"Gay" as a trait

[RickyMartini]

And while gayness is no more of a choice than say, a strong urge to drink, it CAN be suppressed, and beaten if a person tries / has the resources to understand how their mind works. I've said many times before : The urge isn't a choice, but the actions are.

LMAO this guy surprises us again and again hahahahaha.

[SuperCaffeineDude]

If you could take a pill to be accepted by others, you might feel pressured to take said pill, despite in reality needing better more accepting friends who mind their own business.

In my opinion humans are not livestock, and partaking in mutual acts of love, between two consenting adults, is validation in itself for such acts, whether it results in a child is simply arbitrary, and regardless not a part of the game, whereas matchmaking and the mood boost it yields certainly are.

I think this is unlikely to be settled, but I love the idea mentioned earlier of colonists learning from their rejected advances, that would work quite well, have colonists search for love rather than flirt heedlessly. Maybe colonists also could be less likely to make a move on a pawn already in a relationship and opposing sexual preference as well.

[Kegereneku]

LMAO this guy surprises us again and again hahahahaha.

I once heard a Fanfiction where the christian-autor self-insert said he "Gave his blood to make a Gay-vaccine". Those who know how vaccine work should understand the irony (assuming of course that gayness was a disease, nonsense).

[Zombra]

You saying beaten was in a different frame of reference than mine. Referring to straight, not gay. You did not explain "why" someone would wish to "beat" being straight. Which was entirely my point : I think you using the word suppress, contain, control, withhold, or other words would of been more appropriate unless you have a reason it should be beaten. I've already listed reasons the others should be beaten, you can go find them since you seem to love tracking my posts.

So being gay is an aberration, a problem that needs solving.  Got it.

Many =/= most. Many people are gay, MOST people are straight. See?

Oh!  You're right.  I was thinking of something else.  The problem that MOST gay people agree on isn't the need for a "cure"; it's persecution by bigots.

Well, considering you used the word beat, it DID seem like you were anti hetero in that sense.

This was an intentional trap.  If I used that language on a certain group, it would imply bigotry, which you (rightly) called out.  The fact is that I was using your own exact words and applying them to a group you don't hate to see how fast you'd jump on it.  (Pretty fast.)

I'm anti homosexual but I've admitted this pretty openly.

Wow.  OK.  You got me there.  I haven't read your earlier stuff so I must have missed your historical forthrightness.  Not being sarcastic - in a way I have to respect a bigot who wears the t-shirt.  ... But that doesn't mean I'm going to accept bigotry or hold back from fighting it every inch of the way.

[Thane]

Okay everyone chill. Suggestion forum for a 2d base building game. Remember that. This is not a YT comments section.

[Zombra]

Good point @Thane, I forgot we weren't in the Off-Topic thread.

[Toggle]

... 10 pages. 10 pages for this topic. Just remove it from a trait and add a sexuality thing in info, as I'm pretty sure it adds no buffs or debuffs right? No need for anything else.

Any mention of gay on these forums and we end up with 20 pages of a thread of cancer.

[mumblemumble]

LMAO this guy surprises us again and again hahahahaha.

To clairify, are you saying that gay people have absolutely 0 restraint what so ever? If so, isn't that more evidence against them?

Now I disagree, I think they can control urges / resist actions, as can an alcoholic, with strong willpower refuse to drink.

So are you saying that gay people absolutely positively cannot resist trying to screw men in ANY circumstance (ie, are rapists) OR are you just pointing and laughing because you really have nothing else to throw at me but heckling me, by insisting I'm not just wrong but a "laughing stock", with no basis / proof against my point? I suspect the second, because that response has nothing to do with the debate, and you are I suspect, merely trying to defame me / shame my by making it seem as if I'm a "weirdo" for my view. Which will not happen,  this is a debate going on, and if you wish to sidetrack it with random  useless comments, I won't have part.

Be careful answering that.

As for you zombra, gay activities do lead to more risks statistically speaking, so yes. Diseases, drugs, incontinence, emotional damage, ect, ect....  if you look at all the side, YES, being gay has more downsides / possible risks. So in that sense, yes, it is problematic, like alcoholism.

Keep in mind for both, there can be functional versions of both, but the problems, risks, and everything else are still there. It doesn't stop being a problem just because other stuff is taken care of.

