@Shandyr i did not say bjorrick used it as such, although explanation could be very easily understood that way. i do not expect him to change his mind or explain it differently.
but i will occasionally react and TRY to present the other side of an argument, so that gentle readers of this thread may create their own opinion (if they had none) with more input in mind.
But romantic love is only for husband wife. There is brotherly/sisterly love and many kinds of love.
Sorry, i guess i'm not making much sense now. Hehe, please ask me what doesn't make sense and when i get home from work tomorrow, will try to do a much better job explaining.
I'm not sure if this makes sense. It sort of sounds like you're saying that only a married man and woman can experience romantic love. Could you expand?
I am absolutely... Annoyed by this thread... Although I'm sure that is of no consequence to anyone.
I DO think it's interesting that anything said against a homosexual in game romance is interpreted as homophobic... And that's just as wrong AS the homophobic comments themselves. For those that are against the idea... What is so hard about explaining why, and when it IS explained, why is the explanation of no consequence to either side?
I am a homosexual, I personally want a homosexual romance in the game. I saw on here that someone said why not play as female and have a relationship with a male that way? That's not a compromise unfortunately, because most people insert either themselves or a facet thereof into their gaming experience, and for those who want to do that, need to have a gay romance in order to fully insert themselves creatively.
For those that say they don't want that because of some "gay agenda" need to stop trying to mask their own homophobia, you might say that that is not what you're doing, but it is. Gay people want a spot in video games because they want their spot! It's just that simple. If they took all th heterosexuality out of every video game, would you still play it? No, you would want YOUR spots back so that you can play the way YOU want, then just to be comical, WE as gays should accuse you of having an agenda.
Next, the talk about the validity of homosexuality being nature or nurture, shouldn't really belong here, but here's my two cents: whether or not homosexuality is natural is still debatable, because there are facts to support both sides. One thing for certain is that it is NOT a conscious choice! Deciding to be out and proud or closeted IS a choice, but the basics of attraction is not something I woke up one morning and decided. How any person could actually use that ever is beyond me, because if you stop to think about it, that concept makes NO sense.
Another thing I want to address is people saying "let the modders do it." the reason why that statement is unfair, is because it should be only right that we can have a part that is professionally done by those who have had an initial hand in the creation of this game. Saying that a third party should do it is implying that we as gays shouldn't be given something first rate, we should wait around until some second rate writer decides they want to do it. I'm not saying that the mod writers are terrible writers, to the contrary, they are very talented and I DO love some of their work. What I AM saying is that, that comment in and of itself is very insulting, and unfair.
Lastly, I also want to put in one last thing. The whole "well then just ignore it" is not a fair argument either, because that is basically saying that people should be persuaded to ignore one of the features of a video game. To a game that has a heavy base of story telling and characterization, that is hardly a fair argument, because homosexuality is part of the personality and might make people leave Dorn, if it's him, where he is because of it. If straight people want Dorn to be straight, then they should have the ability to fight for that.
Furthermore, in a debate, everyone in question needs to be more open minded to other's opinions an arguments and humble yourselves. There is not one person in this forum that has been right about everything every single time.
Well @Xavioria thanks for get the theme back, the religious discussion was cool at the begin, but people wrote a neo age testament here and i get absolutely lost after a time.
While i agree with you in many points i must disagree in some statement.
Not everyone that think that gay content is filling quotas for minorities is truly homophobic, generalize always keep us from the truth of the facts and normally finsh by prejudice some reasonable arguments, however it's obvious (even in some comments in this very thread) that some of the "gay agenda" alike comments are homophobic.
About the unnatural/natural business it's totally on topic, here in this thread at least, and people normally look something being called unnatural with pre concepts. Here this concept is just the opposite, when i call homossexuality unnatural i mean that it escape nature's instinct control, function or objective, i make homossexuality a human thing this way.
While as some people point exist homossexuality behavior among animals, on them i see it as a genetic defect or wrong expression of hormones, as the animals are truly bound to their instinct there's no enough awareness to them understand or choose in this subject, the same animal that make sex with another of the same sex would do it with another of the opossite sex, it isn't a choice but only a question of opportunity.
