Aller au contenu

Photo

Dragon Age 2 Lead Writer Blasts Homophobic Fan


2875 réponses à ce sujet

#2126
Cadaveth

Cadaveth
  • Members
  • 226 messages

centauri2002 wrote...

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


If something is done half-arsed, it's better not to include them at all. It's just my opinion though.

#2127
Cadaveth

Cadaveth
  • Members
  • 226 messages

Lord Sullivan wrote...

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.



Evidence of what?

#2128
Tantum Dic Verbo

Tantum Dic Verbo
  • Members
  • 3 221 messages

Seifz wrote...

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.


My point is that all of those legal considerations can still be made without the state defining marriage.  If the government is out of the loop, we don't have anymore arguments over the difference between marriages and civil unions.

#2129
sereture

sereture
  • Members
  • 103 messages
I must say I rather enjoy the Bioware romances...
Now that I think about it, I don't recall playing a non-Bioware game with any.
What are some non-sucky romances for reference? I'd like to try play those games to see the difference. ^_^

#2130
Seifz

Seifz
  • Members
  • 1 215 messages

Lord Sullivan wrote...

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.


1.  Sex is not necessary for reproduction.
2.  Homosexuals and heterosexuals can coexist without the human race dieing out.

Your "logic" is flawed.  I'll take science and evidence over your own personal "logic" any day.

#2131
Tantum Dic Verbo

Tantum Dic Verbo
  • Members
  • 3 221 messages

sereture wrote...

I must say I rather enjoy the Bioware romances...
Now that I think about it, I don't recall playing a non-Bioware game with any.
What are some non-sucky romances for reference? I'd like to try play those games to see the difference. ^_^


Master Chief and Cortana.

#2132
Jademoon121

Jademoon121
  • Members
  • 930 messages

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

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.


That's why i don't plan on marrying. Unless if I need the money, I don't need to marry someone to be dedicated to them. You know, there are Civil Unions. In Europe you can get a marrige and a civil union. Marriages is just a church recognizing your union under their dogma, Civil Unions grant you the legal and economic benefits.

#2133
Cadaveth

Cadaveth
  • Members
  • 226 messages

the_one_54321 wrote...

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? ;)


Yeah if Bioware renamed them "one night stands" or "f*** buddies".

#2134
Seifz

Seifz
  • Members
  • 1 215 messages

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...

Seifz wrote...

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.


My point is that all of those legal considerations can still be made without the state defining marriage.  If the government is out of the loop, we don't have anymore arguments over the difference between marriages and civil unions.


Oh.  Well then, we agree.  You're just calling it civil unions and I'm calling it marriage.  It should be nothing more than a legal document in the end and I don't see why there should be any requirements beyond age in determine who gets one.

#2135
Centauri2002

Centauri2002
  • Members
  • 2 086 messages

Lord Sullivan wrote...

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.


I never stated my beliefs so you're still making assumptions. Since when would my evidence be made up? All of these artefacts are found in the field. Yes, most of the conclusions are theories but they're educated theories. 

Since homosexuality has been present since the beginning of humankind, I'll go with homosexuality being just as natural as heterosexuality. Yes, a man and woman are required to reproduce, but what difference does that make to the validity of a person? Not all heterosexual people can reproduce either, due to varying reasons. Also, wouldn't having sex for pleasure be unnatural too, since you're not engaging in the act to procreate? 

Modifié par centauri2002, 27 mars 2011 - 10:11 .


#2136
AngelicMachinery

AngelicMachinery
  • Members
  • 4 300 messages
If you just have sex for reproduction, your doing it wrong.

#2137
sereture

sereture
  • Members
  • 103 messages

Lord Sullivan wrote...

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.


Maybe if you used a more fitting label than "unnatural" there wouldn't be a disagreement?
I think I might agree with you, but I'm not sure because of your choice of words...

#2138
moilami

moilami
  • Members
  • 2 727 messages

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.


Oh, in Finland homosexuals can marry, but not in a church. They do it in one state department. Those who do not belong to church do it in the same department. Both groups then get benefits of marriage like they would had been married by church.

Not long time ago one magazine hired a new chief journalist, who happened to be homosexual, and then fired her because of that (never though admitted homosexuality was the reason). She sued and won and got tons of money.

