645 réponses à ce sujet

[Harid]

Montezuma IV wrote...

Harid wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Harid wrote...

Gays get mad, because they feel being gay is a LARGE part of their selves, and they feel they shouldn't have to hide themselves from people, yes?

No. Gays get mad because their sexuality is made out to be a much bigger deal than it is -- that other people define them entirely by their sexuality, such a tiny, insignificant fact in the long run -- and that they are forced, not to hide this small fact, but to rob themselves of all the incidental things that come along with it, like being able to have an honest relationship and a family, if they want to be treated with a shred of the human ****ing decency straight people are afforded.

Some people embrace and identify with the LGBTQ community because it is the only place they feel welcome, but that community has little to do with the base biological attractions they experience.

If being gay is such a small part of what makes you a person, then why the comparisons to a movement that was largely based on a large part of what people were and were held down for?  Outside of a pity party.

People are playing both sides here.

But to PM's please.  The thread is being derailed, and I am more than welcome to hear more about that movement from PM's, a large part of the gay movement is obfuscated by comparisons to the civil rights movement, and as such most people could not name 5 people who have made a difference in the gay pride movement because of it.

It's a likewise movement, just as women's rights, because of the oppression of a minority and not being accepted for the way you were born. It's confusing to obsucre it and classify it in the way you do. It's a complicated matter and can't be subjected as a comparison to the civil rights movement because of a definitive reason or a single one. It's a common sense type of thing.....

I'm not the one who compares the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement, gay people are.

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/is_gay_the_new_black.html
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27983598/ns/us_news-life/t/gay-new-black-debate-marriage-ban/

I was asking for clarification of treating it to be a big part of who you are, and then acting like it is not.  You are pretty much having your cake and eating it too.

If you are going to reply to me from here foward, take it PM, as I will not be responsible as the cause that locked this thread.  This is my last post going in this direction in this thread.

Modifié par Harid, 22 juin 2011 - 09:25 .

[Herr Uhl]

Harid wrote...

I was asking for clarification of treating it to be a big part of who you are, and then acting like it is not.  You are pretty much having your cake and eating it too.

I think the clarification lies in that one person does not speak for everyone. There are differing opinions within the community.

[Harid]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Harid wrote...

I was asking for clarification of treating it to be a big part of who you are, and then acting like it is not.  You are pretty much having your cake and eating it too.

I think the clarification lies in that one person does not speak for everyone. There are differing opinions within the community.

Fair enough.

[ipgd]

Harid wrote...

I'm not the one who compares the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement, gay people are.

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/is_gay_the_new_black.html
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27983598/ns/us_news-life/t/gay-new-black-debate-marriage-ban/

I was asking for clarification of treating it to be a big part of who you are, and then acting like it is not.  You are pretty much having your cake and eating it too.

Are you suggesting that the color of someone's skin is an inherently definitive quality of a person's character? Because that wasn't the message of the civil rights moment at all. In fact, it was kind of the exact opposite of that. Just like the gay rights movement.

[Harid]

ipgd wrote...

Harid wrote...

I'm not the one who compares the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement, gay people are.

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/is_gay_the_new_black.html
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27983598/ns/us_news-life/t/gay-new-black-debate-marriage-ban/

I was asking for clarification of treating it to be a big part of who you are, and then acting like it is not.  You are pretty much having your cake and eating it too.

Are you suggesting that the color of someone's skin is an inherently definitive quality of a person's character? Because that wasn't the message of the civil rights moment at all. In fact, it was kind of the exact opposite of that. Just like the gay rights movement.

In this current world we live in, yes, yes it is.  Post Civil rights movement, as long as you live in the US.

Acting like it isn't, among other things is lying to oneself.

This also applies to other things, like homosexuality, and if that progresses anything like the Civil Rights movement, it will continue to in the future to be considered by the majority of this country to be such.

Modifié par Harid, 22 juin 2011 - 09:30 .

[ipgd]

Harid wrote...

In this current world we live in, yes, yes it is.  Post Civil rights movement, as long as you live in the US.

Acting like it isn't, among other things is lying to oneself.

There is a big difference between cultural identity (which, at this point, has more to do with class status and poverty than race) and the color of your skin or the people you want to bang conferring inherent character traits upon you.

