|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's next in Galorian? LGBT's are forcefully demanding clerics to marry them in their gods' temples.
Jokes aside, the great thing about this world is everyone has their own opinion. So one may prefer LGBT's in their world setting or playing as one and another may not. So if you like them then throw a bunch in your game and if you don't then don't include any.
The majority of the time it should be unrecognizable though as most people don't walk around and say "Hi, my name is bob and I'm a transexual/gay/bi-sexual." So, if they have mannerism that illuminate their preference then some players could conclude that but not all LG's are flamboyant.
Btw, I highly dislike the word homophobic as it's a very intolerant word typically used by people that preach tolerance. Because someone doesn't agree with someone else's personal views/rights does not mean they should be classified as some type of disease or disorder. I've never seen anyone accuse someone of being "heterophobic."
I really dislike topics like these in general, though, as they tend to pointlessly lead nowhere and usually become prime breeding grounds for arguments and little to no resolution.
What's next in Galorian? LGBT's are forcefully demanding clerics to marry them in their gods' temples.
Jokes aside, the great thing about this world is everyone has their own opinion. So one may prefer LGBT's in their world setting or playing as one and another may not. So if you like them then throw a bunch in your game and if you don't then don't include any.
The majority of the time it should be unrecognizable though as most people don't walk around and say "Hi, my name is bob and I'm a transexual/gay/bi-sexual." So, if they have mannerism that illuminate their preference then some players could conclude that but not all LG's are flamboyant.
Btw, I highly dislike the word homophobic as it's a very intolerant word typically used by people that preach tolerance. Because someone doesn't agree with someone else's personal views/rights does not mean they should be classified as some type of disease or disorder. I've never seen anyone accuse someone of being "heterophobic."
I really dislike topics like these in general, though, as they tend to pointlessly lead nowhere and usually become prime breeding grounds for arguments and little to no resolution.
Yeah, this topic started in 2008 and reading through it, it has mostly just been back and forth like this, with lulls of "Thanks Paizo" in between.
I hid this thread a long time ago. I don't know how it got unhidden.
Yeah, the idea of a man wishing to live there life as a woman, or a woman there life as a man, is pretty ancient. I even seem to recall that some Eunuchs underwent the process willingly, to change there gender, but I can't think where I read that so I can't say for sure.
We just wrapped it up in fancy modern words and added a nice dose of shame to it.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
Btw, I highly dislike the word homophobic as it's a very intolerant word typically used by people that preach tolerance.
I'm going to stop you right there.
When you say "people that preach tolerance", what you actually mean (or what you should actually mean) is "people who preach tolerance for the inherent differences that we are born with". People who support LGBT rights are not simply tolerant. That's an unqualified adjective. I support LGBT rights, for instance, and I am not tolerant of rapists, and I am not tolerant of those who believe that rape is acceptable. I am, in fact, actively intolerant of those things, and you should be, too.
So yes, "homophobic" is an intolerant word. That's the point. It's to show that we do not tolerate actions and opinions that seek to demean another human being for who they fundamentally are.
You don't get to equate not being tolerant of gay people with not being tolerant of bigots. That's not how this works. Being tolerant of bigots and their views is a bad thing.
Because someone doesn't agree with someone else's personal views/rights does not mean they should be classified as some type of disease or disorder.
We're not classifying them as disordered (more appropriately, bigoted) just because we don't agree with them. We classifying them as bigoted because they hold unapologetically bigoted beliefs.
Btw, I highly dislike the word homophobic as it's a very intolerant word typically used by people that preach tolerance.I'm going to stop you right there.
When you say "people that preach tolerance", what you actually mean (or what you should actually mean) is "people who preach tolerance for the inherent differences that we are born with". People who support LGBT rights are not simply tolerant. That's an unqualified adjective. I support LGBT rights, for instance, and I am not tolerant of rapists, and I am not tolerant of those who believe that rape is acceptable. I am, in fact, actively intolerant of those things, and you should be, too.
So yes, "homophobic" is an intolerant word. That's the point. It's to show that we do not tolerate actions and opinions that seek to demean another human being for who they fundamentally are.
You don't get to equate not being tolerant of gay people with not being tolerant of bigots. That's not how this works. Being tolerant of bigots and their views is a bad thing.
Because someone doesn't agree with someone else's personal views/rights does not mean they should be classified as some type of disease or disorder.We're not classifying them as disordered (more appropriately, bigoted) just because we don't agree with them. We classifying them as bigoted because they hold unapologetically bigoted beliefs.
You said this way better than I ever could.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Scott - I would be opposed to someone enforcing sexual acts on someone against their will also. Which makes me wonder why you even used that as an example. A person can freely choose to be a heterosexual or homosexual. But giving someone a "classification" that parallels a disease or mental issue for not agreeing with your views on sexual preference seems a bit wrong.
