Star Wars: The Old Republic denounced for gay relationships

Family Research Council says BioWare has "gone to the dark side" with promise to include same-gender romance in MMO game.

BioWare hasn't shied away from same-sex relationships in its role-playing games in the past, having previously factored homosexuality into its Dragon Age and Mass Effect franchises. In September, BioWare confirmed that this stance would extend to Star Wars: The Old Republic as well, and it's a decision the Family Research Council is just now taking issue with.

What's next, inter-species love?

In a statement posted to Family Research Council's official website, organization president Tony Perkins condemn BioWare's intention to include homosexuality in SW:TOR.

"In a galaxy not so far far away, Star Wars gamers have already gone to the dark side," Perkins wrote. "The new video game, Star Wars: The Old Republic, has added a special feature: gay relationships. BioWare, the company that developed the game, said it's launching a same-sex romance component to satisfy some complaints."

Perkins' assessment of the matter isn't quite accurate. According to BioWare's official announcement in September, which was repeated in a recent forum post, the company intends to implement same-gender romance options at an unspecified future date. The company said that it did not include these options initially due to "design constraints of a fully voiced MMO of this scale and size."

"Because The Old Republic is an MMO, the game will live on through content expansions which allow us to include content and features that could not be included at launch, including the addition of more companion characters who will have additional romance options," the statement reads.

The Family Research Council is a conservative lobbying organization based in Washington, DC. It was formed in 1983 by evangelical Christian leader James Dobson.

EA had not responded to a request for comment as of press time.

Written By

Want the latest news about Star Wars: The Old Republic?

Star Wars: The Old Republic

Star Wars: The Old Republic

Follow

Discussion

582 comments
scionboy
scionboy

Well the only thing I am gonna say I have a boyfriend  in mass effect 3 and I love it :-)

Zannah_Bane
Zannah_Bane

it is completely unfair to us girls who like this game, especially sense I'm much more into girls... I mean, guys are just irritating (no offence, you make great friends)

LordMacKarl
LordMacKarl

I just had the idea that would solve the whole situation: You start out the game and you decide if you want to be heterossexual, homossexual, or bissexual. Then, as you progress the game you will face decisons that can affect your sexual orientation, determined by a bar, just like your light or dark meter.  

dachande86
dachande86

Can't blame peeps for not reading the enormous amount of comments. If you got the time, you must have a whole lotta nothin' goin' on. But, I'm glad we both agree and I'm now on the same page. I still think people are thumbs downing just because... I do it if someone makes a rude or invalid comment. If there's fact, even if I don't like it, that doesn't make it worthy of a thumbs down. Not in my book anyway.

sircyrus
sircyrus

@dachande86 I agree. That's exactly what I was suggesting in my earlier comment.

dachande86
dachande86

Very well, then if they add a "toggle" option, it needs to go both ways. If you're playing a guy and toggle it on, it needs to disable to [Flirt] option when talking to females, etc. Only to make it fair.

sircyrus
sircyrus

@dachande86 If you read through the 12 pages of comments, it was the option showing up on the dialogue wheel that was bothering players opposed to it. Also, right now if you're a male character talking to a male NPC (or female with female NPC), you will get 3 dialogue choices. It was usually to be nice, to joke, or to be a jerk. Once the gay [Flirt] options are in, players will have only 2 choices. That's one instance where a character orientation or toggle would be useful - to ensure the player gets the full 3 choices.

dachande86
dachande86

Marked down cuz you don't like how right I am? So be it. Fact is fact. Hate it all you want.

dachande86
dachande86

There will not be a toggle. Don't [Flirt] with Quinn, Revel, or whatever male companion you have and it won't be an issue. Also, you don't get to the making out or other such intimacies right off the bat, they progress to that. So, you have to TRY to have a same-sex relationship for you to run into one. You have only yourself to blame if it comes to that.

sircyrus
sircyrus

@steveguttenberg That quote was the one I was talking about when I said it wasn't sarcasm, but honest bewilderment. Anyway, with it being a BioWare game, I would assume such an option would be set to enabled by default. The wording of the option would not need to be "enable/disable homosexuality". It could be something like a character sexual orientation toggle, like the one that could appear at character creation, but able to be switched at any time. For example, "Character orientation: Straight/Gay/All/None". There'd be no reason for them to specifically single out one orientation in an option like that. If they leave it up to the player, with "all" on by default, and no orientation singled out, than there shouldn't be any cause for anyone to be uneasy. I think the character creation option would be easier for them to implement though. A toggle runs the risk of "breaking" dialogue choices if the player turns off the options and misses access to choices they wanted to choose. Having the option right at the start would be much cleaner.

