403 réponses à ce sujet

[pharos_gryphon]

DeathCultArm wrote...

Many feel being *** is a domino effect. Being *** often leads to many transsexuals, and hermaphrodites, which tragically effect everyone. It also widespreads AID, and leads to many children being adopted, that should've been for normal couples. Also **** have no noteable contributions to society. The culture isn't a friendly one, and bad usually comes out of it. There are a thousands reasons

I'm not givng a personal opinion, i'm playing devils adviocate. I have many lesvian friends, and I argue the same thing to them.  Now if you add a *** charater alot of potential charatcer will think about alot fo that.

As far as I'm aware though, there's no shortage of orphans in the world, so the concept of gays adopting ones that 'should have gone to straights' seems somewhat ludicrous.  Also, notable contributions to society, many notable people throughout history have been bisexual or homosexual.  There's often that stereotype of 'what it means to be gay'.  Andy Griffith was a homosexual, but he didn't have a limp wrist and most Americans consider him and his shows to be good, wholesome entertainment.  Finally, as to the culture not being a friendly one... the news every month has stories of people being beaten or killed because someone didn't like that they were homosexual.  On the other side of the coin, you next to never hear stories of someone being beaten and killed because someone didn't like that they were straight.  The only hate I've ever seen at a Pride Parade was from protesters. <3

[ReDSH1FT]

Mister Mage wrote...

ReDSH1FT wrote...Also, yes, I do have a problem with isolationism and beliefs playing into the whole thing.  I would be very sad to learn some brilliant scientists died without ever having children, whom they could have raised with all their knowledge.  And as for religious beliefs... ehh... it's hard to make any point against that without raising red flags.

The problem is that this isn't how it works.  We are not born with any knowledge from our parents.  We as specimens are not drastically different biologically from each other in the sense that all people from a later generation have improvements compared to the last one.  And why would the scientist need to transfer his knowledge to a child, specifically their own offspring?  By teaching ANYONE, and by leaving behind records of their discoveries and insights, they will have improved the future without needing to birth a child in the process.

Every child is not superior to their parents, it's not really a solid upward progression.

Because we are a product of our environment.  There are lots of legacy athletes, scientists, teachers, police officers, etc.

And, no, we are not born with knowledge from our parents, but we are born with knowledge from our species.  It's the reason we fear the dark.  Millenia of no fire and light made our ancestors very wary of the night and it's dangers in the wild.

Over a long enough time span, we do create an ancestral knowledge for the species, as exhibited by all the animals today.  Instinct would be a nice way to put it.

Also, yes over population is a problem, but I wouldn't laud homosexuality as some sort of robin hood for that problem.  It's people fulfilling their want for love and/or sexual fetishes.

[iambecomedeath7]

Wow... bigots are so irritating.

[ITSSEXYTIME]

DeathCultArm wrote...

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

DeathCultArm wrote...

Many feel being *** is a domino effect. Being *** often leads to many transsexuals, and hermaphrodites, which tragically effect everyone. It also widespreads AID, and leads to many children being adopted, that should've been for normal couples. Also **** have no noteable contributions to society. The culture isn't a friendly one, and bad usually comes out of it. There are a thousands reasons

I'm not givng a personal opinion, i'm playing devils adviocate. I have many lesvian friends, and I argue the same thing to them.

Now if you add a *** charater alot of potential charatcer will think about alot fo that.

Now you're just expressing more ignorance.

Homosexuality leads to more transsexuals and hermaphrodites?  First of all hermaphrodites are born that way and it is a genetic defect, and transsexuals could exist regardless of homosexuality. There's no evidence to suggest that homosexuality results in more transsexual behaviour.  (more importantly, how does any of this "tragically affect everyone")  AIDS can be spread by both homosexual and heterosexual couples.  There's nothing wrong with a homosexual couple adopting a child, their sexuality does not prohibit the ability to be good parents.  I've seen many cases of heterosexual couples proving to be awful parents.  Heterosexuality doesn't improve your contributions to society and inversely homosexuality does not impede your ability to do so.  The culture is often hostile to anti-homosexual beliefs, but you can hardly blame them for it can you?  When you accuse them of spreading AIDS and not contributing anything to society you can be damn right they're going to be hostile.

