| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (125)

Posted: Apr 3rd 2010 9:55PM NeverDeath said

  • 1 heart
  • Report

My intellect exceeds my patience. As stated, there comes a point in a conversation where you realize you're talking to a proverbial wall. You may mentally ejaculate as much as you please, but I reserve the right and in fact the pleasure not to indulge your idiocy beyond a point. That point has come. It is neither my goal nor my responsibility to cleanse the ignorant, and when I can see that the voices of the fearful are louder than those of reason, I know it is a losing battle. Not within the arena of logic mind you, since you've yet to enter the arena thereof - but in the arena of effective communication, I am simply not going to pierce your pride nor your egotism. It's like trying to ask a preacher for evidence. He's going to quote you scripture, which is his own personalized version of your circular rhetoric and is no more relevant nor effective but nevertheless, it is all he knows. Au revoir.

Posted: Apr 3rd 2010 10:19PM Randomessa said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So let's see: You created this account to post on this topic, made several assertions without any citation, including about the age, generation, and intelligence of the posters discussing the issue - without putting forth evidence of your own age - and the scientific veracity of the claim that homosexual behavior is "normal" without providing a definition of "normal" (and here I will provide a citation, easily found in Google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals). You asserted that your position was because there is no way we could have progressed from an evolutionary standpoint if homosexuality were prevalent (which is a strawman point that nobody had argued).

You also asserted that the fact that certain civil rights have been hard-won in the past means any attempt to pursue them in the present is tantamount to entitlement, lack of education, and laziness (though such pursuit in and of itself implies an effort being extended), though the original post did not in any way raise the issue of civil rights or their history thereof in the United States. In doing so, you made reference to special groups requesting "extra" rights, which you did not name or specify.

You accused other posters of ad hominem attacks, presumably because you were called a bigot by one poster, despite the fact that you preceded their posts with the aforementioned attacks on the forum's general age and intelligence, which suggests that either you are unaware that you cannot argue without using ad hominems, or that you behave hypocritically.

And let's keep in mind: you have posted this much, with this much fervor, over a proposed - not implemented - feature in a game that won't be out for a year, that you wouldn't even be required to participate in if it were made live.

So, yes, a bientot. May your crusade be more successful elsewhere.
Reply

Posted: Apr 3rd 2010 11:40PM hansh0tfirst said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What precisely do you find so threatening about content no one is asking you to partake of?

What do you stand to gain by denying others the same enjoyment and depth of immersion you take for granted?
Reply

Posted: Apr 4th 2010 12:12AM Seraphina Brennan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm just going to step in here for a moment and remind everyone in the thread to tackle the issue, not one another. I think it's starting to get out of hand between a few of you, and I'd like to have these comments remain on topic and produce a discussion of the information at hand, not the people posting it.

That goes for everyone in the thread. Thanks in advance!

~Sera
Reply

Posted: Apr 4th 2010 3:01AM Daelda said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
With just a quick search of Wookieepedia, I find "Medrit Vasur was a blacksmith and the husband[1] of the Mandalorian bounty hunter named Goran Beviin."
and
"Homosexuality and same-sex marriage were apparently accepted by the Mandalorians, as Goran Beviin and Medrit Vasur were an openly homosexual married couple living on Mandalore, who were fully integrated into Mandalorian society."
each with appropriate citations to the appropriate sources. Therefore, SGRA have been established previously in Star Wars.

And why not? People don't seem to get upset about a human and a Twi'lik "getting it on" - and those are two different *species*. Wouldn't that, on Earth, be akin to having relations with an orangutan? Or even worse? These "creatures" in Star Wars ARE NOT HUMAN! They can't even be close, and still have all the tendrils, horns, flaps, fangs and other do-dads hanging off of them.

I have no problem with SGRAs in TOR. I will, or won't pursue them based not on my own sexuality, but upon that of the character I am role-playing. This is, after all, a game. As long as ALL romance content is done well, is optional, and is visible to only the player engaged in the actual romance, there should be no problem.

As to where Bioware spends its resources - that is up to them, their marketing team, and their financiers. Each person wanting to play TOR has a different idea of where resources should be prioritized. But the game is not being made for each one of us, but for all of us. Thus, Bioware will make the decisions they make, and if they feel SGRAs are right for TOR, they will be in. Personally, just based on Bioware's history, I think there will be at least a couple.

Featured Stories

WoW Archivist: A Glyphmas story

Posted on Dec 21st 2014 12:00PM

One Shots: Top 10 best player screenshots of 2014

Posted on Dec 21st 2014 10:00AM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW