2875 réponses à ce sujet

[Seifz]

moilami wrote...

Dark83 wrote...

moilami wrote...

I think gay reacts differently to
Isabella hitting on her than Anders hitting on her. Not sure though?
Well, I know my reactions would change depending on my chars sexuality.

That's exactly it. Your motivations and intentions don't matter, it is what you do that determine who you are. If you make Hawke act gay, then Hawke is gay, regardless of what you wrote down ahead of time. It's your reactions that count, it's your reaction that is perceived.

This is why pre-selecting sexuality is meaningless. It doesn't do anything. The only way for such an option to do something is if it removes the other options from the game altogether - which becomes a segregationist issue.

Have you ever RPed?

Normally when you RP you first create your character. It can be very detailed or not so detailed description of your character. After you have created your character you play the game from your character's point of view. That's why "sexuality" is especially in DA series next to mandatory choise. If your character does not have sexuality he would not know how to react when for example Anders advances on him.

Note HC RPers could create a detailed description of sexuality like "feels uncomfortable if heteros advance her" or "is sexually very active" or "is sexually very restricted" or even "is insecure of his sexuality" (pun intended).


(There is no hand big enough in the world for me to describe how much of a facepalm this is I have to describe in cRPG forum about basics of RP.)

Um.  Isn't that what you do when you say no to Anders?  Why would you need a slider to set your sexual orientation in advance?  How would Anders know what your orientation was without asking?  Role playing is not writing down characteristics and then expecting the DM to act on them.

And if you did write down that your character was uncomfortable with XXX hitting on him, you better believe that I'd make that situation happen at some point.  That could make for a great scene!

[dragonavicious]

All I have to say to this guy is. Could you choose to be gay? I mean do you think you could really make yourself attracted to men? I'm gonna guess the answer is no. This is true for homosexual people too.

We are all people and everyone deserves to be happy, feel loved, and be accepted by their peers. I'm reallly glad Bioware stood up against this bull.

[Dark83]

moilami wrote...

Have you ever RPed?

For almost two decades now. Used to be face to face, but after high school it was all on IRC.

Guess what? I consider predefined reactions to be the worst type of crappy RPing. I define my characters  in a general sense, but I always allow the character's personality to develop according to how he reacts to everyone else, and the group.

A few lines, or even a paragraph, is pointless, limiting, and useless. I don't care if you have a two page writeup about how you hate X, if it turns out the only one who shows up in the campaign is helpful, abused, and pitiful, and your character is nice to her - as far as the campaign narrative is concerned, you're nice to X.

[Centauri2002]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

"No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively
demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of
genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."

Seifz, this is coming directly from your source (usually, I wouldn't acknowledge wikipedia alone, but you're the one who cited it, so). It says precisely what I've been telling you. Genetic and Environmental influence (hormonal too, but that can technically be umbrelled under the former or latter depending on what precisely we're talking about). This is no different than any behavior so I again have to question why "Lack of choice"  shoud automatically mean something is okay (fyi, I actually believe in free will and that it can supersede genetic/environmental influences under any condition, but that's a different matter and it doesn't seem you agree).

So heterosexuals choose to be straight, do they? Are we all born bisexual and we choose to be attracted to particular or both genders? If that's the case, looks like DA2 got it right. <_<

Modifié par centauri2002, 28 mars 2011 - 07:15 .

[Cadaveth]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

3) Sexual orientation is no less of a choice than any other behavior. I've already laid out a case for why this is so.

Sexual orientation is not a sexual behavior and it's not a choice. You should really find some studies and read more about the subject. But if it is a choice, I guess you can choose to love men too then, right?

http://www.psycholog...ts/orientation/

[dragonavicious]

And its actually kind of cool that Anders hits on you. I think they should include that in later games too. If you don't like him, no matter your gender, then its uncomfortable just like real life. They have Isabella kind of hit on you when you first meet her. (She says to meet her at the Hanged Man if you want any ..... 'company' ) How was that not a problem for you? It just adds to the realism of the game. I think that they should definitely do it in future games.

[dragonavicious]

centauri2002 wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

"No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively
demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of
genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."

Seifz, this is coming directly from your source (usually, I wouldn't acknowledge wikipedia alone, but you're the one who cited it, so). It says precisely what I've been telling you. Genetic and Environmental influence (hormonal too, but that can technically be umbrelled under the former or latter depending on what precisely we're talking about). This is no different than any behavior so I again have to question why "Lack of choice"  shoud automatically mean something is okay (fyi, I actually believe in free will and that it can supersede genetic/environmental influences under any condition, but that's a different matter and it doesn't seem you agree).