When a human choose to be homosexual, it's done with awareness, it express an awaken understand on the issue, therefore unlike you state it is a choice because humas aren't bound to their instinct, they're only influenced by it, up to a limit.
This is my view, i assure you that it's not biased but can of course not be accurate, i'm no biologist, doctor or psychologist, it took sometime to reflect in those facts during my life time and it's the conclusion I got.
And you are welcome to your opinion @Kamuizin, and I'm not finding your post to be homophobic, as you seem to more be looking at homosexuality with a view that is as if you are alienating something. That isn't incorrect by any means.
Basically, however, what you seem to be saying is a bit confusing, because I gather that what you're saying is that in the animal kingdom BESIDES us, it is a defect in the animal in question; whereas in humans, it is a choice. This makes no sense to me. Which is it? Do you think that we as gays are being rebellious, or are we simply defective? It is not a simple question obviously, but, as I stated before, I have never met a person who decided beforehand on what their sexuality would be; and although this is somewhat of a confusing question, I ask this: when did you decide to turn on your attraction to women, and turn it off to men?
In order for there to be choices, there has to be options. For those of you who insinuate that homosexuality is a choice, this must mean that HETEROSEXUALITY is too something to choose. This further implies that every female and male were attracted to both sexes at one point, and the heterosexual men decided that they no longer were attracted to males.
So my question to you, and anyone else who thinks of homosexuality as a choice, is when did you decide to not be attracted to males anymore, and exclusively be attracted to females?
I choose each day, each time that i date a woman to be straight, hererossexuality and homossexuality aren't a faction, they're a choice of the moment. I never choose to be atracted by males as i never feel the urge for it before, if i had feel this, i would choose to follow that urge or no. I believe that or you have the same issue with womans or by society standarts you tried maybe to date some womans and that didn't work, so for a time you choose to be straight.
You can tell them that if it's a choice to both parts, so neither are natural, but my choice mach nature's interest the nature's organic programmation to our specie is made to a man be with a woman, therefore the specie continues, our senses, instincts (that influence, they don't rule us) and perceptions contributes to straight behaviors.
If nature (and i mean the strict sense of nature) didn't mean to pursue straight relationships, there would be no sex differences and we would be an hermaphrodite specie. Straight just serves nature's interest.
I can say to end my argument that be straight is the natural choice, while being homossexual is the unnatural choice, i don't mean that your organism is different than anyone else as become clear that from the very begin i never labeled homossexuality as a mistake, disease or any other king of nickname, what i mean is that sexual choice in the end, is simple and pure free will, and it's in our capacity to chose the patch we want, not the natural only.
And you are welcome to your opinion @Kamuizin, and I'm not finding your post to be homophobic, as you seem to more be looking at homosexuality with a view that is as if you are alienating something. That isn't incorrect by any means.
Basically, however, what you seem to be saying is a bit confusing, because I gather that what you're saying is that in the animal kingdom BESIDES us, it is a defect in the animal in question; whereas in humans, it is a choice. This makes no sense to me. Which is it? Do you think that we as gays are being rebellious, or are we simply defective? It is not a simple question obviously, but, as I stated before, I have never met a person who decided beforehand on what their sexuality would be; and although this is somewhat of a confusing question, I ask this: when did you decide to turn on your attraction to women, and turn it off to men?
In order for there to be choices, there has to be options. For those of you who insinuate that homosexuality is a choice, this must mean that HETEROSEXUALITY is too something to choose. This further implies that every female and male were attracted to both sexes at one point, and the heterosexual men decided that they no longer were attracted to males.
So my question to you, and anyone else who thinks of homosexuality as a choice, is when did you decide to not be attracted to males anymore, and exclusively be attracted to females?
I am still struggling to understand the distinction between natural and unnatural. It was previously referred to as a "restrict" definition of nature and there was a reference to a wikipedia link but the link did not clarify anything for me because it did not offer a definition of restrict or restrictive and didn't distinguish between natural and unnatural. I feel like if I understood where he was going with that distinction that it would clarify this point and others as well.
