194 réponses à ce sujet

[Almostfaceman]

The conversation has moved on from specifically talking about that scene in the game.

 

 

It should go back to talking about the scene in the game, in my humble opinion. 

[Biotic Apostate]

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, as opposed to something like skin color, which is defined by a physical trait. Sex is not required. There are homosexual actions and behaviors that do not include sex. So I don't know why you brought up the action of sex.

 

So what if a Christian ended a friendship with someone who is an atheist? Would the Christian be justified as well?

 

Okay that's how YOU see it. But other people see those other things as part of the person also. Those behaviors are part of who they are. They can disagree with those behaviors but still accept the person with those behaviors.

 

But the friend would accept you, just not agree with homosexuality. I think that might be the part you're missing here. From my own perspective, if one of my homosexual friends were to say that he finds heterosexuality disgusting and doesn't agree with it, I would not end my friendship with him. This would just be his opinion. But even if he called me a "filthy breeder" as other homosexuals have called me in the past, I would just laugh and dismiss it. I don't know why people having a different opinion than you regarding this issue makes you feel uncomfortable. Aren't people allowed to think differently?

 

Sir, why are you trying to take this to absurdities? No one wrote that the homosexual character would have to be an appeaser about it. Just don't write him out of the damn game if the player selects a response that says "I disagree with that behavior, but I accept you as a person".

 

It isn't irrelevant. It's the same case you are posing. You gave a response Cassandra didn't like. You disagree with her Maker. So she leaves the game.

"There are homosexual actions and behaviors that do not include sex."

Oh my, this is getting really interesting. Care to tell me what those homosexual actions are?

I brought it up, because I thought that the only "homosexual behaviour" is gay sex or physical contact between people of the same sex, but please, do educate me on that.

 

And I would say to that friend that I don't need such condescending, self-congratulating brand of friendship.  I don't wish to be friends with someone who thinks I'm disgusting, I don't care for their brave and heroic sacrifice to accept me. I've had enough of this "don't approve of it, but still accept you" crap. My friends and I discuss everything, including relationships. I'm not going to censor myself, because someone finds it icky. I am a homosexual man, I do not become friends with people who pick and choose what parts of me are acceptable.

Also, I don't think anyone who called you (not jokingly) a filthy breeder thinks of you as a friend.

 

You keep bringing religion up, I never ended a friendship because someone is a Christian, and I'm an Atheist. This is a view concerning spirituality, and not their view that what I am is repulsive, like your "friend who is so kind to accept me." If someone doesn't want to be friends with me because of my beliefs, it's their decision. I will not force it.

 

You wrote that players who chose that option would be angry to loose a companion. And I and many gay players would be mad if the character accepted such option. Again, if you want your role playing option to make it more realistic then BW should add realistic reactions - the companion leaving the group.

 

The game example is flawed, because there should be an option for Cassandra not to want to place a non-believer as a face of an organization that was historically tied to the chantry, but the game is designed in such a way that you have to become Inquisitor. And as far as I remember you just say you don't believe, not that the whole religion is disgusting.

[rapscallioness]

I wonder if Krem would be a companion in DA4? He is from Tevinter, although it seems he's on the run from them.

[Biotic Apostate]

I wonder if Krem would be a companion in DA4? He is from Tevinter, although it seems he's on the run from them.

Far more likely that Maevaris will be a companion. Krem can die in Inquisition, they won't do that again.

[rapscallioness]

Far more likely that Maevaris will be a companion. Krem can die in Inquisition, they won't do that again.

 

 

Krem can die?

 

Ah, but seriously, I did forget about that. I always saved the Chargers.

 

edit: hmm, if so, i hope Maevaris is as cool as Krem turned out to be. he had good humor; laid back attitude; seemed pretty down to earth.

 

but did we ever see the body? i mean...could be he escaped, or only seemed dead...and then...the Venatori actually took him hostage and dragged him back to Tevinter to enslave and possibly use for a blood magic ritual...and then... we show up in DA4 and bust him out!

