A Mass Effect on Homosexuality in Games

Why homosexuality in Mass Effect 3 is important for the future of interactive storytelling.

This week, Mass Effect 3 joins the ranks of video games striving to offer a realistic portrayal of human relationships. BioWare's decision to allow both male and female homosexual partnerships inside the Mass Effect universe is a telling move. While games like Rockstar's Bully, Microsoft's Fable series, Atlus's Persona 4, Jordan Mechner's The Last Express, Bethesda's The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, and the Dragon Age series have all dealt with themes of homosexuality, the critical and commercial success of the Mass Effect series represents a significant step forward in the mainstream representation of realistic human behavior.

Portraying human relationships as they truly are has never been a priority for games. More so than noninteractive media like films and print, games strive to provide an escape from the reality we know. While some game developers adhere to the art-for-art's-sake philosophy, the concept is far from being universally practiced in the games industry. So it remains the case that it's how you play the game that's going to offer the most excitement, not the context in which you do it. This is why to date only a handful of games have attempted to capture more than a one-dimensional representation of the way humans relate to one another; anything richer or more complex runs the risk of turning into something as utterly unexciting as real life.

But it seems BioWare is trying something different. The developer's layered role-playing worlds contain more than just rich lore: these games offer choice. They offer more choice than which class to pick or which dialogue tree to follow; it's a choice that attempts, however rudimentarily, to mirror real life. While we don't get to pick our sexual preference in the real world, by striving to offer some semblance of realistic human behavior, Mass Effect 3 becomes one of only a handful of AAA games that attempts to insert more meaning into player choice. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender relationships are not commonly explored themes in video games; in fact, games have traditionally struggled with the exploration and depiction of romantic relationships in general. Again, it comes down to a predetermined ideal; while an integral part of our humanity, romance and sex do not present an exciting premise on their own, at least not one that easily lends itself to the populist idea of what makes a good video game.

Did BioWare struggle with its decision at the risk of being accused of making a political statement?

"We take fan feedback into consideration, and that's one of the things fans asked for," says Robyn Theberge, associate project manager on Mass Effect 3. "It is role playing; it's fantasy. And part of the fantasy is to romance whomever, whenever you wish. And that's something we take into consideration when we plot the romances."

If BioWare is simply responding to the wishes of its community, does it follow that a sizeable number of players want games that portray a more realistic view of human relationships, romantic and otherwise? Does it follow that players want to see more AAA games that don't simplify, trivialize, and misrepresent the complexities of human interaction?

BioWare--and as an extension, Mass Effect 3--are in the unique position of setting an example. We already know that video games can intelligently deal with intimate and complex human emotions, but can they do so to mainstream commercial success? Can a franchise like Mass Effect prove that there is room for emotional elegance in the AAA space?

While it can be argued that in-game romances tied to particular achievements render the original intention to offer diversity meaningless, it does not change the fact that players are given those choices in the first place. While the Dragon Age games were often criticized for offering a stereotyped view of homosexual behavior and relationships, BioWare's attempt to offer diversity should not be overlooked.

"Writers don't have a responsibility to make exclusively noble gay characters; they have a responsibility to portray human gay characters," Irrational Games cofounder Ken Levine tweeted in March last year in defense of Dragon Age 2.

From what BioWare has said about the game, Mass Effect 3's homosexual romances are not shoehorned gay options thrown in to give a semblance of political correctness. Whether that is true or not remains to be seen. More and more developers see the future of video games as one of increased expression, where games can channel the empathy created in a virtual world and transport it to the outside; a future where games can help players better understand human nature.

What could be more satisfying than playing a game and learning about what it's like to be a different person--from another time, from another place, of a different race, gender, or religion? Even if Mass Effect 3 fails to live up to our expectations of a realistic portrayal of human nature, we cannot ignore the fact that this is a significant push toward a more mature form of interactive storytelling.

[CORRECTION]: This article originally misidentified Irrational Games cofounder Ken Levine. GameSpot regrets the error.

[CORRECTION]: This article originally contained the following statement: "While it's true that we don't get to pick our gender, religion, or sexual preference in the real world [...]" Upon reflection, this statement has been corrected. GameSpot regrets the error.

Written By

Want the latest news about Mass Effect 3?

Mass Effect 3

Mass Effect 3

Follow

Discussion

1933 comments
nohomo777
nohomo777

I want equal representation too!  I want a feature where I can romance and marry my dog.  Don't discriminate against me!

nohomo777
nohomo777

I want equal representation too!  I want a feature where I can romance and marry my dog.  Don't discriminate against me!

nohomo777
nohomo777

I want equal representation too!! I want a feature where I can romance and marry my dog!  It's not fair that I am being discriminated against!

