent hard-working boy”. One of my uncles for example has never voted in his life.

4 Likes
252

At least in the US, religion tends to be the big thing people hide behind in their homophobia/transphobia/etc.

I will have to give credit to one relative…back about 20+ years, a gay teen named Mathew Shepard was brutally killed in the state of Wyoming. After this incident, my relative was horrified by what happened. She was as conservative as a person can be, but it also made her re-examine her beliefs. There were people in her own church who basically applauded it…and yet here was a poor teenager dead, let alone all the grief his family would be going through…and to hear people of her church endorse it? In that moment, she had a crisis of faith.

As a result, she actually became a big supporter of LGBTQ rights, etc (I’m talking about going to marches, etc.)…even if, still on a religious level, she still finds it hard to reconcile with what she was taught.

7 Likes
253

Wow, I don’t understand that against political activism. They should be proud you try to make things better and easier for everyone. And stand up for your values.

In Spain catholic church want to forbidden any type of contract were a women accept get pregnant to other partner( be lgtbq or not) have a baby their own. I still don’t understand were is problem if I want carry for instance my best friend baby to he and his fiancee has a biological baby. They say that is make a women womb a merchandise. However they are against a women take control of their sexuality.

So now right wing wants regulate the right as woman of carry out a familiar or a friend baby. To only do it 3 times and weird stuff .

I don’t get why Religion and state has to pit the hands on that.

5 Likes
254

It is in the nature of almost all organizations, right-wing, left-wing, neutral, etc…to want to dictate the course of things. Sometimes it is beneficial (opening up freedoms to others), other times it can be harmful. And sadly, all parts of the political spectrum do suffer this.

I mean, I tend to support the Democrats more often than not since they at least give a little more lip-service to issues I like…and yet, I can’t forget that it was the Democrats which made for the first big push for censorship in computer games and music back in the 90’s.

That’s why it is up to a person to also be ready to challenge their own group if they have to.

4 Likes
255

Tough question, hum?

To me, a thing is morally good or bad because it is objectively good or bad. I honestly don’t have a good way to answer you. Anything that represents an offense to the liberty, mental and physical health, well-being, and identity (I could possibly add a bit more things in here) is objectively wrong. Just to get this clear, wouldn’t you say that someone who discriminates, limits the liberty, offends or assaults a person do to their sexual, gender, racial, health or national identity is objectively wrong? Respecting, for example, a mentally disabled person, a physically disabled one, a black person, a white person, a hetero person, a homosexual person, an asexual person, a sexual person, etc. isn’t up to debate, at least not to me. It is a matter of basic human decency.

Would you say that basic human rights aren’t objectively good?

I am not saying that you are wrong, I am just saying that I don’t fully understand or subscribe that kind of absolute moral relativity where killing millions is up to debate concerning its moral merits and demerits.

@Lys, if you don’t mind me asking. Would you say that, if total and genuine acceptance is off the table, that kind of attempt of respectful behavior is good enough? And would your feelings on the issue vary if instead of those kinds of attitudes came not from distant relatives but from your own parents/brothers/grandparents? :slight_smile:

I do understand (even if I don’t subscribe it) if people say that politics isn’t for honest folks, but that seems a bit extreme. “Going about your own life” assumes different dimensions according to the political reality. I don’t know how can someone not have political ideas. Or are their political ideas that politics should be “apolitical” or “ideology-free”?

That kinda reminds me that show “when we rise” and how so many lesbians had to face discrimination from feminists, which is really strange and surprising (at least to someone like me, who lives in a pretty peripheral country and is of a much younger generation).

Do you still know of any feminists who discriminate lesbians?

3 Likes
256

For me, yes. In a perfect world, there would be no question of total acceptance, it just would be. However, that isn’t the way the world is…and when you look at every day life, sometimes respectful behavior is the best you can get.

I mean, hell, look how many people come here just to troll…or “I will tell the truth like it is”. It may be truth, but that still doesn’t mean one can act like an asshole and expect nothing to happen them.

Probably they would change, and not for the better. Especially if it was one’s parents and/or siblings. These are the people who are supposed to be closest to you…and should support you. However, someone being lesbian doesn’t mean you give them a dressing down as if someone was addicted to drugs. (And before someone asks, I would much rather the US take the use of drugs as a public health matter like many European countries do, rather than the typical ‘crime’ approach)

I know some, yes. Some of them do it from, once again, a religious background…of course, they don’t like it when pointed out that their Bible explicitly forbids women to be involved in affairs of the church.

However, other feminists…if not overtly discriminate, will say “You can hold off on clamoring for LGBTQ acceptance until after we achieve true equality for women.”

And that doesn’t touch on those lesbians who will discriminate against bisexuals either. I have to shake my head in anger when one essentially says “Pick a side.”

There are feminists who are also transphobic…some will say “You are making a mockery of our movement” to “Oh, you’re just undermining it from within.”

