456 réponses à ce sujet

[ERJAK2]

danman2424 wrote...

octoberfire wrote...

danman2424 wrote...

octoberfire wrote...

danman2424 wrote...
Why do you feel homosexuality should be accepted?

Why shouldn't it? Is it killing off your friends and family? Is it infringing on your own relationships in any manner? Does it make your marriage less meaningful? Is it destroying the ozone layer? Is it melting the ice caps? Does it harm you in any way?

No.

Fair enough, but then I assume you also support incest, bestiality, dendrophilia, and a number of other sex acts that deviate from the biological standard of man and woman. After all, as long as a sex act is not hurting anyone else (according to you), then we should support people in their apparent right to have sex with whomever or whatever they like, right?

That is hardly the case, and I actually even wrote a term paper addressing this very tired argument that people like you keep throwing out.

Incest leads to mutation in the offspring. Harmful. Bestiality is potentially harmful to the actual person engaging in the act. Can you even argue that it's love in this case? There is actual love between homosexual couples. And dendrophilia is a paraphilia which can not be categorized as a sexual orientation.

What you fail to understand is that homosexual relationships are more than just the "sex act." Of course you must discredt the actual human emotions that are present just to make your case.

Anyway, back on topic. I support m/m and f/f romances.

Suppose the male in the incestuous relationship has had a vasectomy, or the woman has had her tubes tied? Then would you say "Ah well, no harm can be done now. Let them do what they want"? What if they don't want to have children? What if the relationship is between a brother and a brother, or a mother and a daughter (once the daughter is of age of course)? Then would you support the relationship seeing as how they're not hurting anyone and it's really none of your business?

As for bestiality, I have seen a number of documentaries and read quite a bit on the topic. I can affirm that to these people, it is love, and much more than just a sex act.

Firstly, yes, as long as no accidents could happen I wouldn't care. Secondly, it's love on one side, animals can't consent to sex with humans, what with them being non-sentient and all.

[ERJAK2]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

ERJAK2 wrote...

Secondly, bestiality is between a human and a non-sentient creature, so consent cannot be given, and it cannot be compared to homosexuality. Dendrophilia also counts here.

Are you saying that animals are not sentient?  Just because they cannot speak, does not mean that they are not sentient.

Animals are non-sentient in the way we define it, some of them skirt the bounds, but none are.

[Kurt M.]

This thread is becoming a pretty pathetic attempt of justifying/criticize being gay. I don't know if being gay is natural or not, neither it interests me, as everybody here should realize that your sexual preference is something that doesn't get out of your bedroom. Or of your house/family/friends. No one else has the right to put their nose inside your life.



I say to you the same thing I say to everybody who dares to critizise me for being gay, and that everybody who's gay/lesbian here should say, too: if you're SO BORED that you look MY life more than yours, it's not my problem. Go and buy a donkey. And if you're so INSECURE that you fear gays for fear of being attracted by men yourself, it's neither my fault. Go and see a phycologist and pay HIM for hearing YOUR problems. And leave ME in peace with my boyfriend. Period.

[SethSteiner]

Genetic differences or not, in the conclusion this is unimportant. Homosexuals are humans and in difference to bestiality, pedophilia and similar sexual preferences not harmful. One who like bestiality (and don`t only enjoy them digitaly) hurts animals and abuses them. The same with pedophilia. It`s a completly different thing. 
Homosexuals can do everything equal to heterosexuals. They can rise children and they can contribute to the society. If someone is against homosexuals he need to be against poor people, against impotent people, against old people and against handicapped, because everyone of them is less able to do the same as homosexuals. Of course, everyone with a rational mind wouldn`t be against all these types of people but paradoxically some of them are against gay and lesbians.

Modifié par SethSteiner, 24 janvier 2010 - 06:27 .

[Homebound]

...........



ANYWAYS.





Im for dynamic sexual orientation romanceables, but I dont want them there for the sake of being there. Nor any romance subplots for that matter.

