Guild Wars 2

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

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?

It is meaningless because it is internally contradictory: a description of behavior must describe behavior, and thus is dependent on that described behavior. When a description is independent of what it is describing, then it is no longer a description. Simple as that.

And therein lies the rub: I don’t agree that heterosexuality isn’t a choice either. That kind of goes with the dual nature of the subject.

Also, I must reiterate this very frequently: sexuality isn’t love. Love is a generalized affinity and care for things. Sex is the act. Sexuality is preference in the act. Sex can, and does, very frequently exist outside of “love” of any sort. Sex can be for entertainment, an act of maliciousness, an effect of obsession, a product of lust, for profit, out of boredom, for procreation, for speech and expression, and as an effect of psychology via emotional dependence or depression, or many of the other psychological causes. Love, likewise, is independent of sex, despite what Freud thought.

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

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:

I couldn’t access the report you linked so unfortunately can’t compare to the report I will link to below.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

If you read through this one, in particular paying attention to the table on page 26, you’ll see that while women in their early 20’s are more likely to have a same sex partner it does not support the idea that it is college students in particular. In fact, the data shows that women who complete a bachelor degree are less likely to engage in a same sex relationship than women who never attend college.

The % of woman who have had at least one same sex partner also remains fairly high at around 10% right up until 40+ years of age and reduction over time could be explained away by the changing attitudes in society over the past couple of decades. So that doesn’t suggest a huge number of women only have same sex relationships in their early 20’s until they finish college.

The idea that young women attending college are more likely to have same sex partners is probably seen as the truth because it is the idea that has been perpetuated in movies/TV/media reports etc.

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

Also, I must reiterate this very frequently: sexuality isn’t love. Love is a generalized affinity and care for things. Sex is the act. Sexuality is preference in the act.

No, sexuality is who you are drawn to. This could be both sexually and emotionally. Sexuality and love go hand in hand, just as sexuality and sex go hand in hand. Sexuality covers both these things.

Wasn’t this thread about the leasbian or absence of gay couples in-game?

Aynway….why are there lesbians and no gays?

Answer: majority of GW2 gamers are young male teens.

Now make a surprised face!

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

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.

If you see fault in their work, I whole heartedly encourage you to submit a peer-review of their work so that they may further refine and improve on it. That is the beauty of science after all. It adjusts and corrects itself not based on opinions but on what is demonstrated and observed. Be it with direct observations or with repeatable and demonstrable predictions with a mathematic model.

Your personal opinion on math within science however, is fundamentally meaningless to the findings presented.

Lasica.5068:

I couldn’t access the report you linked so unfortunately can’t compare to the report I will link to below.

If you cannot access the report, then I will quote the relevant section:

“Occasional same-sex attraction, but not major attraction, was more common among the most educated. Between age 21 and 26, slightly more men moved away from an exclusive heterosexual attraction (1.9% of all men) than moved towards it (1.0%), while for women, many more moved away (9.5%) than towards (1.3%) exclusive heterosexual attraction. These findings show that much same-sex attraction is not exclusive and is unstable in early adulthood, especially among women. The proportion of women reporting some same-sex attraction in New Zealand is high compared both to men, and to women in the UK and US. These observations, along with the variation with education, are consistent with a large role for the social environment in the acknowledgement of same-sex attraction”

Emphasis mine. The interesting thing is, in a post-college area women reverted back to heterosexual relationships.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

No, sexuality is who you are drawn to. This could be both sexually and emotionally. Sexuality and love go hand in hand, just as sexuality and sex go hand in hand. Sexuality covers both these things.

No, sexuality is preference in the act. Many homosexuals have had intercourse with both genders, and of their own admission say that, regarding the act itself, the preferred same gender is out of performance. Hell, that’s what the first homosexual I ever met told me. Otherwise, you could classify all homosexuality as mono-sexuality, in which case the attraction is entirely individualistic and not dependent on gender at all.

BTW, there are people who are sexually attracted to inanimate objects.

Alice.8694:

If you see fault in their work, I whole heartedly encourage you to submit a peer-review of their work so that they may further refine and improve on it. That is the beauty of science after all. It adjusts and corrects itself not based on opinions but on what is demonstrated and observed. Be it with direct observations or with repeatable and demonstrable predictions with a mathematic model.

Your personal opinion on math within science however, is fundamentally meaningless to the findings presented.

Ah, the old appeal to authority. The industry of science as a whole is actually a lot less concerned about self-correction, and more concerned about prestige, subscription rates, and sociological agendas. Often times, industry decisions (such as the prevalence of crisis counseling and ethnicity based psychiatry) are based on monetary prospects rather than actual fact, and because of this the outcomes of scientific studies will be tweaked, with negative relationships being under-reported or dropped. This, unfortunately, can have unfortunate circumstances in the realm of medicine:

But for now, I will leave with a quote from Rogers H. Wright and Nicholas A. kittens on the matter (particularly psychology):

“Let no one presume that ideology does not influence science. Within psychology today, there are topics that are deemed politically incorrect, and they are neither published nor funded. Journal editors control what is accepted for publication through those chosen to conduct peer reviews. Although it can be argued that journals have the right to determine their areas of primary interest, this can be used to stifle controversy or political incorrectness even when these are important topics for scientific inquiry. Censorship exists, and if the Psychiatric News and the Monitor on Psychology published all the news of interest to psychiatrists and psychologists, there would be no market for Psychiatric Times and The National Psychologist, both published outside the two APAs.”

Rogers H. Wright, Ph. D., past president of division 12 and founding president of division 31 of the American Psychological Association.
Nicholas A. kittens, Ph.D., Sc.D., professor of University of Nevada, Reno, and president of the kittens Foundation for Behavioral Health.

“Destructive Trends in Mental Health; The well Intentioned Path to Harm”. Page xiv (preface), published in 2005.

uh-huh……………….

Dafomen.7892:

Wasn’t this thread about the leasbian or absence of gay couples in-game?

Aynway….why are there lesbians and no gays?

Answer: majority of GW2 gamers are young male teens.

Now make a surprised face!

And you sir, get +1 Internets.

CharrGirl.7896:

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.

