403 réponses à ce sujet

[Collider]

Morality is subjective, yes.

[ReDSH1FT]

This is just me, but the reason I'm against homos is because it's selfish. I'm a huge naturalist, and I'm well aware that it isn't just humans operating like this, that other species do it sometimes as well. I would call them selfish as well, because they are not furthering the main purpose of biological life; the act of surviving the species.



NO evolution can come from homosexual partnership, nothing can be gained for the greater of the species. All that happens is two men or women fulfill their fantasies, not caring AT ALL of humanity as a whole. Kind of like the whole Asari / Asari couple. The species gains nothing from it. Selfish people really.



Is this thought out enough for you?

[WriteByTheSea]

[quote]ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

Correct, there's a difference between Pedophilia and Paedophilia[/quote]

No, there isn't. "Paedophilia" is an older spelling of "Pedophilia." 

You might be thinking of "Ephebophila", but that's not a clinical term. Attraction to teenagers isn't a paraphilia, though sexual relations with teenagers of certain ages can be illegal, depending on where you live. [/quote]

[vhatever]

I'm so sick of these gay-pushing spammers on bioware forums.

[TheAnima]

ReDSH1FT wrote...

This is just me, but the reason I'm against homos is because it's selfish. I'm a huge naturalist, and I'm well aware that it isn't just humans operating like this, that other species do it sometimes as well. I would call them selfish as well, because they are not furthering the main purpose of biological life; the act of surviving the species.

NO evolution can come from homosexual partnership, nothing can be gained for the greater of the species. All that happens is two men or women fulfill their fantasies, not caring AT ALL of humanity as a whole. Kind of like the whole Asari / Asari couple. The species gains nothing from it. Selfish people really.

Is this thought out enough for you?

No actually. Population control plays a great deal in survival of a species, and homosexuals reduce the amount of reproducing couples that could endanger population control.

[DeathCultArm]

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

DeathCultArm wrote...

You alienate potential buyers when including *** romances, espescially m/m. Look how Fox news ripped them for STRAIGHT romances. It's not going to happen. Wheter it's right or wrong it's not in the game. Why posting about it...?

Well of course you alienate people.  The question is why do those people feel alienated and should their opinions have any weigh in on the decisions of the developer.

I'd argue that if you don't have any logical reason to hold a belief then you shouldn't grasp onto it because of stubbornness.  That is the true definition of ignorance in my mind, ignoring evidence that refutes your belief.

If they are apart of the majority of the main demographic, then yes. If I make a complaint about Oxygen or BET not showing more progams I value, they won't care b/c i'm not their demographic. Mass Effect's top demographic is staight males. My point still stands.

[ITSSEXYTIME]

[quote]DeathCultArm wrote...

*** equality doens't start with *** romance in a video games, in fact it laughable to even complain about it. And EA is on that box now.[/quote]

No, it doesn't start with romance in video games. It's already started.  By implementing homosexual romance in the game it becomes socially more acceptable, much like how movies depicting women as heroines or movies with black heroes have an effect on society's beliefs as a whole.

Denying the influence of popular media on societies beliefs is like saying that religion has no effect on spiritual beliefs. 

[quote]DQE001 wrote...

[quote]ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

Correct, there's a difference between Pedophilia and Paedophilia[/quote]

No, there isn't. "Paedophilia" is an older spelling of "Pedophilia." 

You might be thinking of "Ephebophila", but that's not a clinical term. Attraction to teenagers isn't a paraphilia, though sexual relations with teenagers of certain ages can be illegal, depending on where you live. [/quote][/quote]

Thanks for the correction then, there's a lot of misinformation concerning this topic so perhaps I'm just drawing from an inaccurate source.

Irregardless, teenagers are lumped into pedophilia by the media and legal classification so I see no reason not to discuss them when pedophilia is involved.

Modifié par ITSSEXYTIME, 19 janvier 2010 - 04:21 .

[Collider]

@redshift. Then you should be against recreational sex as well.

