@Son_of_Imoen anyone is entitled to have his/her opinion, if you don't agree keep it to youself or post it without attack directly another person as @Sir_Carnifex didn't attacked personally anyone.
If he just "feel" disgusting", that's how he feel, if he don't give any reason to feel that way there's no argument to be raised, and of course the deves are not going to take "someone feelings" in account for a possible retreat in homossexual content.
What he feel or think will change nothing, the game will have the bi character, no battle is needed.
He didn't personally attack anyone but stating that he finds gay romance 'disgusting' seems to be deliberately inflammatory. It could have been said about anything, from sexuality to race, and it would have probably offended someone/provoked a reaction. It's possible to state an opinion without being that blunt and pejorative about how a number of members of this forum live. It's possible to disagree tactfully and not be straight out offensive.
He wasn't being deliberately inflammatory. He was asked *twice* before he came out with that response. He was stating why it bothered him, he wasn't even shoving his beliefs on others, he was just asked what bothered him and he admitted it. Now you and Tanthalas of course had to go and try to get offended. GG, guys. (Mind you, I agree with Tanthalas calling him out on that ridiculous "that's how the other side operates" insult, but I think the comparison he made was completely illogical.)
I wasn't offended (nor did I "try" to be? ), I just didn't agree that Son_of_Imoen was criticised for "attacking" the author of a post that wasn't exactly inoffensive in the first place. I appreciate the debates in this thread, but it'd help if the opinion posted was backed up with reasoning rather than just posting something that could be seen as provocative, coming out with the insult line then disappearing. Not really phrasing what I'm trying to say very well, but yeah, in hindsight my post wasn't really thought through.
I dunno, maybe "coming out with the insult line then disappearing" is a good tactic. Hit-and-run. It would probably spare us all of a lot of headaches. Ahahaha
I'm not sure if the comment about "coming out with the insult line and then disappearing" was directed at me or not, but there are various reasons not to continue arguing.
...
Umm, yeah, cool. You do realize I spent a good two-three posts defending you right? You may want to check those out. Not sure why that was pointed at me.
He wasn't being deliberately inflammatory. He was asked *twice* before he came out with that response. He was stating why it bothered him, he wasn't even shoving his beliefs on others, he was just asked what bothered him and he admitted it. Now you and Tanthalas of course had to go and try to get offended. GG, guys. (Mind you, I agree with Tanthalas calling him out on that ridiculous "that's how the other side operates" insult, but I think the comparison he made was completely illogical.)
Apparently that is WAY too much to ask for, that someone respect someone's opinion instead of attacking them, just for holding an opinion.
You're welcome.
Yes, I realize you defended me. Thanks.
My post wasn't directed at you. I just quoted because of the one line in there, which I realize you quoted from someone else. I should have quoted the original post to avoid confusion, but it's a bit late now! Apologies for the mix-up.
IMO, sins (and evil) imply a behavior that is somehow damaging to anybody's wellbeing (including your own). by wellbeing i mean physical, emotional and psychological integrity. so homosexuality, just like sexuality itself has no inherent moral indication, it simply is.
This is delving pretty deep into the topic, and I don't think we can really do much here on the forum except just touch upon it. However, one cannot say that something is not harmful because on the exterior there is no IMMEDIATE harmful effect, whether physical or material. Such a discussion would have to involve principles of moral code, natural law, and so on, not to mention psychology of certain types of behavior and its causes. That would be a long, long discussion and considerably deeper than I believe most here care to go. But to just sweep something aside as being morally neutral without looking into all that isn't exactly a great way to go about defining what is good and what is bad. Not everything is cut-and-dry like that.
Also, keep in mind that many who oppose active homosexuality (there's a difference between acting on it and just having that inclination) regard it as beneath the dignity that they have as human beings. Obviously, it's not the sole reason, but I'm just pointing out that, yes, I do recognize that these people DO have dignity and I would never outright trash a person. But I do believe in pointing out errors where I see them (Think of it as grabbing a person's arm and yanking them from the road before a truck hits them!). Aside from forums (in which people tend to sling out accusations at people they truly do not know), nobody has ever accused me of "homophobia" (which is actually a poor term, though I know what is meant).
