214 réponses à ce sujet

[Nautica773]

FataliTensei wrote...
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.

I'm having a hard time buying a race that looks exactly like a female, carries the same genitalia, refers to themselves with female pronouns, have different stages of life based on antiquated gender ideals and possess almost stereotypical gender expectations are not women. <_<

The Asari were a completely missed opportunity for some awesome gender exploration in the same vein as Left Hand of Darkness. 

[danman2424]

PyroFreak301 wrote...

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.

I doubt the relationship behind would make detractors feel any differently about it.

I saw a documentary called "Animal Passions" about different people who carry on loving, fulfilling relationships with animals that they see as their actual life partners. Somehow I doubt the fact that they really love the animals as more than just sex objects would help wipe the look of disgust off of most peoples' faces.

[arek_celera]

lost lupus wrote...

personally i dont give a damn if they have same sex romance or not its a non facter for me
put it in as long as they dont tie it into an achevement i dont care

It would be a shame to never get the "Can Blaster" Achievement.

[danman2424]

Nautica773 wrote...

FataliTensei wrote...
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.

I'm having a hard time buying a race that looks exactly like a female, carries the same genitalia, refers to themselves with female pronouns, have different stages of life based on antiquated gender ideals and possess almost stereotypical gender expectations are not women. <_<

The Asari were a completely missed opportunity for some awesome gender exploration in the same vein as Left Hand of Darkness. 

To be fair, it is never explained that Asari have the same genitalia as women. Bioware has also implied that many of the Salarians you have met in the games may actually be female and you just don't know it. They compared it to looking at a salamander and being unable to tell what sex it is. So just because you can't tell which Salarian is which sex, it doesn't mean that they are all a race of males.

[The Sapient]

danman2424 wrote...]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.

I really don't know what church you mean.  But if mentioning specific religions get threads locked, then it is best you didn't say.  But if your claim is that religious institutions in general accepted interracial marriage, you are just wrong.  Period. 

I do know what you mean when you talk about the "moral code" of society.  The moral code of society was far more opposed to interracial marriage 40 years ago than it is against gay marriage today.  Homophobes use the same illogical, hate based rhetoric today that racists used back then. You don't think my parents didn't hear that their marriage would lead to beastiality?  The break down of the family?  That is was a violation of nature? 

Do you think it was wrong for my parents to be married in opposition to societies moral code?  That the state of Minnesota should not have allowed it?  Should such relationships been stripped from movies and literature?  Don't just say such racism would be wrong because you are expected to.  Thing about why it is wrong.  Think about why your "societies moral code" argument does not work.  When you get why racisism is wrong, you will understand why homophobia is wrong.

And your definition of homophobia and racism are not very accurate.  The key is not fear or hatred.  It is discrimination. 

[Nautica773]

danman2424 wrote...
To be fair, it is never explained that Asari have the same genitalia as women. Bioware has also implied that many of the Salarians you have met in the games may actually be female and you just don't know it. They compared it to looking at a salamander and being unable to tell what sex it is. So just because you can't tell which Salarian is which sex, it doesn't mean that they are all a race of males.

I can accept that we may have met female Salarians without knowing it because they are reptilian. The problem with Asari is, we're aware that they have a belly button which suggests umbilical cord and, given the proportions and make up of their outer body, implies a strong human method of reproduction. 

I suppose we haven't seen them without their pants, but there is going to be some wacky sudden divergent evolution to make it so they aren't similar to human females.

[PyroFreak301]

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".

If the only aim you look at is reproduction, which from an evolutionary viewpoint is the only purpose that matters, then yes, it is wrong as it wouldn't work. But then condoms and other birth control methods become immoral by extension.

From a pleasure perspective, there is no wrong answer; I'm sure it feels good in any hole. I'd go on to argue that straight couples have sex predominantly for pleasure, unless they are trying to reproduce in which case pleasure is an added bonus. Saying it's right for straight couples yet wrong for gay couples when their only aim is pleasure is a contradictory stance to take.