[Biotic Apostate]

Krem can die?

 

Ah, but seriously, I did forget about that. I always saved the Chargers.

 

edit: hmm, if so, i hope Maevaris is as cool as Krem turned out to be. he had good humor; laid back attitude; seemed pretty down to earth.

 

but did we ever see the body? i mean...could be he escaped, or only seemed dead...and then...the Venatori actually took him hostage and dragged him back to Tevinter to enslave and possibly use for a blood magic ritual...and then... we show up in DA4 and bust him out!

I always choose them over that stupid boat too. But I don't think Krem will ever have any big role. People were already mad about Leliana and Anders, BW would not do that again.

 

Maevaris seems cool, you can see her in the comics with Alistair, Varric, and Isabela (the Silent Grove/Those Who Speak/Until We Sleep series). She will definitely be in the game, since even Trespasser hinted at her major role in Tevinter.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Thanks for posting. I have a problem with the last part. I don't know where Weekes gets the idea that the Qunari have no taboos about sex when it is clearly stated that the Qunari do not have sex with their friends or anyone they love. Clearly you can't just have sex with anyone. So there are taboos. And why would all taboos suddenly disappear when you go to a tamassran? Sex is for breeding, and it is never used between different races. So why would the Qunari, an uptight race that focuses on discipline, allow sex in a temple? Does this apply to anyone under the Qun? In which case, are there tamassrans of each race picked out for each race of person under the Qun?

 

Seems to me that the Qunari tamassrans would simply instruct each "applicant" to push a stone block across the room, take a cold shower, follow that up with meditation, have a hot meal, and then finally rest... with cheese wheels over the eyes.

Yeah, I am not a fan of that retcon of the Qunari. 

[Dai Grepher]

Sure, you can have homosexual behaviour, but simply being homosexual is a trait like any other, and unchangeable.

 

We've already explained that religion is not a fundamental part of someone. It may be very important to them. and that's fine. But as an adult, it's something you choose, and it's possible to convert. As for the question: Sure? If someone being an atheist is an irreconcilable difference for a Christian, then that's that. You can't force people to be friends.

 

No, those things are not fundamental aspects of their person. I say fundamental, because they cannot be changed. Someone's religion, or anything else may be extremely important to them, and that's fine. My sexuality isn't "really important to me", it's just part of who I am. It was as much a choice as when I chose to have green eyes. Oh, wait, I didn't.

 

For the umpteenth time (but in all likelihood, not the last): That "friend". Would not. Be accepting you. Punctuated for emphasis. By it's very nature, not accepting your homosexuality is... not accepting it.

 

And please, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, stop using terms like "disagree". Sexuality is not an opinion. You can't disagree with it. And stop using nonsense terminology like "sexual preference". It has nothing to do with preference. Just like it's not a "lifestyle choice".

 

It being inborn or not is a moot point. The behavioral aspect of it is how it is identified, and the friend in question would be of the belief that it is a freewill choice.

 

And religious people disagree. They consider their religion as a core part of themselves. I didn't ask if the Christian had the right to sever ties with the atheist. I didn't ask if you could force them to become friends. They were already friends. I asked if the Christian is right to sever ties just because the atheist doesn't believe in God. Is the Christian not being petty?

 

You're splitting hairs. Your standard of something being unchangeable is irrelevant to the discussion. Smoking is something a person wants to do. He likes it, and it is a part of his life. So the example is a fair one. If someone can oppose that thing the friend likes, but still accept the friend, then it should be no different with the homosexual. He shouldn't feel bad that someone doesn't like something they do WHILE looking past it to see a friend.

 

So the friend would not be accepting of the homosexual even though that friend would continue to talk to, and eat lunch with, and laugh with, and help out, and go places with that homosexual? Do you even realize what you're posting? We are talking about a person who likes being around a friend who is homosexual, even thought that person personally disapproves of homosexuality. How can you write that this not accepting of the homosexual person? Are you serious?