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

@Ewan223 "Though there are statistics that are evidence to prove that in less economically developed countries families tend to be bigger: population graphs for example." Again, this does not take into account the context of cultural climates as a precipitating factor. "There is nothing wrong with it even if they actually are patriotic." You have an interesting way of approving of patriotism them. What I'm really curious about is this "God's country" bit that you seemed to pull out of a hat. "Yea, but there are obviously wrong things to do, for example murder someone." ...What does that have to do with anything? "Also, these socially popular ideas usually stem from a source." That does not even begin to address the point. Pointing out that an idea has a history is not conducive to said idea being socially practical or sensible. I'm not even sure how you managed to swerve into a "religious/diversity" tangent. Rather self-indulgent attempt to go off topic. "And have I judged you?" You said that I was "bashing" people when you've offered no evidence of any such thing. "from what I can see you lack tolerance for a few things such as homosexuality and immigration." You're perhaps the eighth person on this thread who has confused "tolerance" for "acceptance." They are not the same. And I haven't spoken against immigration; only multiculturalism. "The only reason you would ever dispute something like homosexuality is if you are ignorant and lack a heart." And this conclusion is based on...?

ewan223
ewan223

@Ryouga001 I will finish by summing up my argument: Equality for all! No matter your religion, sexuality, race, appearance etc you are a human and you deserve to be treated with respect and are entitled to a health and happy life. And if someone doesn't treat another human like that then they don't deserve anything. The only reason you would ever dispute something like homosexuality is if you are ignorant and lack a heart. It amazes me that in 2012 there are still views like this on the planet. And though we may not be there yet we are slowly but surely moving towards this. Thanks Ryouga, I hope you have a happy life and maybe lighten up a bit because as far as we know, you only live once. Feel free to have the final word if you want ^^.

ewan223
ewan223

@Ryouga001 I may not know the full brunt of your position but from what I have read you have tried as hard as you can to dispute that being gay is normal. And have I judged you? in fact I have constantly taken your points into account and been as far as I'm concerned, I have been polite. Though I am about to judge you now, from what I can see you lack tolerance for a few things such as homosexuality and immigration. Maybe you do actually have tolerance but you don't seem to have a overall positive view at all. You look at things from a scientific view point constantly, and though that isn't bad (As I myself look at things from a scientific view the majority of the time as well) it means that you shouldn't really be taking part in a argument that involves human feelings. Arguments involving homosexuality involve a whole range of different things.

ewan223
ewan223

@Ryouga001 Though there are statistics that are evidence to prove that in less economically developed countries families tend to be bigger: population graphs for example. I'm not bashing them in the slightest. Though I will agree that assumption on Americans being patriotic lacks luster, though the Americans I have talked to they also feel there nation is fairly patriotic. There is nothing wrong with it even if they actually are patriotic. As I did state from the very beginning, this statement was pretty much based of stereotypes. Yea, but there are obviously wrong things to do, for example murder someone. Also, these socially popular ideas usually stem from a source. For example 50 years back homosexuality would have been looked on less favourably, please note that religion was a much more prevalent source back then than now. Now religion is less popular in the Uk anyway and there is a much greater scientific and social understanding of homosexuality. There is a reason behind a "socially popular idea" most of the time. Though it wasn't all religion as I do know there are very religious people that are completely fine with homosexuality now. Sometimes it is just people who are: scared of change and diversity, scared of there own feelings (so people who don't want to admit they are gay or are just ignorant.

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

@Ewan223 "Families to tend to be bigger in poorer countries for a variety of reasons. Yes, it does come down to more than income." Again: income is a factor. Not a cause. The only thing it comes down to is a cultural mentality or philosophy that may or may not be fostered by the context that a low income environment creates. Certain cultures would maintain high birth rates regardless of their financial status based solely on their philosophical/cultural identity. "Americans no doubt love their country like everyone else, they just seem to display it more is what I'm saying." Based on what evidence? Most of your assertions are ground in hearsay and word of mouth (see also: low income families, "bashing"). "No matter what way you look at it, if people are involved then there will be a politically correct mindset. Your free to think what you want, but if they cause discomfort for others or single out people then I don't agree." Discomfort is encouraged by a perceived obligation towards feelings of offense: you hear someone dissent against a socially popular idea and you'll instantly become uncomfortable because you know many other people think differently and might even take offense. But that doesn't justify those feelings. PC is a mentality cultured by influential social groups. Not a natural phenomenon. "I haven't read enough of your comments to fully understand your view." So you judged my character without actually knowing the full brunt of my position.

ewan223
ewan223

@Ryouga001 I'm just stating how it is. Families to tend to be bigger in poorer countries for a variety of reasons. Yes, it does come down to more than income. But overall it is seen as a safety net, the more children you have the more support will be available to you in the future. Maybe not how you see it but there is no denying that bigger families are way more common in poorer countries. It's not a stereotype it's just true, though don't think I hold any negative feelings towards them because of this (don't really even know how we got onto this subject). Americans no doubt love their country like everyone else, they just seem to display it more is what I'm saying. No matter what way you look at it, if people are involved then there will be a politically correct mindset. Your free to think what you want, but if they cause discomfort for others or single out people then I don't agree. In terms of bashing homosexuality. I haven't read enough of your comments to fully understand your view. But what I have seen is your arguments are usually more towards against. Though that could be personal opinion.

