Guild Wars 2

I never liked the idea of Marjory and Kasmeer being together, I thought they worked better platonically. But they had to pander to Tumblr and its ilk, I guess…

Also trying to bang someone who literally has nowhere else to go is super creepy.

HumaCarrionEater.8254:

Hetero stuff is assumed to be the default, the correct way to do things, the natural way people exist.

Almost as if the overwhelming majority of humanity were straight or something…

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Fext.3614:

no real human beings can be such a bunch of annoying drama queens like the Destiny Edge.

Clearly, you have not been around tabletop gamers for very long in your lifetime. Trust me . . . there’s worse which inhabits your Friendly Local Gaming Store.

Fext also has not met Diablo the Third. Thank goodness GW2 came out not long after he was unleashed upon the gaming public, or I’d still be in the clutches of his ter-RAWWWR.

Faowri.4159:

It is extremely important for people to be able to see themselves represented positively in the media they consume. I’m fully aware that Jory and Kas are not real people, but their sexual identities and relationship represent the experiences of a set of real people, so excluding them amounts to being exclusive of part of your player base. It’s the same reason it’s important to have good/numerous female characters, and characters (where human xD) of diverse races.

Again, if your stance is that “it’s just a game”, “it’s just fiction” and representation doesn’t matter, then that’s another point for mutual disagreement so I won’t push that, but I did want to clarify what I meant.

Well said. I had no problem at all with them, even though as a straight female “I shouldn’t be able to relate to them”. Well I did. You just gotta look past the outer shell and ignore that one side has an extra pair of…. cough Who cares…

Seeing posts as “it was forced on me”, or “Majory should have been a man”, honestly make me sick.

But why do all human major characters have to be beautiful?

The kiss scene sounded fake to me for this reason: both characters looked like dolls. Perfect skin, perfect makeup, the face of a 20 year old victoria secret model.

In general, human models lack the variety of norn ones (to make a comparison with another humanoid species), and that’s a pity.

redslion.9675:

But why do all human major characters have to be beautiful?

The kiss scene sounded fake to me for this reason: both characters looked like dolls. Perfect skin, perfect makeup, the face of a 20 year old victoria secret model.

In general, human models lack the variety of norn ones (to make a comparison with another humanoid species), and that’s a pity.

Because no one wants to look at ugliness, male or female. That’s why all heroes, male or female, appear as cultural ideals.

DarcShriek.5829:

redslion.9675:

But why do all human major characters have to be beautiful?

The kiss scene sounded fake to me for this reason: both characters looked like dolls. Perfect skin, perfect makeup, the face of a 20 year old victoria secret model.

In general, human models lack the variety of norn ones (to make a comparison with another humanoid species), and that’s a pity.

Because no one wants to look at ugliness, male or female. That’s why all heroes, male or female, appear as cultural ideals.

What about Braham?

(And if that is true, then the fact that the issue whether those two are of the same sex or not might be the LAST of our problems)

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

bullyrook.2165:

No, the core question is “why must I agree and/or support you?”

Hang on, lets not keep dancing around the questions like this. I did ask you a question. As I stated, I don’t see anything right OR wrong about this issue. People just are the way they are.

But you are suggesting that there’s something not right about it. So please explain why you feel that way. Don’t deflect the question please, just try to answer it. There quite clearly is something here that makes you uncomfortable. Can you explain what it is?

Fair enough. I had really hoped you would take my opinion as logical on faith, assume that I am rational, and we could avoid this little debate. But that is asking too much it seems.

Well, let me put any religious beliefs I may have on the sidelines for this. Let me also remind you that I bear no malice towards individuals of the homosexual persuasion and I do not advocate removing Jory or Kas from the storyline – doing so is just a lazy way to “fix” things within the community. Maybe just tone down the PDA and include a character like the one I proposed.

Alright, here we go.

I have purely scientific reasons concerning genetics and psychology to disagree with you, but those are likely to really really really offend you. Please, do not ask me to go into that.

Instead, I will see if I can get through to you by using your values against you first. If that fails, then I will talk genetics and psychology.

bullyrook.2165:

Your argument is simply that you have the right to do as you please.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Not necessarily. But in regards to love, if it’s consensual, certainly.

But does that mean that if two consenting adults fall in love, that we should bring our support to them no matter what? Not just accepting them, but advocating their love as “right”? There are other, far more controversial, relationship dynamics than homosexuality that I accept, but will not agree with. Some of them are taboo the world over, with and without religion, and I believe that your view of “consensual love is never wrong” means that you not only accept, but advocate these taboos as well. You can’t take one without the other when it comes to consensual love.

I implore you, accept my discomfort with advocating this aspect as apposed to just being neutral.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

bullyrook.2165:

Hmm how would you like to see values such as my own presented in a different game?

Well without making too many assumptions about your exact position (since I’m still waiting for an explanation on what your exact position is, and more importantly, why). I can imagine a setting for a game, in which an arranged marriage to someone of the opposite sex is expected, due to social conventions. Imagine a sort of game of thrones like setting, where those of nobility are expected to produce an heir, yet are of a different persuasion than what is accepted in their society, which leads to disagreements among fellow nobility (game of thrones touched upon this subject in regards to King Rhenly, if you’re familiar with the show). I’m fine with your kind of position being represented in such a way in a videogame or any other medium. Because there’s a valid reason why nobility would disapprove of it.

Ah, so you suspect that my view springs from an inherent social norm and/or religion. Well, with that in mind, let me show you otherwise. If you are an atheist, it is likely that you do not believe that my morality was given by a deity, but was instead a self-generated inspiration created by long deceased ancestors. If my views were created by some long-dead ancestor (hypothetically speaking) then my disagreement with you is likely rooted to their predispositions and theories that they arrived at with no outside influence. If the sentient creatures of Tyria are anything like ourselves, it is likely that the civil and just populous arrived at similar conclusions with or without the aid of supernatural beings and currently are in as much a disagreement as you and I over this subject. Now, let’s see how this would break down by Tyrian races.