Actually, all we’ve concluded is that we may not be able help what our bodies find physically attractive (environment and society play large factors). But that is about it. There are a few cases of homosexuals falling for their opposite gender for who the are as a person. But again, the “hows” and “whys” of these relationships have not been thoroughly investigated. Did they only choose them because they were oppressed? Possibly. The love life of Freddie Mercury (one of my favorite singers) is an example of this. He left the vast majority of his fortune and song rights to his ex-girlfriend. And a significant, but lesser, sum of money to his then male partner. Trouble is, some say that he was in the closet, some say that he wasn’t. There is just so much data to sort through and I think that the “no free will” argument of homosexuality is assuming too much.

An interesting fact here: some studies suggest that the mind of the homosexual male works very much like the mind of a heterosexual female. However, the mind of the homosexual female does not work like the mind of a heterosexual male. I find this to be a very compelling piece of data.

And to Malafide, I’ll keep this discussion going with you. Give me a bit, I have to do some more research before I respond.

bullyrook.2165:

An interesting fact here: some studies suggest that the mind of the homosexual male works very much like the mind of a heterosexual female. However, the mind of the homosexual female does not work like the mind of a heterosexual male. I find this to be a very compelling piece of data.

“work” is a very vague term considering how little we understand about how the brain works. However the most recent study into homosexual and heterosexual brains that comes to my mind would be this one.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/06/13/0801566105.abstract

Which in short found evidence that entirely contradicts your claim here. It found that there were structural and usage similarities between homosexual women and heterosexual males.

A simpler explanation of the paper can be found here: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111663.php

Again, the results vary widely. And it wasn’t a tid-bit used to prove anything, merely some info I stumbled upon.

bullyrook.2165:

Again, the results vary widely. And it wasn’t a tid-bit used to prove anything, merely some info I stumbled upon.

Actually, this is another case of “where you look” and “see what you want to see”. For instance, the often cited theory of men being right-brained and women being left brained is often muddled in improper analysis methodology. In the very study that alice posted, ventricles were included in the studied area, and when detailing the total volume of the brain, ventricle size variations lead to false analysis. The lack of differences in the cerebellum, the area of the brain that contains only gray/white matter and fewer ventricles, demonstrates a methodological flaw within the research method.

For the contrary, another study on brain asymmetry:

http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/7/1550.abstract

found the opposite of “conventional wisdom” in that women had greater right-brain thickness. All in all, I’m going to have to agree with this article, in which the writers wrote their own criticism:

“Given the apparent specificity of differences in male and female cognitive advantages, and regional specificity of brain–behavior relationships, global differences in brain size between the sexes that have been readily observed with relatively gross methods might not be the most relevant structural dimorphism when investigating neural substrates of sex differences in cognition.”

As for your old experienced, that is something you’ve probably seen. These studies don’t control for what kind of homosexuality is present, or even factor bisexuality at all. So, if a sample happens to have a high volume of emotionally dependent homosexual men, but didn’t pull in a group of physically focused homosexual women, then you’d get different results.

I don’t know where Savic and Lindström got the idea of dismissing learned effects, though. As far as I can tell, Amygdala Connecivity is readily changed through outside and internal factors, and that brains wire themselves differently all the time (as is seen in comparisons between brains of sufferers from obesity and anger problems vs. controls. Don’t have a link for that one, though). This makes me wonder exactly how the Savic and Lindström think our brain interprets, stores, and processes information if they assert that all connectivity is static.

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

You really didn’t. You retreated into widespread dismissal via worship of science, and didn’t understand the point at all.

I need to ask, for the sake of my curiosity: exactly what is the alternative to science which may be proven . . . faith, which cannot be proven and only felt? Or personal experiences, which cannot be truly shared with others who were not there? Blind distrust is as useful as blind faith.

We do have to take someone’s word with the trust they aren’t lying, or there is no point to allowing the pursuit of understanding or knowledge through scientific methods. Cynicism must be tempered by limitation somewhere, or you run into only one possible conclusion: nothing can be trusted.

Now, may we discuss the nice young ladies who have a thing for each other again and how that’s a thing which happened?

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Now, may we discuss the nice young ladies who have a thing for each other again and how that’s a thing which happened?

That made me smile.

I haven’t checked out the epilogue yet, but I heard something about Jory showing a dark side when it comes to Sylvari. Any truth to the rumor?

If so, I really don’t hope they go with yet another tragic homosexual romance. I mean, I don’t like the subject being portrayed as romantic in the first place, but it is just weak to not go through with a gesture once it has already begun. And all that aside,that has been done to death.

bullyrook.2165:

I haven’t checked out the epilogue yet, but I heard something about Jory showing a dark side when it comes to Sylvari. Any truth to the rumor?

I didn’t pick up on that. If you talk to some NPCs it is suggested that fear of sylvari is on the rise due to Scarlet, but none of the biconics seem to exhibit it. Perhaps if you are sylvari you get special dialogue?

If so, I really don’t hope they go with yet another tragic homosexual romance.

They do use the tragic romance plot a lot in game, mostly with non-iconics. We do have Caithe and Faolain, but they were never depicted together in game for us to get behind their romance. It wouldn’t hurt to do it with the iconic characters since , AFAIK, there hasn’t been a tragic relationship with the iconics.

Just popped in on the epilogue. No Sylvari hate, gratefully. However, I wouldn’t have pegged Jory as having something against the upper crust.

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

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.

You’ve overlooked the massive difference between the rate in adopted siblings and related ones. Adopted ones share all of those environmental factors you listed, and lack the biological common factors. If biology did not play a significant role, then adopted and related siblings would show the same rate— but the rate is substantially higher for related siblings.

You’re doing what you said others were doing— you’re reaching a conclusion you want to be true, and then viewing the evidence through that lens.

You’re also simplifying genetics substantially. Genes do not always directly cause individual traits. Genes can be connected with others, they may have (or require) triggers, or they may convey a predisposition rather than a certainty. When you dismissed the genetic argument by pointing to the fact that MZ twins do not have a 100% rate, that was a simplification of genetic science.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

I need to ask, for the sake of my curiosity: exactly what is the alternative to science which may be proven . . . faith, which cannot be proven and only felt? Or personal experiences, which cannot be truly shared with others who were not there? Blind distrust is as useful as blind faith.

We do have to take someone’s word with the trust they aren’t lying, or there is no point to allowing the pursuit of understanding or knowledge through scientific methods. Cynicism must be tempered by limitation somewhere, or you run into only one possible conclusion: nothing can be trusted.

