546 réponses à ce sujet

[Eterna]

Sykoschematic wrote...

SilentNukee wrote...
Where do you even get your statistics from? It's around 10%, and that's not counting people in the closet who fear for their lives because it's "wrong" in their religion or culture. Also the fact that EVERYONE is at neither extremes of 100% straight or 100% homosexual.

Sorry if I have a double post but I read this immediately after I posted and it's the most stupid thing i've seen today.

10% of the worlds 7 billion+ population is gay? Wow. That's 1 in 10 people.

Who are you trying to kid with that stupid statistic?

I heard that statistic while watching a documentry, it's real. Although I can't for the life of me remember the shows name :/

[forthary]

How about another option:

None.

Simply put, your character will be unable to engage in romantic relationships, no matter what.  Characters will avoid asking you out, and if they somehow do, you will auto-decline them.  No need to worry about accidentally locking yourself into a relationship.  That would have been a nice addition in the Mass Effect series, because hey, not everyone desires (Or deserves, dare I say) a romance in-game.

[Mr. Big Pimpin]

Gilliy wrote...

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT....

I CAN ROMANCE GARRUS AS DUDESHEP?

SRSLY?

SOMEONE CONFIRM THIS FOR ME RIGHT EFFING NOW OMG.

*FLAILS*

allcaps ;p

Sorry; Garrus is straight.

[MACharlie1]

Mr. Big Pimpin wrote...

Gilliy wrote...

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT....

I CAN ROMANCE GARRUS AS DUDESHEP?

SRSLY?

SOMEONE CONFIRM THIS FOR ME RIGHT EFFING NOW OMG.

*FLAILS*

allcaps ;p

Sorry; Garrus is straight.

Xeno-straight. He might actually like the occassional Turian guy or two. 

[j78]

Eterna5 wrote...

Sykoschematic wrote...

SilentNukee wrote...
Where do you even get your statistics from? It's around 10%, and that's not counting people in the closet who fear for their lives because it's "wrong" in their religion or culture. Also the fact that EVERYONE is at neither extremes of 100% straight or 100% homosexual.

Sorry if I have a double post but I read this immediately after I posted and it's the most stupid thing i've seen today.

10% of the worlds 7 billion+ population is gay? Wow. That's 1 in 10 people.

Who are you trying to kid with that stupid statistic?

I heard that statistic while watching a documentry, it's real. Although I can't for the life of me remember the shows name :/

It's true .They dont wear signs
 

[Eterna]

Whoops mis read. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 19 mars 2012 - 04:22 .

[DRUNK_CANADIAN]

Tirigon wrote...

DRUNK_CANADIAN wrote...

Your analogy is as bad as your typing, the toggle option only affects the individual playing the game, not the masses, concessions were made for sake of inclusion, I think the OP has some right to request this option to better their gaming experience. Nobody is harmed in the process, although he probably should have brought it up about 4-6 months ago.

That idea was brought up a year ago already, and heavily discussed in the Fight For The Love thread.

The-Sapient wrote...
A person who is attracted to members
of the same and opposite sex might choose to limit who they date or have
sex with.  But their orientation is still bisexual. 

That is like saying "if you hate that guy you are a murderer even if you restrain yourself and never ever hurt him".

gamer_girl wrote...
Trigon then you are a pansexual which
is a very rare sexuality type. Seeing as it's ridiculous, you didn't
just wake up one day and say "you know what, I don't care about the
parts, I just care about the person." It may have taken time to realize
that's the way you are, but it was always inherent. Just like every
other person whether straight or gay or even in your case
pansexual.

No it is not like that, it is just that character is the most important.

Of course there are beautiful women, and also beautiful men. But unless I love them for their character I am not attracted to them. There also are beautiful animals, and beautiful cars. But I am not attracted to them.

That thread is a minority viewpoint though, even within the BSN (which is itself a minority view of the whole community)

[Eterna]

Russalka wrote...

Those who wish to "heal" homosexuals would want to with any option. If it is a choice, then let's bring in the psychiatrists, if it is not, let's bring in the physicians. Or we could pray it away with either.

It is just that with all the hostility, they had to pick one. Usually, people don't remember choosing their sexuality, nor would anyone even question it with heterosexuality. The possibility of it being a choice, alongside the suggestion of homosexuality being a perversion, is still used as something to make gay people look depraved. "It can't be helped!" evokes sympathy in this case.

But it's not a choice. It's not a possibility. 

[Russalka]

Eterna5 wrote...

It's not a choice. I don't recall choosing to be Gay. 

Neither do I. But then there is that Sex & the City star who said she chose to be. But then again, there are countless attempts to cure people which led to misery and/or denial. There are people who realise only later in life, can peer pressure and denial truly be so strong?

It seems simpler to say it doesn't matter. Let a scientist mull over it, adding these "anomalies" to the question, and all without ideology.

EDIT: And I worded it rather differently from what I meant, it's the early morning. What I meant is that when a part of society still maintains the idea that it could be a choice, not that there has to be a possibility. Even though I am unsure of that sometimes.

EDIT2: This is so off-topic. -.-

Modifié par Russalka, 19 mars 2012 - 04:36 .

[lietk12]

lol this thread again

[Maria Caliban]

Russalka wrote...

The gay rights people are adamant on it not being a choice, because otherwise it would encourage those who wish to cure homosexuality or condemn gay people for choosing a life of sin.

I am a 'gay rights person' and believe that for some people it's a choice.

People who want to cure homosexuality or believe it's a sin will do so whether it's a choice or not. Even if homosexuality is in-born, having sex and being in a relationship is still a choice.

[Nejeli]

superwarrior wrote...

Now, if we assume that gayness is a product of the mind then it can be theorised that homosexuality CAN be promoted and influenced and that'd be detrimental to our species in the future if allowed to spread. Hence the fear and suppression.

What do u ppl think?

What about people that are born to straight parents and surrounded by straight people and bombarded with straight media and still end up gay?

What about people raised by gay parents who end up straight?

What about straight people that read and watch media with gay characters and remain straight?

About the only thing that will result from tolerance is gay people feeling comfortable enough to be open about their sexuality. Trust me, it's not going to lead to a shortage of straight people.

[McSorley]

I was just disappointed as a Male Shep that it seemed things were going somewhere with Traynor until I got shot down. I was depressed for a minute IRL. True story.

[Eterna]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Russalka wrote...

The gay rights people are adamant on it not being a choice, because otherwise it would encourage those who wish to cure homosexuality or condemn gay people for choosing a life of sin.

I am a 'gay rights person' and believe that for some people it's a choice.

People who want to cure homosexuality or believe it's a sin will do so whether it's a choice or not. Even if homosexuality is in-born, having sex and being in a relationship is still a choice.

You tread upon dangerous ground. 

[Kajan451]

koyetai wrote...

 I find it really frustrating to speak with male characters in Bioware games lately ( specifically Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3).  I am speaking with a guy having a normal conversation and suddenly he is hitting on me or confessing a romantic interest and I have no clue what the hell just happened because my guy has clearly been going after the ladies?  How about an option to choose be gay up front, that way the people who are in to that can have their option and I don't have to find myself uncomfortable everytime I talk with a male character.  

I agree, it should be in the options somewhere to turn it on or off, but i'd like to add something to it...

like in ME2 for example, where the only way you can help Jack seems to be when you get her boyfriend. I liked Jack to much to let her just be her sorry self, but i wanted to be a friend and not her boytoy.

This isn't a problem exclusive to homosexual characters, its a problem in the way its constructed and if i could decide on my prefered way to handle it... it would be by a checkbox in their character screen. A little checkbox reading: Romantic interest

This way you can already predefine if your shep is interested in them and it can define if the conversations stay on a friendship level or get deeper. Because usually blocking their advances leads to them being mute and avoiding you for the most part.

[Serenity84]

SilentNukee wrote...
Where do you even get your statistics from? It's around 10%,

The 10% figure comes from the Kinsey study, which suffers from severe selection bias, so it's certainly too high. Most modern surveys say it's about 2-3% with slightly higher figures for bisexuality. Since those depend on self-selection and not everyone will identify, the real numbers are a bit higher. Maybe up to 5%

[mauro2222]

Kajan451 wrote...

koyetai wrote...