Sylvari: I doubt any would care, if they did, it would be few and far between with most not even understanding why we disagree. However, there are those few deviant Sylvari that go against the flow and may agree with me, but this would be like .000001% of their civil population, if that. Unless, of course, the Sylvari have been misrepresented up until this point and there are specifically "heterosexual"as well as specifically “homosexual”, instead of all being pansexual. But that is another discussion.

Asura: Most would be too busy with work to discuss social issues, and would hurl comments like “bookah” at the both of us for wasting their time. However, if a Asura was working with genetics, he/she may take a view such as my own. And then he would invariably get blown up or eaten by one of his experiments.

Norn: The Norn are likely to advocate heterosexuality so that their young may carry on their legacy, that is what they are all about, to them nothing else make sense. That said they are drunk half the time and “slips” in this stance happen from time to time. Mostly, they wouldn’t understand your views, but they wouldn’t give you grief over it either.

Charr: Eh, it is hard to say with the Charr. Rox sounded hesitant to ask Kas and Jory about their exact relationship. But they don’t hold our standards of family, so they likely wouldn’t see the big deal. I’d say they would likely fire a cannon at me for implying anything that resembles a belief system or a morality more complex than “follow your orders”.

Human: Same positions as you and me. Accepting, but not always “comfortable or approving” with the subject.

Back on subject, I just didn’t appreciate the attempt to romanticize Kas and Jory’s relationship and make it so central to the story. If I offended anyone, it was not my intent. Please, step into my shoes on this matter.

redslion.9675:

But why do all human major characters have to be beautiful?

The kiss scene sounded fake to me for this reason: both characters looked like dolls. Perfect skin, perfect makeup, the face of a 20 year old victoria secret model.

In general, human models lack the variety of norn ones (to make a comparison with another humanoid species), and that’s a pity.

To be fair, Marjory wasn’t looking her finest in that scene. Her fast looked like it had burn marks and blisters on it.

I said it X pages ago, and I’ll say it again: This discussion is not going anywhere. Let it go. It should be closed once and for all.

bullyrook.2165:

I have purely scientific reasons concerning genetics and psychology to disagree with you, but those are likely to really really really offend you. Please, do not ask me to go into that.

I’m not easily offended, plus I do believe in science.

bullyrook.2165:

But does that mean that if two consenting adults fall in love, that we should bring our support to them no matter what?

Yes. I wouldn’t see why not.

bullyrook.2165:

Not just accepting them, but advocating their love as “right”?

I don’t believe there is a right or wrong here. If two consenting adults love each other, it deserves our respect. There’s nothing inherently right or wrong with it.

bullyrook.2165:

There are other, far more controversial, relationship dynamics than homosexuality that I accept, but will not agree with. Some of them are taboo the world over, with and without religion, and I believe that your view of “consensual love is never wrong” means that you not only accept, but advocate these taboos as well. You can’t take one without the other when it comes to consensual love.

I don’t believe in taboos. That doesn’t mean I think everything can be tolerated, since a society relies on having some rules in place. I don’t however believe in regulating love.

==

Well without making too many assumptions about your exact position (since I’m still waiting for an explanation on what your exact position is, and more importantly, why).

bullyrook.2165:

Ah, so you suspect that my view springs from an inherent social norm and/or religion.

How did you jump from statement A, to conclusion B? You asked for an example on how I would work your kind of opinion into a game. I provided one. I did not make any conclusions about your exact view, since I was still waiting for you to clarify it.

bullyrook.2165:

Well, with that in mind, let me show you otherwise. If you are an atheist, it is likely that you do not believe that my morality was given by a deity, but was instead a self-generated inspiration created by long deceased ancestors. If my views were created by some long-dead ancestor (hypothetically speaking) then my disagreement with you is likely rooted to their predispositions and theories that they arrived at with no outside influence.

I don’t think any of that is relevant. What matters to me is the position, and the arguments for it.

bullyrook.2165:

If the sentient creatures of Tyria are anything like ourselves, it is likely that the civil and just populous arrived at similar conclusions with or without the aid of supernatural beings and currently are in as much a disagreement as you and I over this subject.

Unlikely. Most of the disagreement regarding this subject in our own world, comes from a religious background. Since the people of Tyria do not share our beliefs, and are of very varied races, it is unlikely that they would share our disagreement on this subject. It is far more likely, given the different races of Tyria, that inter-species relations are a big problem. Such as a human and a Charr.

bullyrook.2165:

Norn: The Norn are likely to advocate heterosexuality so that their young may carry on their legacy, that is what they are all about, to them nothing else make sense. That said they are drunk half the time and “slips” in this stance happen from time to time. Mostly, they wouldn’t understand your views, but they wouldn’t give you grief over it either.

Norn believe in heroes. We don’t know currently how Norn form bonds with each other, and what their basis for it is. To assume it’s just about children, is to disregard the element of love, and focus purely on procreation. I think that’s a bit of a pitfall.

bullyrook.2165:

I have purely scientific reasons concerning genetics and psychology to disagree with you, but those are likely to really really really offend you. Please, do not ask me to go into that.

As a studier of psychology and a scientist-to-be, I really must insist you don’t just try to invoke the name of science without supporting documentation and explanation.

I cannot imagine why someone with “purely” scientific reasons would have any issue going into detail on the subject. Unless of course it’s not really from peer reviewed scientific papers and is instead just your laymans misunderstanding of science with the label SCIENCE! slapped on top.
Then I suppose you’d have a very legitimate reason not to go into it.

Often when people try to invoke science as their reasons for opposing this matter, they make incorrect assumptions regarding the purpose of life, which it doesn’t necessarily need to have.

By all means, provide “scientific reasons”. But expect those claims to be met with scientific examination too.

Regarding the Living Story

Should the writers include same sex relationships in the story? I think a better question is, why should they avoid them? Because someone may disapprove? Well there’s a lot of things people may disapprove of. Heck, there’s people who believe magic is real, and oppose it. Does that mean the story cannot contain any magic? You’re going to be left with a really thin story if you try to appease everyone.