Now, may we discuss the nice young ladies who have a thing for each other again and how that’s a thing which happened?

The whole point of science is to be skeptical of science. Otherwise, if you just accept anything that you find in any journal anywhere without questioning the methods, reasoning, or inspiration behind it, then “science” just becomes another form of crystal balls and Latin chanting. Complete with Latin. There’s rhyme and reason to things, and I hate when people divorce rhyme and reason from science and scientists.

If you want to talk Epistemology, well that is a whole other topic. Also complete with Latin.

Neilos Tyrhanos.5427:

You’ve overlooked the massive difference between the rate in adopted siblings and related ones. Adopted ones share all of those environmental factors you listed, and lack the biological common factors. If biology did not play a significant role, then adopted and related siblings would show the same rate— but the rate is substantially higher for related siblings.

You’re doing what you said others were doing— you’re reaching a conclusion you want to be true, and then viewing the evidence through that lens.

You’re also simplifying genetics substantially. Genes do not always directly cause individual traits. Genes can be connected with others, they may have (or require) triggers, or they may convey a predisposition rather than a certainty. When you dismissed the genetic argument by pointing to the fact that MZ twins do not have a 100% rate, that was a simplification of genetic science.

The rate in adopted siblings is higher than the rate in related siblings… that’s the issue. From a genetic standpoint, someone of no relation should only coincide with the sexuality of their adopted relative (given that the relative is already homosexual) at roughly the national average of distribution.

The biggest problem with genetics is that it is being used to encompass everything, regardless of hard evidence. Then, when genetics fails to explain something, they attribute this to unknown genetic factors instead of looking elsewhere. Genetics has taken on a nebulous aspect in this regard, and has ceased being scientific because it lacks any means to be disproved. I can say that there is a genetic cause to be predisposed to liking the Dallas Cowboys, and it is impossible to disprove that statement.

But lets look at “lenses” for a moment. The greatest platform for furthering research that this study provides would be examining the differences between identical twins of differing sexuality, because this is the closest we have of isolating all variables leading to the manifestation of sexuality. But no one I have ever talked to about this article with has ever reached that idea. Why? They don’t care. They are more concerned with who I am, what I am saying, and how to spin things their way than they are about actually studying or gathering information. They would rather dismiss, and nit pick, and name call, and despise, because they see me just as some villain to their cause.

So, quick shorthand, the usage of any of these phrases or their kin when talking about a non-personal subject:

“What you’re doing is”
“What they say”
“What you say”
“They use this as”
“Who they are”

Is a failure in logic, and the end of reasoning. These are not attitudes of discussion, but confrontation and accusation. They dismiss the topic to argue the man instead of the idea. The moment that anyone becomes more concerned with the people than the idea is the moment that unsaid one should take a long look in the mirror.

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

The rate in adopted siblings is higher than the rate in related siblings… that’s the issue. From a genetic standpoint, someone of no relation should only coincide with the sexuality of their adopted relative (given that the relative is already homosexual) at roughly the national average of distribution.

No, that would only be expected if genetics were the sole contributor. The “genetic standpoint” does not mean ignoring all other factors— that’s simplistic.

You realise, of course, that in non-twin siblings, the Fraternal Birth Order Effect will account for a significant difference. The more older brothers you have, the greater the likelihood of homosexuality.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10051890

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.long

…now, this means that the rate between the brothers themselves will be lessened, because the older brothers will have a rate of homosexuality closer to the average, while the younger brothers may have an increased rate.

It is still solid evidence, of course, that the role of biology is significant.

The FBOE will not have an affect on twins, though, either DZ or MZ, so they are the ones we have to look at to eliminate extraneous factors. And what do we find? That the more genetic material they share, the greater the rate of concurrence!

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

But lets look at “lenses” for a moment. The greatest platform for furthering research that this study provides would be examining the differences between identical twins of differing sexuality, because this is the closest we have of isolating all variables leading to the manifestation of sexuality. But no one I have ever talked to about this article with has ever reached that idea. Why? They don’t care. They are more concerned with who I am, what I am saying, and how to spin things their way than they are about actually studying or gathering information. They would rather dismiss, and nit pick, and name call, and despise, because they see me just as some villain to their cause.

Alright, I’ll investigate that possibility.

First of all, such a study could only look at environmental factors, because the genetic material is identical or nearly-identical and you’ve not chosen a second group to compare with.

Second of all, any conclusions based on determining meaningful environmental factors would be extremely subjective (almost Freudian, if the researchers ended up attributing it to absent fathers or other circumstantial, untestable hypotheses).

Thirdly, you need another group to compare with, or you have no Control. That’s why most studies compare MZ with DZ, or Related with Adopted. Study a single group and compare it just with the national average, and then you’ll have an impossible time singling out meaningful environmental factors.

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

I need to ask, for the sake of my curiosity: exactly what is the alternative to science which may be proven . . . faith, which cannot be proven and only felt? Or personal experiences, which cannot be truly shared with others who were not there? Blind distrust is as useful as blind faith.

We do have to take someone’s word with the trust they aren’t lying, or there is no point to allowing the pursuit of understanding or knowledge through scientific methods. Cynicism must be tempered by limitation somewhere, or you run into only one possible conclusion: nothing can be trusted.

Now, may we discuss the nice young ladies who have a thing for each other again and how that’s a thing which happened?

The whole point of science is to be skeptical of science. Otherwise, if you just accept anything that you find in any journal anywhere without questioning the methods, reasoning, or inspiration behind it, then “science” just becomes another form of crystal balls and Latin chanting. Complete with Latin. There’s rhyme and reason to things, and I hate when people divorce rhyme and reason from science and scientists.

If you want to talk Epistemology, well that is a whole other topic. Also complete with Latin.

There is a difference between “being skeptical of scientists” and “being skeptical of science”, my friend. Science isn’t something you can be skeptical of, because it exists outside of whims, purposes, or intent. Science doesn’t care whether or not you need 2+2 to equal 5 if that’s not how it works. No malice, no ill will, just how it works.

Scientists, on the other hand . . . are people. They’re flawed. Their interpretation can be flawed. They might have approached the subject in a flawed manner. Of course you should question them, but if you’re not able to give a rebuttal to their work other than “you’re wrong because I say so” . . .

