Does a tolerant person have to tolerate intolerance?
When you consider yourself a tolerant person, do you then tolerate intolerance? If you did wouldnt you be intolerant, if you did not wouldnt you be intolerant?
I think I need to rephrase a previous post of mine: [my parents] are even more tolerant than me as an atheist would like to be. Last four words added as a correction. Truth of the matter is: I like to be tolerant, but I'm far too passionate about the environment, the non-existence of God, poverty, inequalities in the world and backward positions in society of minority groups, to be very tolerant.
I'd love to be tolerant, but my real ideal of tolerance is how my parents are: they just let people be, even if they differ in opinion. They will state their opinion if they think someone is wrong, but I myself can fret so much about conflicts in world-view, it did cost me my best friend as I couldn't stand here constantly doing an appeal on 'free will' and 'accountablility' far in excess of my own experience in what living with a mental disability is like. As well as conflicting with my naturalistic worldview.
More philosophical, in answer to your conundrum, I think true tolerance is impossible and one should always be watchful for putting right people who don't let others be who they are, be they raging muslims, homophobics on a forum, or vehement atheists like me.
But I didn't attack religion that much did I? I allowed for tolerance being part of the worldview of religious people. It's just that there's some serious hate-mongering in the bible (even more toward the Philistines, Ammonites etc. than to homosexuals, but there's still homosexuals today, but no more Philistines and Ammonites - that hate was a little more effective).
@Shandyr I am tolerant of intolerance only insofar as you keep it to yourself and don't allow what you do and do not tolerate to dictate to my life or the lives of others who do not agree with you. Does that make me tolerant (because I allow them to dictate to their own lives) or intolerant (that I do not allow them to dictate to mine or anyone else who doesn't agree with them)?
You said it better than i did. That's my outlook on the dillemma in more precise wordings than I put to it.
@Quartz well-said. I did ask for an explanation, and I got it. Although, to my own credit, I didn't try to make a big court case out of it.
Yes, by all means let that go to your head. (Not sarcasm) Apparently that is WAY too much to ask for, that someone respect someone's opinion instead of attacking them, just for holding an opinion.
Especially an opinion that they were asked to express.
This is kind of like condemning a pedophile who admits to what he feels, rather than giving him the help he needs for actually confessing to something that he knows is socially unacceptable.
@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.
@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
Thus far I've reached page 8 of this topic, but one thing is really bothering me: I see dislike of gay romances (and of homosexuality in general) but thus far I didn't find any arguments. For something to be morally wrong, in someones opinion, shouldn't he/she be able to provide arguments as why? I know evolution gave us the ability to have a moral sense, but being human and having a debate, shouldn't we able to come up with arguments?
What's wrong with homosexuality? I fail to see why people think why it's wrong. As to why it shouldn't be in the game, I think it's well-established 1. if it's well written and 2. if it's just an option and you can end the love-interest with one click of a 'not interested' answer or just not talk to the character (like a lot of people do with Quayle or Safana for other reasons), there's no problem with it. That's the conclusion of the discussion thus far, as I've seen it.
I am not looking to start a war, I am looking for understanding: what is wrong with homosexuality? I don't think it's likely I'll start adhering to the arguments, but what ARE the arguments?
*edit: deleted the second sentence of the first paragraph. It only helped confusing the meaning of the first paragraph, that's easier to read in it's present state.
Well @ladyRhian if you want that person to keep something to herself surely you are intolerant as you take of someone right to express him/herself, besides that the rest of your post is ok to define tolerance.
@Trayus, he did, attack doesn't mean offense or flame, neither it request the attack to be directed to another person's honor, it can be just sabotage the right of another to express himself as it was starting to happen. The point is that no one has to justify his/her own opinion, for that it's called personal opinion. the consequence of not justifying something is just that the issue in question will not be a reason, just an opinion.
In regards to this thread and this discussion, there are people on these boards, and in various threads about this subject, have stated that the homosexual romance content should be removed for everyone, because they are uncomfortable with it in the game or are intolerant of that lifestyle/those people/etc. That's when I say, "No." I am a heterosexual woman. I have no interest in playing a homosexual romance, nor in playing a heterosexual romance as a male character. But- I have no problem with that content being in the game and I don't want to deny the people who are interested in such a thing the content merely because I am not interested in it. I don't understand it. I have said before that no one is holding anyone's feet to the fire to make them play this content or to even experience it. If you don't want to experience the content, you don't have to even talk to or recruit those characters- which makes the comment of people that they want a toggle where you can turn off the homosexual romances ludicrous. You're not being forced to play it, so why would you even need a toggle? Never recruit Rasaad. That's all you have to do to miss out on all that if you don't even want to see it.
It's like going to a concert and there is someone selling something that they are allergic to. Instead of avoiding that vendor, they insist the vendor be kicked out of the stadium, because they don't like that stuff, even though there are other people in the hall who want to eat it.
I just also want to say- don't compare homosexuals in any way, shape or form to pedophiles. They are nothing alike- Homosexuals are interested in adults, who can turn them down, agree, or whatever. Pedophiles go after children who cannot consent to such a relationship. Likewise, do not compare them to murderers, rapists or anyone else who breaks the law or starts something without the full consent of someone else. It's as if you see them as equivalent, and they are not. To put it in a way you might get more viscerally, it's like comparing the religion of Christianity to the Religion of confused teenagers who sacrifice animals and kill people and call it Satanism- they are nothing alike. (Because there is an actual religion of Satanism, and its not about those things). "Hey, they both have a higher power they drink blood for!" (yes, I am being intentionally horrible for effect here. I'd never say such a thing.)
@Kamuizin They can express themselves about it all they like. What I am saying is that when they demand actions to back up their intolerance, that's where I draw the line. The old "Your right to throw a punch stops at my face" kind of deal. The problem is that most intolerant people can't even keep it at talk- they demand action. It's almost never "Well, I disagree with such content and that's it." It's more often, "I disagree with this content and demand you do something about it to make me feel better."
I know that you can send them on your way, but I prefer that that stuff doesn't scratch the game. Very disappointed in the devs.
The complaint of this "changing" the game is a legitimate one. Before, all the bisexual/homosexual romances were left up to the modding community. Now it is going to be in an official product. This is, I'll admit, a bit worrisome to me because I'd really rather keep the *changes* to the game minimal. Improvements upon existing features? Awesome. Changes? Scary. And I know I'm not the only one scared of changes, just look at all the bickering about the UI.
I think the gay/bi exclusion in BG2 was more about corporate risk aversion than any creative vision of a gay-free world (which would actually contradict Forgotten Realms canon). As @LadyRhian mentioned before, Ed Greenwood has established that gay and bisexual people are part of the setting and do not experience any special stigma. David Gaider himself said that Haer'Dalis was written as bisexual, but they had to tone it down for release. (The only hint in the game now is that Haer'Dalis is the only male NPC who accepts "services" from a drow manslave in Ust Natha.) As for romances, Viconia was originally written as an option for both men and women, though the women's option of course got canned. Look at her lovetalks in Infinity Explorer and you'll see that some of them actually use gender tokens, particularly near the end of her story. No other love interest has these in their romance dialogues since they were originally conceived as straight.
Now, I get what you mean about improvements vs. changes. I wouldn't want to change the game willy-nilly either; I don't think anyone does. But it really is very subjective since features that are improvements to us may only be considered changes for someone who doesn't plan to use them. This is definitely not limited to romances - if you go to Feature Requests, there's a topic demanding to have the new NPCs removed from the game and put in DLCs to make them even more optional than they already are! And some people have expressed completely disinterest in the romances, which weren't in BG1 at all. And Dorn is using a kit that wasn't in any of the previous games. That doesn't make it better or worse and again the experience is completely avoidable. I think it's this element of choice that makes it a welcome addition.
To summarize, for me it comes down to whether new content is optional and does not alter the "feel" of the game too much. And I think a same-sex romance is both optional and consistent with the lore.
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.
Just want to point one problem that i believe it's still open to debate:
When people want a way to disable the homossexual content, that happens because they want to experience the character without it, if you say that they can ignore the character if they don't want the homossexual content, it's the same that make the person lose part of the new content (the new character) and also is to affirmate that the new character was made to fill a quote.