For me the answer is mercy. God is the one who judges. God is the one who chooses to be merciful or not.
And I refuse to believe that every homo/bisexual on this earth who cannot change his/her sexuality is doomed no matter what.
In my belief, God would be far too loving and merciful to let that happen, but ultimately it would be his choice of course.
I'm a jealous, sometimes wrathful person. I'm not a hard worker and a lot of times I'm not thankful enough for what I have.
But I think, chances are, I'm still getting into Heaven. I'll be a sinner the day I go to the grave, but I think I'm still saved. It's not about being sinless ... and heck, a lot of really good people have one thing that they just can't beat, and I'm relatively certain they're saved. So yeah, I agree with you.
Also, to you folks out there who say "well animals are sometimes homosexuals, so we can be too." Well, absolutely yes you can be I'm not denying that. But it's the worst logic ever. Don't we try to hold ourselves ABOVE the actions of other animals? Other animals go around raping and killing each other, showing no mercy, seeking only to survive and be the best. Aren't we ABOVE being just animals? That's why I think it's bad logic. I'm sure someone will tell me I'm being rude by saying this or something. But really, I just think that point should be dropped because it's an awful point. There are far, far more convincing arguments in favor of homosexuality. Seriously.
@Tanthalas I am no theologian either, but I think you have it about right. Old testament is more fear of God, new testament is more about love.
For everyone else.
I am certainly not hating on anyone for their sexual preference. But really, does an update of the all time greatest game have to include political correctness updates too? There was no content included in the original game to make sure the LGBT community felt included and pretty much everyone on this forum bought it anyway.
Once you start down the road of making sure every group has some content just for them where do you stop?
What about animal rights activist? How in the hell can you justify killing those poor war dogs, cave bears, and dread wolves.
Nothing in there for veterans. How unpatriotic can you be.
I can go on but I think you get the point.
If people don't want to buy the game for lack of gay romances that is their choice. If there are gay romances in the EE and people don't want to buy it because of that, it is their choice too.
Me, I don't give a shit one way or the other. I just want to chunk some ass.
I am certainly not hating on anyone for their sexual preference. But really, does an update of the all time greatest game have to include political correctness updates too? There was no content included in the original game to make sure the LGBT community felt included and pretty much everyone on this forum bought it anyway.
Once you start down the road of making sure every group has some content just for them where do you stop?
Rather than seeing it as content to appease a minority group, why not just see it as new content? There were no romances in BG1, do you see them all as included in the game purely for 'love activists'? Is it entirely implausible that the developers chose to include a bisexual character simply because that's what they wanted to do?
Also, to you folks out there who say "well animals are sometimes homosexuals, so we can be too." Well, absolutely yes you can be I'm not denying that. But it's the worst logic ever. Don't we try to hold ourselves ABOVE the actions of other animals? Other animals go around raping and killing each other, showing no mercy, seeking only to survive and be the best. Aren't we ABOVE being just animals? That's why I think it's bad logic. I'm sure someone will tell me I'm being rude by saying this or something. But really, I just think that point should be dropped because it's an awful point. There are far, far more convincing arguments in favor of homosexuality. Seriously.
I haven't used the 'animals can be homosexual too' point for the simple reason that I don't think it's very convincing - though I don't think it's illogical. What IS illogical is that many seem to hold the dual opinion that 'oh I have no problem with homosexuality, but it's unnatural' and 'humans should be separate from and rise above mere animals'. I just don't understand all of this NATURE'S PLAN guff, is using a computer IN NATURE'S PLAN?
@Quartz I agree with your reasoning there, and I suspect almost everyone on the pro side does too. I just feel the need to clarify something: evidence of homosexuality in nature is only meant as a point against those calling it unnatural, not to insist that being natural makes it okay by itself. Because the word unnatural is so loaded with the connotation that "natural = good, unnatural = bad", it's usually the pro side that disputes the natural fallacy first (@Adul did it WAY back in this thread; I know others have too).
Leaving out the whole natural/unnatural mess (which I totally agree with dropping), the most common arguments in this thread are that 1) a gay romance won't be forced on anyone, 2) it's an option for those who have been excluded in the past, and 3) there's nothing harmful about homosexuality itself (see the citation bomb a few pages back on same sex couples raising children as well as straight ones). So yeah, plenty of better arguments than whether animals are gay.
@Munin There were no romances in the original BG1, and people bought it anyway. But look around the forums and you'll see how excited people are to be able to romance these three new characters. It's called an Enhanced Edition at least in part because of the new content. And since romances are being added, most people want to participate without having to be a gender or sexuality they're not. Would you dismiss as political correctness Overhaul's decision to include two straight romances for women in order to make up for the lack of good content they got in BG2?
Do you choose the woman you fall in love with, if male for example? No, your body and mind react to her, and many times people admit " what did i ever find in her "? Well champ, you didn't, your body did, and you had no part in it, your choice is only about going out or marrying her, not about your feelings.
Choice of who to love doesn't exist. You don't control these things, just as you don't control many muscles in your body that are controlled by the autonomous nerval system as well.
Your body just reacts to a certain stimulus, and the only choice you get is to go forward or not, based on the psychological limits you have, aka, you can stop yourself if you believe it's a sin for example, but that won't change the fact that you are like that.
And it won't change the fact that people force you to believe it's a sin, through teachings that Christ himself did not even say, making you feel secluded, guilty and a defect, which is unacceptable.
Believing in God and accepting the Bible, for me are two entirely different things, and it is your choice to believe whatever you want, however, a sin, if you accept the term, because i don't, is something that you choose to do. There is no conscious choice in being homosexual, unless you want to believe that you choose who to have feelings for.
The will of God, a being outside of time and logic, but that humans always knew what He wanted and allowed right?
Human-centered. Everything we do is human-centered. Science, religion, everything. We try to explain things based on how WE think.
I think God cares more about what you carry in your heart, and not about choices you don't even have. And God's will, that miraculously some people know without him saying anything about certain facts however, should never be used as an excuse to name everything we don't agree with as wrong and sinful. Speaking more about officials here.
I could say more stuff about both subjects, but it will turn to a more heated topic so i'll just stop here.
We have managed to derail this thread in every way possible, this is about gay romances in Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition, and if it's not, it doesn't belong in the general chat.
Long story short, if you want gay romances, stay and discuss, if you don't, stop trying to convince people that they don't belong anywhere because of your belief of what is natural or not, not only it has chances of starting flames, but we never stay on topic also.
Now where's that damn female sword i asked for?! ~_o
@kamuizin i think there has been plenty of good discussion, external links and reasoning on the unnatural/natural aspect of homosexuality. believe what you will, i will not try to convince you otherwise, but be careful how or where you use those words, because your explanations can simply be viewed a a rhetoric attempt to prove the homosexuality is wrong. too many people, including governments, equals natural and gods thus saying it is right or wrong. besides, i think you are confusing STATE of a being with its BEHAVIOR. i may try to date women but i'm still attracted only to men, my external actions do not change my NATURE, just like you might dress like a woman but you would still be a man.
edit: @Jalily , i echoed your response before reading it. i agree with dropping the natural/unnatural thing, AS WELL as religion, since there is no ideological middle ground. if we are so much better than animals i think we can agree we will respect each others choices without judging. part of respect is also allowing people their space and time. requesting such in-game option is just that.
I choose each day, each time that i date a woman to be straight, hererossexuality and homossexuality aren't a faction, they're a choice of the moment. I never choose to be atracted by males as i never feel the urge for it before, if i had feel this, i would choose to follow that urge or no. I believe that or you have the same issue with womans or by society standarts you tried maybe to date some womans and that didn't work, so for a time you choose to be straight.
Thanks for that explanation. Because that shows that you and I have different definitions of sexual orientation.
You say it is about choosing to follow the urge.
In my definition it is the urge itself. When I say I cannot change my sexual preferece at will, then I mean I can NOT chose when and how the urge you describe shows up. And when I say I'm homosexual this urge usually only shows up on males.
Can you control your urge? Can you switch it on and off at your will like you please? I can not do so. Yet of course I could choose to follow or not follow the urge when it shows up, but this is not my definition of sexual orientation.
If I get you right, your definition is: Homosexuality is to act consciously (i.e. by choice) in a homosexual way. Following the urge.
My definition is: Homosexuality is to be unconsciously (i.e. not by choice) homosexual. Having the urge in the first place.
Good post.
This doesn't explain the natural/unnatural dichotomy for me though. Unnatural has been used to describe both humans making the choice to consciously act in a homosexual way as well as animals exhibiting the behavior. Using the conscious choice aspect for human behavior makes a lot of sense. However, it doesn't explain how animals engage in "unnatural" behavior when the animals cannot make rational, non-instinctual decisions, though, or why one would use the same term to describe two very different ideas.
I may be conflating terms here, I just am still struggling with the term "unnatural."
Personally, I find it hard to believe that someone chooses his/her sexuality, at most I think that they can only choose to deny their sexuality for social reasons.
But, in the end, I think whether sexuality is a choice or not is simply irrelevant. Even if it were possible, so what if people chose to be gay? Being gay isn't a synonym for bad or wrong.
Indeed, we focus more on details and less on the essence.
Loving and accepting each other should always come first, if it did, we would not have all the discriminations, sexual and otherwise, among with other nasty situations.
You could have all the differences in the world with someone, but sometimes a smile, a gesture of good heart and acceptance is all you need to go forward.
Instead of labeling things as right and wrong, we could try to understand and accept something different first.
And then all run together towards the sunset /LOL no forget that, too much anime.
My poll about gay romances got taken down. A few observations:
1. The forum mods are on the side of the people that prefer gay romances 2. There is no allowance for disagreement or differing opinions (posts deleted, threads deleted, accusations of bigotry or homophobia) 3. There is some strong censorship going on (this is a private forum, and I guess that's ok, but it's not right)
Yeah, I'm sure you'd prefer that I "censor" any mention of gay content on the board instead of posts/polls clearly meant to discriminate against people.
Don't worry, when people start discriminating heterosexuals I'll "censor" them too.
If you don't want a gay romance in the game, don't pursue it. I personally wouldn't pursue a gay romance in a game cause that's just not really what im into, but If two fictional male/male or female/female characters want to bone. It's not like "oh hey two dudes can bone NOW THE WHOLE GAME IS RUINED BY A THING THAT I DONT EVEN HAVE TO EXPERIENCE!!"
jeez, acting like the inclusion of it will turn you gay if you play the game. or maybe you're just closeted and the thought that this might push you over the edge makes you scared, who knows.
@Jorkan, there's a difference between have an opinion and fuel rage discussions.
We already have at least 4 threads that discuss or discussed gay romances, if you want to express your opinion make it in one of those threads, we don't need a pool to start a war in the forum, specially one with 2 options, yes and no, that will only achieve the creation of factions pro/anti gay.
This isn't a stupid subject that you can answer yes or no, the 17 pages of posts in this thread already prove it.
My poll about gay romances got taken down. A few observations:
1. The forum mods are on the side of the people that prefer gay romances 2. There is no allowance for disagreement or differing opinions (posts deleted, threads deleted, accusations of bigotry or homophobia) 3. There is some strong censorship going on (this is a private forum, and I guess that's ok, but it's not right)
Last news you can still discust the subject here... censorship, yeah right
Comments
i did not say bjorrick used it as such, although explanation could be very easily understood that way.
i do not expect him to change his mind or explain it differently.
but i will occasionally react and TRY to present the other side of an argument, so that gentle readers of this thread may create their own opinion (if they had none) with more input in mind.
I DO think it's interesting that anything said against a homosexual in game romance is interpreted as homophobic... And that's just as wrong AS the homophobic comments themselves. For those that are against the idea... What is so hard about explaining why, and when it IS explained, why is the explanation of no consequence to either side?
I am a homosexual, I personally want a homosexual romance in the game. I saw on here that someone said why not play as female and have a relationship with a male that way? That's not a compromise unfortunately, because most people insert either themselves or a facet thereof into their gaming experience, and for those who want to do that, need to have a gay romance in order to fully insert themselves creatively.
