Jimquisition: Mass Effect 3 And The Case For A Gay Shepard

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT
 

Treblaine:
Really thy don't want even the gay OPTION! They don't even have that option with their own lives, nothing stops THEIR OWN lives going that way.

All there is is a gay character you can interact with and reciprocate the sexy-time. If you can't resist that you aren't a homophobe... you are a homosexual - in denial.

... Or a Bisexual in denial. You can't forget that.

ElPatron:

Spot1990:
DISCLAIMER: DO NOT GOOGLE IMAGE SEARCH PEGGING UNLESS YOUR PRETTY FORWARD THINKING ABOUT SEXUALITY

Jeez, I thought everyone in the internet was pretty desensitized.

You missed my point completely. A lot of things are sex related. Weapons are. See those "ranking stripes" in a triangular shape? They are supposed to represent who has the "biggest dick".

Xenomorphs. Their head is shaped that way because it's phallic.

You can like things without wanting to have sex with them. Yet they are sex related.

By Jim's logic everyone is a flaming homosexual.

theheroofaction:
Jim was referring to physical attraction to phallic objects, as opposed to just liking them. male Homosexuality is defined as physical attraction to a phallus and similar objects.
While the words are interchanged a lot, lust and like have much different meanings.
For example:
I will admit to liking guns. I don't however find attraction in them, nothing about them "turns me on".

Related to that, one wouldn't believe how often I have to inform people that there is no disagreement.

That's the point. Attraction does not imply sexual satisfaction. I don't know anyone who gets off by shooting, or competing in sports, and other "male" activities.

But it's still sexual. We humans have the ability to enjoy sexuality without having to get off.

I don't start jacking off uncontrollably when I see a girl taking off her clothes. It's still sexual.

Spears. Swords. Pretty much any kind of weapon is related to the phallus because our brain gives it that connotation.

And come on, in sports there is plenty of male-on-male contact. Yet it doesn't make it's participants gay. Jim had a giant dildo replicating the infamous Saint's Row 3 weapon. That doesn't make him gay, and if he didn't like it he would have given it away. Just saying.

Buretsu:
Straight people watch porn with gigantic penises, and wish they were that guy.

This dude gets it. How would a man admire a big cock if his male brain did not make him attracted to phallic objects? I'm not saying I try to peek at other men in public restrooms, but that we are pretty much wired to become the alpha male.

This sounds just a little bit Freudian in the aplication of the theories here. So I have to say I don't ussually give such conotations to the weapons 'directly'. maybe undder a whole bunch of layers, but I have a much more complex view of the blade after a semi-cultured life where much more mystical meaning for the blade are given. Which in no particular order are:

The ability to fight fate or even control it, with the fate of death being symbolised by scissors in the myth of the fates.
The manifistaion of internal power.
Destruction, fairly simple.
Honor; the use of a tool of war not just to destroy, but to protect your ideals from forces that will not stop unless fought.
Your ties to others; how many times have you seen a weapon given to someone either from their father or a friend?

And in the case of mystical blades: virtues such as wisdom, determination, idealism, etc.

... In the end i think of these things a long time before I think about... Erm, you know... It's there clearly, but it's only ever obvious if the context permits it, which it rarely does.

Also... I don't have envy of another man's parts. Not that mine are great, I just have absolutly no clue about what anyone would find attractive in it; In other words "I don't get it". It just looks so out of place, so... what's the word? a kind of dissonance from the rest of someone's otherwise smooth or angular body (depending on build). I don't get it. I just plain don't get it... of course I don't have to get it. And other's obviously do considering what the entire thread is about (good for them). So... Umm... Where was I going with this?

*sweat drop* um... *Wild Ze'roth flees*

Bravo! Thank God for Jim! And thank God for gay sex!

ElPatron:

Spot1990:
Yes but his entire point was if you do want to have sex with symbols of male masculinity you might be a bit gay.

Pegging involves a female partner. How is it gay?

Jim was childish, period. And being childish is not the best way to say others need to grow up.

Well, one could argue that while many people might need to grow up in one way, imiturity in another is perfectly fine. For example, grown men acting like girls is fine. being as enthusiastic as a child in the peak of idealism is fine. however being as mean as the children in school is not fine.

Also, quite a bit of humour might come from our childish side. And I'm sure we all have something that makes us feel like a wide eyed child again.

Of course, children can be mean too, as one specific phrase goes "kids can be so mean". And that is the main reason they must grow up...

Oh, and as a direct point. maybe Jim was using himself as an example of someone who needs to grow up. That part did feel like he was using meta-humour after all.

Any questions? If not I'll go back to batting at a ball of yarn or something. *Nya*

easternflame:

Lord_Gremlin:
snip


Your personal opinion is based on unfounded medical and scientific facts; normal you say? Beating your wife in the 40's was normal, or perhaps I should go back? The romans and the greek were pretty homosexual and that was normal. Saying, I will give my opinion does not excent you of following the rules, this is not an opinion, this a homophobic comment and it is terrible.

OP: I don't really think Bioware are open and mature to be quite honest, let me give you 2 clear examples. First, you can go Lesbian in Mass Effect 1 and 2 but not gay. Also, the demo

So yeah, open and mature, I don't think so Jim.

Waitwaitwait... since when have the opinions of the characters in games been the representations of hearts and minds of the development team? Wrexes opinions (defined by krogan war&macho -culture) are his own, not a statement by bioware on their view on gender roles.

Theres also a batarian bartender in ME2 who serves poison to humans because he is a racist bastard. If Wrexes views are proof positive that bioware is sexist, then ,by your logic, bioware is also racist, because they have a character with racist views in their game.

Do think Bioware should make an additional codex entry on what views of Fictional characters of fictional cultures they disapprove seperately?

