Homosexuality and theforce.net

"And, by the way, I'd have to imagine that the photos aren't unauthorized or there would be no banners or icons or such. TFN has many legal disclaimers, so they're covered."

Actually, unless something has changed, the photos ARE unauthorized. TF.N's disclaimers mean bupkiss. Unless TF.N has the EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT from Lucasfilm Ltd., all of the photos taken from official sources are unauthorized copyright infringements. Heck, for that matter the posting of spoilers is illegal, being intellectual property of Lucasfilm. It is only by Lucas' good graces that TF.N and other fansites are allowed to operate. Since Lucas could swoop down at any time and declare such use illegal, thus robbing this site of it's identity, a parallel can be drawn to slash fanfic in that Josh (whats with J*sh?) or Scott or whoever cannot claim that it can't be posted because Lucas may not approve at some future point, since they have so clearly and blatantly already committed in much more serious infractions in their unauthorized use of Lucas' images and story details.

 

Ah, it's our three monthly useless debate on homosexuality. You know, the internet is really just like real life - everything repeats itself constantly.

The reality of the situation is nothing will ever change as things currently stand because, firstly, not only does Josh have the final decision, but he has the impertinence to put his own deviate personal beliefs on this issue instead of generally accepted standards of living in the 21st century and subsequently won't budge from his view no matter the protest. Secondly, the current moderators, generally speaking, won't confront Josh about his archaic views, but merely go along with what he says and do nothing but defend him in Communications, or, the ones who do raise objections are left with little support and are thus ultimately futile. As is this entire debate.

The JC's current heirachy would never work in real life, so how can it be expected to work online? It doesn't (in regards to Josh's absolut power). And we can't do anything but protest until, maybe, one day, Josh may see the light. However by that time anyone who's previously protested or cared about the issue can't be bothered repeating the same arguments, and new people who protest get the same cyclic treatment.

Josh needs to realise that Jesus would have been the first member on these boards to push for freedom of sexuality, and would have been against the very thing that Josh is advocating. And parents thesedays aren't babyboomers anymore. But whatever.

 

Josh needs to realise that Jesus would have been the first member on these boards to push for freedom of sexuality. But whatever.

Just like with the woman at the well, huh?

 

"the policy stemmed from a letter written to Josh by George Lucas and his legal advisors."

Right, and it's just a coincidence that J*sh is religiously opposed to homosexuality?

"Um, last I checked the law is reality."

It's sad that you believe that.

And Jim, the comparison between homosexuality and bestiality is really joshdamn old. If you can't tell the difference between a human and a nonsentient animal, go back to school.

"/MOST/ courts would agree to it as well."

Yeah, I've gotta call BS on that one. Homosexuals are allowed to adopt. Homosexual marriage has just been legalised in Canada, and is on it's way to being legal in the US.

"This place isn't 'just a forum', it's also a place of business"

Really? I was under the impression the TFN wasn't allowed by LFL to make a profit. They must use any money they recieve for advertising and such only to maintain the site, and anything left must go to charity.

"It is not something entirely accepted yet by our society"

And it never will be if people always just go with what's currently accepted.

"Please when I say 'their' universe, understand Lucas created it and he can do with it as he pleases."

When Lucas released Star Wars to the public, it became the fans'. He can still do with it as he pleases, take the story wherever he wants, and get all profit from it, but it is wrong of him to dictate what someone else can write about it in a completely unofficial, nonprofit, disclaimer-laden fic.

"allow gay fanfic and a seperate, disclaimered section for +18 members to go to"

Why should it be restricted to those over 18? We're not talking explicit stuff here. No more explicit than the het romance fic already here. Is it so hard to understand that? Just substitute the name "Obi-wan" for "Padme" or "Sabe" for "Anakin".

"However, complaining non-stop on a thread on the board won't do a darn thing."

Well not with that attitude, no. But many things have been changed here through member action(complaining). The Senate Floor and the Amphitheatre are a direct result of such 'complaining'.

"TFN has many legal disclaimers, so they're covered."

Exactly. Fanfic has disclaimers too.

As for that article, let's look at the relevant quotes:

"Lucasfilm has suppressed Skywalker slash on the grounds that it harms the Star Wars image, but it allows PG-rated fanfic."

PG fanfic. That's what we're talking about. Luke and Han sharing a kiss or Anakin and Obi-Wan holding hands is certainly within the limits of PG.

The article also says that fanfic isn't allowed at all. It has contradictory information. Looks like someone at LFL can't make up his mind.

 

And Jim, the comparison between homosexuality and bestiality is really joshdamn old. If you can't tell the difference between a human and a nonsentient animal, go back to school.