So heterosexuals choose to be straight, do they? Are we all born bisexual and we choose to be attracted to particular or both genders? If that's the case, looks like DA2 got it right. <_<

^^^^ Well done sir.

[Seifz]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Seifz, this is coming directly from your source (usually, I wouldn't acknowledge wikipedia alone, but you're the one who cited it, so). It says precisely what I've been telling you. Genetic and Environmental influence (hormonal too, but that can technically be umbrelled under the former or latter depending on what precisely we're talking about). This is no different than any behavior so I again have to question why "Lack of choice"  shoud automatically mean something is okay (fyi, I actually believe in free will and that it can supersede genetic/environmental influences under any condition, but that's a different matter and it doesn't seem you agree).

It doesn't matter what causes sexual orientation to not be a choice.  What matters is that it's not a choice, just like skin color isn't.  Okay, it's not a perfect analogy, but no analogy is.  It's the best analogy to express what I want to say.

Even if I buy your nonsense that we must make the same case for rape and murder (and I don't), that still wouldn't mean that we should let rapists and murders wander freely.  Their crimes have victims.  They're dangerous.  Homosexuals aren't committing any crimes and they aren't hurting anyone by having gay sex (unless it's rape, obviously).  If anything, your analogy is the terrible one!

Modifié par Seifz, 28 mars 2011 - 07:18 .

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Shawn Ogg wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

3) Sexual orientation is no less of a choice than any other behavior. I've already laid out a case for why this is so. If you have no intention of addressing my points, there's nothing else for you to say.

Sexual behaviour IS  a choice.
Sexual orientation IS NOT a choice.

behavoiur =/= orientation

Let me clarify. I consider myself a casual gamer (bonus points if you can tell me whether I've chosen to be a gamer or if that was simply a result of my experiences:P). As a casual gamer, I'd adhere to a certain set of behaviors. In other words, casual gamer behaviors. The question is this: Does status equal behavior? For istance, if I'm "angry", the term anger dictates behaviors which fall under anger. If I'm sad, the term sad dictates behaviors which fall under sadness. This is what I mean. The trait is umbrella for a set of behaviors.


At any rate, it doesn't matter. The main point consider is that going by the reasoning behind why orientation isn't a choice (genetic/environmental influence), one can make the same argument for any other behavior (or in your case, status which dictates behaviors).

[Centauri2002]

dragonavicious wrote...


^^^^ Well done ma'am.

*coughs* Fixed that for you. but thank you. :3

[Dark83]

Seifz wrote...

Um.  Isn't that what you do when you say no to Anders?  Why would you need a slider to set your sexual orientation in advance?  How would Anders know what your orientation was without asking?  Role playing is not writing down characteristics and then expecting the DM to act on them.

BINGO. That's the sign of a crappy roleplayer. So often I've seen people write up attention-**** descriptions and expect us (and the gameworld) to cater to them.

If you've specifically written down your character is homophobic, then we'd assume that's an important characterization you want played up, and a good DM will make sure it comes into play. In fact, if this was a PnP campaign and the one who played Hawke wrote "very definetely straight", then a good DM (or rather, one who is character oriented as opposed to world or story oriented) would probably write up Anders hitting on Hawke just so that character trait can be acted out.

[MaximusPhoenix]

Seifz wrote...

 tired of how socially acceptable it is to hate on gays.

^
This.  Sick of it too at the age of 29. I grew up in the generation where it was getting better, but was still a lot worse than it is today.

Also, on a sidenote, I forgot who made the black/race comparison, but I think what they were trying to say is that decades ago, it was socially acceptable to restrict basic human rights to black people, but in today
's age, no one would think twice about being a racist. Unfortunately, it is not quite there yet when it comes to homosexuality. Calling someone a f** is a lot more acceptable than calling someone a n*****. I don't think they were trying to claim one movement meant less than the other.

[sereture]

I can't keep up with the thread!

[Perfect-Kenshin]

centauri2002 wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

"No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively
demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of
genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."

Seifz, this is coming directly from your source (usually, I wouldn't acknowledge wikipedia alone, but you're the one who cited it, so). It says precisely what I've been telling you. Genetic and Environmental influence (hormonal too, but that can technically be umbrelled under the former or latter depending on what precisely we're talking about). This is no different than any behavior so I again have to question why "Lack of choice"  shoud automatically mean something is okay (fyi, I actually believe in free will and that it can supersede genetic/environmental influences under any condition, but that's a different matter and it doesn't seem you agree).

So heterosexuals choose to be straight, do they? Are we all born bisexual and we choose to be attracted to particular or both genders? If that's the case, looks like DA2 got it right. <_<

Simple answer: If you don't support free will, no. It's all genetical/environmental. If you do support free will, yes. The same would apply to any orientation.

[Jalem001]

Seifz wrote...

Jalem001 wrote...

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.

http://en.wikipedia....ual_orientation

Yes, it's Wikipedia, but it links to a fantastic number of real sources.  The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the theory that sexual orientation is not a choice.  Nearly all of the research finding the opposite is sponsored by converative religious organizations.

And it's a fantastic analogy.  You didn't choose to be black and my sister didn't choose to be bisexual.

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-."

No, that's not it at all.  I've only used the term in reference to a handful of people and all of those people have said that homosexuality is unnatural, that homosexuals can choose not to be homosexual, that homosexuals should not practice homosexuality, that homosexuals should not have the same rights as heterosexuals, and/or that games should be designed for the "straight male gamer".

It isn't my fault that we chose the term "homophobic" to be analogous to racist, sexist, etc.  In common usage, the term goes beyond simple fear of homosexuality and also describes the racist-equivalent bigots that oppose homsoexuality on "moral" grounds.  If you don't like it, tough.

I loathe to continue on the political aspect of the topic because it seems like a surefire way to get this topic locked a temp ban, but against my better judgement...

I fail to see how the wikipedia article helps your argument.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but some of these studies seem to point to what the poster you were condemning was saying, which is that there are indicators that biological factors can play a role in homosexuality, but it does not -make you homosexual-.  And some certainly do suggest that there is no choice in a factor, but -none of them conclude any facts-.

So you give me evidence which isn't so much evidence as it is...maybes.  And some of those maybes contradict your stance.

On to the homophobic:

I haven't seen anyone hating on homosexuals here, although I'm not saying there hasn't been.  I've skimmed through some pages, and read only a handful. There's simply way too much here to through all of it.

However what I have seen is a whole lot homophobic being thrown around because people disagree with the other person said.   You were targetted because I just happened to be on the same page at the time, and because I disagree with your reasoning for throwing the term around.  Someone does not have a hatred/fear of homosexuals simply because they believe it is a choice.  Its similar to calling someone a racist if they state "I believe the black community doesn't do itself any favors by retaining victim status".  The argument itself gives no indication that the person believes that blacks are inferior or any less human.  Likewise saying that homosexuality is a choice does not mean that the poster believes homosexuals are inferior or worthy of hatred.

But the reason the two are connected (in the homosexual case) is that by making it a choice, it strips you of your ability to connect it to the civil rights movement.  So, you're being a demagogue.  You're throwing a term which (in theory) would be a very negative thing in our culture (hate in general) and using it in an attempt to silence anyone who has a difference of opinion, regardless as to if that term actually fits them.

[Dark83]

As an aside, I think it would have been hilarious to have a rejection line be "Uh, I'm into girls/guys" for rejecting Anders (with a boy/girl Hawke respectively), and then have a subtitled <Awkward Silence>.

[MaximusPhoenix]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...




At any rate, it doesn't matter. The main point consider is that going by the reasoning behind why orientation isn't a choice (genetic/environmental influence), one can make the same argument for any other behavior (or in your case, status which dictates behaviors).

/facepalm

Orientation is not behaviour though....

[moilami]

Seifz wrote...

moilami wrote...

Dark83 wrote...

moilami wrote...

I think gay reacts differently to
Isabella hitting on her than Anders hitting on her. Not sure though?
Well, I know my reactions would change depending on my chars sexuality.

That's exactly it. Your motivations and intentions don't matter, it is what you do that determine who you are. If you make Hawke act gay, then Hawke is gay, regardless of what you wrote down ahead of time. It's your reactions that count, it's your reaction that is perceived.

This is why pre-selecting sexuality is meaningless. It doesn't do anything. The only way for such an option to do something is if it removes the other options from the game altogether - which becomes a segregationist issue.

Have you ever RPed?

Normally when you RP you first create your character. It can be very detailed or not so detailed description of your character. After you have created your character you play the game from your character's point of view. That's why "sexuality" is especially in DA series next to mandatory choise. If your character does not have sexuality he would not know how to react when for example Anders advances on him.

Note HC RPers could create a detailed description of sexuality like "feels uncomfortable if heteros advance her" or "is sexually very active" or "is sexually very restricted" or even "is insecure of his sexuality" (pun intended).


(There is no hand big enough in the world for me to describe how much of a facepalm this is I have to describe in cRPG forum about basics of RP.)

Um.  Isn't that what you do when you say no to Anders?  Why would you need a slider to set your sexual orientation in advance?  How would Anders know what your orientation was without asking?  Role playing is not writing down characteristics and then expecting the DM to act on them.