[danman2424]

Just_mike wrote...

danman2424 wrote...

ERJAK2 wrote...


Yes, but it is closer to ethnicity then thievery, because you are most often born with it. There are people who choose to be "gay" for lack of a much longer explanation of what I mean there, which is why it's not the exactly the same.

There is no medical or scientific proof as of yet that anyone is "born with it". No "gay gene" has been discovered. In fact, it is the official stance of just about every medical and scientific institution that homosexuality development that occurs most often at a young age.

Although we know that if placed in harsh enough conditions (prisons, the military) people have been known to change in their preferences much later in life as well.

Are you implying that the Military makes you gay?

No, and neither does prison necessarily for everyone.

[Eternal Dust]

Just_mike wrote...

I find your view of Incestral couples to be painfully stereotypical. That is all.

btw, did you read my reply to you?

You know what, I would give you a better argument but I do not want to get this thread off track. As for your other reply, I did read it and somewhat agree. If BioWare wants to really try something new then major leading characters in future game should not be romanceable. See how the other side takes it

Modifié par octoberfire, 24 janvier 2010 - 06:28 .

[SidNitzerglobin]

Tomppa666t wrote...

 Also i find it hard to believe that someone who would be openly gay would get him/herself promoted to Commander and become the first human spectre. My point is just that it wouldnt make any sense, and attleast for me it would seriously ruin the moment if im playing with my Shepard in ME3 and maybe im recruiting some dude to my team and i would get dialog options like: "Hey handsome fella lets go to my room and **** each other in the ass, because i just became gay cuz some friggin hippies demanded it in the forums"

Err, you realize that this game is set almost 2 centuries in the future right?

Even if we assume by some twisted circumstance the "dont't ask, don't tell" policy has been perpetuated to the Alliance military, there's an awfully prominent precedence in ME canon for a gay male holding high position (Hendel, the chief of security for the Ascension Project).

As has been shown in previous BioWare RPGs in basically all romance options same sex or other wise, the NPCs never make the first move on your character in the manner you hamfistedly described.  You have to be flirting with them and working at cultivating the romance for this option to develop.  Even if this weren't the case, It's pretty ridiculous to assume that someone of the same sex making an advance on your character makes your character gay.  You as the player always have the choice of whether your character is gay/straight/bi/asexual/whatever. 

Modifié par SidNitzerglobin, 24 janvier 2010 - 06:42 .

[ERJAK2]

Kirika69 wrote...

...I think we're getting pretty off topic here. Let's not debate the nuances of gay and lesbian lifestyle choices or whatever. Mods are looking for any excuse to lockdown these threads, just like the last bunch.

Bottomline is we'd like Bioware to continue their trend of having companion characters, regardless of their gender, romancable by any player character regardless of their gender. People expected it in ME2 from ME1, and are appealing to Bioware to hear their voice.

This is not about equality, PC, gay rights, or anything like that. People simply want their games enriched by the addition, and the trend set by ME1 (and some of Bioware's other RPGs) maintained. They want the choice.

I'm sure if there was no F/F in ME1 we wouldn't even be having this discussion, at least to this extent.

i agree, no F/F in ME would have resulted in no one caring that there isn't in ME2. There was however, which leads people who enjoyed the option to question the reasoning behind it. The first and most obvious is bigotry and that strikes a very particular chord with gamers who have had to deal with the issue before. The other most commonly thought of argument is lack of time which is BS because I've seen video of space hamsters and space monkey skeet shoot, which have WAY less impact on the game as a whole. So yeah...

[Arik7]

danman2424 wrote...

Suppose the male in the incestuous relationship has had a vasectomy, or the woman has had her tubes tied? Then would you say "Ah well, no harm can be done now. Let them do what they want"? What if they don't want to have children? What if the relationship is between a brother and a brother, or a mother and a daughter (once the daughter is of age of course)? Then would you support the relationship seeing as how they're not hurting anyone and it's really none of your business?

As for bestiality, I have seen a number of documentaries and read quite a bit on the topic. I can affirm that to these people, it is love, and much more than just a sex act.

The bigots always feel the need to shift the argument from homosexuality to something else.....  You don't see multiple threads requesting paedophilia or beastiality in ME2, so please stay on topic.

[danman2424]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

danman2424 wrote...

Suppose the male in the incestuous relationship has had a vasectomy, or the woman has had her tubes tied? Then would you say "Ah well, no harm can be done now. Let them do what they want"? What if they don't want to have children? What if the relationship is between a brother and a brother, or a mother and a daughter (once the daughter is of age of course)? Then would you support the relationship seeing as how they're not hurting anyone and it's really none of your business?

As for bestiality, I have seen a number of documentaries and read quite a bit on the topic. I can affirm that to these people, it is love, and much more than just a sex act.

Like I've said before, the difference between all of the things you have listed for comparison with homosexuality is CONSENT.

Tree's, prepubescant children, corpses, animals, etc CANNOT give consent.  A homosexual adult can give another homosexual adult consent, it is a MUTUAL relationship.

I don't recall saying anything about prepubescent children.

An animal can most certainly consent. Get down on all fours and give your dog a shot at it. He may take it and he may not take it, but there is no arguing as to whether or not the animal consented.

Modifié par danman2424, 24 janvier 2010 - 06:31 .

[SethSteiner]

Our foreign minister is gay, our chancellor is a woman, the foreign minister of the USA is a woman and the president a black. Why in hell shouldn`t the first human Spectre be gay?

[ERJAK2]

danman2424 wrote...

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

danman2424 wrote...

Suppose the male in the incestuous relationship has had a vasectomy, or the woman has had her tubes tied? Then would you say "Ah well, no harm can be done now. Let them do what they want"? What if they don't want to have children? What if the relationship is between a brother and a brother, or a mother and a daughter (once the daughter is of age of course)? Then would you support the relationship seeing as how they're not hurting anyone and it's really none of your business?

As for bestiality, I have seen a number of documentaries and read quite a bit on the topic. I can affirm that to these people, it is love, and much more than just a sex act.

Like I've said before, the difference between all of the things you have listed for comparison with homosexuality is CONSENT.

Tree's, prepubescant children, corpses, animals, etc CANNOT give consent.  A homosexual adult can give another homosexual adult consent, it is a MUTUAL relationship.

I don't recall saying anything about prepubescent children.

An animal can most certainly consent. Get down on all fours and give your dog a shot at it. He may take it and he may not take it, but there is no arguing as to whether or not the animal consented.

That's not consent, because he's not sentient, on top of being not of legal age, and can't give consent, to a human at least.

[Eternal Dust]

BACK ON TOPIC!

I hope Kasumi's a bi, HUMAN female. That way BioWare can't go back and forth discrediting that it may or may not be a f/f romance. <_<

[Arik7]

SethSteiner wrote...

Our foreign minister is gay, our chancellor is a woman, the foreign minister of the USA is a woman and the president a black. Why in hell shouldn`t the first human Spectre be gay?

Apparently because it would "devaluate" Shepard and the character (s)he is romancing.  We are supposed be treated like second-class citizents and shut up about it, didn't you know.

[Theramond]

I think Grunt should be a romance option... yeah...

[ERJAK2]

octoberfire wrote...

BACK ON TOPIC!

I hope Kasumi's a bi, HUMAN female. That way BioWare can't go back and forth discrediting that it may or may not be a f/f romance. <_<

Yeah, Katsumi is pretty much our only hope at this point, and no way would they make her gay, even if that is her intended niche. Even Leliana and Zevran weren't gay. So, here's hoping for bi.