Regardless of that, that still was not the message of the civil rights movement.

Modifié par ipgd, 22 juin 2011 - 09:30 .

[Harid]

ipgd wrote...

Harid wrote...

In this current world we live in, yes, yes it is.  Post Civil rights movement, as long as you live in the US.

Acting like it isn't, among other things is lying to oneself.

There is a big difference between cultural identity (which, at this point, has more to do with class status and poverty than race) and the color of your skin or the people you want to bang conferring inherent character traits upon you.

Regardless of that, that still was not the message of the civil rights movement.

Am not talking about the message of the civil rights movement.

I am talking about cultural and societal pressures today.

I.e. you may wish to be treated as if sexual orientation is not a big deal just as sure as I wish all black males weren't say associated with rappers and slang speak, but wishing does not make it so.   You can't like it's not a big deal when people treat it like it is one.

Modifié par Harid, 22 juin 2011 - 09:34 .

[ademska]

since i'm sure ipgd will respond to your doofus interpretation of sociological issues with a more reasoned comment than i'm capable of, let's bring it all back around town:

thedas is not the US.

in thedas, no one gives a **** about sexual orientation.

by your own rubric of argument, you've thus got no leg to stand on in wanking about bisexuality in thedas.

[Harid]

ademska wrote...

since i'm sure ipgd will respond to your doofus interpretation of sociological issues with a more reasoned comment than i'm capable of, let's bring it all back around town:

thedas is not the US.

in thedas, no one gives a **** about sexual orientation.

by your own rubric of argument, you've thus got no leg to stand on in wanking about bisexuality in thedas.

First off, cut the insults before I sling them back, and that helps no one.

Secondly, my issue with Hawkesexuality is that it isn't reflected in the actual writing of the character, so I don't know what you are going on about, this is a tangent that I have explained as such a couple of posts ago.

[masterthief]

Harid wrote...

Sexuality is a defining trait in a person.

If it weren't the case, I don't think so many gays would make the correlation between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement. as so far that one is a visible minority, and the other is not.

Okay, this is off topic but since you brought it up: there is no comparison between the queer movement and the civil rights movement.   Any gay people making it do not speak for everyone.   It's ridiculous, especially considering the prevalent racism (and apologism for it because, "I can't be racist, I'm gay," etc) within the gay community to make a comparison like that.   Please don't assume that a vocal group speaks for the entire community.   As a gay person I'd like to see more representation of gay people doing "normal" things instead of being treated as an unrelatable "other" who is either a complete stereotype/punchline, loaded with gay shame regardless of the environment, or otherwise treated to be unrelatable to heterosexual people which most gay characters in mainstream media are.  A lot of people still have the belief that being anything but straight is weird/bad/etc, and it's my hope that if there were more shoot 'em up games or games in general where the cool, awesome characters just happened to be gay/lesbian/bisexual, that would be pretty neat.

I'm still confused as to how bisexuality is what's being focused on to be "unrealistic" while Hawke fights dragons.  Last I checked there wasn't a high dragon outside of my window, so I'd say that's pretty unrealistic.   Dragon Age II is a fantasy game.  It's not meant to be an exact representation of reality, and even if it was, it would be downright impossible to ascertain an exact ratio of straight people  to LGB people because a lot of people are in the closet for various reasons in current society.

The fact is that most games pander in one way or another.  It's how companies make their money.  But  I don't see too many people getting angry and calling things to be unrealistic when every lady in a game has giant breasts and a rocket launcher to blow things up because games like that are pandering to heterosexual dudes.   Bioware decided to expand their market to keep up with the information that hey, not everyone who plays a video game is a straight dude, and now comes the complaining about pandering.    What exactly is the problem when you're playing a fantasy game to actually have all of the options be open to you rather than how they're closed off in nearly every other game?  Romances in general pander to heterosexual people, because typically the only options you have are heterosexual.   I still don't see how it cheapens or weakens the characters, because the two characters who are actually "Hawkesexual" both have good reasons for it.  

Also, just as a side note, since we're talking about LGB options, can we not throw LGBT around since what we're discussing here has absolutely nothing to do with trans* people? 

