214 réponses à ce sujet

[Doug84]

I honestly don't know why they didn't include male/male, female/female relationships in ME2 (well, ok, 1 semi-fem/fem relationship with the Diana Tory wannabe). I wouldn't have used them myself... maybe they filled up the second DVD?

[FataliTensei]

Nautica773 wrote...

FataliTensei wrote...

danman2424 wrote...

Ryuuichi009 wrote...


Yet they cater to perverted males that want f/f?

Also: LOL at how wanting gay romances makes me perverted.

Yeah they should just remove all romances and focus on getting their battle system straight. We'd all equally enjoy that more no? 

Did they cater to that? I thought the whole point of this thread was that there were no gay relationships in Mass Effect 2 whatsoever. M/m or f/f.

Na you can have a fling with one of the crewmates, male or fem shep can do it. SO there is legitamate, human f/f material in the game.

There's Liara's romance from the first one as well. It's not like they write her completely out of the game if you are a female Shepard. 

Yeah but then you hav that whole "the asari are mono-gendered" argument to worry about...but that whole thing is total BS because they're reffered to as an all female race anyway.

[The Sapient]

danman2424 wrote...

Kordaris wrote...

Obviously if there is gay Shepard, there also should be crossdresser Shepard, with the ability to wear women's clothes and make up.

Hey it's only fair, right? Bioware should be fair across the board and cater to every single person on this earth no matter what their preferences.

It is worth re-reading the OP's initial suggestion. He wants games built around his comfort.  His "comprimise" is to have games built around his beliefs, with an option other's can  select which would add a few additional features to games designed around him. 

Now, I don't argue that any particular game should have gay romance options, or straight romance options, or anything else.  I feel these are artistic choices which should be made for artisitic reasons.  But I do strongly object to the demand that homosexual relationships should be omitted or hidden to prevent people with certain "beliefs" from feeling uncomfortable.  As a straight man who's parents are different races, I am completely at ease with comparing homophobia with racism.  No, race and sexual orientation are not the same thing.  Why, they even hav different names.  But homophbia and racism use the same faulty logic as their basis.  When my parents got married, their marriage was illegal through large regions of the USA.  Would the OP defend a "compromise" in games which prevented sentive racists from seeing options which could lead to them seeing a virtual interracial relationship?  If players wanted, they could change the default so that in addition to the racially pure game, there would be dialog options which could lead to an interracial relationship. 

It is the double standard from the OP which really bothers me.  How is it an imposition on him to encounter and NOT seduce a gay character?  How is it a compromise a compromise?  What about people who don't want to see straight relationships?  Would it be a meeting in the middle if the all the relationships in the game were homosexual, but there was a toggle which would allow for one or two straight options?

[The Sapient]

Kordaris wrote...

Ryuuichi009 wrote...

And don't start with the Liara is asexual because Hudson is wrong.

Ah yes, nothing like a fan telling us that the creators of the game are wrong about a game they created.

The game itself says Hudosn is wrong.

[Yeled]

The Sapient wrote...

danman2424 wrote...

Kordaris wrote...

Obviously if there is gay Shepard, there also should be crossdresser Shepard, with the ability to wear women's clothes and make up.

Hey it's only fair, right? Bioware should be fair across the board and cater to every single person on this earth no matter what their preferences.

It is worth re-reading the OP's initial suggestion. He wants games built around his comfort.  His "comprimise" is to have games built around his beliefs, with an option other's can  select which would add a few additional features to games designed around him. 

Now, I don't argue that any particular game should have gay romance options, or straight romance options, or anything else.  I feel these are artistic choices which should be made for artisitic reasons.  But I do strongly object to the demand that homosexual relationships should be omitted or hidden to prevent people with certain "beliefs" from feeling uncomfortable.  As a straight man who's parents are different races, I am completely at ease with comparing homophobia with racism.  No, race and sexual orientation are not the same thing.  Why, they even hav different names.  But homophbia and racism use the same faulty logic as their basis.  When my parents got married, their marriage was illegal through large regions of the USA.  Would the OP defend a "compromise" in games which prevented sentive racists from seeing options which could lead to them seeing a virtual interracial relationship?  If players wanted, they could change the default so that in addition to the racially pure game, there would be dialog options which could lead to an interracial relationship. 

It is the double standard from the OP which really bothers me. 

I agree 100 percent.  It wasn't too long ago that a femshep/Jacob relationship would have been considered taboo, and you're essentially dealing with a parallel situation.  If Bioware included a toggle that let the player turn the femshep/jacob romance on and off so as not to expose a player who is uncomfortable with interacial relationships to them, I think we'd all agree that such was in very, very poor taste.

