2875 réponses à ce sujet

[Seifz]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Whether or not homosexuality is natural is thoroughly unimportant in the face of the much larger and much easier to answer question of whether or not homosexuals are people.

Are homosexuals people? Do they deserve the same rights and treatment as people?

Simple as that.

While I agree that it's that simple in theory, it's far more complicated in practice.  For example, that guy I keep responding to (I forget his name) says that homosexuals should be treated equally, but he also seems to think that he should have the option to remove them entirely from his game.  In other words, "I'm not homophobic, but I don't ever want to see or hear anything gay because it makes me uncomfortable."

Society needs to drop that mentality.  It's the same mentality that we had about foreigners, black people, and any number of other minorities in the past.  It's not productive and it's hurtful to those in the minority.

The original post that DG responded to made the claim that the majority should be catered to at the exclusion of the minorities.  He claimed that he wasn't against homosexuality or women, just that games should be designed for the "straight male gamer" and if that means exluding someone else, well, tough.  That's not a healthy mentality for society to have.

Until we reach the point where "a person is a person", we'll have to get through all of these "I'm not homophobic, but..." and "I'm not racist, but..." phases.  Gives us something to do when we're bored, I guess!

[Shawn Ogg]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Whether or not homosexuality is natural is thoroughly unimportant in the face of the much larger and much easier to answer question of whether or not homosexuals are people.

Are homosexuals people? Do they deserve the same rights and treatment as people?

Simple as that.

This.

Although any sort of science irrefutable evidence would help for sure to make life easier to many people.

[Well]

Seifz wrote...

Well wrote...

CaimDark wrote...

I applaud Bioware for giving players the option of having same-sex romances, and honestly, many of the criticisms I've seen around here amount to little more than thinly veiled (and sometimes not veiled at all) homophobia. That being said, making pretty much every single romanceable NPC bisexual felt forced and did not help the immersion.

Apparently that is anyone that doesnt agree with you.Slap a label on them.I have seen that more times then I care to count.Bigotry is a equal opportunity employer.At least on this forum.The funny thing is LIs meaning nothing to me.I dont care if they are gay,straight,bi or whatever.I dont do LIs most times.People like them more power to them.What ticks me off because someone doesnt want to get hit on all of of a sudden she/he must be this that or the other thing.Pretty pathetic.

"Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and in some cases transgender and intersex people and behaviour. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear."  (Yes, it's Wikipedia.  Don't hate.)

Now, how is a request to completely remove homosexuality from the game via a toggle not fitting of this label?  How are statements that homophobia is a sin, that it's unnatural, and that homosexuals shouldn't marry or be parents not deserving of this label?  How is the original poster, who insists that games should be tailored to "straight male gamers" like him to the exclusion of others not homophobic?

Wiki ahh lol.Sorry I would just as soon believe a politician.So it is ok to tailor the LIs in the game to Gay/Lesbian/Bi's but if someone wants a toggle so he doesnt have to play it that way it is wrong.I see.

[AlanC9]

Lord Sullivan wrote...

Physical evidence of what?... we weren't there?
Some bone fragment(s)? some rock(s)? And we figured it all?

Sorry if I'm not that easy to convince.

So the argument is that you don't believe in science?

[moilami]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Whether or not homosexuality is natural is thoroughly unimportant in the face of the much larger and much easier to answer question of whether or not homosexuals are people.

Are homosexuals people? Do they deserve the same rights and treatment as people?

Simple as that.

They have almost the same rights. They should be able to marry, for whatever it is worth. I have refused to marry myself.

However if the church arranges marriages then in theory church could say they don't arrange homosexual marriage. But in the proper system church could then be maybe sued of discriminating homosexuals.


Edit: Rofl I just realized I could be killed by both homosexual fanatics and religious fanatics.

Modifié par moilami, 27 mars 2011 - 09:50 .

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

AlanC9 wrote...

So the argument is that you don't believe in science?

Oh, come on.  Science is an evolving explanation for observable phenomena.  There's plenty of room for debate on any conclusion reached by a pre-historical anthropologist. 

[Lord Sullivan]

AlanC9 wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...

Physical evidence of what?... we weren't there?
Some bone fragment(s)? some rock(s)? And we figured it all?

Sorry if I'm not that easy to convince.

So the argument is that you don't believe in science?

No, my argument is that while science is a thing that we practice, I take what is called findings indicating someones interpretions witch are based highly on assumptions about things they have no real way to prove, assuptions/theories.