 

"There are homosexual actions and behaviors that do not include sex."

Oh my, this is getting really interesting. Care to tell me what those homosexual actions are?

I brought it up, because I thought that the only "homosexual behaviour" is gay sex or physical contact between people of the same sex, but please, do educate me on that.

 

And I would say to that friend that I don't need such condescending, self-congratulating brand of friendship.  I don't wish to be friends with someone who thinks I'm disgusting, I don't care for their brave and heroic sacrifice to accept me. I've had enough of this "don't approve of it, but still accept you" crap. My friends and I discuss everything, including relationships. I'm not going to censor myself, because someone finds it icky. I am a homosexual man, I do not become friends with people who pick and choose what parts of me are acceptable.

Also, I don't think anyone who called you (not jokingly) a filthy breeder thinks of you as a friend.

 

You keep bringing religion up, I never ended a friendship because someone is a Christian, and I'm an Atheist. This is a view concerning spirituality, and not their view that what I am is repulsive, like your "friend who is so kind to accept me." If someone doesn't want to be friends with me because of my beliefs, it's their decision. I will not force it.

 

You wrote that players who chose that option would be angry to loose a companion. And I and many gay players would be mad if the character accepted such option. Again, if you want your role playing option to make it more realistic then BW should add realistic reactions - the companion leaving the group.

 

The game example is flawed, because there should be an option for Cassandra not to want to place a non-believer as a face of an organization that was historically tied to the chantry, but the game is designed in such a way that you have to become Inquisitor. And as far as I remember you just say you don't believe, not that the whole religion is disgusting.

 

Um... public displays of affection that are not sexual?

 

Yeah but you pointed to sex specifically, not non-sexual physical contact. But I notice that many people who see the words "homosexual behavior" tend to go right to the example of homosexual sex. It's almost as if homosexuality were defined only by sexual behavior. Funny. Anyway, another example is a homosexual simply stating his sexuality to others. Ya know, like how Dorian can in the game.

 

And I would say right back that it isn't about congratulating myself, it's about finding commonality in a fellow human being and looking past the ways in which we differ.

 

I'm sure someone who called me that wouldn't think of me as a friend, but my point there was that I would not take offense to such a statement. If one of my homosexual friends told me that he finds heterosexuality disgusting or that he disagrees with it, I would not take offense to it at all.

 

Fine, it's their decision and you won't force it, but that's not what I asked. I asked if that person would be petty for ending the friendship.

 

Why would him staying anger you? The homosexual character would simply be tolerating someone's belief. Leaving the group simply because the player character disapproves of homosexuality is NOT a realistic reaction, especially in a world that generally disapproves of it.

 

No, Cassandra just reacts to it sensibly. She may not like it, but she tolerates it. And rejecting the Maker's existence to Cassandra would be the same as disapproving of homosexuality to Dorian.

[Dai Grepher]

Krem can die?

 

Ah, but seriously, I did forget about that. I always saved the Chargers.

 

edit: hmm, if so, i hope Maevaris is as cool as Krem turned out to be. he had good humor; laid back attitude; seemed pretty down to earth.

 

but did we ever see the body? i mean...could be he escaped, or only seemed dead...and then...the Venatori actually took him hostage and dragged him back to Tevinter to enslave and possibly use for a blood magic ritual...and then... we show up in DA4 and bust him out!

 

Hissrad scatters their ashes off the ramparts. I think he also calls out some names, and I think Krem's name is among them. Or maybe before that he holds up their ashes and states that its all of the Chargers.