Question everything, including the need to question.

There is a difference between “being skeptical of scientists” and “being skeptical of science”, my friend. Science isn’t something you can be skeptical of, because it exists outside of whims, purposes, or intent. Science doesn’t care whether or not you need 2+2 to equal 5 if that’s not how it works. No malice, no ill will, just how it works.

Scientists, on the other hand . . . are people. They’re flawed. Their interpretation can be flawed. They might have approached the subject in a flawed manner. Of course you should question them, but if you’re not able to give a rebuttal to their work other than “you’re wrong because I say so” . . .

Question everything, including the need to question.

But science is a abstract human concept that we have created of things that we see as true though observation and even then can be wrong or misinterpreted.

Science can be questioned there are many times something was viewed as improbable or pseudo-scientific that held up to scrutiny and was proved true. etc the laws of physics had to be completely reworked in order to understand how a heavier then air fixed winged machine could fly without flapping its wings like a bird, we got the laws of aerodynamics out of that.

Like Michio Kaku says impossible is a dirty word in science. Of course then you have the pure BS like the stuff on History channel and Animal planet that they pass as real because people are to stupid to know entertainment from real science.

Mike Winters.6871:

There is a difference between “being skeptical of scientists” and “being skeptical of science”, my friend. Science isn’t something you can be skeptical of, because it exists outside of whims, purposes, or intent. Science doesn’t care whether or not you need 2+2 to equal 5 if that’s not how it works. No malice, no ill will, just how it works.

Scientists, on the other hand . . . are people. They’re flawed. Their interpretation can be flawed. They might have approached the subject in a flawed manner. Of course you should question them, but if you’re not able to give a rebuttal to their work other than “you’re wrong because I say so” . . .

Question everything, including the need to question.

But science is a abstract human concept that we have created of things that we see as true though observation and even then can be wrong or misinterpreted.

Science can be questioned there are many times something was viewed as improbable or pseudo-scientific that held up to scrutiny and was proved true. etc the laws of physics had to be completely reworked in order to understand how a heavier then air fixed winged machine could fly without flapping its wings like a bird, we got the laws of aerodynamics out of that.

Like Michio Kaku says impossible is a dirty word in science. Of course then you have the pure BS like the stuff on History channel and Animal planet that they pass as real because people are to stupid to know entertainment from real science.

There is a difference between “science” as it is and “theories”. Science is a method, a construct, and a way to approach analysis. It is a construct like the quadratic equation or differential math. Much like those things however, it cannot hold beliefs, it cannot press social agendas, it cannot do anything other than be true or false.

Theories, on the other hand, are what are derived from the scientific method and analysis through peer review. As much as it is a dirty phrase to throw around education and scientific discussions – evolution is a theory, albeit one with evidence which supports it. It is not fact as much as “this board is two inches wide, by four inches deep, by three feet long” or “this cable has a tensile strength of…”.

So, are we on the same page with this? And can we stop being off topic again to dissect what “is” means?

I remember in the first Sylvari quest, the Green Knight one, a male Sylvari casually refers to another male as his “love” and the game desn’t make any mention of it again. I’d say they’re being pretty fair across the board, the only group they don’t have represented is the people who don’t accept LGBT, and there’s a pretty good reason for that.

I do have a good question. A sensible question, and I really hope you won’t get offended when I ask it. What is the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality, bisexuality, etc? Most things we support in our morals has some kind of advantage, but I have yet to see any conclusive data on this bit. There is the “Homosexual Uncle” argument: “an individual whom provides food and shelter but does not supply excess offspring.” But this feels a bit lacking when you apply it to the natural world, as not all creatures that exhibit homosexuality have instincts that influence them to care for others. And this argument does not apply to bisexuality in the least, as they may still have children. So far, it doesn’t seem very practical.

Kheo.2504:

I remember in the first Sylvari quest, the Green Knight one, a male Sylvari casually refers to another male as his “love” and the game desn’t make any mention of it again. I’d say they’re being pretty fair across the board, the only group they don’t have represented is the people who don’t accept LGBT, and there’s a pretty good reason for that.

Many of us do accept, we just don’t advocate. I would ask you to pick up a dictionary, but you might select a thesaurus by mistake

Neilos Tyrhanos.5427:

No, that would only be expected if genetics were the sole contributor. The “genetic standpoint” does not mean ignoring all other factors— that’s simplistic.

You realise, of course, that in non-twin siblings, the Fraternal Birth Order Effect will account for a significant difference. The more older brothers you have, the greater the likelihood of homosexuality.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10051890

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.long

…now, this means that the rate between the brothers themselves will be lessened, because the older brothers will have a rate of homosexuality closer to the average, while the younger brothers may have an increased rate.

It is still solid evidence, of course, that the role of biology is significant.

The FBOE will not have an affect on twins, though, either DZ or MZ, so they are the ones we have to look at to eliminate extraneous factors. And what do we find? That the more genetic material they share, the greater the rate of concurrence!

I apologize, but the abstract/info for the first article won’t load for me. However I digress:

You must have a very different definition of “solid” than I do. I’ve done research on the birth order effect, and I’ve always found it to be quite interesting. First, because the proposed biological explanation of immune responses from the mother are are nonsensical from a cognitive developmental standpoint, and second because studies seem to regularly contradict and muddle the findings:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18937128

http://www.soc.duke.edu/~jmoody77/205a/ecp/bearman_bruckner_ajs.pdf

It is no wonder why when you consider the acquired data ranges for any of these articles. A large portion of the data is within a single standard deviation between different categories, meaning that the implications of these studies can be wrong by sheer luck alone, let alone how indeterministic the results of these studies can be.

However I digress: What did this have to do with the concordance of homosexuality among adopted siblings? Are you saying that the 600% increase in expected concordance is from birth order? Likewise, the assertion that fraternal twins have higher genetic similarities is flat out wrong. There is no difference genetically between fraternal twins and regular siblings, despite there being a larger concordance among that demographic.

Likewise, the concordance of monozygotic or identical twins doesn’t always appear in studies. In the second study I posted from Bearman and Bru?ckner, particularly on the table on page 21, it finds the average concordance of sexuality on siblings to be 5.3%, and MZ twins to be 6.7%. If identical genetics and prenatal environments only accounts for a 26% increase in the likelihood of sexuality, then the theory genetic influence is dubious at best.