Romantic kissing scenes are all over games and movies. It’s never been a taboo. Why start now?

http://tinyurl.com/n9v6xqt

^Warning, the above video contains a kissing scene in a game.

Vexander.9850:

redslion.9675:

But why do all human major characters have to be beautiful?

The kiss scene sounded fake to me for this reason: both characters looked like dolls. Perfect skin, perfect makeup, the face of a 20 year old victoria secret model.

In general, human models lack the variety of norn ones (to make a comparison with another humanoid species), and that’s a pity.

To be fair, Marjory wasn’t looking her finest in that scene. Her fast looked like it had burn marks and blisters on it.

She should have looked much worse than that, actually. She almost got killed, right?

redslion.9675:

She should have looked much worse than that, actually. She almost got killed, right?

Well if her face was covered in third degree burns, the scene wouldn’t look very romantic, would it?

DarcShriek.5829:

redslion.9675:

But why do all human major characters have to be beautiful?

The kiss scene sounded fake to me for this reason: both characters looked like dolls. Perfect skin, perfect makeup, the face of a 20 year old victoria secret model.

In general, human models lack the variety of norn ones (to make a comparison with another humanoid species), and that’s a pity.

Because no one wants to look at ugliness, male or female. That’s why all heroes, male or female, appear as cultural ideals.

Speak for yourself. I find “ugly” a lot more interesting.

bullyrook.2165:

But does that mean that if two consenting adults fall in love, that we should bring our support to them no matter what? Not just accepting them, but advocating their love as “right”?

Yes. If they are truly two consenting adults, what’s the problem?

To the second, it isn’t right or wrong, as said previously. Love just is. Though some people are happy to advocate for it as it is a positive force, and some are just happy to let it be the thing that it is.

I’m curious to hear what this supposed scientific – genetic and psychological – backing is. I have my own various reasons.

I’m amused that this game, which has undead dragons, walking corpses, Forgal burying axes in things, and countless characters dying in various awful ways, it’s a scene of two people sharing a loving moment that gets people’s hackles up.

Even I thought the scene was handled a bit ham-fistedly and came across as slightly pandering due to how it was written and shot, but I have no issue with the kiss itself.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

redslion.9675:

She should have looked much worse than that, actually. She almost got killed, right?

Well if her face was covered in third degree burns, the scene wouldn’t look very romantic, would it?

I think it would have been MUCH more romantic.

Vid, I am going to answer. Just have to phrase it right. lil bit o’ time, please? I’m starting to feel like Mr. Spock, shoving all my emotion, morals, culture, and beliefs to the side so I can make an argument I can prove is logical. It is very taxing to strip away everything you are just because the other guy won’t agree to disagree. No worries guys, you’ll get a well reasoned, perfectly understandable answer soon.

I’m surprised that this thread is still open given the fact that the OP was posted two months ago. Since then the thread has drifted off-topic to be more about people’s personal feelings about homosexuality and is on the verge of being an attack against one or two people who have posted their opinions. It appears to me that the moderator must be waiting for someone to finally take the bait.

RoxBuryNine.4210:

I’m surprised that this thread is still open given the fact that the OP was posted two months ago. Since then the thread has drifted off-topic to be more about people’s personal feelings about homosexuality and is on the verge of being an attack against one or two people who have posted their opinions. It appears to me that the moderator must be waiting for someone to finally the take the bait.

Then they’ll read my plea:

A NET, we want more ugly characters! Less dolls, more veterans who bear the sign of battle!

Seems like it’s almost impossible to make a human which will look older than 25.

Thankfully I am a very patient man.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

redslion.9675:

A NET, we want more ugly characters! Less dolls, more veterans who bear the sign of battle!

Why do I have a feeling that there be a increase in battle scarred norn npcs now? Is it only me?

Norn NPCs? More scarred-up PCs, please. The only real option for a battle-scarred sylvari (I have four male sylv) is the noseless face, and I’d rather not go muppet-face just yet.

And there aren’t any real face options for male asura, just “terribly old.”

I agree with you, they need more scarred-up faces.

Egon Vidar.9125:

Thankfully I am a very patient man.

Norn NPCs? More scarred-up PCs, please. The only real option for a battle-scarred sylvari (I have four male sylv) is the noseless face, and I’d rather not go muppet-face just yet.

And there aren’t any real face options for male asura, just “terribly old.”

Isn’t that how it works, first they introduce an npc with the new scarred look before releasing it for the players to buy those makeup kits? As for the Asura I was rather surprised by the lack of scarred faces, you would think the Asura would acquire quite a few scars from lab accidents.

bullyrook.2165:

Vid, I am going to answer. Just have to phrase it right. lil bit o’ time, please? I’m starting to feel like Mr. Spock, shoving all my emotion, morals, culture, and beliefs to the side so I can make an argument I can prove is logical. It is very taxing to strip away everything you are just because the other guy won’t agree to disagree. No worries guys, you’ll get a well reasoned, perfectly understandable answer soon.

Please take as much time as you can to sharpen this post and refine it. I actually, no sarcasm, look forward to seeing it. You do strike me as intelligent, but . . . still the opposition.

By the way, I am prepared to agree to disagree, so long as it’s clear we do need to. I have my reasons for holding the opinions I do. (I do not call them facts because they are largely subjective.) In the interests of clarity I might as well go ahead:

1. People are inherently people, regardless of gender or race. They are rational, irrational, logical, illogical, educated, ignorant, but most of all they are still intelligent and thinking beings who deserve at least some respect if they are serious when they speak of their beliefs.

2. You cannot necessarily help what you find interesting/beautiful/adorable. It just is, and what some people find disgusting some find intriguing . . . consider the amount of people fascinated by insects, taxidermy, or some cultural haut cuisine dishes. (Guaranteed there will be one which is a centerpiece to a culture which someone somewhere will find disgusting.)

3. It is okay to love another person, regardless of gender/race, so long as it is not “merely” lust and has a basis in something more concrete. It is not necessarily a sexual love either.

And on the technical side:

4. Writers have a responsibility to portray characters who remain true to their nature, even if they know it’s not going to be popular.

