546 réponses à ce sujet

[Blacklash93]

I'm so glad ME3 has dramatically decreased my interest in visiting BSN. It saves me a lot of facepalms.

[Siansonea]

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.

My point? You missed it. The point was, drumroll please: people who object to homosexuality are living in the past. People who harbor ideas that homosexuality is wrong, unnatural, etc., are as stupid as people who once believed the earth was flat, that the sun revolves around the earth, that capturing other human beings and forcing them into slavery was a good and moral thing to do. Living in the past is the theme here, clinging to antiquated, long discredited ideas. But thanks for taking it to the place you took it, shows us where your mindset is.

[Siansonea]

And furthermore, if I was going to compare the situation of gays and lesbians today, I'd compare it to the plight of interracial couples in the 20th Century, I think that's the closest parallel. There was a time when "the mainstream" thought that interracial couples were perverted, that they shouldn't be allowed to legally marry, etc. Clearly, that was stupid. Same with the current attitude by many in today's "mainstream" toward gay couples. You know what we call interracial couples nowadays? Couples. And in another fifty years or so, hopefully sooner, gay and lesbian couples will just be couples. No modifier.

[PsyrenY]

Planeforger wrote...

They should have made the game more realistic, and randomly selected your sexuality for you at the start of the game, without you being aware of it.

So, for example, a fifth of the Shepards in Mass Effect 3 might find out that they've actually been in the closet all along (if not earlier in the series).

Why has no RPG done this yet?

Win

[Abispa]

McSorley wrote...

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.

Source: Coretta Scott King, wife of slain civil rights champion the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., remarks,
Opening Plenary Session, 13th annual Creating Change conference of the
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Atlanta, Georgia, November 9, 2000.
"We
have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and
discrimination. I say 'common struggle' because I believe very strongly
that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and
should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from
discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human
right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial,
religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."

[MACharlie1]

Are we honestly having a "who suffered more" argument? One person vs. millions. Does it really make a difference?

[Chun Hei]

Abispa wrote...

McSorley wrote...

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.

Source: Coretta Scott King, wife of slain civil rights champion the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., remarks, Opening Plenary Session, 13th annual Creating Change conference of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Atlanta, Georgia, November 9, 2000.

"We have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say 'common struggle' because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and
should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial,
religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."

Can't get enough of Mrs. King IMHO.

Modifié par Chun Hei, 19 mars 2012 - 10:30 .

[Parker Kincaid]

Suffering IS suffering and no one should have to suffer injustice for being who they are when being who they are in no way harms another person. Africans and blacks have suffered. Women have suffered. Homosexuals have suffered. Many different people or groups of people have suffered. None of it is right. In the bigger picture the "Civil Rights Movement" for homosexuals in the US is still early on and has a long way to go when compared to other movements. I'm embarrassed to be a heterosexual male in America because of the ignorance and hatred that I see on a regular basis toward those who are not heterosexual.

Some of the characters in BioWare games including ME3 aren't hetereosexual. There is no secret conspiracy to turn straight people into homosexuals. No one is forced to "play" a homosexual character or be in a homosexual relationship. The world isn't ending although sometimes I don't think mankind deserves much of anything with how we treat each other and destroy the environment.

This will be my final post on this topic. For all the people who simply cannot handle a gay character in a game, you better start learning to accept things because in the real world homosexuals are not going to be treated as second class citizens forever and you can't avoid being around them or talking to them forever.

Modifié par Parker Kincaid, 20 mars 2012 - 01:23 .

[Carfax]

gamer_girl wrote...

Tell me has your sexuality changed? I doubt it. The only thing that could be even close to "changing" is that it usually isn't realized fully until people grow up - because of peer pressure etc people stay in the closet and try to convince themselves that they are something that they aren't.

Just letting you know, that there are instances where peoples' sexuality CAN change....though it's certainly not a normal occurrence and is limited to a small amount of people.  This seems to occur mostly with women (from gay to straight and from straight to gay) than with men, and it's likely due to severe hormonal changes.

Women that go through menopause have a catastrophic decline in estrogen for instance, and if their hormonal balance was already unstable, can cause them to have higher levels of testosterone which may cause them to be attracted to other females.

The evidence of homosexuality (and sexuality in general) being caused by hormonal imbalances (starting as early as fetal development in the womb) is overwhelming....which is why one day I think it will be curable, or at least treatable/preventable.....especially if you catch it early, and by early I mean before the baby is even born.