The thing with the natural order of things is that order is often just an illusion. Nature cannot give an indication, it cannot tell us how things should be done, all it can do is create and let us figure out how it works. If gay people find other men attractive, they work with what nature gives them.

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.

It depends on the deviance. If the only harm that comes out of it is other peoples disdain, then I'd argue for that person to do what he enjoys. If a deviance harms anyone in a more direct manor, then I'd generally be against it. Using rape as a bit of an extreme example, some people will only find pleasure if the woman (or man) doesn't consent and resists. This is a deviance that shouldn't ever be accepted by anyone. Same can be extended to pedophila... as soon as it starts affecting other people is the point where it stops becoming okay.

For the examples you used, I dont see why two men shouldn't be able to be in the same state of loving relationship as a straight couple yet refused the same legal rights. For mothers marrying sons and daughters, thats a bit of a weird one, I'm sure psychologists would have a field day working out why a relationship took a turn like that, I dont really know what I think of that. Reproducing would obviously cause a lot of harm as inbreeding is dangerous with relatives, let alone direct links on a genetics tree. As for animals, you can never really get consent from an animal, but they're consious enough to know what happening, so no, I would consider bestiality off limits aswell.

However comparing homosexuality to incest or bestiality doesn't hold up under scrutiny anyway, they're completely different.

Modifié par PyroFreak301, 09 février 2010 - 05:51 .

[ERJAK2]

I Pyrrhus I wrote...

Let me start by saying that this thread is not intended to be another debate on whether or not  these romance options should be included in the game. What I want out of this thread is to determine the support or opposition of this compromise from each side of the debate. Also this suggestion is aimed more at ME3 because I do anicipate (or desire) a post-release change.

That said, this is my proposition:

The base game is without same/sex romance options, players will have no fear of inadvertantly encountering such options "AND" character interactions will not insinuate that such options even exist through body language or tone of voice. However, in the options menu there will be an option to enable same/sex romances. This option will be off by default to allow those who wish to avoid such things, to do so without having to worry about it at all. Should the option be enabled, there will be the inclusion of character interactions that satisfy the criteria of those who support same/sex romances.

The reason that I recommend "off by default" is that I believe this to be a greater concession by the opposition. I also do not believe that this imposes upon the same/sex supporters because in reality this is no different than a gender selection option. Having the default favor the majority is logical rather than discriminatory.

*Edit*
There is also a suggestion that romances be toggled (by individual NPC) in options rather than orientation. Not my first choice of alternatives personally, but a reasonable alternative none-the-less.
*Edit*

Please refrain from posting pro-same/sex or anti-same/sex politics in this thread, and instead post which side of the fence you are on and why you do (or don't) support this compromise.

I'll start:
I am from the opposition to same/sex romances perspective. I support this compromise because, despite having my way currently, there is no gaurantee that it will stay that way. Rather than risk losing outright in the future, I prefer a solution that may appease same/sex supporters while at the same time, not forcing their perspective upon me and those who share my perspective. Furthermore, such a compromise may further my goal by allowing for characters in question to be "fully straight" rather than ambiguous in the default game.

I respect this position, your forward thinking and your ability to accept compromise. I would try for a smoother option than this, but hey, whatever.

I would also like an option to turn off opposite sex romances as the "flirty" femshep greeting to Jacob is kinda unpleasant.

[danman2424]

PyroFreak301 wrote...

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".

If the only aim you look at is reproduction, which from an evolutionary viewpoint is the only purpose that matters, then yes, it is wrong as it wouldn't work. But then condoms and other birth control methods become immoral by extension.

From a pleasure perspective, there is no wrong answer; I'm sure it feels good in any hole. I'd go on to argue that straight couples have sex predominantly for pleasure, unless they are trying to reproduce in which case pleasure is an added bonus. Saying it's right for straight couples yet wrong for gay couples when their only aim is pleasure is a contradictory stance to take.

The thing with the natural order of things is that order is often just an illusion. Nature cannot give an indication, it cannot tell us how things should be done, all it can do is create and let us figure out how it works. If gay people find other men attractive, they work with what nature gives them.