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

"Uhh do you have anything positive to say... first bashing homosexuality and now seemingly pitying the uk because we have a diverse culture." Please point out where I've bashed anything. The problem here is the idea behind a "diverse culture" in the first place. It's one thing to say, "Our culture has people that differ in ethnicity." But it's quite another to say, "Multiculturalism is our culture." European culture, like all other Western cultures, was founded on certain a certain philosophy and principles unique to itself. That means any application of outside customs is subverting and weakening that culture.

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

@Ewan223 Where exactly do you get this "poor family mass breeding" mentality from? Sounds like a stereotype. Increased child birth among particular social groups has more to do with prevalent belief systems and philosophies than it does income. Income is a factor. Not a cause. "You seem incredibly negative towards that idea of immigration; " Immigration is find in and of itself if the immigrants are willing to assimilate into the country they're moving to. Otherwise, what's the point of going there if you're just going to try and push the culture you're moving away from onto the one you now reside in? For Asian ethnic groups, it's usually just a matter of pride, but for Muslim and Latin groups, it's usually an attempt to fuel a campaign of subversiveness. "nd I stand by my claim on america being overall pretty patriotic, since I've seem reasonable evidence that some Americans believe that their nation is god's favourite." Since when has the term "patriotic" meant to believe that one's country is "God's favorite?" Or is this just an example of Europe's renowned overzealous grasp on a politically correct mindset (which is quickly spreading here as well)?

ewan223
ewan223

@Ryouga001 Ah yea. I generalised it bit to much, but overall it is common for a country to slowly move from a mindset of as many children as possible (Poorer families) to keep the family going which is usually one of the main reasons the population rate is constantly going up in the majority of LEDCs. And I am well aware that america has working women ect as it isn't that different from the Uk. "Morallly subordinate"... You seem incredibly negative towards that idea of immigration; though there are bad parts to it. There are just as many good parts. And I stand by my claim on america being overall pretty patriotic, since I've seem reasonable evidence that some Americans believe that their nation is god's favourite. Uhh do you have anything positive to say... first bashing homosexuality and now seemingly pitying the uk because we have a diverse culture.

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

@Ewan223 "The Uk is a EMDC with a ageing population. Women pursue more career related lives and people live much longer." That means very little really. America has an aging population and working women as well. They still have children--although the trend of population control seems to be catching on here with people deifying planned parenthood. "Overall are population is slowly decreasing, but it is the natural progression of a country." Incorrect. With the exception of Asian countries and their single child laws, It's a common trend only for Western culture-based countries for birth rates to go down. "Are culture IS multiculturalism" Uh...No. That's not how the term works. I don't live in Europe, but I stayed there long enough to identify a severe culture clash. Non-Western culture immigrants who move to Europe--and America for that matter--tend to morally subordinate the customs of the countries they move to with their own. This process has been going on for quite some time, which is probably why you're culturally confused. "Americans have always been a more "patriotic" country." Negative. Our cultural regression is simply slower than yours because we're not on the front lines like you are. The Middle East is Europe's far more violent Mexico and Russia is a more hostile version of Canada. As such, the degradation of Europe's culture in favor of other more subversive immigrants'--both legal and otherwise--cultures expedites the process. You have my sympathies.

ewan223
ewan223

@Ryouga001 The Uk is a EMDC with a ageing population. Women pursue more career related lives and people live much longer. Fairly simple really. Overall are population is slowly decreasing, but it is the natural progression of a country. Are culture IS multiculturalism, that why some of are most popular foods are such things as chicken tika masala and lasagne. Americans have always been a more "patriotic" country. Of course I am relating to stereotypes. Though there does seem to be evidence around to support it.

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

@Warlod_irochi "The state maybe feels that they have the responsibility of representing also that sector of people (they do, in fact, have it)." Uh, no it doesn't. There does not exist a principle of, 'It exists, therefore it must be taught.' That's just silly. Even if that were true, it's not the state's place to force such a curriculum. "I'm not writing it off, I talk about Europe's reality. Please don't put things I haven't said." I don't see how Europe's much different though in that you're still allowed to raise your kids with the values you keep. I realize that it places like Sweden and Italy, you can get tossed in jail for so much as uttering the phrase, 'I disapprove of homosexuals.' Europe's influenced America in the respect that free speech is becoming more inhibited. But you can still cultivate certain belief systems. "That was misguided. Multiculturalism is not a problem; it's the very essence of the European Union" European countries all share the same brand of Western culture. What I was referring to was Europe's unwillingness to reinforce or endorse its own cultural identity in the face of more subversive social groups immigrating to the countries of the UK. Both Germany and Sweden are getting the brunt of the impact from Muslim dissidents--even Britain and France are getting hit pretty hard. If they're the only ones that are breeding (and that is largely the case), that means Europe's Western culture is dying.