[ademska]

you'll pardon me for being mildly insulted by your initial and continuous dismissal of "the gays" and our stance on our own dearth of legal rights.

how is it not reflected in the writing of the character? to romance one of the, once again, four incredibly lonely and damaged people willing to latch onto any semblance of caring, hawke has to care.

i fail to see how this is unrealistic.

and by your logic, which is that characters shouldn't be universally attracted to the pc, the romances in dao and mass effect and every other romance-option game aren't realistic either.

which is a fine perspective, actually, i take no issue with it.  what i do take issue with, however, is singling out the bisexuality in da2.

[xkg]

This thread is so much about the politics now - i can almost see the LOCKDOWN.
Just saying ...

Modifié par xkg, 22 juin 2011 - 09:46 .

[ipgd]

Harid wrote...

Am not talking about the message of the civil rights movement.

You were complaining about the gays co-opting the message of the civil rights movement, insinuating that the civil rights movement has a different message than it does, which is what I am replying to. The core base messages of the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement are the same.

I am talking about cultural and societal pressures today.

I.e. you may wish to be treated as if sexual orientation is not a big deal just as sure as I wish all black males weren't say associated with rappers and slang speak, but wishing does not make it so.   You can't like it's not a big deal when people treat it like it is one.

And, again... that is the point of the civil rights movement.

And also entirely irrelevant to Thedas, because there are no such cultural prejudices regarding sexuality. What is your point?

[Harid]

ademska wrote...

you'll pardon me for being mildly insulted by your initial and continuous dismissal of "the gays" and our stance on our own dearth of legal rights.

how is it not reflected in the writing of the character? to romance one of the, once again, four incredibly lonely and damaged people willing to latch onto any semblance of caring, hawke has to care.

i fail to see how this is unrealistic.

and by your logic, which is that characters shouldn't be universally attracted to the pc, the romances in dao and mass effect and every other romance-option game aren't realistic either.

which is a fine perspective, actually, i take no issue with it.  what i do take issue with, however, is singling out the bisexuality in da2.

Bisexuality is being singled out because the name of the thread is "Bisexuality in Dragon Age 2. Thoughts?"

So that's what people are going to talk about.

[22nd MadJack]

ademska wrote...
i am once again at a complete loss for why four people in an entire city, all of whom are damaged and lonely, being willing to sleep with a charismatic hero who's been one of their only friends for three years in a game where there is no stigma against same-sex relationships is somehow unrealistic.

Generally speaking, heterosexuals tend not to sleep with their own sex regardless of situation, what with the lack of sexual attraction.  Were they all bisexual then it wouldn't be a problem.  It's the part where they are all bisexual which raises questions.  

ademska wrote...
it's also unfortunate (and telling) that you view granting greater player choice as "political correctness". 

Actually I didn't correlate anything of the sort.

ademska wrote...
with your big manly right-moderate-ness, i would think capitalism would appeal to you

you people really have dirty gays on the mind, don't you?

I am right wing because I wish multiple sexualities to be fairly represented?  This ... boggles the mind.

Modifié par 22nd MadJack, 22 juin 2011 - 09:50 .

[Harid]

masterthief wrote...

Harid wrote...

Sexuality is a defining trait in a person.

If it weren't the case, I don't think so many gays would make the correlation between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement. as so far that one is a visible minority, and the other is not.

Okay, this is off topic but since you brought it up: there is no comparison between the queer movement and the civil rights movement.   Any gay people making it do not speak for everyone.   It's ridiculous, especially considering the prevalent racism (and apologism for it because, "I can't be racist, I'm gay," etc) within the gay community to make a comparison like that.   Please don't assume that a vocal group speaks for the entire community.   As a gay person I'd like to see more representation of gay people doing "normal" things instead of being treated as an unrelatable "other" who is either a complete stereotype/punchline, loaded with gay shame regardless of the environment, or otherwise treated to be unrelatable to heterosexual people which most gay characters in mainstream media are.  A lot of people still have the belief that being anything but straight is weird/bad/etc, and it's my hope that if there were more shoot 'em up games or games in general where the cool, awesome characters just happened to be gay/lesbian/bisexual, that would be pretty neat.

I'm still confused as to how bisexuality is what's being focused on to be "unrealistic" while Hawke fights dragons.  Last I checked there wasn't a high dragon outside of my window, so I'd say that's pretty unrealistic.   Dragon Age II is a fantasy game.  It's not meant to be an exact representation of reality, and even if it was, it would be downright impossible to ascertain an exact ratio of straight people  to LGB people because a lot of people are in the closet for various reasons in current society.