Adaptation etc. is a little bit complicated thing since it affects third party, so to say. A child. A child can be bullied a lot by other kids if he have homosexual parents. However kids can be bullied by other kids for whatever reason or no reason at all, so it hardly counts.

Sorry to say this, and even more so because this is no sarcasm, but your country sucks.

#2139
sereture

sereture
  • Members
  • 103 messages

centauri2002 wrote...

 Also, wouldn't having sex for pleasure be unnatural too, since you're not engaging in the act to procreate? 


^ What I tried to say earlier... I have to get better at this :pinched:

#2140
AlanC9

AlanC9
  • Members
  • 35 781 messages

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.


An open mind, eh? Open to what? What possibility are you considering that the scientific cnosensus is not?

And I'm still waiting for your definition of "natural."

#2141
Lord Sullivan

Lord Sullivan
  • Members
  • 560 messages

Seifz wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...

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.


1.  Sex is not necessary for reproduction.
2.  Homosexuals and heterosexuals can coexist without the human race dieing out.

Your "logic" is flawed.  I'll take science and evidence over your own personal "logic" any day.


Well you're assuming that I'm emplying that heterosexuals and homosexuals cannot coexist withought the human race dieing out, I never made such claims.

Sex is necessary for repro. Clinical and laboratory reproduction is unatural and I'm basing my logic on nature intervention alone.

#2142
Cadaveth

Cadaveth
  • Members
  • 226 messages

moilami wrote...
Oh, in Finland homosexuals can marry, but not in a church. They do it in one state department. Those who do not belong to church do it in the same department. Both groups then get benefits of marriage like they would had been married by church.


Nice to see another finn in here :P.

I'll take the "rekisteröity parisuhde" (don't know what that is in english...) over marriage in a church. I get the same benefits and stuff yet I don't have to associate with a religious institution which I don't even believe in.

#2143
Saeran

Saeran
  • Members
  • 195 messages
I'm just going to throw this in here some where in this conversation and say.. Shooting fire from your hands is natural yo.

#2144
Lord Sullivan

Lord Sullivan
  • Members
  • 560 messages

AlanC9 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.


An open mind, eh? Open to what? What possibility are you considering that the scientific cnosensus is not?

And I'm still waiting for your definition of "natural."


Normal: Generaly meant to be, General construct with a purpose.

#2145
sereture

sereture
  • Members
  • 103 messages
@ Lord Sullivan

I ask again:

Why is it even important whether or not homosexuality is "natural"?

#2146
Centauri2002

Centauri2002
  • Members
  • 2 086 messages

Saeran wrote...

I'm just going to throw this in here some where in this conversation and say.. Shooting fire from your hands is natural yo.


Thank goodness. I'd been thinking that all these years I was a freak. I'm so relieved.

#2147
Jademoon121

Jademoon121
  • Members
  • 930 messages

Lord Sullivan wrote...

AlanC9 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.


An open mind, eh? Open to what? What possibility are you considering that the scientific cnosensus is not?

And I'm still waiting for your definition of "natural."


Normal: Generaly meant to be, General construct with a purpose.


Problem, natural=/=normal.

Nature is nature, homosexuality is sexuality. It's arguably abnormal granted, but far from unnatural.

#2148
Saeran

Saeran
  • Members
  • 195 messages

Lord Sullivan wrote...

Normal: Generaly meant to be, General construct with a purpose.


Oh, well I'll take notes for next time and try not to be born a homosexual. :l

Modifié par Saeran, 27 mars 2011 - 10:21 .


#2149
moilami

moilami
  • Members
  • 2 727 messages

sereture wrote...

I must say I rather enjoy the Bioware romances...
Now that I think about it, I don't recall playing a non-Bioware game with any.
What are some non-sucky romances for reference? I'd like to try play those games to see the difference. ^_^


I highly recommend the Witcher (Directors Cut if you live in NA (North America) else you get sensored version). It is awesome game and I have already had one great sexual romance in it. There is more I hear.

#2150
Russalka

Russalka
  • Members
  • 3 867 messages
If sex were meant for only reproduction, would nature have not stepped in and given us more simpler ways of reproducing by now?