And if you did write down that your character was uncomfortable with XXX hitting on him, you better believe that I'd make that situation happen at some point.  That could make for a great scene!

The slider gives new possibilities to develop scenes and NPCs exactly like you said.

A dev can make an NPC who is gay and who harasses hetero player characters but does not harass gay characters who reject her. That was just one example. It makes it possible to make more defined NPCs instead of pixelhumpable egobooster clones.

Remember the computer is the DM in cRPG. The computer would know what is your char's sexuality in the same way as real DM would know just by asking it, and after that playing the NPCs in whatever  or :innocent: or  he wants.



Edit: [punisher] They better ban me now because I have a terrible urge to ridiculate idiots posting here.

Modifié par moilami, 28 mars 2011 - 07:27 .

[Centauri2002]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Simple answer: If you don't support free will, no. It's all genetical/environmental. If you do support free will, yes. The same would apply to any orientation.

I have a simple question for your simple answer, then.

Does your free will effect everything? Because you decide it is so, can you change your gender? Can you change your level of intelligence? Can you change your aptitude for certain skills? I believe in free will, but I also believe that there are some things that are predefined. 

And let's face it, who would choose to be discriminated against? I know I wouldn't.

Modifié par centauri2002, 28 mars 2011 - 07:26 .

[Captain Jazz]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Shawn Ogg wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

3) Sexual orientation is no less of a choice than any other behavior. I've already laid out a case for why this is so. If you have no intention of addressing my points, there's nothing else for you to say.

Sexual behaviour IS  a choice.
Sexual orientation IS NOT a choice.

behavoiur =/= orientation

Let me clarify. I consider myself a casual gamer (bonus points if you can tell me whether I've chosen to be a gamer or if that was simply a result of my experiences:P). As a casual gamer, I'd adhere to a certain set of behaviors. In other words, casual gamer behaviors. The question is this: Does status equal behavior? For istance, if I'm "angry", the term anger dictates behaviors which fall under anger. If I'm sad, the term sad dictates behaviors which fall under sadness. This is what I mean. The trait is umbrella for a set of behaviors.


At any rate, it doesn't matter. The main point consider is that going by the reasoning behind why orientation isn't a choice (genetic/environmental influence), one can make the same argument for any other behavior (or in your case, status which dictates behaviors).

How about ignoring the question of whether or not sexuality is a choice (I know I never chose to be straight btw...) and focussing on what harm is caused by consentual sex. It may be possible to argue that a murderer had no choice but to be a murderer, it may even be logical, but the fact is that acting on murderous impulses results in suffering and death. Meanwhile acting on sexual (****** or hetero) impulses in a consentual relationship results in pleasure and happiness.

[sereture]

Jalem001 wrote...


But the reason the two are connected (in the homosexual case) is that by making it a choice, it strips you of your ability to connect it to the civil rights movement.  So, you're being a demagogue.  You're throwing a term which (in theory) would be a very negative thing in our culture (hate in general) and using it in an attempt to silence anyone who has a difference of opinion, regardless as to if that term actually fits them.

How about religion? (Sorry for bringing it up)

[Zatwu]

I have no problem with ****** or bi LI's, but you have to admit having them change depending on your gender makes their character a bit inconsistent. Heck them just being all bi would be an upgrade.

[Shawn Ogg]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Shawn Ogg wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

3) Sexual orientation is no less of a choice than any other behavior. I've already laid out a case for why this is so. If you have no intention of addressing my points, there's nothing else for you to say.

Sexual behaviour IS  a choice.
Sexual orientation IS NOT a choice.

behavoiur =/= orientation

Let me clarify. I consider myself a casual gamer (bonus points if you can tell me whether I've chosen to be a gamer or if that was simply a result of my experiences:P). As a casual gamer, I'd adhere to a certain set of behaviors. In other words, casual gamer behaviors. The question is this: Does status equal behavior? For istance, if I'm "angry", the term anger dictates behaviors which fall under anger. If I'm sad, the term sad dictates behaviors which fall under sadness. This is what I mean. The trait is umbrella for a set of behaviors.


At any rate, it doesn't matter. The main point consider is that going by the reasoning behind why orientation isn't a choice (genetic/environmental influence), one can make the same argument for any other behavior (or in your case, status which dictates behaviors).

I knew this subject would end up ruining my mood but here I go:

You CAN control those baheviors. You DECIDE to play casual games.
I do CAN control if I have sex with a man or  a woman. But neither of these would make me gay nor straight. I CANT control to who Im atracted and thats what will make me gay or straight.