5. Writers have a responsibility to follow through on events developing even though they know it’s going to upset people if they already set the ball rolling.

6. Characters must behave like people, but they are not people. They must be a believable facsimile, but they are not any single person.

7. Tragic events are always better when they have time to mature. We need to get to know the characters, get connected to them, and believe it’s a tragedy something happens to them. For whatever fall is planned, there must be a rise of at least equal magnitude.

So, to be blunt in the extreme:

The whole of Marjory/Kasmeer is a setup for tragedy later which will evoke emotional responses in those who invested themselves in the narrative and characters.

Which is why I think the whole of this? It’s not a publicity stunt or social agenda. This is writers doing their craft and this time doing it patiently.

I’ve refrained from posting for a while now, because I don’t want to be a part of all the mud slinging. I’m interested in Bullyrook’s answer, and he can take as long as he wants to write one. But some of the posters have been wildly taking this off topic. A discussion regarding the representation of same-sex relationships in the Living Story is entirely on topic. However, the arguing in some of the posts above mine, obviously is not.

People have different opinions on this matter. We don’t have to agree with them, obviously, but that doesn’t mean we can’t try to discuss the matter in a reasonable way, and try to understand where they are coming from. It does not surprise me some people feel uncomfortable with the Living Story, and I’d like to hear their reasons for it.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

The whole of Marjory/Kasmeer is a setup for tragedy later which will evoke emotional responses in those who invested themselves in the narrative and characters.

Which is why I think the whole of this? It’s not a publicity stunt or social agenda. This is writers doing their craft and this time doing it patiently.

Yep, making us care about two characters that love each other, is all just a tool for the writers to pull at our heart strings.

I didn’t say it was my place to decide, Queen. My question was more in response to Dark deciding to descend upon me in a wave of condescention and dictate how this was going to work.

I believe that you probably noticed that my initial post on this topic was to ask that this particular line of dialogue was stopped and the conversation be returned to its original topic. I asked this because, for three days, you and others have repeatedly asked for answers only to be dodged with walls of texts containing increasingly worse statements about/towards homosexuals.

I hadn’t originally intended to ask for the elaboration myself, but (stupidly) felt the need to more specifically express my displeasure after Dark decided it was his place to defend Bully’s inappropriate comments and label me the bigot.

While I’m more than happy that this thread hasn’t dissolved into bad language yet, I wish people would either drop or change the subject. The last page or two have been people “politely” sniping at one another. No one is using harsh words yet, but if this sniping continues, it might very well come to that point.

Egon Vidar.9125:

Thankfully I am a very patient man.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

redslion.9675:

A NET, we want more ugly characters! Less dolls, more veterans who bear the sign of battle!

Why do I have a feeling that there be a increase in battle scarred norn npcs now? Is it only me?

Norn NPCs? More scarred-up PCs, please. The only real option for a battle-scarred sylvari (I have four male sylv) is the noseless face, and I’d rather not go muppet-face just yet.

And there aren’t any real face options for male asura, just “terribly old.”

Scarrs alone are not enough. We need the chance to add wrinkles, and a skin which is not utterly perfect.

This might look offtopic, but it’s one reason why I have trouble liking this couple.

Well, I’ll be letting go of the previous wall of text that I have been trading with Malafide, just let it be known that I disagree with her as far as the nature of taboos go. But that is a discussion for later.

Alright, here we go. I will try to keep this as simple as possible.

Here is what I believe: I believe that most people are putting the cart before the horse when it comes to their exact position on homosexuality. Yes, it is true that homosexuality has been linked to genetics, but there is no proof that people are homosexual solely because of their genetics. We don’t even know how homosexuality factors into being human. Some say it is not “linked” to anything and “just is”, and that it is a natural and healthy way for people to interact.

A direct quote from the APA here:
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

Without determining the source, we cannot claim to know beyond a doubt whether it is natural or not. The trouble is, some people do not want to find out what the source is. They believe that if we find the source, we may try to classify it and change it. That frightens some individuals.

I just want to know what I m supporting, before I say I support it. I think that is reasonable. So, what do I “know”?

I know that homosexuality exists. I know that no proof has yet been found that it is a form of mental disorder. I know it is a matter of controversy. I know that there is a question of whether it is logical or illogical. I know that the human race requires more conclusive data before it can answer this question.

Without the required data, I am forced to make an educated guess so that I may conduct my own life. I choose to believe that our genetics are geared towards heterosexuality, to seek out a mate of the opposite gender and attempt to create offspring. These offspring, if we manage to create them, will in turn attempt to continue the cycle. My logic dictates that the existence of a “homosexual gene” is unlikely (not impossible) in terms of evolution. Even if you factor in recessive genes, evolution usually does not perpetuate genetics that are counter productive. A “homosexual gene” is unlikely to be passed on and one would think that it would eventually exit the gene pool. Therefore, if the genetic material is not present (does not exist), then homosexual behavior is likely to be caused by some other factor. What factor? I couldn’t hazard a guess. More data is needed beyond this point.

This is my logic. This is how I believe humanity is intended to be. No bias. No emotion. Just reason.

Again, this is horribly over-simplified, but this is the basics. Anything additional that I tack onto this belief merely ties into acts to reinforce it – religion, culture, personal tastes, etc.

As for those of you who say that love is never wrong… Honestly, I have no answer for you. I have questions. Endless questions. Questions that I know none of you could ever hope to answer. Where do we draw the line in what is moral? Why do we have morals? What does it mean to hurt another individual? How much of our society is wrong? Why do we even exist? How is it possible for us to exist? What makes this existence worthwhile? And at the end of the day all we can do is choose and hope for the best.

I choose to draw the line at genetics. Genetics that dictate who we should be seeking out in order to propagate our species. Choosing anything else is a waste of effort. To make a family and leave the world a better place is our directive. I would rather die than enforce my will on someone else’s, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with how you spend your life or how you let your sensory perceptions influence you.