For those that say they don't want that because of some "gay agenda" need to stop trying to mask their own homophobia, you might say that that is not what you're doing, but it is. Gay people want a spot in video games because they want their spot! It's just that simple. If they took all th heterosexuality out of every video game, would you still play it? No, you would want YOUR spots back so that you can play the way YOU want, then just to be comical, WE as gays should accuse you of having an agenda.
Next, the talk about the validity of homosexuality being nature or nurture, shouldn't really belong here, but here's my two cents: whether or not homosexuality is natural is still debatable, because there are facts to support both sides. One thing for certain is that it is NOT a conscious choice! Deciding to be out and proud or closeted IS a choice, but the basics of attraction is not something I woke up one morning and decided. How any person could actually use that ever is beyond me, because if you stop to think about it, that concept makes NO sense.
Another thing I want to address is people saying "let the modders do it." the reason why that statement is unfair, is because it should be only right that we can have a part that is professionally done by those who have had an initial hand in the creation of this game. Saying that a third party should do it is implying that we as gays shouldn't be given something first rate, we should wait around until some second rate writer decides they want to do it. I'm not saying that the mod writers are terrible writers, to the contrary, they are very talented and I DO love some of their work. What I AM saying is that, that comment in and of itself is very insulting, and unfair.
Lastly, I also want to put in one last thing. The whole "well then just ignore it" is not a fair argument either, because that is basically saying that people should be persuaded to ignore one of the features of a video game. To a game that has a heavy base of story telling and characterization, that is hardly a fair argument, because homosexuality is part of the personality and might make people leave Dorn, if it's him, where he is because of it. If straight people want Dorn to be straight, then they should have the ability to fight for that.
Furthermore, in a debate, everyone in question needs to be more open minded to other's opinions an arguments and humble yourselves. There is not one person in this forum that has been right about everything every single time.
While i agree with you in many points i must disagree in some statement.
Not everyone that think that gay content is filling quotas for minorities is truly homophobic, generalize always keep us from the truth of the facts and normally finsh by prejudice some reasonable arguments, however it's obvious (even in some comments in this very thread) that some of the "gay agenda" alike comments are homophobic.
About the unnatural/natural business it's totally on topic, here in this thread at least, and people normally look something being called unnatural with pre concepts. Here this concept is just the opposite, when i call homossexuality unnatural i mean that it escape nature's instinct control, function or objective, i make homossexuality a human thing this way.
While as some people point exist homossexuality behavior among animals, on them i see it as a genetic defect or wrong expression of hormones, as the animals are truly bound to their instinct there's no enough awareness to them understand or choose in this subject, the same animal that make sex with another of the same sex would do it with another of the opossite sex, it isn't a choice but only a question of opportunity.
When a human choose to be homosexual, it's done with awareness, it express an awaken understand on the issue, therefore unlike you state it is a choice because humas aren't bound to their instinct, they're only influenced by it, up to a limit.
This is my view, i assure you that it's not biased but can of course not be accurate, i'm no biologist, doctor or psychologist, it took sometime to reflect in those facts during my life time and it's the conclusion I got.
Basically, however, what you seem to be saying is a bit confusing, because I gather that what you're saying is that in the animal kingdom BESIDES us, it is a defect in the animal in question; whereas in humans, it is a choice. This makes no sense to me. Which is it? Do you think that we as gays are being rebellious, or are we simply defective? It is not a simple question obviously, but, as I stated before, I have never met a person who decided beforehand on what their sexuality would be; and although this is somewhat of a confusing question, I ask this: when did you decide to turn on your attraction to women, and turn it off to men?
In order for there to be choices, there has to be options. For those of you who insinuate that homosexuality is a choice, this must mean that HETEROSEXUALITY is too something to choose. This further implies that every female and male were attracted to both sexes at one point, and the heterosexual men decided that they no longer were attracted to males.
So my question to you, and anyone else who thinks of homosexuality as a choice, is when did you decide to not be attracted to males anymore, and exclusively be attracted to females?