Evolution does not hinge solely on each individual reproducing. Homosexuals can contribute to society, which in turn can raise the standard of living, which in turn can raise the survival and success rates of people. Anyway, your reason is still ridiculous.

Modifié par Collider, 19 janvier 2010 - 04:20 .

[Medhia Nox]

ReDSH1FT: Do you really think our species needs MORE breeding?

Honestly, I'd love to see heteros breed more selectively.

Besides, science made heterosexuality obsolete. We can inseminate any female without needing intercourse. ((Though "technically" true, this is tongue in cheek))

Note: You should be against recreation sex (as collider stated) and masterbation. I bet you aren't though.. because those aren't selfish. You should be against abortion too for that matter.. and condoms.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 19 janvier 2010 - 04:22 .

[ReDSH1FT]

TheAnima wrote...

ReDSH1FT wrote...

This is just me, but the reason I'm against homos is because it's selfish. I'm a huge naturalist, and I'm well aware that it isn't just humans operating like this, that other species do it sometimes as well. I would call them selfish as well, because they are not furthering the main purpose of biological life; the act of surviving the species.

NO evolution can come from homosexual partnership, nothing can be gained for the greater of the species. All that happens is two men or women fulfill their fantasies, not caring AT ALL of humanity as a whole. Kind of like the whole Asari / Asari couple. The species gains nothing from it. Selfish people really.

Is this thought out enough for you?

No actually. Population control plays a great deal in survival of a species, and homosexuals reduce the amount of reproducing couples that could endanger population control.

Population control is a poor counter to my argument, because it can be easily attained through other methods such as birth control and taxes.

There are lots of very intelligent and able ****** citizens that are wasting all that species-furthering potentiality by just fulfilling their quaint ideas of love and/or fetishes.

[FollowTheGourd]

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

hence the existence of morals.

My perspective is that morals can change quite quickly such as has been witnessed in the last few decades of social change, and thus I feel that people need to atleast understand that there is no definitive right or wrong and that morals are just personal beliefs: they do not extend to the world around you.

Nothing irritates me more than people justifying an argument with "This is right but that is wrong".

Again, you could argue about objectivism, but I'm still not sure what point you hope to make in this context, knowing what the current morality is on the subject... and I'd argue one that's more than just arbitrary, and has serious legal repercussions even... and isn't about to change in the next few decades or so if ever unless we had a total societal collapse.

Modifié par FollowTheGourd, 19 janvier 2010 - 04:22 .

[Paragon Vanguard]

*charges onto battlefield with no regard for my own life*

ReDSH1FT wrote...

This is just me, but the reason I'm against homos is because it's selfish. I'm a huge naturalist, and I'm well aware that it isn't just humans operating like this, that other species do it sometimes as well. I would call them selfish as well, because they are not furthering the main purpose of biological life; the act of surviving the species.

NO evolution can come from homosexual partnership, nothing can be gained for the greater of the species. All that happens is two men or women fulfill their fantasies, not caring AT ALL of humanity as a whole. Kind of like the whole Asari / Asari couple. The species gains nothing from it. Selfish people really.

Is this thought out enough for you?

I looks your saying when a straight couples use condoms or birth control to prevent pregnacy, they're being selfish as well. What about those couples that marry without the intention of ever having kids?

Modifié par Paragon Vanguard, 19 janvier 2010 - 04:24 .

[Mister Mage]

ReDSH1FT wrote...

This is just me, but the reason I'm against homos is because it's selfish. I'm a huge naturalist, and I'm well aware that it isn't just humans operating like this, that other species do it sometimes as well. I would call them selfish as well, because they are not furthering the main purpose of biological life; the act of surviving the species.

NO evolution can come from homosexual partnership, nothing can be gained for the greater of the species. All that happens is two men or women fulfill their fantasies, not caring AT ALL of humanity as a whole. Kind of like the whole Asari / Asari couple. The species gains nothing from it. Selfish people really.

Should birth control be illegal, then?  How about those who medically cannot birth their own children?