[Temper_Graniteskul]

Thanks for posting. I have a problem with the last part. I don't know where Weekes gets the idea that the Qunari have no taboos about sex when it is clearly stated that the Qunari do not have sex with their friends or anyone they love. Clearly you can't just have sex with anyone. So there are taboos. And why would all taboos suddenly disappear when you go to a tamassran? Sex is for breeding, and it is never used between different races. So why would the Qunari, an uptight race that focuses on discipline, allow sex in a temple? Does this apply to anyone under the Qun? In which case, are there tamassrans of each race picked out for each race of person under the Qun?

 

Seems to me that the Qunari tamassrans would simply instruct each "applicant" to push a stone block across the room, take a cold shower, follow that up with meditation, have a hot meal, and then finally rest... with cheese wheels over the eyes.

 

You know that line - "Qunari love our friends like anyone does, but we don't have sex with them." - was in response to a question about whether Qunari marry, right? Outside of the marriage question, sex acts among the qunari are divided into physical relief - the service the tamassrans that'll 'pop your cork' provide - and breeding, which the tamassrans arrange according to (presumably) their genealogical records. Which makes sense; it's a distinction between libido and the procreative act. It's unknown what restrictions or allowances would be made for qunari operating outside areas where tamassrans are accessible.

 

None of which makes any presumption about the judgment qunari place on sex between people with similar or differing genitalia. Given that the lore/word of dev is that qunari are quite matter-of-fact about dealing with physical desire, and interested mainly in putting limits on social pairings, it's doubtful that they'd have a problem with qunari whose sexual preferences are for other qunari of similar genital configuration to their own.

[Biotic Apostate]

Um... public displays of affection that are not sexual?

 

Yeah but you pointed to sex specifically, not non-sexual physical contact. But I notice that many people who see the words "homosexual behavior" tend to go right to the example of homosexual sex. It's almost as if homosexuality were defined only by sexual behavior. Funny. Anyway, another example is a homosexual simply stating his sexuality to others. Ya know, like how Dorian can in the game.

 

And I would say right back that it isn't about congratulating myself, it's about finding commonality in a fellow human being and looking past the ways in which we differ.

 

I'm sure someone who called me that wouldn't think of me as a friend, but my point there was that I would not take offense to such a statement. If one of my homosexual friends told me that he finds heterosexuality disgusting or that he disagrees with it, I would not take offense to it at all.

 

Fine, it's their decision and you won't force it, but that's not what I asked. I asked if that person would be petty for ending the friendship.

 

Why would him staying anger you? The homosexual character would simply be tolerating someone's belief. Leaving the group simply because the player character disapproves of homosexuality is NOT a realistic reaction, especially in a world that generally disapproves of it.

 

No, Cassandra just reacts to it sensibly. She may not like it, but she tolerates it. And rejecting the Maker's existence to Cassandra would be the same as disapproving of homosexuality to Dorian.

You said homosexuality is defined by behaviour. I wrote sex, but I should have specified any type of physical contact. My point still stands. How is homosexuality defined by behaviour, if there are gay people, who never had sex and never dated or never even kissed someone. Funny is your view that sexuality is a behaviour, rather than a trait. I was saying homosexuality is a unchangeable part of a person, you were the one to jump on the behaviour train. And saying "I'm gay" is not a behaviour. A homosexual person does not become straight if they stop doing whatever it is you define as homosexual behaviour. A gay man does not suddenly change if he's not engaging in PDA.

 

Also, maybe I pointed to sex, because honestly, being close to someone is a human behaviour, not a gay one. Affection towards someone is not a 'gay behaviour.' Gay sex is where the difference is visible.

 

Still sounds like congratulating yourself.

 

Maybe you should. It was meant to be an insult. Your reaction to it doesn't change it. And that hypothetical friend would be petty, he should know better.

 

I don't decide for other people if their reasons for ending a relationship are petty and neither should you. If they find it so important that their friends worship the same god then I have no problem with them leaving. Since you asked, yes, they do have a right to do so.

 

But Thedas is not a world that disapproves of homosexuality, only Tevinter has problems with it, because of lineage. That would be a realistic response, because it would show a gay person respecting himself.