So, what is my stance? I believe that these individuals should most definitely not be criminalized or discriminated against, whether they could choose their sexuality or not. However, we really should advocate heterosexual behavior in those who do have a choice because it is the logical relationship to pursue, at least until we know all the “whys”. There is still far too much data missing for me to feel at ease about this, and I hope you can understand my choices.

I know this is not a popular view. That is why I was worried about revealing it. It implies that something might be amiss, and that angers some people.

Feel free to throw your various fruits and vegetables.

bullyrook.2165:

Well, I’ll be letting go of the previous wall of text that I have been trading with Malafide, just let it be known that I disagree with her as far as the nature of taboos go. But that is a discussion for later.

snip

Not gonna be mean, not gonna throw insults at you…

One link is all this takes… One.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-12/nifm-sfe120612.php

You rise or fall with your reaction to this, reject it or embrace it… After that post of claims of reason, logic and science if you cannot accept this and adjust your views based on what is observed… People will form their opinions of you and your opinions and move on.

Personally I hope you embrace science and reality and your fellow humans different as we all are…

That was a very well thought out post bullyrook but next time please restrain using re-formulated quotes you drew from other articles to express your opinions . I could name at least 3 I read that use the exact same words.

That being said I agree with your logic. Everything else is beyond logic and doesn’t deserve to be questioned.

CharrGirl.7896:

That was a very well thought out post bullyrook but next time please restrain using re-formulated quotes you drew from other articles to express your opinions . I could name at least 3 I read that use the exact same words.

That being said I agree with your logic. Everything else is beyond logic and doesn’t deserve to be questioned.

Agreed and seconded. It was well-thought and presented in a way which can’t really be discounted even if you don’t agree.

And while you do have questions to respond to the “love” matter, I also . . . suspect . . . you understand those questions cannot be answered in a rational or logical manner. They are emotional concerns, and thus there’s not much logic to them. That is the unfortunate base of the whole discussion: this is a very emotional thing even with the logic and rational thought going into talking about it.

I’d like to wash my hands of further discussion on this particular avenue. I’ve said how I feel and think about it, you’ve said how you feel and think about it. I agree with some parts, but the crucial part remains seated in emotional rather than rational thought/reaction.

There is literally nothing which can be done to say how either of us (or others) are wrong in how we feel. It is what it is.

First of all Bullyrook, thanks for taking the time to write such an elaborate and well phrased explanation of your position. I think many people in your shoes would be afraid to put their ideas out there, for other people to shoot holes in. Of course that is exactly what I intend to do, in a matter of speaking, but simply because I disagree with you (which is no surprise to anyone).

bullyrook.2165:

Here is what I believe: I believe that most people are putting the cart before the horse when it comes to their exact position on homosexuality. Yes, it is true that homosexuality has been linked to genetics, but there is no proof that people are homosexual solely because of their genetics. We don’t even know how homosexuality factors into being human. Some say it is not “linked” to anything and “just is”, and that it is a natural and healthy way for people to interact.

I think a good question would be if any of this really matters? Humans are a very sexually diverse species. Our emotions are complex. So it really just boils down to if these emotions are harmful to anyone, and if they make us happy. Clearly they aren’t harmful. Consenting adults simply fall in love of each other, and that makes them very happy. From that angle, I can’t see any reason to be against it.

bullyrook.2165:

Without determining the source, we cannot claim to know beyond a doubt whether it is natural or not. The trouble is, some people do not want to find out what the source is. They believe that if we find the source, we may try to classify it and change it. That frightens some individuals.

Now this is flat out wrong. We have observed homosexuality not just among humans, but amongst many other social species as well (such as elephants). So clearly it is a natural phenomenon.

Of course usually when people pose the question “is it natural”, that is not what they mean. What they often mean, is whether homosexuality serves the purpose of procreation. People assume a Darwinian view of natural selection, hold it against that light, and proclaim: ‘This doesn’t serve the purpose of nature!’ But herein lies the fallacy. Nature does not necessarily need to have a purpose at all.

bullyrook.2165:

I just want to know what I m supporting, before I say I support it. I think that is reasonable. So, what do I “know”?

I’d say you are supporting the right for people to be people. Look it from another angle. Give or take a few hundred years, maybe our species will finally fulfill that long sci-fi dream, and explore the galaxy. Much like Mass Effect, I can perceive our species traveling the galaxy, and mingling with other alien species that aren’t genetically compatible with us. Humankind is capable of falling in love not just with members of our own species. If we can’t even accept how diverse our sexuality is amongst our own species, how will we ever prepare ourselves for what lies ahead? The true exploration of human sexuality, has not even begun yet.

bullyrook.2165:

Even if you factor in recessive genes, evolution usually does not perpetuate genetics that are counter productive.

Yes it does. Almost every species alive on our planet today, is thanks to exactly the opposite of what you said being true. There are so many species on our planet that have counter productive traits, ourselves included. It is one of the defining aspects of how evolution works: It permits counter productive traits, sometimes for a very long time.

But the real fallacy here is not just a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, but of the assumption that homosexuality is counter productive. Counter productive to what exactly? To procreation? How did you conclude that procreation is all that matters among a social species? And how did you conclude that homosexuality is against procreation? Do same-sex couples not foster children? Do they not form pairs, and parent children?

bullyrook.2165:

As for those of you who say that love is never wrong… Honestly, I have no answer for you. I have questions. Endless questions. Questions that I know none of you could ever hope to answer.

Fire away!

bullyrook.2165:

Where do we draw the line in what is moral?

Easy. When something infringes on the well being of others, or damages society as a whole, it becomes unacceptable to us.

bullyrook.2165:

Why do we have morals?

Because we are a social species, and a civilized society cannot exist without rules that people mutually agree upon.

bullyrook.2165:

What does it mean to hurt another individual?

There’s physical and there’s emotional hurt.

bullyrook.2165:

How much of our society is wrong?

A society is never right or wrong. It always has flaws, and it always has good things. What one society finds horrible, another might embrace. It is all in the eye of the beholder.

bullyrook.2165:

Why do we even exist?

Why would we need a reason?

bullyrook.2165:

How is it possible for us to exist?

