2138 réponses à ce sujet

[Puppy Love]

I.... I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, haha!

 

Rest assured I don't hate straight white men. Much of my family is made up of straight white men, and one of my closest friends is as well. 

 

(Mostly I just hate old, straight white male politicians, hahah  )

 

We all hate politicians though, they're all about power and positioning and only care about us in so far as lip service to get our votes, and if we're not big enough to effect their standing, we're irrelevant.  The worst part is not all started that way, but ended up corrupted by the system.  I had an awesome politics teacher once that went into politics and left because he didn't like the person it was turning him into.  This is true of politicians of every creed by the time the system is done with them.  Some pretend to specially care about some of us, but they really don't.

[mikeymoonshine]

I guess if I was to come back to what I said earlier (because I think I represented my point very badly).

 

I don't really like to make discussions personal, I don't see who a person is and whether or not they may be more or less privileged than I am as important or even as that interesting. I understand why others do see it as important and I am not really disagreeing with them on that, I just don't like to fixate on it myself because I feel like it destroys discussion. 

 

To me reasonable discussion is the best way to show someone exactly where they are wrong or for me to find out exactly where I am wrong. Everyone is equal to me when it comes to discussion even if they have some truly awful views I will discuss them with them as long as they themselves are willing and able to participate in a reasonable discussion. 

 

Privilege only goes so far in a discussion before it just becomes a way of shutting other people down. Yes sometimes people cannot see your side because they have not been in your shoes but sometimes they can and sometimes they are right and you are wrong. Or sometimes nobody is wrong.

Practicality is always best for me, what is the problem? Why is it this way? Can it be solved or at least minimized? What is the best way to do this? 

 

I guess I should also say that I am not an expert in Socio or Psycho anything and so I am just giving my opinions that I do not expect to always be right. Even if I act as though they are. 

[Puppy Love]

We don't have the numbers and strength to go one defined cause at a time, not in the US the way it is today.  If we do go that route, who's cause do we all stand behind first, because by ourselves, no minority is strong enough, well except women if we truly could rally as one.  If we could all agree and stand on one groups rights at a time, then sure we could do it, but no I do not agree on the notion that this is not a general equality and human rights issue for all of us, and that it cannot be combated that perspective.  There's in nothing that says we must go into this asking for everything piecemeal.  We need a drastic overall change.  In essence a complete social revolution, and that takes all of us.

 

Our individual little tiny groups going for one minorities rights individually all shouting at the same time how their group deserves rights and trying gto out shout the other groups is not going to accomplish anything in modern America, except letting different politicians give different groups lip service while ultimately ignoring us because we don't have the numbers to matter.  In fact our not being we works perfectly for them.  One politician takes one group, another takes another group, and after we've all been divided between them, our vote becomes ultimately irrelevant and the status quot is maintained because we're too divided to matter.

 

On the forum level, what this means is standing against bigotry against whoever it shows up against, especially if it's towards a group that differs from your own as when you do it has a stronger impact, because no one can argue that your only concern is yourself.  Not saying not to argue against bigotry towards oneself, but to pay special attention and effort to go outside and show understanding to those outside ones own group.

 

If enough of us do this, if we, start to see each others rights as important as our own, if this can spread, maybe, maybe we can get the numbers to really make a difference and start defending our rights as one.  This way when something is done to hurt the rights of one group, we all can act together.  In the real world do the same.  This way, when we ask for equal rights, when we speak against injustices and demand change, the politicians can't just divvy us up and ignore us.

 

And there is us.  We the human species, all of whom are deserving of equal rights.  It's ultimately a human rights issue, because the end goal is equality for all.

 

While we're at it, we can fix the government and economy too if we want since we'd have the power, if we can all agree on how to do it that is, lol.

[Puppy Love]

By the way I'd done for now, I think I've said my piece on this thread and we've derailed it enough.  If anyone has any more questions or wants to continue it, let's find a way to take it private, or pm me.  Plus I'm way overdue for bed.