The fact is that most games pander in one way or another.  It's how companies make their money.  But  I don't see too many people getting angry and calling things to be unrealistic when every lady in a game has giant breasts and a rocket launcher to blow things up because games like that are pandering to heterosexual dudes.   Bioware decided to expand their market to keep up with the information that hey, not everyone who plays a video game is a straight dude, and now comes the complaining about pandering.    What exactly is the problem when you're playing a fantasy game to actually have all of the options be open to you rather than how they're closed off in nearly every other game?  Romances in general pander to heterosexual people, because typically the only options you have are heterosexual.   I still don't see how it cheapens or weakens the characters, because the two characters who are actually "Hawkesexual" both have good reasons for it.  

Also, just as a side note, since we're talking about LGB options, can we not throw LGBT around since what we're discussing here has absolutely nothing to do with trans* people? 

I've stated it before but I feel that Bioware should create romances with NPC's that aren't part of the party that people could meet up with and talk to outside of the party, as it would allow party members to not neccessarily be attracted to the pc, and it would allow more fleshed out romances of different orientations.  Ultimately I want it closer to Persona 4 with bisexual and homosexual choices, as it would give fleshed out relationships with everyone yet I won't have to deal with the contrived notion that everyone is attracted to the main character, and that relationships based on conflict always work out.

But then people talk about funding, and it goes no where.

And to correct, 3 characters are hawkesexual, one is actually a bisexual.

And please don't bring up dragons when people speak of realism.  Even fantasy has a plausible level of realism that it adheres to so people can become immersed in the world.

[ademska]

oh, hello recursive logic. the thread shouldn't exist in the first place because people shouldn't give such a damn about it. that is my entire point. that is what i have been saying since the beginning.

[Torhagen]

this again ?

[22nd MadJack]

ademska wrote...

oh, hello recursive logic. the thread shouldn't exist in the first place because people shouldn't give such a damn about it. that is my entire point. that is what i have been saying since the beginning.

Seems like they do.

[Harid]

ipgd wrote...

Harid wrote...

Am not talking about the message of the civil rights movement.

You were complaining about the gays co-opting the message of the civil rights movement, insinuating that the civil rights movement has a different message than it does, which is what I am replying to. The core base messages of the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement are the same.

I am talking about cultural and societal pressures today.

I.e. you may wish to be treated as if sexual orientation is not a big deal just as sure as I wish all black males weren't say associated with rappers and slang speak, but wishing does not make it so.   You can't like it's not a big deal when people treat it like it is one.

And, again... that is the point of the civil rights movement.

And also entirely irrelevant to Thedas, because there are no such cultural prejudices regarding sexuality. What is your point?

This has become a tangent.  Take to PM.

[Harid]

ademska wrote...

oh, hello recursive logic. the thread shouldn't exist in the first place because people shouldn't give such a damn about it. that is my entire point. that is what i have been saying since the beginning.

But people do, and here we are.

[ademska]

Harid says...

And to correct, 3 characters are hawkesexual, one is actually a bisexual.

wrong. two are bisexual. anders is bisexual. he says it in the game, david gaider and jennifer hepler both confirm it. this is not a point of contention.

look, we're not in complete disagreement here, i'm not painting you as a homophobe. but if the decision comes down to "one same-sex choice" or "four ~*~plausible~*~ love interests with full choice", why stifle it? there is no NO GOOD REASON.

[ipgd]

22nd MadJack wrote...

Generally speaking, heterosexuals tend not to sleep with their own sex regardless of situation, what with the lack of sexual attraction.  Were they all bisexual then it wouldn't be a problem.  It's the part where they are all bisexual which raises questions. 

Why? Do bisexuals exert a sort of repulsion field, preventing them from convening with eachother? Why is four bisexuals too many?

Harid wrote...

And to correct, 3 characters are hawkesexual, one is actually a bisexual.

Anderps is textually pansexual. Fenris is also potentially visibly bisexual if you sleep with and dump him and Isabela as a male character and he later gets together with her.

Modifié par ipgd, 22 juin 2011 - 09:55 .