I choose each day, each time that i date a woman to be straight, hererossexuality and homossexuality aren't a faction, they're a choice of the moment. I never choose to be atracted by males as i never feel the urge for it before, if i had feel this, i would choose to follow that urge or no. I believe that or you have the same issue with womans or by society standarts you tried maybe to date some womans and that didn't work, so for a time you choose to be straight.
You can tell them that if it's a choice to both parts, so neither are natural, but my choice mach nature's interest the nature's organic programmation to our specie is made to a man be with a woman, therefore the specie continues, our senses, instincts (that influence, they don't rule us) and perceptions contributes to straight behaviors.
If nature (and i mean the strict sense of nature) didn't mean to pursue straight relationships, there would be no sex differences and we would be an hermaphrodite specie. Straight just serves nature's interest.
I can say to end my argument that be straight is the natural choice, while being homossexual is the unnatural choice, i don't mean that your organism is different than anyone else as become clear that from the very begin i never labeled homossexuality as a mistake, disease or any other king of nickname, what i mean is that sexual choice in the end, is simple and pure free will, and it's in our capacity to chose the patch we want, not the natural only.
But I think, chances are, I'm still getting into Heaven. I'll be a sinner the day I go to the grave, but I think I'm still saved. It's not about being sinless ... and heck, a lot of really good people have one thing that they just can't beat, and I'm relatively certain they're saved. So yeah, I agree with you.
Also, to you folks out there who say "well animals are sometimes homosexuals, so we can be too." Well, absolutely yes you can be I'm not denying that. But it's the worst logic ever. Don't we try to hold ourselves ABOVE the actions of other animals? Other animals go around raping and killing each other, showing no mercy, seeking only to survive and be the best. Aren't we ABOVE being just animals? That's why I think it's bad logic. I'm sure someone will tell me I'm being rude by saying this or something. But really, I just think that point should be dropped because it's an awful point. There are far, far more convincing arguments in favor of homosexuality. Seriously.
For everyone else.
I am certainly not hating on anyone for their sexual preference. But really, does an update of the all time greatest game have to include political correctness updates too? There was no content included in the original game to make sure the LGBT community felt included and pretty much everyone on this forum bought it anyway.
Once you start down the road of making sure every group has some content just for them where do you stop?
What about animal rights activist? How in the hell can you justify killing those poor war dogs, cave bears, and dread wolves.
Nothing in there for veterans. How unpatriotic can you be.
I can go on but I think you get the point.
If people don't want to buy the game for lack of gay romances that is their choice. If there are gay romances in the EE and people don't want to buy it because of that, it is their choice too.
Me, I don't give a shit one way or the other. I just want to chunk some ass.
EDIT: I haven't used the 'animals can be homosexual too' point for the simple reason that I don't think it's very convincing - though I don't think it's illogical. What IS illogical is that many seem to hold the dual opinion that 'oh I have no problem with homosexuality, but it's unnatural' and 'humans should be separate from and rise above mere animals'. I just don't understand all of this NATURE'S PLAN guff, is using a computer IN NATURE'S PLAN?
Leaving out the whole natural/unnatural mess (which I totally agree with dropping), the most common arguments in this thread are that 1) a gay romance won't be forced on anyone, 2) it's an option for those who have been excluded in the past, and 3) there's nothing harmful about homosexuality itself (see the citation bomb a few pages back on same sex couples raising children as well as straight ones). So yeah, plenty of better arguments than whether animals are gay.
@Munin There were no romances in the original BG1, and people bought it anyway. But look around the forums and you'll see how excited people are to be able to romance these three new characters. It's called an Enhanced Edition at least in part because of the new content. And since romances are being added, most people want to participate without having to be a gender or sexuality they're not. Would you dismiss as political correctness Overhaul's decision to include two straight romances for women in order to make up for the lack of good content they got in BG2?
Do you choose the woman you fall in love with, if male for example? No, your body and mind react to her, and many times people admit " what did i ever find in her "? Well champ, you didn't, your body did, and you had no part in it, your choice is only about going out or marrying her, not about your feelings.
Choice of who to love doesn't exist. You don't control these things, just as you don't control many muscles in your body that are controlled by the autonomous nerval system as well.