OT: Dont really care what options they put in game, as long as they dont sacrifice something else because of it, due to time constraints. Which, if I remember correctly, was the reason there wasnt a gay option in ME2.

jboking:

captainfluoxetine:

DISCLAIMER: I do not attach any stigma to the term 'mental illness'. I do not use it in a derogatory way nor do I believe it is something an individual should ever be judged on.

It matters not if you place a stigma upon the term, the term has a stigma. It's like using the n-word and saying it is okay because you don't place a stigma upon it. A stigma upon the word still exists, and you will still be looked down upon for using it.

The whole 'survival of the species' thing is a fallacy. No species in existence exists to survive 'as a species' they exist to pass on their own genetic material. Homosexuals are inherently not the ideal for doing this. An individuals genes do not care for the species they belong to, they care for being passed on to another generation.

Your argument is incorrect due to the existence of human beings. It can be proven that humans do think in a collective sense and could be said to fight for the "survival of the species." (Godwins Law: Hell there was an entire political movement based around it). The only thing that limits us today is that we think of our collectives as split between things like "American" or "European" as opposed to "Human." It can be said that the reason for this is because we as humans naturally seek conflict and without another major force on the planet to conflict with, we conflict with one another.

If your argument was about, say, wolves, then you might have a point.

Further to the above paragraph I'm going to do something incredibly irritating and patronizing and guess the counter argument many people will put forward which is 'But we treat each other with kindness and respect people, surely if all we wanted to do was pass on our genes we'd just fuck every member of the opposite sex and kill every one of the same?'.. or an argument to that effect. Well no, we wouldn't, by not acting like savages we ensure mutual survival, I allow you to survive, you allow me to survive, therefore MY genes (the important ones in my view) get passed on.This is seen in nature as well, morality is just a more evolved version of this survival mechanism.

Yeah, I'd never argue the "kindness and respect" argument. Both of those were originally defense mechanisms(on an interpersonal scale) that developed into social norms even though they very rarely still hold the same defensive function.

Of course now we have to begin making certain assumptions, and I carry this on in the spirit of debate and to a certain extent playing devils advocate.

Firstly, assuming homosexuality has a genetic predisposition. If there is a 'gay gene' or several of them they do not HAVE to have a point. They may simply have persisted because occasionally for whatever reason homosexuals reproduce, its a recessive gene, or any other number of factors. The existence of homosexuals does not mean they have a 'point'. It must be remembered that evolution hasn't finished, we didn't turn up as modern man and then nature went 'Fuck it, im done here!'

They may not HAVE to have a point. That is correct. However, this does not mean that we cannot create a point for them. One of the greatest abilities of the human race is to manipulate evolution. We've been doing it since the dawn of modern medicine. We could certainly create an institutional system to give them a point (say, they aren't allowed to have children and we give them some sort of incentive for not doing so). Of course, you could argue that they do have a natural point and that their point, overall, was to avoid overpopulation. If that were true, I would bet on it simply being a recessive gene. That meaning that when the recessive gene develops, it simply throws out that entire persons contribution to the species to avoid what I would call saturation.

Modern day homosexual couples find ways to reproduce? Well through totally unnatural means, that's hardly relevant.

Evolution in modern times does not have to be natural. Since we are on a video game website, think Deus Ex. If the couple has the ability to find the information on how to spread their genes and has the earning power to pay for the procedures to do it, then they have just earned the ability to pass on their genes. This is because the evolution we are creating within our society is one where traits such as the ability to fight predators, forage, etc. are being replaced with abilities such as potential for earning power(aka. traits conducive to being able to earn) or intelligence. One unfortunate sidenote: If we accepted the harsh reality of our societies new evolution, we would let the homeless die, as that is where bad genes go to remove themselves from the gene pool. That special homosexual couple is completely relevant to the discussion of evolution.

I understand why the whole overpopulation thing is a compelling argument for the 'point' to homosexuality, but its fundamentally flawed when you consider the basics of evolution and genetics.

you make this statement but do nothing to prove it. You can't just make a claim against something without a warrant.

Okay. You can, it is just extremely ineffective

I realize I've almost totally lost the point of 'homosexuality is a mental illness' as in honesty its not like I have hard evidence one way or the other, and as I say I continue this more in the spirit of debate than fighting a corner. On that subject however I would argue that MANY mental illnesses depression, schizophrenia and so on are genetic in nature AND do not benefit the individual nor help them reproduce. They in fact hinder the individuals ability to function and therefore, though not physically, mentally hinder the individuals ability to reproduce. It doesn't seem totally incomprehensible that homosexuality could be classed alongside these.

Your bolded statement really settles the argument. We are both layman, we must defer to those who are experts on the topic. If you can not provide expert evidence(testimony, etc) that would contradict the status quo(that homosexuality is not a mental illness - otherwise we would have homosexuals in padded rooms), then you have no solid argument.

Next point:

Here is the thing. In our 'new' world, homosexuality doesn't hinder their ability to reproduce. If you want to argue there is no point to homosexuality, I'll accept that and rather argue that it is nothing more than a gene that alters a trait of the person that may have, at one time, hindered their ability to reproduce, but now it does not. As such, it is a trait (in humans) that is completely inconsequential to evolution. Therefore, as it does not hinder the ability to function in any way, it is not a mental illness.

Thanks for the argument.

Actually many of my points were flawed. I was basing my argument on what I remembered from 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins (read it if you haven't already, its fascinating and has far less of his god-bashing than usual). However most of my points were blown out of the water by a video someone posted above. Ironically, of Richard Dawkins discussing homosexuality. Hehe, derp.

A minor point. I would argue that the word nigger and the term mentally ill are inappropriate comparisons. Nigger deserves a stigma as it has ALWAYS been used in a negative sense. Mental illness is something we should fight the stigma attached to.
Just making an observation.

