214 réponses à ce sujet

[danman2424]

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. 

These threads are never on-topic to begin with. People create these threads as masked poll threads hoping to get a large amount of people in one place agreeing on a single agenda. Occasionally you get someone in here telling you they are against homosexual relationships and then you all say "ignore the troll" and then wait for people to come in and simply type "I support gay relationships in this video game" as if that constitutes actual discussion on a board for discussion.

Then when someone debates the topic intelligently, you argue with them until you run out of flimsy justifications and excuses, at which point you say "This person won't listen to reason. Ignore them and lets go back to all agreeing with each other. It's much less stressful for me that way".

[ERJAK2]

sherban1988 wrote...

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?

For future reference, this^ is a template of a constructive response(minus the pathos appeal). Even if it had been in the negative, the fact that it is on topic is enough.

an example of an acceptable negative argument(I do not agree with the following.) I don't like the compromise idea because I believe that having this option creates an unnecessary load on game developers and voice actors.

My actual belief, regardless of whether or not we get a same-sex romance option, there should be an option to turn off any romance option, so I do not have to avoid specific characters(Jacob) in order to not be squicked by overly flirty/out of character, dialogue/body language from shepard. This applies to Jack of the Msheps as well(so I have heard) 

[The Sapient]

danman2424 wrote...

Then when someone debates the topic intelligently, you argue with them until you run out of flimsy justifications and excuses, at which point you say "This person won't listen to reason. Ignore them and lets go back to all agreeing with each other. It's much less stressful for me that way".

Can I just point out how funny this is?  Your "intellegent" argument is that "science" nature "intends" for everyone to be heterosexual.  As a person who is immersed in science every day, I can tell you that  making stuff up about concious decision making of an abstraction like "nature" to explain away why your personal philosophies can't be justified is not science.  


I will also note that it is you who is consistantly running from questions put to you. 

[ERJAK2]

The Sapient wrote...

danman2424 wrote...

Then when someone debates the topic intelligently, you argue with them until you run out of flimsy justifications and excuses, at which point you say "This person won't listen to reason. Ignore them and lets go back to all agreeing with each other. It's much less stressful for me that way".

Can I just point out how funny this is?  Your "intellegent" argument is that "science" nature "intends" for everyone to be heterosexual.  As a person who is immersed in science every day, I can tell you that  making stuff up about concious decision making of an abstraction like "nature" to explain away why your personal philosophies can't be justified is not science.  


I will also note that it is you who is consistantly running from questions put to you. 

Please do not respond to Danman unless he poses a valid, on topic argument. Any discussion about the nature of debate or any misconceptions there of is not acceptable.

[The Sapient]

ERJAK2 wrote...

Please do not respond to Danman unless he poses a valid, on topic argument. Any discussion about the nature of debate or any misconceptions there of is not acceptable.

No offense to you, but bringing fact and morality to those drowning in ignorance and hate is more important to me than staying on topic.  Unless you are a mod, in which case I will certainly abide by your rules.

[danman2424]

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.

First of all, I never took any stance on the debate of whether homosexuality is right or wrong. You try to pass off that because I offer an opposing viewpoint, that I am a racist and I believe all gays should be burned or hanged.

In actuality, I have not decided how I feel yet. All I have from the pro-gay side is the same old justification being that people should be able to lay whatever they want as long as they're not hurting anyone. Under that justification, there are quite a few things that fall under. Most of which are things the pro-gays are immediately ready to scoff at just as quickly as people have scoffed at them for years.

The whole "what nature intends" point was to show that biologically, we have a very clear reference as to the way things are "supposed" to be. You either agree that this is the only way things should be (male/female relationships), or you leave yourself open to deviation. However, if you leave it open to deviation, and condemn everything that deviates from the biological standard except the one that fits your agenda, then you are a hypocrite, and really haven't thought the issue through well enough before arriving to a conclusive stance.