Devils Advocate or no, you are arguing irrational, illogical and ignorant beliefs.  Many of your claims have no evidence to support them and your accusations are downright insulting to homosexual people, telling them that they can't be good parents and thusly don't deserve to adopt a child.

YES that is ignorance...just my point. Alot of people are ignorant and think that way. Adding a *** character in ME isn't going to change that. Which is why I don't see why anyone cares if the LI's are ***..

What is this thread even about anymore....The ***s v the non-gays..? ..I hate when forums get personal.

Okay.  But I don't think people really want to change people's beliefs by adding a homosexual character to ME2.  Perhaps they just want the option to experience their own fictional romance, just like how heterosexual males can get it on with Subject Zero and how females can get it on with Kaiden.  It is escapist fantasy afterall.

[TheAnima]

ReDSH1FT wrote...

Mister Mage wrote...

ReDSH1FT wrote...Also, yes, I do have a problem with isolationism and beliefs playing into the whole thing.  I would be very sad to learn some brilliant scientists died without ever having children, whom they could have raised with all their knowledge.  And as for religious beliefs... ehh... it's hard to make any point against that without raising red flags.

The problem is that this isn't how it works.  We are not born with any knowledge from our parents.  We as specimens are not drastically different biologically from each other in the sense that all people from a later generation have improvements compared to the last one.  And why would the scientist need to transfer his knowledge to a child, specifically their own offspring?  By teaching ANYONE, and by leaving behind records of their discoveries and insights, they will have improved the future without needing to birth a child in the process.

Every child is not superior to their parents, it's not really a solid upward progression.

Because we are a product of our environment.  There are lots of legacy athletes, scientists, teachers, police officers, etc.

And, no, we are not born with knowledge from our parents, but we are born with knowledge from our species.  It's the reason we fear the dark.  Millenia of no fire and light made our ancestors very wary of the night and it's dangers in the wild.

Over a long enough time span, we do create an ancestral knowledge for the species, as exhibited by all the animals today.  Instinct would be a nice way to put it.

Also, yes over population is a problem, but I wouldn't laud homosexuality as some sort of robin hood for that problem.  It's people fulfilling their want for love and/or sexual fetishes.

Uhm. No. We're afraid of the dark because it reduces our most acute sense, sight, in effectiveness. This has nothing to do with the dangers of the wild. It has to do with sensory deprivation.

Modifié par TheAnima, 19 janvier 2010 - 04:49 .

[Poloman967]

Maybe we should all just take a break from this topic and go watch more ME 2 videos  

 Like the machinima video that is up now! If theres one thing we all agree on its we all love Mass Effect!   

[ydaraishy]

"Also **** have no noteable contributions to society."

Heh. Alan Turing, father of computer science, ****** of WWII German ENIGMA codes, was a big queer. That's pretty notable.

Modifié par ydaraishy, 19 janvier 2010 - 04:49 .

[DeathCultArm]

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

DeathCultArm wrote...

What's the purpose? IDK why i'm here..I still don't understand..What the point? OK..some people are ***, and it's a minority....What else is there..?!

I'm just trying to understand why you care if there is a homosexual love interest in the game, and how would it alienate you or anyone else who plays the game?

Would you be upset if a homosexual party member made advancement with your Shepard?  Does the mere OPTION of a homosexual love interest for people who want it upset you?

I absolutely agree that Bioware does not have to cater to any minority, but if they choose to do so why does it negatively affect you in any way, shape or form?

Again, i'm not trying to give my personal opinion b/c it has nothing to do with the thread(off-topic it does). How I feel about a subject isn't going to sway BW one way or the other.. If they added *** charatcers it be nothing anyone could do about it, but they didn't..so it's nothing anyonce can do about it.

And I have to say i've come to respect your form of arguement. If other posters did as you did..I wouldn't e so irritated.

[Pups_of_war_76]

Poloman967 wrote...