Warlord_Irochi
Warlord_Irochi

@Ryouga001 "With respect, your opening post seems to direct most if not all of its criticism towards detractors of homosexuality. So this statement strikes me as disingenuous." The initial post was against "haters", against disrespect and against denial. If after this long posts we were writing to each other and in which I told you why I disagree with your point of view (always with respect, I believe) I still need to re-state that, then we better stop the discussion now, since it will eventually start looping. See you mate.

Warlord_Irochi
Warlord_Irochi

@Ryouga001 I teach my child to think for himself, not to think like I do (or like others tell him to do). I you mean "values" then yes (that's what I meant originally). The state maybe feels that they have the responsibility of representing also that sector of people (they do, in fact, have it). You can tell your child that you disapprove that and why you do it, it's you right as a parent (and part of your values, as I can see). I'm not writing it off, I talk about Europe's reality. Please don't put things I haven't said. "you guys are having a pretty big problem with multiculturalism. This isn't mentioning Europe's low birth rates in general. These are symptoms of cultural fatigue." That was misguided. Multiculturalism is not a problem; it's the very essence of the European Union; people from every member country moving freely to every other member country without restriction. We have rules that applies to everyone and I can tell you that whoever does not follow them does not stay a lot of time in the region. Also, birthrate have risen a lot thanks to integrated immigrants. Before that, low birth rates were related to sedentary social tendencies, so don't mix it.

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

"Their morality works for them, it's as simple as that." "Works" is a debatable term, but you're missing the point: the state feels compelled to ignore my views in favor of teaching/endorsing a morality that I don't agree with. That not only affects my family, but it also affects the culture. Don't try to write that off. "Our way of life, traditions, culture and believes were not destroyed because of it." Actually, from what I here, you guys are having a pretty big problem with multiculturalism. This isn't mentioning Europe's low birth rates in general. These are symptoms of cultural fatigue. "So no, I'm not favoring anyone's morale by considering it more valid" With respect, your opening post seems to direct most if not all of its criticism towards detractors of homosexuality. So this statement strikes me as disingenuous.

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

@Warlord_Irochi "even as a father I have no right to implant my ideas on him" Uh, actually, you do. You raise your children according to the tools and values you keep. If you don't apply standards, they could veer off in a direction you find self-destructive. "Anyway, for the subject we are talking about is a "M for Mature" game." However, according to the logic applied by the posters here--as well as the author--homosexuality applies as a benign and normal aspect to any form of media. As such, the subject matter need not be confined to an M rating; from the perspective of the consensus here, it's fine for all ages. "Both morals can co-exists without conflict, what I said is that both are valid in THIS case." But one is always forced to compromise to the other: I say that I disapprove of homosexuality and consider it to be disorderly, and as result people claim that I spout hate speech. That's a pretty steep accusation nowadays. And then there's the fact that it's taught to my kid in school without my permission...Because they legally don't need it. That's not co-existence. That's subversion and co-opting.

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

"Okay so you are saying that: While Marriage is not anatomically correct itself." I'm saying that it's abstract and it makes no sense whatsoever to try and apply it as an anatomical or non-anatomical term. "I thought we were discussing what is anatomically correct." We are. And the point I made with regards to that is that society's civil processes--such as marriage--are carried out according to anatomical correctness. Somewhere along the way, you erroneously tried to exploit that as a weakness; applying marriage as an object to a discussion on anatomy.

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

@Jtg473 "Interesting, so it is your belief that it is anatomically incorrect to harm others? See my comment about murder." The act of murder is abstract in relation to our anatomy. It's inappropriate to claim it has an inherent propriety according to our bodies when there's nothing about our forms that are intuitive to the act. "I think a better defense is this: While it is in our nature to hurt others because of basic instincts like anger, Fight or Flight response, adrenaline. This does not guarantee we will go so far as to murder." None of those things you mention refers back to a "nature to hurt others." Fight or flight is not conducive to murder. It's strictly a defense mechanism. "I am talking about rape that involves sexual reproduction. Sorry about not being clear...However to say it is not anatomically correct is wrong." You're ignoring where I pointed out that rape is physically and mentally damaging to a given agent. Consider for a moment the fact that consensual arousal allows for ease of access according to our anatomies. Rape doesn't stipulate such a thing. - - In reality, you're distinguishing rape and marriage erroneously since they're both codes of behavior. While the urge to mate may or may not be inherent (depends on the person really), the act of rape is not intuitive according to our bodies. Marriage, likewise, is not intuitive. But they both require higher modes of thinking to be applied.

