214 réponses à ce sujet

[danman2424]

ERJAK2 wrote...

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.

The "intense" anger is felt by relatively few. Bioware is not so daft as to bow before a few miffed homosexuals on a video game board knowing full well what the mainstream audience's reaction would be.

[The Demonologist]

danman2424 wrote...

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.

FYI, as one of the former who has many friends in the latter, it's a struggle far more similar than you think.

[IONDRIVE]

Who cares about who is boinking who. Who the f@#k cares about hetero or gay loving. I prefer the hetero luvin myself. But eight pages of this ???? Come On!!!!

[The Demonologist]

IONDRIVE wrote...

Who cares about who is boinking who. Who the f@#k cares about hetero or gay loving. I prefer the hetero luvin myself. But eight pages of this ???? Come On!!!!

QFT.

[The Sapient]

danman2424 wrote...
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.

So nature has told you its "intentions" through a "directive" which explains who should be allowed to have sex with who, but is not an "entity".  Whoa, this mysticism is deep. You won't even talk about how the rest of us can learn what Nature intends, no matter how many times you are asked.  Has Nature told you that you are the sole conduit for Nature to speak to the world?  Or do you have a secret Nature Communication Device?  Or what?

danman2424 wrote...
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.

You specifically said that if one condones deviation, then one condones all deviation. This is your logic.  Not mine.  Your logic demands you to either condemn your posting behavior or to condone pedophilia.

danman2424 wrote...
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?

The following words came from you.

danman2424 wrote.... You either condone deviation or condemn it, and he chose to condone it.

Maybe Nature didn't intend for you to remember your own logic?

danman2424 wrote....
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.

Wrong again.  Because Pyro's logic was sound enough that it could not be used to justify things like bestiality, you went out of your way to generalize his views to "condoning deviance", and declared that condoning any "devience" meant he had to condone all "deviance".

You talk a lot about "society's moral code", albeit from a wildly uninformed perspective.  Yet you seem oblivious to the almost universal view in society that sex with a partner who doed not provide informed consent causes harm to that partner.  Animals can not provide informed consent, which is why Pyro's statements about sex that does not harm anyone can not include bestiality.  I guess we should not be surprised you do not share society's value of informed consent, considering your youe support of all deviant behavior.

And on a more serious note, you really should try learning something about biology.  "The penis and vagina go together" is something adults tell young children when they are trying to explain where babies come from.  It is not a scientific conclusion of the limited functionality and/or proper usage of sexual organs.

[The Sapient]

danman2424 wrote...
]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.

If homophobia is not eqivalent to racism, why does every sigle argument you make come straight out of racist rhetoric?  Why do you run away everytime their eqivallency is explained?  Why is it that you can say racism is wrong, but you can not think of a reason why? 

I'll tell you.  You take your arguments against homosexuals from racists because you know homophobia and racism are almost identical.  You run from discussions of their similarities because you have no defense.  You can't say why racmism is wrong because doning so would be an admission that your statements about homosexuals are equally immoral and facutally inaccurate. 

[PyroFreak301]

danman2424 wrote...
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.

I've never said any of it is my business, and I still maintain that I wouldn't particularly care if people did get upto such things behind closed doors. However you started to mention social impact, which to me is discussed on a larger scale than just 2 individuals, so things like incest would inevitably lead to inbreeding if it become a social norm. This is where taboo's and stigma's have their uses.

As for animals, a person will always be in a position of power over an animal as an animal has a relatively simple mind open for manipulation. Would you consider an elephant being harshly trained to balance on a ball so it would do it on command consent? This is just personal opinion but I would say no, it isn't consent. Training an animal for sex isn't so different. No resistance cannot be considered consent either, as an animal can be trained fairly easily for such behavious... an animal doesn't know what's happening any more than a child would. I would sooner compare zoophilia to pedophilia than homosexuality. That being said, I'll give the documentaries you said a look when I get a chance, I'm arguing with a certain degree of ignorance here.

I agree AIDS is a problem for gay communities (even though heterosexual transmission is still nothing to be dismissed), however it can't be used as leverage on either side of a morality debate, as it's not a direct result nor is it exclusive to gay people.

[The Sapient]

danman2424 wrote...
The "intense" anger is felt by relatively few. Bioware is not so daft as to bow before a few miffed homosexuals on a video game board knowing full well what the mainstream audience's reaction would be.