@Sir_Carnifex that is my idea and interpretation of sin, that would differ from another and my argument is presented in very simple, crude form, for which i think presents a general, neutral state of things upon which a religion, morals, beliefs, choices etc. can be added to come to final result (claims about rightness/wrongness of some act).
i stand by my belief that (homo)sexuality is neutral in itself, as well that in general sense it should be treated as such (still no excuse for rape, but no right to punish or otherwise limit freedom of individuals that consent and do not harm others (i do not see disapproval or disgust on ideological basis as harm to another)) although i'm not trying to say that people are/should be unable to perceive or label it otherwise if that is what their moral code consist of.
also as someone actively acting upon my homosexuality, i do not see or feel any negative side effects, internal or external, especially when i compare myself with straight friends and acquaintances, aside from unfavorable social circumstances. but the things i felt and saw as damaging to myself, were my years in the closet and process of denial.
my 2c not directed at anyone- i still hold some belief in existence of...something. so, if god exists and it condemns me for what i feel when i look in my lovers eyes, i do not think that would be god i would want to spend an eternity with. how could i love it if it forbids me to love? can emotion that by definition goes beyond boundaries and makes us one be selective and dividing at the same time? i wish people who believe we would burn in eternal fires of hell, would be less happy about shortening our lives, sending us faster toward what they believe is our destined eternity, or making short time on earth we have even more difficult and miserable for those of us that consider ourselves warned.
not trying to bait a discussion about god's mind or sex/love definition. this is solely my rant about how i FEEL about thing as is.
1. Ok say you have a problem with homosexuality personally, morally or whatever, but this game (as with with many others) allow you to kill, murder, lie and steal. Does this mean you have less of a problem with theft, murder and deception than you do with homosexuality? If not why not just let it slide like you do with those actions?
I'll address this one point. I'm not going to go into a lengthy argument, nor do I intend to be baited into a long discussion on it. Now to the answer.
In a good share of novels, movies, games, etc., the author, scriptwriter or whatever will have to write about and portray many different viewpoints. You have heroes, you have villains, you have those that sit on the fence and you have the common schmucks who just provide filler. Immorality WILL be portrayed because that's the conflict. The archenemy murders little children, or he robs banks, or whatever. Something has to be in there for the story to work.
So what's this have to do with anything? Okay, here it is: When something is immoral, I want it portrayed for what it is. In these games, it's quite obvious that murder is never portrayed as a good thing. Nobody kills an innocent civilian in BG2 and gets awarded good points. To me, it's the same way with anything that is immoral. I would want it to be portrayed for what it is. Now, with active homosexuality, it is being portrayed as an innate GOOD in these games. That is a big problem is for those of us who view it as immoral. See what I'm saying here? So, I wouldn't have a problem so much with an active homosexual person being portrayed IF it was an integral part of the story, IF there were no details, and IF it were being shown to be immoral.
Now, before anyone jumps on me, let me be clear I am not saying a homosexual person is akin to a murderer. I used that example because it's a very clear concept of something that is immoral that, I think, everyone here will agree with. Anyone here want to state publicly that murder isn't immoral? I didn't think so. That's why I used it... I don't want blurry lines in what I'm saying.
I don't really think this will sway people (people are generally pretty set in beliefs) but at least if gives a little understanding on this matter. Hopefully I worded it clearly... I don't always express everything well in written form, so if it's confusing, I'm sorry for that!
And off topic from what I'm saying above: I've noticed other people want a toggle switch or something. IF that doesn't happen (and I highly doubt it) and IF I purchase the game (leaning toward not doing so) I will, as I said before, make a mod that removes the bi aspect of the one character and I will make that available for anyone who wants it. That is if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
Ok first of all I have respect for the fact you have taken a position where you believe it is wrong, but you accept the dignity of homosexuals. However I just want to point out are we all allowed to say tantamount to: "I disagree with you, but I do not want to be challanged, and I want to have the last word, you cannot convince me to engage further or to brook challenge to my position, anyway onto my last words..."? To me that betrays a complete lack in ones own position to endure scrutiny.