If everything about the character is the homossexualism, at the point that if you don't want it you have to simple avoid that NPC, the homossexual content wasn't made for the character, the character is made for the homossexual content, and i truly hope that this isn't what happend, otherwise the chance of a poor background and script is huge (so based in this argument the sale analogy isn't the better one in this context).
If anyone want equal rights and that's the only problem, make 2 buttons so, one to disable homossexual content and another to disable heterossexual content.
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.
To end, i have no problem with the button idea, neither with no restriction of content idea, so here and now i'm just arguing for the sake of argument.
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 think that it's the parents' job to raise their children and to choose what games or books their children should experience; it's not the game industry's job to decide whether it's appropriate or not to include same-sex relationships with regard to children. The game is already rated T, so anyone who's playing the game should be old enough to understand the concepts being described.
I can say with little doubt that the bisexual NPC that's been added to the enhanced edition was not created for the sake of filling a quota. You'll understand what I mean when you see this character in action, I hope.
Okay... Firstly, Baldur's Gate is rated T for teen. Not only that, but if parents don't want their kids playing this, that is THEIR responsibility to monitor the children. There are much more harmful things than a fictional homosexual relationship that kids could find on a computer.
I still think the best solution is to be able to switch on/off "homo/bi-dialogue options" at the start of the game. Then everyone will be happy. This thread has showed us that alot of people think it's okay to implement these romances, but at the same time, many would just like to have the option to switch it off.
Just implement it this way, and I believe the matter is settled.
Saying "I'm not interested" DOES switch it off, what's the point of having to change a personality and dialogue scripts when the script is already there. Not only that but if all of the romances are just "beginner romances" then it will be switched off before it starts into BG2 anyways. This solution is basically already there for ANY romance.
I've seen this thread before and contributed to it across the Mass Effect forums, the Dragon Age forums, and the Star Wars The Old Republic forums, and a lot of people have managed to surprise me here with some really intelligent debate on the subject (and I mean surprise because I thought I'd heard most iterations of what could be said on the matter!). However I will repeat a few points here that have occured and I posted in the past:
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?
2. Ok I get the Dragon Age 2 argument, the romances gay or straight were not particularly good, so you don't want the problem repeated. Your problem there is with sub-par writing, and the solution isn't to expunge homosexuality from gaming narrative, it is shock horror: *better writing*. By all means contribute as to how romances can be improved by actually thinking how they could be implemented better. If we didn't allow improvements in gaming to evolve and become perfected, we'd still all be playing pong! How boring would that be?
3. I hear this one unique to this thread because it is a remake of an old game. Goes something like this: "This is a remake of an old game, and they shouldn't implement gay romances, because it changes things!". Well my question you then is simply this: This game is a remake with enhancements and additions, if you have a problem with this addition, why not a problem with all the others?
The thing that really creams my corn about threads like these is how easily it can make people feel marginalized, on either side of the debate. We all clearly love this game, and as such have a community around it, so lets be a community. Ok so you might have a problem with homosexuality, and you know what? That's actually ok, as long as your not treating anyone badly as a result. Sexuality is a tough thing to get to grips with whatever sexual persuasion you are, and it's a perfectly natural human reaction to be uncomfortable with the unfamiliar, just don't treat anyone badly and respect them for their nature and choices. People are a whole lot more than just their sexuality, gender, race or whatever other identifier you care to conjure, and hey you know what? We all absolutely love Baldur's Gate, which is really the whole point of this place anyway!
(sorry for the length of the post, I kinda hit a roll there, and if I could give you all a badge for enduring it to the end I would!!)
Well i don't see a problem into a on/off button romance. The personality will not be changed as i doubt the bi character is effeminate, but even if so the question isn't the NPC Behavior but the romance itself. Scripts can be easly blocked as the button feature could make the game simply check and block specific romance banter triggers.
By another side the problem is greater than that, for some people the button idea in itself is a form of prejudice, i don't share this idea but i can understand why some people think this way, but a 2 buttons idea, one to block homossexual romances and another to block heterossexual content would easly solve the issue (but again the 2° button could be labeled as an excuse to the existence of the first, so it's a question of point of view here).