 

It would not be the same. Saying I don't believe in a deity (which by the way, no one has proven to exist) is definitely not the same as saying "you disgust me, but I'm willing to look past that."

[BansheeOwnage]

It being inborn or not is a moot point. The behavioral aspect of it is how it is identified, and the friend in question would be of the belief that it is a freewill choice.

 

And religious people disagree. They consider their religion as a core part of themselves. I didn't ask if the Christian had the right to sever ties with the atheist. I didn't ask if you could force them to become friends. They were already friends. I asked if the Christian is right to sever ties just because the atheist doesn't believe in God. Is the Christian not being petty?

 

You're splitting hairs. Your standard of something being unchangeable is irrelevant to the discussion. Smoking is something a person wants to do. He likes it, and it is a part of his life. So the example is a fair one. If someone can oppose that thing the friend likes, but still accept the friend, then it should be no different with the homosexual. He shouldn't feel bad that someone doesn't like something they do WHILE looking past it to see a friend.

 

So the friend would not be accepting of the homosexual even though that friend would continue to talk to, and eat lunch with, and laugh with, and help out, and go places with that homosexual? Do you even realize what you're posting? We are talking about a person who likes being around a friend who is homosexual, even thought that person personally disapproves of homosexuality. How can you write that this not accepting of the homosexual person? Are you serious?

If the "friend" in question believed it was a free-will choice, then I would cease to be friends with them if I could not convince them otherwise, and I would hope any other LGBT person would too.

 

They can disagree, but they would be wrong. I'm not trying to get on a high-horse, but it has been proven 100% that people can convert or have crises or faith, and has never been proven that you can change sexuality. Yes, of course the Christian has the right to sever ties, for any reason. Is it petty? I think so. I'm an atheist, and I wouldn't reject a friend for being religious.

 

In your opinion. In mine, whether something is a fundamental, unchangeable part of someone is very relevant. No, smoking is a habit. The example is not a fair one.

 

Yes, that's exactly right, they would not be accepting. I do indeed realize what I'm posting, and I'm re-posting it in a very deliberate manner. Someone who claims to accept a person except for their homosexuality is not truly accepting them - by definition, they are not accepting their whole self. They are saying there is something wrong with their core, and that's not okay with me. Yes, I am completely serious, and so are the other people saying exactly what I am saying. You don't seem to know much about LGBT people. Maybe you'll learn something here.

[AlanC9]

**until Krem got with Maryden in Trespasser, I actually thought he had a thing for IB. It was something about how he said the line, "Let me know if you need help with that binding.." I thought, "Ooohh."

These two facts are not mutually exclusive.

[Dai Grepher]

You know that line - "Qunari love our friends like anyone does, but we don't have sex with them." - was in response to a question about whether Qunari marry, right?

So what? The context of the statement is that they do not have sex. So clearly there are sexual taboos.
 

Outside of the marriage question, sex acts among the qunari are divided into physical relief - the service the tamassrans that'll 'pop your cork' provide - and breeding, which the tamassrans arrange according to (presumably) their genealogical records. Which makes sense; it's a distinction between libido and the procreative act. It's unknown what restrictions or allowances would be made for qunari operating outside areas where tamassrans are accessible.

That acts of libido are reserved for tamassrans would suggest there are no allowances outside of them. But this all seems like a load of crap. Nothing we have learned about the Qunari suggests that they would tolerate sex outside of procreative purpose.
 

None of which makes any presumption about the judgment qunari place on sex between people with similar or differing genitalia. Given that the lore/word of dev is that qunari are quite matter-of-fact about dealing with physical desire, and interested mainly in putting limits on social pairings, it's doubtful that they'd have a problem with qunari whose sexual preferences are for other qunari of similar genital configuration to their own.

Which would contradict Sten. So no, I think Weekes is sending the lore right down the toilet in his personal quest to be pro-LGBT. He's turning the Qunari into free love hippies!
 