In Baldur's Gate there are consequences to bieng good or evil to some extent, however if one is strong enough you can overcome a great many of them by being stronger or cleverer and defeating the law that comes to bring you in. If anything it says "might is right, but if you weather too much heat than you can handle, pop in to your nearest temple, and buy your reputation clear". If anything it sends the message you can get way with anything, as long as you have the strength, or money to get past the problem. To say nothing of thievery, where you can rob everybody blind, but as long as you don't get caught you're fine. The consequence comes from getting caught not the action itself.
Finally where is the negative consequence of sex before marriage? A lot of people find that inherently immoral and yet this is not portrayed in the least bit negatively. I'd have a lot more sympathy for your position if you were championing the whole spectrum of morality, but you make excuses for the things you accept, but not for things that you don't.
@Shandyr thank you. i red the discussion before and i admit it has good and comforting point for those that seek such things. it's not that i accept that kind of vision of god, it is just my way of dealing with such picture of it. i'm agnostic at heart and try to accept i have no idea what is out there if there is anything at all. we will all know for sure soon enough. in the meantime i can try to live as close to my definition of integrity or whatnot, as i can.
My dear girl @Jalily (edited as many posts happened between your statement and my answer), from where you take the idea that i'm hostile to you (in fact to anyone), i didn't even mentioned you, if the hood fits you and something that i said touch one of your problems... what can i do about it? I suggest you to take off the hostility from your eyes !
It's interesting how christians pick and choose what they think ought to be ok in the 21st century and what is still not ok. I'm not just talking about the old kosher food laws and not shaving a man's beard, but the much bigger ideas of the New Testament that people would rather not think about. Things like not coveting material wealth, a rich man having a difficult time entering heaven, not 'casting the first stone', turning the other cheek, love, charity etc. To my mind, it would take some serious wrangling to argue that the overriding message of the Gospels is not 'Don't worry so much about all that old stuff, just make sure you're all bloody nice to one everyone. PS Give all your stuff to the poor.'
It shocks me that, to so many conservative christians, the term 'socialist' is some kind of slur. If Jesus wasn't a socialist then... Well I must have been looking at a different Bible or something.
To bring this back on topic, I suppose my point is: Don't go on about sins as though your association with an established religion justifies your prejudices.
@Kamuizin I was joking thus the ";)" at the end. (Stands for a wink and a grin). I disagree with underage sex (as I already stated... somewhere on these threads) because underage people can't agree to a relationship like adults can- they don't have the experience and the wisdom that comes from such, to make the right decisions.
As for the person who compared being down on Homosexuals to yanking the arm of someone to get them out of the way of a moving truck (danger to them down the line), there are atheists who believe that allowing people to stay religious can cause danger and harm to those around them like homosexuals and people of religions the first person's religion doesn't agree with. It would be akin to letting an extremely drunk person into their own car to drive, knowing they are so drunk that they are likely to have an accident and hurt or kill someone. If you have the right to come down on homosexuals, then the atheists also have the same right to tell you that you are wrong for having a religion that causes you to view homosexuals like that. Not even all Christians believe that Homosexuality is bad, wrong or immoral, and believe the badness comes from coercive behavior- not just that two people of the same sex love each other or are having sex.
And, as has been pointed out before, the creator of the Realms has already stated that in the Realms, Homosexuality is seen as being neutral- it's not considered wrong or immoral in the Realms, so you are not going to find any game of the Realms in which it is considered wrong, immoral or villainous. Heck, Alustriel is portrayed by Ed Greenwood as having huge orgies where anyone can have anyone else and it's just fine... The Realms doesn't conform to your beliefs of what is wrong or immoral.
Finally where is the negative consequence of sex before marriage? A lot of people find that inherently immoral and yet this is not portrayed in the least bit negatively. I'd have a lot more sympathy for your position if you were championing the whole spectrum of morality, but you make excuses for the things you accept, but not for things that you don't.
Last I checked, this topic was about a specific thing in itself and I was staying on topic. Not mentioning other stuff is just avoiding going off into too many tangents. Making excuses for things... uh... I haven't made excuses for anything. I used one example (murder) to make a general point, but murder isn't exactly something I'm accepting of in society and I'm pretty sure that nobody could have gotten that impression! I'm not sure what post you've been reading, but it couldn't have been mine!