[SardaukarElite]

We don't have the numbers and strength to go one defined cause at a time, not in the US the way it is today.  If we do go that route, who's cause do we all stand behind first, because by ourselves, no minority is strong enough, well except women if we truly could rally as one.

 

You say that like no small group or individual has ever achieved change.

 

Did Martin Luther King not improve Civil Rights?

Did Ghandi not lead India to independence from Britain?

Did Marina Raskova not form three elite all-female regiments of combat aviators?

Did Abraham Lincoln not outlaw slavery in the United States of America?

 

Did BioWare not include a female Inquisitor prominently in their marketing? Did BioWare not include both romances and characters of varying sexualities in Inquisition?

 

Change comes when passionate people fight tooth and nail for it, and when they fight well for it. But they fight for specific causes, you can't just bundle them up and have them all fight the same way for some abstract notion such as equality - whatever that is. Ultimately it is a gross simplification to just think that there is one side that everyone can join and be cool with.

[aTigerslunch]

I thought what was being said was part of what this thread entails doesn't it? 

 

Sleep well Puppylove.

[Puppy Love]

You say that like no small group or individual has ever achieved change.

 

Did Martin Luther King not improve Civil Rights?

Did Ghandi not lead India to independence from Britain?

Did Marina Raskova not form three elite all-female regiments of combat aviators?

Did Abraham Lincoln not outlaw slavery in the United States of America?

 

Did BioWare not include a female Inquisitor prominently in their marketing? Did BioWare not include both romances and characters of varying sexualities in Inquisition?

 

Change comes when passionate people fight tooth and nail for it, and when they fight well for it. But they fight for specific causes, you can't just bundle them up and have them all fight the same way for some abstract notion such as equality - whatever that is. Ultimately it is a gross simplification to just think that there is one side that everyone can join and be cool with.

 

Sigh, one more point to clarity.

 

When I say to defend against bigotry, and promote equality, especially outside your group I mean precisely that.

 

It means, when one group is asking for their rights (however specific it may be) make an effort to lend your support.  

 

You act like inclusivity in speech is a bad thing.

 

I'm not saying to ask for equality broadly in the short term.  I'm saying to branch out and lend our support where we can, and make a concerted effort to support causes outside our immediate interest, so that we give as many causes for equality as much support as we can, and to ensure we form a bond with others, so we don't forget it's not just us suffering and in need of help.  If we make a concerted effort to do this, we might become strong enough to stop asking for scraps and fighting tooth and nail for every morsel, but have an actual social revolution.

 

If you want to pretend it's only about one group and cause at a time, and that's the only hope we have of change, you can do that.  I have hope that we can do better than that in the long term.  Yes individual groups and causes can make a difference, but is a lot harder on their own.  All I'm asking is we make a concerted effort to reach out to others, to look outside our own individual needs, and try to work together to change things.  And yes I'm saying to do this broadly, because that way, there's more support going for every individual cause.

 

What you're saying, sounds to me, like we should not try to help each other defend and promote human rights and defend against injustice where we see it, but instead all just pick one individual cause we believe in and ignore the rest, pushing it beyond all others.  If everyone did that, no one would have any support but themselves.

 

Can we get everybody to do this and agree on what is equality for all and that we all deserve it?  No of course not, not everyone can see beyond themselves, but it does not mean we should not try.  If we don't make this effort, we're all in our own individual struggles with no one else to support and stand with us.

 

Now bed, I just had to respond because clarification was obviously needed, because once again it feels like, someone thinks I'm asking for inaction, when that's not what I'm saying at all.

 

Those individual causes are more often successful the more support they have, and I do not agree that we should not seek for there to be us.  Because if there is no us, then we can never be equal, because by making that statement we've given up on the possibility of equality already, because only when there's an us have we truly acquired it.

[RevilFox]

Oh forgot that his confession was in New X-Men but he hinted a lot in all series

 

Yeah...he was never gay. He told his ex-girlfriend that he didn't think he was interested in having a relationship with another human being and that he thought he might be gay. Later, Emma Frost called him on it, saying she knows for a fact that he's never been sexually attracted to another man. Still later, He and Scott had a conversation where he flat out admits he is claiming to be gay just to be a gay icon.  

