3059 réponses à ce sujet

[Orogenic]

BrianWilly wrote...

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.

QFT

[Funkenstein23]

Ryzaki 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.

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. <_<

All three of those are obviously valid purposes of sex but they aren't the only ones. A sense of protection or safety being instilled in a woman or a sense of validity or purpose in a man are two other purposes. It often is argued that a point of sex is taking two people who, do to natural qualities that are the result of their gender, are opposite, and having them come together in a union which allows both of their natural advanges to shine in a home setting. Regardless my point originally was that Creature 1 said homosexuality was no more perverse than heterosexuality, but the Psychological community would disagree. Not all of them, grant it, but that is the currently held practice.

[DoctorOctagonapus]

Orogenic wrote...

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

A.) At first you didn't say anything substantial. You just quoted a legitamate arguement and added your own trollish insight.

B.) When you did edit in your (incorrect) thought, I even edited my reply

The fact that I fail at HTML has nothing to do with it

[BrianWilly]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

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.

I would probably encourage something like that, but I don't know that I would be satisfied with this.

The ME trilogy is about Shepard, and my ME trilogy is specifically about my Shepard.  Why does there need to be "someone else" in order to have gay content?  It wouldn't be the same.  It smacks of "separate but equal"...oh sure, you can have your gay content, but just have it far away from where the real game is.

It's simply far less trouble for everyone concerned to just have one or two same-sex options in the game itself.  I can't understand why Bioware doesn't understand that.

[Ninja Mage]

Kordaris wrote...

BrianWilly wrote...
 We gay gamers want more representation in the medium, and you're arguing that we shouldn't get it because...there isn't enough representation in the medium?

Well then, why limit it to gay only and ignore other sexual minorities ? Neither transsexuals in their wide diversity nor hermaphrodites are represented as well. And surely they are not represented on even the level of gays in the media.

Seriously-this is an RPG. Role Playing Game. Where you play roles determined by the creators of the game. Sure it allows many options-but within predefined setting. You can't play a civilian Shepard. You can't play a 15 year old Shepard. You can't play a white/black supremacist Shepard. You can't play a pacifist Shepard. And you can't play a gay one.
What's wrong with role playing a straight guy ?

Because I'm a GAY gamer you ******. Why don't you play as fem shep???? Because you're a man, it's the same ****ing thing. I swear, did you really just ask that question

[Orogenic]

DoctorOctagonapus wrote...

Orogenic wrote...

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

A.) At first you didn't say anything substantial. You just quoted a legitamate arguement and added your own trollish insight.

B.) When you did edit in your (incorrect) thought, I even edited my reply

The fact that I fail at HTML has nothing to do with it

I did nothing but voice my support for a post that demonstrates very effectively that same sex pairings are no more "perverse" than heterosexual pairings.

I also advised the poster to deliver logical ideas in small amounts because homophobes are by their nature resistant to logic.

If this makes me a troll, by all means report my post.

[Creature 1]

Funkenstein23 wrote...

All three of those are obviously valid purposes of sex but they aren't the only ones. A sense of protection or safety being instilled in a woman or a sense of validity or purpose in a man are two other purposes. It often is argued that a point of sex is taking two people who, do to natural qualities that are the result of their gender, are opposite, and having them come together in a union which allows both of their natural advanges to shine in a home setting. Regardless my point originally was that Creature 1 said homosexuality was no more perverse than heterosexuality, but the Psychological community would disagree. Not all of them, grant it, but that is the currently held practice.

  Two guys or two girls could also benefit from a sense of safety or sense of purpose.  The idea of male and female being different and opposing is not true.  In some traits there might be a greater tendency to one direction or another in one of the sexes, but all traits fall on overlapping bell curves.  For instance, women tend towards greater verbal ability, but lot of guys still get an 800 on the verbal SAT. 

The psychology community does not recognize homosexuality as an abnormal orientation.  Nonnormative, but not abnormal. 

[Ryzaki]

Ninja Mage wrote...

Kordaris wrote...