That is still being investigated. In due time we will have the answer. But we’re starting to get a pretty accurate picture of how life developed on our planet.

bullyrook.2165:

What makes this existence worthwhile?

Differs from person to person.

bullyrook.2165:

And at the end of the day all we can do is choose and hope for the best.

I’d like to think that the future is what you make it.

bullyrook.2165:

However, we really should advocate heterosexual behavior in those who do have a choice because it is the logical relationship to pursue, at least until we know all the “whys”.

Here I disagree. I think we should advocate people to follow their hearts. Because it has already been shown that when people are pushed into a sexual direction they are not comfortable with, that it has negative emotional effects on them, and makes them unhappy.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

But the real fallacy here is not just a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, but of the assumption that homosexuality is counter productive. Counter productive to what exactly? To procreation? How did you conclude that procreation is all that matters among a social species? And how did you conclude that homosexuality is against procreation? Do same-sex couples not foster children? Do they not form pairs, and parent children?

I think you are falling into the same fallacy as Bullyrook at the end. And you were doing so well. Homosexuality doesn’t need to serve individuals as long as it serves the survival of the species.

Quoting the study I linked above: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-12/nifm-sfe120612.php
“The study solves the evolutionary riddle of homosexuality, finding that “sexually antagonistic” epi-marks, which normally protect parents from natural variation in sex hormone levels during fetal development, sometimes carryover across generations and cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring. The mathematical modeling demonstrates that genes coding for these epi-marks can easily spread in the population because they always increase the fitness of the parent but only rarely escape erasure and reduce fitness in offspring."

Alice.8694:

I think you are falling into the same fallacy as Bullyrook at the end. And you were doing so well. Homosexuality doesn’t need to serve individuals as long as it serves the survival of the species.

No I’m not. I just said that the idea that homosexuality doesn’t serve a purpose, is wrong. You may have read my post wrong.

Like I said, we are a social species. There is more to us than just procreation. We survive not just as individuals, but as a culture.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Alice.8694:

I think you are falling into the same fallacy as Bullyrook at the end. And you were doing so well. Homosexuality doesn’t need to serve individuals as long as it serves the survival of the species.

No I’m not. I just said that the idea that homosexuality doesn’t serve a purpose, is wrong. You may have read my post wrong.

Like I said, we are a social species. There is more to us than just procreation. We survive not just as individuals, but as a culture.

You’re still doing it…

Or do you think homosexuality arose only once humans walked the earth to impose meaning onto evolution? Homosexuality doesn’t need a modern purpose to exist and be a natural part of humanity, which it is. How we as a social species adapt to the cards that are dealt to us, does not imply the cards were dealt that way for the reasoning we’ve chosen to give them.

Alice.8694:

You’re still doing it…

Or do you think homosexuality arose only once humans walked the earth to impose meaning onto evolution? Homosexuality doesn’t need a modern purpose to exist and be a natural part of humanity, which it is. How we as a social species adapt to the cards that are dealt to us, does not imply the cards were dealt that way for the reasoning we’ve chosen to give them.

You are not getting it. You’re arguing the same point that I’m making. We are on the same side of this issue, arguing the exact same point: There is no such thing as a purpose. Not to life, not to homosexuality, and there needn’t be one. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t positive sides to it. Homosexuality is not the opposite of procreation, like Bullyrook makes it out to be. Quite the contrary, it fulfills a social role in much the same way as heterosexuality does.

There is more to our species than just procreation, that’s what I’m saying.

You’ve done a great job in this thread Queen! Thanks for keeping your cool.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

There is no such thing as a purpose.

To expound on this point. Purpose is a relationship between an entity with desires and something else. If there is no entity with a desire about the thing in question the thing cannot have a purpose to fulfill. To suggest humans, sex, genetics, etc. have purposes independent from human desires for those things is to suggest that the universe (or something greater) has a mind with desires about those things. Many people may personally believe that, but I see no reason to grant that assumption. Even if the universe had a mind behind it, I can’t even fathom how you’d begin to reliably infer its desires; and even if you could, why would you want to help it fulfill its desires?

That is very elegantly said, well done. I could not have said it better myself.

Where do we draw the line in what is moral?

Easy. When something infringes on the well being of others, or damages society as a whole, it becomes unacceptable to us.

There are plenty of times in history were something was viewed as morally correct or incorrect that infringed on human rights as people in Western culture view them. and who is “US”, humans? People in America?, Asia?, Europe. Who sets the standard America isn’t the only culture. We are very good at being kittens as a whole species regardless.

bullyrook.2165:

Why do we have morals?

Because we are a social species, and * a civilized society cannot exist without rules that people mutually agree upon.*

Doesn’t this make India and China uncivilized then? Civilized means having culture not really meant to be used as a disparaging term for cultures or ways of life you don’t agree with.

bullyrook.2165:

How much of our society is wrong?

A society is never right or wrong. It always has flaws, and it always has good things. What one society finds horrible, another might embrace. It is all in the eye of the beholder.

So why are we still egging each other on? Nether of you will stop till the other yields…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwLS4C_78jg

Mike Winters.6871:

There are plenty of times in history were something was viewed as morally correct or incorrect that infringed on human rights as people in Western culture view them.

Because they disregarded how it affected other humans. But if you fairly judge how something affects all parties, and not just your own, it becomes pretty simple to draw a clear line to what is acceptable, and what is not.

Mike Winters.6871:

Doesn’t this make India and China uncivilized then? Civilized means having culture not really meant to be used as a disparaging term for cultures or ways of life you don’t agree with.

No it doesn’t. China and India have laws don’t they? Without laws, wouldn’t you agree that those countries would be a giant mess? It doesn’t really matter here if we agree with all their laws, but certainly having laws is important?

Mike Winters.6871:

So why are we still egging each other on? Nether of you will stop till the other yields…

It seems you entered this discussion with different goals than me.

