Homosexuality on Zalanthas

[Katsumata]

Homosexuality has always existed, but the christian view is not the only negative one to exist in previous cultures. I took these from the site mentioned at the end of the second quote.

Christian belief condemns both the active and passive roles of homosexual intercourse, whereas the pagan Scandinavians attached disapproval only to the male who was homosexually passive.

Homosexuality was not regarded by the Viking peoples as being evil, perverted, innately against the laws of nature or any of the other baggage about the concept that Christian belief has provided Western culture. Rather, it was felt that a man who subjected himself to another in sexual affairs would do the same in other areas, being a follower rather than a leader, and allowing others to do his thinking or fighting for him. Thus, homosexual sex was not what was condemned, but rather the failure to stand for one's self and make one's own decisions, to fight one's own fights, which went directly against the Nordic ethic of self-reliance. (Sørenson 20). Being used homosexually by another man was equated with cowardice because of the custom of sexual aggression against vanquished foes.  -http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/gayvik.html

There is more material on this site if you are interested. As always there are many ways to roleplay something.[/quote]

[spawnloser]

Actually, Carnage, I do have a partial family tree, and the assumptions I make are based off the number of people's parents that there would have to be to produce the people that are related in a certain fashion.  However, if I wasn't to assume that there is additional virtual population, noone could play another PC noble in this house for almost a year if the two active PCs were to quit for any reason.  For that reason, I go off the assumption that the Imms don't want to shut down a House because of one or two people when others depend on them to keep things going.

[X-D]

JollyGreenGiant wrote:

That could be a large number, or not, I guess. What's the overall human population in Allanak and Tuluk?

Now, it's been a while since I heard this, and I know the one time it was heard ic, but I think it was said that the population of allanak was like 500,000 or so (could be off, maybe 50,000, but I think it was the first number) and the tuluk region maybe 300,000? And humans make up what, 1/3 the population of the world, shrug, but using that figure, just for tuluk that means 100,000 humans, somebody said 5-10% nobles, lets say 7%, so 7,000 nobles in tuluk alone, split between 7 houses, 1000 people in a house is a breeding population in itself if your careful.

[Carnage]

For that reason, I go off the assumption that the Imms don't want to shut down a House because of one or two people when others depend on them to keep things going.

It's called game mechanics vs. fun. If Arm's around in ten years, will you still base the VNPC population off of all the PC nobles and such in that house? Do you really expect Sanvean to one day say, 'Okay, enough people have been nobles of House Spawnloser and managed to get themselves killed. Because all of the VNPC reserves are used up, we're shutting down the house. Forever.'? It's not going to happen. Once again, it's game mechanics vs. fun.

[Delirium]

The Noble Houses are probably a lot larger than spawnloser's estimate - that is, the ones that are open to PCs. We're talking the most powerful Houses in the North/South. I don't see that the PCs would represent a sizeable chunk of the population at all.. normally, I would assume they are the lowly junior noblility of a much larger operation.

This is of course a guess, so I'm incredibly sorry that I have nothing to back these guesses up with since I'm not an Imm, but I see nothing wrong with speculating and debating. After all, that's one of the things the GDB is for.

[Bestatte]

I was informed by a couple of IMMs and a few players of noble PCs that the noble houses are comprised of many hundreds of people each.

For every noble PC, there are parents, the parents' brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, cousins and siblings of the PCs themselves. virtual and non-virtual mates and -their- families (if the mate is of the same noble family), great aunts and uncles, second cousins, etc. etc.

That's -per house.- And it doesn't matter if the house is a PC clan or not. Noble houses are big. They also breed amongst themselves, and with the other houses.

In addition, in the South they breed with commoners on occasion, distasteful as the idea might seem.

I was told all this by several people as I mentioned, at different times by different people of different ranges of knowledge, and specifically by one particular IMM when I played a Merchant House PC and the subject came up IC and I needed clarification on a few things.

[chinwa]

In addition, in the South they breed with commoners on occasion, distasteful as the idea might seem.

They would never purposely breed with a commoner, though sometimes accidents do happen. When they do, it is perhaps never heard about, or if it is, the child will enter into service of the house. Not as a family member, but as a servant, albeit one treated a bit better than the rest. They are never recognized as being "blood of the blood".

[Carnage]

I was informed by a couple of IMMs and a few players of noble PCs that the noble houses are comprised of many hundreds of people each.