steveguttenberg
steveguttenberg

@sircyrus When you tell me it's none of my concern, you might not realize it, but it reads to me as dismissive and condescending. And it should be our concern if we have reason to believe someone is being mistreated. It shouldn't only concern us when directly aimed at us. I should stand up against unfair treatment of you, me, and everyone else. It's in everyone's best interest. Even the mistreaters benefit from a world in which we seek to eliminate the mistreatment of others. Now let me stop simply asking for sunshine and friendliness, and offer it myself... Yep, we agreed that casually picking a character's sexual orientation at character creation would make sure only relevant sex options appear onscreen. Agreed there. The only thing I objected to was you adding that you didn't see the difference between that and an options screen item amounting to "enable/disable homosexuality." Do you agree that making a gay player go to the options screen just to get the same experience you and I have from the beginning could make the gay player feel unwelcome? Even set to "enabled," by default should make them uneasy, I'd say.

steveguttenberg
steveguttenberg

@sircyrus Linkoot88 made gestural concessions to be more accessible and diplomatic to you, to ensure you'd be responsive. To count that as a point scored for your side is to exploit that person's good nature, and it's counterproductive anyway. You waved away and ignored a lot of Linkoot88's writing. But just go back and read what your wrote. For just one example: "Representation of homosexuals marginalized in media? You have got to be kidding." This was received as mocking, sarcastic, etc. Maybe you hastily wrote it, weren't thinking about it, or you truly don't see the harm. All I'm asking is that you acknowledge that your words were received that way regardless of intention, and resolve to be friendlier. That gets you the same in return from almost everyone.

sircyrus
sircyrus

@steveguttenberg That wasn't sarcasm at all, that was honest bewilderment at what he had said. But linkroot88's and my conversation isn't your concern, nor is there any need for any apologies. We had a civil back-and-forth, and in fact We had actually seemed to find some middle ground at the point I mentioned in that comment, but that middle ground was lost when things went off track debating the race/sexuality analogy.

steveguttenberg
steveguttenberg

@sircyrus You spend the entire time talking down to everyone who disagrees with you like you're their stern father figure, so it appears more than a little bit manipulative and disingenuous that you "seek a mature, adult discussion." But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and treat that request as sincere. And here's my counter-offer. Linkoot98 was actually nice to you, and you met his/her diplomacy with sarcasm. That's the behavior of a bully, not a mature adult. But if you apologize to linkoot98, in earnest, for your dismissive, condescending attitude, we can have a non-hostile conversation about whatever you like; I'll go out of my way to be friendly even.

steveguttenberg
steveguttenberg

@sircyrus Again, I have to ask, who do you think you're fooling here?

sircyrus
sircyrus

@steveguttenberg I don't think you understand what a persecution complex is. Requesting that a discussion be civil, when one side is making constant insults and inflammatory statements, is not indicative of a persecution complex. That is called seeking a mature, adult discussion. If you wish to have one, you could start by responding with something relevant to any of the points I made in my last 2 comments, as last two comments contributed nothing but more attempts to turn this into an argument.

steveguttenberg
steveguttenberg

@sircyrus Pretty funny that the guy who can't communicate without oozing catty condescension should complain about suffering the same. But such is the persecution complex.

steveguttenberg
steveguttenberg

@sircyrus Hey, as long as you agree with yourself, that's all that maters, right?

sircyrus
sircyrus

@steveguttenberg Also, I should remind you that the toggle was only one method we've discussed. I'd also suggested having the player able to decide whether or not to recruit new companions, which would have the gay romances. You even stated that latter method would be fine with you. Since then, you seem to have completely reversed your position.