My only problem with them including a homosexual option for Shepard in Mass Effect 3 is that I wish they'd had the same types of options in the first 2 games so I could have hooked up with Kaiden.

As it stands since I let him die in the first game, if I want to get me some of that sweet arse I'm going to have to play the first 2 over again. Though I'm not sure if he even appears in Mass Effect 2. I assume he only didn't show up in my playthrough of it because I sacrificed him on Vermire in Mass Effect 1.

Even so, I am determined to hit that even if it means playing through 2 past games (I never did finish ME2 anyway).

Thank Jim for Jim. This is 2012 people, gay-bashing is so noughties.

There are plenty of ignorant people out there
They will rage about anything without any deeper understanding of topic
Also since when pedophilia=homosexualism?
That makes no f. sense, if homosexual molests kids of same gender, what stops heterosexual to molest kids of opposite gender? The answer is- nothing. Both can be pedophiles.

And besides all humans are bisexual, only hetero/homo balance is different for every person.
And no amount of denial will change it.

P.S. Congrats to Jim, he actually forced me to make Escapist account, because this topic is really important to me. No, not sexuality issues, but ignorance and stupidity of people.

P.P.S. I agree with ReservoirAngel, having this option in previous games, would be nice

ACman:

Therumancer:

bringer of illumination:

Okay, I don't even know what your argument is about or what you opinions are, but I have to step in here, because I see this stupid shit spouted all the time.

Yes. It. Does.

If someone espouses an opinion that you find contemptible then you have every right to disrespect them, and they have every right to disrespect you back.

Respect is something that should be earned, not arbitrarily given to everyone, and if someone has done nothing to earn your respect then you SHOULDN'T respect them.

The attitude about respect has lead to a modern age where every fucking tard with an opinion thinks they have something worthwhile to say because no one ever calls them on it when they start spewing their bullshit.

For starters my warning is about site policy. It's intended not so much because of me being concerned about people being rude to me, but because I figure off this topic some of the people involved like AC seem like they are intelligent enough where I'd enjoy conversing with them on other discussions. If they act like this routinely though every time they have a strong disagreement, they WILL get banned. Arguements about free speech and such don't apply on forums like this, whether they should or not is an entirely differant discussion which would be so far off topic as to be ridiculous, but next time it comes up I'll probably be right there with you in the thread, assuming your actually interested in things like that.

I'll also remind you that your espoused principle is a double edged sword. See, "bullshit" is a matter of perspective, especially on big issues. Right now your on a friendly forum to the socially liberal, on other sites you'd find the situation reversed. To be painfully blunt I think a point people here tend to overlook is that there is no clear "right" answer here accepted by society, simply one promoted by the media, with the reality being heavily divided. Truthfully I sometimes wonder how people here would fare if they tried to do what I do and express their point of view on a hostile site to provide some sense of balance. I suspect most would flee with their tail between their legs, or freak out to the extreme and get themselves banned.

You're espousing the idea that all gays should be registered and monitored by the government.
I didn't think you could actually proffer that idea outside of faggot_haters.org and get away with it.

You do not deserve respect nor politeness.

He actually said that?

Fuck the world...

Nobody gonna mention that big fake penis Jim was holding? Just me?
Well okay then o_o"

Im not mad about including gay people, im angry about the red hair option.

Red hair only represents a small part of the human race. Including this takes away ram from ALL OTHER OPTIONS. I wish they would stop giving us so many options in games.

bringer of illumination:
Now I don't really care about the gay Shepherd issue at all, but I do want to address an argument that Jim kept using.

I've never found the "BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT IT!" argument to be valid at all.

I don't HAVE to watch the Transformers movies, does that mean that I can't express my opinion about how fucking retarded and poorly made they are?
I don't HAVE to do to interact with other people, i could just stay in my apartment and never go outside, does that mean that I'm retarded for complaining about people acting like idiots because I didn't HAVE to expose myself to them?
No. It fucking doesn't.
If I think something is retarded, then I'm gonna say that it's retarded, even if I didn't "have" to expose myself to it.

Ahem. I think you are wrong and that your complaints are invalid.

As much as you don't like the Transformers franchise, I think it is an entitled view to think that they shouldn't exist. The Transformers franchise, for all it's flaws, brings shit loads of money into Hollywood. Money that it really needs. Money it uses in order to make other better films.

As much as you don't like people, it is preposterous to think you expect those people to not exist. People have a right to exist. Why am I even explaining this to you? I mean, seriously.

There are other ways to deal with life than wishing it didn't exist. That is a loser's stance. You might be able to argue that something was handled badly, and you wish it would have been done better. However, jumping from there to saying "No, Sheppard can never be gay, ever. It is absolutely impossible for any version or interpretation by any player in the world could allow for Sheppard to be a gay man." That is what you are saying.

This isn't about whether the gay option was shoe-horned in (because it wasn't) or that it was done poorly (because this argument exists since before that could even be ascertained). This is about arbitrarilly deciding something shouldn't exist because somebody is biased (read: homophobic) and thinks nobody deserves to enjoy anything they wouldn't enjoy (because there is no reason you should have to see it if you don't want to. No reason, whatsoever).

Anodos:
Im not mad about including gay people, im angry about the red hair option.

Red hair only represents a small part of the human race. Including this takes away ram from ALL OTHER OPTIONS. I wish they would stop giving us so many options in games.

Too fucking right. Ideally, games should have no options at all. Giving people freedom will only ever lead to adult men violently raping and murdering children. Why won't people understand? If only people opened their eyes they would realize what a terrible, awful thing it is to be free to do stuff some arbitrary judge decided wasn't worth doing.

blackrave:
There are plenty of ignorant people out there
They will rage about anything without any deeper understanding of topic
Also since when pedophilia=homosexualism?
That makes no f. sense, if homosexual molests kids of same gender, what stops heterosexual to molest kids of opposite gender? The answer is- nothing. Both can be pedophiles.