You did such a good job with that post, Bullyrook. I wish it had been your original reply to the Queen. =)

bullyrook.2165:

So, what is my stance? I believe that these individuals should most definitely not be criminalized or discriminated against, whether they could choose their sexuality or not. However, we really should advocate heterosexual behavior in those who do have a choice because it is the logical relationship to pursue, at least until we know all the “whys”. There is still far too much data missing for me to feel at ease about this, and I hope you can understand my choices.

The science is very clear on this, no matter the underlying reason for a persons’ sexuality, it is most definitely not a personal choice. To advocate that everyone choose a heterosexual relationship is harmful to those who are not heterosexual and this is the underlying issue with this entire topic really.

Thank you to those of you who decided it was best to agree to disagree. Emotion is really the tripping stone for both sides in this equation.

To you, Malafide, I would like to thank you for remaining cool about the topic. I just have a little to say before we continue: are you certain you don’t want to agree to disagree? I have given a logical argument, which was what you asked for. I can’t help that you disagree. If you need me to continue I think we both know that this could go on for awhile with each of us making fair points.

One thing I do feel needs to be cleared up. When I said “advocate heterosexuality”, I really did mean it as a choice. A stance of acceptance with non-hostile disagreement has yet to be studied in its effects.

bullyrook.2165:

One thing I do feel needs to be cleared up. When I said “advocate heterosexuality”, I really did mean it as a choice. A stance of acceptance with non-hostile disagreement has yet to be studied in its effects.

Don’t think I quite understand what you’re saying here, maybe my english sucks but…

It’s most definitely not a choice. I never “chose” to be heterosexual, or just decided at one point that I was, it just comes to you naturally. Just as with homosexuality.

Lasica.5068:

The science is very clear on this, no matter the underlying reason for a persons’ sexuality, it is most definitely not a personal choice. To advocate that everyone choose a heterosexual relationship is harmful to those who are not heterosexual and this is the underlying issue with this entire topic really.

This is a point I’ve often found is muddled between the definitions of homosexuality, and also the definition of choice. You can say that many people do not choose their negative habits, and instead fall into different things due to circumstance. Common examples include obesity, anger management, attention, and alcoholism. I myself do not know anyone who has directly chosen to be fat, or chosen to be constantly upset, or chosen to be stupid, or even chosen to be an alcoholic. But yet, people have resolved to change these things and have been very successful in their endeavors.

When you talk of “choice”, you have to consider choice as both pre and post situation. One can choose to enter into a set of circumstances, and one can choose to exit a set of circumstances. Indeed, many of the greatest choices in life are the choices you make regarding things that seem out of your control.

To that end, there a few cases of people choosing homosexuality, though they are not commonly discussed. An example being something known kitten .L.U.G.s or Selectively Lesbian Until Graduation; a phenomena where women would become lesbians, but only in the 21-26 age demographic. Afterwards, after graduating college, women would drift back toward exclusive heterosexual attraction. You can read a study about shifting sexuality in the college demographic here:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953602001612

These circumstances are arguably an “opt in” situation, wherein the specific education in New Zealand, which gives high appraisal of homosexuality, encourages students to experiment with attempting to find the same sex attractive. There’s an interesting statistic here: women are 5 times more likely to convert from exclusive heterosexuality than men in this time period. This is interesting, because this is an environment that praises homosexuality, so gay relationships should see a similar increase. My theory is that, since women are universally viewed as objects of beauty and sexuality in society, that it is easier for a woman to condition themselves to be aroused by other women than it is for men to be aroused by men.

There are other circumstances that are.. .not as favorable. I have no scientific source for this one, because it is something I’ve observed from people I’ve met. An interesting side effect of amphetamine addictions are that addicts will engage in more sexual acts, as well as be less discriminatory in their preferences. This lead to the unfortunate divorce of one of my bosses, who’s husband developed a meth addiction and began cheating on her with other men; something he didn’t display before. These circumstances are also arguably an “opt in” scenario.

I say “arguably” because there is no absolute definition for sexuality. In many arguments I’ve been in, the definition for sexuality has sometimes become so abstract and intangible that it loses all meaning. It works like this: many people have come to define sexuality as an existential state of truth. This “state” cannot be faked, cannot be changed, and always exists despite what a person says, thinks, feels, or believes. In this sense, the varying trends of sexuality between nationality, age, and gender are meaningless, because there are people who are “truly homosexual”, those who aren’t, and regardless of what they do this will never change.

Know what I call a behavioral description gets applied regardless of any behavior it describes? Meaningless.

Also, I would not be so quick to call the advocacy of determinism to be harmless. But I’m not allowed to speak further on that matter.

bullyrook.2165:

To you, Malafide, I would like to thank you for remaining cool about the topic. I just have a little to say before we continue: are you certain you don’t want to agree to disagree? I have given a logical argument, which was what you asked for. I can’t help that you disagree. If you need me to continue I think we both know that this could go on for awhile with each of us making fair points.

If you’re willing to continue the discussion, so am I.
That’s assuming the other people in this thread don’t mind the discussion (I realize it’s a controversial topic).

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

Know what I call a behavioral description gets applied regardless of any behavior it describes? Meaningless.

I wouldn’t call it meaningless. It has what ever meaning we choose to lend to it. Human sexuality is very broad. Most people aren’t realistically divided into hetero and homosexual categories. There are many in between variations. But we chose to use a word for each end of the spectrum, depending on how much someone leans to hetero or homosexual. All that really matters is that we are talking about the same thing.

If we can all agree that heterosexuality is not a choice, than neither is homosexuality. They are part of one thing: human-sexuality. If however we agree that there are many factors that influence human sexuality, that that again applies for both ends of the spectrum.

I’m wondering however why some people would think a form of love would be wrong. If we can let go of any presumptions regarding the purpose of life (of which no one can safely say if it has a purpose to begin with), and simply see it for what it is, two people falling in love… how can anyone be against that?

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

I think a good question would be if any of this really matters? Humans are a very sexually diverse species. Our emotions are complex. So it really just boils down to if these emotions are harmful to anyone, and if they make us happy. Clearly they aren’t harmful. Consenting adults simply fall in love of each other, and that makes them very happy. From that angle, I can’t see any reason to be against it.