So with an open mind I take it with a grain of salt.

[Tirigon]

moilami wrote...

They have almost the same rights. They should be able to marry, for whatever it is worth. I have refused to marry myself.

However if the church arranges marriages then in theory church could say they don't arrange homosexual marriage. But in the proper system church could then be maybe sued of discriminating homosexuals.


Edit: Rofl I just realized I could be killed by both homosexual fanatics and religious fanatics.

The more enemies, the more glory.

And everyone dies eventually.

[the_one_54321]

Seifz wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Whether or not homosexuality is natural is thoroughly unimportant in the face of the much larger and much easier to answer question of whether or not homosexuals are people.

Are homosexuals people? Do they deserve the same rights and treatment as people?

Simple as that.

While I agree that it's that simple in theory, it's far more complicated in practice.  For example, that guy I keep responding to (I forget his name) says that homosexuals should be treated equally, but he also seems to think that he should have the option to remove them entirely from his game.  In other words, "I'm not homophobic, but I don't ever want to see or hear anything gay because it makes me uncomfortable."

Society needs to drop that mentality.  It's the same mentality that we had about foreigners, black people, and any number of other minorities in the past.  It's not productive and it's hurtful to those in the minority.

The original post that DG responded to made the claim that the majority should be catered to at the exclusion of the minorities.  He claimed that he wasn't against homosexuality or women, just that games should be designed for the "straight male gamer" and if that means exluding someone else, well, tough.  That's not a healthy mentality for society to have.

Until we reach the point where "a person is a person", we'll have to get through all of these "I'm not homophobic, but..." and "I'm not racist, but..." phases.  Gives us something to do when we're bored, I guess!

That is unfortunately a resulf of the product, seller, and buyer relationship. It's is unrelated to wheather or not homosexuality is natural or not. As BioWare has chossen to (indirectly or not) make a social statement, as John Epler put it, you will then have to hear from those buyers that are not happy abou the resulting product. Their reasons for not likeing the resulting product may be bigotted, but so long as there is no actual unlawful descrimination taking place in the creation or distribution of the product, that's really all there is to it. It is inevitable. /Agent Smith

Perhaps what you should focus on isntead is whether BioWare did a good job or not in the final product that they then presented.

[Seifz]

moilami wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Whether or not homosexuality is natural is thoroughly unimportant in the face of the much larger and much easier to answer question of whether or not homosexuals are people.

Are homosexuals people? Do they deserve the same rights and treatment as people?

Simple as that.

They have almost the same rights. They should be able to marry, for whatever it is worth. I have refused to marry myself.

Not really.  In most states in the US, it's still legal to deny someone a job or a home based on sexual orientation.  Without the right to marry, or even enter into a common law marriage, they don't have the right to share income for tax purposes, to make important medical decisions for each other, etc.  Frequently, gay couples are denied adoptions for no reason other than that they're gay and this is still legal.

Even if they had the same legal rights, we'll need to work on ensuring that they're equal in society.  We're still a long ways off from that.

However if the church arranges marriages then in theory church could say they don't arrange homosexual marriage. But in the proper system church could then be maybe sued of discriminating homosexuals.

No, I don't think so.  If a church wants to deny homosexuality, so be it.  Who wants to get married in a church full of bigots anyway?  I guess they might be in legal trouble if they're enjoying a tax exempt status and they're caught discriminating, but more likely than not any official marriage equality bill would provide exemptions for that anyway.  Oh, well.

Marriage needs to divorce from religion.  If it's going to provide legal benefits, then it needs to be a legal arrangement.  You're free to have your fancy religious ceremonies to celebrate.

[the_one_54321]

moilami wrote...
They have almost the same rights. They should be able to marry, for whatever it is worth. I have refused to marry myself.

However if the church arranges marriages then in theory church could say they don't arrange homosexual marriage. But in the proper system church could then be maybe sued of discriminating homosexuals.


Edit: Rofl I just realized I could be killed by both homosexual fanatics and religious fanatics.

What the hell are you even talking about here? 

[Centauri2002]

Lord Sullivan wrote...

No, my argument is that while science is a thing that we practice, I take what is called findings indicating someones interpretions witch are based highly on assumptions about things they have no real way to prove, assuptions/theories.

So with an open mind I take it with a grain of salt.

Let me bring this back to your original question about the origin of human sexuality then. Without knowledge of prehistory, or any belief in it, how do you propose to answer your own question? Even if my findings were debatable, at least I'd have a logically constructed argument with a basis in physical evidence. Yours is based only on your own beliefs.