As for the differences in the 1991 study… I assume this is due to the age of the study. With rapid growth in technology, better sampling methods can lead to less sampling limitations and less sampling bias.

Neilos Tyrhanos.5427:

Alright, I’ll investigate that possibility.

First of all, such a study could only look at environmental factors, because the genetic material is identical or nearly-identical and you’ve not chosen a second group to compare with.

Second of all, any conclusions based on determining meaningful environmental factors would be extremely subjective (almost Freudian, if the researchers ended up attributing it to absent fathers or other circumstantial, untestable hypotheses).

Thirdly, you need another group to compare with, or you have no Control. That’s why most studies compare MZ with DZ, or Related with Adopted. Study a single group and compare it just with the national average, and then you’ll have an impossible time singling out meaningful environmental factors.

#1:The evaluation of sociological and environmental factors becomes the centralized focus of that study because other factors are isolated. This is basic variable control, and the best circumstances a sociologist could ever get, barring dystopian violations of human rights. An evaluation would be a cross comparison between identical twins who are both homosexual and identical twins with differing sexualities, there are already multiple groups to compare it with. Additional factors can be added and analyzed.

#2: The acquisition of data is more important than the conclusions themselves. Likewise, the conclusions can make predictions and be tested by further studies, as is what the institution of science does as a whole.

#3: Then just insert additional control factors outside of MZ twins who are both homosexual. This isn’t a problem; this is experimental design step 2.

I would like to put out there that there is no problem with this topic. I find it very moving to the story of the game, having relationships, no matter what kind, be implemented. I feel that this one, Marjory and Kasmeer, gave Marjory especially a new look, a softer look away from that hardened detective I feel has been portrayed through most of her dealings with the PC. Im excited to see what is going to happen with Braham and Rox, you could cut the tension between those two with a butter knife. But, that being said, i believe that Anet has full creative rights to do whatever they see fit to make this game, and its story, the best it can be and i am really happy to see them not care about political problems.

bullyrook.2165:

I do have a good question. A sensible question, and I really hope you won’t get offended when I ask it. What is the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality, bisexuality, etc? Most things we support in our morals has some kind of advantage, but I have yet to see any conclusive data on this bit. There is the “Homosexual Uncle” argument: “an individual whom provides food and shelter but does not supply excess offspring.” But this feels a bit lacking when you apply it to the natural world, as not all creatures that exhibit homosexuality have instincts that influence them to care for others. And this argument does not apply to bisexuality in the least, as they may still have children. So far, it doesn’t seem very practical.

Not a biologist or anthropologist, but I’m not sure there has to be an evolutionary advantage to every possible human trait or behavior. What is the evolutionary advantage of having red hair, or chin dimples, or having that gene that makes coriander/cilantro taste like soap, or preferring the color blue? Evolution and ‘survival of the fittest’ doesn’t necessarily mean that all characteristics have a concrete or verifiable purpose, as I understand it, it just means that certain traits, and how they interact with their environment, have a greater or lesser odds of surviving to future generations. And this can change over time, as the environment changes.

I’m not sure I’d agree that most of human morality is drawn from natural advantage, either; certain taboos like incest (which have nonetheless frequently been ignored when it comes to royalty and nobility), or rituals surrounding the handling of the dead can definitely have a biological impact. If you take something else though – say, stealing – theft would arguably have an evolutionary advantage, since more food and wealth for me would seem to mean more likelihood of me passing on my genes. Pure social Darwinism would probably advocate quite a lot of things that our society deems immoral, in fact, like eugenics, violence, slavery, and corporate and political corruption.

I think it can be a bit dangerous to try to extrapolate morality or meaning from nature because nature just…is. There’s no real value judgement to it. Regardless of any whys and hows as to LGBTQ people being among us, the point, to me, is that they are. They exist, and they are real people with real lives and thoughts and feelings and talents and foibles. It is cruel and counterproductive to shame, marginalise or punish people for something that causes no measurable, tangible harm (and on the contrary, provides the benefits that come from forming caring bonds and relationships with others.)

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

There is a difference between “being skeptical of scientists” and “being skeptical of science”, my friend.

Abbreviated for space. Since I’ll need to dice this into more than one section, I’ll just start with various categories:

Science as a philosophy
Science as a practicality
Scientists as humans
Science as an industry

As a Philosophy: Science needs a series of fundamental assumptions in order to function, and there are two competing world views that allow science to function. In particular, from the secularistic branch you have humanism, naturalism, and uniformitarianism. That is, the particular belief of humanity as the arbiter of right and wrong, the belief of completely intrinsic and self-contained properties of nature, and the unflinching ubiquity of all properties throughout the universe. From the non-secular side there is Providence, the belief that the world and all its functions are sustained through non-dependent and non-intrinsic factors. There is also a third, really small philosophy of divination, or the belief that each person is their own individual god and thus science works because they say it works, but outside of a few pagans this belief isn’t widespread.

To anyone who doesn’t subscribe to these beliefs, the practice and conclusion of science are meaningless. Granted, it is rare to find someone outside of these 3 categories. Also for consideration is the comparison of science against other methods of acquiring information: creation, observation, exchange, and divination. Then, there is also the debate about what constitutes knowledge and truth, but again I must say that epistemology is a very large topic.

Finally, there exists the limitation of science in that it is incapable of proving anything. The philosophy of science ultimately works by prediction and exclusion. and can only seek to disprove things by finding contradictions in those predictions and exclusions. Thus, science contributes more to a narrowing a falsehoods, and not the acquisition of truth. With endless interpretation and creativity, one can question whether science can accomplish anything at all.

As a Practicality: The basis for science is really simple: change variables, keep others the same, see what happens. Thus, in order to function properly, science requires someone to be capable of actually doing so. This is where we run into some solid walls on the realm of science: if we can’t do one of these, then science doesn’t function. We run into this wall in nearly any paper done: confidence intervals are a statement of probability, in the sense that a 95% confidence interval says that, controlling for pure chance alone, there is a 95% certainty that the true value lies within this range. Likewise, there is a 5% or 1/20 chance that it is completely wrong, and it is outside of our range.