sircyrus
sircyrus

@steveguttenberg That's now the third time you've referred to relationships as political actions, something we already discussed long ago. For someone who makes remarks about others' reading comprehension, you're sure not setting a very good example. After your two latest comments I seriously don't believe you know how to have a discussion at all. Virtually every comment you have made has contained petty jabs and snide remarks, or inflammatory statements that you know are not true but you say anyway to try to get a reaction. I could throw out insults as well, I could call you names as you've done repeatedly. But I'm not doing that. You know why? Because I don't need to stoop to such a level. My position is the right one, and therefore I don't need to resort to schoolyard tactics. This is a subject that opinion is split on in every single one of the countries the game has been released in. It is not "my hangup". It is a divided view everywhere. With public opinion so divided, they need to give players the choice of it showing up or not. Doing so does not deprive anyone of access to that content, should they desire it. You can't seem to handle that though. Instead, you are behaving exactly like the player in my quote above.

steveguttenberg
steveguttenberg

@sicyrus The point is that if we make special changes to the game to accomodate your hangups about having your screen filled with the option to engage in what you consider distasteful political actions, that opens the door to other groups who dislike having their screens filled with things they believe are distasteful actions. Oh, and did you just compare what you consider unfairness against you in an argument with the discrimination, harassment, and violence against persecuted minority groups? You cast yourself a victim as soon as you got here. A game receives an update to equalize conditions for all players, and you, deluded, entitled narcissist that you are, think that update infringes on your right to play a game without seeing an option to "flirt" with characters of your own gender. You feel you're owed "an opt out," a specially made option to "toggle" it. It takes a certain kind of bully to, when pulled off his victims, declares the intervening party just as much a bully as he--and to think this such a clever feat that he punctuates it with a smiley face. No, it's not "rather hypocritical on [my] part." To call it that is clumsy sophism on yours, and it further highlights your persecution complex.

steveguttenberg
steveguttenberg

@sircyrus First, I apologize for leading you to believe I meant that I literally asked "do you consider dating 'a public action'?" I'm sorry for overestimating your reading comprehension. It was an honest mistake. Let me clarify. In my earlier example, I compared the people who don't like so-called inter-racial dating with people who don't like same-sex dating. To clarify, the people being compared are the dislikers, not the disliked. To further clarify, it's not racists versus homophobes, it's people against the action of inter-racial dating versus people against the action of same-sex dating. So, do you think it's possible for a, let's say, Polish person to abstain from dating a Spanish person in the same way that it's possible for a woman to avoid dating a woman? (Note that the "races" I've chosen for this example are arbitrary, and should be taken to represent any given "race"). Usually you take this opportunity to derail things by pretending I compared race and sexuality, and to pretend to be offended by such a comparison. I felt it would have been irresponsible of me to let that go. But my having responded to your red herring doesn't change that the previous example does not compare race and sexuality. It compares the people who are offended by nonviolent actions.

dachande86
dachande86

I forgot all about this little discussion. Regardless of the off-topic tangets that are going on and more on the main topic, SGRAs won't affect anyone not interested in pursuing them. Any anti-gay arguments are irrelevant in a game that allows choice and variety. What I find the most ironic about the conservatives lobbying against SGRA implementation is, they are against mainly the sex. I don't see them throwing a fit about games like GTA. Violence does more harm (derr) than homosexuality, yet they are fighting it like it were a pandemic.

sircyrus
sircyrus

@steveguttenberg How exactly am I "still dodging" a question that has never been asked? Solve that mystery, and I'll be glad to "finally" answer your latest attempt to prolong this ridiculous argument. And no, using a not-equal-to sign does not mean you said the two are equal. I had even specifically said you "indicated" that view in a previous comment, not said. However you've once again ignored what I said, nothing new there. At the time I used =/=, you had used the race example multiple times when discussing the sexuality scenario. I had responded with several comments in which I rejected that the two situations are comparable, because they have differing circumstances. You debated every single one of those comments. So are you suggesting that I should have come away from that thinking you were in agreement with me on the subject? And as for your "lamenting your own victimization" comment, show me where I "lamented" my own victimization. You can't, because the only time I ever brought it up was to make a point directly related to the discussion. However it's a rather hypocritical statement on your part, given your previous comment about being offended at a perceived attempt to minimize the suffering others :)

steveguttenberg
steveguttenberg

@sircyrus The question you're still dodging is, do you consider dating "a public action"? It's a tough one for your position, so I understand if you'd rather derail the whole discussion or continue lamenting your own victimhood.