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.

It depends on the deviance. If the only harm that comes out of it is other peoples distain, then I'd argue for that person to do what he enjoys. If a deviance harms anyone in a more direct manor, then I'd generally be against it. Using rape as a bit of an extreme example, some people will only find pleasure if the woman (or man) doesn't
consent and resists. This is a deviance that shouldn't ever be accepted by anyone. Same can be extended to pedophila... as soon as it starts affecting other people is the point where it stops becoming okay.

For the examples you used, I dont see why two men shouldn't be able to be in the same state of loving relationship as a straight couple yet refused the same legal rights. For mothers marrying sons and daughters, thats a bit of a weird one, I'm sure psychologists would have a field day working out why a relationship took a turn like that, I dont really know what I think of that. Reproducing would obviously cause a lot of harm as inbreeding is dangerous with relatives, let alone direct links on a genetics tree. As for animals, you can never really get consent from an animal, but they're consious enough to know what happening, so no, I would consider bestiality off limits aswell.

However comparing homosexuality to incest or bestiality doesn't hold up under scrutiny anyway, they're completely different.

Whether the goal is reproduction or not. Biologically we are given a VERY clear indication as to how nature has intended sexual partners to be matched up.

You say that gay people have to work with what nature gives them, but then further down you apparently think incestuous people or those that have an attraction to animals should take what nature gave them and just throw it out the window. Now you are starting to sound like the hypocrites I mentioned. I'm disappointed.

Reproducing does not have to be the goal in an incestuous relationship. Suppose the relationship did involve a mother and a daughter. How exactly is there any chance of inbreeding there? Would you drop your stance and say "Oh well, nothing bad gonna happen there. Let 'em do it."? It's also a little offensive to those people that you assume psychology has anything to do with it. Love is just love, right? You don't decide who you love. Surely that makes it natural.

Animals can certainly consent to sex. If you'd like to experiment, why not drop your pants, get down on all fours, and see if the family dog will have a shot at you?

I'm a little disappointed because I thought you were one of the few that really understood their stance and stuck by it. Now I see you're just as bigoted against other sexual preferences as the very people you call bigoted for not agreeing with homosexuality.

[Nautica773]

danman2424 wrote...
Whether the goal is reproduction or not. Biologically we are given a VERY clear indication as to how nature has intended sexual partners to be matched up.

Really? Biologically, there's almost countless example of animals with very different reproduction strategies all engaging in homosexual activity. Even animals that don't copulate for pleasure can there be examples of couplings between no reproductive specimens. 

Infact, there's a population dynamic theory that, as a method of controlling sustainable group sizes, the probabilities of homosexual organisms appears as animals reach the threshold of sustainable mass for their environment. 

You say that gay people have to work with what nature gives them, but then further down you apparently think incestuous people or those that have an attraction to animals should take what nature gave them and just throw it out the window. Now you are starting to sound like the hypocrites I mentioned. I'm disappointed.

From a moralistic view, though, one act is between two consenting adults whereas the others (bestiality, incest) are not. 

[JigPig]

Nautica773 wrote...

danman2424 wrote...
Whether the goal is reproduction or not. Biologically we are given a VERY clear indication as to how nature has intended sexual partners to be matched up.

Really? Biologically, there's almost countless example of animals with very different reproduction strategies all engaging in homosexual activity. Even animals that don't copulate for pleasure can there be examples of couplings between no reproductive specimens. 

That argument is stupid. As ****.
Animals also frequently engage in incest with close family and have intercourse with animals from other species, are you saying that is ok?

I'm all for the inclusion of Same sex romances, you guys should have your fun too, but please, don't bring contrived arguments in and beat the dead horse.

Modifié par JigPig, 09 février 2010 - 06:09 .

[danman2424]

Nautica773 wrote...

danman2424 wrote...
Whether the goal is reproduction or not. Biologically we are given a VERY clear indication as to how nature has intended sexual partners to be matched up.