And besides all humans are bisexual, only hetero/homo balance is different for every person.
And no amount of denial will change it.

P.S. Congrats to Jim, he actually forced me to make Escapist account, because this topic is really important to me. No, not sexuality issues, but ignorance and stupidity of people.

P.P.S. I agree with ReservoirAngel, having this option in previous games, would be nice

Again I feel I must point out that while all child molesters are pedophiles, not all pedophiles are actually child molesters. There's a line between the 'old man who sits on a park bench and fantasizes about raping a newborn's face' as Jim put it, and someone who actually does it. At the end of the day one is an old man sitting on a park bench, and the other is (ideally) the subject of a good old fashioned lynch mob. It's the difference between believing that your country can't continue under it's current model and flying a plane into a building in an effort to change that model. The differences really are that extreme. At least to me. I'm sure that if I had children I'd understand (and all that good drivel).

Revolutionaryloser:

Anodos:
Im not mad about including gay people, im angry about the red hair option.

Red hair only represents a small part of the human race. Including this takes away ram from ALL OTHER OPTIONS. I wish they would stop giving us so many options in games.

Too fucking right. Ideally, games should have no options at all. Giving people freedom will only ever lead to adult men violently raping and murdering children. Why won't people understand? If only people opened their eyes they would realize what a terrible, awful thing it is to be free to do stuff some arbitrary judge decided wasn't worth doing.

Thirded. I'd like to point out Somalia and China; two countries whose governments have much less and much more control than most first world countries over its' citizens, and ask your personal opinion on which countries' citizens are better off for it. China, obviously, even the pirates are all intellectual!

You rule Torquemada Jim. With a necessary, merciless, iron-gauntleted, ruthless, bitchslapping hand for idiots.
I seldom have laughed so fitfully as with this one show. Awesome.

d(^-^)b

ZexionSephiroth:

Treblaine:
Really thy don't want even the gay OPTION! They don't even have that option with their own lives, nothing stops THEIR OWN lives going that way.

All there is is a gay character you can interact with and reciprocate the sexy-time. If you can't resist that you aren't a homophobe... you are a homosexual - in denial.

... Or a Bisexual in denial. You can't forget that.

I suppose to be pedantically correct, yes. Though I suppose you could say a bisexual is someone who is BOTH Homosexual and heterosexual.

Frankly, I found it a little amusing that Jim Sterling told people to grow up 2 minutes before chugging on a dildo.

Because normally I wait, like, 3 seconds

Good points though, Jim. I think it was pathetic and retarded that we had people equating homosexuality to paedophilia. It's retarded.

Goods gods! Nearly 500 comments? Really?

On a tiny little counter-argument, if I was gay, I'd not like to have a representation of my sexual inclination be shoe-horned into the game just to please me. But hey, from what I heard it is not really the case. So, more power to the rainbow power.

And Jim... you really earned my full respect this episode. A man with such a healthy self-esteem that he can shove a dildo-sword into his mouth to the internet to see... you have a lot more balls than every single one homophobe in the world combined. Just like Marzgurl of That Guy With The Glasses when she agreed to let Benzaie (another guy who I respect a lot) make a dead-ringer of her in Custom Girl 3D to show the internet.

People like you restore the faith I have in humankind.

Grey Day for Elcia:

Ok, so far you've offered a terrible argument and attempted to insult me by saying I am a child.

You're not bringing much to the table here in this debate.

Wheras you, on the other hand, are a beacon of masterful, intelligent reaso-oh wait. Your entire argument is based on the scientifically disproved concept that being gay is "wrong" or "unnatural" for humans. Wanna argue that the earth is flat while you're at it?

ZexionSephiroth:
The ability to fight fate or even control it, with the fate of death being symbolised by scissors in the myth of the fates.
The manifistaion of internal power.
Destruction, fairly simple.
Honor; the use of a tool of war not just to destroy, but to protect your ideals from forces that will not stop unless fought.
Your ties to others; how many times have you seen a weapon given to someone either from their father or a friend?

Translation: "who has the biggest dick" and "wanting your male offspring to have the biggest dicks".

The best fighters would be manlier, stronger, smarter. The best females would mate with the best males while the worst genes slowly sunk into oblivion.

this is pedantic and will prob get abuse from people but.... child molesters and rapists have sex with children, pedophiles are sexually attracted to children, the 2 aren't necessarily related, let the flames begin

Jimi Ennis:
this is pedantic and will prob get abuse from people but.... child molesters and rapists have sex with children, pedophiles are sexually attracted to children, the 2 aren't necessarily related, let the flames begin

To be fair, Jim was talking specifically about somebody suggesting that if Mass Effect 3 was going to "cater" to homosexuals, why shouldn't it also "cater" to pedophiles. The answer is fucking obvious. Depicting two men/women/whatever having sex is perfectly normal in the context of Mass Effect and within the values of our society, depicting an adult and a child having sex isn't.

From that perspective, it is a pretty no-grey-area, case-closed discussion. Depicting a child being raped is fucked up. Comparing two men having sex to a child being raped is fucked up.

I know where you are coming from: pedophiles are people, they can't help being what they are, etc. That is another matter for another day.

The issue at hand is that there are those who would argue that by allowing diversity in videogames, we are somehow empowering pedophiles and endorsing child rape. That argument is retarded on numerous levels and nobody should have to explain why because it would trivialize the concept of basic human rights.

Revolutionaryloser:

Ahem. I think you are wrong and that your complaints are invalid.