steveguttenberg
steveguttenberg

@sircyrus When you use the makeshift not-equal-to sign like you did, you are, yes, implying that I said the two are equal. I'm not sure you understand the point of an analogy, though. The point is not to show that two things are exactly the same. The point is to show that the two are alike in some way. Whether a gay guy can can take off his wedding ring and treat his husband like his best pal at the supermarket is irrelevant. When he hears "homosexuality is icky and wrong," it hurts just as "It's wrong for Race X to marry Race Y" does. That both groups face harassment for something about them that doesn't hurt anyone is a significant similarity.

sircyrus
sircyrus

@steveguttenberg False statement in the form of a question: That is presenting the two scenarios as being equal comparisons, which indicates you view the situations as being the same. . Not race = sexual orientation. The situations they face. And once again you seem to have felt the need to end your comment in an attempting to twist what I've said to try to invalidate my statements, and ignored what I've said. Just like you did 10 days ago with a very similar statement.

steveguttenberg
steveguttenberg

@sircyrus You're still pretending to think I said "race equals sexual orientation." You know that I didn't. We're the only ones here--who do you think you're fooling? False statements in the form of a question? You're getting increasingly absurd and incoherent. Now you're just seeing how many angry things you can string together. You've forgotten your reason for being here in the first place: to cast yourself as the victim of Equal Rights Fascists infringing on your right to play video games without politics (a.k.a. gay people).

sircyrus
sircyrus

@steveguttenberg I've explained the point multiple times for you now, you just seem incapable of grasping it. Or perhaps you simply refuse to grasp it, since you had already indicated you disagree with it almost a week ago. I will walk you through this a final time. A person is born a certain race. That race faces discrimination. That person then faces discrimination simply for being born to parents of a certain race. It does not matter what they do, they will always face that discrimination simply because of how they look. vs A person is born. As they get older and enter into puberty, they begin to experience homosexual attractions. They realize they are gay Should they choose to act upon those attractions in public, there will be people who take issue with that. This is why the two scenarios are not comparable. Being born vs taking a public action. That is what the point is, that they are not comparable. That is what has been explained numerous times to you since we began discussing this almost a week ago. Back on the 17th I had said: And that is still the only way this will ever end. You can try to tack on more to what is being said, you can twist what I have said to try to invalidate my statements, and you can present false statements in the form of a question (like in your last comment), but none of these things do anything to make you any more correct.

steveguttenberg
steveguttenberg

@sircyrus No, turns out paraphrasing yourself hasn't made you seem less indifferent. I'm still getting "Who's to say what's right or wrong!" The implication of that irresponsible statement is that it matters what people think when it comes to civil rights. Then you said, "The point I was making...was...that they can hide." Gotcha. And the point of saying they can hide is...? Were you saying it for the sake of saying it? I'm begining to think that not only do you not understand your own argument, but you don't understand the act of arguing itself. I'll help you. Fill in the blanks. Gay people can hide their sexual orientation sometimes, unlike people of certain ethnicities, therefore _______." What point do you intend to make? That gay people should shut up because Asians have it worse? I don't know. And I don't think you know either.

sircyrus
sircyrus

@steveguttenberg You've quoted that statement a couple times now, but that you refer to it as an indifferent statement shows that you still haven't understood what it meant. There is no correct stance to take on homosexuality right now. Taking the stance that 1+1=2 would be correct, because it can be proven. In terms of homosexuality, there is nothing right now but public opinion. There is no shared view on it held by everyone. Some believe it is natural and perfectly fine, others feel differently. No one can say who is wrong because (as I said in the rest of my quote that you left out) even science is inconclusive on it. In regards to the mannerisms, you're the one who brought them up, not me. I merely pointed out that not all gay men display the stereotypical mannerisms, since your post suggested that they did. And I never said that hide. That it is an option available to them that is not available to those discriminated against for appearance, which is why the two situations are not comparable. If you're going to read things that I never typed, and then ignore replies explaining what something you misinterpreted meant, then there really isn't any point for me to be a part of our discussion. The entire discussion would just be you responding to your own incorrect interpretations.

steveguttenberg
steveguttenberg

@sircyrus It was of course my point that you "don't give a rat's behind." Indifferent statements like "no one can say who is wrong. Public opinion is still split. There is no universal correct opinion to take" make that shriekingly clear. That you're now worried about whether certain mannerisms are typical of all or some shows how well you don't care about/know your own argument. You gallop from one irrelevant detail to another, regardless of whether it supports your argument; you're saying things you think will earn you points. You discuss the rights of people who aren't you with irresponsible laziness. Take responsibility for your words. If you don't mean "if I judge that a group can hide, therefore it should," stop saying things that imply that conclusion.