Really? Biologically, there's almost countless example of animals with very different reproduction strategies all engaging in homosexual activity. Even animals that don't copulate for pleasure can there be examples of couplings between no reproductive specimens. 

Infact, there's a population dynamic theory that, as a method of controlling sustainable group sizes, the probabilities of homosexual organisms appears as animals reach the threshold of sustainable mass for their environment. 

You say that gay people have to work with what nature gives them, but then further down you apparently think incestuous people or those that have an attraction to animals should take what nature gave them and just throw it out the window. Now you are starting to sound like the hypocrites I mentioned. I'm disappointed.

From a moralistic view, though, one act is between two consenting adults whereas the others (bestiality, incest) are not. 

Animal habits and Human Biology are completely separate categories, but I will humor you and add that inter-species sexual acts (bestiality) and incest occur in the wild as well. They're animals. Your dog will hump the staircase, the toy car, your leg, the cat, and even you if you get down and give him a shot at it. However, animal behavior should have no bearing whatsoever on our society. We could find justification for quite a few things if we look to the animal kingdom for guidance.

I'm sorry, I've always seen the "but animals are gay too" argument as one of the most myopic and poorly thought out arguments that arises in discussions like this.

As for your argument that animals or people of the same bloodline cannot consent ... see above.

[JigPig]

danman2424 wrote...

Nautica773 wrote...

danman2424 wrote...
Whether the goal is reproduction or not. Biologically we are given a VERY clear indication as to how nature has intended sexual partners to be matched up.

Really? Biologically, there's almost countless example of animals with very different reproduction strategies all engaging in homosexual activity. Even animals that don't copulate for pleasure can there be examples of couplings between no reproductive specimens. 

Infact, there's a population dynamic theory that, as a method of controlling sustainable group sizes, the probabilities of homosexual organisms appears as animals reach the threshold of sustainable mass for their environment. 

You say that gay people have to work with what nature gives them, but then further down you apparently think incestuous people or those that have an attraction to animals should take what nature gave them and just throw it out the window. Now you are starting to sound like the hypocrites I mentioned. I'm disappointed.

From a moralistic view, though, one act is between two consenting adults whereas the others (bestiality, incest) are not. 

Animal habits and Human Biology are completely separate categories, but I will humor you and add that inter-species sexual acts (bestiality) and incest occur in the wild as well. They're animals. Your dog will hump the staircase, the toy car, your leg, the cat, and even you if you get down and give him a shot at it. However, animal behavior should have no bearing whatsoever on our society. We could find justification for quite a few things if we look to the animal kingdom for guidance.

I'm sorry, I've always seen the "but animals are gay too" argument as one of the most myopic and poorly thought out arguments that arises in discussions like this.

As for your argument that animals or people of the same bloodline cannot consent ... see above.

Meh, beat you by a few seconds but you said it better.

[Nautica773]

danman2424 wrote...
I'm sorry, I've always seen the "but animals are gay too" argument as one of the most myopic and poorly thought out arguments that arises in discussions like this.

As for your argument that animals or people of the same bloodline cannot consent ... see above.

Consider it what you will, but the 'that's the way nature intended us' is just as contrived.

Nature didn't intend anything. Random mutation and survivability created what it did without a plan, purpose or final goal. To try and draw a moral stance from 'Nature's Design' is a flawed argument since nature is flawed itself. 

Familial consent is a tricky position. A mother is in a position of power over her children. Much like sex with an employee as a senior manager is considered immoral. The 'consent' of the individual is in question if there is reasonable cause to suspect that one individual felt they had to differ to their superior.

Modifié par Nautica773, 09 février 2010 - 06:16 .

[ERJAK2]

Please do not reply to Danman under any circumstances, no good will come of it.

[JigPig]

ERJAK2 wrote...

Please do not reply to Danman under any circumstances, no good will come of it.

Because he disagrees with you?

[ERJAK2]

JigPig wrote...

ERJAK2 wrote...

Please do not reply to Danman under any circumstances, no good will come of it.

Because he disagrees with you?