I thought Pyro was one of the few that really understood his position on the matter. You either condone deviation or condemn it, and he chose to condone it. I don't think that stance necessarily is wrong but he knew where he stood. At least I thought he did.

Modifié par danman2424, 09 février 2010 - 07:09 .

[massive_effect]

After playing ME1 and 2, my opinion is that any same-sex stuff is really awkward. It's one thing to have a pillow fight, but it gets really awkward when the relationship becomes serious. It would be nice to see somebody recognize that sex is for having children and that it's better to be married.



It is a fact that the vast majority of ME players are men. This is the whole reason for the female NPCs having relationships with female Shepard. It would be best if the female Shepard was eliminated, since she is really just feminine polygons in a masculine role.

[Taiko Roshi]

ERJAK2 wrote...

sherban1988 wrote...

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?

For future reference, this^ is a template of a constructive response(minus the pathos appeal). Even if it had been in the negative, the fact that it is on topic is enough.

an example of an acceptable negative argument(I do not agree with the following.) I don't like the compromise idea because I believe that having this option creates an unnecessary load on game developers and voice actors.

My actual belief, regardless of whether or not we get a same-sex romance option, there should be an option to turn off any romance option, so I do not have to avoid specific characters(Jacob) in order to not be squicked by overly flirty/out of character, dialogue/body language from shepard. This applies to Jack of the Msheps as well(so I have heard) 

So let me get this straight. Not only are you trying to frame the reference for those poster who disagree with you, but with no other justification than "this is acceptable" you dismiss anyone else who procedes from a rational and plausible position to refute not only your opinions as spurious but questions your social agenda.  Nice try, fascism is fascism, regardless of whether it is progressive or conservative. You epitimize everything that is wrong with PC culture and are a true example of thought policing and why progressives are more dangerous than fundamental christians!

Modifié par Taiko Roshi, 09 février 2010 - 07:43 .

[biddypocket]

Ryuuichi009 wrote...

massive_effect wrote...

After playing ME1 and 2, my opinion is that any same-sex stuff is really awkward. It's one thing to have a pillow fight, but it gets really awkward when the relationship becomes serious. It would be nice to see somebody recognize that sex is for having children and that it's better to be married.

It is a fact that the vast majority of ME players are men. This is the whole reason for the female NPCs having relationships with female Shepard. It would be best if the female Shepard was eliminated, since she is really just feminine polygons in a masculine role.

I really hope that's this

haha....Yeah, I...I....I d....I don't.....I don't even know how to resond to that. That's just idiotic. The fact that one believes a lesbian relationship is meant for the sole purpose of male pleasure is....it's just....just....ju...

I'm dumbfounded. . Really? Rwwweally?

[PyroFreak301]

danman2424 wrote...
The whole "what nature intends" point was to show that biologically, we have a very clear reference as to the way things are "supposed" to be. You either agree that this is the only way things should be (male/female relationships), or you leave yourself open to deviation. However, if you leave it open to deviation, and condemn everything that deviates from the biological standard except the one that fits your agenda, then you are a hypocrite, and really haven't thought the issue through well enough before arriving to a conclusive stance.

I thought Pyro was one of the few that really understood his position on the matter. You either condone deviation or condemn it, and he chose to condone it. I don't think that stance necessarily is wrong but he knew where he stood. At least I thought he did.

When you throw comparisons at me which involve comparing homosexuality with incest with bestiality, of course I'm not going to stand by and give them all an OK. And I dont see how not having every issue worked out in my personal philosophy comprimises my view. A deviation of sexual attraction to other peoples letterboxes should be okay by me if you're so quick to count my view to accept anything that is of sexual nature.

Inbreeding caused by incest is bad for society, anyone with basic scientific knowledge can tell us that it will directly affect offspring and weaken genepools, so they have the potential to do more harm that good. Thats my issue with incest on a large scale. For your mother and daughter example, that's still a bit of a mind**** for me, it goes against every nurturing instict we should have. With that being said, if both are old enough to consent and are both of solid mind, then I wouldnt take offense to it personally.