Warlord_Irochi
Warlord_Irochi

@Ryouga001: (Last part, promise ^^;) Worthiness is what you do with your life and how it affects you and others. You can spend your life driven by lust and dying by Aids, or you can spend it with the person you love. You can be loyal to your believes and values without entering in conflict or you can impose then and eventually face consequences for it. THAT is all that matters. Being homosexual or heterosexual is not a factor. They are not better than us for being gay and we are not better for being hetero, So no, I'm not favoring anyone's morale by considering it more valid: It's just that for me sexuality is a neutral factor on people (again: I only care about deeds) and that I disagree with some of your ideas. Was interesting to read your point of view though, having your ideas clear is something I respect. Have a nice day

Warlord_Irochi
Warlord_Irochi

@Ryouga001 "If I honestly believe that their morality is inherently unhealthy and physically/culturally destructive, why on earth would you find it reasonable that my children and I extend a hand of acceptance towards their behavior? Why exactly are you favoring their morality over mine?" Their morality works for them, it's as simple as that. What they do is their own problem and is not going to destroy your culture nor you way of life; I don't thing any of then is trying to enter you home and turn you into one of them like if they were zombies. And NO; I'm not favoring it's morality. (did I misspelled something?). I live in Europe (Germany), gay marriage is legal in a good number of countries, including this one which is one of the most conservative in the continent. Our way of life, traditions, culture and believes were not destroyed because of it.

Warlord_Irochi
Warlord_Irochi

@Ryouga001 "I don't need public schools or pop culture trying to co-opt my role in raising my kids by exposing them to material I don't approve of." Not sure about the term "policing it's exposure"; that is called parenting and I salute you for that, I see lot of parents that seem to have forgot about that (just a sidenote ;) ). In my case depends of the material; I would not expose my child to ultra-violent or pornographic stuff; but other things that I don't personally approve (religion or communism, to put two examples) even as a father I have no right to implant my ideas on him (not saying that you are doing it, don't get me wrong) I'll instead rise him to think for himself and make it's own choices. His choices will be his own... altough yes, it can get terrifiying sometimes lol. Anyway, for the subject we are talking about is a "M for Mature" game. "In telling me that I must accept others and their morality solely on the virtues that they're people with their OWN moralities, you are demanding that I violate mine." No, that's not the case. Both morals can co-exists without conflict, what I said is that both are valid in THIS case. I never generalized since I believe myself that not every moral is valid (those that cause death or discrimination around the world, to put a general example).

Jtg473
Jtg473

@Ryouga001 "Raping someone means to violate another person in general." I am talking about rape that involves sexual reproduction. Sorry about not being clear. "Sex and "rape" are not synonymous. Nice try though." Of course not, Rape is too broad. You can rape someone while not actually engaging in the scientific process of sexual reproduction. However to say it is not anatomically correct is wrong. Is consensual sex anatomically correct? Yes. They both follow the scientific process of sex. I am not arguing what is right (obviously rape is immoral), only anatomically correct. "Marriage, likewise, is not intuitive. But they both require higher modes of thinking to be applied." Okay so you are saying that: While Marriage is not anatomically correct itself. It is a complement to anatomical correctness, when applied with higher modes of thinking. Is this a fair assessment? "We were discussing how society ideally accommodates our anatomy." I thought we were discussing what is anatomically correct. I apologize for my mistake.

Jtg473
Jtg473

@Ryouga001 Sorry for the delay, I was very busy and had very little sleep. "And you also ignored where I pointed out that rape is physically and mentally damaging to a given agent." Interesting, so it is your belief that it is anatomically incorrect to harm others? See my comment about murder. "It's inappropriate to claim it has an inherent propriety according to our bodies when there's nothing about our forms that are intuitive to the act." I think a better defense is this: While it is in our nature to hurt others because of basic instincts like anger, Fight or Flight response, adrenaline. This does not guarantee we will go so far as to murder.

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

@Warlord_Irochi "from my point of view seems like people wants every reference to homosexuality removed from any media like they want to deny it's existence." Policing its exposure isn't denying its existence. Quite the contrary: it's a very relevant acknowledgement of it to be sure. I'm going to inform my child of the sexual preference debate's cultural relevance--including my view of it--when I feel she's ready to hear it. In the mean time, I don't need public schools or pop culture trying to co-opt my role in raising my kids by exposing them to material I don't approve of. "You can't tolerate something without accepting that its part of the reality." You've missed the point. I've stated that detractors acknowledge the existence of homosexuals. That doesn't mean they must accept their behavior--especially if it may encroach on their own lifestyles. That's why "tolerance" is distinguished from "acceptance." In telling me that I must accept others and their morality solely on the virtues that they're people with their OWN moralities, you are demanding that I violate mine. If I honestly believe that their morality is inherently unhealthy and physically/culturally destructive, why on earth would you find it reasonable that my children and I extend a hand of acceptance towards their behavior? Why exactly are you favoring their morality over mine? "Worthiness: Merit or value" Merit of value of people is not what's being debated. It's the behavior involved.

Warlord_Irochi
Warlord_Irochi

@Ryouga001 Each one's morals are it's own and are subjective. I also mean it that way; Acceptance as "person's assent to the reality of a situation" (wikipedia reference), from my point of view seems like people wants every reference to homosexuality removed from any media like they want to deny it's existence. I'm not trying con conflate anything; you are the one who misunderstood my opinion (I used the word "accept" exactly because of that). Said that I'll add: You can't tolerate something without accepting that its part of the reality. Worthiness: Merit or value (in a personal context in the case I use it)

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

@Warlord_Irochi "That is exactly what some of you should do; gay people are out there, like it or not, they are not going to disappear no mater how strong you wish it, how offensive it is for you or how much hate you keep for em. You are not forced to like it nor to think it's something awesome, but you have to accept that it's there. hell! it has been there for at least two millenniums." Accepting the fact that something exists is not the same as accepting its morality. Yours is, yet another, statement that tries to conflate "tolerance" with "acceptance." One is obliged to tolerate a behavior (assuming it's not encroaching upon you). Not to accept that behavior. "Whoever someone shares it's bed with says nothing about his worthiness." What exactly does "worthiness" mean?