sircyrus
sircyrus

@steveguttenberg Shame on me nothing. We were discussing two different scenarios. -In one, the person has done nothing but been born with parents of a certain race. -In the other, the person has actively and publicly made the decision to pursue someone of the same sex. You made the claim that these two groups are comparable because there are individuals out there who are offended by both/either group. I explained why they are comparable, because of the differing circumstances, and why I find that comparison insulting. I really don't give a rats' behind if you're offended by that, because you being offended will do nothing to eliminate the discrimination people of differing races experience the moment they walk into a room. Should people be beaten over their choices? Absolutely not. But neither should they expect people to accept and embrace those decisions they make. As for the bit you mentioned about "talking like a girl", according to most of the gay men I've spoken with and asked them about it, they claimed most (not all) are putting it on. However, you should realize there are plenty of gay men who speak (and move) totally normal, without any of the stereotypical traits. For these individuals, it is absolutely possible for them to go unnoticed if they have the desire to do so. That is not an option for people of different races, which is the huge point I was making that you missed/ignored.

nurse_tsunami
nurse_tsunami

I will renew my subscription once this makes the game.

steveguttenberg
steveguttenberg

@sircyrus Don't insult me by pretending you think I said "race equals sexual orientation." I compared people who dislike things which they consider naughty behavior. I compared people who think it's wrong for, say, Italians to date the Irish, with people who think it's wrong for women to date women. You're offended? I'm offended that you claim membership in one group in order to minimize the suffering of another. Really, try that line about hiding on the femme gay man who got beaten half to death because some people thought he was "talking like a girl". Would you advise him to use a different voice next time? Tell him if he stopped talking that way, he'd be okay? How dare you put gay people's suffering in their own hands. How dare you use one group's discrimination as a tool to minimize another's. We should treat all people with compassion instead of quibbling over who suffers more. And I'm really offended that the line that you "faced a lifetime of discrimination" comes after the coldly casual, "no one can say who is wrong. Public opinion is still split. There is no universal correct opinion to take." What a horrible thought that "public opinion" should inform how we treat others, that equality should be put to a vote. I'm offended that you can treat one group with apathetic moral relativism and then condescend to feign offense when it suits you. Shame on you.

linkoot98
linkoot98

@sircyrus cont'd (often straight people write the scripts and have final say in approving what makes final cut and often, even straight people play the parts). And there is overwhelming research in illusory correlation with queer people, so I would recommend looking it up before writing it off, it could provide some insight for you. Lastly, I would like to agree with you in distinguishing between queer oppression and racial oppression - these are two VERY different things with different histories: One identity is typically quite visible, whereas another is typically more invisible, thus there's agency in "coming out." And I think racial oppression is something typically very undermined in society today - I mean even look at racial representation in our video games - it's very interesting/depressing in my opinion. But I think as someone who wants to end prejudice on all fronts, it's important to acknowledge both people of color and queer people experience disproportionate oppression in our society. I could imagine I come off as snobby or crude in my comments, but I would recommend looking into an amazing article that speaks to this: it's Audre Lorde's "There is No Hierarchy of Oppressions." it's a powerful reading.

linkoot98
linkoot98

@sircyrus First, thanks for the reply - it didn't feel as attacking as the previous one. I can understand how you feel that this is a change in the way that the Star Wars universe is being represented, but personally, I think it's for the better, and apparently we just have a disagreement there. I think finally having queer representation in Star Wars cannon is something to be proud of, and I think in about 15-20 years, arguments against that will be seen as prejudiced, regardless of the "objectivity" against them (not to say you are totally against it, but your apparent hesitation to add queer people to the cannon implies some form of resistance, from my perspective). Second, the percentages you use on sexuality, though valid in some regards, have varied dramatically over time as "homosexuality" is a term that has changed throughout history. But that doesn't mean that only 4% of shows should have queer people in them - this would imply that 4% of communities would have queer people in them, when in reality, close to 100% of communities (and this can vary due to situational factors like religious fundamentalism) have queer people in them, even if it's only 4% of the people in that community (this might seem unclear, I hope the wording makes sense). I would instead, 1) think about it as to how many straight people are on tv, opposed to queer people (instead of thinking about percentages of shows that have queer people in it) and 2) think about who is representing them