Bestiality is an even further stretch, if you wanna drop your pants and let your dog do its thing, that's fine by me. But the moment you start assuming consent and start taking it to your dog, thats when it becomes wrong.

As far as the nature argument goes, it basically comes down to external design (i.e. God(s)) or the illusion of design (i.e. it's all here by chance), I can see merits to both sides of the arguments.

If you beleive nature is designed, you are able to impose design upon it thus creating right and wrongs. This in itself raises more questions: Why would homosexuality even exist if it's not part of the design? Who are we humans to impose our ideals of designs onto a nature we did not create ourselves? Who are we humans to presume stewardship over our world and nature and police which is the right and wrong way to do things, using our own perception of purpose as our laws?

However if you beleive everything is here by chance without the input of an outside creator, anything that appears to have been designed or ordered is just an illusion of design. Things were not designed to work a certain way, so to impose your own order would be a massive logical fallacy, an arrogant one at that.

You also use the argument that we'll only use what fits our own agenda? I have no agenda for being pro-gay. I'm not gay myself, so any large scale cultural acceptance or passing laws wouldn't affect me in anyway. I'm sure this is true for a lot of people who simply argue the cause simply to see equality among men.

Anyway, my post steers well off into philosophy territory, threads often never come back from there.

Modifié par PyroFreak301, 09 février 2010 - 03:37 .

[The Sapient]

danman2424 wrote...

First of all, I never took any stance on the debate of whether homosexuality is right or wrong. You try to pass off that because I offer an opposing viewpoint, that I am a racist and I believe all gays should be burned or hanged.

I didn't say you were a racist.  I said you use the same logic racists use, and this shows you don't really understand what is wrong with racism.  I don't believe for a second you are just trying to figure out where you stand on this issue.  You show no interest in putting even a trivial amount of thought into it.  Rather, you just mindlesslyparrot the rhetoric you can find at any hate site.

danman2424 wrote...
In actuality, I have not decided how I feel yet. All I have from the pro-gay side is the same old justification being that people should be able to lay whatever they want as long as they're not hurting anyone. Under that justification, there are quite a few things that fall under. Most of which are things the pro-gays are immediately ready to scoff at just as quickly as people have scoffed at them for years.

The whole "what nature intends" point was to show that biologically, we have a very clear reference as to the way things are "supposed" to be. You either agree that this is the only way things should be (male/female relationships), or you leave yourself open to deviation. However, if you leave it open to deviation, and condemn everything that deviates from the biological standard except the one that fits your agenda, then you are a hypocrite, and really haven't thought the issue through well enough before arriving to a conclusive stance.

First of all, you need to stop using the word "biology" in association with your personal nature based mysticism.  You have every right to believe and say that nature is some purpose driven entity that wants you to behave in a certain way.  But you do not have the right to demand that others participate in your mysticism.  And your mysticism has nothing at all to do with biology.

There is no such thing as a "biological standard".  Biological traits and individual behavior within a species span ranges.  Variation is not a violation of biology.  It is omnipresent in biology.  Homosexual behavior is a part of biological reality.  Your claim that biology is in violation of biology is nonsensical.  When your personal philosophies do not match reality, the problem is not with reality.

danman2424 wrote...I thought Pyro was one of the few that really understood his position on the matter. You either condone deviation or condemn it, and he chose to condone it. I don't think that stance necessarily is wrong but he knew where he stood. At least I thought he did.

Again, Pyro's position is clear and consistent.  Sure, it doesn't fit into your strange mysticism.  But he is under no obligation to purge his knowledge base until it is sparse enough for your logic to apply.