Get your mind out of the gutter, anakin_girl had just stated that she considered her dog part of her family -- I was simply stating that I did not. We were discussing the "family-friendly" moniker, and I was trying to point of that it has no standard definition. Not once have I compared homosexuality with bestiality though I find it funny that speaking with a friend before I posted it I was warned that it would be interpreted in such a way.


When Lucas released Star Wars to the public, it became the fans'. He can still do with it as he pleases, take the story wherever he wants, and get all profit from it, but it is wrong of him to dictate what someone else can write about it in a completely unofficial, nonprofit, disclaimer-laden fic.


Actually, with the additions to artists' rights in the 1978 Copyright act, releasing a work to the public does not discount the artist's right to control said work. The artist has the right to sue for control of a work if he/she feels that his/her creation is being changed in ways that are against his/her wishes, non-profit or otherwise.

 

D'oh!

Ok, bestiality point conceded.

I also consider my pets a part of my family, but there are logical reasons that pets aren't elegible for family benefits. For one, it's alot easier to aquire a pet than a human member of the family. Also, pets are not sentient, so far as we know, which brings up all sort of questions of consent(not necesarilly sexual, but also medical, financial, etc).

 

Just like with the woman at the well, huh?

I haven't read the bible enough lately to remember details of random stories or parables from it. All I know is that Jesus was against living your life under rules and regulations, and yet that is how most modern day christians, including ones at the crux of this discussion, seem to live.

 

epic, the fact that you 'haven't read the Bible lately' (and that you refer to it as 'random stories') rather indicates you don't know much about the subject at all, so I would suggest you drop it. I don't want to get into a religious debate, and I doubt others do either.

 

I didn't refer to the bible as random stories (not in that post, anyway). I referred to the woman at the well story as being random, given the fact there are many stories in the bible. And my not having read the bible lately has no bearing on my understanding of it.

But don't worry, I don't want to have a religious debate either.

 

Not to start a religious debate (which I'm sure KW would quickly quell), but the statement you made had nothing to do with the Bible aside from the fact that it seems to be a trumpeting call of the left in recent years. The fact of the matter is that Jesus was indeed welcoming of those that were of less desirable character to based on the standards of the day, but your assumption falls apart when you consider the fact that any extra-martial sex was considered sin in the Bible and Jesus in almost every case asked them to "go and sin no more".

That said, I don't think religion has a place in this discussion on either side.

 

Yeah. let's leave the religion out of this as much as we can - although I do accept that it may crop in terms of Josh's views.

Can we not get a senior Mod or even staff member from TF.N to make a full statement on the matters and questions arising?

i.e. - The TF.N/JC definition of "family friendly" and how that relates to homosexual relationships.

Ways to include same gender relationships while still remaining "PG" (easily done - refer to Shakespeare/Marlowe).

The relationship betweeen allowing inter-spieces relationships to same sex relationships

etc...

NB - Don't just think this is a bunch of gays whinging for "equal rights". There are many hetrosexual members involved in this debate that see the absurdity of the argument against allowing gay relationships in FanFic and the reasons given for said ban.

 

As a heterosexual who also believes the rule to be absurd, I can empathise with your viewpoints. It would be hard for I or many others I'm sure, to justify such viewpoints.

Which is why it is handy we really don't have to. The decision is not in our hands, and has been dictated by the same guy whose work and effort allows people to post in this thread bickering about how unfair it all is.

As I think has been stated many times by many others. We don't need to justify the morality, fairness or equality of the decision. Our task is to simply police it and meet any potential issues regarding it as they come.

I believe if you look through this thread, many senior members of the Administration from Josh on down have spoken on the issue, thus meeting potential questions and issues. Hence, their obligation has been fulfilled.

I'm not sure what more answers we can give. If people simply want clarification on what is allowed and what is not, I suggest PMing the relevant forum Mods to which your question pertains.

If people want to lodge a protest, I believe their is still a petition of sorts floating around. Go chase it up.

If after all that and this thread here, people are still left unsatisfied, find one of the million other websites that allow homosexuality to be depicted in various fiction, conversations or social boards to varying extents beyond the mandate of this forum.

Apart from that, I'm afraid we can do little more to help you apart from repeating ourselves.

 

Thanks for that sensible post. At least it was more than "if you don't like it don't post etc..."

I have read the thread and I cannot see where Josh has specifically justified his reasoning. Yes, I know he doesn't have to but seeing that there are vaild and sensible points being made and asked by sensible members (both homosexual and hetrosexual) it wouldn't hurt to answer some.

I also know that it is the role of the Mods to police and enforce the rules but it would be nice to see of you guys actually agreeing with the more sensible points made (which you yourself seem to).

I'll be honest with you. I am neither gay nor a regular member of FanFic but I feel compelled to argue against this rather silly rule.