Most people with schizophrenia, and ALSO alcoholism, wish to deny there is an issue. And with alchoholics they can do the exact same sort of excuse, just replace bigot with "party pooper" or "prude", literally exact same argument.

Like I said "beat" or "beaten" is commonly used in the case of overcoming something, gaining control over something and being happy to do so, having finished a goal, ect. I simply wanted a frame of reference why a straight guy would want to quit being straight (which I gave you examples why, funnily enough) yet you didn't state one.  A gay guy could want to stop due to : Health reasons, religious reasons, family reasons, social reasons, spiritual reasons ect... Theres many reasons a gay guy might say to himself "You know what, I really wish I could stop being gay", but unfortunately do not know how, nor do they have the support to try to do so.

Just want to say bigot is very overused.....hold on...quick google....

"a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."

So wait, does that mean zombra, skissor, and OTHERS are also bigots? I mean, they seem much less "tolerant" of me than I am of gay people 

If you could take a pill to be accepted by others, you might feel pressured to take said pill, despite in reality needing better more accepting friends who mind their own business.

In my opinion humans are not livestock, and partaking in mutual acts of love, between two consenting adults, is validation in itself for such acts, whether it results in a child is simply arbitrary, and regardless not a part of the game, whereas matchmaking and the mood boost it yields certainly are.

I think this is unlikely to be settled, but I love the idea mentioned earlier of colonists learning from their rejected advances, that would work quite well, have colonists search for love rather than flirt heedlessly. Maybe colonists also could be less likely to make a move on a pawn already in a relationship and opposing sexual preference as well.

The speculation of the pill being forced isn't necessarily a bad one, the pharmaceutical industry is a corrupt piece of shit, and if it got destroyed today, little of value would be lost IMO. This said your argument is literally "Don't  change yourself, change EVERYONE ELSE", which is a very common theme in gay people. Not only that but tolerance only go so far. Tolerance, even if enforced at gun point, does NOT mean "like", far from it, and trying to force tolerance at gunpoint builds animosity which can lead to violent backlash.

Love is unfortunately so very very VAGUE, that I do not touch it for purposes of debate. Many child molesters say they love the kids they "play" with, but we clearly do not allow that, even if at any point the child agrees. More importantly, the risks involved with gay sex are much higher. So regardless if someone feels "strong feelings of connection / affection / bond / desire" (ie love) I think it holds no point in debate, because they are FEELINGS, and not physical, tangible things. Add onto that that gay people are much less likely to have committed relationships, and I think the word "love" is depreciated, used in that context.

That all said SCD, Glad to see you support people having morals / accepting rejections, and possibly respecting relationships... Monogamy seems like it kinda almost doesn't exist in rimworld.

... 10 pages. 10 pages for this topic. Just remove it from a trait and add a sexuality thing in info, as I'm pretty sure it adds no buffs or debuffs right? No need for anything else.

Any mention of gay on these forums and we end up with 20 pages of a thread of cancer.

Its debated here for a reason, and please note that it has been civil here outside a select few hecklers.

I ask that nobody try to lock the thread with drama especially if they are creating it.

This said, sexuality in info sounds ok, but I personally think it should go deeper into the effects in someones psyche, Like a slightly lower mental break thresh-hold on gay people, and an even lower one on transsexuals. That would be fitting all things considered. As for why? Well, justify it as "homophobic" or "transphobic" people if you want, causing them additional mental illness due to "bullying" if you want...but we do know both groups have a much higher mental illness rate, so a lower mental break threshold would seem accurate, and more immersive.

Oh, as for the gay vaccine comment, while this wouldn't work of course (gayness is a mental disorder, not a blood born disease) This tactic is used medically for other stuff. Using chemicals to balance stuff out, or taking in lots of more alkaline drinks / foods to balance an otherwise acidic blood. Just saying.

[milon]

I'm locking this thread preemptively now. We've had all the on-topic discussion that's possible to have and Tynan is well aware of our collective thoughts on the matter.  If I'm wrong and there is more Suggestion discussion to have, start a fresh thread for it. This one has derailed far too much and things are running too hot.  Feel free to start a thread in the off topic forum if you wish to continue this, but as always remember the forum rules.

10 pages. Color me impressed!