There will eventually be screening processes that scan for abnormal hormonal imbalances in the womb, which can then be corrected.

Intra uterine hormonal imbalances is the only theory I know which explains why homosexuality is significantly more common in men than in women, to the tune of about 3:1 (because all fetuses are physically female, and require exposure to large amounts of testosterone to become male), why the rate of sexual inversion is much higher in homosexuals than heterosexuals, and why there is a significant degree of heritability involved.

The rate of homosexuality also appears to be fairly constant (4%) regardless of nation or culture.  Note, when I say homosexuality, I mean the orientation and not the sexual behaviour.

Modifié par Carfax, 20 mars 2012 - 02:44 .

[mauro2222]

I doubt it Carfax, homosexuality does have a purpose in reproduction, and it has to do with us being social animals.

[draken-heart]

we do not need a toggle, Bioware makes it clear that it is the player that initiates the romance. that is their stance on this not mine

[Carfax]

mauro2222 wrote...

I doubt it Carfax, homosexuality does have a purpose in reproduction, and it has to do with us being social animals.

Can you expound on that comment, especially how it relates to my previous post?  My post concerned how homosexuality comes about, but I never said anything about it having a greater purpose.

I don't know whether homosexuality has a purpose in reproduction or not.  I suppose homosexuals are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals, but it's not like they can't reproduce.

And since the percentage of homosexuals seems to be fairly constant, I'm not sure I'd say it has anything to do with population control.

[mauro2222]

Carfax wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

I doubt it Carfax, homosexuality does have a purpose in reproduction, and it has to do with us being social animals.

Can you expound on that comment, especially how it relates to my previous post?  My post concerned how homosexuality comes about, but I never said anything about it having a greater purpose.

I don't know whether homosexuality has a purpose in reproduction or not.  I suppose homosexuals are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals, but it's not like they can't reproduce.

And since the percentage of homosexuals seems to be fairly constant, I'm not sure I'd say it has anything to do with population control.

It relates because you think that homosexuality it's something to be corrected, when is not.
Read better you're supposed "evidence" and you will see it, just needed a google search of homosexuality and bisexuality to find it.

And... population control? I didn't say anything like that.

[Carfax]

mauro2222 wrote...

It relates because you think that homosexuality it's something to be corrected, when is not.

Homosexuality is abnormal, so why would you or anyone else be against correcting it if it were possible?

If it's found to be directly related to an imbalance of hormones or some other biological condition, then shouldn't scientists find a way to correct the problem?

Read better you're supposed "evidence" and you will see it, just needed a google search of homosexuality and bisexuality to find it.

Not sure what you're saying here.  There are several theories concerning homosexuality, and to me, intra uterine hormonal imbalance is by far the most compelling because it explains all aspects..

No other theory does.

And... population control? I didn't say anything like that.

You said it had a purpose, so I was merely speculating as to what that purpose may be.

[MACharlie1]

Carfax wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

It relates because you think that homosexuality it's something to be corrected, when is not.

Homosexuality is abnormal, so why would you or anyone else be against correcting it if it were possible?

I must say this is every single thread on this topic but...a man's G-spot is located in his rectum. Therefore, it isn't as "abnormal" as you may think. It's only abnormal from a strictly reproductive standpoint - which completely disregards the fact that humans are 1) social creatures and reach out for intimacy and 2) have sex for pleasure. 

What would be the purpose of "correcting" it? Because it isn't "socially accecptable"? It isn't a disease. Perhaps society should get over it first.

Modifié par MACharlie1, 20 mars 2012 - 04:11 .

[mauro2222]

Carfax wrote...

Homosexuality is abnormal, so why would you or anyone else be against correcting it if it were possible?

If it's found to be directly related to an imbalance of hormones or some other biological condition, then shouldn't scientists find a way to correct the problem?

Male have nipples with no purpose whatsoever, abnormal? Nope... evolutionary reasons, like homosexuality. Sex changed, reproduction is not the only purpose of sex, less in social-mammalian species.

Carfax wrote...


Not sure what you're saying here.  There are several theories concerning homosexuality, and to me, intra uterine hormonal imbalance is by far the most compelling because it explains all aspects..

No other theory does.

Read better honey.

Carfax wrote...

You said it had a purpose, so I was merely speculating as to what that purpose may be.

Your assumption consist in putting words in my mouth?

[Carfax]

MACharlie1 wrote...

I must say this is every single thread on this topic but...a man's G-spot is located in his rectum. Therefore, it isn't as "abnormal" as you may think. It's only abnormal from a strictly reproductive standpoint - which completely disregards the fact that humans are 1) social creatures and reach out for intimacy and 2) have sex for pleasure. 

You and I already had that discussion before, and I told you that the rectum was never meant to be penetrated (unlike a vagina), regardless of whether the prostate is located inside of it.

Anal sex is one of the most dangerous sexual acts for a number of reasons, ie the rectum lacks the stretching ability of the vagina and tears easily, it has no natural lubrication, it's extremely filthy.

Now knowing all this, how can you still stand by your arguement?

What would be the purpose of "correcting" it? Because it isn't "socially accecptable"? It isn't a disease. Perhaps society should get over it first.

The purpose for correcting it is as I've already stated.  It's an abnormal condition.  It doesn't matter whether or not it's harmless. 

If it's possible to correct, then you can be sure that someone will try.  In fact, I think they've already done it with cattle and other animals..

[Carfax]

mauro2222 wrote...

Male have nipples with no purpose whatsoever, abnormal? Nope... evolutionary reasons, like homosexuality. Sex changed, reproduction is not the only purpose of sex, less in social-mammalian species.

Males have nipples because they are a fetal by product, and all fetuses are physically female.

And while reproduction isn't the only purpose of sex, it's the primary purpose.

Read better honey.

I'm certainly not your honey, but I'd like to hear your views concerning the reason why homosexuality exists nonetheless.

Carfax wrote...

Your assumption consist in putting words in my mouth?

I never said you said, hence why I "speculated."

[mauro2222]

Carfax wrote...

Males have nipples because they are a fetal by product, and all fetuses are physically female.

And while reproduction isn't the only purpose of sex, it's the primary purpose.

Exactly, evolutionary reasons. I never stated it was secondary either.

Carfax wrote...


I'm certainly not your honey, but I'd like to hear your views concerning the reason why homosexuality exists nonetheless.

You have to take everything literal don't you? <_<

It's in the same "evidence" you found. I'm not going to do your homework for you, if you think that your research is a fact, then you are the one who must investigate more to correct the mistake.

Carfax wrote...

I never said you said, hence why I "speculated."

"And since the percentage of homosexuals seems to be fairly constant, I'm
not sure I'd say it has anything to do with population control.
"

Damn, you forget quickly.

Modifié par mauro2222, 20 mars 2012 - 04:43 .

[MACharlie1]

Carfax wrote...

MACharlie1 wrote...

I must say this is every single thread on this topic but...a man's G-spot is located in his rectum. Therefore, it isn't as "abnormal" as you may think. It's only abnormal from a strictly reproductive standpoint - which completely disregards the fact that humans are 1) social creatures and reach out for intimacy and 2) have sex for pleasure. 

You and I already had that discussion before, and I told you that the rectum was never meant to be penetrated (unlike a vagina), regardless of whether the prostate is located inside of it.

Anal sex is one of the most dangerous sexual acts for a number of reasons, ie the rectum lacks the stretching ability of the vagina and tears easily, it has no natural lubrication, it's extremely filthy.

Now knowing all this, how can you still stand by your arguement?

We did? Shows how many times I've had this argument. They all tend to blur together. 

Anyway...and you know it was never meant to be penetrated...how? Why not? There is clearly a function of the human body located in that canal that facilitates sexual pleasure. While not a lubricated area - which one could argue that the vagina must be lubricated since it's designed to get things much larger then anyone's penis through - and even that rips. As for filthy - your penis also excretes waste. And you still want to put that inside a girl? 

Carfax wrote...

What would be the purpose of "correcting" it? Because it isn't "socially accecptable"? It isn't a disease. Perhaps society should get over it first.

The purpose for correcting it is as I've already stated.  It's an abnormal condition.  It doesn't matter whether or not it's harmless. 

If it's possible to correct, then you can be sure that someone will try.  In fact, I think they've already done it with cattle and other animals..

But why is it abnormal? You've yet to explain that. If your going to suggest it's because that person cannot properly reproduce then it's like saying that the purpose of all life is simply to make babies. Which is an extremely narrow view of sentient beings. 

I don't doubt someone will attempt to "correct it". But remember: there were men who tried to correct the Jew problem too...