Its hard for me to fathom how someone would feel the inclusion of a gay character in the game, and the option for a male sheperd to romance said gay character, is some kind of imposition on him. 

[biddypocket]

Yeled wrote...

The Sapient wrote...

danman2424 wrote...

Kordaris wrote...

Obviously if there is gay Shepard, there also should be crossdresser Shepard, with the ability to wear women's clothes and make up.

Hey it's only fair, right? Bioware should be fair across the board and cater to every single person on this earth no matter what their preferences.

It is worth re-reading the OP's initial suggestion. He wants games built around his comfort.  His "comprimise" is to have games built around his beliefs, with an option other's can  select which would add a few additional features to games designed around him. 

Now, I don't argue that any particular game should have gay romance options, or straight romance options, or anything else.  I feel these are artistic choices which should be made for artisitic reasons.  But I do strongly object to the demand that homosexual relationships should be omitted or hidden to prevent people with certain "beliefs" from feeling uncomfortable.  As a straight man who's parents are different races, I am completely at ease with comparing homophobia with racism.  No, race and sexual orientation are not the same thing.  Why, they even hav different names.  But homophbia and racism use the same faulty logic as their basis.  When my parents got married, their marriage was illegal through large regions of the USA.  Would the OP defend a "compromise" in games which prevented sentive racists from seeing options which could lead to them seeing a virtual interracial relationship?  If players wanted, they could change the default so that in addition to the racially pure game, there would be dialog options which could lead to an interracial relationship. 

It is the double standard from the OP which really bothers me. 

I agree 100 percent.  It wasn't too long ago that a femshep/Jacob relationship would have been considered taboo, and you're essentially dealing with a parallel situation.  If Bioware included a toggle that let the player turn the femshep/jacob romance on and off so as not to expose a player who is uncomfortable with interacial relationships to them, I think we'd all agree that such was in very, very poor taste.

Its hard for me to fathom how someone would feel the inclusion of a gay character in the game, and the option for a male sheperd to romance said gay character, is some kind of imposition on him. 

Amen. I think, however, a toggle option could work wtihout begin entirely offensive. For example, instead of there being any default, players would have to choose whether they wanted male, female, or both as romance options from the start.

Blah, this is all BS anyway. I agree. Just incorporate it into the game.

[Yeled]

Kordaris wrote...

Ryuuichi009 wrote...

And don't start with the Liara is asexual because Hudson is wrong.

Ah yes, nothing like a fan telling us that the creators of the game are wrong about a game they created.

Hudson is wrong.  Even if we accept that Liara and other asari are assexual (which the in-game descriptions seem to oppose), femshep is still female and has the potential to romance someone who looks and acts female.   There is also a particular example in ME2 where a human female is surprised by her attraction to another "girl."

Whether or not the asari think of themselves as female, the humans involved are clearly female and engaging in a f/f relationship.

[PyroFreak301]

The Sapient wrote...

danman2424 wrote...

Kordaris wrote...

Obviously if there is gay Shepard, there also should be crossdresser Shepard, with the ability to wear women's clothes and make up.

Hey it's only fair, right? Bioware should be fair across the board and cater to every single person on this earth no matter what their preferences.

It is worth re-reading the OP's initial suggestion. He wants games built around his comfort.  His "comprimise" is to have games built around his beliefs, with an option other's can  select which would add a few additional features to games designed around him. 

Now, I don't argue that any particular game should have gay romance options, or straight romance options, or anything else.  I feel these are artistic choices which should be made for artisitic reasons.  But I do strongly object to the demand that homosexual relationships should be omitted or hidden to prevent people with certain "beliefs" from feeling uncomfortable.  As a straight man who's parents are different races, I am completely at ease with comparing homophobia with racism.  No, race and sexual orientation are not the same thing.  Why, they even hav different names.  But homophbia and racism use the same faulty logic as their basis.  When my parents got married, their marriage was illegal through large regions of the USA.  Would the OP defend a "compromise" in games which prevented sentive racists from seeing options which could lead to them seeing a virtual interracial relationship?  If players wanted, they could change the default so that in addition to the racially pure game, there would be dialog options which could lead to an interracial relationship. 

It is the double standard from the OP which really bothers me.  How is it an imposition on him to encounter and NOT seduce a gay character?  How is it a compromise a compromise?  What about people who don't want to see straight relationships?  Would it be a meeting in the middle if the all the relationships in the game were homosexual, but there was a toggle which would allow for one or two straight options?