I thought it was self explanatory, there is objection to same sex relationship of which you have brought up objections citing a morality element to the discussion. I was merely commenting that you're playing a game that allows murder, theft, deception, pre-marital sex, and further enquiring why a problem with one and not the others? My contention is if you can let all the others slide why not this?
I also note you didn't raise objections of relevancy at the time I initially posted a reply, but waited until now when you evidentially want to duck the question on grounds of relevancy. I am afraid my friend I am more than aware of what this discussion, both in terms of what has been said and also what has not.
If you don't want to engage any further in this debate you are more than welcome to say this is making you uncomfortable, saying how you feel is a perfectly valid response, this IS a tough topic for a great many people and I am sensitive to that, but please don't insult my intelligence by trying to avoid the point on relevancy grounds, and also don't insult your own by thinking it would work.
I agree with Salieri - though we are getting off-topic here - that the relevance of the Old and New Testament for today lies mostly in it's implications of sharing the wealth: the Jubilee Years where debts are cancelled, the tale of the bread and the fishes (meaning sharing actually creates abundance), the way Jesus treats outcasts (I'm definitely sure he would pick the side of the homosexuals in this debate). For me the bible gets tainted with the notion of there being a creator (a good and almighty one at that) and all the obsolescentness and hatred in the Old Testament, but I still adhere to the socialistic christian values my parents told, the ones Salieri is pointing out as well.
I don't see christianity and capitalism mixing very well and I'm surprised especially in America it does, though Christian Democratic parties here in Europe make the same mistake. Somehow you're cherry-picking the bible if you don't see the outcry against social injustice (for instance by prophets like Jesaja, Jeremia and Micha as well as Jesus himself).
"Ok Lady, i get it, i disagree with a few of your last huge post comments but the points i disagree i have a strong idea of them as you do to, so we will gain nothing by discuss those matters."
You said this immediately after my post, so I thought it was addressed to me and rather odd given the circumstances since I hadn't said anything to you either, lol. Looks like it was a misunderstanding after all. Sorry about that.
Just didn't want to call lady's name again, soon she will complain that i call her name at each five minutes as i get this habit of always post refering to a person's name if i touch into an subject worked by that person.
Have you ever been in a bar and some drunk sitting by himself decides you're perfect audience for his world view? He seems to have solved all the world's problems. You indulge him for a few minutes to be polite but soon you realise he's not going to stop. Or have you ever had a house party and, after all the guests have gone, you realise there are still a few people in the living room arguing 'deep philosophy' when they're not sober enough to string a thought together? But from their point of view it's all very meaningful and they've never been more lucid. Having been in both situations and having been that drunken philosopher on the couch who won't leave, I can tell you that this thread is heading in that direction. In fact it was probably there some time ago. I'm sure the person who started it just wants to clear up the empty bottles and glasses and go to bed. Is that your taxi outside?
The real question is, what IS a taxi? Is it still a taxi if there's no one inside it? If a regular car ferries people around for money, does that become a taxi? Or does it become a bus?
@Aosaw If they don't have a license from the Taxi and Limousine Commission, it may be acting as a Taxi, but it's actually a Gypsy Cab (at least, that's what they call them in New York City). And I know, I know... /pedant
Can there ever be a topic asking about gay romance in a game that doesn't turn into a political/religious argument? Just wondering.
Anyway, real reason for posting: Any new news on which male is bi? And is there a link or something to where it was originally said that there even was a bi one? Out of everything this is the feature I'm looking forward to the most and I'm gonna be pretty sad if I get the game only to find out it was just an internet theory or something like that.
@Cyhort Trent Oster said it on Twitter. I don't know how to link individual tweets, so I'll just paste the conversation here:
KittyFuu: any same sex romance options for us not so straight players? TrentOster: We have one of the three who could be interested in a non-straight relationship
He said that on July 26.
As for which one is bi, they're keeping it a secret but most people think it's Rasaad.
Can there ever be a topic asking about gay romance in a game that doesn't turn into a political/religious argument? Just wondering.
Anyway, real reason for posting: Any new news on which male is bi? And is there a link or something to where it was originally said that there even was a bi one? Out of everything this is the feature I'm looking forward to the most and I'm gonna be pretty sad if I get the game only to find out it was just an internet theory or something like that.