If it was stated by the imms, I'll accept that rather than wild numbers. I'd expect the north to have less, though, due to the Allanaki occupation and the War.

[Anonymous]

The hulking, green-eyed templar gives a human tuluki soldier an order.

The human tuluki soldier releases you and you immediately move away.

The hulking, green-eyed templar says, in sirihish: "There's only one way your going to survive this..."

The hulking, green-eyed templar gives a human tuluki soldier an order.

The human tuluki soldier grasps your shoulders with strong hands and pushes you to your knees.

The hulking, green-eyed templar tugs at his belt buckle as he steps closer to you leering lustfully.

The hulking, green-eyed templar says, in sirihish; "Any last words commoner?"

With a sniffle and a cry you say, in sirihish: " I thank thee 'o Faithful Lord Bubba for this meal I'm about to receive."

You wake up in a cold sweat, gasping and glancing about hurriedly.

You think: Whew, only a nightmare.

Someone knocks on the door from the other side.

You look toward the door curiously.

You shout, in sirihish: "Who is it?"

A male voice shouts from the west, in sirihish: "Faithful Lord Bubba...I wish to speak with you commoner."

You think: Oh....feck!

[Dracul]

Beautiful.

[Anonymous]

The hulking, green-eyed templar says, in sirihish: "Your soul better belong to Muk-Utep...mmhhmmm...because your arse, belongs to me!"

[Frog Fairy]

I can think of some decent IC reasons for why homosexuality "should" be shunned in Zalanthas. The main one being that Zalanthias is all about survival. Reproduction is essential to survival. An anti-homosexual culture could easily come from that

However, to me the IC discussion is rather irrelevant when it comes to the issue of homosexuality.

That is because I see one very important reason as to why homosexuality should NOT be shunned, mocked or treated with disdain on Zalanthas:
Because I can imagine that'd make the game pretty damned uncomfortable for gay people to play.

I don't want a person who, quite possibly, has faced or is facing difficulties with intolerant people in their RL to come to this game we play for fun and meet the same obnoxious attitude.

ICly, I'd therefore take the stand that Zalanthians don't care about what gender other people fall in love with.
I am quite sure they could have practical issues concerning the potential need for reproduction in some situations, but not issues due to prejudice or disdain.

As for noble Houses, personally I could very well imagine that being handled on a case to case basis.
In some cases, an off spring would be essential. For example two Houses that want a closer relationship to each other, where children would seal the maritual bond and play an important part for House affairs.
Or, if a person has a set of skills that the House wants to breed.
In those cases, I would imagine that the House would strongly insist that the noble marry a person they can reproduce with.
But in terms of PCs, I'd never want to see a gay player being forced into a heterosexual marriage against their will.

(I realize though, that not all gay players may play gay characters, and that a decent chunk of heterosexual players run gay PCs.)

A logical consequence of this is that gay-jokes as we know them wouldn't exist in Zalanthas.

A side note - someone said, if I interpreted it right, that the gay community is under represented in Zalanthas. I'd disagree on that. I've seen a LOT of lesbian and bi characters in this game. Hardly ever any gay men though...
Out of the relationships I've seen role played out, I would say that lesbian affairs seem rather over represented.
But there are also a large part of the player base that never get into romantical RP and whoses sexuality is not relevant to their gaming.

A second side note - I am sure that homophobia does exist in Zalanthas. Just like phobias against people with large hands, violet eyes, beard or a terrible singing voice. If you want to play a homophobic character though, I'd like to see that this attitude was a particular perk and not the norm.

[sarahjc]

This post is not for the light of heart.

When I think Noble I think roman times or Dune’s Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, I think gluttonous, filthy people, clean only on the most superficial level, but selfish to the core, walking talking IDs.. They have everything they want at their fingertips. People who do what they want, when they want, with who they want. They should care about no one and they answer to less. So if a noble has a thing for young men, who cares are you going to stop them?

If you think about it, a fair looking young man would prove to be an excellent sex toy. No chance of unwanted pregnancy and also what better way to make the overall population feel less than human, than by picking random citizens and torturing them in the most profane way possible. I mean we all have sexual urges, do nobles just ignore attractive people? If I am a nobleman why should I care if that attractive bar made is married, single, a virgin..I find her attractive, bring her to my quarters or him for that matter?