However, it is certainly fair to apply your personal philosophies to you.  You say that condoning any "deviation" requires condoning all "deviation".  Since typing on a Mass Effect is a deviation from the norm, you obviously condone deviation.  And that means you support pedophilia.  To be clear, I think your logic is garbage, and obviously so.  But you clearly believe your logic, and try to live by it.  So I will take you at your word, and accept you condone all "deviation". 

[PyroFreak301]

The Sapient wrote...

Since typing on a Mass Effect is a deviation from the norm, you obviously condone deviation.  And that means you support pedophilia.

I actually spat my drink laughing at this. What a brilliant example of just how faulty logic can be followed to its illogical extreme.

[Nautica773]

danman2424 wrote...
The whole "what nature intends" point was to show that biologically, we have a very clear reference as to the way things are "supposed" to be. You either agree that this is the only way things should be (male/female relationships), or you leave yourself open to deviation. However, if you leave it open to deviation, and condemn everything that deviates from the biological standard except the one that fits your agenda, then you are a hypocrite, and really haven't thought the issue through well enough before arriving to a conclusive stance.

This is neither logical or even accurate. I don't think you understand the use of deviance in this situation. Unless you're going to reclassify lots of sexual activity  that are normal as "deviance." From your definition, only sex done to procreate is natural. Everything else is not. That would include oral stimulation, masturbation, even condom use since it avoids 'what nature intends.' It would suggest that sex with a pregnant woman is deviance. 

To say that only sex with a biological imperative on procreation is the only natural form of sex is both being uneducated about the situation and narrowing your view to a very small acceptable range of activities. 

[danman2424]

The Sapient wrote...

danman2424 wrote...

First of all, I never took any stance on the debate of whether homosexuality is right or wrong. You try to pass off that because I offer an opposing viewpoint, that I am a racist and I believe all gays should be burned or hanged.

I didn't say you were a racist.  I said you use the same logic racists use, and this shows you don't really understand what is wrong with racism.  I don't believe for a second you are just trying to figure out where you stand on this issue.  You show no interest in putting even a trivial amount of thought into it.  Rather, you just mindlesslyparrot the rhetoric you can find at any hate site.

danman2424 wrote...
In actuality, I have not decided how I feel yet. All I have from the pro-gay side is the same old justification being that people should be able to lay whatever they want as long as they're not hurting anyone. Under that justification, there are quite a few things that fall under. Most of which are things the pro-gays are immediately ready to scoff at just as quickly as people have scoffed at them for years.

The whole "what nature intends" point was to show that biologically, we have a very clear reference as to the way things are "supposed" to be. You either agree that this is the only way things should be (male/female relationships), or you leave yourself open to deviation. However, if you leave it open to deviation, and condemn everything that deviates from the biological standard except the one that fits your agenda, then you are a hypocrite, and really haven't thought the issue through well enough before arriving to a conclusive stance.

First of all, you need to stop using the word "biology" in association with your personal nature based mysticism.  You have every right to believe and say that nature is some purpose driven entity that wants you to behave in a certain way.  But you do not have the right to demand that others participate in your mysticism.  And your mysticism has nothing at all to do with biology.

There is no such thing as a "biological standard".  Biological traits and individual behavior within a species span ranges.  Variation is not a violation of biology.  It is omnipresent in biology.  Homosexual behavior is a part of biological reality.  Your claim that biology is in violation of biology is nonsensical.  When your personal philosophies do not match reality, the problem is not with reality.

danman2424 wrote...I thought Pyro was one of the few that really understood his position on the matter. You either condone deviation or condemn it, and he chose to condone it. I don't think that stance necessarily is wrong but he knew where he stood. At least I thought he did.

Again, Pyro's position is clear and consistent.  Sure, it doesn't fit into your strange mysticism.  But he is under no obligation to purge his knowledge base until it is sparse enough for your logic to apply.