Yeah.  Bioware would never put homosexual relationships in their games,  The outcry from homohobes would uttely tank the company. 

Oh wait.....

Modifié par The Sapient, 10 février 2010 - 12:18 .

[Dancemasterer]

One of the big bosses at BioWare broached the subject in an interview with IGN here - au.xbox360.ign.com/articles/106/1066954p2.html -

IGN: Will there be gay relationships for the male Shepard? Here at
IGN we've heard a lot of positive feedback from the inclusion of gay
relationships in Dragon Age; compare that with the somewhat conspicuous
absence of them from the first Mass Effect, especially with the chance
for a lesbian relationship.



Ray Muzyka: Here's how the games are different: Dragon Age
is a first person narrative, where you're taking on an origin and a
role, and you are that character at a fundamental level. It's
fundamentally about defining your character, including those kinds of
concepts. In Mass Effect it's more a third person narrative, where you
have a pre-defined character who is who he is, or she is. But it's not
a wide-open choice matrix. It's more choice on a tactical level with a
pre-defined character. So they're different types of narratives, and
that's intentional.



In short, in Mass Effect you're playing through the life of Shepard, and while you are able to influence the outcome of things by making him a good goodie or a bad goodie (since at least until now, you're not the guy that wants to exterminate all life in the known universe). But in the end it's Shepard any which way you play it, and Shepard just is not gay. While I suppose some people would like to have a little more than a bromance with Jacob (I don't mean this in a derogatory way, lol), forcing the issue would be like picking a random straight person out of a crowd and commanding them to be gay.


Edit: By the way, I had sex with Zhevran in DA:O simply so that he'd teach me how to be an assassin... our relationship took a strained turn after I told him so ;-)

Modifié par Dancemasterer, 10 février 2010 - 12:36 .

[danman2424]

The Sapient wrote...

danman2424 wrote...
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.

So nature has told you its "intentions" through a "directive" which explains who should be allowed to have sex with who, but is not an "entity".  Whoa, this mysticism is deep. You won't even talk about how the rest of us can learn what Nature intends, no matter how many times you are asked.  Has Nature told you that you are the sole conduit for Nature to speak to the world?  Or do you have a secret Nature Communication Device?  Or what?

danman2424 wrote...
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.

You specifically said that if one condones deviation, then one condones all deviation. This is your logic.  Not mine.  Your logic demands you to either condemn your posting behavior or to condone pedophilia.

danman2424 wrote...
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?

The following words came from you.

danman2424 wrote.... You either condone deviation or condemn it, and he chose to condone it.

Maybe Nature didn't intend for you to remember your own logic?

danman2424 wrote....
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.

Wrong again.  Because Pyro's logic was sound enough that it could not be used to justify things like bestiality, you went out of your way to generalize his views to "condoning deviance", and declared that condoning any "devience" meant he had to condone all "deviance".

You talk a lot about "society's moral code", albeit from a wildly uninformed perspective.  Yet you seem oblivious to the almost universal view in society that sex with a partner who doed not provide informed consent causes harm to that partner.  Animals can not provide informed consent, which is why Pyro's statements about sex that does not harm anyone can not include bestiality.  I guess we should not be surprised you do not share society's value of informed consent, considering your youe support of all deviant behavior.

And on a more serious note, you really should try learning something about biology.  "The penis and vagina go together" is something adults tell young children when they are trying to explain where babies come from.  It is not a scientific conclusion of the limited functionality and/or proper usage of sexual organs.

Sigh* I'm not going to try to explain to you again why your drivel about speaking with nature is nonsensical bull. You don't seem to read anything that is written, which is why you still think I said you're either for no deviation or all deviation, even when I explained that was not the case. I don't know if it's your reading comprehension or an intense desire to "win" your stance on the issue, but your refusal to comprehend is bothersome.

Let me just simplify this for you because you apparently are not really getting the point. How do you feel about legalized incestuous marriages?

[danman2424]

The Sapient wrote...

danman2424 wrote...
The "intense" anger is felt by relatively few. Bioware is not so daft as to bow before a few miffed homosexuals on a video game board knowing full well what the mainstream audience's reaction would be.

Yeah.  Bioware would never put homosexual relationships in their games,  The outcry from homohobes would uttely tank the company. 

Oh wait.....