Picture this:

The disgustingly obese nobleman in a pink codpiece enters a retro 80’s tavern
The disgustingly obese nobleman in a pink codpiece walks past your table licking his fingers as he discards his half eaten chicken bone into your plate of steaming mash potatoes.
The disgustingly obese nobleman a pink codpiece sits at a purple plush couch and waves one of his guards to him.
Glancing to you with a coy smile, the disgustingly obese nobleman a pink codpiece whispers something to his mullet-haired guard in a pink boa..
You think: Time for a quick exit.
Without so much as a word the, mullet-haired guard in a pink boa subdues you and drags you out of the tavern.

2 RL minutes later at House SickBastard

Standing over you sword in hand, mullet-haired guard in a pink boa gives you a mug.
Pressing down on you the mullet-haired guard in a pink boa says:
Drink it.
Shaking slightly as you stair at the long sword in the hand of the mullet-haired guard in a pink boa you drink the cup
The mullet-haired guard in a pink boa steps back.

Stand
You try to stand but trip over your feet.
The disgustingly obese nobleman in a pink codpiece has arrived from the north
The mullet-haired guard in a pink boa nods to the disgustingly obese nobleman in a pink codpiece.
The mullet-haired guard in a pink boa walks north.

The disgustingly obese nobleman in a pink codpiece looks you over and says:
Well, what do we have here…?

-blackout-

Now that is oppression.

[Barzalene]

I think the one point that's really important here, and this has nothing to do with sexual preference, marriage on Zalanthas is not about love, or sex, it's all about business.

[Wolfkin]

In all seriousness, I doubt that homosexuality or the practice of alternate sexualities would draw much extraordinary attention from others, much less social stigma. In ancient Greece, the practice of homosexuality was both widely practiced and tolerated, even encouraged. Alternate sexualities -- such as the practice of bestiality, incest, et cetera -- that would otherwise be labeled as abhorrent or ignoble in modern times was, in ancient Greece accepted. Such would likely be the case in a primitive, restless world like Zalanthas, though as to whether or not these practices would be as prevalent, or even as widely known as they were in Greece is questionable.

The reality of life for most Zalanthians is one of extreme harshness. It would most likely be the case that commoners and tribal members were constantly poised on the brink of starvation -- as such, they likely could not support newborns or new additions to their society. So, at least in theory, homosexuality would be accepted as a means of pleasure without the risks of additional lives to sustain. In the case of nobles, I suspect that most who keep slaves for their own deviant sexual practices do, in fact, keep ones of the same sex, for reasons of social stigma. Honestly, can you imagine how aghast a noble would be if he impregnated someone of a lower caste? Or, in contrast, if a noble became impregnated herself with the seed of a slave?  Good God, they may as well hang themselves from the rafters and pray for mercy from above.

As to the question of insults, I'm sure there are some in the world who do not condone or practice these alterate sexualities. And there are probably some who abhor them as one might the practice of exhuming a corpse and defiling it. That's how dispicable it is to some people. So, yeah, in my mind, there are insults out there for homosexuals. But who's to say someone can't make up new ones?

[sancho]

- - Personally, I do think there should be a stigma against homosexuality in Arm. First, for those of you making scientific observations should realize that commoners lack the time or wits to make those same observations. Second, Zalanthas isn't Greece or Rome or anything like Earth; it's a much more terrible place. The cultures are not going to match up by comparison. Third, saying that there shouldn't be a bias against gays because homosexual players might be offended is like saying there shouldn't be racism in Arm' because players might be victims of racism. Softening the world is just going to make it less realistic. Fourth, history has show us in every uneducated culture ever to grace the Earth, a lack of food has spurred the populace to reproduce more. The more children you had, the more free laborers you had. The better the chances were that some of your children would live to have children of their own.

- - If we can learn anything else from history, it is that people are always looking for an excuse to hate other people. The smaller the mind, the smaller the offense. Left-handed people used to be burned as witches (as well those backwards-thinkers should be). Doing something that makes someone uncomfortable is going to be even worse than the blasphemous use of the incorrect hand, because they will not need to be religious to hate you for it.

- - Stop pointing out that homosexuality was tolerated or common sights in other cultures. The difference between tolerance and homophobia is whether you treat homosexuals differently for being differently inclined. You don't have to like something to accept it and move on. Most heterosexuals I know, myself included, get disgusted by the sight of two people of the same gender (as the viewer) doing something as small as kissing. It's not from some kind of sexual taboo training, it's our natural reaction. I can't speak for anyone else, but I ignore these feelings when dealing with gay people I meet and gay friends of mine.