As much as you don't like the Transformers franchise, I think it is an entitled view to think that they shouldn't exist. The Transformers franchise, for all it's flaws, brings shit loads of money into Hollywood. Money that it really needs. Money it uses in order to make other better films.

As much as you don't like people, it is preposterous to think you expect those people to not exist. People have a right to exist. Why am I even explaining this to you? I mean, seriously.

There are other ways to deal with life than wishing it didn't exist. That is a loser's stance. You might be able to argue that something was handled badly, and you wish it would have been done better. However, jumping from there to saying "No, Sheppard can never be gay, ever. It is absolutely impossible for any version or interpretation by any player in the world could allow for Sheppard to be a gay man." That is what you are saying.

No that is not what I am saying.

First of all I already stated that I don't really care about the gay Shepherd issue, It's largely a non-issue for me since I have boy-cotted the game anyway because of the exploitative business practises of EA and Bioware, and as such I won't be playing the game. so I don't get why you are even making this argument. But from this thread I have now come to the conclusion that my opinion on the Gay Shepherd issue is that it should either be good, or it shouldn't be there. A poorly written and shoe-horned in ret-con is not only annoying to people who care about the integrity of the story, but it's also hugely disrespectful to the subject-matter.

There's also the fact that we, in the wake of the games release, have learned that it actually ISN'T possible to avoid at least some reference to this ret-con even if you aren't playing a gay Shepherd, there are several dialogue options where the dialogue wheel says one thing, but what Shepherd actually says in the conversation turns out to be quite, shall we say; "gay".[/quote]

Revolutionaryloser:
This isn't about whether the gay option was shoe-horned in (because it wasn't)

Except it is. A major character shift like a change in sexual orientation doesn't usually occur without any prior indicators.

Revolutionaryloser:
or that it was done poorly (because this argument exists since before that could even be ascertained).

Wrong, this argument has existed since the gay scenes were data-mined from a leaked pre-load of the game.

Revolutionaryloser:
This is about arbitrarily deciding something shouldn't exist because somebody is biased (read: homophobic) and thinks nobody deserves to enjoy anything they [i]wouldn't[i/] enjoy (because there is no reason you should have to see it if you don't want to. No reason, whatsoever).

Except, as I have said above, there is a reason you could have to see it even if you don't want to, because the dialogue wheel is deceptive.

EDIT:

With regards to your argument that it's "entitled" to say that I believe that Transformers movie shouldn't. Yeah, so? Are you saying that I'm not entitled to hold the opinion that a series of extraordinarily shitty, borderline racist movies shouldn't exist? Is holding that view somehow wrong? Is talking about that view somehow a transgression against the people who made it, or the people who watch them?

It would be wrong of me to hold Michael Bay up at gun-point and demand that he stop making the movies, but that's not what I'm doing, I'm merely expressing my opinion that I think the movies are shit and that the world would be better off without them. You are free to disagree with this view and tell me that you disagree, and there's nothing wrong with that either.

Huh I had never thought of that.....
You're right. The people who want a straight Shepard can have one.
The option would have no consequences...

bringer of illumination:

Revolutionaryloser:

Ahem. I think you are wrong and that your complaints are invalid.

As much as you don't like the Transformers franchise, I think it is an entitled view to think that they shouldn't exist. The Transformers franchise, for all it's flaws, brings shit loads of money into Hollywood. Money that it really needs. Money it uses in order to make other better films.

As much as you don't like people, it is preposterous to think you expect those people to not exist. People have a right to exist. Why am I even explaining this to you? I mean, seriously.

There are other ways to deal with life than wishing it didn't exist. That is a loser's stance. You might be able to argue that something was handled badly, and you wish it would have been done better. However, jumping from there to saying "No, Sheppard can never be gay, ever. It is absolutely impossible for any version or interpretation by any player in the world could allow for Sheppard to be a gay man." That is what you are saying.

No that is not what I am saying.

First of all I already stated that I don't really care about the gay Shepherd issue, It's largely a non-issue for me since I have boy-cotted the game anyway because of the exploitative business practises of EA and Bioware, and as such I won't be playing the game. so I don't get why you are even making this argument. But from this thread I have now come to the conclusion that my opinion on the Gay Shepherd issue is that it should either be good, or it shouldn't be there. A poorly written and shoe-horned in ret-con is not only annoying to people who care about the integrity of the story, but it's also hugely disrespectful to the subject-matter.

There's also the fact that we, in the wake of the games release, have learned that it actually ISN'T possible to avoid at least some reference to this ret-con even if you aren't playing a gay Shepherd, there are several dialogue options where the dialogue wheel says one thing, but what Shepherd actually says in the conversation turns out to be quite, shall we say; "gay".

To begin with, you do realize the Mass Effect franchise is inside the western RPG genre, right? You do know that western RPGs are built around the concept of roleplaying your character, right? You do understand that a roleplayable character will have whatever characterization you give him/her, right? So in theory, I could characterize Sheppard as being a gay man who just didn't find a suitable partner throughout ME 1 or 2, or a gay man who was in denial throughout ME 1 or 2, or a bisexual man or a heterosexual man who just happenned to meet another man with whom he just clicked, right? I just needed to clear this up first.

bringer of illumination:
A major character shift like a change in sexual orientation doesn't usually occur without any prior indicators.

You know this for a fact, I presume. How come? Are you a psychologist? Are you a homosexual? Have you had dozens of conversations with homosexuals who have explained how they came about the realization of their sexuality? I suppose you think films like Brokeback Mountain, The Talent of Mr. Ripley, Kinsey or Interview With the Vampire (just to list the few I know) that depict straight people turning gay without any notice are offensive in their crass portrayal of the rigid lines a homosexual must travel in search of their sexual identity. In any case, from the bizarre world I originate from things aren't like that at all. Where I come from people discover their sexuality in very strange and diverse ways. I won't comment on your race who obviously has a very strict ritual that all your people must follow. I won't pretend I have any sort of expertise I could apply.

bringer of illumination:
Wrong, this argument has existed since the gay scenes were data-mined from a leaked pre-load of the game.

