3059 réponses à ce sujet

[illerianna]

mhammer50 wrote...

I'm against it because it is as perverse as any other sexual deviance such as pedophilia and beastiality.

They see me trollin'
They hatin'
Patrollin'
Tryin' to catch me trollin' dirty

[Lightice_av]

A troll in other words. Have fun stay in Bansville.

[Funkenstein23]

@mhammer50
Quick dude, make a better argument! These are angry, angry people and you'll need at least a page of text not to get eaten alive by them. Oh wait, then they'll just pick it apart bit by bit and it'll be even worse for you. Bummer bro. You're boned.

Modifié par Funkenstein23, 07 février 2010 - 11:32 .

[Creature 1]

mhammer50 wrote...

I'm against it because it is as perverse as any other sexual deviance such as pedophilia and beastiality.

Men being attracted to men is no more perverse than women being attracted to men. 

[Ryzaki]

Strange because it seems BioWare is willing to be controversial when its convenient. Which to me is pretty hypocritical but normal and of course makes good business sense.



Though at least FemShep x Liara is already in the game. They can't exactly ignore that even if they claim Liara doesn't count as female.

[Funkenstein23]

Creature 1 wrote...

mhammer50 wrote...

I'm against it because it is as perverse as any other sexual deviance such as pedophilia and beastiality.

Men being attracted to men is no more perverse than women being attracted to men. 

Out of curiosity, how do you figure? Perverse means to deviate from normality, normal here being the pairing that could produce offspring, i.e. a woman and a man. That being said, agree with it or not it is technically more perverse.

[DoctorOctagonapus]

edit: nevermind, that's a bad idea. forget I said it

Modifié par DoctorOctagonapus, 07 février 2010 - 11:46 .

[Jendu]

oh snap

[Ryzaki]

DoctorOctagonapus wrote...

Funkenstein23 wrote...

Creature 1 wrote...

mhammer50 wrote...

I'm against it because it is as perverse as any other sexual deviance such as pedophilia and beastiality.

Men being attracted to men is no more perverse than women being attracted to men. 

Out of curiosity, how do you figure? Perverse means to deviate from normality, normal here being the pairing that could produce offspring, i.e. a woman and a man. That being said, agree with it or not it is technically more perverse.

So if you're infertile, any sex you have is perverse?

Or using any method of birthcontrol apparently. <_<

[LoveAsThouWilt]

Homesexuality isn't perverse. It is just less common. It occurs in other species as well, not just humans. Biologically speaking it would be nature's way of combating too much population growth. Trying to make it stable. Homosexuality could in a sense be the Genophage of humanity lol (not so much, but that is a funny comparison i believe)

[DoctorOctagonapus]

damn it, too late. What have I done?

[Funkenstein23]

DoctorOctagonapus wrote...

Funkenstein23 wrote...

Creature 1 wrote...

mhammer50 wrote...

I'm against it because it is as perverse as any other sexual deviance such as pedophilia and beastiality.

Men being attracted to men is no more perverse than women being attracted to men. 

Out of curiosity, how do you figure? Perverse means to deviate from normality, normal here being the pairing that could produce offspring, i.e. a woman and a man. That being said, agree with it or not it is technically more perverse.

So if you're infertile, any sex you have is perverse?

Not necessarily. Sex, by its nature, is used for more purposes than reproduction. Several of which (forging bonds of intimacy between unlike partners, legal consumation of marriage according to US law, etc) are still fulfilled by a man and a woman regardless of their fertility. Its on a measure of checks. Basically, "How many of the essential facets of sex are fulfilled by this pairing?" The number of checks dictates the amount of perversion, with fewer meaning it is more perverse. at least, that is how it is done in psychology.

[Ryzaki]

Funkenstein23 wrote...

DoctorOctagonapus wrote...

Funkenstein23 wrote...

Creature 1 wrote...

mhammer50 wrote...

I'm against it because it is as perverse as any other sexual deviance such as pedophilia and beastiality.

Men being attracted to men is no more perverse than women being attracted to men. 

Out of curiosity, how do you figure? Perverse means to deviate from normality, normal here being the pairing that could produce offspring, i.e. a woman and a man. That being said, agree with it or not it is technically more perverse.

So if you're infertile, any sex you have is perverse?