The human population is a problem.  It's bad to say this, sure, but I'm never going to advocate KILLING people.  I just think that the idea that we exist to make more of us is a pretty bad idea, because we just don't have the resources to feed and take care of the people we HAVE.  I'd suggest that more people consider adoption, and less people have children when they obviously are not qualified to raise them.

[MentalKase]

There are a lot of places still in the world that would ban the game is it had same sex romancing.

[ReDSH1FT]

Collider wrote...

@redshift. Then you should be against recreational sex as well.

Evolution does not hinge solely on each individual reproducing. Homosexuals can contribute to society, which in turn can raise the standard of living, which in turn can raise the survival and success rates of people. Anyway, your reason is still ridiculous.

There's nothing wrong with recreational sex.  Let me clear my point up a bit.

Basically, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with ****** encounters of any sort, but the moment that they commit to never engage in any hetero reproduction, that's when it becomes a problem.

If you're a really smart and talented homosexual, at least have the decency to pass that along to your species.

Does that make more sense?

[WriteByTheSea]

ReDSH1FT wrote...

Is this thought out enough for you?

No, it's not. It's actually another sign of ignorance. We can look at one of our nearest animal relatives, the bonobo, and see quite clearly how homosexual interactions within their social group eases tensions, reduces violence and fosters community. It's not a selfish behavior, but rather an enduring feature of the ****** and pan genus that provides some advantage to the propagating of genes. If nothing else, its a spandrel, the by-product of other adaptations that have made our species successful.

Try again.

[ITSSEXYTIME]

ReDSH1FT wrote...

This is just me, but the reason I'm against homos is because it's selfish. I'm a huge naturalist, and I'm well aware that it isn't just humans operating like this, that other species do it sometimes as well. I would call them selfish as well, because they are not furthering the main purpose of biological life; the act of surviving the species.

NO evolution can come from homosexual partnership, nothing can be gained for the greater of the species. All that happens is two men or women fulfill their fantasies, not caring AT ALL of humanity as a whole. Kind of like the whole Asari / Asari couple. The species gains nothing from it. Selfish people really.

Is this thought out enough for you?

An interesting perspective.

My question is this: Does every action you take contribute directly to your own procreation and genetic survival?  Do you also object to people who don't procreate whether because of social isolation or religious beliefs? (Eg never get married thus never have sex)

[DeathCultArm]

If they are apart of the majority of the main demographic, then yes. If I make a complaint about Oxygen or BET not showing more progams I value, they won't care b/c i'm not their demographic. Mass Effect's top demographic is staight males. My point still stands.



I'm not saying the something in the minority shouldn't be repreented, but i'm saying you can get mad when they don't cater to your minority.

[Deran2]

ReDSH1FT wrote...

This is just me, but the reason I'm against homos is because it's selfish. I'm a huge naturalist, and I'm well aware that it isn't just humans operating like this, that other species do it sometimes as well. I would call them selfish as well, because they are not furthering the main purpose of biological life; the act of surviving the species.

NO evolution can come from homosexual partnership, nothing can be gained for the greater of the species. All that happens is two men or women fulfill their fantasies, not caring AT ALL of humanity as a whole. Kind of like the whole Asari / Asari couple. The species gains nothing from it. Selfish people really.

Is this thought out enough for you?

There are too many humans on the planet already as it is. Too many people breeding that should never be allowed to. While its true homosexual couples can not produce off spring there are thousands of unwanted children in the US alone that those couples could take care of and raise. Even with that said I see absolutely no problem with there being less human beings on this planet.

[Bad-Meets-Evil]

Because us straight men would feel like f*gs even if the male-to-male romancing is optional. Just thinking about it is gay enough, but implementing it? No.

[Mister Mage]

ReDSH1FT wrote...
Does that make more sense?

Not really.  Why do we need to make more of us?  Isn't the idea that a child is the one defining contribution that could be made to humanity a bit ridiculous?  Anyone can make a child.  What of those great people who changed the way we think, who discovered something great, who invented?  People can spark social revolution.

Marking everyone who doesn't, or can't, have a child as a failure seems rather harsh.