[aTigerslunch]

Interesting, he isn't gay. Colossus is, in Ultimates as well as Spiderman.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I wish I could open up like some here have done. You have my respect for being that brave. 

[aTigerslunch]

It's not difficult to do I think, but then I am part of that white straight male sort, and cant really relate in that case. Though I can understand as I have friends of varying sexualities, they normally wouldn't share with everyone else.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

 

It's not difficult to do I think, but then I am part of that white straight male sort, and cant really relate in that case. Though I can understand as I have friends of varying sexualities, they normally wouldn't share with everyone else.

It's not that. I am just...uncomfortable talking about myself. And as we have seen, when I try bad things happen. 

[aTigerslunch]

Not all bad, I think, but its not necessary to share.    

 

I can share my experiences here as far as a character I created that fits this thread. I had a very long uphill battle for my lesbian cat girl with my tabletop group. I didn't expect to be treated as myself, being her physically. The negatives was pretty crazy for me being a guy. Eventually it was proven she could handle battle better than the rest of the team, she trains them now, led a few times, and has been defended against lately. I can't say I experienced the same things others have in their lives, but I can say I ended up with a taste of it. It's odd for sure. She is now my favorite character I ever created next to my very first character I ever started with in tabletop games. She gave me experiences I would never expected, been treated offhandedly like I was literally her. cause of her, the rest of the group is quite a bit more open to homosexuality concerns. Meaning they now, no longer are closed off from each sexuality being equal. I don't mean to undermine someone that dealt with this stuff their whole lives. but she has given me positive feedback as well as the rest of the group.

[SardaukarElite]

If you want to pretend it's only about one group and cause at a time, and that's the only hope we have of change, you can do that.

 

I have pretended no such thing. I have pointed out how historically, great change has come from people acting on precise well defined solutions to specific problems and injustices. At no point did I say that this had to be done one at a time, people can support as many causes as they want, but the causes themselves must be clear.

 

If I'm going to support a cause, I need to know what it is. I need to know I can defend it. I can stand behind increasing the visibility of female protagonists in marketing, I can't stand behind something as nebulous as 'equality' or 'not being a bigot' because I don't know who is defining those concepts. Nor can anyone assume that because I support one cause I should support another.

 

You speak as if your little social revolution is needed, as if there hasn't been significant change before. The whole of human history is a history of change and it has come from specific solutions - including the work of your heroes - not grand alliances of positive thinking. Dismissing all that as scraps and morsels is demeaning.

 

Change is constant, and not always positive. It is fought battle by battle, inch by inch, forever more.

[LarryDavid]

Is there a disagreement that the points are equitable?  Because I do think that, on the merits of social justice, they are not the same.

 

I'm indifferent to someones sexuality in the same way I'm indifferent to someones handedness. I don't see why I should take those aspects in consideration unless it is specifically applicable. Like my wife is left-handed, which is relevant when I have to buy a scissor. Asking for representation simply is asking for representation. I really can't see why one group should have more right to ask for representation than the other. Left handed people asking for proportional representation is identical to non-straight people asking for proportional representation.

 

You can't say that sexual orientation does not matter while at the same time claim that we have moral obligations to a subgroup of them. If people are targeted for a certain trait in real life it does not mean that you should take that into consideration directly because then you start dividing people based on that trait yourself.

 

For me, the way certain demographic groups are represented in the game should somehow be a reflection of the maximization of some kind of happiness-function, given certain constraints. Because some aspects are very important for certain groups, it is cost effective to take these into consideration. But as long as you say that you are concerned about the representation of non-straight people and that other groups devalue the word 'representation' by using it, you shouldn't be surprised that people claim that you cater to the LGBT community.

 

The message you're sending is "In our society LGBT people are being discriminated on daily basis. We believe in inclusiveness and it is our moral duty to represent the LGBT community in a way we think is fair. This is why we want to make sure that LGBT people also enjoy our games and have access to the same content as straight people." instead of "Just like in the real world our player base consists of people with a variety of sexual orientations. We try to reflect this in our games and make sure that everyone has a great time."