However, it is certainly fair to apply your personal philosophies to you.  You say that condoning any "deviation" requires condoning all "deviation".  Since typing on a Mass Effect is a deviation from the norm, you obviously condone deviation.  And that means you support pedophilia.  To be clear, I think your logic is garbage, and obviously so.  But you clearly believe your logic, and try to live by it.  So I will take you at your word, and accept you condone all "deviation". 

Wow you really are flying with this "mysticism" crap. I don't consider nature to be any kind of entity, you are putting words in my mouth. I'm using biology as a reference to emphasize that our bodies are given a very simple directive as to how human sex is to work and how partners are to be matched. I don't know how your wild "did nature intend me to post on a Mass Effect board" has anything to do with sexuality, but by all means, run with that if you think it makes your point look more valid.

I never said supporting deviation requires that you condone ALL deviation. Put more words in my mouth to try and validate your argument, why don't you? I said if you support deviation, and then use a certain justification to support it, a justification that can umbrella many other sexual preferences, then you'd better be ready to get behind what you supposedly believe in. To say "I support all of these sexual preferences that don't hurt anyone, but I find these other sexual preferences that don't hurt anyone to be too icky" makes you a hypocrite, and leads me to believe you haven't really put any thought into your stance. You're just running with whatever the current societal trend is.

Modifié par danman2424, 09 février 2010 - 09:40 .

[PyroFreak301]

danman2424 wrote...
I don't consider nature to be any kind of entity, you are putting words in my mouth. I'm using biology as a reference to emphasize that our bodies are given a very simple directive as to how human sex is to work...

What's ultimately being argued is that you cannot infer any directive from nature, which is completely random; to do so would be projecting your own personal beliefs or logic onto it. Without direction or purpose, there can be no true or absolute right or wrong, so hopefully you can see where our objections lie when you try to deduce morals from a non-religious viewpoint of nature.

Modifié par PyroFreak301, 09 février 2010 - 10:07 .

[danman2424]

PyroFreak301 wrote...

danman2424 wrote...
I don't consider nature to be any kind of entity, you are putting words in my mouth. I'm using biology as a reference to emphasize that our bodies are given a very simple directive as to how human sex is to work...

What's ultimately being argued is that you cannot infer any directive from nature, which is completely random; to do so would be projecting your own personal beliefs or logic onto it. Without direction or purpose, there can be no true or absolute right or wrong, so hopefully you can see where our objections lie when you try to deduce morals from a non-religious viewpoint of nature.

I appreciate your "anything goes" attitude, but I don't think many in your camp share the same feelings. Most would happily condone homosexuality but then make a face similar to the one people would've made about homosexuality 30 years ago the moment you mention incest or any number of other preferences.

What i haven't decided yet is whether or not I agree with your "anything goes" mentality. It would be difficult to predict the ramifications of a society that just allows anything to go as long as "no one is physically harmed". My main issue is with the hypocrisy of people that claim to go by that code but when you delve deeper, you find that they really don't. That they are only running with what celebrities are telling them, what MTV is telling them, what liberals are telling them.

[PyroFreak301]

danman2424 wrote...

PyroFreak301 wrote...

danman2424 wrote...
I don't consider nature to be any kind of entity, you are putting words in my mouth. I'm using biology as a reference to emphasize that our bodies are given a very simple directive as to how human sex is to work...

What's ultimately being argued is that you cannot infer any directive from nature, which is completely random; to do so would be projecting your own personal beliefs or logic onto it. Without direction or purpose, there can be no true or absolute right or wrong, so hopefully you can see where our objections lie when you try to deduce morals from a non-religious viewpoint of nature.

I appreciate your "anything goes" attitude, but I don't think many in your camp share the same feelings. Most would happily condone homosexuality but then make a face similar to the one people would've made about homosexuality 30 years ago the moment you mention incest or any number of other preferences.