Outcry from homophobes? No. I doubt that is at all what they're trying to avoid.

What they're trying to avoid, is the game being seen as some sort of joke. A mockery of the character Shepard is not in their best interest when trying to create a franchise that will be taken seriously by the mainstream. Whether it bothers you or not that homosexuality is looked at in that way, the fact of the matter is that it would be taken as a joke.

[FataliTensei]

Dancemasterer wrote...

One of the big bosses at BioWare broached the subject in an interview with IGN here - au.xbox360.ign.com/articles/106/1066954p2.html -

IGN: Will there be gay relationships for the male Shepard? Here at
IGN we've heard a lot of positive feedback from the inclusion of gay
relationships in Dragon Age; compare that with the somewhat conspicuous
absence of them from the first Mass Effect, especially with the chance
for a lesbian relationship.



Ray Muzyka: Here's how the games are different: Dragon Age
is a first person narrative, where you're taking on an origin and a
role, and you are that character at a fundamental level. It's
fundamentally about defining your character, including those kinds of
concepts. In Mass Effect it's more a third person narrative, where you
have a pre-defined character who is who he is, or she is. But it's not
a wide-open choice matrix. It's more choice on a tactical level with a
pre-defined character. So they're different types of narratives, and
that's intentional.



In short, in Mass Effect you're playing through the life of Shepard, and while you are able to influence the outcome of things by making him a good goodie or a bad goodie (since at least until now, you're not the guy that wants to exterminate all life in the known universe). But in the end it's Shepard any which way you play it, and Shepard just is not gay. While I suppose some people would like to have a little more than a bromance with Jacob (I don't mean this in a derogatory way, lol), forcing the issue would be like picking a random straight person out of a crowd and commanding them to be gay.


Edit: By the way, I had sex with Zhevran in DA:O simply so that he'd teach me how to be an assassin... our relationship took a strained turn after I told him so ;-)

See but then there is an actual member of the development team who stated something completely different

[The Sapient]

danman2424 wrote...

Sigh* I'm not going to try to explain to you again why your drivel about
speaking with nature is nonsensical bull. You don't seem to read anything that
is written, which is why you still think I said you're either for no deviation
or all deviation, even when I explained that was not the case. I don't know if
it's your reading comprehension or an intense desire to "win" your
stance on the issue, but your refusal to comprehend is bothersome.


Let me just simplify this for you because you apparently are not really getting
the point. How do you feel about legalized incestuous marriages?

You claim you know what nature "intends" for us to do with our
bodies.  You claim to have a "directive" from nature. 
These are your words.  I don't blame you for being ashamed of your
views.  But don't blame me for your willingness to shows us how you
think. 


You claim this is science.  But in science, we look for something called
repeatability.  That is, if others cannot achieve your results by
following your methods, your science is just garbage.  This is why I keep
asking you how I can determine for myself what nature
"intends".  When I look at genitalia, I don't see a
"for straight sex only" label.  When I look at how such
parts are used in nature, I see a wide variety of behavior.  But you seem
to have some method which shows that nature itself does not behave the way
nature intends.


We both know why you can't explain your claim about nature. It is not something
you arrived at after any sort of consideration.  It is not the result of
any study of biology.  You lifted it whole from those who argue against
interracial marriage. It doesn't matter to you how idiotic it is.  It is a
useful vehicle for your hate.  And you are so willing to speak with the
words of a racist precisely because you homophobia and racism are two aspects
of the same irrational mindset.

Modifié par The Sapient, 10 février 2010 - 02:12 .

[The Sapient]

danman2424 wrote...Outcry from homophobes? No. I doubt that is at all what they're trying to avoid.

What they're trying to avoid, is the game being seen as some sort of joke. A mockery of the character Shepard is not in their best interest when trying to create a franchise that will be taken seriously by the mainstream. Whether it bothers you or not that homosexuality is looked at in that way, the fact of the matter is that it would be taken as a joke.

You really don't get this?  It is the norm for Bioware to have homosexual relationships in their games. Your claim that they fear the wildly stupid so much they won't have homosexual relationships in their games is debunked by the fact that they do put homosexual relationships in their games.  Remember, their target demographic.  Most people who share your views are outside the age of their normal customer base.  And most younger people who share your views will never never have jobs that allow for things like video games. 

[FataliTensei]

I wouldn't say the norm, but it's been in recent games >_>