[Puppy Love]

 

 

I have pretended no such thing. I have pointed out how historically, great change has come from people acting on precise well defined solutions to specific problems and injustices. At no point did I say that this had to be done one at a time, people can support as many causes as they want, but the causes themselves must be clear.

 

If I'm going to support a cause, I need to know what it is. I need to know I can defend it. I can stand behind increasing the visibility of female protagonists in marketing, I can't stand behind something as nebulous as 'equality' or 'not being a bigot' because I don't know who is defining those concepts. Nor can anyone assume that because I support one cause I should support another.

 

You speak as if your little social revolution is needed, as if there hasn't been significant change before. The whole of human history is a history of change and it has come from specific solutions - including the work of your heroes - not grand alliances of positive thinking. Dismissing all that as scraps and morsels is demeaning.

 

Change is constant, and not always positive. It is fought battle by battle, inch by inch, forever more.

 

 

I'm not saying there hasn't been significant change before, but if you think think people reaching outside their social circle and making an effort to see and understand the needs of others isn't a part of that change, then we're at a crossroads.  I'm not talking about a specific cause, because I'm talking about what I believe we need to do in a much broader sense, for which those individual well defined causes are a part of.  None of these causes stand a chance if there's no one to support them.  For ever person pushing these individual causes there needs to be lots of people pushing for others to get involved and be involved themselves.    It is also better the more we have supporting each cause.  This is done by working to get others involved in both their and others fight for equality.  Each of these individual fights you are talking about are part of the overall fight for equality.  Not everyone can be leading individual causes, some of us take different roles in the fight.  I'm not saying not to champion a cause, but to be aware it's one part of the bigger picture.

 

The other problem I have with there is no us, is it's defeatist in nature, and entirely contrary to the goal of equality.  There is an us, we are all human beings, and deserving of the rights of such.  Can everyone agree 100% what that entails, probably not.  But I personally think we all have a good idea what is should entail once we stop trying to come up with excuses for why we aren't involved.  Is like out LBGT community, would you say we were weaker or stronger when I as a trans help put in my support and make an effort to support the gay right to marry, and they likewise support laws preventing us from being fired for transitioning?  Are we weaker or stronger when we consider each others rights as just as important and make an effort to support each other?  

 

You say there is no us, that we should not make an effort to try and see each others rights and the causes that support those rights as a fight that concerns us all.  Can everyone fight for every cause.  No of course not, but we can make an effort to look for causes that support ourselves and support others, because for every cause we support that others support, we make that cause stronger and give it more power to make the changes that are needed, and when others feel the same and join the causes we support, it makes them likewise stronger.  When we do this, we make friends and acquaintances within the other groups and they in tern make friends in ours. 

 

Take transsexuals, do you really think we'd have the numbers and ability to fight for our rights entirely on our own without reaching out and having allies in other groups, by being introverted and focusing only on our needs?  The more of us actively involved, and the more we branch out, the stronger we become.  If we become strong enough, if we branch out enough, if we can form a large enough umbrella and support each other, and in doing so manage to organize that cohesion into a single strong organization, it no longer becomes a matter of struggling for each change, for supporting whatever causes we can bother to while still living our lives.  We can push these causes out rapid fire, because we'd have the support and power to do it.  We want everyone to have the right to marry, bam it's done plain and simple almost overnight.  We can push several causes at once, and almost overnight change would happen because there would be no stopping it.  And the best part is, if we can manage to do this, if we can come to equitable terms, if we can organize.  It no longer even takes effort, it takes practically no time from from our lives to make these changes.

 

Is it easy to try for this goal, to get out there, to support multiple causes, to go outside our comfort zones, and to recognize the rights of people we may not otherwise care about, to make an effort to see that there is a bigger picture than ourselves?  Of course not, we hit more walls than anything, because for the most part, most of us just want to live our lives, and trying to fight that desire, and go a step further is hard, and trying to get others to do the same, even harder. 