[Jademoon121]

Seifz wrote...

moilami wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Whether or not homosexuality is natural is thoroughly unimportant in the face of the much larger and much easier to answer question of whether or not homosexuals are people.

Are homosexuals people? Do they deserve the same rights and treatment as people?

Simple as that.

They have almost the same rights. They should be able to marry, for whatever it is worth. I have refused to marry myself.

Not really.  In most states in the US, it's still legal to deny someone a job or a home based on sexual orientation.  Without the right to marry, or even enter into a common law marriage, they don't have the right to share income for tax purposes, to make important medical decisions for each other, etc.  Frequently, gay couples are denied adoptions for no reason other than that they're gay and this is still legal.

Even if they had the same legal rights, we'll need to work on ensuring that they're equal in society.  We're still a long ways off from that.

However if the church arranges marriages then in theory church could say they don't arrange homosexual marriage. But in the proper system church could then be maybe sued of discriminating homosexuals.

No, I don't think so.  If a church wants to deny homosexuality, so be it.  Who wants to get married in a church full of bigots anyway?  I guess they might be in legal trouble if they're enjoying a tax exempt status and they're caught discriminating, but more likely than not any official marriage equality bill would provide exemptions for that anyway.  Oh, well.

Marriage needs to divorce from religion.  If it's going to provide legal benefits, then it needs to be a legal arrangement.  You're free to have your fancy religious ceremonies to celebrate.

This. All this.

[Seifz]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Seifz wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Whether or not homosexuality is natural is thoroughly unimportant in the face of the much larger and much easier to answer question of whether or not homosexuals are people.

Are homosexuals people? Do they deserve the same rights and treatment as people?

Simple as that.

While I agree that it's that simple in theory, it's far more complicated in practice.  For example, that guy I keep responding to (I forget his name) says that homosexuals should be treated equally, but he also seems to think that he should have the option to remove them entirely from his game.  In other words, "I'm not homophobic, but I don't ever want to see or hear anything gay because it makes me uncomfortable."

Society needs to drop that mentality.  It's the same mentality that we had about foreigners, black people, and any number of other minorities in the past.  It's not productive and it's hurtful to those in the minority.

The original post that DG responded to made the claim that the majority should be catered to at the exclusion of the minorities.  He claimed that he wasn't against homosexuality or women, just that games should be designed for the "straight male gamer" and if that means exluding someone else, well, tough.  That's not a healthy mentality for society to have.

Until we reach the point where "a person is a person", we'll have to get through all of these "I'm not homophobic, but..." and "I'm not racist, but..." phases.  Gives us something to do when we're bored, I guess!

That is unfortunately a resulf of the product, seller, and buyer relationship. It's is unrelated to wheather or not homosexuality is natural or not. As BioWare has chossen to (indirectly or not) make a social statement, as John Epler put it, you will then have to hear from those buyers that are not happy abou the resulting product. Their reasons for not likeing the resulting product may be bigotted, but so long as there is no actual unlawful descrimination taking place in the creation or distribution of the product, that's really all there is to it. It is inevitable. /Agent Smith

I understand that, sure.  This topic has long since moved on from BioWare, though.  I don't actually know why it's still open, to be honest.  

The original "homophobic fan" wanted BioWare to design games one way.  I want something else, so that's why I started posting.  The rest just followed from all the nonsense that's been posted here.

For what it's worth, I would absolutely refuse to purchase any game that included a "no gay" toggle because I see it as no different than a "no blacks" toggle and both are ridiculous.  So, I'm glad that BioWare is taking the stance they are.

Perhaps what you should focus on isntead is whether BioWare did a good job or not in the final product that they then presented.

They didn't, but it's not because everyone is bisexual.  It's because BioWare sucks at romance.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Seifz wrote...

Marriage needs to divorce from religion.  If it's going to provide legal benefits, then it needs to be a legal arrangement.  You're free to have your fancy religious ceremonies to celebrate.

To the contrary, marriage needs to divorce from the state.  Why on earth is the government showing any sort of interest in the living arrangments of the citizens of a free society?

[the_one_54321]

Seifz wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Perhaps what you should focus on isntead is whether BioWare did a good job or not in the final product that they then presented.

They didn't, but it's not because everyone is bisexual.  It's because BioWare sucks at romance.

Then perhaps there should be a thread about this isntead? 

[moilami]

the_one_54321 wrote...

moilami wrote...
They have almost the same rights. They should be able to marry, for whatever it is worth. I have refused to marry myself.