 I find it really frustrating to speak with male characters in Bioware games lately ( specifically Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3).  I am speaking with a guy having a normal conversation and suddenly he is hitting on me or confessing a romantic interest and I have no clue what the hell just happened because my guy has clearly been going after the ladies?  How about an option to choose be gay up front, that way the people who are in to that can have their option and I don't have to find myself uncomfortable everytime I talk with a male character.  

I agree, it should be in the options somewhere to turn it on or off, but i'd like to add something to it...

like in ME2 for example, where the only way you can help Jack seems to be when you get her boyfriend. I liked Jack to much to let her just be her sorry self, but i wanted to be a friend and not her boytoy.

This isn't a problem exclusive to homosexual characters, its a problem in the way its constructed and if i could decide on my prefered way to handle it... it would be by a checkbox in their character screen. A little checkbox reading: Romantic interest

This way you can already predefine if your shep is interested in them and it can define if the conversations stay on a friendship level or get deeper. Because usually blocking their advances leads to them being mute and avoiding you for the most part.

That's lack of dialogue haha

And is not extra content, so if you want a turn off/on switch for it, I want one for heterosexual romances only... I want all of them to be BI, like it should be.

Modifié par mauro2222, 19 mars 2012 - 02:14 .

[Serenity84]

Russalka wrote...
Neither do I. But then there is that Sex & the City star who said she chose to be.

That was widely misinterpreted and she later clarified it. Nixon later said that she is bisexual, but she doesn't like the word because bisexuals get **** from both sides. So he prefers to identify as gay. What she did choose is to listen to her feelings and be in a relationship with a woman

[mauro2222]

Serenity84 wrote...

Russalka wrote...
Neither do I. But then there is that Sex & the City star who said she chose to be.

That was widely misinterpreted and she later clarified it. Nixon later said that she is bisexual, but she doesn't like the word because bisexuals get **** from both sides. So he prefers to identify as gay. What she did choose is to listen to her feelings and be in a relationship with a woman

Haha, I feel for her, same situation here *waves flag*

[Siansonea]

Hey look, people on the BSN are Mad At The Gay in ME games. How refreshing.

Frankly, I don't understand what the statistical incidence of homosexuality in human populations has to do with anything. Not everyone who wanted s/s options in the games was homosexual. I'm the unofficial "leader" of the FFTL group, and I'm a straight female, and the group was started by a straight male. It's a fictional universe with a fictional protagonist, and some of us simply wanted to play as many different types of Shepards as possible.

And whatever the incidence of gay humans in our society, there are 0% turians, 0% asari, 0% quarians, and 0% drell in the real world. So why were those romances included?

To all those who object to gay content in games, television, and other media, you're the last of a dying breed. The future is calling, and it's rainbow colored. You sound like the people who long for the "good old days" of the Old South. Remember when you could own people and make them do backbreaking work for you with no pay and you could sell their children? Good times, amirite? /sarcasm

Modifié par Siansonea II, 19 mars 2012 - 04:04 .

[McSorley]

Siansonea II wrote...

To all those who object to gay content in games, television, and other media, you're the last of a dying breed. The future is calling, and it's rainbow colored. You sound like the people who long for the "good old days" of the Old South. Remember when you could own people and make them do backbreaking work for you with no pay and you could sell their children? Good times, amirite? /sarcasm

Just trying to make a point, but please enlighten me on the history of the last time large groups of gays were brought anywhere on ships with at least 1/3 of them dying on the voyage, the last time large groups of gays were enslaved and beaten for any reason their "master" saw fit (up to and including reading or trying to learn), the last time gays faced any of those things you mentioned (backbreaking work without pay and their children being sold)?  Your ending argument is negated by the fact NONE OF THESE THINGS HAPPENED to gays.  Gays do not and have NEVER suffered a plight anywhere near as severe as the Africans who were brought here against their will.  I'm not saying they don't suffer any discrimination at all, but come on.