 

When dealing with say since it's been the topic of discussion, a straight white male who doesn't quite get the idea, and we attempt to pull them into understanding, but it fails, and we try it again, and it fails, and we try it again, and it fails.  It's easy to get discouraged, and that is part of what that quote was about, because this is the hardest thing we do, convincing others to see and understand things to the point they're willing to stop just living their live's for a minute and actually become involved is ridiculously hard.  It's like trying to get a date, or make a sale, most times you fail and unless you can get used to rejection, it can get frustrating and heartbreaking.  But when you do succeed, when that happens, an ally has been made, and from them can come other allies.

 

We're ultimately talking about two different things.  You are talking micro scale, while I am talking macro scale.  I'm glad you can support a specific cause, I encourage it.  The difference is, you say people can support multiple causes and people, and I'm saying people should support multiple causes and people.  I'm trying to encourage making the extra effort to be involved in the causes that help oneself and the causes that help others in the quest for equality.   To build a strong supportive community that spans our individual groups all asking for what is relatively the same thing, even if some of us are further along than others in acquiring those goals.

 

When you say, there is no us, it sounds like one of those excuses people make to not make an active attempt to look for ways to help others.  I'm not telling you which of the many worthwhile specific causes to support, I'm asking you to go out and find some and make the effort to help others, because the more of us that make that effort, the faster and more effectively these changes can be brought about.

 

Even if we don't all agree completely on what real equality is, even if we don't believe in every cause, when it comes to equality, I think we're far closer than we are apart if we actually get up and go for it, and I do not see why encouraging people to be involved and reach out to others is a negative message.  If we don't try to see each other as equals and a community, then of course we never will.  I don't see how trying hurts anyone.

[oceanicsurvivor]

Left handed people asking for proportional representation is identical to non-straight people asking for proportional representation.

 

 

...

 

 

 

...

 

Has this thread really come to this? Seriously.

[Puppy Love]

I'm indifferent to someones sexuality in the same way I'm indifferent to someones handedness. I don't see why I should take those aspects in consideration unless it is specifically applicable. Like my wife is left-handed, which is relevant when I have to buy a scissor. Asking for representation simply is asking for representation. I really can't see why one group should have more right to ask for representation than the other. Left handed people asking for proportional representation is identical to non-straight people asking for proportional representation.

 

You can't say that sexual orientation does not matter while at the same time claim that we have moral obligations to a subgroup of them. If people are targeted for a certain trait in real life it does not mean that you should take that into consideration directly because then you start dividing people based on that trait yourself.

 

For me, the way certain demographic groups are represented in the game should somehow be a reflection of the maximization of some kind of happiness-function, given certain constraints. Because some aspects are very important for certain groups, it is cost effective to take these into consideration. But as long as you say that you are concerned about the representation of non-straight people and that other groups devalue the word 'representation' by using it, you shouldn't be surprised that people claim that you cater to the LGBT community.

 

The message you're sending is "In our society LGBT people are being discriminated on daily basis. We believe in inclusiveness and it is our moral duty to represent the LGBT community in a way we think is fair. This is why we want to make sure that LGBT people also enjoy our games and have access to the same content as straight people." instead of "Just like in the real world our player base consists of people with a variety of sexual orientations. We try to reflect this in our games and make sure that everyone has a great time."

 

Indifference is not a good thing, because if you're indifferent it means you fail to recognize the inherent value of these traits to the persons sense of self and well being.  The guy talking about marriage was doing it from a perspective of true importance and meaning, he at least recognized how important these things are, and that the lack of them is harmful to those who do not get them. 

 

For him marriage is something he requires to achieve the full intimacy, it is the ultimate goal and desire for a relationship and without it, the relationship will always feel unfulfilling.  He even believes in waiting for sex until marraige.   Without it, he can never really gain the satisfaction from a romance in game, that those who do not put that much importance and emphasis on it can.  It literally prevents him from gaining the same fun and enjoyment out of the experience.  It is an important part of his self identity and values.  When it's not included, it means those aspects of himself remains unsatisfied, and he is left out in the cold.  So when he compares the two, it is coming from an inherent understand of how important these things are to people, because he is associating the vital and important self identity of others to what feels to him as an important and vital part of his self identity.  When he compares it, he is comparing his own sense of self worth and identity to the self worth and identity of someone else.