You said homosexuality is defined by behaviour. I wrote sex, but I should have specified any type of physical contact. My point still stands. How is homosexuality defined by behaviour, if there are gay people, who never had sex and never dated or never even kissed someone.

Yes, you should have. But again, it's a common assumption, so I won't hold it against you. As I wrote, the homosexual could profess to be so, as was Dorian's case.
 

Funny is your view that sexuality is a behaviour, rather than a trait.

It's not just my view. It's fact. Sexuality is action. Therefore it is a behavior, not a physical trait. You cannot look at someone and know they are homosexual. Compare that to skin color, which can be identified visually.
 

I was saying homosexuality is a unchangeable part of a person, you were the one to jump on the behaviour train. And saying "I'm gay" is not a behaviour. A homosexual person does not become straight if they stop doing whatever it is you define as homosexual behaviour. A gay man does not suddenly change if he's not engaging in PDA.

Again, the argument of inborn vs. chosen is moot. We are discussing this from the perspective of the friend who accepts the person in spite of the behavior. If he can overlook his friend's smoking, he can overlook his friend's sexual preference as well, and is not wrong for personally disagreeing with either one, especially if it is to keep a friend.

Bottom line. How many of your friends do things you don't like? But you accept them as friends anyway.
 

Also, maybe I pointed to sex, because honestly, being close to someone is a human behaviour, not a gay one. Affection towards someone is not a 'gay behaviour.' Gay sex is where the difference is visible.

...

Or... you could have just pointed to non-sexual displays of affection. I mean, the subject was about a FRIEND of a homosexual. I would think the friend would not be there to witness any sexual acts.
 

Still sounds like congratulating yourself.

What? There's no applause?!

Well think of it this way. The friend did not just say these things. The friend would have been asked his opinion. So there would be no grandstanding, no "look at me", no boasting.
 

Maybe you should. It was meant to be an insult. Your reaction to it doesn't change it. And that hypothetical friend would be petty, he should know better.

If my friend stated his opinion of heterosexuality, and his view of it were negative, it would have no affect on me. Do you get it? His opinion doesn't harm me, a heterosexual. So why would I end our friendship over his opinion?

Look. I've overheard friends at work bad-mouth me before. I've gotten mad over it, sure, but then I cooled off. I didn't end my friendships with my colleagues over some words.

I don't think friendships should be that fragile to be ended by mere disagreement.
 

I don't decide for other people if their reasons for ending a relationship are petty and neither should you. If they find it so important that their friends worship the same god then I have no problem with them leaving. Since you asked, yes, they do have a right to do so.

But Thedas is not a world that disapproves of homosexuality, only Tevinter has problems with it, because of lineage. That would be a realistic response, because it would show a gay person respecting himself.
 
It would not be the same. Saying I don't believe in a deity (which by the way, no one has proven to exist) is definitely not the same as saying "you disgust me, but I'm willing to look past that."

I didn't ask if they had a right to do so. I asked if doing so would make them petty. And of course it would make them petty. It's saying, agree with me or else.

Except most of Thedas disapproves of homosexuality.

There would be no statement "you disgust me". The statement would be "I don't approve of that behavior".

[AlanC9]

So what? The context of the statement is that they do not have sex. So clearly there are sexual taboos.

It would be more accurate to describe this as a taboo on love. The sex itself isn't the problem.
 

That acts of libido are reserved for tamassrans would suggest there are no allowances outside of them. But this all seems like a load of crap. Nothing we have learned about the Qunari suggests that they would tolerate sex outside of procreative purpose.

So... this is the part where you cover your ears and yell LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU when the Iron Bull's discussing this? Unless by "sex" you're specifically referring to only vaginal intercourse? It's conceivable that the qunari do ban that except for procreative purpose, if only to have a convenient rule.

Look, I get that you don't like Weekes' vision of the Qun. It doesn't matter. If Gaider didn't like this, he had a chance to say no. He didn't, and he's gone now. This is the lore. Put up with it, or leave.