[Erode_The_Soul]

GUYS!! The topic of the thread is do you support homosexual options in Mass Effect 3 (or ME2 DLC). Not "Do you support homosexuality?" Not "Are you homosexual?" Not "Is homosexuality akin to pedophilia/incest/bestiality/theivery/etc?" The question of the topic is:



DO YOU SUPPORT A GAY AND LESBIAN ROMANCE OPTION FOR MASS EFFECT 3 (or for Mass Effect 2 DLC)



My answer is absolutely.

[ERJAK2]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

ERJAK2 wrote...

Animals are non-sentient in the way we define it, some of them skirt the bounds, but none are.

This shows an ignorance that I should probably address.

Sentience is the ability of perception and feeling.  MANY animals display sentience.  Many mammals are sentient, as are a number of other types of animals.

You are severely mistaking "sentience" with "sapience."

K, they're not sapient, happy?

[danman2424]

ERJAK2 wrote...

danman2424 wrote...

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

danman2424 wrote...

Suppose the male in the incestuous relationship has had a vasectomy, or the woman has had her tubes tied? Then would you say "Ah well, no harm can be done now. Let them do what they want"? What if they don't want to have children? What if the relationship is between a brother and a brother, or a mother and a daughter (once the daughter is of age of course)? Then would you support the relationship seeing as how they're not hurting anyone and it's really none of your business?

As for bestiality, I have seen a number of documentaries and read quite a bit on the topic. I can affirm that to these people, it is love, and much more than just a sex act.

Like I've said before, the difference between all of the things you have listed for comparison with homosexuality is CONSENT.

Tree's, prepubescant children, corpses, animals, etc CANNOT give consent.  A homosexual adult can give another homosexual adult consent, it is a MUTUAL relationship.

I don't recall saying anything about prepubescent children.

An animal can most certainly consent. Get down on all fours and give your dog a shot at it. He may take it and he may not take it, but there is no arguing as to whether or not the animal consented.

That's not consent, because he's not sentient, on top of being not of legal age, and can't give consent, to a human at least.

No one "gives consent" before a sex act. They just do it when it is readily apparent that both partners are willing.

A few years back there was a scandal in which a bunch of people in Washington were filming sex videos with horses on a farm. When caught, and after reviewing the tapes and seeing no evidence of abuse or force towards the animals, they could be charged with nothing more than trespassing and were let go.

So I'm sorry to say, but you are wrong.

[Arik7]

Don't feed the troll. If he doesn't see a difference between romancing a human of the same gender, and f***ing a horse, then it is his problem.

[ERJAK2]

Erode_The_Soul wrote...

GUYS!! The topic of the thread is do you support homosexual options in Mass Effect 3 (or ME2 DLC). Not "Do you support homosexuality?" Not "Are you homosexual?" Not "Is homosexuality akin to pedophilia/incest/bestiality/theivery/etc?" The question of the topic is:

DO YOU SUPPORT A GAY AND LESBIAN ROMANCE OPTION FOR MASS EFFECT 3 (or for Mass Effect 2 DLC)

My answer is absolutely.

Do we have absolute confirmation that there isn't one yet? I've seen tons of evidence, but not enough to be totally sure yet.

[Akrim_Drak]

ERJAK2 wrote...

Erode_The_Soul wrote...

GUYS!! The topic of the thread is do you support homosexual options in Mass Effect 3 (or ME2 DLC). Not "Do you support homosexuality?" Not "Are you homosexual?" Not "Is homosexuality akin to pedophilia/incest/bestiality/theivery/etc?" The question of the topic is:

DO YOU SUPPORT A GAY AND LESBIAN ROMANCE OPTION FOR MASS EFFECT 3 (or for Mass Effect 2 DLC)

My answer is absolutely.

Do we have absolute confirmation that there isn't one yet? I've seen tons of evidence, but not enough to be totally sure yet.

No, and I've been spoiling all sorts of stuff for myself just to know The only ones saying it's definitely not included are the ones with a history of being obviously against it. For all we know it's there. It's really anybody's guess as of now. I'm still hopeful myself!