By the forum rules, someone is not allowed to express disagreement with this statement.

Now this is flat out wrong. We have observed homosexuality not just among humans, but amongst many other social species as well (such as elephants). So clearly it is a natural phenomenon.

This, however, is an argument I’ve heard a lot, and it just doesn’t fly.

An interesting thing about studying animals is the tendency to selective impose human qualities on non-humans, AKA anthropomorphizing traits. I say selectively because many of the negative traits we just ignore. For example, in many social animals it is common to see infanticide, fratricide, neglect and abandonment, relative bestiality, castes, and cannibalism. However, it is rare for anyone to look at these qualities, and say that because social animals exhibit these qualities it is natural in humanity. This argument is wholly inconsistent on the basis that we largely pick and choose what we want, and what we want it to mean.

For the explanation of the benefits or detriments of any traits, this is an exercise in human creativity more than science. The biggest flaw of evolutionary psychology is that it provides just-cause explanations for phenomena, and does not predict or exclude anything (two facets important to the very core of science). It merely observes phenomena, then attempts to explain their behaviors by providing any number theoretical and unknown factors as an explanation for known behaviors. It cannot be wrong: everything must have evolved a certain way because otherwise it wouldn’t have evolved that way. Given enough free space and leniency, and even I can come up with an explanation for everything.

Again, I have to bring up the ever variable definition of homosexuality. The idea of a disposition, or a true manner of existence, or even a lifestyle can be readily called into question when dealing with animals. Animals exhibit counter-intuitive behaviors for many reasons: localized cultural behaviors, sociological circumstances, instinct confusion, extraneous outside circumstances, emergency, conditioning, upbringing, and probably many other things that I’ve forgotten to mention. These aren’t mutually exclusive behaviors, either. For example, I read somewhere (don’t have the source, so you’ll have to take my word for it) that higher caste chimpanzees will engage in homosexual acts with more submissive males, and doing so relieves tension within their pack. This is most readily explained as instinct confusion caused by the social status of dominance, and the release of tension can be seen as merely a side effect of this instinct confusion. To go so far to claim that this act represents a true human analogue for homosexuality, which I had originally heard, is at best il-informed.

Indeed, having grown up in my parents own personal zoo, I’ve seen many interesting things. In particular, among the plethora of birds we owned, we had a female parakeet that was originally straight (laid eggs with another male), but upon that male dying took a dominant role over the others and would occasionally mount other birds, both male and female. One particular male parakeet, who was highly submissive, would mount inanimate objects, since the female took up the dominant role the majority of the time. This occurred despite the occasional insistence of the female to be mounted by the male.

At what point would any of this be considered a true human analogue for homosexuality? And to that end, what considerations and definitions of homosexuality would this ascribe to?

Alice.8694:

Not gonna be mean, not gonna throw insults at you…

One link is all this takes… One.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-12/nifm-sfe120612.php

You rise or fall with your reaction to this, reject it or embrace it… After that post of claims of reason, logic and science if you cannot accept this and adjust your views based on what is observed… People will form their opinions of you and your opinions and move on.

Personally I hope you embrace science and reality and your fellow humans different as we all are…

Something I’ve learned in the realm of science is to be immediately skeptical of anything that says “simulation” or “model”. A model or simulation is, ultimately, an arbitrary construct that produces a result that it was specifically tailored to produce. A mathematical formula for any circumstance. This is usually done using a set of factors, some scientifically determined, some merely invented, and some to be tested by that very calculation.

The problem is, math exists in a vacuum. The hardest part about applying math to real life problems (and I mean things more complex than simple arithmetic) is determining applicability. You have to determine

1)If the problem is a math problem. There’s no sign to say it is.
2)What math would be appropriate. No textbook or course description to guide you.
3)What is everything that contributes to the problem.
4)How is everything related. This one is really hard, since it takes years of study just to solve this step.
5)What assumptions have to be made of unknown variables, and how they might influence the result.

You mess up anything, and the result is something inconsequential and unpredictable. So the math is only as good as the theory, and the theory is only as good as the evidence, and the evidence is up for interpretation anyway. Worst case scenario, the math is tailored to explain the phenomena exclusively, in which it has no predictive or excluding power whatsoever. Heck, I once saw a mathematical formula someone made to explain spontaneous human combustion through undetectable particles.

Case in point with interpretation, something caught my eye in the description: “Previous studies have shown that homosexuality runs in families, leading most researchers to presume a genetic underpinning of sexual preference”. You know, I remember a study on that subject from awhile ago:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1845227

It is a bit old, but it had interesting results regarding the distribution of sexuality amongst identical twins, fraternal twins, regular siblings, and adopted siblings. I’ll post up the results:

52% of male monozygotic (identical) twins were homosexual
22% of male dizygotic (fraternal) twins were homosexual
11% of adopted brothers (no relation) were homosexual
9.2% of regular siblings were homosexual

This information often comes up as a “see what I want and reaffirm what I thought anyway” study, but there is an interesting phenomena here: adopted brothers had a higher homosexuality ratio than non-adopted brothers. Under genetic circumstances, the rate of concurrence between sexuality of adopted brothers should have been anywhere from 2% to 3.5%, to match the statistical trend of male homosexuality overall. But it isn’t…

Another interesting trend was the higher concurrence of homosexuality between fraternal twins and otherwise normal siblings. The thing about “fraternal twins” is that they’re basically regular siblings who share the same first apartment. Also interesting, identical twins with the same genetic makeup and the same first apartment only had about a 50/50 chance of sharing sexuality. This is interesting, because from a genetic standpoint this should be near 100%.

The assumption of a genetic cause is a case of people rocketing forward with what they want the truth to be. The thing about familial relationships is that they are far more than just genetic. Families grow up in the same neighborhood, under the same roof, at the same time, in the same culture, in the same nation, with the same external and internal stresses, being exposed to the same stimuli, conditioned with the same upbringing, eating the same diet, having the same religion, and getting the same education while living on the same amount of wealth. The similarities are nigh endless. I would argue that the combination of these factors attributes to sexuality, instead of defaulting toward determinism.