Think I'll take a crack at this;
Therumancer said:
Well, understand that MovieBob is also a pretty radical left winger when you get down to his positions on a number of subjects, but that's an entirely differant subject.
True, but the point he made was valid and I may not agree with MB a lot that quote I agree fully with.
Therumancer said:
I wrote a lengthy post on the subject, but it basically comes down to the issue of niche sexuality, and the simple fact that niche sexuality to someone who is not wired for it is pretty gross.
That's true of anything really. Food, shows, movies games, sex etc. Should we exclude certain things because some people might not like it? I don't believe so.
Therumancer said:
The issue here is that Star Wars is going beyond the whole bit of saying "gays exist" to the point of "you need to interact with a gay relationship".
No you don't, as all romance options are completely optional. You could be this crazed sex addict smuggler who woos all the ladies or you could be just a gun for hire who focuses on the job. It all pertains to what you want the character to be.
Therumancer said:
By definition this means your going to have a companion attached to you of the same gender, who presents an omni-present romantic option should you ever decide to pick it up.
Much like the omni-present "good" or "bad" option to do to your character. It all pertains as to how you want to play, and what you want your character to be. This is made all the more immersive when you have more options available.
Therumancer said:
To put things into perspective, in what is hopefully a less contreversial example due to less media exposure and polotics. Fecophilles/Scatologists
That argument isn't valid as those are fetishes as opposed to sexuality. Gay isn't a fetish, it's who they are. Much like a man who likes to get dominated by a woman. He's still straight, he just has a certain fetish which does not define his sexuality (despite what some might say).
Therumancer said:
outnumber homosexuals simply by the numbers (even if there are homosexuals with that kink), to someone who is into that the idea of being pooped on, or smearing themselves or someone else with feces is a turn on.
It seems you're going for shock value or a "smear" campaign (yes that was a pun, and yes you will laugh at it). You're instantly going for the "gross out" aspect, and it seems you're trying (as it seems, I don't know if you're doing this on purpose or not) to scare us into thinking one way.
Therumancer said:
To anyone who isn't into that it's bloody disgusting. You might not care to the point of wanting to hunt them down in their homes and kill them, but you sure don't want to be exposed to them in public or have to hang out with someone you know does that.
Because it's a fetish, not sexuality. We all have fetishes that we don't want to share with others because it is a private thing that we do in the bedroom (or other places depending on said fetish). However, sexuality is different as outside of the bedroom, you still remain whatever sexual orientation you are. Whether Straight, Bi, Gay/Lesbian, Pan-sexual, Asexual etc. If people can be straight out of the bedroom, then shouldn't everyone else have the same right/respect?
Therumancer said:
Now granted I am using one of the grosser, but yet common enough to be well known sexual lifestyles intentionally.
Again, made invalid because fetish =/= sexuality.
Therumancer said:
People do have the right to not be exposed to stuff that just grosses you out.
Again, stuff that stays in the bedroom remains private for those involved. Also, people have the right to be who they are, you just have the right to ignore them not exclude them.
Therumancer said:
You don't want to have some guy in your escapist video game come running up and tell your female character he wants to smear himself with scat and french kiss you with a turd under his tongue.
Well no, as that would probably get him banned as the rules of the escapist are different than the rule world. BUT if they were the same, he does have the right to say it, as it causing you no harm what-so-ever and you have the right to ignore him. Again, you're playing on the character choices, which if you didn't choice to have... that then you won't get... that.
Therumancer said:
Nor do you want to be forced to have this guy in your ship periodically reminding you that he's into that in case you know.. you change your mind. The same exact thing applies to homosexuals.
And what's wrong if you change your mind? You're free to do what you want with who want (as long as both are conceptual). In the game, if you did pick the option and you really didn't like it, don't pick it again. Much like life, don't like it don't do it. Also, if you don't like that character you can also switch him/her out for another of your companions. Or the robot. Trust me, you won't want to get freaky with them (annoying bastards). And no it doesn't.
No one is forcing Homosexuality on you, just giving you the option. Much like if a women comes up to you and asks for a one-night stand with you. You have the choice to say Yes or No. It is no different if a man came up and did that (although you might say, sorry I don't swing that way).
Therumancer said:
See, with a video game it's not a matter of "I don't care what you do on your own time" because the limited game enviroment means that it's ALWAYS on your time since by definition this is being built around you, and actively seeking you out and inserting itself into your gameplay experience.
Real life is exactly the same. It's your time to use how you want it. If you want to make it a gay environment, then you should have the choice.
Therumancer said:
There is nothing wrong with someome from the overwhelming majority of people saying "you know, I really don't want to be exposed to this".
And there's nothing wrong with someone responding "You don't have to be, it's just a choice that's completely optional".
Therumancer said:
The spam from my protocol droid on my ship is bad enough without some gay dude I am not interested in constantly making innuendos and reminding me he's there and he's gay for the benefit of a very tiny group of people.
He wouldn't remind you he's gay, he would just a small option that would probably be [flirt], same as the females that do the exact same thing, only for men. It literally chances nothing. And I for some reason don't believe whatever companion mission he would have would involve gay sex in any fashion.
Also, you don't even see the sex (or kissing by the way). They just make a remark (and stretch for some reason) and you go about your day.
Therumancer said:
We might have to agree to disagree here, but understand the arguement isn't simply one with being upset that gays exist or whatever, and heck, if you want to get technical there are plenty of more numerous fringe heterosexual orientations that just don't represent themselves politically which should be in line before homosexuals for fair represensation if we want to get technical. Once you start saying that we need to start doing full politically correct representations of alternative sexuality... that just opens some crazy doors.
As I also said before token characters are NEVER a good idea. See, it might be a little more defensible if Bioware had intended to write some gay and lesbian characters into the game from the very beginning, but they didn't. This is all about political appeasement, and just like inserting token minorities into established properties, no good is going to come of it, even the people who wanted the character are going to complain about it being too stereotypical, not ethnic (or representitive of the minority in question) enough, being given too small a role, or perhaps even growing to overshadow what the show is supposed to be about entirely.
Want to reply but have class so I'll do this last one fast.
Therumancer said:
Whether your pro-gay, anti-gay, or somewhere inbetween the two extremes like me, there is nothing good about what Bioware is doing.... and yes, this never ends, you see groups like this one coming out to complain BECAUSE Bioware is pandering to a political position, so by definition the opposition is making itself heard. These guys didn't come out to oppose Dragon Age in the same way (for example) even if they mentioned it, because there wasn't any activism from the other side responsible in having the homosexual options in that game added in after the fact for purposes of appeasement.
This is very good, as it shows there are more than straight people in the world, and we should take notice of them. Would have more, but class
Therumancer said:
What's more if this goes through, it's going to encourage gay activists to try and push every property they can, whether it makes sense or not, simply to get the press.
No, just... no. Dear god just no.
