2875 réponses à ce sujet

[Seifz]

Jalem001 wrote...

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...

Why do you say that it's a political issue?  It's not a political issue.  It's a human issue.  Either you consider homosexuals and bisexuals equal to heterosexuals or you don't.  There's nothing political about that.

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.

1.  As I said, it doesn't matter why sexual orientation isn't a choice.  What matters is that sexual orientation isn't a choice.
2.  The vast majority of studies and evidence show that sexual orientation is not a choice.  Nearly all studies suggesting the opposite are funded and/or performed by conservative religious organizations with obvious motives to show certain results.

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's been plenty of it and I've been careful to reserve the term "homophobic" for the few posters who have deserved 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.

No, you misunderstand.  People who believe that sexual orientation is a choice are simply wrong.  People who believe that homosexual behavior is unacceptable or somehow not equal to heterosexual behavior are homophobic.  Orientation and behavior are not the same thing.

While we're on the subject, there seems to be a common misunderstanding here that homophobia refers strictly to fear of homosexuals and/or homosexual behavior, but that isn't true in common usage.

[Jalem001]

sereture wrote...

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)

Need a bit more to work with to answer your question. 

[Dark83]

Zatwu wrote...

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.

Actually, I think they're pretty consistant.

Merrill is a lonely puppy desperate for validation after being ostrazied by her own people, Isabela is bisexual, Fenris is damaged and vulnerable (but straight and hooks up with Isabela unless you turn him teh gay, which I believe makes him freak out), and Anders is needy.

The only one who really swings depending on Hawke's sex is Fenris, and he was basically an emotionless slave most of his life, and Hawke is the first person he bonds with (trust issues).

[Seifz]

moilami wrote...

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.

So you want to actually change how the NPCs behave and what they say based on this pre-defined slider?  You think that this is somehow better than actually role playing your character and having the NPCs respond to that?  Why?

[Perfect-Kenshin]

[Seifz wrote... Citation Needed]

For what? Attraction being linked to behavior and easily being influenced by experience? Or that none of this applies to skin color? I don't think I need one.

1) There is behavior which comes with any form of attraction. For instance, lets say I like women with red hair. As someone who has a thing for red heads, I may decide that upon my next time at the club, I'll exclusivey hit on women with red hair. Or, I may decide to go to a pornograpic web site and pleasure myself to women with red hair. OR, I may play Dragon Age Origins and romance Leliana. Common sense. But if you'd really like a link to support this, I'm sure I can drum one up with one google search.

2) Your own source states that attraction is influenced by experience. Remember, I quoted your source when it said that homosexual attraction is influened by environmental factors.

3) None of this applies to skin color because we know without a doubt that one is born into the world with a specific skin pigmentation.

Except for the part where you compared gay sex to rape and murder.  Or the part where you implied that we had to justify gay sexual behavior, as if it wasn't just as natural and normal as heterosexual behavior.

Yes, I saw the disclaimer that you didn't want to compare gay sex with rape and murder.  No, that doesn't change what you said.

Well there's nothing I can do to help you out man. I told you to lay off the blind emotions or don't bother participating in a disucssion with me if you are unable to. I used rape and murder as an extreme example to illustrate to you how sensical it is to argue that "lack of choice" automatically makes something okay.

I never implied that you had to justify homosexual behavior. Feel free to show me where I did this. What I did say however is that you are within your rights to engage in homosexual behavior due to the liberties upheld by this country.

But you have absolutely no evidence to support that claim.  The evidence overwhelmingly points to sexual orientation not being a choice.  The only choice is whether people act on their sexuality.  And why should't they?

Unless you mean to say that gay sex is not just as natural and acceptable as straight sex?

Which claim? That behavior is influenced by genetics and environement? No offense (I realize this discussion is heated enough as it is), but this is something you learn about in highschool (well, at least something I learned about). If you'd like, I can post a wikipedia page giving you a full course's worth of information on the matter.

Hell, YOUR OWN SOURCE says that sexual orietation is a combination of genetic, hormonal and environmental influences. Exactly what I've BEEN telling you.

As for why one should or shouldn't act on their sexuality, one can do as they please. Such doesn't interest me and is not what I'm here to talk about. Once again, it's clear that you're too emotional about this.

No, that's how you falsely interpreted what I wrote.  You seem to be confusing "gay" with "gay sex".  They aren't the same.  That said, opposing either one is wrong.  If you oppose someone for their sexual orientation, then that's no better than being a racist.  If you oppose someone for actually engaging in homosexual behavior, then you're saying that straight sex is more natural and accepted than gay sex.  Either way, that sounds pretty bigoted to me.

I probably should stop using the term behavior as its clear that usage of the word is just going to keep offering the excuse for others to use this straw man. Look, behavior, state of mind, orientation, it doesn't matter. What I'm telling you is that is that since its result of genetics/experience, it's no different that other aspects of human interaction.

At any rate, show me where I've opposed anyone for engaging in homosexual behavior.

I don't "get" my "talking points" from anyone.  I say what I say because I want to say it, because the research overwhelmingly supports it, and because I'm tired of how socially acceptable it is to hate on gays.