OK. This bit intrigues me. So from some sex scenes you were able to clearly see how horribly Shepard had been "characterized". To be fair, I am really impressed. Clearly your deduction capabilities exceed those of a humble human. I don't really see any point in continuing my dumb rambling when I'm obviously communicating with some sort of omniscient entity who works outside the restrictions of space and time. I only ask that you forgive my impertinence, O great and all-powerful one.

Revolutionaryloser:

bringer of illumination:

Revolutionaryloser:

Ahem. I think you are wrong and that your complaints are invalid.

As much as you don't like the Transformers franchise, I think it is an entitled view to think that they shouldn't exist. The Transformers franchise, for all it's flaws, brings shit loads of money into Hollywood. Money that it really needs. Money it uses in order to make other better films.

As much as you don't like people, it is preposterous to think you expect those people to not exist. People have a right to exist. Why am I even explaining this to you? I mean, seriously.

There are other ways to deal with life than wishing it didn't exist. That is a loser's stance. You might be able to argue that something was handled badly, and you wish it would have been done better. However, jumping from there to saying "No, Sheppard can never be gay, ever. It is absolutely impossible for any version or interpretation by any player in the world could allow for Sheppard to be a gay man." That is what you are saying.

No that is not what I am saying.

First of all I already stated that I don't really care about the gay Shepherd issue, It's largely a non-issue for me since I have boy-cotted the game anyway because of the exploitative business practises of EA and Bioware, and as such I won't be playing the game. so I don't get why you are even making this argument. But from this thread I have now come to the conclusion that my opinion on the Gay Shepherd issue is that it should either be good, or it shouldn't be there. A poorly written and shoe-horned in ret-con is not only annoying to people who care about the integrity of the story, but it's also hugely disrespectful to the subject-matter.

There's also the fact that we, in the wake of the games release, have learned that it actually ISN'T possible to avoid at least some reference to this ret-con even if you aren't playing a gay Shepherd, there are several dialogue options where the dialogue wheel says one thing, but what Shepherd actually says in the conversation turns out to be quite, shall we say; "gay".

To begin with, you do realize the Mass Effect franchise is inside the western RPG genre, right? You do know that western RPGs are built around the concept of roleplaying your character, right? You do understand that a roleplayable character will have whatever characterization you give him/her, right? So in theory, I could characterize Sheppard as being a gay man who just didn't find a suitable partner throughout ME 1 or 2, or a gay man who was in denial throughout ME 1 or 2, or a bisexual man or a heterosexual man who just happenned to meet another man with whom he just clicked, right? I just needed to clear this up first

Character customization in Mass Effect, like in all other RPGs isn't entirely free. No matter how much you want it there are certain things that the developers don't let you do because it would lead to inconsistent and stupid characterization, It's impossible to give Shepherd anything beyond a narrow amount of lergely preset characterizations. The "He couldn't find a suitable partner" and the "Found a man he just clicked with" arguments don't work, since one of the possible gay love interests in Mass Effect 3 is Kaidan Alenko, who was also present in Mass Effect 1, the "He was bi-sexual all along" argument could work, but all that would mean is that the game is still poorly written, but for another reason, If this was the case then why weren't there a gay romance option in ME 1? It's just leads to another plot hole. The "But he repressed his homosexuality" argument is the only one that might work, but I would still call it an extraordinary asspull, and I'd say that the game is pretty poorly written for not addressing this fact what so ever.

Revolutionaryloser:

bringer of illumination:
A major character shift like a change in sexual orientation doesn't usually occur without any prior indicators.

You know this for a fact, I presume. How come? Are you a psychologist? Are you a homosexual? Have you had dozens of conversations with homosexuals who have explained how they came about the realization of their sexuality? I suppose you think films like Brokeback Mountain, The Talent of Mr. Ripley, Kinsey or Interview With the Vampire (just to list the few I know) that depict straight people turning gay without any notice are offensive in their crass portrayal of the rigid lines a homosexual must travel in search of their sexual identity. In any case, from the bizarre world I originate from things aren't like that at all. Where I come from people discover their sexuality in very strange and diverse ways. I won't comment on your race who obviously has a very strict ritual that all your people must follow. I won't pretend I have any sort of expertise I could apply.

Wow, don't make you sarcasm Too subtle now, it might have passed right over my head.

But alas no, I don't presume to be some kind of all-mighty expert on the subject of sexuality, but I will say that writing that suits an Oscar winning movie wouldn't really fit into the blunt-force expository trauma delivery machine that is the Mass Effect series. It just reeks of characteristic Bioware laziness.

Revolutionaryloser:

bringer of illumination:
Wrong, this argument has existed since the gay scenes were data-mined from a leaked pre-load of the game.

OK. This bit intrigues me. So from some sex scenes you were able to clearly see how horribly Shepard had been "characterized". To be fair, I am really impressed. Clearly your deduction capabilities exceed those of a humble human. I don't really see any point in continuing my dumb rambling when I'm obviously communicating with some sort of omniscient entity who works outside the restrictions of space and time. I only ask that you forgive my impertinence, O great and all-powerful one.

Again your mastery of subtle sarcasm overwhelms me.

I never meant to express that the poorness of the characterization of Shepherd could be ascertained from the data-mined gay sex-scenes. What COULD be be ascertained from them however is the fact that they are extraordinarily goofy, poorly written and, in the opinion of several homosexuals I have talked to, also quite unsexy and uncomfortable.

Not really sure where the conversation is right now but I just wanted to add something.

I don't have any problems with homosexuality and if that's what you like/want, more power to you.