This is what I've been trying to argue, you've just said it with a lot more eloquence.

Having the ability to filter out parts which would offend certain users is a bad idea, and could, by extension, be expanded to include race, religion and any other number of controversial subjects that users claim to take offense to. The obvious exception to this would be nudity and violence in games where sensoring these from young people does actually make sense.

[The Sapient]

Hudson is wrong.  Even if we accept that Liara and other asari are assexual (which the in-game descriptions seem to oppose), femshep is still female and has the potential to romance someone who looks and acts female.   There is also a particular example in ME2 where a human female is surprised by her attraction to another "girl."

Whether or not the asari think of themselves as female, the humans involved are clearly female and engaging in a f/f relationship.

You are right that from a human perspective, the Asari are
female, regardless.  Funny how some people are ok with romatic relationships
between different species, as long as the genders are correct. 

And to support the claim that Hudson is wrong., this is from the Codex:

"The asari were the first species to discover the Citadel. When the salarians arrived, it was the asari who proposed the establishment of the Citadel Council to maintain peace throughout the galaxy. Since then, the asari have served as the mediators and centrists of the Council.
An all-female race, the asari reproduce through a form of
parthenogenesis. They can attune their nervous system to that of
another individual of any gender, and of any species, to reproduce.
This capability has led to unseemly and inaccurate rumors about asari
promiscuity."

[Wittand25]

One way to solve this could bew like the following scenario



For the Alliance/Council/Cerberus to fully support Shepard they first ask him to talk to a councelor so that they know that he is mentaly stable.( This interview could also work as a recap of past decisions ) One of the questions could be about Shepard´s sexual preference where you can answer male/female/both if you choose male or both as a male Shepard an additional gay romance option with an npc is unlocked, if you choose female the npc will never bring it up.

[The Sapient]

Wittand25 wrote...

One way to solve this could bew like the following scenario

For the Alliance/Council/Cerberus to fully support Shepard they first ask him to talk to a councelor so that they know that he is mentaly stable.( This interview could also work as a recap of past decisions ) One of the questions could be about Shepard´s sexual preference where you can answer male/female/both if you choose male or both as a male Shepard an additional gay romance option with an npc is unlocked, if you choose female the npc will never bring it up.

I guess the thing is, IMO, that having gay NPC's which the player never persues is no imposition.  I'm in my first playthrough of ME2.  There is one NPC my character is romancing.  The others do not interest him.  I don't need the game to predetermine my preferences and change the NPCs accordingly?  When one of the rejected ladies suggests she is interested, I decline and move on. 

There are a couple ways to look at this from a game design standpoint, I think.  One is that the story should be one where the main character makes choices in a pre-detemined universe. Straight characters are straight.  Gay characters are gay.  And so on.  The other is that the story should be one where things work out the way the player wants.  You choose what kind of relationships you want, and those are the ones that would be available.  I don't feel like the quoted suggestion fits either.  If there are going to be gay characters, let them be gay.  If sexual orientation is going to detemine the existance of romance options, then make all the romance options switchable at the beginning.   I don't like the idea that creating a gay main character would open one NPC for a gay romance, but creating a straight main character would purge the virtual universe of homosexualtiy.

[danman2424]

The Sapient wrote...

danman2424 wrote...

Kordaris wrote...

Obviously if there is gay Shepard, there also should be crossdresser Shepard, with the ability to wear women's clothes and make up.

Hey it's only fair, right? Bioware should be fair across the board and cater to every single person on this earth no matter what their preferences.

It is worth re-reading the OP's initial suggestion. He wants games built around his comfort.  His "comprimise" is to have games built around his beliefs, with an option other's can  select which would add a few additional features to games designed around him. 

Now, I don't argue that any particular game should have gay romance options, or straight romance options, or anything else.  I feel these are artistic choices which should be made for artisitic reasons.  But I do strongly object to the demand that homosexual relationships should be omitted or hidden to prevent people with certain "beliefs" from feeling uncomfortable.  As a straight man who's parents are different races, I am completely at ease with comparing homophobia with racism.  No, race and sexual orientation are not the same thing.  Why, they even hav different names.  But homophbia and racism use the same faulty logic as their basis.  When my parents got married, their marriage was illegal through large regions of the USA.  Would the OP defend a "compromise" in games which prevented sentive racists from seeing options which could lead to them seeing a virtual interracial relationship?  If players wanted, they could change the default so that in addition to the racially pure game, there would be dialog options which could lead to an interracial relationship. 