I think you're referring to people that verbally abuse, beat up, or kill homosexuals as being homophobic. I'm referring to the use of the term when people are called homophobic because they don't agree that homosexuality is right. It's there personal opinion and is completely fine as long as they aren't hurting anyone. Unless we all want to play the "thought police" and punish anyone that doesn't conform to our personal definition of morality.
@JonGarrett - btw, royalty typically mutilated Eunuchs that served in the king's palace to prevent them from having sexual relations with royalty and/or concubines. The other instance typically seen was Eunuchs that took a solemn oath to abstain from sexual relations in dedication to their god/goddess and to display their commitment. Those were the two most typical reasons why Eunuchs were Eunuchs.
Kysune, would you say a neonazi is doing nothing wrong when he talks to people about how all the jewish people should be killed?
Some "opinions" are wrong by default in our society nowadays. Hating the homosexuals, whether or not you use violence, is an example of that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Icy, you're stating what I just went over. That would be a form of verbal abuse plus threatening the life of a person.
Once again, I'm mentioning when people are classified as homophobic when they simply do not agree that homosexuality is right.
Btw you referred to the term "hating the homosexual." I believe you have a person confused with their sexual preference. When someone simply does not agree that homosexuality is correct does not mean that they in turn also hate the person. A man could have a fetus implanted in him and give birth to a child and someone could say they don't agree that's right. It doesn't mean they hate the person that had the fetus implanted in them and gave birth to the baby. Hopefully you understand this simple concept because I'm not sure if I can break it down any further.
I have yet to meet someone who is of that opinion that doesn't exhibit clear signs of hating how "wrong" homosexuals are.
Would you say that you consider homosexuality to be wrong? If so, how is it wrong? Why is it wrong? I am honestly curious about that.
Hell, jews aren't allowed to be homosexual, but according to a jewish friend of mine, we're not allowed to be judgemental with them either.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Scott - I would be opposed to someone enforcing sexual acts on someone against their will also. Which makes me wonder why you even used that as an example.
I thought it was pretty obvious why I used it as an example. In fact, I explained why I used it as an example. I'll explain again, though. It's because rape is an example of something I do not tolerate, and that you probably don't tolerate either, which goes to illustrate that tolerance should not be applied universally. In the context of human rights, it is good to be tolerant of individuals regardless of the circumstances of their birth (which includes things like their parents, the color of their skin, their gender, or their sexual orientation). They should be judged (and not automatically tolerated) on the character of their actions and beliefs.
A person can freely choose to be a heterosexual or homosexual.
No, they cannot.
You're not going to get very far in this discussion if you continue to hold that view. It is demonstrably false.
But giving someone a "classification" for not agreeing with your views on sexual preference seems a bit wrong.
No, it doesn't. I am comfortable with calling a bigot bigoted.
I think you're referring to people that verbally abuse, beat up, or kill homosexuals as being homophobic. I'm referring to the use of the term when people are called homophobic because they don't agree that homosexuality is right.
That is an appropriate use of the word "homophobic".
It's there personal opinion and is completely fine as long as they aren't hurting anyone.
Many of them act on that opinion - sometimes in ways as overt as providing financial backing to political campaigns that seek to restrict the rights of LGBT persons. Other times they act on it in less overt ways - for instance, by spreading lies like "Homosexuality is a choice," much like you yourself are doing.
Unless we all want to play the "thought police" and punish anyone that doesn't conform to our personal definition of morality.
No one is telling you that you can't hold those beliefs. We are powerless to stop you from believing what you want. We are, however, telling you that if you continue to hold those beliefs, we will judge you for doing so. We will think less of you, as a human being. And yes, we're just a bunch of people on the internet. But you will find that, as time goes on, more and more of the people around you will judge you for those beliefs as well.
Your call.
EDIT: This discussion, by the way, is an excellent illustration of how someone can seem superficially reasonable in trying to "moderate" a political discussion, only to have it revealed that they are actually very partisan and are attempting to shut the discussion down or fundamentally discredit it (see: Kysune's earlier "[These topics] tend to pointlessly lead nowhere and usually become prime breeding grounds for arguments and little to no resolution."). Note how Kysune's first post was an attempt to equalize the moral playing field by painting people who use the term "homophobic" (read: LGBT rights supporters) as morally equivalent to people who hold bigoted beliefs. It is important to remember that the moral playing field is not equal.
@Scott - I would be opposed to someone enforcing sexual acts on someone against their will also. Which makes me wonder why you even used that as an example. A person can freely choose to be a heterosexual or homosexual. But giving someone a "classification" that parallels a disease or mental issue for not agreeing with your views on sexual preference seems a bit wrong.