There’s the common flaw of sampling bias, or faulty sampling, which is improper information gathering due to any limitations like limits in communication, or population, or demographics. Likewise, there’s improper calibration and tool usage, and also a hard limit on what is an observable effect and what isn’t. Then there is always the issue with confounding variables or unaccounted variables.

As Humans: This leads to a very big flaw in science in general, and that is that the scope of science is ultimately limited by creativity. The scientist is the one who has interpret what constitutes as variables, what constitutes as information, what constitutes as evidence, what constitutes as a control, what the evidence means, and if the scientist doesn’t have the right idea about what represents what, then the experiment is little more than tea leaves and palm reading. The greatest advancements in science have often come not from new evidence, but from new interpretations and ideas. There’s a reoccurring phrase in the scientific community, or at least at my college: “Epi-cycles can fully explain the motion of the stars, but this doesn’t make it right”.

The other side to incompetence is apathy. The scientist himself is a person with a set of preconceived notions about everything and anything, and these can interfere with proper studies, but there can be worse things at play. Intellectual integrity is a word that gets thrown around a lot, and with good reason. A morally lacking scientist that doesn’t care about honesty can reinterpret, selectively display, or even fabricate results for their studies. This is done for many reasons.

Laurelinde.4395:

bullyrook.2165:

I do have a good question. A sensible question, and I really hope you won’t get offended when I ask it. What is the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality, bisexuality, etc? Most things we support in our morals has some kind of advantage, but I have yet to see any conclusive data on this bit. There is the “Homosexual Uncle” argument: “an individual whom provides food and shelter but does not supply excess offspring.” But this feels a bit lacking when you apply it to the natural world, as not all creatures that exhibit homosexuality have instincts that influence them to care for others. And this argument does not apply to bisexuality in the least, as they may still have children. So far, it doesn’t seem very practical.

Not a biologist or anthropologist, but I’m not sure there has to be an evolutionary advantage to every possible human trait or behavior. What is the evolutionary advantage of having red hair, or chin dimples, or having that gene that makes coriander/cilantro taste like soap, or preferring the color blue? Evolution and ‘survival of the fittest’ doesn’t necessarily mean that all characteristics have a concrete or verifiable purpose, as I understand it, it just means that certain traits, and how they interact with their environment, have a greater or lesser odds of surviving to future generations. And this can change over time, as the environment changes.

I’m not sure I’d agree that most of human morality is drawn from natural advantage, either; certain taboos like incest (which have nonetheless frequently been ignored when it comes to royalty and nobility), or rituals surrounding the handling of the dead can definitely have a biological impact. If you take something else though – say, stealing – theft would arguably have an evolutionary advantage, since more food and wealth for me would seem to mean more likelihood of me passing on my genes. Pure social Darwinism would probably advocate quite a lot of things that our society deems immoral, in fact, like eugenics, violence, slavery, and corporate and political corruption.

Because of the founder effect some groups of people may have slight advantages or disadvantages over others. Dark skin people have higher resistance to UV rays and lower vitamin D. This is way black people don’t need to use a whole bottle of sunscreen or get sunburnt as easily. They have a very low chance of skin cancer compared to light skinned people. But people with light skin are better at producing and metabolizing vitamin D and less prone to rickets and other bone problems because of the ability to make move vitamin D. Is this racist no, it is only racist if you see it as them and us because we are all human.

Eugenics isn’t necessarily bad it’s just another why of saying artificial selection we got hundreds of breeds of dogs, chickens, pigeons by using it. It’s just when it is used because you think it will make your group of people better then another that its bad.
We do it all the time in first wold countries, it’s called an abortion the British have one of the lowest rates of down syndrome because of it.

Violence is a human concept we refer to anything that is hostile to our existence as violent a hurricane, outer space, a lion devouring a baby antelope. Like with the dragons what seems like the end of the world to npc’s is trivial to them. Just like today people act like climate change is going to be the end of us when to the Earth its trivial.
Evolution is simple adapt, move, or die same with life with the dragons.

Some ants enslave because it’s there nature, humans do it for power.

As an industry: There is money involved. There is advocacy involved. There is prestige involved. All of these things resist change. The guy who proves the sky is red has doomed the blue-sayers to obscurity, and denoted their existence as falsehood and misinformation. Blue-sayers will fight this to the bitter end, truth be kitten ed. The money and advocacy control which studies are funded, as well as which information is published, and also subtly put pressure on the outcomes of those studies to suit their desires. I felt I’ve already explained this info with a quote, so I’ll leave this section shorter.

Combine all of these, and you get a method of acquiring information that one must be skeptical on, at all levels. These flaws compound themselves, and loop around to the start. Now, normally the philosophical side of science doesn’t get involved in debates over scientific issues, since debating them assumes some kind of intrinsic value to science. However, when one fails to acknowledge the philosophical origins and limits of science, this leads to widespread dismissal and blind faith. The zealot has already made up their mind that science (or true science) can never be wrong, so the moment anyone launches a criticism to any article they find, they regress into pride and hate. Then I sigh, because once I again I find myself trying to kill someone’s god.

bullyrook.2165:

Kheo.2504:

I remember in the first Sylvari quest, the Green Knight one, a male Sylvari casually refers to another male as his “love” and the game desn’t make any mention of it again. I’d say they’re being pretty fair across the board, the only group they don’t have represented is the people who don’t accept LGBT, and there’s a pretty good reason for that.

Many of us do accept, we just don’t advocate. I would ask you to pick up a dictionary, but you might select a thesaurus by mistake

This is actually a subject I’ve been wanting to write about. Regarding homosexuality, there seem to be 3 different aspects that someone can either be for or against.

A)Homosexuality as in the act.
B)Homosexuality as in the people.
C)Homosexuality as in the idea.

And these aren’t necessarily dependent on each other. There are people who support C, but don’t necessarily like A or B. There are people who are against A and C, but still like and feel compassion for B. There are people don’t like A, but don’t like B or C. IMO, someone who supports the idea, but still has an aversion to the act or the people is the strongest willed out of the bunch, since this requires them to have a belief that consistently conflicts with their id.

I’m not sure I can say more on the subject, though.