It is the double standard from the OP which really bothers me.  How is it an imposition on him to encounter and NOT seduce a gay character?  How is it a compromise a compromise?  What about people who don't want to see straight relationships?  Would it be a meeting in the middle if the all the relationships in the game were homosexual, but there was a toggle which would allow for one or two straight options?

An interracial relationships (the very term itself is insulting) is a ridiculous comparison to homosexuality. One being based on the way someone looks, and the other being based on biologically abnormal sexual tendencies. If you dislike someone because of the way they look or how light their skin is, then you are likely a bigot, however if you dislike an action someone takes, like gay sex, incestuous sex, animal sex etc. you are not necessarily a bigot. Any more than someone who dislikes thievery is "bigoted" against thieves.

There are a great number of sexual preferences out there that don't quite fall into the biological standard of man/ woman and penis/vagina that homosexuality can be compared to, but none of that has to do with race. A person of any race can partake in homosexual behavior, but a homosexual cannot just partake in any race.

I am not a religious person, but even the church has always supported interracial marriage, even if the law did not. Why? Because there is a fundamental difference between laying with someone that looks a little different than yourself, and laying with someone or something that biologically does not fit.

You might believe people should just be able to have sex with or marry whatever they want as long as no one else gets hurt, but you have to understand that not everyone goes by that moral code. Society doesn't go by that code.

[PyroFreak301]

danman2424 wrote...
An interracial relationships (the very term itself is insulting) is a ridiculous comparison to homosexuality. One being based on the way someone looks, and the other being based on biologically abnormal sexual tendencies. If you dislike someone because of the way they look or how light their skin is, then you are likely a bigot, however if you dislike an action someone takes, like gay sex, incestuous sex, animal sex etc. you are not necessarily a bigot. Any more than someone who dislikes thievery is "bigoted" against thieves.

I notice you use the word 'abnormal' to describe their sexual tendancies. Tell me, how many people have to find an activity so natural, to the point of being compelled to do so, before it can be considered a norm? The point is society has or still does treat them in similar ways. People are quick to reject what they consider outside the norm without so much as a thought to the person being excluded.

You compare it to incest? Why would that be so wrong if both parties consented (assuming no offspring)? Because of the social stigma attached to it. Bestiality is another issue, getting an animal to consent is a pretty tricky business... or so I hear.

Then you compare it to theivery, which i'm sure most people could morally seperate from gay sex; with theivery, someone gains at anothers expense. Gay sex on the other hand is both benefit to noones expense. The only people offended by it is those who presume it is their business as to what 2 consenting people get up to behind the privacy of closed doors... It's absolutely none of their business.

There are a great number of sexual preferences out there that don't quite fall into the biological standard of man/ woman and penis/vagina that homosexuality can be compared to, but none of that has to do with race. A person of any race can partake in homosexual behavior, but a homosexual cannot just partake in any race.

I dont think it's as much of a choice as you make out. Imagine having to repress your every sexual desire, not being allowed to act on any of them, even if you have found a woman you found physically attractive, cared for and was willing. Yes, they can live a lie, or go celebate their entire life, but would you really wish that upon a person?

I am not a religious person, but even the church has always supported interracial marriage, even if the law did not. Why? Because there is a fundamental difference between laying with someone that looks a little different than yourself, and laying with someone or something that biologically does not fit.

Biologically does not fit? I'm pretty sure things DO fit. To say it doesn't or shouldn't fit would be assuming natural design, which could only lead back to religion, or at least some conclusion that we were designed rather than evolved (I realise religion and evolution are not exclusive). If it was not designed and is just chance... who are we to say it's morally wrong for gay sex to happen the way it does?

The point is, people should be able to do what they want, lay with who they want, eat what they want, smoke what they want, just as long as it doesn't directly affect others in a negative way.

You might believe people should just be able to have sex with or marry whatever they want as long as no one else gets hurt, but you have to understand that not everyone goes by that moral code. Society doesn't go by that code.

This absolute moral code some people follow is outdated. If some people want to follow their own code of morals to avoid hell, thats fine by me. However when they decide to tell other people how to live their lives, and that they are wrong for doing things a certain way and must be excluded, thats when they become biggots in my eyes.

Thankfully, western society as a whole seems to be moving towards a less absolute moral code. Live and let live is how the world should work.

Modifié par PyroFreak301, 09 février 2010 - 03:06 .

[The Sapient]

An interracial relationships (the very term itself is insulting) is a ridiculous comparison to homosexuality. One being based on the way someone looks, and the other being based on biologically abnormal sexual tendencies. If you dislike someone because of the way they look or how light their skin is, then you are likely a bigot, however if you dislike an action someone takes, like gay sex, incestuous sex, animal sex etc. you are not necessarily a bigot. Any more than someone who dislikes thievery is "bigoted" against thieves.