No, because I've seen him on dozens of these threads before, his only goal is to incite enough anger that the thread gets closed down.

With all due respect, I have had more experience dealing with these threads and him specifically than probably any other individual on these boards. As long as he is here this thread will be off topic and the discussion will be stagnated to useless debates about necrophilia and homosexuality in animals. It's best just to ignore him. 

[The Sapient]

danman2424 wrote...Whether the goal is reproduction or not. Biologically we are given a VERY clear indication as to how nature has intended sexual partners to be matched up.

You need to make up your mind. You claim to base your views on science, but when asked to expand upon that, you give us this sort of mystical nonsense.  Please explain how nature has intentions.  I happen to be in ecology, and am facinated by your "science".  How can I use science to determe what nature "intends"?  Did nature intend for me to own a computer?  Did it intend for me to eat corn syrup?  Please send me your scientific methodology so I can check these things.

danman2424 wrote...
You say that gay people have to work with what nature gives them, but then further down you apparently think incestuous people or those that have an attraction to animals should take what nature gave them and just throw it out the window. Now you are starting to sound like the hypocrites I mentioned. I'm disappointed.

Reproducing does not have to be the goal in an incestuous relationship. Suppose the relationship did involve a mother and a daughter. How exactly is there any chance of inbreeding there? Would you drop your stance and say "Oh well, nothing bad gonna happen there. Let 'em do it."? It's also a little offensive to those people that you assume psychology has anything to do with it. Love is just love, right? You don't decide who you love. Surely that makes it natural.

Animals can certainly consent to sex. If you'd like to experiment, why not drop your pants, get down on all fours, and see if the family dog will have a shot at you?

I'm a little disappointed because I thought you were one of the few that really understood their stance and stuck by it. Now I see you're just as bigoted against other sexual preferences as the very people you call bigoted for not agreeing with homosexuality.

Since the only "scientific" critera you have given to justify your homophobia is that "the penis and vagina go together", surely it is your philosophy that allows for incest and beastiality.  The idea of informed concent is clearly not part of your considerations on this matter, so it is little wonder that you can grasp the consistent logic of the anti-bigots here.

[Nautica773]

ERJAK2 wrote...
No, because I've seen him on dozens of these threads before, his only goal is to incite enough anger that the thread gets closed down.

With all due respect, I have had more experience dealing with these threads and him specifically than probably any other individual on these boards. As long as he is here this thread will be off topic and the discussion will be stagnated to useless debates about necrophilia and homosexuality in animals. It's best just to ignore him. 

The arguments are logically flawed to an almost unbearable degree. Filled with the typical fallacies and empty phrases that are usually bandied about in these discussions. I shall endeavour to steer clear of the ones not interested in debate but just enjoy reading their own words. 

[JigPig]

ERJAK2 wrote...

JigPig wrote...

ERJAK2 wrote...

Please do not reply to Danman under any circumstances, no good will come of it.

Because he disagrees with you?

No, because I've seen him on dozens of these threads before, his only goal is to incite enough anger that the thread gets closed down.

With all due respect, I have had more experience dealing with these threads and him specifically than probably any other individual on these boards. As long as he is here this thread will be off topic and the discussion will be stagnated to useless debates about necrophilia and homosexuality in animals. It's best just to ignore him. 

From where I stand you look like the one inciting anger.
He was responding to someone, intelligently ( to each his own I suppose), you come waltzing in and telling people not to reply to him. That's something best left to the moderators, report him, if you think he's trolling, and be done with it.
Oh well, I'm done with this thread. It's like the 200th same sex thread this week.

Modifié par JigPig, 09 février 2010 - 06:31 .

[ERJAK2]

The Sapient wrote...

danman2424 wrote...Whether the goal is reproduction or not. Biologically we are given a VERY clear indication as to how nature has intended sexual partners to be matched up.