So in this issue, while i don't think it's an important thing, i support the idea as it can solve many of the problems discussed here, but be it done or not will be the same to me. I believe the devs already foresaw this issue and probally the first banter will be something light enough to barely be called flirt, we will identify it by the music and then it's a matter of refuse or not.
About the underage question that i brought to discussion, Teen age is yet underage, parents control will always exist to a degree and i doubt the game will put on the cover "homossexual content" cos if done we will surely have people claiming that announce the homo content is prejudice.
I have to disagree with you @Aosaw as the control of content surely is a company job, the question is:
Is this a content that need control? That's a theme i believe will be good to argue about.
What I meant, @kamuizin, was that it's not the job of the company to decide for the parent what is or is not appropriate for a teenager to be playing in a game. Which is to say, the "same-sex" part of the relationship shouldn't be a determining factor in whether the game is rated T or M, and it frequently isn't.
@Kamuizin You are arguing just to argue? Say it ain't so, Joe! I'd want such a trigger to be in the dialogue choices, such as a (mentioned up-thread) "No harm, no foul, no thanks." response. Maybe a "I'm flattered that you would think of me in such a way, but my interest is solely in women/men," turndown line. Because, as I also said earlier- We do not come with the word "Straight", "Gay" or "Bisexual" tattooed on our foreheads.
Why is this Fucking thread the most active in this forums. Please all of you, get over it. It's safe to assume a majority of gamers are straight yet it's also safe to assume there is a good minority of gay gamer. How should it be reflected in game? Simple, a few but significant gay romance and a majority of straight romance.
Any other solution would be unfair for either the gay or the straight.
Fair enough, debate is closed.
Now please, Romance is less than 30 lines in this game. It is there, but definitively not a significant aspect of Baldur's gate, nor should it be, it's not a sims game. I've got nothing against it, but a whole lot (a whole damn lot) other aspect in the game deserve much more attention.
I would personally also like a neutral "I'm flattered, but no" response to normal romance options. What if I just want to be "good friends" with Aerie? The game seems to make it seem like your choices are "lovers" or "dead to me".
In a matter of fact i am @LadyRhian! I told before, i have no position in the homo war factions (homo: phobics and sexuals) but a forum is made exactly to people work ideas, no? I tend to prefer the game in hetero content i assume (except for lesbian content, but i can't help this)and somehow support some of the ideas but it's just a preference as in the end i have no problem in have the gay content in the game.
The underage issue i raised as no one touch the matter.
But... is it wrong what i mean, arguing for the sake of argue? It's not to flame or provoke, but neither i think i have to be extremist to argue. My issues where finshed with the natural/unnatural discussion anyway.
@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.
1. Further argument does not good. I've seen these threads before and it's hard to have a reasoned argument even with a well-intentioned person because of everyone else around (and you KNOW not everyone will keep calm).
2. Discussion of these things on an internet forum is usually unproductive, hence why I will give an opinion and back off quite often. Nobody "wins" these things except for moderators.
3. Disgusting was never meant as an insult. It was a word I used to indicate that I consider homosexualism to be abhorrent. I do. Am I supposed to sugar coat it, especially when people keep pushing for an answer. Others have mentioned (correctly) that I only posted that when pressed. While the poster who did that may not have had bad intentions (I believe he said he had no intention of anything turning that direction) I have had a number of people goad me in such a manner trying to bait me into flying off the handle. Lots of people will use that tactic.
4. Some people do have lives other than posting on a forum. In my case, I needed to be walking out the door not too long after I made my last post. Am I supposed to drop real life commitments to continue a useless flame war on a forum? Nah. I think I'd rather get on with my life and not irritate the people who were expecting me in RL. I'd hardly have called what I did as hit and run considering I had already stayed around for a few posts.
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.
@kamuizin Why the hostility? I wasn't even arguing with @Quartz since he and I hold the same position on Overhaul's inclusion of a same-sex romance. I only wanted to make him feel better about a concern he expressed and to clarify my point of view, much as you have been clarifying yours. I've also written far less than you have in this thread, so I'm baffled at the implication that I've already said too much and need to shut up. (Apologies if I misread your intention.) Moving on.