There are a great number of sexual preferences out there that don't quite fall into the biological standard of man/ woman and penis/vagina that homosexuality can be compared to, but none of that has to do with race. A person of any race can partake in homosexual behavior, but a homosexual cannot just partake in any race.

I am not a religious person, but even the church has always supported interracial marriage, even if the law did not. Why? Because there is a fundamental difference between laying with someone that looks a little different than yourself, and laying with someone or something that biologically does not fit.

You might believe people should just be able to have sex with or marry whatever they want as long as no one else gets hurt, but you have to understand that not everyone goes by that moral code. Society doesn't go by that code.

Certainly one can  object to specific acts (such as defending homophobia, sputtering through terrible logic, or revealing a broad ignorance of history and science) without being a bigot. The objections against homosexuality presented here do not qualify as such.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the church". Here in the US, and in America preceding the creation of the USA, many churches and denominations forbid forbid interracial marriages. Even after the Supreme Court struck down all anti-miscegenation, many churches refused to preform interracial marriage ceremonies and would not recognize established interracial marriages is so far as their churches were concerned.  Some still won't participate in such relationships even today.

You say that society does not "go by that code", whatever that might mean. When my parents were first married, polls showed that more than 70% of Americans believed that such marriages should be illegal.  That is far more than oppose legalized gay marriage today. You will forgive me if I don't blindly accept bigotry simply on the basis of the sheer number of bigots in society.

No one is saying that "race" and "sexual orientation" are the same thing,  We are pointing out that homophobia and racism are moral and intellectually equivalent.  The same intellectually bankrupt arguments you hear today against homosexuals were made against people in interracial relationships just 40 years ago in the US.  If you can't see what is wrong, both morally and factually, with the claims made against homosexuals, you really don't understand what is wrong with racism either, because they both rest on the same fundamental ignorance and hatred.

If it makes you feel better, I would also stand up to others who would seek to discriminate against you in the way you seek to discriminate against others.  I even support your right to shout your views from the roof tops.  And that is fully taking into consideration that, unlike homosexuality, the way you choose to use your freedom directly harms society.

Modifié par The Sapient, 09 février 2010 - 04:21 .

[The Sapient]

A very good post Pyro.

PyroFreak301 wrote...
I dont think it's as much of a choice as you make out. Imagine having to repress your every sexual desire, not being allowed to act on any of them, even if you have found a woman you found physically attractive, cared for and was willing. Yes, they can live a lie, or go celebate their entire life, but would you really wish that upon a person?

I think it should be pointed out that sexual orientation is not just about sex.  It is about who you create a certain kind of bond with.  I love my wife all the time, not just when we are involved with sexual activities. I am not asexual when I'm talking to her or watching TV with her, or whatever.  Even if we were sex-free for the rest of our lives, I would be heterosexual.

I feel feel terrible for people who see sexual orientation as nothing more than actual sex.  But I guess that is why they don't understand why homosexuals would want more options for their characters.  The game imitates building relationships.  I don't think many people here are interested in a "have sex with that character" button.

[Taiko Roshi]

Have any of you poofs probed Uranus yet?

[The Demonologist]

Lotsa the homophobic people are a tad too focused on the sex aspect of the relationship.



It's not like gay dudes just have gay orgies all over the gay place, just having a gay time.



Y'know how you might sit around and watch TV with your girlfriend? Play games with her? Go out to dinner? Just... y'know, live?



Yeah. They do that too! Shocking, no?



Now I apologize for any toolishness in that post.

[The Demonologist]

Taiko Roshi wrote...


Have any of you poofs probed Uranus yet?

Really, Commander? <_< 


Heheh. 

[Taiko Roshi]

PyroFreak301 wrote...

danman2424 wrote...
An interracial relationships (the very term itself is insulting) is a ridiculous comparison to homosexuality. One being based on the way someone looks, and the other being based on biologically abnormal sexual tendencies. If you dislike someone because of the way they look or how light their skin is, then you are likely a bigot, however if you dislike an action someone takes, like gay sex, incestuous sex, animal sex etc. you are not necessarily a bigot. Any more than someone who dislikes thievery is "bigoted" against thieves.

I notice you use the word 'abnormal' to describe their sexual tendancies. Tell me, how many people have to find an activity so natural, to the point of being compelled to do so, before it can be considered a norm? The point is society has or still does treat them in similar ways. People are quick to reject what they consider outside the norm without so much as a thought to the person being excluded.

