7455 réponses à ce sujet

[Syledir]

Will you guys slow down a little. This is worse than ICQ.

[kraze07]

Even though I'm not gay myself I'm all for same sex romances in ME2. It's a shame that in this day in age, in our modern civilization, homosexuality is still taboo.

[Tirigon]

khevan wrote...
Characters in any kind of work of fiction must be more clearly defined and limited in many ways, so the audience can understand them.  Authors cannot make characters in a story as complex as real people, because there's too much.  There would be no way to be able to explain the character.

Only if you see most of the audience as idiots. To me it´s "the more complex the better".

Even in real life, when we talk about people, we "limit" how we define them, so as to more easily explain what we're talking about.

True. This is a very common problem and it´s rather sad that it is this way. We don´t need to do all the Real-life sh!t in a game though.

[Tirigon]

khevan wrote...


Thus, I've basically decided this:  IF Bioware does decide to make certain squadmates open to same sex relationships, I may not like it, per se, but I'd accept it IF it were done the right way.  It must make sense.  Period.  Simply being open to same sex relationships out of the blue in ME3 still feels like a rewrite, instead of characters developing in a certain direction.  It also must be well done.  No dimestore romance novel type dialogue, like there currently is with femshep/Jacob *shudder*  The whole thing needs to be believeable.  Give me these two conditions, and I'd at least accept it as character progression rather than a rewrite. 

But anyways, I'll end this by saying that overall, I do want what everyone else in this thread wants, I just want it done in a way that makes sense, not simply wave a magic wand and *POOF!* Kaidan is now bisexual!  Is that too much to ask?

I can only speak for me but that´s exactly what I want too (and I´ll be so bold to assume the others too). I don´t think anyone wants an explanation like "Hey Shep, earlier I was straight now I´m bi, wanna f*ck?" You´re totally right that this would suck.

However, I have enough trust in the BioWare writers to think they are able to make a character turning bi believable and not ridiculous.

[Tirigon]

Bill569 wrote...

Now, I regard homosexuality unethical, therefore if Tali potentially could have a homosexual relationship, that would make her unethical for me, ruining my game. And it will ruin the game of many other players as well.

This is either a lousy attempt at trolling or the equivalent of saying "I´m a retard who still thinks like in 1200 A.D."

Either way, I´ll settle for



as response.

[Creature 1]

Bill569 wrote...

LiquidGrape wrote...

I agree, lovgreno; only it's hard to debate with someone who considers our goal "unethical".
It's not even a scientific objection. It holds no ground whatsoever.

The scientific objection is simple: Homosexuality in abnormal. Humans cannot reproduce through homosexual relationships, nor a homosexual society can exist.

No no no no.  No.  As a scientist, no. 

Science is a matter of observation.  Science draws no conclusions about people ought to behave, it merely says how they behave.  It is descriptive, not prescriptive.  What science tells us is that homosexual behavior is widespread in the animal kingdom, and may be especially common among primates, and especially especially common among the hominids (great apes, which our species is).  Homosexual behavior among primates is part of normal behavioral patterns. 

In order to make any kind of prescriptive claim, you have to go outside the bounds of science.  Your grounds for saying homosexuality is wrong appears to be the claim that exclusive homosexuality is incompatible with survival of the species, and the underlying principle appears to be the claim that striving towards the survival of our species is a moral imperitive.  That's an entirely separate issue, but it is not in conflict with human homosexuality, because your intial premise is wrong--people are not exclusively homosexual, and the global population is increasing steadily in spite of this fact.  Moreover, it could be at some point that we will sever the link between sexuality and reproduction.  I read a sci-fi book a while ago (The Forever War) in which humans eventually engineered their species to be exclusively homosexual to avoid uncontrollable population explosion.  So if the survival of the species is the ultimate moral good (I would disagree, just like one's own survival is not always the ultimate good), you should be approving of homosexuals now, and at some point in the future you may be required to find heterosexuals perverse deviants. 

It may be that you're adapting Kant's idea of a categorical imperitive, but this doesn't really work because you could also say those that live a life of celibacy to focus upon serving the poor (Mother Theresa) are deviants because if everyone did this the species would go extinct. 