If you're going to argue rights issues concerning gays, at least include events that occurred where they were ACTUALLY INVOLVED.  The murder of Harvey Milk by a "lactose intolerant" Dan White, sure, that was bad.  Just stop pushing this bs that gay struggles = the struggles of slaves.

[shepskisaac]

McSorley wrote...

Gays do not and have NEVER suffered a plight anywhere near as severe as the Africans who were brought here against their will.

Yes they f-ing did suffer alot of violence, discrimination and utter injustice and still do in many parts of the world. This is not a competition "who had worse", neither it is "if you haven't suffered exactly as much as Africans you shouldn't complain". Even if gay people experienced less violence and discrimination than Africans (which many people would agrue), they STILL suffered tons of it throughout history and still suffer today, which ain't justified or right under any POV. Do me a favour and AT LEAST read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people Then comeback and start implying again how gay people "didn't have it that bad really"

Modifié par IsaacShep, 19 mars 2012 - 04:53 .

[McSorley]

IsaacShep wrote...

McSorley wrote...

Gays do not and have NEVER suffered a plight anywhere near as severe as the Africans who were brought here against their will.

Yes they f-ing did suffer alot of violence, discrimination and utter injustice and still do in many parts of the world. This is not a competition "who had worse", neither it is "if you haven't suffered exactly as much as Africans you shouldn't complain". Even if gay people experienced less violence and discrimination than Africans (which many people would agrue), they STILL suffered tons of it throughout history and still suffer today, which ain't justified or right under any POV. Do me a favour and AT LEAST read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people Then comeback and start implying again how gay people "didn't have it that bad really"

Again, her reference was to something that happened in America.  In reference to things in this country, Africans still suffered exponentially more than gays.  You bring in this "whole world" mentality when the argument started as being specific, actually, to even treatment of people in the SOUTHERN part of America (they were that specific in their post).  The comparison holds no water, sorry.

[Eromenos]

McSorley wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

To all those who object to gay content in games, television, and other media, you're the last of a dying breed. The future is calling, and it's rainbow colored. You sound like the people who long for the "good old days" of the Old South. Remember when you could own people and make them do backbreaking work for you with no pay and you could sell their children? Good times, amirite? /sarcasm

Just trying to make a point, but please enlighten me on the history of the last time large groups of gays were brought anywhere on ships with at least 1/3 of them dying on the voyage, the last time large groups of gays were enslaved and beaten for any reason their "master" saw fit (up to and including reading or trying to learn), the last time gays faced any of those things you mentioned (backbreaking work without pay and their children being sold)?  Your ending argument is negated by the fact NONE OF THESE THINGS HAPPENED to gays.  Gays do not and have NEVER suffered a plight anywhere near as severe as the Africans who were brought here against their will.  I'm not saying they don't suffer any discrimination at all, but come on.

If you're going to argue rights issues concerning gays, at least include events that occurred where they were ACTUALLY INVOLVED.  The murder of Harvey Milk by a "lactose intolerant" Dan White, sure, that was bad.  Just stop pushing this bs that gay struggles = the struggles of slaves.

Hmmm serious troll or accident troll? Anyway. We homos and queers must be living the dream in comparison, eh?

We must have overlooked the honors of being readily fired/beaten/maimed/vandalized/taunted/killed/humiliated/robbed etc because of who we love. Though actually, I don't think anyone here was going for comparisons to try and one-up anybody else on some suffering-scale except you. Sian's comparison was apt because she inferred a particular attitude that dominant culture tries to exploit, which is to dehumanize the legitimate aspects of a forcibly repressed culture's characteristics that otherwise threaten the stratified "superiority" of the dominant one.

This attitude persists against people of color and people who are queer, and especially people who are both. They have separate distinctions but they also share a lot more overlap than you thought.

Modifié par Eromenos, 19 mars 2012 - 05:00 .

[shepskisaac]

McSorley wrote...

Africans still suffered exponentially more than gays

Which changes the fact that gay people should be treated right exactly how?