Warlord_Irochi
Warlord_Irochi

This is ridiculous. Nothing in particular, just the whole thing. (What comes next is just for some people, don't take as something general ;) ) A few hours in Mass Effect 3 (around 8 or so) I already found a fair number of homosexual references. They are not denigrated nor glorified: they are just there, in a neutral way; homosexual exists in Mass Effect universe and guess what! no character in game seems to care. It's a message of unity in a galaxy full of completely different species, some issues here and there, of course, but unity and peace.I believe some of you failed to understand that aspect of the game. That is exactly what some of you should do; gay people are out there, like it or not, they are not going to disappear no mater how strong you wish it, how offensive it is for you or how much hate you keep for em. You are not forced to like it nor to think it's something awesome, but you have to accept that it's there. hell! it has been there for at least two millenniums. After all, what you get for keeping that irrational hate for the subject? It made you hate a exceptional game that you could have enjoyed by keeping those opinions aside. The only ones to blame for that are not Bioware's game designers; it is your incapability to accept social reality. Also, and in case you wonder, I could not care less about homosexuality in general. Whoever someone shares it's bed with says nothing about his worthiness. Have a nice day.

poolloop
poolloop

Honestly I can't believe this thread is still going. Whatever your views just go play the game and be straight, play and be gay or don't play it. There really isn't any reason to keep going and repeating ourselves. -Mattaghetti

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

"Again incorrect a stable environment does not guarantee a greater quality of life at all." Nothing is ever guaranteed. That wasn't the wording I used. Providing a stable environment for breeding and family improves quality of life. This is opposed to your preferred scenario of mass rape and chattel slavery. "Please do explain." I just did: "It creates a stable venue for a reproductive lifestyle." I already explained reproduction's nature as a process. The institution of marriage works in concert with this process. "That is what sex is." "Sex" and "rape" are not synonymous. Nice try though. "The etiquette of treating women with respect is a cultural thing." ...Which has nothing to do with the discussion. Or my point.

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

"Rape is anatomically correct" You have yet to actually prove such a thing. Further, you're implementation of the word "rape" is too broad. Raping someone means to violate another person in general. It doesn't mean to force breeding habits. And you also ignored where I pointed out that rape is physically and mentally damaging to a given agent. Consider for a moment the fact that consensual arousal allows for ease of access according to our anatomies. Rape doesn't stipulate such a thing. - - In reality, you're distinguishing rape and marriage erroneously since they're both codes of behavior. While the urge to mate may or may not be inherent (depends on the person really), the act of rape is not intuitive according to our bodies. Marriage, likewise, is not intuitive. But they both require higher modes of thinking to be applied. - - The real difference between the two is that marriage is specifically designed to accommodate both conjugal acts and the procreative process in a stable environment. Rape does not do that. - "Our human body is fine after murder." That all depends on the murder now doesn't it? The act of murder is abstract in relation to our anatomy. It's inappropriate to claim it has an inherent propriety according to our bodies when there's nothing about our forms that are intuitive to the act.

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

@Jtg473 "Wow! Now you are trivializing slavery. " No. I'm informing you of your misconceptions of the history of slavery and how it has interacted with the family unit. You argue that slavery is natural and benign in a society, and therefore anatomically correct. Except there's nothing about our physiology that suggests we have to enslave others. Our individuality says otherwise. "We are not discussing how to build a society. " We were discussing how society ideally accommodates our anatomy. "Exactly you are talking about things that may/may not complement what is natural." We artificially design social and objective constructs according to the natural design we're given. That doesn't contradict the tenements of anatomical correctness. "Please show evidence to support your claims... That the human race is doomed under one overlord..." "Doomed" was never the argument. That's a parameter you tried to insert into the principle disagreement. I've been arguing that the behavior is inherently self-destructive and unhealthy while you've been attempting to build up a diatribe about 'survival'--the logic of which attempts to sustain the idea that a single survivor amidst a particular lifestyle means that said lifestyle fits our nature. "This isn't about what is moral/ethical/etc. it is about what is anatomically correct. " I didn't bring up morality or ethics. I pointed out that we craft societies according to the anatomy of our bodies, which alludes to importance of living an anatomically correct lifestyle.

Paintballman97
Paintballman97

@acw18 No, I am not missing the point. I have actually read the Bible, and I understand it thoroughly. God always believed and still believed in capital punishment. The reason why animal sacrifice is not used today is because Jesus WAS our sacrifice. Therefore, it is not needed. Do you understand now? And besides, God set apart rules for Jews that Gentiles did not need to follow, because Gentiles are not God's people.