BrianWilly wrote...
 We gay gamers want more representation in the medium, and you're arguing that we shouldn't get it because...there isn't enough representation in the medium?

Well then, why limit it to gay only and ignore other sexual minorities ? Neither transsexuals in their wide diversity nor hermaphrodites are represented as well. And surely they are not represented on even the level of gays in the media.

Seriously-this is an RPG. Role Playing Game. Where you play roles determined by the creators of the game. Sure it allows many options-but within predefined setting. You can't play a civilian Shepard. You can't play a 15 year old Shepard. You can't play a white/black supremacist Shepard. You can't play a pacifist Shepard. And you can't play a gay one.
What's wrong with role playing a straight guy ?

Because I'm a GAY gamer you ******. Why don't you play as fem shep???? Because you're a man, it's the same ****ing thing. I swear, did you really just ask that question

Not really. Plenty of people myself included roleplay the opposite gender on occassion.

You shouldn't get so worked up Ninja Mage.

Though there isn't any problem with roleplaying a straight Shepard. Some people may prefer to roleplay a gay shep and its pretty hypocritical for FemShep to be able to be bi, straight or lesbian but MaleShep is restricted to being heterosexual. However there is nothing wrong with wanting the choice of being able to roleplay a gay MaleShep either.

[BrianWilly]

Kordaris wrote...

Well then, why limit it to gay only and ignore other sexual minorities ? Neither transsexuals in their wide diversity nor hermaphrodites are represented as well. And surely they are not represented on even the level of gays in the media.

Seriously-this is an RPG. Role Playing Game. Where you play roles determined by the creators of the game. Sure it allows many options-but within predefined setting. You can't play a civilian Shepard. You can't play a 15 year old Shepard. You can't play a white/black supremacist Shepard. You can't play a pacifist Shepard. And you can't play a gay one.
What's wrong with role playing a straight guy ?

Because the game itself focuses on those romantic choices.  People keep saying, "Oh, the romance isn't that big a part of the game anyway," but that's really not true.  There's no "civilian" choice and there's no "supremecist" choice (there is a bit of a human supremecist choice, though ), but there are numerous romantic choices.

The game itself is designed based off of the conceit of player options and, yes, a significant portion of that is in romantic options.  It's part of the story, part of the design.  And with six different options (nine including the first game), Bioware opened the door themselves for this sort of discussion.  They opened the door with including Liara in Mass Effect, and also with their other same-sex options in their other games.  Why do you think there are so many people pleading for Bioware to include a gay option in this game, yet there's no one pleading for Bungie to give Master Chief a gay option?

Modifié par BrianWilly, 08 février 2010 - 12:07 .

[Creature 1]

Orogenic wrote...
I also advised the poster to deliver logical ideas in small amounts because homophobes are by their nature resistant to logic.

What is that saying that says something like it's impossible to reason a person out of a position that they did not reach by reason in the first place? 

[Orogenic]

Creature 1 wrote...

Orogenic wrote...
I also advised the poster to deliver logical ideas in small amounts because homophobes are by their nature resistant to logic.

What is that saying that says something like it's impossible to reason a person out of a position that they did not reach by reason in the first place? 

Hehe.. dunno which one you are looking for specifically,  but "most people are idiots" has always worked for me.

Yeah, I know.  I'm a pretentious ****hole.  I have a lot of empirical evidence to support my theory though.

[DoctorOctagonapus]

Orogenic wrote...

DoctorOctagonapus wrote...

Orogenic wrote...

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

A.) At first you didn't say anything substantial. You just quoted a legitamate arguement and added your own trollish insight.

B.) When you did edit in your (incorrect) thought, I even edited my reply

The fact that I fail at HTML has nothing to do with it

I did nothing but voice my support for a post that demonstrates very effectively that same sex pairings are no more "perverse" than heterosexual pairings.

I also advised the poster to deliver logical ideas in small amounts because homophobes are by their nature resistant to logic.

If this makes me a troll, by all means report my post.

you "voiced  your support" by insulting the group of people he was arguing against (Which is anybody who DOESN'T think homosexuallity is perverse). And again, when you added an actual point I changed my response.