6 Likes
257

Oh I definitely don’t disagree with any of the points you’ve made, my point is, I could do so. Hypothetically, I could say “it’s perfectly morally acceptable to attack gay people for being gay”. Of course, you’d disagree and say I’m wrong, I’m a bigot, it’s absolutely not. Then I’d counter your argument, you’d counter mine…and we’d go on and on arguing, not being able to change each other’s mind, until we’d grow tired of it, or until some tie-breaker came about to determine who’s right once and for all. Because, until that tie-breaker comes, we’re just two people throwing subjective opinions at one another.

You’ve mentioned several times how “to you” this is this, and how “in your opinion”, this is this. But what if I disagree with your opinion on the matter? How are we gonna decide who is right? If we were playing Monopoly and disagreeing on the rules, we’d look at the official rulebook to determine who, if either, was the right party. But there isn’t an official rulebook for morals, is there? And even if there was, what would stop me from disagreeing with it and refusing to acknowledge it as valid? Isn’t that what people already do with God?

2 Likes
258

I dunno that uncle always refuses to even discuss politics with me. However I don’t think he voted back in the 90’s, when nearly all of our politicians were briefly trying to appear as “ideology free” as possible (but were really all just neoliberal) either.
Another of distant older cousins just always followed his Union’s voting advice, so I don’t come from the most politically minded family, sadly enough.

2 Likes
259

What makes you think that the tie-breaker will not be another subjective person with their own subjective opinions? It seems to me that there will be now three instead of two people arguing. The third person could conceivably disagree with the both of you and their own take on morality and what is (if any) is morally acceptably. Try convincing an nihilist that there is such a thing as morality.

260

Okay, the discussion about how arguments work is over now, and the bullshit “what if this person is a nice bigot” is over too. That’s not what this thread is for.

11 Likes
261

And that’s my cue to leave.

2 Likes
262

Wouldn’t that be different if the game is LGBTQ-locked? :thinking: I’m thinking particularly of games with a preset character, though, where the whole point is that character’s experience. I remember reading one about a gay guy coming out to his parents, for example. That had plenty of homophobic content… including coming from the mother, who seemed otherwise caring (thus relating to this topic of bigotry coming from a close and emotional place :disappointed:)… but there certainly wasn’t anything homophobic about the game itself. I believe it was autobiographical to some extent. (I don’t remember what the game was, sadly.)

This is different from general choicescript style, but I think it could be done. I think it could even work with a more customizable protagonist.

Digressing a little, I think it may also work if a game has, say, an optional discrimination plotline but you can choose if you want to explore that route, so it doesn’t automatically target all group members. I think Slammed! had something like that for women MCs.

I have the impression that there can be a generational difference with the word, too… it seems like often older people have experienced it more as an insult, while it’s been more reclaimed in recent times. But I could be overgeneralizing; I don’t know. (I can say that I personally have only heard it in the reclaimed sense, not as an insult… except on the Internet.)

As a side note, “gay” is a little different, since it’s a term our predecessors developed for ourselves, rather than a reclaimed insult. It’s only been made into an insult by other people :unamused:

Agreed. They’re like “I hate it when people discriminate against me! Now, excuse me while I discriminate against someone else…”
I’ve heard rhetoric that asexual people, for example, are supposedly there to infiltrate the LGBT rights movement, which… how does that even make sense? How would that even be a logical way to go about infiltrating if someone wanted to? :roll_eyes: it just doesn’t hold up, and turns into an excuse to treat people poorly.

That could make sense. I suppose anything else would be a matter of medical records, and would be treated as privately as those are. :thinking:

That would be a really difficult setting to handle in interactive fiction. Fascinating, but there are so many ways it could go wrong.
(On a personal aside, I have a quarter Jewish ancestry as well as being gay, so I know I would not have fared well in that period…)

Same here… but I also have a really tiny family, so there just aren’t that many people to come out to. Hasn’t been an issue with them. I do wish I’d had the chance to come out to my grandparents, though :disappointed: it seems like a little thing, but I’ll always wonder how it would have gone, and I’ll never know.

7 Likes
263

Is this the one?

I guess I would just prefer a game which didn’t make it much harder for minority players; we get enough of that in real life. :unamused: (Making it harder for everyone is fine, of course. :grin:)

4 Likes
264

That’s the one! :grinning: Thanks so much; I was hoping someone would be able to respond with what I was referring to :grin:

(I guess he was bi rather than gay… misrembered, sorry :sweat_smile:)

It also contains one of my favorite lines, in response to “Which one of you is the woman?” he says “That’s like asking which chopstick is the spoon.” Indeed :pensive:

Yeah, I suppose that’s where identity-locking or optional subplots could come into play :thinking:

(Though I might feel a little differently about certain historical settings :thinking: I don’t know.)

4 Likes