 

When you take that acknowledgement away, you've trivialized everything, you've decided it does not matter how important this is to others, it fails to recognize any need for change, and it fails to recognize how important this need is to others.  That you refuse to recognize and differentiate between things that are a vital and important part of who someone is and their self worth with things you feel hold no significance, it demeaning whether you mean it to be or not.  If you're indifferent it means you are removing yourself from the equation, and not willing to recognize and support the needs of others, and I find it rather unlikely if you go with that approach that any attempt to reach out to you can be successful.  I hope I'm misinterpreting you, because cold indifference is a very scary and disheartening thing to come across.

 

The other guy cared, and felt strongly about it, it was a part of his being, and being denied it is harmful to him, it is due to that it has equivalence.  Take that away and nothing matters.  Indifferent people by their very nature can do nothing but maintain the status quot, because by being indifferent to things that matter to others, you will never care to help change anything but those things that matter to you personally.

[LarryDavid]

Being indifferent to some trait is not the same as being indifferent to how somebody feels about it. Representation is not a hard concept to grasp and social issues have nothing to do about it. Any group is as justified at asking (proportional) representation as any other. It does not mean that every group feels as strongly about it and hence that you shouldn't prioritize between representation requests. Like I said, if one of the goals is to maximize the total number of people who love the game or a similar criterion, social issues get incorporated indirectly and that's a fundamental difference.

[dekarserverbot]

...

 

 

 

...

 

Has this thread really come to this? Seriously.

 

I feel his post is stupid since... well Link has been Left handed since the NES, same goes for Snake.

Not only that but most of the Simpson characters (including Homer) are left handed. Chuckie from Rugrats, and many other media personalities had been left handed. But we had to wait until spongebob to see a gay character performing. This is like if someone said something about coloured in a feminist topic, it doesn't even compare

[Medhia_Nox]

Not to mention that the game doesn't represent "Handedness" as a part of the storyline - even if optional.  Whereas romantic involvement takes up resources.  If I'm paying for those resources I want representation. 

 

Note:  I'll totally champion the right to have switchable weapon/shield so people can play lefties.  

[Puppy Love]

Ok, this topic isn't about the marriage thing, but as that thread is closed, I'll explain the difference between marriage and sexual orientation and why these are fundamentally different things.

 

When you are straight, gay, bi it is who and what you can or cannot be attracted to.  Can a straight person have gay sex, and vice versa?  Yes of course they can, but it require forcing oneself, it is an unpleasant and harrowing experience, it's is in a sense mentally raping oneself.  The romantic and sexual connection, the love connection that can come with it, what one is attracted to cannot simply be turned on and off like a switch.  There is no choice on the emotional and psychological angle.  As such it is emotionally and psychologically damaging to try and force oneself to gain satisfaction from such a relationship and deny your feelings and self.  It's more than I prefer it, and it's more than making a moral choice, it's not a choice it simply is.

 

The reason people get offended when marriage is compared, is because marriage is a social construct.  If it's important to you, it's because you've chosen to make it so.  That does not mean it is not an important part of who you are, ultimately, however it is a choice, an important choice, a relevant choice, but it is still a different thing.  It is philosophical, rather than physiological.  No one is born requiring to get married to have a relationship, marriage only exists because we have invented it.  So marriage is better compared to being able to atheist or required to worship Andraste, it's a matter of belief not being. 

 

Marriage is important to some people and not others regardless of orientation.  It is fundamentally a separate issue.  As for just representing reality and the numbers inherent and everything sorts itself, that is incredibly flawed thinking.  For one let's follow this logic, grab say 12 random people, put you with them, and as a straight person tell me, A: The chances the person would, not already be in a relationship with someone else, B: Be the gender you're attracted to, and C: Actually be interested in and compatible with you as more than a friend?  Answer: By this realism standard, be ready to be rejected by probably all of them, any relationship you get in is unlikely to go anywhere, possibly end badly, and you'll more likely end up in the friend zone than anything else.  Makes for amazing romance potential doesn't it?  Isn't that so much fun.