Not necessarily. Sex, by its nature, is used for more purposes than reproduction. Several of which (forging bonds of intimacy between unlike partners, legal consumation of marriage according to US law, etc) are still fulfilled by a man and a woman regardless of their fertility. Its on a measure of checks. Basically, "How many of the essential facets of sex are fulfilled by this pairing?" The number of checks dictates the amount of perversion, with fewer meaning it is more perverse. at least, that is how it is done in psychology.

Weird I thought sex was for pleasure, intimacy or for making babies. Wouldn't homosexuality fulfill every one of those except babymaking? 

And sex legalizing marriage. Yeah I don't feel like having that argument again this week. I hate my college sometimes. <_<

[DoctorOctagonapus]

Funkenstein23 wrote...

DoctorOctagonapus wrote...

Funkenstein23 wrote...

Creature 1 wrote...

mhammer50 wrote...

I'm against it because it is as perverse as any other sexual deviance such as pedophilia and beastiality.

Men being attracted to men is no more perverse than women being attracted to men. 

Out of curiosity, how do you figure? Perverse means to deviate from normality, normal here being the pairing that could produce offspring, i.e. a woman and a man. That being said, agree with it or not it is technically more perverse.

So if you're infertile, any sex you have is perverse?

Not necessarily. Sex, by its nature, is used for more purposes than reproduction. Several of which (forging bonds of intimacy between unlike partners, legal consumation of marriage according to US law, etc) are still fulfilled by a man and a woman regardless of their fertility. Its on a measure of checks. Basically, "How many of the essential facets of sex are fulfilled by this pairing?" The number of checks dictates the amount of perversion, with fewer meaning it is more perverse. at least, that is how it is done in psychology.

I guess it's too late now...

You're cherry picking and wording your "examples" just to exclude gay sex. "forging bonds of intimacy between unlike partners"? What about sex dictates that partners should be unlike? "legal consumation of marriage according to US law"? again, what exactly does that have to with sex? is it less perverse to have gay sex in California than to do it in Texas? And furthermore, who gets to declare themselves the Czar of "goals in the bedroom"

[Orogenic]

Funkenstein23 wrote...

DoctorOctagonapus wrote...

Funkenstein23 wrote...

Creature 1 wrote...

mhammer50 wrote...

I'm against it because it is as perverse as any other sexual deviance such as pedophilia and beastiality.

Men being attracted to men is no more perverse than women being attracted to men. 

Out of curiosity, how do you figure? Perverse means to deviate from normality, normal here being the pairing that could produce offspring, i.e. a woman and a man. That being said, agree with it or not it is technically more perverse.

So if you're infertile, any sex you have is perverse?

Not necessarily. Sex, by its nature, is used for more purposes than reproduction. Several of which (forging bonds of intimacy between unlike partners, legal consumation of marriage according to US law, etc) are still fulfilled by a man and a woman regardless of their fertility. Its on a measure of checks. Basically, "How many of the essential facets of sex are fulfilled by this pairing?" The number of checks dictates the amount of perversion, with fewer meaning it is more perverse. at least, that is how it is done in psychology.

Don't hit them with too much logic at once, their heads might explode.

Edit- you realize this post indicates that same sex relationships are NOT perverse, don't you?

Good job supporting intelligence and rational thought!

Modifié par Orogenic, 07 février 2010 - 11:54 .

[Ninja Mage]

Yeah...I just read that not happy at all. Ray Muzyka just lost a mass effect customer

[DoctorOctagonapus]

Orogenic wrote...

Funkenstein23 wrote...

DoctorOctagonapus wrote...

Funkenstein23 wrote...

Creature 1 wrote...

mhammer50 wrote...

I'm against it because it is as perverse as any other sexual deviance such as pedophilia and beastiality.

Men being attracted to men is no more perverse than women being attracted to men. 

Out of curiosity, how do you figure? Perverse means to deviate from normality, normal here being the pairing that could produce offspring, i.e. a woman and a man. That being said, agree with it or not it is technically more perverse.

So if you're infertile, any sex you have is perverse?

Not necessarily. Sex, by its nature, is used for more purposes than reproduction. Several of which (forging bonds of intimacy between unlike partners, legal consumation of marriage according to US law, etc) are still fulfilled by a man and a woman regardless of their fertility. Its on a measure of checks. Basically, "How many of the essential facets of sex are fulfilled by this pairing?" The number of checks dictates the amount of perversion, with fewer meaning it is more perverse. at least, that is how it is done in psychology.