[lovgreno]

Creature 1, those are good points and it's nice to meet people with an education on these forums but you are rather off topic here. If things derail it could lead to a locked thread, and we don't want that.



But yeah, science fiction does often imply that a more relaxed attitude about LBGT is what our current culture will evolve into. Wich would support LBGT romance in ME in a way. Okay that was a far fetched conclusion...

[Tirigon]

lovgreno wrote...

But yeah, science fiction does often imply that a more relaxed attitude about LBGT is what our current culture will evolve into. Wich would support LBGT romance in ME in a way. Okay that was a far fetched conclusion...

Why? I think it strengthens our wishes - and everything is right if it leads to a civil attitude towards sexuality:police:

[lovgreno]

Tirigon wrote...
Why? I think it strengthens our wishes - and everything is right if it leads to a civil attitude towards sexuality:police:

True. What I meant was that becuse some science fiction might promote this doesn't necesary means that ME have to follow the same path. It's all up to BW. So I was unclear, my bad.

[CHT87]

I do not know what you are arguing about. The answer to this thread should be:



"If it´s done right and nobody´s forced into something - Why the FU** NOT?!"



It was in DA and JE and it did not disturb me or force me to do something. SO....what are the problems again?

[Tirigon]

CHT87 wrote...

It was in DA and JE and it did not disturb me or force me to do something. SO....what are the problems again?

The problem is, that BioWare didn´t implement Same Sex romances in ME2 and only 1 option (that isn´t really female) in ME1.

[sw33ts]

CHT87 wrote...

I do not know what you are arguing about. The answer to this thread should be:

"If it´s done right and nobody´s forced into something - Why the FU** NOT?!"

It was in DA and JE and it did not disturb me or force me to do something. SO....what are the problems again?

The problem is some people would prefer not to see it at all...even if it's not forced on them because it's "abnormal."

[Fairhammer]

sw33ts wrote...

CHT87 wrote...

I do not know what you are arguing about. The answer to this thread should be:

"If it´s done right and nobody´s forced into something - Why the FU** NOT?!"

It was in DA and JE and it did not disturb me or force me to do something. SO....what are the problems again?

The problem is some people would prefer not to see it at all...even if it's not forced on them because it's "abnormal."

Some, but not all.
My Femshep wants Femlove
And I want to play an open Gay Shep for teh lulz! (Don't missunderstood me. Its just that, if I can, then I do it, because i can) 

Modifié par Fairhammer, 11 mai 2010 - 01:38 .

[The Uncanny]

Fairhammer wrote...

*snip*

Don't missunderstood me. Its just that, if I can, then I do it, because i can) 

Sure, back in the olden days I believe we called it 'roleplaying'!

[Tirigon]

Fairhammer wrote...

Some, but not all.
My Femshep wants Femlove
And I want to play an open Gay Shep for teh lulz! (Don't missunderstood me. Its just that, if I can, then I do it, because i can) 

That is a wise attitude. If only more would think like that.

[sami jo]

Bill569 wrote...

It's immoral to twist human nature. 

I'm a woman.  My first crush on a girl was when I was four and lasted for the next 15 years.  I am clearly human and it is clearly in my nature to be attracted to the same sex, so your statement would suggest that trying to force me not to be attracted to the same sex would be the immoral thing (and given the damage I have seen done to people forced through "conversion" programs, it most certainly is). 

People do not choose to be gay, lesbian or bisexual any more than heterosexual people choose to be straight.  The only choice is in what people do with their attractions, therefore that is the only place morality can apply, and that is true for heterosexuals as well.  And just as heterosexual relationships are not exclusively about sex, homosexual relationships are not all about sex either.  Sexual orientation is about who you fall in love with and wish to form a long term bond with.  Since when is loving someone immoral?  It is in human nature to form long-term, close, loving, sexual relationships.  Research has shown over and over that stably coupled individuals live longer, have fewer health problems (both big and small- colds, flu and other infections are reduced, cancers are reduced, cardiovascular disease is reduced, autoimmune disease is reduced etc.).  So, again, it would be immoral to prevent those who are attracted to the same sex from forming such unions. 