Where my problem is, not that it really is a problem, is that with my first hours into Mass Effect 3, the homosexuality is just really heavy handed. It's more about the writing than what it is actually. What I mean is, in previous games, when you're wooing your eye for romance, it was a subtle changes. You keep talking to them and things come up and boom, romance. In Mass Effect 3, the second time I talked to the guy you can have a relationship with, he pretty much flat out admits he's a romance option.

Again, I don't have a problem with homosexuality, it's just that in most other cases with the character writing, it's more subtle. They don't just flat out say, "Hey! I'm a romance option! Talk to meeee!" Or maybe they do and I just didn't notice it.

As I read the last bit of the post I can see while typing this, I see that other people have the same idea as me. Hopefully in the next RPG epic will have better writing in both spectrums, where both sides can enjoy what is going on.

ReservoirAngel:
My only problem with them including a homosexual option for Shepard in Mass Effect 3 is that I wish they'd had the same types of options in the first 2 games so I could have hooked up with Kaiden.

As it stands since I let him die in the first game, if I want to get me some of that sweet arse I'm going to have to play the first 2 over again. Though I'm not sure if he even appears in Mass Effect 2. I assume he only didn't show up in my playthrough of it because I sacrificed him on Vermire in Mass Effect 1.

Even so, I am determined to hit that even if it means playing through 2 past games (I never did finish ME2 anyway).

He indeed appears on ME2 if he survives 1 and Im with you there going to get me some sweet Kaiden booty in ME3 (or if he is not available Jacobs pecs will do).

trollpwner:

Grey Day for Elcia:

Ok, so far you've offered a terrible argument and attempted to insult me by saying I am a child.

You're not bringing much to the table here in this debate.

Wheras you, on the other hand, are a beacon of masterful, intelligent reaso-oh wait. Your entire argument is based on the scientifically disproved concept that being gay is "wrong" or "unnatural" for humans. Wanna argue that the earth is flat while you're at it?

What? I support homosexuality as equally as I do heterosexuality. In fact, I've dated MORE people of my own sex than the opposite.

I feel like a lot of the arguments in this video could be applied to the detractors of the "gay patch" in Star Wars The Old Republic. I don't get why people living in a utopian society will try to shit in everyone elses free lunch just because they aren't hungry. It's fucking stupid.

captainfluoxetine:

jboking:

captainfluoxetine:

DISCLAIMER: I do not attach any stigma to the term 'mental illness'. I do not use it in a derogatory way nor do I believe it is something an individual should ever be judged on.

It matters not if you place a stigma upon the term, the term has a stigma. It's like using the n-word and saying it is okay because you don't place a stigma upon it. A stigma upon the word still exists, and you will still be looked down upon for using it.

The whole 'survival of the species' thing is a fallacy. No species in existence exists to survive 'as a species' they exist to pass on their own genetic material. Homosexuals are inherently not the ideal for doing this. An individuals genes do not care for the species they belong to, they care for being passed on to another generation.

Your argument is incorrect due to the existence of human beings. It can be proven that humans do think in a collective sense and could be said to fight for the "survival of the species." (Godwins Law: Hell there was an entire political movement based around it). The only thing that limits us today is that we think of our collectives as split between things like "American" or "European" as opposed to "Human." It can be said that the reason for this is because we as humans naturally seek conflict and without another major force on the planet to conflict with, we conflict with one another.

If your argument was about, say, wolves, then you might have a point.

Further to the above paragraph I'm going to do something incredibly irritating and patronizing and guess the counter argument many people will put forward which is 'But we treat each other with kindness and respect people, surely if all we wanted to do was pass on our genes we'd just fuck every member of the opposite sex and kill every one of the same?'.. or an argument to that effect. Well no, we wouldn't, by not acting like savages we ensure mutual survival, I allow you to survive, you allow me to survive, therefore MY genes (the important ones in my view) get passed on.This is seen in nature as well, morality is just a more evolved version of this survival mechanism.

Yeah, I'd never argue the "kindness and respect" argument. Both of those were originally defense mechanisms(on an interpersonal scale) that developed into social norms even though they very rarely still hold the same defensive function.

Of course now we have to begin making certain assumptions, and I carry this on in the spirit of debate and to a certain extent playing devils advocate.

Firstly, assuming homosexuality has a genetic predisposition. If there is a 'gay gene' or several of them they do not HAVE to have a point. They may simply have persisted because occasionally for whatever reason homosexuals reproduce, its a recessive gene, or any other number of factors. The existence of homosexuals does not mean they have a 'point'. It must be remembered that evolution hasn't finished, we didn't turn up as modern man and then nature went 'Fuck it, im done here!'

They may not HAVE to have a point. That is correct. However, this does not mean that we cannot create a point for them. One of the greatest abilities of the human race is to manipulate evolution. We've been doing it since the dawn of modern medicine. We could certainly create an institutional system to give them a point (say, they aren't allowed to have children and we give them some sort of incentive for not doing so). Of course, you could argue that they do have a natural point and that their point, overall, was to avoid overpopulation. If that were true, I would bet on it simply being a recessive gene. That meaning that when the recessive gene develops, it simply throws out that entire persons contribution to the species to avoid what I would call saturation.

Modern day homosexual couples find ways to reproduce? Well through totally unnatural means, that's hardly relevant.

Evolution in modern times does not have to be natural. Since we are on a video game website, think Deus Ex. If the couple has the ability to find the information on how to spread their genes and has the earning power to pay for the procedures to do it, then they have just earned the ability to pass on their genes. This is because the evolution we are creating within our society is one where traits such as the ability to fight predators, forage, etc. are being replaced with abilities such as potential for earning power(aka. traits conducive to being able to earn) or intelligence. One unfortunate sidenote: If we accepted the harsh reality of our societies new evolution, we would let the homeless die, as that is where bad genes go to remove themselves from the gene pool. That special homosexual couple is completely relevant to the discussion of evolution.