You compare it to incest? Why would that be so wrong if both parties consented (assuming no offspring)? Because of the social stigma attached to it. Bestiality is another issue, getting an animal to consent is a pretty tricky business... or so I hear.

Then you compare it to theivery, which i'm sure most people could morally seperate from gay sex; with theivery, someone gains at anothers expense. Gay sex on the other hand is both benefit to noones expense. The only people offended by it is those who presume it is their business as to what 2 consenting people get up to behind the privacy of closed doors... It's absolutely none of their business.

There are a great number of sexual preferences out there that don't quite fall into the biological standard of man/ woman and penis/vagina that homosexuality can be compared to, but none of that has to do with race. A person of any race can partake in homosexual behavior, but a homosexual cannot just partake in any race.

I dont think it's as much of a choice as you make out. Imagine having to repress your every sexual desire, not being allowed to act on any of them, even if you have found a woman you found physically attractive, cared for and was willing. Yes, they can live a lie, or go celebate their entire life, but would you really wish that upon a person?

I am not a religious person, but even the church has always supported interracial marriage, even if the law did not. Why? Because there is a fundamental difference between laying with someone that looks a little different than yourself, and laying with someone or something that biologically does not fit.

Biologically does not fit? I'm pretty sure things DO fit. To say it doesn't or shouldn't fit would be assuming natural design, which could only lead back to religion, or at least some conclusion that we were designed rather than evolved (I realise religion and evolution are not exclusive). If it was not designed and is just chance... who are we to say it's morally wrong for gay sex to happen the way it does?

The point is, people should be able to do what they want, lay with who they want, eat what they want, smoke what they want, just as long as it doesn't directly affect others in a negative way.

You might believe people should just be able to have sex with or marry whatever they want as long as no one else gets hurt, but you have to understand that not everyone goes by that moral code. Society doesn't go by that code.

This absolute moral code some people follow is outdated. If some people want to follow their own code of morals to avoid hell, thats fine by me. However when they decide to tell other people how to live their lives, and that they are wrong for doing things a certain way and must be excluded, thats when they become biggots in my eyes.

Thankfully, western society as a whole seems to be moving towards a less absolute moral code. Live and let live is how the world should work.

Seriously, you have just spent that entire post telling this guy how to live his life, you don't find that statement a little bit hypocritical?

[The Sapient]

Seriously, you have just spent that entire post telling this guy how to live his life, you don't find that statement a little bit hypocritical?

Really?  Are you actually suggesting that discussing the bad logic used to support, and the actual damage caused by, homophobia is somehow equivalent to supporting actual discrimination?  Wow.

[danman2424]

PyroFreak301 wrote...

danman2424 wrote...
An interracial relationships (the very term itself is insulting) is a ridiculous comparison to homosexuality. One being based on the way someone looks, and the other being based on biologically abnormal sexual tendencies. If you dislike someone because of the way they look or how light their skin is, then you are likely a bigot, however if you dislike an action someone takes, like gay sex, incestuous sex, animal sex etc. you are not necessarily a bigot. Any more than someone who dislikes thievery is "bigoted" against thieves.

I notice you use the word 'abnormal' to describe their sexual tendancies. Tell me, how many people have to find an activity so natural, to the point of being compelled to do so, before it can be considered a norm? The point is society has or still does treat them in similar ways. People are quick to reject what they consider outside the norm without so much as a thought to the person being excluded.

You compare it to incest? Why would that be so wrong if both parties consented (assuming no offspring)? Because of the social stigma attached to it. Bestiality is another issue, getting an animal to consent is a pretty tricky business... or so I hear. 

Then you compare it to theivery, which i'm sure most people could morally seperate from gay sex; with theivery, someone gains at anothers expense. Gay sex on the other hand is both benefit to noones expense. The only people offended by it is those who presume it is their business as to what 2 consenting people get up to behind the privacy of closed doors... It's absolutely none of their business.

There are a great number of sexual preferences out there that don't quite fall into the biological standard of man/ woman and penis/vagina that homosexuality can be compared to, but none of that has to do with race. A person of any race can partake in homosexual behavior, but a homosexual cannot just partake in any race.

I dont think it's as much of a choice as you make out. Imagine having to repress your every sexual desire, not being allowed to act on any of them, even if you have found a woman you found physically attractive, cared for and was willing. Yes, they can live a lie, or go celebate their entire life, but would you really wish that upon a person?

I am not a religious person, but even the church has always supported interracial marriage, even if the law did not. Why? Because there is a fundamental difference between laying with someone that looks a little different than yourself, and laying with someone or something that biologically does not fit.