Regarding opposition to the two-button idea, it's the context, I think, not just the idea itself. The idea comes off as prejudiced to some because although it is nominally equal, it would never in a million years have gained traction if there were only straight romances in the game. Even the hated Anomen prompted no requests for an off switch before the start of the game. Most players simply avoided him or shot him down, and this was no problem...until a single non-straight character was announced.
It's like how the idea of civil unions and removing marriage from government completely didn't get anywhere near a popular level of support until gays wanted to get married too. A system that almost no straight person had a problem with suddenly needed to be changed once it looked like non-straight people would be included. I know you're not against the new romance. But the way it's being treated is inherently unequal. That's where the perception of prejudice comes from.
@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.)
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. generally it is accepted that-sexuality damaging to others is usually nonconsensual. sexuality regarded as positive is practiced between loving individuals. sex only for pleasure is morally grey and prone to be interpreted according to one's moral code or particular case we're talking about. these statements are valid regardless of the gender of people involved.
in any case, everybody is entitled to his/her own code or morals, or simply put- opinions. fine. but because of the reasons i mention, i do not think the elaborate explanation of @Sir_Carnifex is a valid counter-argument regarding people complaining about gay romances more than some much more damaging and evil acts in the game. game treats harmful and damaging actions as evil and negative. again, (homo)sexuality has no such value on it's own. if you're simply explaining you want it portrayed as negative because YOU deem it's negative, then fine. if dorn turns out to be bi, i'm sure implication of evilness will be there strong enough. and i'm sure your patch will have it's place.
@Jalily i had no idea about viconia and haerdalis. i'm amazed how there still remain thing to be seen in this game (even after reading text with infinity explorer). @Quartz i have no particular stuff to nag about this time. i just wanted to say that i appreciate your presence on forums and posts, even if we may not agree on everything.
Comments
I'd love to be tolerant, but my real ideal of tolerance is how my parents are: they just let people be, even if they differ in opinion. They will state their opinion if they think someone is wrong, but I myself can fret so much about conflicts in world-view, it did cost me my best friend as I couldn't stand here constantly doing an appeal on 'free will' and 'accountablility' far in excess of my own experience in what living with a mental disability is like. As well as conflicting with my naturalistic worldview.
More philosophical, in answer to your conundrum, I think true tolerance is impossible and one should always be watchful for putting right people who don't let others be who they are, be they raging muslims, homophobics on a forum, or vehement atheists like me.
But I didn't attack religion that much did I? I allowed for tolerance being part of the worldview of religious people. It's just that there's some serious hate-mongering in the bible (even more toward the Philistines, Ammonites etc. than to homosexuals, but there's still homosexuals today, but no more Philistines and Ammonites - that hate was a little more effective).
This is kind of like condemning a pedophile who admits to what he feels, rather than giving him the help he needs for actually confessing to something that he knows is socially unacceptable.
<--Likes Dan Savage
What's wrong with homosexuality? I fail to see why people think why it's wrong. As to why it shouldn't be in the game, I think it's well-established 1. if it's well written and 2. if it's just an option and you can end the love-interest with one click of a 'not interested' answer or just not talk to the character (like a lot of people do with Quayle or Safana for other reasons), there's no problem with it. That's the conclusion of the discussion thus far, as I've seen it.
I am not looking to start a war, I am looking for understanding: what is wrong with homosexuality? I don't think it's likely I'll start adhering to the arguments, but what ARE the arguments?
*edit: deleted the second sentence of the first paragraph. It only helped confusing the meaning of the first paragraph, that's easier to read in it's present state.
@Trayus, he did, attack doesn't mean offense or flame, neither it request the attack to be directed to another person's honor, it can be just sabotage the right of another to express himself as it was starting to happen. The point is that no one has to justify his/her own opinion, for that it's called personal opinion. the consequence of not justifying something is just that the issue in question will not be a reason, just an opinion.
It's like going to a concert and there is someone selling something that they are allergic to. Instead of avoiding that vendor, they insist the vendor be kicked out of the stadium, because they don't like that stuff, even though there are other people in the hall who want to eat it.