[ITSSEXYTIME]

DeathCultArm wrote...

If they are apart of the majority of the main demographic, then yes. If I make a complaint about Oxygen or BET not showing more progams I value, they won't care b/c i'm not their demographic. Mass Effect's top demographic is staight males. My point still stands.

I'm not saying the something in the minority shouldn't be repreented, but i'm saying you can get mad when they don't cater to your minority.

That's a fair point, I wasn't quite sure what you were getting at before but I see what you're saying now.

Absolutely agree, the developers are free to include whatever they wish and if they decide not to include homosexual love interest there's no reason to be angry about it. (Would you be angry if someone didn't include football in a movie because you really like football? )

That said, I feel that Bioware shouldn't shy away from including the love interest because of their demographic and what not.  If it makes sense for the character then I see no reason not to include it, even if a portion of the demographic may not like it.

[ReDSH1FT]

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

ReDSH1FT wrote...

This is just me, but the reason I'm against homos is because it's selfish. I'm a huge naturalist, and I'm well aware that it isn't just humans operating like this, that other species do it sometimes as well. I would call them selfish as well, because they are not furthering the main purpose of biological life; the act of surviving the species.

NO evolution can come from homosexual partnership, nothing can be gained for the greater of the species. All that happens is two men or women fulfill their fantasies, not caring AT ALL of humanity as a whole. Kind of like the whole Asari / Asari couple. The species gains nothing from it. Selfish people really.

Is this thought out enough for you?

An interesting perspective.

My question is this: Does every action you take contribute directly to your own procreation and genetic survival?  Do you also object to people who don't procreate whether because of social isolation or religious beliefs? (Eg never get married thus never have sex)

Everything you do plays in a larger scheme of macro evolution, whether we know it or not.  I am positive ****** encounters do not hinder a species AT ALL, but when the encounters become commitments to same gender, then you forever lock away whatever that person gained in their lifetime, barring our species from progress.

Sure it might be minor, but over a long enough period of time, who knows what we could have gained from these people.

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.

[TheAnima]

ReDSH1FT wrote...

Collider wrote...

@redshift. Then you should be against recreational sex as well.

Evolution does not hinge solely on each individual reproducing. Homosexuals can contribute to society, which in turn can raise the standard of living, which in turn can raise the survival and success rates of people. Anyway, your reason is still ridiculous.

There's nothing wrong with recreational sex.  Let me clear my point up a bit.

Basically, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with ****** encounters of any sort, but the moment that they commit to never engage in any hetero reproduction, that's when it becomes a problem.

If you're a really smart and talented homosexual, at least have the decency to pass that along to your species.

Does that make more sense?

We don't have enough understanding of genetics to know what makes someone really smart and talented, and there is a lot of support for non biological factors. So basically your argument is fundamentally flawed due to current understand of how humans grow and mature. Further, your idea hinges on humanity surviving as a species being the ultimate goal in life, many other people disagree, and you have nothing to support your argument since if such evidence did exist it would be beyond our grasp at the given moment.

[Schneidend]

ReDSH1FT wrote...

This is just me, but the reason I'm against homos is because it's selfish. I'm a huge naturalist, and I'm well aware that it isn't just humans operating like this, that other species do it sometimes as well. I would call them selfish as well, because they are not furthering the main purpose of biological life; the act of surviving the species.

NO evolution can come from homosexual partnership, nothing can be gained for the greater of the species. All that happens is two men or women fulfill their fantasies, not caring AT ALL of humanity as a whole. Kind of like the whole Asari / Asari couple. The species gains nothing from it. Selfish people really.

Is this thought out enough for you?

That's very well thought-out. I'm sure that most homosexuals would still find it derisive, however. You're accusing them of being selfish for experiencing a modicum of pleasure in an existence (read: all life) that is largely comprised of hardship and suffering.

The main issue I have with your argument is that it is based on the notion that life has a "purpose" and isn't a random happenstance. Yes, organisms strive to ensure their survival, but that is merely an internal biological mechanism, and not necessarily what organisms were meant to "do," if anything.