Homosexuality is a normal, if somewhat rare, sexual variant in the human population just as red hair is a normal, if somewhat rare, hair color variant in the human population.  We are hardly the only species that displays this variation.  It has been observed in many primates (and is, in fact, a large behavioral component in conflict resolution for bonobo chimps, one of our closest relatives), in other mammals, in birds, and even in lizards.  Uncommon and abnormal are not equivalent terms, and having a rare behavioral trait certainly does not make one immoral. 

Edit: You said in another post that because you find homosexuality to be immoral, the mere existance of the option in your game would make the entire game morally objectionable to you.  I find intimidating people into doing what I want morally objectionable.  I found every dark side option in KOTOR to be morally objectionable.  I had the option to RP a character in every BW game that I would find morally repugnant in real life.  There are a number of the companions from various BW games that I find morally repugnant for far more fundamental reasons than who they fall in love with.  Romances are optional in these games.  Moral choices are optional in these games. Option being the key word.  No one forced me to slaughter innocents, steal, intimidate or anything else I found objectionable.  If BW chooses not to focus on developing romance options with their limited resources, fine; but to say that a same sex romance shouldn't be an option at all because some people find it morally objectionable is no different from me saying that renegade choices shouldn't be there because I find them morally objectionable. 

Beyond which, you claim that same-sex pairings are against human nature, but I would say that interspecies pairing are far more clearly against human nature.  So, using your reasoning, there should only be heterosexual human romance options. 

Modifié par sami jo, 11 mai 2010 - 02:51 .

[Fairhammer]

sami jo wrote...

Bill569 wrote...

It's immoral to twist human nature. 

I'm a woman.  My first crush on a girl was when I was four and lasted for the next 15 years.  I am clearly human and it is clearly in my nature to be attracted to the same sex, so your statement would suggest that trying to force me not to be attracted to the same sex would be the immoral thing (and given the damage I have seen done to people forced through "conversion" programs, it most certainly is). 

People do not choose to be gay, lesbian or bisexual any more than heterosexual people choose to be straight.  The only choice is in what people do with their attractions, therefore that is the only place morality can apply, and that is true for heterosexuals as well.  And just as heterosexual relationships are not exclusively about sex, homosexual relationships are not all about sex either.  Sexual orientation is about who you fall in love with and wish to form a long term bond with.  Since when is loving someone immoral?  It is in human nature to form long-term, close, loving, sexual relationships.  Research has shown over and over that stably coupled individuals live longer, have fewer health problems (both big and small- colds, flu and other infections are reduced, cancers are reduced, cardiovascular disease is reduced, autoimmune disease is reduced etc.).  So, again, it would be immoral to prevent those who are attracted to the same sex from forming such unions. 

Homosexuality is a normal, if somewhat rare, sexual variant in the human population just as red hair is a normal, if somewhat rare, hair color variant in the human population.  We are hardly the only species that displays this variation.  It has been observed in many primates (and is, in fact, a large behavioral component in conflict resolution for bonobo chimps, one of our closest relatives), in other mammals, in birds, and even in lizards.  Uncommon and abnormal are not equivalent terms, and having a rare behavioral trait certainly does not make one immoral. 

In germany we would say: "Your words in gods ears." Which means: Your right! Hallelujah! xD
I'm straight but a good friend of mine is gay and gay people aren't "unnormal".
(I'm against every form of racism... And to call Gay-people unnormal is! racism!)

Modifié par Fairhammer, 11 mai 2010 - 02:04 .

[sami jo]

CHT87 wrote...

I do not know what you are arguing about. The answer to this thread should be:

"If it´s done right and nobody´s forced into something - Why the FU** NOT?!"

It was in DA and JE and it did not disturb me or force me to do something. SO....what are the problems again?

The problem is that some people have an inability to allow anyone to behave or believe differently than they do, and therefore the mere existence of the option is offensive to them.  And because their views are clearly more valid than those of anyone else, they feel the right to force their views on others.

It's a bit like me, as a Jewish woman, getting peeved because someone offered (but did not force me to eat) a ham and cheese sandwich.  People react strongly to this particular issue because it is fairly offensive to be told that your very existence is immoral and offensive to someone and you should not, on principal, be allowed to express who you are.

[Cootie]

sami jo wrote...