[mauro2222]

Ignore him Charlie, scientist themselves don't even know the "why" and he's hoping to correct it.

And don't pull that crap of fear to be attacked by teh gays!

Modifié par mauro2222, 20 mars 2012 - 04:55 .

[Carfax]

mauro2222 wrote...

It's in the same "evidence" you found. I'm not going to do your homework for you, if you think that your research is a fact, then you are the one who must investigate more to correct the mistake.

And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth? 

I never said intra uterine hormonal imbalance being the cause of homosexuality was a fact.  I merely said it was the most compelling theory, because only it is able to cover all the bases per say.

No other theory does.

"

Damn, you forget quickly

Did I say YOU said those things?  English must not be your primary language I'm sure, because you don't seem to understand what speculating is..

At any rate, what did you mean when you said homosexuality has a purpose?

Modifié par Carfax, 20 mars 2012 - 04:58 .

[Arik7]

No you can't.

[mauro2222]

Carfax wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

It's in the same "evidence" you found. I'm not going to do your homework for you, if you think that your research is a fact, then you are the one who must investigate more to correct the mistake.

And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth? 

I never said intra uterine hormonal imbalance being the cause of homosexuality was a fact.  I merely said it was the most compelling theory, because only it is able to cover all the bases per say.

No other theory does.

"

Damn, you forget quickly

Did I say YOU said those things?  English must not be your primary language I'm sure, because you don't seem to understand what speculating is..

At any rate, what did you mean when you said homosexuality has a purpose?

Jesus Christ!

"I'm
not sure I'd say it has anything to do with population control."

No, you didn't said it, your speculation alone puts words in my mouth... "not sure I'd say it has..." I never mentioned population control, yet you do like if something in my post said so.

And don't try me for stupid, speculation it's the same in every language.

Just letting you know, that there are instances where peoples' sexuality CAN
change....though it's certainly not a normal occurrence and is limited
to a small amount of people.  This seems to occur mostly with women
(from gay to straight and from straight to gay) than with men, and it's
likely due to severe hormonal changes.

Women that go through
menopause have a catastrophic decline in estrogen for instance, and if
their hormonal balance was already unstable, can cause them to have
higher levels of testosterone which may cause them to be attracted to
other females.

The evidence of homosexuality (and sexuality in
general) being caused by hormonal imbalances (starting as early as fetal
development in the womb) is overwhelming....which is why one day I
think it will be curable, or at least
treatable/preventable.....especially if you catch it early, and by early
I mean before the baby is even born.

Not a fact at all. When you use examples without evidence and present them as such, you are stating a fact.

[Carfax]

MACharlie1 wrote...

Anyway...and you know it was never meant to be penetrated...how? Why not? There is clearly a function of the human body located in that canal that facilitates sexual pleasure.

Just because something facilitates or enables sexual pleasure, does it automatically mean it's purpose is to provide sexual pleasure; particularly when sexual pleasure is so subjective?

A lot of gay men probably don't even like or want to have anal sex due to the difficulties and dangers involved.
 

While not a lubricated area - which one could argue that the vagina must be lubricated since it's designed to get things much larger then anyone's penis through - and even that rips.

Not a good analogy, since the vagina serves as both a birth canal and an external sexual organ for intercourse.  The only time it becomes flexible enough to allow a baby to pass through is during pregnancy.  For a woman that isn't pregnant on the other hand, her vagina won't be nearly as stretchable.

 your penis also excretes waste. And you still want to put that inside a girl?

You used this exact same arguement, and I told you that urine isn't inherently filthy unlike feces.  People have used urine to clean wounds, or even whiten their teeth or instance..

Also, before a man ejaculates, his urethra is filled with pre-ejaculatory fluid to ease the passage of sperm, so it's not like the woman is getting any urine inside of her.

But why is it abnormal? You've yet to explain that. If your going to suggest it's because that person cannot properly reproduce then it's like saying that the purpose of all life is simply to make babies. Which is an extremely narrow view of sentient beings.

It's abnormal because humans are meant to be heterosexual from the stand point of design.  Gay men and women are still equipped with sexual organs that are conducive to copulation with the OPPOSITE sex, and not the same sex for instance.

It's also impossible to have biological sex with someone of the same sex.

I don't doubt someone will attempt to "correct it". But remember: there were men who tried to correct the Jew problem too...

Being jewish isn't a biological condition.  Being homosexual is.

Modifié par Carfax, 20 mars 2012 - 05:24 .