sircyrus
sircyrus

@steveguttenberg I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the matter of race =/= sexuality. Race is something that is there from day 1 of your life. It not something that requires any action on someone's part, they simply are of a certain race based upon their parents/ancestry. No matter what someone does, if their race faces discrimination they can never escape that. They can't hide it, conceal it, or pretend to be someone they aren't. Sexuality is not something that is there from day 1. It does not develop until years into someone's life, and it requires active participation on the individual's behalf. It only becomes public knowledge when a person makes it public. I simply can't treat the two scenarios as equal comparisons. As someone who has faced a lifetime of discrimination solely due to the appearance I inherited, I actually find the comparison offensive.

sircyrus
sircyrus

@linkoot98 What Goerge Lucas privately supports (or what LucasArts employees support) isn't relevant if that support doesn't extend into the products, since the products are what we're discussing. We're talking about the business side of things, not their personal views. The games LucasArts has developed do not contain homosexual content. In the previous 2 KOTOR games, the furthest they went was to imply a character was gay but it was never specified, and the implied relationships were not explored at all. To include gay romances in SWTOR, that's going to be 16 gay characters with fully fledged romances (1 per class = 8, x2 for both genders). Not only is that is a shift from Star Wars' history of never exploring the subject, but it's also a very high number of characters that will become canonized. Many fans will have followed the Star Wars franchise for 35 years, and this will be the first time they will have encountered homosexuality in it. As for gay individuals are represented in the media, I would very much like to see the data you're talking about. I have a very, hard time believing that the "novelty of queer people" makes it seem as though they are not over-represented in the media. If they make up ~4% of the population in the USA, one could expect a representation in 4% of the media. There is absolutely no way 96% of movies and television shows have no gay characters.

linkoot98
linkoot98

@sircyrus I first would like to ask you to not devalue my experience with sarcasm. I would also like to challenge you to think more critically about what you consider representation in the media. When queer people are represented in the media, it is usually very dramatized and draws from many stereotypes other people hold of queer identifying people. There is a lot of research being done on representation in the media of marginalized groups much of it at the University of Michigan, where I attend/teach and take part in a research process. Data is both staggering and disproportionate in terms of how relationships are represented in the media - and oddly enough, research shows that when people DO see a queer person or couple in the media, it's so novel, that it is more memorable than the thousands of straight people they see in between. This has an empirically validated term called the Illusory Correlation. I would argue that the novelty of queer people and many individual's homophobia make it seem like queer people are *vastly* overrepresented. Data would tell you otherwise. And I would also challenge you to think about how you form your arguments, they don't seem to have much validity behind them - George Lucas has not been shy to talk about gay issues and spoke out against Prop 8 in California. People in LucasArts have also taken part in the Trevor Project's "It Get's Better" campaign, aimed at helping queer bullied children get through adolescence.

steveguttenberg
steveguttenberg

It would "differ from a toggle in the options" for the reason I gave. I probably wasn't clear enough, though. Visualize the two. "Choose sexual orientation," versus "enable/disable homosexuality." The second one singles out homosexuality. I think that's the best illustration I can manage. Tell me if that helps. Analogy with anti-miscegenation isn't disqualified by saying "it is not comparable at all," or by naming someone who agrees with you. It's a valid comparison. Both groups are offended at what they perceive as immoral behavior. One group doesn't want to see the option to flirt with the same sex. Another group doesn't want to see the option to flirt with a different race. It doesn't matter whether it was there from the beginning, or it was added. The update was to allow gay people to participate in something you and I had from the beginning. It was a necessary update to correct an inequal experience for players of other sexualities.

sircyrus
sircyrus

@steveguttenberg That solution would be perfectly fine in my eyes. Though to be honest I don't really see how it would differ from a toggle in the options. As for modifying a game, I would be in agreement with you if not for the fact that SWTOR released without this content. If it was built into the game already than players wouldn't have any grounds for complaining. They would have bought the game knowing what they're getting into. But with this being added in release, something controversial like this should have some form of an opt out. Whether it be at the character screen, in the options, or through optional companions, there does need to be some way. Discussings of "race mixing" really don't have a place here though. I know a lot of people like to use the race argument for comparison when discussing homosexuality, but it is not comparable at all. HollowNinja touched on that in his most recent comment.