Maybe we should all just take a break from this topic and go watch more ME 2 videos  

 Like the machinima video that is up now!    

Anything new?

[pharos_gryphon]

Poloman967 wrote...

Maybe we should all just take a break from this topic and go watch more ME 2 videos 
 Like the machinima video that is up now! If theres one thing we all agree on its we all love Mass Effect!   

I tried to, but the sound cut out halfway through!  *shakes fist at the media section*

[Medhia Nox]

Poloman967 - I respect your efforts as peacemaker. They are more enlightened than many.



However - someone on the internet is wrong!

[ReDSH1FT]

TheAnima wrote...

ReDSH1FT wrote...

Mister Mage wrote...

ReDSH1FT wrote...Also, yes, I do have a problem with isolationism and beliefs playing into the whole thing.  I would be very sad to learn some brilliant scientists died without ever having children, whom they could have raised with all their knowledge.  And as for religious beliefs... ehh... it's hard to make any point against that without raising red flags.

The problem is that this isn't how it works.  We are not born with any knowledge from our parents.  We as specimens are not drastically different biologically from each other in the sense that all people from a later generation have improvements compared to the last one.  And why would the scientist need to transfer his knowledge to a child, specifically their own offspring?  By teaching ANYONE, and by leaving behind records of their discoveries and insights, they will have improved the future without needing to birth a child in the process.

Every child is not superior to their parents, it's not really a solid upward progression.

Because we are a product of our environment.  There are lots of legacy athletes, scientists, teachers, police officers, etc.

And, no, we are not born with knowledge from our parents, but we are born with knowledge from our species.  It's the reason we fear the dark.  Millenia of no fire and light made our ancestors very wary of the night and it's dangers in the wild.

Over a long enough time span, we do create an ancestral knowledge for the species, as exhibited by all the animals today.  Instinct would be a nice way to put it.

Also, yes over population is a problem, but I wouldn't laud homosexuality as some sort of robin hood for that problem.  It's people fulfilling their want for love and/or sexual fetishes.

Uhm. No. We're afraid of the dark because it reduces our most acute sense, sight, in effectiveness. This has nothing to do with the dangers of the wild. It has to do with sensory deprivation.

Sensory deprivation is a part, but not the whole.  But I like how you picked on just that.  That premise was part of my argument for instinctual behaviors in animals.  Or... are you trying to posit that we don't have instincts?

[highcastle]

I for one would like to see an m/m option in the game. I know devs way back when said they believed it had been cut due to time constraints, but then, NG+ was supposedly cut too, so I cling to my faint hope. And as I've said before on similar threads on the old forums, I just don't see how including such an option is a bad thing. If you don't want to explore it, don't. I had no interest in a Liara romance in the first game (with either gender, she just felt too immature to be in a romance), so I simply stayed friends. You could do the same with the m/m option if you didn't want to pursue it.

And thus far, Dragon Age has been praised for its romance options. BioWare's shown they're not afraid of taking the chance and including f/f and m/m as far back as Jade Empire. So I don't think they'd stay away from it in ME out of any malice or perceived public backlash.

[ITSSEXYTIME]

DeathCultArm wrote...

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

DeathCultArm wrote...

What's the purpose? IDK why i'm here..I still don't understand..What the point? OK..some people are ***, and it's a minority....What else is there..?!

I'm just trying to understand why you care if there is a homosexual love interest in the game, and how would it alienate you or anyone else who plays the game?

Would you be upset if a homosexual party member made advancement with your Shepard?  Does the mere OPTION of a homosexual love interest for people who want it upset you?

I absolutely agree that Bioware does not have to cater to any minority, but if they choose to do so why does it negatively affect you in any way, shape or form?

Again, i'm not trying to give my personal opinion b/c it has nothing to do with the thread(off-topic it does). How I feel about a subject isn't going to sway BW one way or the other.. If they added *** charatcers it be nothing anyone could do about it, but they didn't..so it's nothing anyonce can do about it.

And I have to say i've come to respect your form of arguement. If other posters did as you did..I wouldn't e so irritated.