Biologically does not fit? I'm pretty sure things DO fit. To say it doesn't or shouldn't fit would be assuming natural design, which could only lead back to religion, or at least some conclusion that we were designed rather than evolved (I realise religion and evolution are not exclusive). If it was not designed and is just chance... who are we to say it's morally wrong for gay sex to happen the way it does?

The point is, people should be able to do what they want, lay with who they want, eat what they want, smoke what they want, just as long as it doesn't directly affect others in a negative way.

You might believe people should just be able to have sex with or marry whatever they want as long as no one else gets hurt, but you have to understand that not everyone goes by that moral code. Society doesn't go by that code.

This absolute moral code some people follow is outdated. If some people want to follow their own code of morals to avoid hell, thats fine by me. However when they decide to tell other people how to live their lives, and that they are wrong for doing things a certain way and must be excluded, thats when they become biggots in my eyes.

Thankfully, western society as a whole seems to be moving towards a less absolute moral code. Live and let live is how the world should work.

I don't use the word "abnormal" to describe sexual tendencies that are not shared by the majority. I use it to describe sexual preferences that fly in the face of normal biological standards and science. That is, penis and vagina go together. Two men and two women are not biologically equipped for sex. Nature gave a very clear indication as to how the sexes are matched. Hence, deviation being "abnormal".

The question is, do you condone deviation or not? I know that you are fine with deviation, but many would be hesitant to completely take that stance. Most gay activists would try to put homosexuality on some higher ground than other sexual preferences that deviate from what biology teaches us is the normal sexual partner match up.

That's why I think it's interesting that you don't. Clearly you have thought through the issue more than others and have conclusively arrived at your stance knowing full well what you'd be getting into. Personally, I haven't decided which way I swing on this issue yet. That would depend on how I feel about the idea of a society where men marry other men, mothers marry their sons or daughters, people can hold sexual relationships with animals and any other number of things without fear of being looked down upon. I haven't decided yet if people should be able to do anything they want just because it doesn't appear to hurt anything at first glance.

Modifié par danman2424, 09 février 2010 - 04:56 .

[PyroFreak301]

The Sapient wrote...

A very good post Pyro.

PyroFreak301 wrote...
I dont think it's as much of a choice as you make out. Imagine having to repress your every sexual desire, not being allowed to act on any of them, even if you have found a woman you found physically attractive, cared for and was willing. Yes, they can live a lie, or go celebate their entire life, but would you really wish that upon a person?

I think it should be pointed out that sexual orientation is not just about sex.  It is about who you create a certain kind of bond with.  I love my wife all the time, not just when we are involved with sexual activities. I am not asexual when I'm talking to her or watching TV with her, or whatever.  Even if we were sex-free for the rest of our lives, I would be heterosexual.

I feel feel terrible for people who see sexual orientation as nothing more than actual sex.  But I guess that is why they don't understand why homosexuals would want more options for their characters.  The game imitates building relationships.  I don't think many people here are interested in a "have sex with that character" button.

It's good that you bring this up. A lot of people wont look past the act of gay sex to the relationship behind it, just because it's the physical aspect that abhors them.

Having been brought up in an averagely homophobic family, I can remember what it's like to have felt a certain amount of distain at the thought of 2 guys going at it... the 2 people themselves never crossed my mind. I felt this because I had been conditioned this way growing up, even mild racism rubbed off on me. I like to think I've matured slightly as I've got older to form my own views on such things.

Back to the game, you make a good point of imitating relationship building. I think this is why this whole gay Shepard movement has gained a lot of popularity. I'd argue that everyone projects there own wants of a relationship into a game like this to a degree, thats why theres multiple love interests after, people look for the personality querks they like the most, mix that with physical attraction and you've got a character you genuinely care about. Without a gay option available to people, gay people can't relate to their character the same way I did when my Shepard romanced Tali. That is a large part of the game gone for them... a part of the game none of us should begrudge them having.

[danman2424]

The Sapient wrote...

An interracial relationships (the very term itself is insulting) is a ridiculous comparison to homosexuality. One being based on the way someone looks, and the other being based on biologically abnormal sexual tendencies. If you dislike someone because of the way they look or how light their skin is, then you are likely a bigot, however if you dislike an action someone takes, like gay sex, incestuous sex, animal sex etc. you are not necessarily a bigot. Any more than someone who dislikes thievery is "bigoted" against thieves.

There are a great number of sexual preferences out there that don't quite fall into the biological standard of man/ woman and penis/vagina that homosexuality can be compared to, but none of that has to do with race. A person of any race can partake in homosexual behavior, but a homosexual cannot just partake in any race.