The problem is that some people have an inability to allow anyone to behave or believe differently than they do, and therefore the mere existence of the option is offensive to them.  And because their views are clearly more valid than those of anyone else, they feel the right to force their views on others.

It's a bit like me, as a Jewish woman, getting peeved because someone offered (but did not force me to eat) a ham and cheese sandwich.  People react strongly to this particular issue because it is fairly offensive to be told that your very existence is immoral and offensive to someone and you should not, on principal, be allowed to express who you are.

Although I must say that in Khevan's defense, I understand his worries. He doesn't want the characters to become shallow representatives of sexuality alone.

I, personally, kind of like the idea of every possible LI becoming "Bisexual by default", so to speak. Romance-able to both genders, much like in DA:O. But with that said, I'm certain that none of us want the "switch" to be badly written or rushed.
To me, romancing adds a bit more replayability to the game, if not the most replayability. And a DLC that would remove those garbage gender barriers would be like a godsend for me.

Modifié par Cootie, 11 mai 2010 - 03:01 .

[Wittand25]

Cootie wrote...

sami jo wrote...

The problem is that some people have an inability to allow anyone to behave or believe differently than they do, and therefore the mere existence of the option is offensive to them.  And because their views are clearly more valid than those of anyone else, they feel the right to force their views on others.

It's a bit like me, as a Jewish woman, getting peeved because someone offered (but did not force me to eat) a ham and cheese sandwich.  People react strongly to this particular issue because it is fairly offensive to be told that your very existence is immoral and offensive to someone and you should not, on principal, be allowed to express who you are.

Although I must say that in Khevan's defense, I understand his worries. He doesn't want the characters to become shallow representatives of sexuality alone.

I, personally, kind of like the idea of every possible LI becoming "Bisexual by default", so to speak. Romance-able to both genders, much like in DA:O. But with that said, I'm certain that none of us want the "switch" to be badly written or rushed.
To me, romancing adds a bit more replayability to the game, if not the most replayability. And a DLC that would remove those garbage gender barriers would be like a godsend for me.

In DA only two of the four LI are bisexual, the other two are straight and there are two other bisexual seduceable npcs (four if you  if you play human nobel). Ok and the workers at the brothel but you had to pay them so they dont count.
For ME2 I would be more than satisfied with a DLC that just removes the gender check (and adds the missing dialog) of two of the LI, provided this romance carries over to ME3.

Modifié par Wittand25, 11 mai 2010 - 03:14 .

[sami jo]

Cootie wrote...

sami jo wrote...

The problem is that some people have an inability to allow anyone to behave or believe differently than they do, and therefore the mere existence of the option is offensive to them.  And because their views are clearly more valid than those of anyone else, they feel the right to force their views on others.

It's a bit like me, as a Jewish woman, getting peeved because someone offered (but did not force me to eat) a ham and cheese sandwich.  People react strongly to this particular issue because it is fairly offensive to be told that your very existence is immoral and offensive to someone and you should not, on principal, be allowed to express who you are.

Although I must say that in Khevan's defense, I understand his worries. He doesn't want the characters to become shallow representatives of sexuality alone.

I, personally, kind of like the idea of every possible LI becoming "Bisexual by default", so to speak. Romance-able to both genders, much like in DA:O. But with that said, I'm certain that none of us want the "switch" to be badly written or rushed.
To me, romancing adds a bit more replayability to the game, if not the most replayability. And a DLC that would remove those garbage gender barriers would be like a godsend for me.

I'm all in favor of well-written characters and I don't want poorly written romances.  More options in one area often mean fewer options in another.  The romances in ME haven't been all that well done in my opinion to begin with, so yes, I can relate entirely to that concern.  That said, if they are going to put romances in, there is nothing inherently more difficult about a same-sex option.

Those who argue for not including a well-written same-sex romance on the grounds that its mere existance is morally offensive to them, but the host of other morally questionable options in the game are just fine, bother me. I do marvel at the mental gymnastics required to declare an entire game morally repugnant because your fictional character has the option to fall in love with a fictional character of the same sex, but not declare the game morally repugnant because your character can murder and pillage his/her way across the galaxy, cheat on a heterosexual romance character, and become intimate with a member of a different species.  It seems an awfully strange place to draw a moral line.