- - The point I am trying to make is this: these taboos come from people who are repulsed by a thing, but who cannot get over their reaction. Where do you all think these taboos came from? I know most of you are concerned about looking like homophobes, but to just up and say "Religions said gay sex is evil, and that's the bottom line." is ridiculous. Here's why:
1. If you are religious, then you should take that statement to mean that homosexuality really is a bad thing, which most people should have figured out.
2. If you are not religious, you should you should take that statement to mean that homophobia was present for a few millinea (instead of believing that a taboo just appeared out of nowhere).

- - It's like violent entertainment. People say that violent entertainment is what makes people violent. Yet, if violent entertainment made people violent, how on earth did it get created? At some point, there must have been no violent entertainment, and therefor no violent people. Even if there was violence, why would someone find it entertaining, since they hadn't been desensitized? The reality is, violent entertainment sells because violence is a part of many people's nature.

- - A taboo against homosexuality was not invented by religions. It was created by heterosexuals that got disgusted at the idea of homosexual sex. They simply had a natural reaction to something unnatural for them. I'm not trying to say homophobia is a good thing, I'm saying it's something which uneducated people probably wouldn't be able to get past. We get all sorts of natural urges, usually involving violently harming our coworkers, managers, or bad drivers. We know better than to act on these urges; the unwashed masses of Zalanthas probably wouldn't.

- - You all seem to be forgeting that education is the main factor in tolerance. How many Zalanthan commoners are going to be taught about homosexuality? It's safe to say most Zalanthans are going to figure out that men and women produce children by having sex with one another. Most cultures figure this out by the time they have verbal communication. The only thing you can assume the average Zalanthan child knows is that they were born because of a man and a woman did something or another together. It would be unlikely that any individual commoner realized homosexuality was a real thing until they saw an example of it.

- - Admittedly, having good experiences with someone or something often wears down prejudice. I'd imagine a character who grew up with a gay character as a friend would likely have less prejudice against gays. Greek citizens were not only vaslty more educated and cultured than Zalanthan commoners, but they also had regular exposure to homosexuality. People who are only two-missed-meals away from starvation are not going to get out as much.

- - In summary (to this terribly long post), I'll say this. Homosexuality would probably be a taboo among commoners, due to the lack of education and culture. Miserable, small-minded people like to take things out on other people, particularly those unlike themselves. The heterosexual commoners would see something different and unnatural from what they were used to, upon seeing a homosexual. Therefore, it would be something to ridicule and, if the mood arose, to hate. Some might be apathetic to homosexuality, but to say that hatred or mockery wouldn't exist is not realistic.



Resolution: It would be helpful if there were docs mentioning if homosexuality was commonplace amongst commoners. That would put a clear end to this issue, because the more common a thing is, the lesser the hatred for it. For now, I think people should play the game as they see fit. This is an issue the Imms should have decided anyways, so I didn't have to come out here playing Devil's advocate.

[chinwa]

A taboo against homosexuality was not invented by religions. It was created by heterosexuals that got disgusted at the idea of homosexual sex. They simply had a natural reaction to something unnatural for them. I'm not trying to say homophobia is a good thing, I'm saying it's something which uneducated people probably wouldn't be able to get past.

There is where I would have to disagree with you. The concept of it being a disgusting practice didn't come about until certain religions began to preach to their followers that it was a "disgusting" act and should be shunned. Through documented history in dozens of nations, other-than-heterosexual practices were commonplace. While perhaps not always publicly accepted, they also weren't shunned.

You repeatedly make use of the word "taboo" as if a certain thing, throughout time, has always "disgusted" a certain percentage of people on the planet. This is false.

They run much along the same line as morals. There is no time tested set of morals. Today, in our nation, it is considered "against the moral code" to kill out of cold blood. Where a hundred and a half years ago, if someone pissed you off while hanging in a tavern you may not of thought twice about shooting them. A thousand years ago, you may not of thought twice about beating them to death. Nowadays you sit in a bar and watch two people make out and fondle each other with various bits of skin showing, the average person may find it a bit disgusting. A couple centuries ago you'd of likely shrugged it off, cause it was something common to happen.

"Disgust" is often defined as offending the moral sense of someone.  And like everything else, it would depend on the age, the society and the person in specific. Just like there once was a time with lots of swords and parts of bodies being hacked off. I bet they didn't find the spurts of blood and oozing entrains nearly as "disgusting" as we did.