All I ask for is clarification on various vague statements made by numerous people in positions of responsibility. This would be best dealt with by a full comprehensive statement on the family friendly rule, and how it is to be interpreted. IMO.

If gay relationships are banned in FanFic because homosexuality doesn't "fit" with Josh's personal values then let him say so. If it has something to do with legal agreements with LFL, then let him say so. If it has been agreed by those in charge that homosexuality is not family friendly, then let them say so.

Surely this would end or at least focus (and reduce) the debate.

 

If I could agree with P-o-T more than 100%, I would... but I can't, so 100% it is!

 

When I keep hearing "family friendly" and then a string of Mods grand standing for approval of the supreme leader, while he seems to never post on this, I see the genius that is at work.
The mods will continue to swat away any points made so that the users won't demand that Josh himself answear these questions.
He will not.
Once we get past the family friendly excuse, and that's all it is, real opinions would come out.
If he were to post real opinions here on this subject I think a lot of the regular users would be extremely upset they were supporting a digital society that practiced discrimination.
By just ignoring any questions and letting the mods chop away at everyone, even though they have nothing to do with the decision, in time the thread can be locked and this will all go away for awhile.
Sadly this is how discrimination has come to be in this day and age, often hidden, rarely obvious.

 

I keep hearing all these mods claiming they disagree with the policy. Yet they do nothing about it. Why? Certainly if the majority of the modsquad stood together against this rule, J*sh would listen a bit more than he has to regular members.

 

From reading the comments made by other Mods I think I should emphasize that our job is to uphold the TOS, however... this does not mean that we all necessarily have the same morality or mentality. PoT has made an excellent post explaining this.

I for one am heterosexual and questoining why this rule is in place. I don't believe an answer that claims "it's there because it is" is sufficient justification for the alienation of a particular social group. A satisfactory reason would be one in the form suggested by D_A.

However, we do have to acknowledge, as posted by PoT, that it is not our decision to make... yet there is no reason why it shouldn't be our responsibility to question the rule due to the fact that all of us form part of a community that wants to be more inclusive, and yet is not allowed.

 

SOK, If the mods were really dedicated to this issue, and were principled enough to more than just pay the issue e-lip service, they should step down and boycott the site. To do anything less seems pretty non-committal to me.

Or is it really just not that big a deal? Yeah, I guess that's it.

AYBABTU?

 

With all due respect, what would that achieve? Are you prepared to boycott this site too? All that will achieve is maintaining the status quo. If you want something to change than put forward a logical argument (no criticism of your argument ) because just leaving will simply allow the issue to be swept under the carpet.

This issue needs to be discussed carefully and with respect to everyone's opinions. Threats will not achieve this.

Seb

 

Your argument is this:

"I know this place downtown that doesn't allow black people to dine there. But boy, they sure do have good steaks! Let's go eat one, and mention to the management that we disagree with their policy."

That doesn't seem like a very principled stand to me. A principled stand is where one says that he will no longer participate in something that offends him. He can yell and scream about it all he wants, but once he realizes that the policy is set and the deal is done, continuing to yell and scream about it is pointless. His only principled and moral recourse is to remove himself from the very thing that perturbs him so.

That's what I'm willing to do. I promise you that as soon as Josh caves in to those who don't respect his right to run this place as he sees fit, I'll walk away and never look back. That gives you people something else to fight for.

So as long as the mods who disagree with this policy continue to moderate here, and those users who are so offended by this policy continue to come here and particpate, then I guess the issue just isn't really a deal-breaker, is it? I don't have a lot of respect for people who are so persistent with their demands and yet don't have the fortitude to stand up for that principle which they seem to be so adamant about implementing on others.

And your definition of "threat" seems to be just as broad as DA's definition of "flaming."

AYBABTU?

 

I'm simply promoting change rather than revolution

 

I'm going to lock this thread. There is no end game which means this thread will go on indefinitely with no change in board rules. The ultimate post that could be made has been done, and that was by Joshua Griffin. He's spoken on this issue many times before and there's not much more he'll add beyond that.

Whether or not you, I, or any user agrees with it doesn't matter. I don't feel like my First Amendment rights have been stepped upon. This is a decision made by the owner of the site, it's his private site, and he is free to set it up however he so chooses. We are moderators of the website and it is our job to enforce those rules, whether or not we agree with every single one of them.

And since everyone is posting responsibly and more philosophically than anything else, let's move it to the Senate. But the discussion is so circular it's not even funny. The ruling is in by Josh, it's not going to change in the near future, and nothing is getting accomplished in Comms except hurt feelings.

There is a thread in the Senate that is basically a carry-over of this thread. But this isn't appropriate for Comms anymore. Please feel free to send all PM's, concerns, thanks, and hate mail to me. I'm making the call to close it and as such I will take the responsibility of handling any repercussions of that action. Thanks.