Okay, I think I get what you're saying.

If I'm interpreting it right You're saying that people shouldn't be upset either way if it is in the game or not, and to claim that Bioware is discriminating against homosexuals or shying away from controversy is basically a immature opinion? 

[Schneidend]

DeathCultArm wrote...

Again, i'm not trying to give my personal opinion b/c it has nothing to do with the thread(off-topic it does). How I feel about a subject isn't going to sway BW one way or the other.. If they added *** charatcers it be nothing anyone could do about it, but they didn't..so it's nothing anyonce can do about it.

And I have to say i've come to respect your form of arguement. If other posters did as you did..I wouldn't e so irritated.

Oh please, Lamb. If a guy like Zevran were in Mass Effect 2, you'd be the first to start bellyaching about it.

[Poloman967]

Theres some new machinima episodes about the game on XBL too bad im still waiting for my RROD xbox to get back... i still love xbox, rrod makes it all the more... interesting! xD

[DeathCultArm]

Yes..what's done is done, and complaining won't change it. I can uderstand some people being upset, but raging and dishing out lectures because their demands wasn't included is futile.

[ReDSH1FT]

Schneidend wrote...

DeathCultArm wrote...

Again, i'm not trying to give my personal opinion b/c it has nothing to do with the thread(off-topic it does). How I feel about a subject isn't going to sway BW one way or the other.. If they added *** charatcers it be nothing anyone could do about it, but they didn't..so it's nothing anyonce can do about it.

And I have to say i've come to respect your form of arguement. If other posters did as you did..I wouldn't e so irritated.

Oh please, Lamb. If a guy like Zevran were in Mass Effect 2, you'd be the first to start bellyaching about it.

Obviously you didn't grasp, or maybe you didn't even read, what he has been posting.  To anyone with reason, it would be clear that he's saying this.

YOUR WHINING WON'T CHANGE THE GAME.

There, that should be clear and concise enough for you.

[crake333]

Modifié par crake333, 19 janvier 2010 - 04:57 .

[ITSSEXYTIME]

DeathCultArm wrote...

Yes..what's done is done, and complaining won't change it. I can uderstand some people being upset, but raging and dishing out lectures because their demands wasn't included is futile.

Alright, I can agree with that.  

[TheAnima]

ReDSH1FT wrote...

TheAnima wrote...

ReDSH1FT wrote...

Mister Mage wrote...

ReDSH1FT wrote...Also, yes, I do have a problem with isolationism and beliefs playing into the whole thing.  I would be very sad to learn some brilliant scientists died without ever having children, whom they could have raised with all their knowledge.  And as for religious beliefs... ehh... it's hard to make any point against that without raising red flags.

The problem is that this isn't how it works.  We are not born with any knowledge from our parents.  We as specimens are not drastically different biologically from each other in the sense that all people from a later generation have improvements compared to the last one.  And why would the scientist need to transfer his knowledge to a child, specifically their own offspring?  By teaching ANYONE, and by leaving behind records of their discoveries and insights, they will have improved the future without needing to birth a child in the process.

Every child is not superior to their parents, it's not really a solid upward progression.

Because we are a product of our environment.  There are lots of legacy athletes, scientists, teachers, police officers, etc.

And, no, we are not born with knowledge from our parents, but we are born with knowledge from our species.  It's the reason we fear the dark.  Millenia of no fire and light made our ancestors very wary of the night and it's dangers in the wild.

Over a long enough time span, we do create an ancestral knowledge for the species, as exhibited by all the animals today.  Instinct would be a nice way to put it.

Also, yes over population is a problem, but I wouldn't laud homosexuality as some sort of robin hood for that problem.  It's people fulfilling their want for love and/or sexual fetishes.

Uhm. No. We're afraid of the dark because it reduces our most acute sense, sight, in effectiveness. This has nothing to do with the dangers of the wild. It has to do with sensory deprivation.

Sensory deprivation is a part, but not the whole.  But I like how you picked on just that.  That premise was part of my argument for instinctual behaviors in animals.  Or... are you trying to posit that we don't have instincts?