I just also want to say- don't compare homosexuals in any way, shape or form to pedophiles. They are nothing alike- Homosexuals are interested in adults, who can turn them down, agree, or whatever. Pedophiles go after children who cannot consent to such a relationship. Likewise, do not compare them to murderers, rapists or anyone else who breaks the law or starts something without the full consent of someone else. It's as if you see them as equivalent, and they are not. To put it in a way you might get more viscerally, it's like comparing the religion of Christianity to the Religion of confused teenagers who sacrifice animals and kill people and call it Satanism- they are nothing alike. (Because there is an actual religion of Satanism, and its not about those things). "Hey, they both have a higher power they drink blood for!" (yes, I am being intentionally horrible for effect here. I'd never say such a thing.)
Now, I get what you mean about improvements vs. changes. I wouldn't want to change the game willy-nilly either; I don't think anyone does. But it really is very subjective since features that are improvements to us may only be considered changes for someone who doesn't plan to use them. This is definitely not limited to romances - if you go to Feature Requests, there's a topic demanding to have the new NPCs removed from the game and put in DLCs to make them even more optional than they already are! And some people have expressed completely disinterest in the romances, which weren't in BG1 at all. And Dorn is using a kit that wasn't in any of the previous games. That doesn't make it better or worse and again the experience is completely avoidable. I think it's this element of choice that makes it a welcome addition.
To summarize, for me it comes down to whether new content is optional and does not alter the "feel" of the game too much. And I think a same-sex romance is both optional and consistent with the lore.
Just want to point one problem that i believe it's still open to debate:
When people want a way to disable the homossexual content, that happens because they want to experience the character without it, if you say that they can ignore the character if they don't want the homossexual content, it's the same that make the person lose part of the new content (the new character) and also is to affirmate that the new character was made to fill a quote.
If everything about the character is the homossexualism, at the point that if you don't want it you have to simple avoid that NPC, the homossexual content wasn't made for the character, the character is made for the homossexual content, and i truly hope that this isn't what happend, otherwise the chance of a poor background and script is huge (so based in this argument the sale analogy isn't the better one in this context).
If anyone want equal rights and that's the only problem, make 2 buttons so, one to disable homossexual content and another to disable heterossexual content.
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.
To end, i have no problem with the button idea, neither with no restriction of content idea, so here and now i'm just arguing for the sake of argument.
I can say with little doubt that the bisexual NPC that's been added to the enhanced edition was not created for the sake of filling a quota. You'll understand what I mean when you see this character in action, I hope.
Just implement it this way, and I believe the matter is settled.
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?
2. Ok I get the Dragon Age 2 argument, the romances gay or straight were not particularly good, so you don't want the problem repeated. Your problem there is with sub-par writing, and the solution isn't to expunge homosexuality from gaming narrative, it is shock horror: *better writing*. By all means contribute as to how romances can be improved by actually thinking how they could be implemented better. If we didn't allow improvements in gaming to evolve and become perfected, we'd still all be playing pong! How boring would that be?
3. I hear this one unique to this thread because it is a remake of an old game. Goes something like this: "This is a remake of an old game, and they shouldn't implement gay romances, because it changes things!". Well my question you then is simply this: This game is a remake with enhancements and additions, if you have a problem with this addition, why not a problem with all the others?
The thing that really creams my corn about threads like these is how easily it can make people feel marginalized, on either side of the debate. We all clearly love this game, and as such have a community around it, so lets be a community. Ok so you might have a problem with homosexuality, and you know what? That's actually ok, as long as your not treating anyone badly as a result. Sexuality is a tough thing to get to grips with whatever sexual persuasion you are, and it's a perfectly natural human reaction to be uncomfortable with the unfamiliar, just don't treat anyone badly and respect them for their nature and choices. People are a whole lot more than just their sexuality, gender, race or whatever other identifier you care to conjure, and hey you know what? We all absolutely love Baldur's Gate, which is really the whole point of this place anyway!
(sorry for the length of the post, I kinda hit a roll there, and if I could give you all a badge for enduring it to the end I would!!)
By another side the problem is greater than that, for some people the button idea in itself is a form of prejudice, i don't share this idea but i can understand why some people think this way, but a 2 buttons idea, one to block homossexual romances and another to block heterossexual content would easly solve the issue (but again the 2° button could be labeled as an excuse to the existence of the first, so it's a question of point of view here).