[Bill569]

sami jo wrote...

Bill569 wrote...

It's immoral to twist human nature. 

I'm a woman.  My first crush on a girl was when I was four and lasted for the next 15 years.  I am clearly human and it is clearly in my nature to be attracted to the same sex, so your statement would suggest that trying to force me not to be attracted to the same sex would be the immoral thing (and given the damage I have seen done to people forced through "conversion" programs, it most certainly is). 

People do not choose to be gay, lesbian or bisexual any more than heterosexual people choose to be straight.  The only choice is in what people do with their attractions, therefore that is the only place morality can apply, and that is true for heterosexuals as well.  And just as heterosexual relationships are not exclusively about sex, homosexual relationships are not all about sex either.  Sexual orientation is about who you fall in love with and wish to form a long term bond with.  Since when is loving someone immoral?  It is in human nature to form long-term, close, loving, sexual relationships.  Research has shown over and over that stably coupled individuals live longer, have fewer health problems (both big and small- colds, flu and other infections are reduced, cancers are reduced, cardiovascular disease is reduced, autoimmune disease is reduced etc.).  So, again, it would be immoral to prevent those who are attracted to the same sex from forming such unions. 

Homosexuality is a normal, if somewhat rare, sexual variant in the human population just as red hair is a normal, if somewhat rare, hair color variant in the human population.  We are hardly the only species that displays this variation.  It has been observed in many primates (and is, in fact, a large behavioral component in conflict resolution for bonobo chimps, one of our closest relatives), in other mammals, in birds, and even in lizards.  Uncommon and abnormal are not equivalent terms, and having a rare behavioral trait certainly does not make one immoral. 

Edit: You said in another post that because you find homosexuality to be immoral, the mere existance of the option in your game would make the entire game morally objectionable to you.  I find intimidating people into doing what I want morally objectionable.  I found every dark side option in KOTOR to be morally objectionable.  I had the option to RP a character in every BW game that I would find morally repugnant in real life.  There are a number of the companions from various BW games that I find morally repugnant for far more fundamental reasons than who they fall in love with.  Romances are optional in these games.  Moral choices are optional in these games. Option being the key word.  No one forced me to slaughter innocents, steal, intimidate or anything else I found objectionable.  If BW chooses not to focus on developing romance options with their limited resources, fine; but to say that a same sex romance shouldn't be an option at all because some people find it morally objectionable is no different from me saying that renegade choices shouldn't be there because I find them morally objectionable. 

Beyond which, you claim that same-sex pairings are against human nature, but I would say that interspecies pairing are far more clearly against human nature.  So, using your reasoning, there should only be heterosexual human romance options. 

I promised not to continue the debate, so this is my last post. To begin with, child sexuality is a weird thing. Freud has written a book on it, you should read it. You cannot say you had a crush on the age of four. It is not possible. Secondly, sexual orientation is determined by your hormones. Like I said before, if a gay person has a problem with his hormones, then he is not to blame because he was born that way, therefore he is not immoral. But for example being a man with no hormone problems and going deliberately against your nature by loving other men is, for me, unethical. Thirdly, yes you are right, people today do not choose to be gay. Our sick society forces them to become. 100 years ago, the powers-that-be did not want people to be gay, therefore, they did not promote gay people. Nowadays however, for some reason they want more people to be gay and that is why they are promoting them through the media and the arts. That is why now there are many gay people, whereas 100 years ago, almost no gay people existed (plus the fact that 100 years ago people REALLY hated gay people). Fourthly, no, the mere existance of immoral options in the game does not make the entire game morally objectionable to me. But then, renegade players make these choices themselves. Therefore the player chooses to be immoral. But, if an NPC is immoral, then you cannot do anything to change that.

I would like to state here, that I do not despise gay people. Like I said before, I respect their choices. I think that I read in the newspaper that gay couples show greater affection towards each other than straight couples overall. Anyway, a simple way to make both straight and gay players happy would be introduce new, gay characters. I have no problem with that. Just don't make the previous characters gay. That's all.

Modifié par Bill569, 11 mai 2010 - 04:24 .

[Nonvita]

Bill569 wrote...