You need to make up your mind. You claim to base your views on science, but when asked to expand upon that, you give us this sort of mystical nonsense.  Please explain how nature has intentions.  I happen to be in ecology, and am facinated by your "science".  How can I use science to determe what nature "intends"?  Did nature intend for me to own a computer?  Did it intend for me to eat corn syrup?  Please send me your scientific methodology so I can check these things.

danman2424 wrote...
You say that gay people have to work with what nature gives them, but then further down you apparently think incestuous people or those that have an attraction to animals should take what nature gave them and just throw it out the window. Now you are starting to sound like the hypocrites I mentioned. I'm disappointed.

Reproducing does not have to be the goal in an incestuous relationship. Suppose the relationship did involve a mother and a daughter. How exactly is there any chance of inbreeding there? Would you drop your stance and say "Oh well, nothing bad gonna happen there. Let 'em do it."? It's also a little offensive to those people that you assume psychology has anything to do with it. Love is just love, right? You don't decide who you love. Surely that makes it natural.

Animals can certainly consent to sex. If you'd like to experiment, why not drop your pants, get down on all fours, and see if the family dog will have a shot at you?

I'm a little disappointed because I thought you were one of the few that really understood their stance and stuck by it. Now I see you're just as bigoted against other sexual preferences as the very people you call bigoted for not agreeing with homosexuality.

Since the only "scientific" critera you have given to justify your homophobia is that "the penis and vagina go together", surely it is your philosophy that allows for incest and beastiality.  The idea of informed concent is clearly not part of your considerations on this matter, so it is little wonder that you can grasp the consistent logic of the anti-bigots here.

Please do not respond to Danman unless(as a concession to jigpig) he contributes a reasonable ON TOPIC argument that does not discuss the morality of homosexuality/necrophilia/bestiality/xenophilia/etc.

[JigPig]

ERJAK2 wrote...
Please do not respond to Danman unless(as a concession to jigpig) he contributes a reasonable ON TOPIC argument that does not discuss the morality of homosexuality/necrophilia/bestiality/xenophilia/etc.

There ya go, lol.

[ERJAK2]

JigPig wrote...

ERJAK2 wrote...

JigPig wrote...

ERJAK2 wrote...

Please do not reply to Danman under any circumstances, no good will come of it.

Because he disagrees with you?

No, because I've seen him on dozens of these threads before, his only goal is to incite enough anger that the thread gets closed down.

With all due respect, I have had more experience dealing with these threads and him specifically than probably any other individual on these boards. As long as he is here this thread will be off topic and the discussion will be stagnated to useless debates about necrophilia and homosexuality in animals. It's best just to ignore him. 

From where I stand you look like the one inciting anger.
He was responding to someone, intelligently ( to each his own I suppose), you come waltzing in and telling people not to reply to him. That's something best left to the moderators, report him, if you think he's trolling, and be done with it.
Oh well, I'm done with this thread. It's like the 200th same sex thread this week.

Regardless of the intelligence level and validity of the argument(which is always subjective) if it is not on topic, it should not be discussed here.

Modifié par ERJAK2, 09 février 2010 - 06:34 .

[The Sapient]

ERJAK2 wrote...

JigPig wrote...

ERJAK2 wrote...

Please do not reply to Danman under any circumstances, no good will come of it.

Because he disagrees with you?

No, because I've seen him on dozens of these threads before, his only goal is to incite enough anger that the thread gets closed down.

With all due respect, I have had more experience dealing with these threads and him specifically than probably any other individual on these boards. As long as he is here this thread will be off topic and the discussion will be stagnated to useless debates about necrophilia and homosexuality in animals. It's best just to ignore him.

Really?  Oh well.  I have to admit that it is hard not to shine some morality on rhetoric straight out of the Klan manual.  But I don't want to get thread closed down either.  At least he has stopped pretending he didn't borrow his homophobic "logic" from his racist predecessors

[sherban1988]

I am against this compromise, because honestly, I think all this is ridiculous. Not the idea itself, but rather the fact that same sex romances are treated like taboo.

I understand having a menu option to alter the game for violent games, like Gears of War 2, where you're not far from killing puppies with chainsaws and laughing about it, but this? Oy... it's the 2010 for crying out loud!! Aren't we past this?