I think you're referring to people that verbally abuse, beat up, or kill homosexuals as being homophobic. I'm referring to the use of the term when people are called homophobic because they don't agree that homosexuality is right. It's there personal opinion and is completely fine as long as they aren't hurting anyone. Unless we all want to play the "thought police" and punish anyone that doesn't conform to our personal definition of morality.
@JonGarrett - btw, royalty typically mutilated Eunuchs that served in the king's palace to prevent them from having sexual relations with royalty and/or concubines. The other instance typically seen was Eunuchs that took a solemn oath to abstain from sexual relations in dedication to their god/goddess and to display their commitment. Those were the two most typical reasons why Eunuchs were Eunuchs.
A lot of homosexual, trans and bisexual people can't choose to be a straight, cis-gendered individual. I was born liking men - I also like women. They can choose to ignore those feelings, or they can accept them. Those are the choices.
As for eunuchs...it depends. Those are the two most common reasons. It's also been used as a punishment and there's even the castrati, of course, who are castrated to keep there singing voices pure and boyish. It's not a stretch to imagine some people doing it because they don't wish to be men, but I can't remember where I read it and I'm loathe to post something as definite if I can't remember the sources.
Also, technically, in several societies it was perfectly OK for Eunuchs to have sexual relations with high ranking ladies. There's even been a strapon found, I seem to recall, likely for just that reason. But a Eunuch wasn't getting anyone pregnant. Remember, castration is the removal of the testicles - in most cases the penis is left intact. So while most couldn't get an erection, it wasn't entirely impossible. The important part was not being able to father children.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kysune,
Peiople can't 'freely choose'. That is not a factual statement. It is, in fact, a deeply wrong and ignorant statement. Please educate yourself to at least basic level on the subject before proceeding to the discussion or you will just embarass yourself.
And you're entitled to your views, but if you are allowed to say "homosexuality is not right" why aren't we allowed to say !"your homophobic bigotry and ignorance is not right"? You are trying to shame people for something they are born as, we are shaming you for something you choose to do. Even if you were correct that being gay or trans is a choice (and why would anyone choose it? Does it give free dental or something?), the two views would be equivalent and so if you're allowed to say homosexuiality is wrong, we're entitled to say your view is wrong as you have chosen that view.
EDIT: Ninjaed twice. Damn, it seems we're dogpiling on Kysune now. Not my intention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once again, I'm mentioning when people are classified as homophobic when they simply do not agree that homosexuality is right.
Believing that homosexuality is amoral (or wrong) is homophobic.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So do bisexuals choose to sleep with both sexes or do they have no choice? I'm also curious of your thoughts whether someone termed a pedophile has a choice because they're wired to be attracted to people of social acceptable adult age for marriage.
You hold the ideals of sexual orientation as not being a choice while I hold the opposite. If you're viewpoint is indeed correct that's fine. I still believe people have a choice to either resist or give into their desires. A man may be deeply in love with women but choose to be celibate. It's a choice, backed up with willpower.
@Icy - Since you asked, I'm a Christian. I believe that homosexuality is a sin, the same as any other sin listed in the Bible. That doesn't mean that I hate the person, because I don't. I'd have a conversation, hang out with the person, buy them lunch, and treat them just like any other person. But if they asked me if I agreed that homosexuality is right I'd tell them no, and I would proceed to tell them that it's wrong in the eyes of God. If I met someone that was a thief or someone that committed adultery (sex outside of marriage) I would treat them like any other person, etc. but I'd let them know it was wrong in the eyes of God.
Drinks on me, everyone! I owe every person in this thread a shot of vodka. Well, except for the Australians, that is.Thank you for the link. August 21st 2013. That is really clear. An identity and movement from the 50s and 60s is crammed into Golarion, and will continue to be put there. He wasn't even ashamed at all about it. They will get no more of my money or support. Hadesblade was entirely right, that is total support for a cause.
Me, I just prefer my games to be apolitical.
I'll remind you about this if you happen to be in Kraków.
Yeah, I know what yer thinking, "this was a nice thread once".
Hell, I was thinking that as well.
|
So do bisexuals choose to sleep with both sexes or do they have no choice?
They're attracted to both, though the proportion can differ 'tween individuals (I'm more partial to women, myself).
I'm also curious of your thoughts whether someone termed a pedophile has a choice because they're wired to be attracted to people of social acceptable adult age for marriage.
Pedorasts are people who try to use thier adulthood to manipulate their prey....it's not a consenting arragnement, and it destroys childhood/lives. Me and the 26-year old man/woman I met at the bowling ally is.
A man may be deeply in love with women but choose to be celibate. It's a choice, backed up with willpower.
He can choose to be celebate, yes. But he'll still be attracted to women.