However if the church arranges marriages then in theory church could say they don't arrange homosexual marriage. But in the proper system church could then be maybe sued of discriminating homosexuals.


Edit: Rofl I just realized I could be killed by both homosexual fanatics and religious fanatics.

What the hell are you even talking about here? 

Should had added [sarcasm] tags? Or are you saying homosexuals are not people

[Cadaveth]

Seifz wrote...

Perhaps what you should focus on isntead is whether BioWare did a good job or not in the final product that they then presented.

They didn't, but it's not because everyone is bisexual.  It's because BioWare sucks at romance.

I don't even know why they waste the resources to include them. They're more like sex scenes with some talking in between rather than romances.

[Jademoon121]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Seifz wrote...

Marriage needs to divorce from religion.  If it's going to provide legal benefits, then it needs to be a legal arrangement.  You're free to have your fancy religious ceremonies to celebrate.

To the contrary, marriage needs to divorce from the state.  Why on earth is the government showing any sort of interest in the living arrangments of the citizens of a free society?

Tax breaks, immigration rights, inheritence and property rights......

[the_one_54321]

moilami wrote...
Should had added [sarcasm] tags? Or are you saying homosexuals are not people

The whole point of my inntial post was that homosexuals are people and nothing else matters. I didn't understand what you were trying to say at all.

[the_one_54321]

Cadaveth wrote...

Seifz wrote...

Perhaps what you should focus on isntead is whether BioWare did a good job or not in the final product that they then presented.

They didn't, but it's not because everyone is bisexual.  It's because BioWare sucks at romance.

I don't even know why they waste the resources to include them. They're more like sex scenes with some talking in between rather than romances.

So you're saying they actually write pretty realistic relationships? 

[Centauri2002]

Cadaveth wrote...

I don't even know why they waste the resources to include them. They're more like sex scenes with some talking in between rather than romances.

Personally, I've enjoyed some of them so I wouldn't like to see them disappear from BioWare games. I would like to see some deeper, meaningful ones though; perhaps one that is more intensely entwined with the main story arc. That would be fairly epic, I think. :3

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Jademoon121 wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Seifz wrote...

Marriage needs to divorce from religion.  If it's going to provide legal benefits, then it needs to be a legal arrangement.  You're free to have your fancy religious ceremonies to celebrate.

To the contrary, marriage needs to divorce from the state.  Why on earth is the government showing any sort of interest in the living arrangments of the citizens of a free society?

Tax breaks, immigration rights, inheritence and property rights......

My point exactly.  The government has appropriated a cultural norm for legal purposes, and now has found that the norm has expanded well beyond its original parameters.  There is no need for the government to define or regulate marriage at all.

[Lord Sullivan]

centauri2002 wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...

No, my argument is that while science is a thing that we practice, I take what is called findings indicating someones interpretions witch are based highly on assumptions about things they have no real way to prove, assuptions/theories.

So with an open mind I take it with a grain of salt.

Let me bring this back to your original question about the origin of human sexuality then. Without knowledge of prehistory, or any belief in it, how do you propose to answer your own question? Even if my findings were debatable, at least I'd have a logically constructed argument with a basis in physical evidence. Yours is based only on your own beliefs.

So to you, the need of a natural sexual connection/act between a man and a woman for reproduction is not physical evidence enough? atleast my evidence is not made up nor an assuption and exist now today for us to see.

[Seifz]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Seifz wrote...

Marriage needs to divorce from religion.  If it's going to provide legal benefits, then it needs to be a legal arrangement.  You're free to have your fancy religious ceremonies to celebrate.

To the contrary, marriage needs to divorce from the state.  Why on earth is the government showing any sort of interest in the living arrangments of the citizens of a free society?

Marriage has been a part of our culture for thousands of years, now.  It used to be a means of selling your children to wealthier parents in exchange for something nice, or for continuing royal bloodlines and the like, but its since evolved into something entirely voluntary.  Despite that, people keep getting married.  For some reason, the majority of people seem to like it.

In theory, I agree with you.  The state shouldn't concern itself with something like marriage.  However, keeping it a legal agreement is convenient.  It provides an easy way to determine next of kin, to allow partners to make medical decisions without risk of lawsuites, to allow widows and widowers to collect pensions, etc.  Is it necessary?  Probably not.  We could probably get by if the government stopped recognizing marriage entirely.

But, as long as people want marriage to be a legal entity, it needs to stop being a religious entity.  The two simply cannot mix.