What i haven't decided yet is whether or not I agree with your "anything goes" mentality. It would be difficult to predict the ramifications of a society that just allows anything to go as long as "no one is physically harmed". My main issue is with the hypocrisy of people that claim to go by that code but when you delve deeper, you find that they really don't. That they are only running with what celebrities are telling them, what MTV is telling them, what liberals are telling them.

With a bit of inspection, it's not at all hard to distinguish that there could be a lot more social implications to certain sexual tendancies. Using your example of incest and bestiality again, the social acceptance of inbreeding would most definitely have a negative effect on society, even as an extreme minority we'd still see more children born with disabilities in families that did choose to do so. My objection to incest comes from that danger. Also adding a good point made earlier in response to your mother/daughter suggestion, the mother/father has a great amount of power in training a person how to think. That power is open to abuse, so you could argue the mother has manipulated her child into consent, which would affect the validity of consent. This is going offtopic though.

I really do hate to continue comaring homosexuality with bestiality, but my issues with that are of a different nature. An animal can't consiously consent, not beyond instinctual actions, so initiating anything with animals is a pretty much no go. Not to mention various diseases that could be brought about should society accept it as a whole. So thats my objection to that. None of these have direct problems that will show themselves immediately during the act, but a little reasoning could tell us that they're not good ideas.

If you were to ask me for a similar reason as to why homosexuality shouldn't be accepted, I couldn't give an answer. Theres no danger scientifically, and the biggest social ramification to come out of people being gay so far is the divide of opinion across the big players of religion and the public. It's good to take each example/circumstance on it's own merits, trying to force ideas under an umbrella (this case being sexual deviance) of yes/no's is the type of closed moral models I don't particularly like.

Modifié par PyroFreak301, 09 février 2010 - 11:02 .

[danman2424]

PyroFreak301 wrote...

danman2424 wrote...

PyroFreak301 wrote...

danman2424 wrote...
I don't consider nature to be any kind of entity, you are putting words in my mouth. I'm using biology as a reference to emphasize that our bodies are given a very simple directive as to how human sex is to work...

What's ultimately being argued is that you cannot infer any directive from nature, which is completely random; to do so would be projecting your own personal beliefs or logic onto it. Without direction or purpose, there can be no true or absolute right or wrong, so hopefully you can see where our objections lie when you try to deduce morals from a non-religious viewpoint of nature.

I appreciate your "anything goes" attitude, but I don't think many in your camp share the same feelings. Most would happily condone homosexuality but then make a face similar to the one people would've made about homosexuality 30 years ago the moment you mention incest or any number of other preferences.

What i haven't decided yet is whether or not I agree with your "anything goes" mentality. It would be difficult to predict the ramifications of a society that just allows anything to go as long as "no one is physically harmed". My main issue is with the hypocrisy of people that claim to go by that code but when you delve deeper, you find that they really don't. That they are only running with what celebrities are telling them, what MTV is telling them, what liberals are telling them.

With a bit of inspection, it's not at all hard to distinguish that there could be a lot more social implications to certain sexual tendancies. Using your example of incest and bestiality again, the social acceptance of inbreeding would most definitely have a negative effect on society, even as an extreme minority we'd still see more children born with disabilities in families that did choose to do so. My objection to incest comes from that danger. Also adding a good point made earlier in response to your mother/daughter suggestion, the mother/father has a great amount of power in training a person how to think. That power is open to abuse, so you could argue the mother has manipulated her child into consent, which would affect the validity of consent. This is going offtopic though.

I really do hate to continue comaring homosexuality with bestiality, but my issues with that are of a different nature. An animal can't consiously consent, not beyond instinctual actions, so initiating anything with animals is a pretty much no go. Not to mention various diseases that could be brought about should society accept it as a whole. So thats my objection to that. None of these have direct problems that will show themselves immediately during the act, but a little reasoning could tell us that they're not good ideas.