 

So why make an effort to be inclusive to different sexual orientations?  Because the romance cannot really be experienced the same without it.  Basically in a game, where everyone is supposed to be able to have fun and enjoy the romances, by not being inclusive and not having people available of the compatible orientation and sex, they are forced to have only rejection and be unable to take part in and enjoy the same romances as everyone else.  Not because of a choice that while it may or may not be an important part of who someone is, is ultimately a choice, but because of something they cannot change and is forced upon them by birth.

 

So when you say it should represent real life numbers, you're in essence saying that because there are less of them, in a game where it's supposed to be skewed toward the enjoyment of all (Since as we discussed even as a straight guy rejection is more common than getting anywhere), they should not have the same ability to gain that satisfaction that you gain merely because you happen to have the the more common orientation purely by circumstances of birth.  In order for each player's hero to have the ability to get their version of the "girl" they need to have options that fit their sexuality.  Is not a matter of "real life" numbers, because the game is supposed to be skewed towards the hero, the hero being the player's personal avatar in this case, and the player can be any orientation.  Bioware is doing this because they recognize that we are all equal regardless of the things we cannot change.

 

That is why people are reacting so strongly to the comparison, because of that difference.  Is why objectively the two aren't really comparable, but subjectively it can be, because one can feel really strongly about marriage and it's easy to forget that ultimately, you've adopted and chosen that belief system, where as they do not have that choice.  This is why one is given priority over the other.  Not because marriage is not important to those who really believe in it, but because in the end, waiting for marriage is a choice, the other is not.

 

Edit: If there's any confusion I was sort of addressing aspects of two different conversations in this.  One person is confused about the difference and another seems to think that just portraying real life numbers is enough to give fair representation.

[Fisva]

In my opinion, some characters have such a personality that they just can't be bi. Take Garrus for example. I just can't imagine him being into men.

 

And like I have said in a different thread:

 

Bioware makes such characters, as if they were present in reality. Not all of them would be bi in real life, wouldn't they?

 

When I romanced Kaidan in ME, it was quite surprising for me that it occured in ME3 that he is bi. I have thought for the entire game that he is into women only and I spent playing the rest of the game quite upset about the fact that it is not true, because it came out of nowhere. Since the game is for everyone, there should be some limitations OR make it equal. Making every character bi probably wouldn't be that bad idea. Personally,  I would like some characters to not to be bi (as it was in ME) because they simply do not behave as if they were.

[phantomrachie]

In my opinion, some characters have such a personality that they just can't be bi. Take Garrus for example. I just can't imagine him being into men.

 

And like I have said in a different thread:

 

Bioware makes such characters, as if they were present in reality. Not all of them would be bi in real life, wouldn't they?

 

When I romanced Kaidan in ME, it was quite surprising for me that it occured in ME3 that he is bi. I have thought for the entire game that he is into women only and I spent playing the rest of the game quite upset about the fact that it is not true, because it came out of nowhere. Since the game is for everyone, there should be some limitations OR make it equal. Making every character bi probably wouldn't be that bad idea. Personally,  I would like some characters to not to be bi (as it was in ME) because they simply do not behave as if they were.

 

How does a bi person behave? 

 

I've been with my partner (a man) for 11 years, I'm sure there are people who know me who'd never be to 'see' me with a woman but I'm bi.

[Fisva]

How does a bi person behave? 

 

I've been with my partner (a man) for 11 years, I'm sure there are people who know me who'd never be to 'see' me with a woman but I'm bi.

 

I have pointed at Garrus as an example, and the same goes with Thane. I would never imagine them as bi. None of them even gives a hint that they could be into different orientation. It is a problem of characters that writers create, like in a book or a film, and not developers' of the game.

 

But I will probably just shut my mouth about this topic, because whatever I say I am attacked T_T