I understand why the whole overpopulation thing is a compelling argument for the 'point' to homosexuality, but its fundamentally flawed when you consider the basics of evolution and genetics.

you make this statement but do nothing to prove it. You can't just make a claim against something without a warrant.

Okay. You can, it is just extremely ineffective

I realize I've almost totally lost the point of 'homosexuality is a mental illness' as in honesty its not like I have hard evidence one way or the other, and as I say I continue this more in the spirit of debate than fighting a corner. On that subject however I would argue that MANY mental illnesses depression, schizophrenia and so on are genetic in nature AND do not benefit the individual nor help them reproduce. They in fact hinder the individuals ability to function and therefore, though not physically, mentally hinder the individuals ability to reproduce. It doesn't seem totally incomprehensible that homosexuality could be classed alongside these.

Your bolded statement really settles the argument. We are both layman, we must defer to those who are experts on the topic. If you can not provide expert evidence(testimony, etc) that would contradict the status quo(that homosexuality is not a mental illness - otherwise we would have homosexuals in padded rooms), then you have no solid argument.

Next point:

Here is the thing. In our 'new' world, homosexuality doesn't hinder their ability to reproduce. If you want to argue there is no point to homosexuality, I'll accept that and rather argue that it is nothing more than a gene that alters a trait of the person that may have, at one time, hindered their ability to reproduce, but now it does not. As such, it is a trait (in humans) that is completely inconsequential to evolution. Therefore, as it does not hinder the ability to function in any way, it is not a mental illness.

Thanks for the argument.

Actually many of my points were flawed. I was basing my argument on what I remembered from 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins (read it if you haven't already, its fascinating and has far less of his god-bashing than usual). However most of my points were blown out of the water by a video someone posted above. Ironically, of Richard Dawkins discussing homosexuality. Hehe, derp.

A minor point. I would argue that the word nigger and the term mentally ill are inappropriate comparisons. Nigger deserves a stigma as it has ALWAYS been used in a negative sense. Mental illness is something we should fight the stigma attached to.
Just making an observation.

Right, I just rebooted my account to weigh in on this.

We should fight the stigma against mental illness. But using the term in the way you did does not fight said stigma. It is there. It is an incredibly negative label that can destroy lives. A label that once it is applied it is almost impossible to remove. To equate homosexuality to mental illness is both a fallacy and incredibly insulting. Both to anyone within the LGBTQ community, such as myself, and anyone who has ever been diagnosed with a mental illness, such as myself (Although explaining the second half of that, if I had too, would take more effort than I am willing to give you at closing on 2am)

Homosexuality IS a trait that assists in the survival of the species.

Shocked?

I can now go on to prove it.

Among Rams (As in, Male Goats) homosexuality is rampant. This is a trait selected to do two things. Provide a herd with a large amount of males who will defend the herd from predators and prevent overpopulation. Interesting logic, but the strongest rams will be the breeders and the others will simply defend the herd.

Within humanity females enter the menopause. It has been theorised that this stage is not the end of a woman's useful lifestyle, far from it. It is the point where her duty (If we are talking about the survival of the species or group) has changed from that of mother to care giver, from that point onwards she provides care for the community as she can no longer breed. This is an evolutionatily selected trait. It provides the social group with people who's chief concern is not breeding or looking after children, but looking after the unit as a whole.

This same argument could be used to advocate homosexuality being an evolutionatily selected trait. In that homosexual males and females are not predisposed to breed and start families of their own and therefore look after the family unit as a whole. If you were to counter this with the statement that the "Homosexual" gene would die out due to a lack of breeding, as has already been shown by many homosexual humans, homosexuality does not prevent one from starting a family.

Perhaps further insight into the human genome may eventually end this debate. However, it is very easy to argue that homosexuality is evolutionarily selected for. There are no arguments to state that it is a mental disorder. To state as much is to bury your head in science that is long since dead.

Hysteria was a mental disorder once. It was unique to women. All women who were not subservient etc suffered from hysteria. Interestingly, the cure for hysteria was a vaginal massage (Read: Orgasm) and the disorder led to the creation of vibrators (Original vibrators being clockwork powered creations to aid doctors in causing orgasm and thus treating hysteria) Medicine has moved on since then. To treat someones sexuality as a mental disorder shows a lack of understanding of what it is to be human, how evolution works, how human minds work and basic human decency.

It would be easier to state that you suffer from a mild form of autism due to your inability to judge a situation and use terminology correctly than it would be to argue that homosexuality is a mental disorder.

Yours sincerely,
Someone with more than just a laymans knowledge of stigma and society.

Wiki out.

EDIT: Due to having to agree to forum policy stuff whilst posting that post (Heh) it double posted. This is me fixing that.

There there Jim, when I conquer the world, I'll launch all these idiots into the sun. I'll name the gaybasher dedicated shuttle after you =D

On a more serious note: I believe a lot of it is a part of the gaming community that is terrified at the prospect of the gaming culture becoming mature. I believe there are a lot of people who look to the gaming culture as an escape from the harsh world of adulthood, and want it all to be juvenile crap. Sorry, but you're just a subset that is already being overcatered to, and truth be told, we don't want to be associated with you.

Seriously, I think it's about time a conscious divide in gaming community arises. That we simply get the high brow sites and the low brow sites, instead of being torn in the middle.

Ah Jim Sterling. I enjoy the guy. Don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but he's loud, obnoxious, prone to exaggeration and fond of creating controversy and a consummate entertainer. The Rush Limbaugh of the progressive/videogame set if you will.

On this issue, the point was well made and well spoken.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here