I've been seeing the exact same arguments used by the media and other parties. You'll have to forgive me if I doubt that they are the ones using your arguments.

Modifié par Perfect-Kenshin, 28 mars 2011 - 07:45 .

[Captain Jazz]

Seifz wrote...

moilami wrote...

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.

So you want to actually change how the NPCs behave and what they say based on this pre-defined slider?  You think that this is somehow better than actually role playing your character and having the NPCs respond to that?  Why?

Because it sounds better if you can fit it into a roleplaying issue instead of it being a personal ickiness issue?

[Dark83]

Jalem001 wrote...

-But- they weren't.  And did it take away from the game because they weren't?  I don't think so.

And it does not if they are.
As I am straight and have no interest in any relationships beyond m/f or f/f (:innocent:), the inclusion of m/m does not affect me in any way. It makes me uncomfortable when Anders flirts with me, it makes me uncomfortable if a gay man asks me out in real life. In both cases I reject them firmly. In neither case do I wish they do not exist.

[moilami]

MaximusPhoenix wrote...

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....

If you RP and create a char to play you need to know how is his sexuality so you can chose his actions in DA and ME series.

If you would be a good RPer and you would have no knowledge of the game except looks of the romanceable NPCs you would not know what NPCs your char would hump before you would actually see it happen.

[sereture]

Just for the record, people can be bisexual (Or pansexual, which is a term I like better) without being promiscuous or emotionally damaged... <_<

[Jalem001]

Seifz wrote...

Jalem001 wrote...

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...

Why do you say that it's a political issue?  It's not a political issue.  It's a human issue.  Either you consider homosexuals and bisexuals equal to heterosexuals or you don't.  There's nothing political about that.

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.

1.  As I said, it doesn't matter why sexual orientation isn't a choice.  What matters is that sexual orientation isn't a choice.
2.  The vast majority of studies and evidence show that sexual orientation is not a choice.  Nearly all studies suggesting the opposite are funded and/or performed by conservative religious organizations with obvious motives to show certain results.

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's been plenty of it and I've been careful to reserve the term "homophobic" for the few posters who have deserved 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.

No, you misunderstand.  People who believe that sexual orientation is a choice are simply wrong.  People who believe that homosexual behavior is unacceptable or somehow not equal to heterosexual behavior are homophobic.  Orientation and behavior are not the same thing.

While we're on the subject, there seems to be a common misunderstanding here that homophobia refers strictly to fear of homosexuals and/or homosexual behavior, but that isn't true in common usage.

Sorry for continuing the pyramid here. I'm lazy and have replied to 4 or so times in the last hour.  Do not want to start doing anything other than hitting the "Quote" button .

I call it a political issue because, like it or not, it is. This topic will survive only as long as the mods feel it touches to Dragon Age and the characters within.  Once it starts straying into broader terms of homosexuality, they will say its political in nature and squash it.

Virtually all political issues can be made an either or issue like you just did, I fail to see how you seeing homosexuals are equals suddenly doesn't make it a political issue.

I don't really want to touch on much past this, because I feel like I'll just be repeating myself.  But I will say this:

1.  You justify taking offense to the fact that there is a debate (over if homosexuality a choice) by stating that there -is no debate-. 

2.  My memory might be off here, because names and posts are blurring together, but the person you called homophobic when I originally replied (He had a rainbow colored sig is all I remember) was making no point other then he believed homosexuality was a choice.  That would make him wrnog, not a homophobe by what you just told me.  But obviously, thats not what I remember you saying.  Again, I concede, I could be wrong.  The smart thing to do would be to just go back and look.  But yeah.  Lazy as covered at the start of this post

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Cadaveth 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.

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/

Cadaveth, your source says exactly what I've been saying in this thread:




"How a particular sexual orientation develops in any individual is
not well understood by scientists. Various theories provide different
explanations for what determines a person's sexual orientation,
including genetic and biological factors and life experiences during
early childhood. Despite much research there is no proven explanation of
how sexual orientation is determined. However, many scientists share
the view that for most people sexual orientation is shaped during the
first few years of life through complex interactions of genetic,
biological, psychological and social factors."I assure you that I'm well aware of the general consensus on sexuality within the scientific community. The point I'm making however is that genetical/social factors are what determine behavior period and that one cannot argue in favor of "lack of choice" without considering this.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

MaximusPhoenix wrote...

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....

Translation: "Nuh-uh."

[Dark83]

Regardless of if your sexual orientation is shaped by genetics, environment, or the flying spaghetti monster, the fact remains that it is not a choice. I can not choose to be gay any more than I can choose to be black, or choose to like spicy foods - which is the whole point. That of discrimination of something the individual has no choice over, if only because of genetic/environmental/whatever reasons.

That was the whole point behind my "no homos button = no blacks button" comment.

[Tirigon]

Tooo much seriousness in this thread.

[Captain Jazz]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

MaximusPhoenix wrote...

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....

Translation: "Nuh-uh."