I promised not to continue the debate, so this is my last post. To begin with, child sexuality is a weird thing. Freud has written a book on it, you should read it. You cannot say you had a crush on the age of four. It is not possible. Secondly, sexual orientation is determined by your hormones. Like I said before, if a gay person has a problem with his hormones, then he is not to blame because he was born that way, therefore he is not immoral. But for example being a man with no hormone problems and going deliberately against your nature by loving other men is, for me, unethical. Thirdly, yes you are right, people today do not choose to be gay. Our sick society forces them to become. 100 years ago, the powers-that-be did not want people to be gay, therefore, they did not promote gay people. Nowadays however, for some reason they want more people to be gay and that is why they are promoting them through the media and the arts. That is why now there are many gay people, whereas 100 years ago, almost no gay people existed (plus the fact that 100 years ago people REALLY hated gay people). Fourthly, no, the mere existance of immoral options in the game does not make the entire game morally objectionable to me. But then, renegade players make these choices themselves. Therefore the player chooses to be immoral. But, if an NPC is immoral, then you cannot do anything to change that.

I would like to state here, that I do not despise gay people. Like I said before, I respect their choices. I think that I read in the newspaper that gay couples show greater affection towards each other than straight couples overall. Anyway, a simple way to make both straight and gay players happy would be introduce new, gay characters. I have no problem with that. Just don't make the previous characters gay. That's all.

I had my first crush at around four years old, as well. A crush simply involves a rush of hormones (not all hormones are sexual, you do realize?) at the thought of a person, similar to how people get a rush of hormones at the thought of food, activities they enjoy, or even certain brands of clothing, etc. It is entirely possible for a child to react to another child in this way, and whether or not it is the same as a more sexually mature person's reaction does not mean it is not real. I'm quite sure that many, many people have had crushes at an early age, and I have no idea what you think you're proving by saying otherwise.

Second, you contradict yourself far too much, which simply means you have no idea what your stance on homosexuality really is. First you say it is caused by hormones, but then you say that it is caused by society. So which is it? I doubt you really know, but you're wrong on both counts anyway. Being homosexual has to do with genetics, in humans just as in all other animals that exhibit signs of homosexuality. It is a genetic mutation, just as (like Sami said) red hair is a genetic mutation, or being left-handed is a genetic mutation. None of these things are "taught" by society, they simply are. There were just as many bisexual and homosexual people who existed all throughout history; we simply do not hear about them because homosexuality was actively discouraged in very brutal ways. Society now is not encouraging homosexuality; instead, if it is encouraging anything, it is open-mindedness and acceptance for people, even those who are not like yourself. This is a good thing. Clinging to ideas that certain people are "bad" is a bad thing, as well as an uninformed and selfish viewpoint.

Next, you say that there's a difference between choices the player makes and NPCs that are already immoral. However, there already are many many immoral NPCs in the game, so how is a homosexual NPC somehow more immoral than the NPCs who kill people, cheat, lie, and do terrible things? Once again, just as it is player choice to do everything else in the game, it would be player choice whether or not to pursue a homosexual romance. If you do not want to pursue one, you likely will hardly even know they are in the game.

That said, agreed with everyone else who hopes the transition would be natural. I think that is the only concern with adding in homosexual or bisexual romances--that they would fit into the game world and lore naturally. Whether or not a few people choose not to buy the game simply due to homosexual romances being included (which is entirely silly) is really not a concern because I truly hope most people are more reasonable than they.



Just to get back onto the actual topic at hand, if it were possible then an option to choose whether you would like same-sex romances to appear at all would be appreciated. A simple click at character creation ("Include same-sex romance? Y/N") would solve a lot of problems. I'm not sure that it is possible, but if the goal really is to please as many people as possible, then I think being able to specify your character as potentially homosexual or definitely not homosexual would be better than simply having colored text (which would still allow people to come into contact with homosexual romance lines, which seems to be a problem for some). It seems as feasible as choosing gender/etc.

Modifié par Nonvita, 11 mai 2010 - 05:07 .

[LiquidGrape]

Freud?
Your rhetorical fallacies aside, you actually pulled Freud out of the bag as the basis of a legitimate argument?
...
See, I usually never resort to this kind of language, but...

LOL

Modifié par LiquidGrape, 11 mai 2010 - 05:11 .