Mike Winters.6871:

Because of the founder effect some groups of people may have slight advantages or disadvantages over others. Dark skin people have higher resistance to UV rays and lower vitamin D. This is way black people don’t need to use a whole bottle of sunscreen or get sunburnt as easily. They have a very low chance of skin cancer compared to light skinned people. But people with light skin are better at producing and metabolizing vitamin D and less prone to rickets and other bone problems because of the ability to make move vitamin D. Is this racist no, it is only racist if you see it as them and us because we are all human.

Eugenics isn’t necessarily bad it’s just another why of saying artificial selection we got hundreds of breeds of dogs, chickens, pigeons by using it. It’s just when it is used because you think it will make your group of people better then another that its bad.
We do it all the time in first wold countries, it’s called an abortion the British have one of the lowest rates of down syndrome because of it.

Violence is a human concept we refer to anything that is hostile to our existence as violent a hurricane, outer space, a lion devouring a baby antelope. Like with the dragons what seems like the end of the world to npc’s is trivial to them. Just like today people act like climate change is going to be the end of us when to the Earth its trivial.
Evolution is simple adapt, move, or die same with life with the dragons.

Some ants enslave because it’s there nature, humans do it for power.

Ok, but I didn’t mention anything about skin color: I mentioned hair color, dimples, color preference and coriander. I’m not aware of any of those providing any kind of inherent advantage or disadvantage, whereas more melanin in the skin can be useful for people living in sunnier climates.

Eugenics is a tricky concept because as a theory, it kind of makes sense. Who would not want future humans to have better lives, with less sickness or poverty or crime? However, there is no ethical way to implement it, no objective consensus on what would constitute a desirable or undesirable trait, no reliable method of reproducing many intangible or behavioral traits (as far as I am aware), and of course, that pesky free will that humans have.

Selective breeding has not been unequivocally ‘good’ for species like dogs and cattle, and it absolutely would not be a good thing for humanity. It’s just a human rights disaster before it even starts. Even in your example, while individuals may decide they are not willing or able to take on the challenge of raising a child with Down’s Syndrome (or just raising a child, full stop), are we prepared as a society to say categorically that people with Down’s Syndrome or other disabilities are better off not existing? Personally, I am not, especially if it involves violating the rights of people to implement (e.g. sterilisation of those deemed ‘unfit’.)

When I referred to violence, I am not talking about sustenance hunting for food or anything like that. I was meaning things along the lines of, ‘I do not like this person, I do not like sharing my resources with them, and I am stronger/more adept with weapons than they are so I will just kill them.’ Nature and evolution may not have a problem with that, but I think most people would.

As for slavery, as conscious, sentient creatures who are not bound to do everything on pure instinct that is ‘in our nature’, I hope that we are not looking to arthropods to validate our moral choices. We are not ants, and ants are not people, and social relationships between the members of an ant colony and humans in global society cannot be compared in a meaningful way in this context. Ants are not capable of morality. We are, and thus we are beholden to it in a way they are not.

And now I feel I have drifted wildly off-topic and into the realms of the absurd, so I will leave it there.

@Blood Red Arachnid:

I said that point because you come off as extremely skeptical of the human element of science, or human interpretations of it. It’s like saying you don’t trust math since people sometimes get it wrong.

That’s it.

bullyrook.2165:

Kheo.2504:

I remember in the first Sylvari quest, the Green Knight one, a male Sylvari casually refers to another male as his “love” and the game desn’t make any mention of it again. I’d say they’re being pretty fair across the board, the only group they don’t have represented is the people who don’t accept LGBT, and there’s a pretty good reason for that.

Many of us do accept, we just don’t advocate. I would ask you to pick up a dictionary, but you might select a thesaurus by mistake

I’d advise you to check that dictionary yourself, if you think your posts have demonstrated “acceptance.”

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

You must have a very different definition of “solid” than I do. I’ve done research on the birth order effect, and I’ve always found it to be quite interesting. First, because the proposed biological explanation of immune responses from the mother are are nonsensical from a cognitive developmental standpoint,

What do you mean, “from a cognitive developmental standpoint”? This biological possibility has nothing to do with the cognitive development of the child. It is a hormonal explanation.

That’s like saying, “this hormonal explanation doesn’t make any sense from a genetic point of view”. They’re unrelated. It’s a bizarre thing to say.

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

However I digress: What did this have to do with the concordance of homosexuality among adopted siblings?

What? It doesn’t. You haven’t understood what I said.

I said the FBOE would effect the concordance of homosexuality among related siblings who aren’t twins. It would lessen the concordance, as one of the siblings would have the average rate, and the younger sibling would have a slightly higher rate (if the FBOE is legitimate).

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

Are you saying that the 600% increase in expected concordance is from birth order?

No.

Blood Red Arachnid.2493:

Likewise, the assertion that fraternal twins have higher genetic similarities is flat out wrong. There is no difference genetically between fraternal twins and regular siblings, despite there being a larger concordance among that demographic.

That’s why I didn’t say that fraternal twins have more genetic material than regular siblings.

Seriously, you’re consistently claiming that I’ve said things that I didn’t. I said that we should study sets of twins, because the FBOE could not have an effect there (as they’re born together). I also said that with twins, the more genetic material is shared, the higher the concordance of homosexuality— MZ have a far higher rate than DZ.

I never said that stuff you said I did. If this conversation keeps going in that direction, there won’t be any reason to continue.

EDIT: May I ask whether you hold any particular opinions on homosexuality? It’s just that many of those I’ve encountered who have argued that it’s not biological have felt quite strongly about the subject in other ways. The author of the first study you cited, for example, seems to have written several other articles and essays on sexuality, some of which sound pretty… questionable, from the abstracts.

bullyrook.2165:

I do have a good question. A sensible question, and I really hope you won’t get offended when I ask it. What is the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality, bisexuality, etc? Most things we support in our morals has some kind of advantage, but I have yet to see any conclusive data on this bit. There is the “Homosexual Uncle” argument: “an individual whom provides food and shelter but does not supply excess offspring.” But this feels a bit lacking when you apply it to the natural world, as not all creatures that exhibit homosexuality have instincts that influence them to care for others. And this argument does not apply to bisexuality in the least, as they may still have children. So far, it doesn’t seem very practical.

It could be that homosexuality is a form of natural population control bought about by the overpopulation of the human race. The ability of a species to self manage its own population at sustainable levels would be a pretty major evolutionary advantage over other species. Only a theory, but it seems to fit.

