Awful person demands No Homo mode in DA2, awful people on TTLG come out of woodwork - by june gloom
Papy on 2/4/2011 at 19:09
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
Probably depends on what we mean by homophobes? Everyone opposed to homosexuality? Or people with particular kinds of strong personal reaction to it? I mean I don't buy that all of the former set are gay folks in denial.
There is very little difference between those two groups. Being opposed to homosexuality is rarely a consequence of logic and rational thinking. It is mostly the result of a strong personal emotion.
Having said that, I agree that the majority of people who are homophobic are not really gay. I'm guessing a lot of them just are just emotionally very weak and they imagine they would be rejected if people around them came to believe that they are homosexual (which is of course also the main reason why some people refuse to admit to themselves that they are in fact homosexual). But gay or not, an adult who is homophobic always has deep personal issues.
Koki on 3/4/2011 at 06:27
Quote Posted by Papy
But gay or not, an adult who is homophobic always has deep personal issues.
:nono:
june gloom on 3/4/2011 at 06:37
You don't agree, Kokes?
Koki on 3/4/2011 at 07:23
Homosexuality is an abnormality. We're inherently programmed by evolution to be wary of things that are not normal. If anything, it's the people who don't mind homosexuals that have personal issues.
CCCToad on 3/4/2011 at 07:57
But, homosexuality is also a boon for us from an evolutionary standpoint.
It means that since they won't be breeding, their children won't be competing for the same resources as ours.
Koki on 3/4/2011 at 08:10
And how exactly is that a boon considering the very idea of natural selection relies on competition over limited resources? Smaller population equals smaller competition.
june gloom on 3/4/2011 at 08:23
That's it. I'm changing the thread title.
Briareos H on 3/4/2011 at 08:43
@Koki: Although you're right in theory, we've diverted from natural selection principles quite a while ago when we created society (proof: everything). In that context, homosexuality is certainly not the worst offender when it comes to deviance. Or you can even see it as a form of natural selection trying to balance out overpopulation on a meta scale.
Anyway as usual it's important to divide the issue in very different parts. There's the ever-increasing sociological image of gays ('gays are bankable') which IMO is the only one issue people can rightfully have a problem with, and then the general issue of sexual freedom and deep (natural) human drives behind homosexuality which are absolutely fine in my book. An increasing market share being aimed at a separable subclass of society will both raise general public awareness and induce (natural) reactions of xenophobia, and will drive the most stupid elements of that subclass to claim always more and test the general public out of a sentiment of injustice. The resulting conflict being between the least interesting members of both classes, I say let them argue and destroy themselves. Here's your natural selection.
I think I wrote it earlier but I'm taking issue with the whole thing not on grounds that I don't want caricatured homosexuality in my games but on grounds that I don't want any form of caricatured sexuality in adult games where I am supposed to feel involved. It's just... no. Ugh. Bleh. Please.
I'm not playing Bioware games anyway, so problem solved. Hope no one takes hint from them though.
Kolya on 3/4/2011 at 08:49
I know I'm wary of your intolerant bullshit Koki, but I wouldn't call you an abnormality. Just a little piece of shit who - like many before him - uses "nature" to justify his fearful scheme of hate.
Meanwhile nature continues to produce diversity without plan or reason.
DDL on 3/4/2011 at 09:17
Homosexuality is evolutionarily useful: sure, they gay dude won't be passing on his genes, but he's still around as part of the tribal family unit, so he's able to contribute to the survival of everyone else. Since it's a family, there are a lot of shared genes, so many of his genes are likely to be passed on via one of his non-gay siblings. Instead of raising three children adequately, they might raise two children very well. Have you seen the size of babies? We're a species that puts a hell of a lot of eggs in each reproductive basket, so to speak: an individual producing hundreds of weak humans and keeping the survivors is not a viable strategy for us: producing one or two and devoting your resources to those and only those, however, is.
I mean, if you're going down the evolution route, you might as well argue that anyone past optimal reproductive age (or hey, anyone uninterested in sex) is an abnormality, when of course the system we as a species have ended up with places vastly greater emphasis on contribution to net survival of the 'tribe', be that contribution in the form of protection, or knowledge, or whatever, than it does on "fucking as much as possible, having as many kids as possible".
Natural selection is still what's at play here, but it doesn't always work the way you think it does. If you want an extreme example, look at bees. OMG WORKERS! Y U NO FUCK TEH DRONEZ! FAGZ LOL.