Your body just reacts to a certain stimulus, and the only choice you get is to go forward or not, based on the psychological limits you have, aka, you can stop yourself if you believe it's a sin for example, but that won't change the fact that you are like that.
And it won't change the fact that people force you to believe it's a sin, through teachings that Christ himself did not even say, making you feel secluded, guilty and a defect, which is unacceptable.
Believing in God and accepting the Bible, for me are two entirely different things, and it is your choice to believe whatever you want, however, a sin, if you accept the term, because i don't, is something that you choose to do. There is no conscious choice in being homosexual, unless you want to believe that you choose who to have feelings for.
The will of God, a being outside of time and logic, but that humans always knew what He wanted and allowed right?
Human-centered. Everything we do is human-centered. Science, religion, everything. We try to explain things based on how WE think.
I think God cares more about what you carry in your heart, and not about choices you don't even have. And God's will, that miraculously some people know without him saying anything about certain facts however, should never be used as an excuse to name everything we don't agree with as wrong and sinful. Speaking more about officials here.
I could say more stuff about both subjects, but it will turn to a more heated topic so i'll just stop here.
We have managed to derail this thread in every way possible, this is about gay romances in Baldur's Gate Enhanced Edition, and if it's not, it doesn't belong in the general chat.
Long story short, if you want gay romances, stay and discuss, if you don't, stop trying to convince people that they don't belong anywhere because of your belief of what is natural or not, not only it has chances of starting flames, but we never stay on topic also.
Now where's that damn female sword i asked for?! ~_o
besides, i think you are confusing STATE of a being with its BEHAVIOR. i may try to date women but i'm still attracted only to men, my external actions do not change my NATURE, just like you might dress like a woman but you would still be a man.
edit: @Jalily , i echoed your response before reading it. i agree with dropping the natural/unnatural thing, AS WELL as religion, since there is no ideological middle ground. if we are so much better than animals i think we can agree we will respect each others choices without judging. part of respect is also allowing people their space and time. requesting such in-game option is just that.
This doesn't explain the natural/unnatural dichotomy for me though. Unnatural has been used to describe both humans making the choice to consciously act in a homosexual way as well as animals exhibiting the behavior. Using the conscious choice aspect for human behavior makes a lot of sense. However, it doesn't explain how animals engage in "unnatural" behavior when the animals cannot make rational, non-instinctual decisions, though, or why one would use the same term to describe two very different ideas.
I may be conflating terms here, I just am still struggling with the term "unnatural."
Personally, I find it hard to believe that someone chooses his/her sexuality, at most I think that they can only choose to deny their sexuality for social reasons.
But, in the end, I think whether sexuality is a choice or not is simply irrelevant. Even if it were possible, so what if people chose to be gay? Being gay isn't a synonym for bad or wrong.
Loving and accepting each other should always come first, if it did, we would not have all the discriminations, sexual and otherwise, among with other nasty situations.
You could have all the differences in the world with someone, but sometimes a smile, a gesture of good heart and acceptance is all you need to go forward.
Instead of labeling things as right and wrong, we could try to understand and accept something different first.
And then all run together towards the sunset /LOL no forget that, too much anime.
Oh well :]
1. The forum mods are on the side of the people that prefer gay romances
2. There is no allowance for disagreement or differing opinions (posts deleted, threads deleted, accusations of bigotry or homophobia)
3. There is some strong censorship going on (this is a private forum, and I guess that's ok, but it's not right)
Yeah, I'm sure you'd prefer that I "censor" any mention of gay content on the board instead of posts/polls clearly meant to discriminate against people.
Don't worry, when people start discriminating heterosexuals I'll "censor" them too.
jeez, acting like the inclusion of it will turn you gay if you play the game. or maybe you're just closeted and the thought that this might push you over the edge makes you scared, who knows.
We already have at least 4 threads that discuss or discussed gay romances, if you want to express your opinion make it in one of those threads, we don't need a pool to start a war in the forum, specially one with 2 options, yes and no, that will only achieve the creation of factions pro/anti gay.
This isn't a stupid subject that you can answer yes or no, the 17 pages of posts in this thread already prove it.