So in this issue, while i don't think it's an important thing, i support the idea as it can solve many of the problems discussed here, but be it done or not will be the same to me. I believe the devs already foresaw this issue and probally the first banter will be something light enough to barely be called flirt, we will identify it by the music and then it's a matter of refuse or not.
About the underage question that i brought to discussion, Teen age is yet underage, parents control will always exist to a degree and i doubt the game will put on the cover "homossexual content" cos if done we will surely have people claiming that announce the homo content is prejudice.
I have to disagree with you @Aosaw as the control of content surely is a company job, the question is:
Is this a content that need control? That's a theme i believe will be good to argue about.
Any other solution would be unfair for either the gay or the straight.
Fair enough, debate is closed.
Now please, Romance is less than 30 lines in this game. It is there, but definitively not a significant aspect of Baldur's gate, nor should it be, it's not a sims game. I've got nothing against it, but a whole lot (a whole damn lot) other aspect in the game deserve much more attention.
The underage issue i raised as no one touch the matter.
But... is it wrong what i mean, arguing for the sake of argue? It's not to flame or provoke, but neither i think i have to be extremist to argue. My issues where finshed with the natural/unnatural discussion anyway.
1. Further argument does not good. I've seen these threads before and it's hard to have a reasoned argument even with a well-intentioned person because of everyone else around (and you KNOW not everyone will keep calm).
2. Discussion of these things on an internet forum is usually unproductive, hence why I will give an opinion and back off quite often. Nobody "wins" these things except for moderators.
3. Disgusting was never meant as an insult. It was a word I used to indicate that I consider homosexualism to be abhorrent. I do. Am I supposed to sugar coat it, especially when people keep pushing for an answer. Others have mentioned (correctly) that I only posted that when pressed. While the poster who did that may not have had bad intentions (I believe he said he had no intention of anything turning that direction) I have had a number of people goad me in such a manner trying to bait me into flying off the handle. Lots of people will use that tactic.
4. Some people do have lives other than posting on a forum. In my case, I needed to be walking out the door not too long after I made my last post. Am I supposed to drop real life commitments to continue a useless flame war on a forum? Nah. I think I'd rather get on with my life and not irritate the people who were expecting me in RL. I'd hardly have called what I did as hit and run considering I had already stayed around for a few posts.
Okay, that's it. Go ahead and flame me.
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.
Regarding opposition to the two-button idea, it's the context, I think, not just the idea itself. The idea comes off as prejudiced to some because although it is nominally equal, it would never in a million years have gained traction if there were only straight romances in the game. Even the hated Anomen prompted no requests for an off switch before the start of the game. Most players simply avoided him or shot him down, and this was no problem...until a single non-straight character was announced.
It's like how the idea of civil unions and removing marriage from government completely didn't get anywhere near a popular level of support until gays wanted to get married too. A system that almost no straight person had a problem with suddenly needed to be changed once it looked like non-straight people would be included. I know you're not against the new romance. But the way it's being treated is inherently unequal. That's where the perception of prejudice comes from.
Here, I'll just put them here for you. You're welcome.
generally it is accepted that-sexuality damaging to others is usually nonconsensual. sexuality regarded as positive is practiced between loving individuals. sex only for pleasure is morally grey and prone to be interpreted according to one's moral code or particular case we're talking about. these statements are valid regardless of the gender of people involved.
in any case, everybody is entitled to his/her own code or morals, or simply put- opinions. fine. but because of the reasons i mention, i do not think the elaborate explanation of @Sir_Carnifex is a valid counter-argument regarding people complaining about gay romances more than some much more damaging and evil acts in the game. game treats harmful and damaging actions as evil and negative. again, (homo)sexuality has no such value on it's own.
if you're simply explaining you want it portrayed as negative because YOU deem it's negative, then fine. if dorn turns out to be bi, i'm sure implication of evilness will be there strong enough. and i'm sure your patch will have it's place.
@Jalily i had no idea about viconia and haerdalis. i'm amazed how there still remain thing to be seen in this game (even after reading text with infinity explorer).
@Quartz i have no particular stuff to nag about this time.
edit-typos