steveguttenberg
steveguttenberg

@sircyrus, For now I'll limit my response to the part that you said baffles you. I'm all for free thought and I think you should be able to modify your own private game however you want. But that modification should be your reponsibility, not the game maker's. We're not making programmers accomodate anti-miscegenationists, even though doing so wouldn't impact your game or mine. What do we care if the game lets those people "toggle race mixing"? The offensive part comes in seeing an option which amounts to "turn off gay content." It implies that homosexuality is a dangerous or offensive thing to be switched on or off, like cursing, or red blood in Mortal Kombat. I have no interest in playing a gay or female character (though sometimes my wife does both), but I'd be offended to have a button buried in an options menu to enable/disable playing as one. But I may be paying too close attention to your tone and wording to see that all of us could be pleased here. Maybe the solution is to ask players for orientation at the character creation screen. Check "straight" to see only flirty options for the opposite sex, gay for same-sex, etc. That way people only see what they're attracted to. That'd do it for me, what about you?

townsforever
townsforever

@ADDADAC I can explain all of those if you really want me too but those are all old testament rules which became void with Christ's death however Homosexuality is still a sin. It was in the old testament and it was declared one again in the new testament.

sircyrus
sircyrus

@linkoot98 Representation of homosexuals marginalized in media? You have got to be kidding. These days you will be hardpressed to find a TV show or movie that doesn't have at least one gay character. For the percentage of the population that identifies themselves as gay they are over-represented in media. And while BioWare has included gay content in most of it's games over the past 10 years or so, this isn't their IP. LucasArts is the one that calls the shots. LucasArts does not share BioWare's history when it comes to including gay content in their games. They tend to prefer to avoid controversy.

linkoot98
linkoot98

@HollowNinja I was just hoping that you could see the similarities in the way systems of oppression are perpetuated. Many of the same tactics to spread misinformation and hatred about Muslims are used against queer people in this country. Do you not see similarities in who holds power and how they are willing to maintain it? And I would argue the idea of having a toggle is not an "objective" view on this situation it's the idea that queer representation is forced to be marginalized again in media (just as women, people of color, and Muslims, amongst others, are in this country). Another thing to keep in mind is that Bioware has been committed to having queer representation in their games not just because they are allies and advocates for queer issues, but many of the men and women on staff ARE queer identifying (LGBT), so by buying this game, you are supporting those people. I don't think it's possible to put a toggle on this. As a social justice educator, I recommend reading on the "Cycle of Socialization" I think it speaks to a lot of what you're talking to. I really hope this message finds you well, @HollowNinja

sircyrus
sircyrus

Just to add another point, it doesn't necessarily have to be a toggle on/off. All players would need is some way to opt out of it. If they add in the gay relationships through new companion characters, they could simply make it optional whether to recruit those companions or not. That way the player gets to decide.

HollowNinja
HollowNinja

@linkoot98 I am well aware of that. However, just because the FRC likes to spout Islamophobic propaganda doesn't mean that every single thing they say is evil. At no point did I ever put my support behind the FRC. I simply agree that homosexuality is wrong. I don't even agree with their methods or their actions; I'm not aligning myself with them. I just agree with them on a single moral axis. @Fernin-Ker You mentioned that no one could possibly want to expose themselves as gay in a society that doesn't approve of them. Well then, why do we have pedophiles? Our society hates them too, and for good reason. Why could anyone possibly want to expose themself as a pedophile? What you must understand is that by supporting homosexuality, you are not "in the right". By opposing the idea of a toggle button, you fail to see things logically and from an objective viewpoint. The fact is, homosexuality is not an issue that everyone agrees on. It's not similar to an issue of race, because homosexuality is an action, not a state of being. It is an action that a lot of intelligent, good people have moral objections to, an action that a lot of people don't want their children exposed to.

Leejjohno
Leejjohno

 @LordMacKarl lol i think that kind of pigeonholing would defeat the purpose of the options.

Zannah_Bane
Zannah_Bane

 @LordMacKarl that is FANTASTIC... im a lez now, and it pisses me off thaft i cant even FLIRT with Vette.... >.> ...

Leejjohno
Leejjohno

I think you may need to do a little bit of research and come up with reasons and examples a little better than that dude.