Humans have very few instincts compared to other animals, and have a unique brain that allows them to over rule these instincts when they don't make sense to follow without too much effort. Being afraid of the dark has nothing to do with instincts, it has to do with sensory deprivation.

Modifié par TheAnima, 19 janvier 2010 - 04:57 .

[Medhia Nox]

Yes, but someone's "whining" may change future games.



It may convince some young gay kid to go and start making video games.



All these obnoxious threads may catch Bioware's notice - they may decide to add more in the future.



You may not like it - but you can't stop us from trying.

[Deran2]

ReDSH1FT wrote...
Because we are a product of our environment.  There are lots of legacy athletes, scientists, teachers, police officers, etc.

And, no, we are not born with knowledge from our parents, but we are born with knowledge from our species.  It's the reason we fear the dark.  Millenia of no fire and light made our ancestors very wary of the night and it's dangers in the wild.

Over a long enough time span, we do create an ancestral knowledge for the species, as exhibited by all the animals today.  Instinct would be a nice way to put it.

Also, yes over population is a problem, but I wouldn't laud homosexuality as some sort of robin hood for that problem.  It's people fulfilling their want for love and/or sexual fetishes.

While you are right, we shouldn't laud homosexuality as the way to control the population, but its not exactly hurting the situation either. If someone simply isn't attracted to the opposite gender sexually its very hard to actually have any kind of relationship with them. These people would likely make poor parents if they were forced to reproduce. I will say the whole genetic memory argument is way, way over my head, but it doesn't seem at all illogical to say that it doesn't matter who the parents are as long as they are capable of raising children correctly. Which would including going back to my original argument of adoption. We don't need more children, we need more parents to take care of the thousands of children sitting in overcrowded orphanages in the US and the tens of thousands (probably a sever underestimate) of them around the world. I find the idea that homosexuals need to breed to be completely ludacrise(sp?) as there are other options of raising the next generation of humanity. And yes I believe its far more important to have a loving and caring family than it is to have "genetically superior" parents.

[ITSSEXYTIME]

crake333 wrote...

I'm not trying to equate pedophilia with child molestation, in fact I'm trying to express the idea that the sexual attraction to children is no more inherently wrong than homosexuality.  The manipulation element stems from past experiences as well as the idea that children cannot make informed decisions. (The question is, what is the cut off age?  We're still wrestling with that as society)

If you cannot see the obvious parallels between anti-pedophelia in modern society and darth's original anti-homosexual comment then you have no place in this discussion. 

(And yes I'm being all psuedointellectualisticism, it makes it easier to avoid becoming opinionated either way)

I'm sorry, but are you nuts?  Sexual attraction to children is no different than homosexuality?  There is no way to justify a sexual relationship between an adult and a child.  Children cannot consent to, or want, such a relationship.  To believe they can is insane.  As others have said before, a homosexual relationship is between two adults.  Get a grip.

There are no parallels between anti-pedophelia and anti-homosexuality, and I don't care whether you think I have a place in this discussion or not, I'm expressing my opinion, as are you.

I believe otherwise, it has been proving that people are varying ages can be more mature than others.  I know rather young people (11-12) that are more mature than some of the people I know my own age.

However, there are obvious parallels.

Anti-homosexuality such as argued by darth's original post way back on page one basically had a "zero-tolerance" point of view on the issue, quite similarly many people adopt a similar police on pedophilia.

The subject of whether or not a child can provide consent is an interesting one and not one that I've formed my own personal opinion on yet.  Hypothetically however if a child was able to consent to such actions would you still believe it to be "wrong"?  Is the mere act of having sex with a child wrong or is it the lack of consent?

[ReDSH1FT]

We could go all day with this Anima, but we are INSTINCTUALLY afraid of the dark. And to call our brain unique is a pretty obvious statement. Every brain is unique. And you're severely mistaken by calling our brain unique because of it's ability to override instinct. I've seen male lions raised from cubs by humans have a totally different relationship than the one that would be.. instinctual.. i.e. killing them for being too close.