Gay EU Characters

What was the topic again? Or perhaps this conversation would be better suited to the Senate.

 

Not that they need any help, but then again, social pressure doesn't account for any significant increase in pre-existing psychological problems.

Deny, deny, deny. Please come back when you're willing to argue, rather than insult my beliefs as "disgusting".

 

So you think that people who are attracted to other people of the same sex are somehow mentally afflicted and should be treated as subhumans?

 

Gay characters in the EU? I seem to recall that there's a character in one of the Marvel comics that was supposed to have been a lesbian. One of Crimson Jack's pirates, IIRC. I could be totally wrong though and it could be just another fan theory.

 

You're thinking of Jolli. I think the story was that she seemed to hate all men, but, in fact, was rather smitten by Han Solo.

 

not a disease, but rather a problematic psychological condition almost inevitably accompanied by debilitating medical and psychiatric problems.

*Winces* Eeesh. I'm not even going to pass comment on that statement...


As for my opinion on the matter...well, basically I don't really care. It wouldn't bother me, because I'm not a close-minded about such things. To me, story is the most important part of all this and if it were just thrown into the mix for no reason than I think that might bother me. But if it were a natural element imbued in an attempt to tell a good story than hell yeah, I'm all for it.

That's exactly my feeling on the matter. I would have no problem at all with homosexual characters in Star Wars books. It just wouldn't bother me, plain and simple. I might be mildly surprised at their appearance, but that would just be from not having expected it. An interesting point is raised about the political nature of inserting such characters, but as I personally wouldn't be fazed by it, that doesn't really matter to me. We can debate the appropriateness of homosexuality in Star Wars literature till the cows come home, but if we're just talking about a moral and ethical view, it quite simply doesn't bother me.


The "Juhani = lesbian" is the result of a game glitch.

Is it really? I'd always been under the impression that it was a subtle but deliberate thing. Have you read anything that actually says that it's just a bug?


we'd have all the 15-34 males saying, "That is the grossest thing, or at least I will act like it's the grossest thing otherwise people will think I'm gay."

Sigh. True. Pretty sad, isn't it?

 

Thanks! Now I'm sure it was just a fan theory. I haven't read my Marvel collection in a while. I think I'll need to go back and review a bit.

 

Im not sure about it being a glitch, because a few other Bioware games (Jade Empire, BG2) have also featured lesbian romances, so its not like theres no precedent for it.

 

It seems to me that's it's probably just a script error. The only one's you're ever meant to have a relationship with is Bastilla (if you're a guy) and Carth (if you're a woman). I don't find it unreasonable that they just missed taking out a line that would have been for the guys but not the ladies.

 

By no means.

Some people may be predisposed to to be attracted to others of the same sex, or they may not be, the debate's still raging, but that doesn't mean they have to act out these impulses to the steryotypical conclusion, any more than some people who are predisposed to violence or alcaholism are constrained to give in to impulse. What's needed is a frank acknowledgement that a problematic psychological condition exists within some individuals, and that it be treated accordingly, as a problem, not a "valid lifestyle choice".

 

*clears throat* Top of page 3, boys and girls...

It's a "Behind the Scenes" quote; at the very least, it means that fans can make their own minds up as to whether same-sex relationships are acceptable in the GFFA.

--
K'Kruhk's Hat

 

I think the most amusing thing here is that Quiet_Mandalorian is standing up for his beliefs, something I thought was encouraged in this society, and Durnar is telling him that he's wrong. This just smacks of funny little paradox. Many liberals claim that there is no right and wrong, that all views are equally valid, and there are no absolutes. However, whenever a conservative says that there is right and wrong, that not all views are equally valid, and there are absolutes, the liberals are quick to tell them they are absolutely wrong and that their view is not valid. I hope you all see the problem here. Conservatives have no such paradox in their resoning. I would like to commend Quiet_Mandalorian for supporting an unpopular viewpoint in the face of opression.

I personally cannot condone homosexuality because I am a Christian, and the Bible clearly states that homosexual activity is a sin, no more or less sinful than any other sin. Conservative Christians, contrary to popular oppinion, do not hate homosexuals, they hate homosexuality. There is a difference. I have friends who have lied to me. I still like them, but I do not like the wrong actions they have taken. I do understand that many homosexuals for reasons beyond their control are truly attracted to people of the same sex. However, to act on those feelings is a choice. I may be attracted to many of the women around me, but to act on those attractions in certain ways would be wrong. I love homosexuals; I hate homosexuality. I love liars; I hate lies. I love prostitutes; I hate prostitution. I love thieves; I hate thievery. I love the people; I hate the sins.

 

I wonder if Lucas knows about it.

 

by the same token, we need to treat people who are heterosexual, because they're predisposed toward a certain type of attraction and act out on those impulses. likewise, we need to treat people who are predisposed to irrational hatred and fear, because they act out on those impulses and spew their bigoted misinformation. Since the mere existence of gay people having relationships in this world seems to bother you, it appears to be your problem, not theirs.

 

However, said impulses are deeply implanted in the human psyche for the useful purpose of reproduction and the continuation of the human race, rather than simply existing as a source of self-destructive physical gratification.

If I find any of them, rest assured that I'll be the first one to point them out to you.

 

See, I have a problem with people using the bible as an excuse for bigotry, Joser. I realize the book is very important to many people, but I find it hard to believe that any thinking individual can say that every line of it is truth with a straight face. Or do you believe the Big Bang happened 1500 years after the Babylonians and Sumarians started brewing beer?

 

Nowhere in the bible does it say the earth is only 1,500 years old nor is there anything to indicate that the six creative days are to be taken as literal days but periods of time, like you would say back in your grandfather's "day". That being said, I don't think this is the place to discuss the validity of the bible.

 

How do you know that the homosexual predisposition does not serve an evolutionary purpose that may be useful for the overall continuation of the human race? Not every individual needs to reproduce to continue the species. In situations of scarce resources or overpopulation, it may be beneficial to have some who do not reproduce but still contibute their labor for the community.

 

This is going to turn into a flamewar over religion very, very soon...

 

All I can say is that I won't attack anyone's beliefs and I won't attack the theory of evolution. But if anyone attacks the bible, I'll defend it. But I won't attack in response like others have been doing.

 

Amen. These so called "tolerant" people are intolerent of what they perceive as "intolerence."

 

I was not using the Bible to excuse bigotry. Bigotry involves hating a group of people. As I explained, I do not hate homosexuals, I hate homosexuality. There is a distinct diference between accepting people and accepting their actions. I would n discriminate against homosexuals, however, that does not mean I have to approve of their lifestyle. You obviously misunderstood my statement.

 

That is, of course, to disregard the very real possibility that these theoretical homosexual members of a hunter/gatherer or farming tribe would quite likely create an unwanted amount of friction within the group, possibly resulting in internecine fighting and/or a rupture of the precairious stability neccessary to preserving the social unit in such primitive conditions.

 

I think we all need to take a lesson from a certain X-wing pilot and make sure we...

"Stay on target..."

Of course, that's a quote from Gold Five. And there might be some gay people who like the color gold, or whose favorite number is five, and soon there'll be a whole psychological evaluation on the preference of the color gold and of the number five.

Dangit.

 

Claiming people are intolerant because they don't like other people's intolerance is the stupidest argument I've ever heard. In fact, when it delves down to that point, I know my side has won because they can't come up with anything more original than that.

And claiming that you hate homosexuality but don't hate homosexuals is like claiming "I don't hate murderers, I just hate murder" or "I dont hate Hitler, I just hate the things he did." It's a flimsy excuse that is an obvious fallacy.