If you were to ask me for a similar reason as to why homosexuality shouldn't be accepted, I couldn't give an answer. Theres no danger scientifically, and the biggest social ramification to come out of people being gay so far is the divide of opinion across the big players of religion and the public. It's good to take each example/circumstance on it's own merits, trying to force ideas under an umbrella (this case being sexual deviance) of yes/no's is the type of closed moral models I don't particularly like.

Incestuous relationships don't have to result in breeding at all. Just as homosexual ones don't. Inbreeding is a non-issue. What objection should you have to a brother and brother having consensual sex? Is it any of your business? Are they hurting anyone?

An animal can certainly give consent. Ever try to make an animal do something it didn't want to do? You'll very quickly find out. Check out the documentaries "Animal Passions" and "Zoo" for reference. I'd also add that there was a case in Washington a few years back where a group of people were caught filming sex tapes with horses. Upon reviewing them, they could be convicted of nothing more than trespassing and were set free. Why? Because no evidence of abuse could be found. The sex was clearly consensual and not forced upon any of the participants.

I don't see why it would be any of your business anyway. Clearly people should be able to do what they want to do behind closed doors as long as no one is being hurt, right?

As for diseases, there is a a little virus called AIDS that is primarily passed around through the homosexual community, if you are so concerned about diseases.

Modifié par danman2424, 09 février 2010 - 11:30 .

[IONDRIVE]

Oh my God!!! Eight pages of crap!!! This is a video game!!!



Lets talk about weapons, armour and story of this game (minues spoilers).

[ERJAK2]

IONDRIVE wrote...

Oh my God!!! Eight pages of crap!!! This is a video game!!!

Lets talk about weapons, armour and story of this game (minues spoilers).

K, the three weapons in the game are totally interchangeable, the armor makes no appreciable difference to combat and is more for looks than substance(doesn't even have kinetic barriers if you're a biotic.) The story was kinda there. It was more about setting up the background for ME3 than actually having a point in and of itself.

Honestly? The romances are more interesting to talk about. Look at how much fun Danman and sapient are having.

Modifié par ERJAK2, 09 février 2010 - 11:43 .

[HolyMoogle]

I'm sorry, I just read the first post here, can't be bothered reading 8 pages just yet.



Have to say though, this sounds like one of the most childish suggestions ever made. You may as well ask for an option to have/not have people of different races of religions. You can't just ghetto-ize people so flippantly. If a character alluding to their own homosexuality is going to make you gay rage, you really just need to grow up.

[The Demonologist]

This thread fails so hard.

[ERJAK2]

HolyMoogle wrote...

I'm sorry, I just read the first post here, can't be bothered reading 8 pages just yet.

Have to say though, this sounds like one of the most childish suggestions ever made. You may as well ask for an option to have/not have people of different races of religions. You can't just ghetto-ize people so flippantly. If a character alluding to their own homosexuality is going to make you gay rage, you really just need to grow up.

At first I was realy involved in this stuff. Now, I'm just kind of bored. People like Danman/Kalfear/Brahlis/AngryTiger/etc will never be right and the rest of us will get shat on. It's a lose lose situation for both parties. All we can do is hope that the INTENSE anger caused by the exclusion(don't kid yourself, people are only talking against it because we're for it because it wasn't in the game.) Will convince them to at least bring Liara back in a real capacity(NOT TIED TO FERON) if nothing else.

[danman2424]

HolyMoogle wrote...

I'm sorry, I just read the first post here, can't be bothered reading 8 pages just yet.

Have to say though, this sounds like one of the most childish suggestions ever made. You may as well ask for an option to have/not have people of different races of religions. You can't just ghetto-ize people so flippantly. If a character alluding to their own homosexuality is going to make you gay rage, you really just need to grow up.

Homosexuality is not even remotely similar to race. It's annoying to see people group them together so quickly and eagerly. It's an insult to those people that worked so hard to achieve race equality that a preference of who to have sex with is so willingly grouped in.

Modifié par danman2424, 09 février 2010 - 11:57 .