Edit: well, there is a third option. You can be That Guy ... the one who's always handing around complaining about how the series is so much worse now than it used to be because those designers did something terrible. We've always had a few of those around -- you should have seen these boards when NWN launched. I think you could do the job well.

[Dai Grepher]

If the "friend" in question believed it was a free-will choice, then I would cease to be friends with them if I could not convince them otherwise, and I would hope any other LGBT person would too.

Even if that person still wanted to be friends? Is he not allowed to believe that sexuality is chosen?
 

They can disagree, but they would be wrong. I'm not trying to get on a high-horse, but it has been proven 100% that people can convert or have crises or faith, and has never been proven that you can change sexuality.

So they would be wrong to say that their religious behavior is a core part of their being, but homosexuals are not wrong to say that their homosexual behavior is a core part of their being? And you base this on the fact that some people have faltered in their religion? So you're using examples of other people, and applying that to the religious people who have never faltered? Is that correct?

So if I were to point out examples of people who were once homosexual but have since quit and gone on to lead heterosexual lives, with marriage and children, that would be proof that sexuality can change for every homosexual?
 

Yes, of course the Christian has the right to sever ties, for any reason.

Again, I didn't ask that.
 

Is it petty? I think so.

Thank you. And I agree. It would be petty. Just as it would be petty of a homosexual to end a friendship because their friend disapproves of homosexuality.
 

I'm an atheist, and I wouldn't reject a friend for being religious.

Even if his or her religion states that homosexuality is immoral?
 

In your opinion. In mine, whether something is a fundamental, unchangeable part of someone is very relevant. No, smoking is a habit. The example is not a fair one.

*Sigh* My fault for not going with alcoholism right off the rip. So okay then, alcoholism. It is passed on genetically. That is a scientific fact. So, how about that? It's part of someone's core being. Are we allowed to disapprove of alcoholism or not?
 

Yes, that's exactly right, they would not be accepting. I do indeed realize what I'm posting, and I'm re-posting it in a very deliberate manner. Someone who claims to accept a person except for their homosexuality is not truly accepting them - by definition, they are not accepting their whole self. They are saying there is something wrong with their core, and that's not okay with me. Yes, I am completely serious, and so are the other people saying exactly what I am saying. You don't seem to know much about LGBT people. Maybe you'll learn something here.

They would not be accepting of that person even though they continue to be around that person by choice. That is what you are essentially telling me. They don't accept a person they choose to hang around with and consider to be a friend of theirs. WHAT?!

All I have learned from this is that no one is allowed to disagree with or disapprove of homosexual actions and behaviors, even if they accept homosexual people as people and as friends.

So basically, you think everyone should have to agree with homosexuality, approve of it, and believe that it is good. Is that correct?

[Nefla]

[Andraste_Reborn]

 

*Sigh* My fault for not going with alcoholism right off the rip. So okay then, alcoholism. It is passed on genetically. That is a scientific fact. So, how about that? It's part of someone's core being. Are we allowed to disapprove of alcoholism or not?

 

Alcoholism has demonstrably negative consequences. The consequences of homosexuality are no more inherently negative than those of heterosexuality.

 

Obviously people are allowed to disapprove of homosexuality. And other people are allowed to think that this belief makes them jerks and decide not to be friends with them. My friends don't have to agree with me about everything, but there are all kinds of opinions that would make me refuse to be friends with somebody (including, but not limited to, 'sexual orientation can be changed if you wish really hard' and 'homosexuality is wrong'.)

[In Exile]

"There are homosexual actions and behaviors that do not include sex."

Oh my, this is getting really interesting. Care to tell me what those homosexual actions are?

 

Well, we could make out or hold hands. Pretty sure that still counts. Or I could just stare longingly at Matt Bomer.

[BioWareMod08]

This thread has derailed and is now locked.