I agree with you. and yes there is, but i have no idea where to find it. But i can give you another witness that it was said that one of the npc's will be romanced by both sex's and then in the reddit interview it was revealed that it would NOT be Neera, so one of the two male npc's is Bi, but they refuse to say which one.
@Cyhort Too many people come to these threads just to unleash their "Flamestrike" spells on the subject and anyone who supports it. I don't care if you like them or not, but trying to get such romances eliminated just annoys me. But I am sure you have already figured that out if you read this thread.
@Cyhort you can open a pool for gay romance and put 2 options there, yes and yes.
A forum is a place to discuss a matter, if you want to do statements you need to write an article for a magazine that support this thematic.
Many issues where discussed here and even if at first i feared a pit of flames in this thread, the gay romance topic turned to be a nice place of debate.
Call people that don't agree with the idea of flamers is too harsh @Ladyrhian, it's the same kind of intolerance that exist on society against the gay issue. Some people are just extreme in their opinions or use arguments that don't fit well (as religious ones), but until they resort to bad language, it's on their right to express personal opinions and reasons, be those reasons valid or not. Personal opinions will just be aknowledge, and flawed opinions can be refuted in this very thread.
@Kamuizin It's not me calling anyone anything. @Cyhort mentioned other boards and other games with similar threads. Other boards are far, far less kind than the people here have been. I was speaking of these kind of threads on forums generally. On other boards and in other forums, I have seen name-calling and a lot of other outright flaming. It's endemic to the kind of topic this is. Many people feel deeply on the issue, one way or another. And when their passions are roused, they roar back with a flame to people who disagree with them. When I said "These threads" I meant "Threads that discuss gay romance in games/a specific game". I should have been more clear, it's true. But that doesn't stop my words from also being true. So far, this board has been quite wonderful and restrained. It should be a model for how other threads on Gay Romance work. Sadly, it's only an outlier in a sea of flames.
@LadyRhian I know precisely what you mean. Although the funny thing is the vitriol of the homophobic side has actually served to push me further into supporting the gay community on this. In Mass Effect 3 I was less in favour of its incorporation, as that hadn't been established in past instalments of the franchise, however it became very clear to me how much intolerance and unpleasantness gay people endure from threads I read it suddenly became even more important to have it included. I play games to be immersed in different worlds, to be something different, and to escape for a little while. It becomes possibly even more significant for a marginalised group to feel validated and supported, as they can sometimes get precious little of either in the real world sometimes.
I hate having to talk in terms of groups, and communities as we are all human beings before we are anything else, and I feel that is often forgotten when topics like this come up. No-one really has all the answers, we're all just going through life making the best choices we can, and following our own natures. However one self-evident truth is that no "group" is inherently more likely to be virtuous or bad, but that seems to come up independently from race, nation, gender, creed, orientation or faith. The sooner people come to realise that the sooner we can live in peace in a (hopefully) better world.
I just think that a huge argument that no one raised, is that it's not only adults playing Baldur's Gate, but underage people too, and some families can become pretty upset with this content, after all we can't force how others will raise their childrens.
I just want to say to this, as you have said that no one has yet addressed this (which I actually have) I would just like to say that this argument is silly and also a small bit offensive... Firstly, it is rated T for teen. Secondly, if a child is playing a game or watching something on a television, it is the parent's fault for not being more attentive in the first place, unless if the child in question is engaging in those acts against their will for some odd and strange reason. In many cases, parents like to wage wars against such games and movies as if they are to blame for whatever behavior the child decides to go towards. This is one of the silliest things I have ever seen the human race engage in because they are taking the blame away from themselves and onto things that shouldn't have blame whatsoever.
Thirdly, there is MURDER, THEFT, SEX, and VIOLENCE in this game as well. Such a weird argument to pull here. This, is also somewhat offensive, because what you're implying is that homosexuality is abhorrent and perverse, and therefore, should be kept out of the face of a child because of those qualities. If perhaps I am reading too much into that, then fine; but I just want to let you know what your post seems to mean to me.
@Sir_Carnifex I find your idea to make a mod to take out the bisexuality in one of the male characters one of the best ideas I have seen so far. Instead of the homosexuals having to make the concession, the ones against the idea, are to be the ones to make it instead. If you intend to make a mod that removes the alternate sexuality from the game, I do urge you to do it, because then it truly becomes optional for those who want or feel like they require it.