Don't hit them with too much logic at once, their heads might explode.

Edit- you realize this post indicates that same sex relationships are NOT perverse, don't you?

Good job supporting intelligence and rational thought!

edit: no, he specifically chose examples that don't apply to homosexuals. not that either of them are based on any coherent logic.

Modifié par DoctorOctagonapus, 07 février 2010 - 11:57 .

[Jimmy Fury]

Here's a thought.

How would people feel about something like a side-story expansion that deals with a different character entirely (one who with an open sexuality).
DAO:A is going to do sort of that by giving you the Orlesian Warden to play, but I'm thinking more along the lines of GTA:IV's expansions. Same setting just different characters who can tie into the main story and provide some more perspective on the universe and everything that's happening.
The way 2 plays out it leaves a lot of room for other stories to be happening simultaneously. While Shep is out doing his thing there's bound to be something going on with the Alliance right?

Basically... something like Mass Effect Galaxy but for the main systems. Introduce new characters, bridge some story elements, give the universe more depth, and help set up ME3...

Personally, I could be satisfied with something that simple. Sure I would prefer Gay.Shep, but If the character was interesting enough (Perhaps introducing a main protagonist for future games?) I'd be cool with that.


Edit:
In case it wasn't clear. This is me making happy constructive on-topic conversation to help us get past the troll feeding. But seriously I want opinions on this idea...

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 07 février 2010 - 11:57 .

[Creature 1]

Funkenstein23 wrote...

Creature 1 wrote...

mhammer50 wrote...

I'm against it because it is as perverse as any other sexual deviance such as pedophilia and beastiality.

Men being attracted to men is no more perverse than women being attracted to men. 

Out of curiosity, how do you figure? Perverse means to deviate from normality, normal here being the pairing that could produce offspring, i.e. a woman and a man. That being said, agree with it or not it is technically more perverse.

Whoa, how do you figure that?  Your post is laden with unspoken assumptions. 

Assumptions: 
1.  Sexual orientation is a moral issue, so the term "perverse" is even applicable in the first place.
2.  Heterosexuality is "normal", homosexuality is "abnormal". 
3.  What makes heterosexuality normal is potential for reproduction. 

The first is incorrect because, unless you're referring to Bronze Age religious texts for your moral direction, the usual rule of thumb for morality is if it harms someone, it's wrong.  Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, involves consensual acts between adults.  Homosexuality harms no one.  If you are using Bronze Age texts, the same texts also speak favorably of genocide, slavery, and forced marriage of women, making them useless in determining proper morality in my opinion.  The second is incorrect because while homosexuality is not as prevalent as heterosexuality, it is widespread among the primates, and becomes especially prevalent among the apes (which is the group containing humans).  I read a description of one females of one species of monkey (I believe a species of macaque) as universally lesbian, with the most enduring dyads between females, while females mate with males only to breed.  Among primates, homosexuality is normal.  The final assumption is just a head-scratcher.  Is the only good sex procreative sex?  Considering our rapidly exploding global population, you could argue that the best sex is non-procreative sex! 

If you just mean to say that homosexuality is not as prevalent as heterosexuality, the term you're looking for is "nonnormative", meaning simply that it is different from the majority. 

[BrianWilly]

Funkenstein23 wrote...

Not necessarily. Sex, by its nature, is used for more purposes than reproduction. Several of which (forging bonds of intimacy between unlike partners, legal consumation of marriage according to US law, etc) are still fulfilled by a man and a woman regardless of their fertility. Its on a measure of checks. Basically, "How many of the essential facets of sex are fulfilled by this pairing?" The number of checks dictates the amount of perversion, with fewer meaning it is more perverse. at least, that is how it is done in psychology.

Everything you just said (forging bonds of intimacy between unlike partners, legal consumation of marriage according to US law, etc) is entirely covered between two men, or two women, as well.

[Ryzaki]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

mhammer50 wrote...

I'm against it because it is as perverse as any other sexual deviance such as pedophilia and beastiality.

www.youtube.com/watch

Thanks for the laugh. That made my day.

[Orogenic]

dunno what your link was supposed to be, but I assume it was another "troll" reference because you have nothing intelligent to add.