[Creature 1]

Kordaris wrote...

Creature 1 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.

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. 

Your theory has one potential and serious flaw. Incest is normal and widespread in primates as well. Using your logic, we can create scenarios where incest doesn't harm anybody(and indeed if we take some isolated cases we could find  examples where there was a relationship based on mutual consent). By using the argument of "no-harm" and guiding ourself with only hedonistic considerations(if something is desired and doesn't harm an individual it's ok), you can go into some troublesome territories. The truth of the matter is that social behaviours are not based on observation of primates, but on traditional values which came from experience of early societies.  The argument that ancient cultures tolerated homosexuality is only partially correct, it existed and was tolerated but if you study it further you will see that either it was seen with a bit of disdain and often criticised or cultures that widely accepted it, were shunned by neighbours. In practise even in ancient times, it was confied mostly to corners of society and definetely not considered something to boast about.

I would say that incest between adult, consenting relatives is seriously squicky, but not necessarily morally wrong.  But there are concerns about reproduction in this case since there is a greatly increased risk for inheritance of harmful recessive alleles, with that plus power dynamics clouding consent making the situation much more complicated. 

Social values are based upon what worked for the people in charge of those societies, not upon what is right or equitable.  Thus the need in the past century for advances in human rights for different groups in our own society. 

(I did not appeal to past cultural practices, so I'm not sure where that part came from anyway.) 

[Creature 1]

Orogenic wrote...
I'm a pretentious ****hole.

Me too, so I hear. 

[JamesMoriarty123]

All these gay support/anti-gay threads need locking. Everyone has said all there is to say, Big Ray's IGN interview basically ends all discussion until we hear otherwise. The gay ME community is extremely small compared to the greater whole. Just accept that it ain't gonna happen, no matter how much you ****** and moan.

Like I said before, there have been petition with 150-200 thousand signatures for more worthy causes, and they've been denied. So a few hundred gay people whining is unlikey to affect anything...

Modifié par JamesMoriarty123, 08 février 2010 - 12:16 .

[sw33ts]

O_o



Why would anyone comfortable with themselves be alienated by a possible gay romance? If they don't force it on you and it's pretty much in your face as pink text as someone said earlier. Then I don't see how the straights can be alienated. BW isn't going to take away straight relationships and replace them with gay ones.

[Jimmy Fury]

BrianWilly wrote...
I would probably encourage something like that, but I don't know that I would be satisfied with this.

The ME trilogy is about Shepard, and my ME trilogy is specifically about my Shepard.  Why does there need to be "someone else" in order to have gay content?  It wouldn't be the same.  It smacks of "separate but equal"...oh sure, you can have your gay content, but just have it far away from where the real game is.

It's simply far less trouble for everyone concerned to just have one or two same-sex options in the game itself.  I can't understand why Bioware doesn't understand that.

I absolutely agree on the seperate but equal aspect of it sucking.
Still, this whole thing has gotten very "Us vs. Them" so i'm trying to toss around ideas for some middle ground. I mean let's be honest, clearly it isn't going to be far less trouble for everyone to just include it. The civil mannered portion of the opposition has made some valid, if disagreeable, points. It would be just as illogical for us to ignore those points as it is for them to ignore ours.

I think we can all agree that the scope of ME is way too epic for the universe to be wasted on 3 games and a couple of novels. Surely the story will continue after Shepard and it would be great if the groundwork for the future was laid now with the introduction of characters who will be in the spotlight later.
To draw an analogy to real life, sometimes we have to suck it up and settle for civil unions until the politicians are ready to acknowledge gay marriage. It's not a defeat but a stepping stone.

[Creature 1]

JamesMoriarty123 wrote...

All these gay support/anti-gay threads need locking. Everyone has said all there is to say, Big Ray's IGN interview basically ends all discussion until we hear otherwise. The gay ME community is extremely small compared to the greater whole. Just accept that it ain't gonna happen, no matter how much you ****** and moan.

Like I said before, there have been petition with 150-200 thousand signatures for more worthy causes, and they've been denied. So a few hundred gay people whining is unlikey to affect anything...

Dangit.  I was hoping to point out the Freudian slip before the edit! 

[sw33ts]

JamesMoriarty123 wrote...

All these gay support/anti-gay threads need locking. Everyone has said all there is to say, Big Ray's IGN interview basically ends all discussion until we hear otherwise. The gay ME community is extremely small compared to the greater whole. Just accept that it ain't gonna happen, no matter how much you ****** and moan.

Like I said before, there have been petition with 150-200 thousand signatures for more worthy causes, and they've been denied. So a few hundred gay people whining is unlikey to affect anything...

Look mate.  We get it.  You don't like homosexual relationships.  Really, we understand, but no reason to kept coming in here and belittle us for our opinions.

[Orogenic]

DoctorOctagonapus wrote...

Orogenic wrote...

DoctorOctagonapus wrote...

Orogenic wrote...

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

A.) At first you didn't say anything substantial. You just quoted a legitamate arguement and added your own trollish insight.

B.) When you did edit in your (incorrect) thought, I even edited my reply

The fact that I fail at HTML has nothing to do with it

I did nothing but voice my support for a post that demonstrates very effectively that same sex pairings are no more "perverse" than heterosexual pairings.

I also advised the poster to deliver logical ideas in small amounts because homophobes are by their nature resistant to logic.

If this makes me a troll, by all means report my post.

you "voiced  your support" by insulting the group of people he was arguing against (Which is anybody who DOESN'T think homosexuallity is perverse). And again, when you added an actual point I changed my response.

If you are voluntarily associating your self with the designation "homophobes" then you are putting yourself in the same category as "racists" and "bigots."

Once you publicly claim membership in one of these deviant groups, you have indicated that irrational hatred is the basis for at least some of your beliefs, and as a result civilized society no longer owes you respect of any kind. 

I will publicly say that homophobes are, on average, ignorant, unintelligent, poorly educated, unstable, and potentially criminal simply by indicating a willingness to hate a group of people essentially for being what they are.

"respect me, I'm an intolerant and hateful twit" doesn't fly.  Sorry, charlie.

Modifié par Orogenic, 08 février 2010 - 12:20 .

[JamesMoriarty123]

Also, by a certain logic, there hasn't been an F/F romance in either game either. Liara's romance is invalid as an F/F as Asari are monogender. They do not recognise within themselves as either male or female, it's just that they are aesthetically female that's got some people confused...

[DoctorOctagonapus]

Kordaris wrote...

Ninja Mage wrote...

Kordaris wrote...

BrianWilly wrote...
 We gay gamers want more representation in the medium, and you're arguing that we shouldn't get it because...there isn't enough representation in the medium?

Well then, why limit it to gay only and ignore other sexual minorities ? Neither transsexuals in their wide diversity nor hermaphrodites are represented as well. And surely they are not represented on even the level of gays in the media.

Seriously-this is an RPG. Role Playing Game. Where you play roles determined by the creators of the game. Sure it allows many options-but within predefined setting. You can't play a civilian Shepard. You can't play a 15 year old Shepard. You can't play a white/black supremacist Shepard. You can't play a pacifist Shepard. And you can't play a gay one.
What's wrong with role playing a straight guy ?

Because I'm a GAY gamer you ******. Why don't you play as fem shep???? Because you're a man, it's the same ****ing thing. I swear, did you really just ask that question

An excellent way to deny gay Shepard. Using your logic-why should Bioware tend to needs of 2-5 % of community, while potentially alienating 20-40% of the rest of community ?
Of course that was just criticism of your way of thinking. Personally I role play people that aren't me all the time.
And I am perfectly fine with role playing with a completely straight Shepard.

I'd like to think fewer than 20% of people who play the game would be "alienated" by having the option to be gay. That being said, I don't blame Bioware for not putting in the option. it's extra resources and it could create more controversy than they care to deal with. They have to make money, and there are still quite a few people who would be seriously offended by just leaving in the option. I'm fairlycertain the debates moved on from "BioWare should put the option in the game" to "BioWare's audience shouldn't be offended by the option"