@Xavioria Maybe they could add an extra sliding scale in the game play options screen for various sexual preferences: from "all," hetero-, homo-, and bi-sexual, to "off." That would make everyone happy--well, except for the people who want to control others' choices.
Comments
My post wasn't directed at you. I just quoted because of the one line in there, which I realize you quoted from someone else. I should have quoted the original post to avoid confusion, but it's a bit late now! Apologies for the mix-up.
Also, keep in mind that many who oppose active homosexuality (there's a difference between acting on it and just having that inclination) regard it as beneath the dignity that they have as human beings. Obviously, it's not the sole reason, but I'm just pointing out that, yes, I do recognize that these people DO have dignity and I would never outright trash a person. But I do believe in pointing out errors where I see them (Think of it as grabbing a person's arm and yanking them from the road before a truck hits them!). Aside from forums (in which people tend to sling out accusations at people they truly do not know), nobody has ever accused me of "homophobia" (which is actually a poor term, though I know what is meant).
i stand by my belief that (homo)sexuality is neutral in itself, as well that in general sense it should be treated as such (still no excuse for rape, but no right to punish or otherwise limit freedom of individuals that consent and do not harm others (i do not see disapproval or disgust on ideological basis as harm to another)) although i'm not trying to say that people are/should be unable to perceive or label it otherwise if that is what their moral code consist of.
also as someone actively acting upon my homosexuality, i do not see or feel any negative side effects, internal or external, especially when i compare myself with straight friends and acquaintances, aside from unfavorable social circumstances. but the things i felt and saw as damaging to myself, were my years in the closet and process of denial.
my 2c not directed at anyone- i still hold some belief in existence of...something. so, if god exists and it condemns me for what i feel when i look in my lovers eyes, i do not think that would be god i would want to spend an eternity with. how could i love it if it forbids me to love? can emotion that by definition goes beyond boundaries and makes us one be selective and dividing at the same time?
i wish people who believe we would burn in eternal fires of hell, would be less happy about shortening our lives, sending us faster toward what they believe is our destined eternity, or making short time on earth we have even more difficult and miserable for those of us that consider ourselves warned.
not trying to bait a discussion about god's mind or sex/love definition. this is solely my rant about how i FEEL about thing as is.
In Baldur's Gate there are consequences to bieng good or evil to some extent, however if one is strong enough you can overcome a great many of them by being stronger or cleverer and defeating the law that comes to bring you in. If anything it says "might is right, but if you weather too much heat than you can handle, pop in to your nearest temple, and buy your reputation clear". If anything it sends the message you can get way with anything, as long as you have the strength, or money to get past the problem. To say nothing of thievery, where you can rob everybody blind, but as long as you don't get caught you're fine. The consequence comes from getting caught not the action itself.
Finally where is the negative consequence of sex before marriage? A lot of people find that inherently immoral and yet this is not portrayed in the least bit negatively. I'd have a lot more sympathy for your position if you were championing the whole spectrum of morality, but you make excuses for the things you accept, but not for things that you don't.
It shocks me that, to so many conservative christians, the term 'socialist' is some kind of slur. If Jesus wasn't a socialist then... Well I must have been looking at a different Bible or something.
To bring this back on topic, I suppose my point is: Don't go on about sins as though your association with an established religion justifies your prejudices.
As for the person who compared being down on Homosexuals to yanking the arm of someone to get them out of the way of a moving truck (danger to them down the line), there are atheists who believe that allowing people to stay religious can cause danger and harm to those around them like homosexuals and people of religions the first person's religion doesn't agree with. It would be akin to letting an extremely drunk person into their own car to drive, knowing they are so drunk that they are likely to have an accident and hurt or kill someone. If you have the right to come down on homosexuals, then the atheists also have the same right to tell you that you are wrong for having a religion that causes you to view homosexuals like that. Not even all Christians believe that Homosexuality is bad, wrong or immoral, and believe the badness comes from coercive behavior- not just that two people of the same sex love each other or are having sex.