Lasica.5068:

It could be that homosexuality is a form of natural population control bought about by the overpopulation of the human race. The ability of a species to self manage its own population at sustainable levels would be a pretty major evolutionary advantage over other species. Only a theory, but it seems to fit.

Definitely plausible. We see some other forms of population controle in tiger salamanders. When a population gets too dense, some babies will simply grow into larger cannibals. Interestingly, these cannibals will choose to eat non-related tiger salamanders rather than their own kin. http://backyardzoologist.wordpress.com/tag/tiger-salamanders/

What am I reading.

Boneheart.3561:

What am I reading.

You’re reading a throwback to the 40s and 60s, where people looked for weak excuses to claim an entire group of people wasn’t as good as another group of people.

hahaha really want to look into the mind of the community manager regarding this thread.

“is it offensive?… is it not?… its a discussion… but its offensive… but people notice and discuss… shut it down? Not? Yes?”

I think the question is wether the writers have an agenda using two homosexual relationships or wether they are just telling us a interesting story. And I guess both is true – Games are art and a way for the writers to project questions and thoughts. People have to decide for themselves wether they want to take part in a world that has creators who have agendas about certain aspects of our society. For me that answer is clearly YES because GW2 is a great game.

Yet how homosexuality is addressed here is quiet clumsy. Just putting two homosexual couples into the game and then showing how natural this is for everyone in Tyria looks like making an example. “Here, thats how you should feel like and react to gay people! See how modern Tyria is.” This on one side is an attempt to give us a world that is better then reality to give us role models we can orient towards and thats a good thing.

The issue starts where these couples become a major focus. Keeping up this blunt approach seems a bit insensitive to me. Great homosexual relationships in real life shine by showing how they deal with an alienated society that has hundreds of years of fixed role models behind them.

Just being oblivious about the people that have an issue with the subject is unfair towards the people that are in that corner as well as towards those who have to deal with prejudice. but maybe the story is just about a world that has nothing to do with ours in that regard and then we can just go on but that would waste a great opportunity to show us an aspect of humanity that is little discovered.

And just to make it clear, Yes, I still look across the coffee bar when I see a gay couple and yes, I am well aware that our society will naturally evolve and incorporate the idea of same sex relationships like it did with female emancipation and put a way with apartheid. There is no transformation if the hero comes from nowhere. I just love to see the ambivalence in things and seeing things treated one-sided hurts me in a way.

The scientific community largely agrees that sexuality is not a choice and that there is a genetic basis for it. But even if it was a choice, why would it be immoral? Not everything natural is moral and not everything unnatural is immoral. If that was the case then kitten and murder should be considered moral whereas contraception, aeroplanes and pretty much all technology should be immoral. So stop using this pathetic line of reasoning. That is not how we decide whether something is moral or immoral. We use the golden rule of treating others how we would like them to treat us to decide whether something is moral or not. Two consenting adults have every right to be in a relationship and have sex with each other. Love transcends ethnicity, national boundaries and gender, among other things. There’s a reason why a lot of people are paranoid about gays turning them and their children gay and are opposed to gay marriage for this reason. If they were truly heterosexual they would have nothing to worry about because no matter how hard a person of the same gender tried to seduce them, they wouldn’t be attracted to them. However the fact that they fear being converted is proof that majority of humans are actually bisexual/pansexual. It’s the same reason why in countries like Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to show skin. The men over there are so insecure and lack the willpower to control their sexual urges and so it is the woman’s fault if they get turned on and kitten them. If those men were truly moral they would never cross the line and wouldn’t impose such ridiculous rules on women.

Where’s the fifteen-page thread about the scientific understanding of magic?

I’m seeing the words “agenda” and “clumsy” thrown around very often in the discussion about a couple. When I finally spent more than two seconds thinking about what ‘agenda’ means and what represents ‘clumsy’, I noticed there wasn’t a Lesbian Gay Bi Transgender Parade in-game. Or a Heterosexual Parade, for that matter, which I found disappointing.

The Kasmeer/Marjory angle was overdone. Two attractive women flirting with each other and falling in love has always been considered erotic and has become a cliche now in mainstream media so I would say that this story was a cheap way of getting perverts such as myself to play through the Living Story and I honestly think it worked because one of the reasons I bothered killing Scarlet was to see the kissing scene.

On a serious note, it could have been more subtle. They were flirting with each other in practically every cutscene, even I found it annoying at times. It felt so forced and took away from the seriousness of the story. Now if this was a love story between two guys that ended up the way it did with them smooching I would have appreciated Anet for pushing the barriers and breaking prejudices. But two hot chicks kissing and making love has been done already and society has always found it attractive.

I enjoyed the Kasmeer/Majory kiss. I thought it was a nice touch to the story. I don’t have any hangups about sexuality of fictional characters of video games. I thought the scene was good and want to see more physical emotion from NPCs in living story.
I do want to make a comment regarding the separation of time with the Living Story from the Personal Story. I was actually doing Personal Story in Lion’s Arch (scene where Caithe attempts to get Destiny’s Edge back together) and the instance took place in destroyed Lion’s Arch. So it felt like personal Story was current as opposed to being the past.

I liked the kiss and hope there will be more girl-on-girl stuff to come.

As long as we don’t have left-handed people in the game, it’s allright, I guess.XD

redslion.9675:

As long as we don’t have left-handed people in the game, it’s allright, I guess.XD

Ouch, that is below the belt. Why don’t we have left handed npc’s btw?

No matter, I get that some of you are upset that individuals like me still exist. The best you can do is deal with the fact that not everyone that disagrees with you is some kind of monster. If you can’t do that, then we will never get along. And that would be a real shame.

bullyrook.2165:

redslion.9675:

As long as we don’t have left-handed people in the game, it’s allright, I guess.XD

Ouch, that is below the belt. Why don’t we have left handed npc’s btw?

Animation issues, I’m fairly sure.

No matter, I get that some of you are upset that individuals like me still exist. The best you can do is deal with the fact that not everyone that disagrees with you is some kind of monster. If you can’t do that, then we will never get along. And that would be a real shame.

Quite honestly, I don’t care so long as you’re not actively damaging my life. Once we cross that line, well that’s another story.

I was joking btw.XD

Even if I am left handed, I can put up with this.XD