I don't want to sound needy here or anything... but why are you continuing with the "homosexuality is a choice" argument (and when did you choose your sexuality btw?) and ignoring the issue I raised that whether it's a choice or not (it isn't) it has no effects on anyone beyond those who indulge in homosexual relationships while your example raised in opposition of the argument causes demonstrable harm?

[Dark83]

moilami wrote...

If you RP and create a char to play you need to know how is his sexuality so you can chose his actions in DA and ME series.

Knowing your sexuality does not require preselecting options. I know my man-Hawke is straight. When Anders hit on me, I reject him.

Look, I rp-ed straight Hawke properly, do I get a benny?

[Dark83]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
"I assure you that I'm well aware of the general consensus on sexuality within the scientific community. The point I'm making however is that genetical/social factors are what determine behavior period and that one cannot argue in favor of "lack of choice" without considering this.

Unless you can choose the "genetic, biological, psychological and social factors" that determine your sexual orientation, you have no choice over your sexual orientation.

[sereture]

Dark83 wrote...

moilami wrote...

If you RP and create a char to play you need to know how is his sexuality so you can chose his actions in DA and ME series.

Knowing your sexuality does not require preselecting options. I know my man-Hawke is straight. When Anders hit on me, I reject him.

Look, I rp-ed straight Hawke properly, do I get a benny?

This.

[Jalem001]

Dark83 wrote...

Jalem001 wrote...

-But- they weren't.  And did it take away from the game because they weren't?  I don't think so.

And it does not if they are.
As I am straight and have no interest in any relationships beyond m/f or f/f (:innocent:), the inclusion of m/m does not affect me in any way. It makes me uncomfortable when Anders flirts with me, it makes me uncomfortable if a gay man asks me out in real life. In both cases I reject them firmly. In neither case do I wish they do not exist.

And neither do I.

But it does subtract when everyone simply shrugs and says "Eh, you're Hawke.  I'll go for it."

It would be as if everyone in Thedas were straight or gay.  It doesn't make much sense, does it?  In the real world - from our sense of people - people have sexual orientations.  To find so many people who wouldn't care what gender you are is odd.  And in Bioware's case, it certainly feels like a cop out and just being plain lazy.

What bioware needs to do is not ever touch the "Everyone's bi!" thing again, and create characters who have sexualities.  Maybe one game we have one striaght option, two homosexual options, and one bi character.  Its far, far, far better than making everyone the same sexuality (Which is Hawke.  THey're all Hawke sexuality.  Except Isabella).

[Captain Jazz]

Dark83 wrote...

moilami wrote...

If you RP and create a char to play you need to know how is his sexuality so you can chose his actions in DA and ME series.

Knowing your sexuality does not require preselecting options. I know my man-Hawke is straight. When Anders hit on me, I reject him.

Look, I rp-ed straight Hawke properly, do I get a benny?

No, you're misunderstanding his point, proper RP means you set parameters and watch the film.

[Shawn Ogg]

Dark83 wrote...

Regardless of if your sexual orientation is shaped by genetics, environment, or the flying spaghetti monster, the fact remains that it is not a choice. I can not choose to be gay any more than I can choose to be black, or choose to like spicy foods - which is the whole point. That of discrimination of something the individual has no choice over, if only because of genetic/environmental/whatever reasons.

That was the whole point behind my "no homos button = no blacks button" comment.

This, this., this, this, this, this...

[Perfect-Kenshin]

centauri2002 wrote...

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?

I'd argue that quantum mechanics favor behavior centric free will . Nonetheless, I don't think I can do this conclusively (at least not without having a much deeper grasp of the concept, which I probably will by the summer ).

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.

What do you mean? Using current medical procedures, one can change their gender. What do you mean by intelligence? Apitude for certain skills? That doesn't make any sense. Aptitude merely measures potential. One can have low or high potential and still excell with certain skills if there is enough work involved.

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

Lots of people don't, hence keep quiet about their sexual preferences.

I get the gyst of what you're saying though. However, I'm not here to discuss free will. I am both unprepared and uninterested at this point in time, hence why none of the premises of my points rely on it. All I know is that quantum mechanics enables the possibility of it.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Just to clarify to everyone, I never said anything remotely homophobic. In my initial post, I flat out stated that homosexuals should have the same liberties as everyone else. I even gave a reason for this. My problem is the reasoning a lot of people are using ("no choice, therefore it's okay). It's both unnecessary and illogical.

[Captain Jazz]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
I get the gyst of what you're saying though. However, I'm not here to discuss free will. I am both unprepared and uninterested at this point in time, hence why none of the premises of my points rely on it. All I know is that quantum mechanics enables the possibility of it.

*cough*
Does quantum mechanics apply on a macroscopic scale? Is that why I sneezed earlier and appeared outside?

[edit] and... do we really want to imply that our decisions are a result of a causal chain of thoughts and influences that
starts with an essentially random quantum event? That's starting to make thinking look like a fools game all together.

Modifié par Captain Jazz, 28 mars 2011 - 08:12 .

[JediMB]

Okay, people arguing semantics is a lot less fun when you're a bystander rather than a participant.