And, as has been pointed out before, the creator of the Realms has already stated that in the Realms, Homosexuality is seen as being neutral- it's not considered wrong or immoral in the Realms, so you are not going to find any game of the Realms in which it is considered wrong, immoral or villainous. Heck, Alustriel is portrayed by Ed Greenwood as having huge orgies where anyone can have anyone else and it's just fine... The Realms doesn't conform to your beliefs of what is wrong or immoral.
I also note you didn't raise objections of relevancy at the time I initially posted a reply, but waited until now when you evidentially want to duck the question on grounds of relevancy. I am afraid my friend I am more than aware of what this discussion, both in terms of what has been said and also what has not.
If you don't want to engage any further in this debate you are more than welcome to say this is making you uncomfortable, saying how you feel is a perfectly valid response, this IS a tough topic for a great many people and I am sensitive to that, but please don't insult my intelligence by trying to avoid the point on relevancy grounds, and also don't insult your own by thinking it would work.
I don't see christianity and capitalism mixing very well and I'm surprised especially in America it does, though Christian Democratic parties here in Europe make the same mistake. Somehow you're cherry-picking the bible if you don't see the outcry against social injustice (for instance by prophets like Jesaja, Jeremia and Micha as well as Jesus himself).
"Ok Lady, i get it, i disagree with a few of your last huge post comments but the points i disagree i have a strong idea of them as you do to, so we will gain nothing by discuss those matters."
You said this immediately after my post, so I thought it was addressed to me and rather odd given the circumstances since I hadn't said anything to you either, lol. Looks like it was a misunderstanding after all. Sorry about that.
Or have you ever had a house party and, after all the guests have gone, you realise there are still a few people in the living room arguing 'deep philosophy' when they're not sober enough to string a thought together? But from their point of view it's all very meaningful and they've never been more lucid.
Having been in both situations and having been that drunken philosopher on the couch who won't leave, I can tell you that this thread is heading in that direction. In fact it was probably there some time ago.
I'm sure the person who started it just wants to clear up the empty bottles and glasses and go to bed.
Is that your taxi outside?
These are important questions...
Anyway, real reason for posting: Any new news on which male is bi? And is there a link or something to where it was originally said that there even was a bi one? Out of everything this is the feature I'm looking forward to the most and I'm gonna be pretty sad if I get the game only to find out it was just an internet theory or something like that.
KittyFuu: any same sex romance options for us not so straight players?
TrentOster: We have one of the three who could be interested in a non-straight relationship
He said that on July 26.
As for which one is bi, they're keeping it a secret but most people think it's Rasaad.
A forum is a place to discuss a matter, if you want to do statements you need to write an article for a magazine that support this thematic.
Many issues where discussed here and even if at first i feared a pit of flames in this thread, the gay romance topic turned to be a nice place of debate.
Call people that don't agree with the idea of flamers is too harsh @Ladyrhian, it's the same kind of intolerance that exist on society against the gay issue. Some people are just extreme in their opinions or use arguments that don't fit well (as religious ones), but until they resort to bad language, it's on their right to express personal opinions and reasons, be those reasons valid or not. Personal opinions will just be aknowledge, and flawed opinions can be refuted in this very thread.
I hate having to talk in terms of groups, and communities as we are all human beings before we are anything else, and I feel that is often forgotten when topics like this come up. No-one really has all the answers, we're all just going through life making the best choices we can, and following our own natures. However one self-evident truth is that no "group" is inherently more likely to be virtuous or bad, but that seems to come up independently from race, nation, gender, creed, orientation or faith. The sooner people come to realise that the sooner we can live in peace in a (hopefully) better world.
Thirdly, there is MURDER, THEFT, SEX, and VIOLENCE in this game as well. Such a weird argument to pull here. This, is also somewhat offensive, because what you're implying is that homosexuality is abhorrent and perverse, and therefore, should be kept out of the face of a child because of those qualities. If perhaps I am reading too much into that, then fine; but I just want to let you know what your post seems to mean to me.
@Sir_Carnifex I find your idea to make a mod to take out the bisexuality in one of the male characters one of the best ideas I have seen so far. Instead of the homosexuals having to make the concession, the ones against the idea, are to be the ones to make it instead. If you intend to make a mod that removes the alternate sexuality from the game, I do urge you to do it, because then it truly becomes optional for those who want or feel like they require it.