Demanufactur3
Demanufactur3

@Jtg473 Though i agree with you on many points i must tell you that what you're doing is noble yet pointless. Some people will simply never understand for their sense of logic and their views of reality are simply too warped to accept any other point of view. It's like fighting a battle with no chance of a victory, or shouting against a brick wall... in the end of the day it is a wasted effort, and you will have spent time and energy on something that will reap no results. Not the results you seek anyway. So though i agree with you on many points, i would advice you to stop feeding the troll and spend your energy where it does yield something productive. What i'm trying to say here, is that some people are simply too narrow minded to spend any time on. [Edit:] Did some self censoring :p

Jtg473
Jtg473

@Ryouga001 "Because the human body ceases to function...It's really self-explanatory." Illogical Fallacy... Our human body is fine after murder. Only the person we murdered can no longer function. So again please state how anatomically murder is incorrect. While you are at it explain pedophilia as well. Since that is anatomically correct. "That's a faux distinction. They're one in the same." Again incorrect a stable environment does not guarantee a greater quality of life at all. The environment was stable during slavery for many years... Nonetheless this is off topic. Quality of life has nothing to do with anatomically correctness. "It houses a scientific process. It creates a stable venue for a reproductive lifestyle." Lol... how does marriage "house a scientific process". Please do explain. "That's ridiculous. You'd first have to assume that the nature of animals was to rape each other. " That is what sex is... Please show me where in the scientific process of sexual reproduction we ask for permission. "What does that have to do with anything?" I am saying different cultures treat women differently. In some cultures rape/forced marriage is ok. In my culture it isn't. The etiquette of treating women with respect is a cultural thing.

Jtg473
Jtg473

@Ryouga001 "But they weren't actually separated from their family. ... Most became slaves because they needed to support their families." Wow! Now you are trivializing slavery. You really have no shame. Most slaves were born into slavery or were forced into it. What you are talking about is indentured servitude. Why don't you look up how Romans handled slaves or how blacks were born into slavery in USA. "Society is the entire point behind the discussion." Not it isn't. We are not discussing how to build a society. We are discussing what is anatomically correct. "then whatever policy that was enforced obviously didn't mesh with the natural habits of humanity" Exactly you are talking about things that may/may not complement what is natural. Notice that the word "complement". They were not there naturally. Again stay on topic. "Unless of course, it's discovered that a dictatorship is detrimental to the human condition..." Please show evidence to support your claims... That the human race is doomed under one overlord... "Societies are structured to accommodate our nature. That's how quality of life is improved." Yep except again, you are going of topic. This isn't about what is moral/ethical/etc. it is about what is anatomically correct. Rape is anatomically correct, marriage isn't. You can change the subject all you want but you can't prove otherwise.

Demanufactur3
Demanufactur3

Ryouga001. Have you truly got nothing better to do? Is your life that empty? And completely unrelated to the above statement. Mass effect 2 is gaining popularity again... how nice :) Also, after having finished the game and prepping myself for play through nr.2. There's 2 gay characters on board of your ship, a gay man and a gay woman, both of which you can tell to buzz off in 1 speech option. So the whole issues is blown out of proportions. Also, no sexy rumpus with miranda *Anger*. so imma dump her this play through and hook up with ashley... or go blue. Not sure on that one yet. That would potentially lead to light blue babies with head spikes... and good cheek bones...

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

"How is it not in our nature to kill people? Please demonstrate anatomically how this is incorrect." Because the human body ceases to function...It's really self-explanatory. "No it isn't. It's crafted to increase the quality of life" That's a faux distinction. They're one in the same. "Also it still isn't a scientific process and anatomically incorrect." It houses a scientific process. It creates a stable venue for a reproductive lifestyle. "Exactly, if nature intended for women to be able to defend against men's advances they would be as strong as men." That's ridiculous. You'd first have to assume that the nature of animals was to rape each other. Something you really can't prove. It just seems to trail back to your original idea that simply because something could be done, that it's not detrimental to do it. "There is no etiquette in nature. Theses acts come about from popular culture. As you can see different cultures approach women differently." ...What does that have to do with anything?

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

@Jtg473 "How did they have a family unit when they were separated from their families and women had children from multiple partners?" But they weren't actually separated from their family. I'm not sure what kind of mental image you're keeping, but not all slaves were kept in stables or restricted from having families. Most became slaves because they needed to support their families. "Societies didn't but the human race did.... Do not confuse the two." Society is the entire point behind the discussion. If society breaks down and there's only a fraction of the original population left, then whatever policy that was enforced obviously didn't mesh with the natural habits of humanity. "No we can survive as a human race if I was some overlord ruling all." Unless of course, it's discovered that a dictatorship is detrimental to the human condition... "Exactly societies increase the quality of life... Nature has nothing to do with this." Societies are structured to accommodate our nature. That's how quality of life is improved.

