Signed,
Every homophobic bigot in the universe
Damn right.Arik7 wrote...
I think we should all thank danman2424 for
bumping our thread from the start, however his off-topic moral
arguments are better left ignored.
Damn right.Arik7 wrote...
I think we should all thank danman2424 for
bumping our thread from the start, however his off-topic moral
arguments are better left ignored.
danman2424 wrote...
All I want you to do is please repeat that explanation because I must have missed it.FataliTensei wrote...
Danman i remember you posting in another thread where someone already explained this to you
danman2424 wrote...
PyroFreak301 wrote...
Because incest has the potential for harmful consequences,
And if the male has had a vasectomy? The female has had her tubes tied? What objection then? No objection? What if they simply don't want to have children? What if the relationship is between a brother and a brother, sister and sister, mother and daughter, father or son? No objections? I take it you'd say "sure, let them be happy"?
Modifié par Ryzaki, 28 février 2010 - 04:07 .
danman2424 wrote...
And if the male has had a vasectomy? The female has had her tubes tied? What objection then? No objection? What if they simply don't want to have children? What if the relationship is between a brother and a brother, sister and sister, mother and daughter, father or son? No objections? I take it you'd say "sure, let them be happy"?PyroFreak301 wrote...
Because incest has the potential for harmful consequences,
Modifié par PyroFreak301, 28 février 2010 - 04:08 .
cutthecameras wrote...
"Just because you have a strange desire doesn't mean you have to act on it"
Signed,
Every homophobic bigot in the universeDamn right.Arik7 wrote...
I think we should all thank danman2424 for
bumping our thread from the start, however his off-topic moral
arguments are better left ignored.
I see the point is lost on you. The penis and vagina go together, thus male and female go together. Procreation doesn't have to be a part of it. They can engage in oral sex for all that matters. Either way, those are the 2 sexes that belong and we are given a very clear biological directive as evidence. Any other mix of partners is deviating from that fact.Allison W wrote...
danman2424 wrote...
Once again, I'm not sure how to regard those that lack "the instinctive urges" as you call them, or deviate from man on woman. I certainly don't hate them, but i'm not sure at all about whether they should be allowed to act on these desires just because they have them. Many people have all kinds of strange desires that they don't act on.Allison W wrote...
danman2424 wrote...
Where did I once say that sex had to be in the interest of procreation? I said it is very clear which two go together. Human male and human woman. Birth control or cervical cancer wouldn't change that.Allison W wrote...
Except you're approaching it from the idea that the only value in life is reproduction, which is the ideology of the cancer cell, and when applied to the most advanced animals (humans, dolphins, advanced primates, among others) is but a filthy lie--sex has been practiced, non-reproductively, for social bonding and pleasure long before even humans came along. You're basically claiming that anything not oriented towards reproduction is "physiologically inappropriate," which has no merit whatsoever--people do things not oriented towards reproduction all the time. And if you're not arguing that everything not oriented towards reproduction is "inappropriate," why do you single out sex as practiced for social bonding and pleasure instead of reproduction, and not, say, video gaming in general, which is still commonly regarded as diametrically opposed to reproduction?
What's next? Are you going to say you're better than people who use birth control, because it's not "physiologically appropriate"? Or are you going to find a way to feed your ego that's remotely constructive?
For procreation, yes--except you present it as superior not for procreation, but because you think it should be obvious that "this is how (straight people) do things." Do you regard those who don't share the same instinctive urges as inferior? Or superior? Because inequality necessitates one of the two. Or do you think that no one could possibly lack the instinctive urge to mate with the opposite biological sex via PIV intercourse, and only to mate with the opposite biological sex via PIV intercourse?
I don't know. Why should people interested in man-on-woman PIV be allowed to act on those urges just because they have them, when reproduction could be done with turkey basters?
didymos1120 wrote...
OK, on a more constructive note:
You know what'd be damn interesting? To hear what the VAs think of all this, especially those who had the same-sex versions of their dialogues cut. It would also be another nice way to debunk certain persistent claims about what was and was not originally in the game. I imagine many of them would be quite receptive to a polite and articulate email asking for their thoughts on the general subject. This isn't exactly the same thing, but "Mordin" responded to an email from a GameFAQs user recently:
Whoo, I just got a email from Mordin Solus! His VA at least....
It's at least a sort of "proof-of-concept" for this.
It might not be a bad idea to come up with a single letter on this topic which could be mailed, emphasizing that there's no expectation that they must reply and that they won't be pestered should they choose not to, and then make it so all supporters could add their signature (level of detail left up to the signee, of course). Though it may turn out to be the case, I have trouble believing we wouldn't get at least one response, and an honest one at that.
Fine I'll stop. I guess things are getting a bit derailed.PyroFreak301 wrote...
danman2424 wrote...
And if the male has had a vasectomy? The female has had her tubes tied? What objection then? No objection? What if they simply don't want to have children? What if the relationship is between a brother and a brother, sister and sister, mother and daughter, father or son? No objections? I take it you'd say "sure, let them be happy"?PyroFreak301 wrote...
Because incest has the potential for harmful consequences,
I'm not discussing it here, you can PM me if you're genuinely interested in discussing it.
Kaidan please!TheGondola wrote...
On a related note which current squaddie or npc would you like to be gay or bi?
TheGondola wrote...
On a related note which current squaddie or npc would you like to be gay or bi?
Modifié par FataliTensei, 28 février 2010 - 04:14 .
People have asked you to drop it, this discussion doesn't belong in this thread.danman2424 wrote...
I see the point is lost on you. The penis and vagina go together, thus male and female go together. Procreation doesn't have to be a part of it. They can engage in oral sex for all that matters. Either way, those are the 2 sexes that belong and we are given a very clear biological directive as evidence. Any other mix of partners is deviating from that fact.
Modifié par PyroFreak301, 28 février 2010 - 04:15 .
danman2424 wrote...
Fine I'll stop. I guess things are getting a bit derailed.PyroFreak301 wrote...
danman2424 wrote...
And if the male has had a vasectomy? The female has had her tubes tied? What objection then? No objection? What if they simply don't want to have children? What if the relationship is between a brother and a brother, sister and sister, mother and daughter, father or son? No objections? I take it you'd say "sure, let them be happy"?PyroFreak301 wrote...
Because incest has the potential for harmful consequences,
I'm not discussing it here, you can PM me if you're genuinely interested in discussing it.
Arik7 wrote...
Kaidan please!TheGondola wrote...
On a related note which current squaddie or npc would you like to be gay or bi?
TheGondola wrote...
On a related note which current squaddie or npc would you like to be gay or bi?
Any chance we can get default male Shepard to clone himself and have sex with himself in the game? He is definitely the hottest character model! <3Clay Curragh wrote...
Arik7 wrote...
Kaidan please!TheGondola wrote...
On a related note which current squaddie or npc would you like to be gay or bi?
I second that
TheGondola wrote...
On a related note which current squaddie or npc would you like to be gay or bi?
If cloning were available, I think Cerberus would have cloned Shepard quite a few times.danman2424 wrote...
Any chance we can get default male Shepard to clone himself and have sex with himself in the game? He is definitely the hottest character model! <3Clay Curragh wrote...
Arik7 wrote...
Kaidan please!TheGondola wrote...
On a related note which current squaddie or npc would you like to be gay or bi?
I second that
TheGondola wrote...
On a related note which current squaddie or npc would you like to be gay or bi?
TheGondola wrote...
On a related note which current squaddie or npc would you like to be gay or bi?
Throw Captain Anderson in there too pleeeez!Pteryx wrote...
TheGondola wrote...
On a related note which current squaddie or npc would you like to be gay or bi?
I would like to see Kaiden as an option for a male/male romance. I honestly could live without a male/male romance option in the ME2 crew, but if I had to choose, I suppose I'd have to say Jacob. Or Thane. Or hell, both! More options never hurt anyone.
didymos1120 wrote...
OK, on a more constructive note:
You know what'd be damn interesting? To hear what the VAs think of all this, especially those who had the same-sex versions of their dialogues cut. It would also be another nice way to debunk certain persistent claims about what was and was not originally in the game. I imagine many of them would be quite receptive to a polite and articulate email asking for their thoughts on the general subject. This isn't exactly the same thing, but "Mordin" responded to an email from a GameFAQs user recently:
Whoo, I just got a email from Mordin Solus! His VA at least....
It's at least a sort of "proof-of-concept" for this.
It might not be a bad idea to come up with a single letter on this topic which could be mailed, emphasizing that there's no expectation that they must reply and that they won't be pestered should they choose not to, and then make it so all supporters could add their signature (level of detail left up to the signee, of course). Though it may turn out to be the case, I have trouble believing we wouldn't get at least one response, and an honest one at that.
jlb524 wrote...
Jack, but just bi. I don't think 'lesbian' suits her.