I know you cant really understand why but this subject can be too harmful. Many are lucky enough for not having any problem related to the fact they are homosexual. Others arent so lucky. You cant realize the problems one can have the situations one lives just for being gay at work, school even with family. Wouldnt you think that everyone would avoid all of these if they has just the slightest chance? Are we masochists or what? Why in the world would I throw rocks to my own my roof?

[Dark83]

Jalem001 wrote...

On to the homophobic:

I haven't seen anyone hating on homosexuals here, although I'm not saying there hasn't been.  I've skimmed through some pages, and read only a handful. There's simply way too much here to through all of it.

There have been posters who claimed they don't have anything against homosexuals, they're just opposing it on moral grounds. Or that guy who claims to have done the world a favor by making two gay guys hit on women again. While at the same time saying there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, oh no, in spite of the implications that anyone who is moral or want committed relationships wouldn't support bisexuals.

The issue isn't if it's a choice or not. The reason the choice thing was even mentioned was because I (back in the teens of this thread) equated a "no ******" option with a "no blacks" option. It's equally discriminatory - excising a section of humanity because someone is uncomfortable with their very existance.

Being racist is socially unacceptable, while being homophobic is, so that immediately launched a bunch of "My intolerance of teh gay is not the same thing as intolerance of blacks/jews because skin color!" posts. Which apparently lasted until now.

[Jalem001]

Dark83 wrote...

Jalem001 wrote...
It doesn't matter how legendary or charismatic you are, some people will never be attracted to you because of your gender.

They're all damaged goods. For the most part, they're completely plausible.

Fenris a memory-less slave who's been on the run and without any actual social contact for a while. Hawke is the first person he thinks he can rely on, and (if you romance him) keeps seeing him. If you didn't befriend him, and if gay-Hawke didn't try to get into his pants, Fenris is straight and bones Isabela (if she's available).

Isabela, of course, is one of those people who wield their sexuality like a weapon - she is aggressive as a defensive measure. But her orientation (loose) was never in question.

Merrill is an outcase in her tribe - she never had friends, the tribe is hostile to her. The question of which way she swings normally if you never romance her is up in the air. Regardless, Hawke takes her away from her hostile tribe, and if les-Hawke romanced her, is her first house guest, introduces her to a new "family" (Isabela and Varric, particularly) and so on. Hawke is still a constant presence for years, and helps her (even if she ultimately disagrees, Hawke is still fighting alongside Merrill) with her goals.

Anders explains why he was boinking Karl quite reasonably, and any discrepancy in character can be written off as being Justice's fault. He's also lonely with his big secret, that apparently not even Karl knew about. Defending him from the Templar, revealing his secret to Hawke and not having him run away screaming, visiting him and befriending him (if gay-Hawke romances him) - it's all rather understandable.

I don't see how their attraction to Hawke in a particular narrative is contrived for the sake of fanslash. It all seems fairly well characterized.

Because you can characterize that with virtually any character.

For example: Sebastian is the exception the DA2 romance rule (Its an odd, side romance at any rate since he's chaste) and from what I've read (I don't have him) he plays a sort of pro-Chantry, evanglist, knightly character.  Him being straight does, from our cultural perspective, fits that role.

Now stay with me here.  I don't press our culturally beliefs into the game world.  For example:  Religion in Thedas doesn't seem to touch on homosexuality at all.  -That's fine-.  It was the commonly accepted reason for why Lelianna would be bi and religious.  But if we take Sebastian as the example, then one could make an argument for why Lelianna should be straight.  That's not saying I think Lelianna should be straight, or that the Chantry supports or denounces homosexuality, just that if we use Sebastian as an example of someone who is very religious, we can arrive at a conclusion that would make Lelianna straight.

Likewise you can turn Alistair bi by pointing out that he's all alone, his father figure (and possibly only real friend left) was killed.  You being the only other grey warden left, would be a source of comfort, and in his emotionally fragile state (the guy breaks down every other conversation at the start of the game) it wouldn't be hard to see how he could end up with a male warden.  In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but he originally -was- bi.  Yeah?  Or were those just videos bioware made for fun? 

Morrigan in the same.  She detaches love and sex, its simply something to be enjoyed.  She doesn't believe in the former anyways, so sex is simply an act.  Its not a jump to say "She doesn't care if its male or female she has it with."

-But- they weren't.  And did it take away from the game because they weren't?  I don't think so.  Point is, you can turn most romances from bioware games bi.  You can logic it however you please.  I'm not saying that you're wrong in how they're all damaged good, but uh...awful lot of people in real life who are damaged good who I don't see ever hooking up with someone outside of their sexual preferance .  Granted its not quite the same as "I was a slave who had lyrium painfully burned into my body."