Seifz wrote...
Captain Cornhole wrote...
Why does it always come down to Black people? If I was Black I would kinda get tired of people useing my race as a tired example of oppressed minorites.
As far as sexual oreientation goes, it is debate able to what extent homesxuals pick their sexuality. I have been reading some scientific articles on this a while back. From what I gathered homosexuality is gentetic to the extent that scientists have linked homosexuality to a certain gene or something to that effect. Just like they have linked prayer to a certain gene or any other activity to a certain gene. Yet prayer is still a person's choice.
Clearly though more research is needed to find out hommuch genetics play a role in homosexuality. PM me and I will give you some sources, it you want. 
1. It's an example that's recent and easy to relate to. Even if you weren't around for the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s, you still learned about it in school and you're still seeing anti-black racism today. It's much harder to relate to, say, the anti-Irish movement.
2. The NAACP, affirmative action, black-only scholarships, and Al Sharpton don't seem to be tired of it, yet.
In any case, it's a good analogy. One can no more choose his sexual orientation than he can choose his skin color. Being anti-gay is no better than being anti-black and the idea that you can "love the sinner, but hate the sin" doesn't fly in this case. It's nothing more than a cop-out to make you feel less homophobic.
Yeah, I used that label again. I'm going to keep doing it everytime someone posts nonsense like this.
Speaking as a black person: Its a terrible analogy. Risking this touching too much on a political note (That line would of already been crossed anyways) - its just a cheap way to attatch an already established horror/emotion (Racism is bad) to whatever cause you want.
You can cross your arms, and shake your head all you want, the debate as to if there is a choice in homosexuality will continue. Simplying saying "Hey, there's no choice in the matter!" is about as much as a fact as that guy rambling about chemtrails.
Feel free to throw homophobic around, it'll just shred what little meaning the term has left (Much as accusing someone of being a racist has gone from being one of the worst accusations against someone you can make, to a slight wound). Unless I missed something, he hasn't done anything that would present a fear of homosexuality at all. What you seem to be doing is saying "He doesn't agree with my views on homosexuality, and -so he must be a bigot-."
To actually -get back on topic-:
How exactly is it good for the depth of the game for a character's sexuality to change regardless of who you are? Is it a good thing that I can be a complete dick to Isabela, Merrill, Anders, or Fenris and still romance them? Certainly for some characters (Merrill) it might make sense that challenging them could inspire a sort of romance, but -all of them-? It cheapens the experience and lessens the whole notion that actions have consquences. There aren't -really- any consquences, because all actions drive toward the same end. I can romance you by challenging you, surpressing your opinion, and being a general dick toward you, or I can romance you by...actually being nice.
Likewise, how does it make sense that everyone is attracted to Hawke regardless of gender?
Lelianna and Zev benefited from being bi and having that as something unique to them. In Lelianna's case, for example, it furthered the concept of her being in love with you because of what you represented to her (Her dream/vision). It made sense that gender wouldn't be an issue for her, you (sort of) represented the Maker's will to her.
In other words, it fit her personality.
You can say that sexuality isn't a part of identity, but how can any honest person say that? A gay pride parade or your stereotypical homophobe (Read: Not 99% of the people being accused of it here) disproves that. Those people cling to sexuality as an identity (A good example would be the gay groups who, humorously enough, attack bisexuals).
It doesn't fit Ander's personality to have him gaga over someone who wants to have Mage's in chains. Likewise why should -all- (romanceable) characters be attracted to both genders?
Its fine if Bioware wants to put homosexual characters, bi characters, and straight characters in their games. And its fine if a gay character approaches me, htis on me, but stops when I turn them down (Thats real life people. stop freaking out over it). But I think the characters suffer when their sexuality becomes, in effect, a blank slate. Bioware made romances (and sexuality) a part of characters and their games, and guess what? It doesn't matter how legendary or charismatic you are, some people will never be attracted to you because of your gender.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
Even so, sexuality is determined biologically . . . at least to the same extent one can say it is determined sociologically (i.e. upbringing/ life experiences). However, the same can be said for EVERY behavior. Indeed, some people are less inclined to behave violently or engage in intense physical behavior due to traits they inherited hereditarily. Some people are better talented and artistry or chess than others who had similar level of practice due to genetics alone. It's how the world works. People's actions and characteristics are a combination result of nature and nurture. 
That said, I was annoyed when a certain character related to Hawke died later in the game. I had mostly been choosing the humorous dialogue option, thus it seemed pretty inappropriate when Hawke was talking about this person's death with Gamlen, only to throw out that humorous line. WTF? Someone just died. Just because I like being humorous most of time, it doesn't mean I'd want to be humorous then. What were the writers thinking?<_<
.