Jtg473
Jtg473

@Ryouga001 "It's crafted specifically for the allowance of breeding in a stable environment. If anything, it endorses our nature as creatures that breed." No it isn't. It's crafted to increase the quality of life... Also it still isn't a scientific process and anatomically incorrect. There is no disputing that. Therefore according to your logic it is wrong. "That makes absolutely no sense whatsover. Difference in physical structures between the sexes is dictated by chemicals." Exactly, if nature intended for women to be able to defend against men's advances they would be as strong as men. "Not a natural law of etiquette with regards to conduct in the process of sex. You're attempt to spin my words fails again. " There is no etiquette in nature. Theses acts come about from popular culture. As you can see different cultures approach women differently.

Jtg473
Jtg473

@Ryouga001 "Even slaves maintained the family unit." How did they have a family unit when they were separated from their families and women had children from multiple partners? "And they didn't really last. They were unstable" Societies didn't but the human race did.... Do not confuse the two. "Stability is established for the sake of surviving." No we can survive as a human race if I was some overlord ruling all. "That's exactly why the general aim of societies is to increase the quality of life." Exactly societies increase the quality of life... Nature has nothing to do with this. "You can't establish a negative using a negative. Nice try though. The burden of proof is on you to establish that life is intuitively drawn to death." That was a typo I meant to to say: How is it not in our nature to kill people? Please demonstrate anatomically how this is incorrect.

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

@Jtg473 "Slavery existed during roman times/in America/etc. " Which does nothing to address the point. There is a wide birth between chattel slavery and other forms of slavery. Even slaves maintained the family unit. "Yes you can. There were many unstable societies that reproduced." And they didn't really last. They were unstable. Their attempt at extra-marital expansion failed. "Stable is not the same as survival." Uh, yeah it is. Stability is established for the sake of surviving. That's exactly why the general aim of societies is to increase the quality of life. "Anatomically speaking how is it not in our nature to not kill people?" You can't establish a negative using a negative. Nice try though. The burden of proof is on you to establish that life is intuitively drawn to death. "It is not a scientific process and it goes against our nature." It's crafted specifically for the allowance of breeding in a stable environment. If anything, it endorses our nature as creatures that breed. "Anatomically if we weren't meant to rape we wouldn't be made stronger than women and we wouldn't get sexually excited so quickly." ....That makes absolutely no sense whatsover. Difference in physical structures between the sexes is dictated by chemicals. Not a natural law of etiquette with regards to conduct in the process of sex. You're attempt to spin my words fails again.

Jtg473
Jtg473

@Ryouga001 "Marriage is a civil construct designed to aid our reproductive nature." It is not a scientific process and it goes against our nature. Anatomically it will always be incorrect. We aren't arguing what's best for society. We are arguing what's anatomically correct. "Rape is an example of a lack of moderation when trying to exact the sexual process. Not an instinct." Wrong. Anatomically if we weren't meant to rape we wouldn't be made stronger than women and we wouldn't get sexually excited so quickly. Also if you are ignoring your instincts you are going against what is anatomically correct. There should be no moderation.

Jtg473
Jtg473

@Ryouga001 "The nature of chattel slavery is not the same as sexual slavery." Slavery existed during roman times/in America/etc. Slaves were sexual slaves as well as workers. So a family doesn't have to be Man/Wife according to you? Masters had children to many slaves as well to their wives. So you agree with me than Marriage slows down reproduction. "It stabilizes procreation. You can't continue reproducing with an unstable society." Yes you can. There were many unstable societies that reproduced. Also animals do it. Anatomically speaking marriage is incorrect. "Actually we haven't. Societies that didn't employ the family unit have been less than stable." Stable is not the same as survival. Nature doesn't care about morality,stability,etc. Scientifically speaking we reproduce for our species to survive. We have government, laws, etc. to keep our society moral and stable. Those are things we made not nature. In fact the reason we need these rules is because we need to control our nature. "Uh. Actually it does; we live, and therefore we go on living UNTIL we die. That is the nature of life." Anatomically speaking how is it not in our nature to kill people?

Ryouga001
Ryouga001

@Jtg473 "Have you never heard of slavery?" The nature of chattel slavery is not the same as sexual slavery. Even slaves kept their own families 200 years ago. "Thanks for ignoring the question... Marraige slows down reproduction. Doesn't matter about society. Anatomically speaking it is incorrect." It stabilizes procreation. You can't continue reproducing with an unstable society. "We have survived fine without the family unit in the past." Actually we haven't. Societies that didn't employ the family unit have been less than stable. "That doesn't mean we aren't meant to be killed off..." Uh. Actually it does; we live, and therefore we go on living UNTIL we die. That is the nature of life. "So your basis that Homosexuality is wrong because it is not in our nature... The same could be said of Marraige. Raping is in our nature. Therefore to your logic it is right." Marriage is a civil construct designed to aid our reproductive nature. Rape is an example of a lack of moderation when trying to exact the sexual process. Not an instinct.

Kickable
Kickable

@nohomo777you're likely discriminated against because you're angry and obnoxious, not humping your dog.