I am not a religious person, but even the church has always supported interracial marriage, even if the law did not. Why? Because there is a fundamental difference between laying with someone that looks a little different than yourself, and laying with someone or something that biologically does not fit.

You might believe people should just be able to have sex with or marry whatever they want as long as no one else gets hurt, but you have to understand that not everyone goes by that moral code. Society doesn't go by that code.

Certainly one can  object to specific acts (such as defending homophobia, sputtering through terrible logic, or revealing a broad ignorance of history and science) without being a bigot. The objections against homosexuality presented here do not qualify as such.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the church". Here in the US, and in America preceding the creation of the USA, many churches and denominations forbid forbid interracial marriages. Even after the Supreme Court struck down all anti-miscegenation, many churches refused to preform interracial marriage ceremonies and would not recognize established interracial marriages is so far as their churches were concerned.  Some still won't participate in such relationships even today.

You say that society does not "go by that code", whatever that might mean. When my parents were first married, polls showed that more than 70% of Americans believed that such marriages should be illegal.  That is far more than oppose legalized gay marriage today. You will forgive me if I don't blindly accept bigotry simply on the basis of the sheer number of bigots in society.

No one is saying that "race" and "sexual orientation" are the same thing,  We are pointing out that homophobia and racism are moral and intellectually equivalent.  The same intellectually bankrupt arguments you hear today against homosexuals were made against people in interracial relationships just 40 years ago in the US.  If you can't see what is wrong, both morally and factually, with the claims made against homosexuals, you really don't understand what is wrong with racism either, because they both rest on the same fundamental ignorance and hatred.

If it makes you feel better, I would also stand up to others who would seek to discriminate against you in the way you seek to discriminate against others.  I even support your right to shout your views from the roof tops.  And that is fully taking into consideration that, unlike homosexuality, the way you choose to use your freedom directly harms society.

I am trying to avoid getting too specific about which church i mean (you know full well which I mean) as any mention of a specific religion can get the thread locked.

I said society in general doesn't go by that moral code. In short, not everyone runs with the flimsy justifications for homosexual marriages and abides by it as some sort of new rule. Despite how many "homophobe" or "bigot" insults are thrown in a shoddy attempt to make non-supporters of homosexual marriage feel like racists, not everyone is going to fall in line with that belief.

Homophobia is the fear of people that engage in sex with members of the same sex, and racism is the hatred of someone that is of a separate race than yours. They are not even close to being morally equivalent.

[The Sapient]

danman2424 wrote....
]I don't use the word "abnormal" to describe sexual tendencies that are not shared by the majority. I use it to describe sexual preferences that fly in the face of normal biological standards and science. That is, penis and vagina go together. Two men and two women are not biologically equipped for sex. Nature gave a very clear indication as to how the sexes are matched. Hence, deviation being "abnormal".

The question is, do you condone deviation or not? I know that you are fine with deviation, but many would be hesitant to completely take that stance. Most gay activists would try to put homosexuality on some higher ground than other sexual preferences that deviate from what biology teaches us is the normal sexual partner match up.

That's why I think it's interesting that you don't. Clearly you have thought through the issue more than others and have conclusively arrived at your stance knowing full well what you'd be getting into. Personally, I haven't decided which way I swing on this issue yet. That would depend on how I feel about the idea of a society where men marry other men, mothers marry their sons or daughters, people can hold sexual relationships with animals and any other number of things without fear of being looked down upon. I haven't decided yet if people should be able to do anything they want just because it doesn't appear to hurt anything at first glance.

Might I ask where you get your "science" from?  The science of biology does not dictate what we are to use our bodies for.  It describes what we use our bodies for.  "The penis and vagina go together" only so much as they are brought together.  Nature doesn't give us indications of how we are to use are body parts.  How we use our body parts is a part of nature.  Using your fingers to write posts on an internet forum is not unnatural.  It is not abnormal.  Any dispassionate observer would just classify it as behavior some members of  ****** sapiens participates in.  And there were ****** sapiens engaging in homosexual sexual activities long, long before anyone had a keyboard.  Homosexuality is found in almost all mammal species.  Do you really think that these organiasms exist outside of nature? 

I think there is another problem with your logic as well.  You seem to think that acceptance of homosexuality implies that all sexual relationships would also have to be accepted.  But that very same logic would have to apply to heterosexual relationships.  If you think it is OK for heterosexuals to have heterosexual sex simply because they want to, don't you have to accept sex with animals?  Or is it just possible that each catagory can be judged on its own merits?