We get all sorts of natural urges, usually involving violently harming our coworkers, managers, or bad drivers. We know better than to act on these urges; the unwashed masses of Zalanthas probably wouldn't.

And yes, you're quite right about this. However, you forgot one of mankinds greatest urges, the strive for pleasure. By your statement, you seem to be saying that the unwashed masses have far less of a moral code than our modern societies do. So if a man can get this pleasure from a man, or a woman for a woman, then I'd say they "don't know better than to act on these urges".

[Bestatte]

By your statement, you seem to be saying that the unwashed masses have far less of a moral code than our modern societies do.  

I don't know what his statement was - I didn't include it in my reply. But your reference to Zanthalans having "less" of a moral code than "modern" societies have is, um..to be polite.. preposterous.

In my opinon, of course.

To back up my opinion:

I find the "moral majority" to be neither, as it says so eloquently on the old bumper sticker. I find hypocracy to be FAR more immoral than not honoring thy neighbor, or stealing, or any of the "seven deadly sins." In fact, I find the whole notion of sinfulness to be sinful, wicked, evil, dastardly, and thoroughly corruptive of society as a whole.

I was taught a set of values, standards of living - a moral code, if you prefer..which changed almost daily during my youth. "Do as I say, not as I do" was the catchphrase of my adolescence. "Because I'm the mommy, that's why" was that utterance that made every prepubescent child in my neighborhood groan.

As I grew up, I learned that hypocracy was rampant in society - that "good Christians" use their bible to force their own standards of living down other peoples' throats - that "good Jews" use the old testament to warn their children of the evils of not obeying their parents (even if the parents are abusive and neglectful of their children).

I learned that Gilda Radner was right.

And I learned that if I am to retain any shred of sanity in an insane world, then it's up to -me- to create my own set of moral standards and live by them, and to hell with everyone else. Fortunately, most of my moral standards happen to be similar to the rest of society's, but they are of my own choice, not by theirs. I pick and choose what suits me best, what I can live with, and toss the rest to the masses to pick on.

How does this compare with Zanthalas? It doesn't. And that's the whole point. The characters of Armageddon don't have the kind of free will we have in real life. They are indoctrinated at birth as to what is right and what is wrong. They know - KNOW - that if their moral code causes them to behave differently from their "betters" then it's they who are deviant, not their betters.

And if their betters are buggering their boy-slaves, then you damned well better believe the commoners should assume that buggering is perfectly acceptable behavior - and any squeamishness on the part of the commoner is a deviance from the norm.

[Flaming Ocotillo]

Throughout history, the influencial and respected members of society have set what trends are tasteful and distasteful within their communities. The argument that homosexuality is repulsive in Zalanthas because it is naturally repulsive to _you_, insisting that the society you grew up in had no influence at all on your world view, has got to be one of the most unconvincing arguments that someone could write up.

I'm of the opinion that the views on homosexuality would be directly dependent on what was considered tasteful or distasteful by each individual culture. The argument that Zalanthas is a harsh world, where no one can afford to satiate unorthodox sexual desires without it resulting in child,  doesn't hold a lot of water when looking at the rich, excess lifestyle of any noble family.

[sancho]

- - Well, I've seen some well thought out rebuttles here, but in some cases misguided.

There is where I would have to disagree with you. The concept of it being a disgusting practice didn't come about until certain religions began to preach to their followers that it was a "disgusting" act and should be shunned.

- - In many cases, you are correct. However, above where I made the statement that religions did not invent homophobia, I explained the reason why you could not stand by the statement they did. I will elaborate on the reason why blaming religion is futile.

- - If you are a religious person, then you must believe that if homosexuality is evil if your religion says it is. Therefore, it is safe to believe that other good people would have discovered it was evil without a deity's help.

- - On the other hand, if you do not believe that some deity said homosexuality was evil, you can't blame religions either. You must accept the fact that said religious beliefs did not come from a deity, but were fabricated by homophobes. This means homophobia predates religious imposement of homphobia. That was the point I was trying to make with the example about violent entertainment. Violent entertainment did not create itself; we as a species created it out of our own enjoyment of seeing it.

- - So, to sum up, you cannot blame religion for homophobia. If you believe in a religion that denounces gays, you must believe that it is immoral. It is not difficult to assume other peoples would come to the conclusion it was immoral. If you do not believe that some deity said "Fuck gays, non-literally speaking." then you have to accept that homophobia came before religion.

You repeatedly make use of the word "taboo" as if a certain thing, throughout time, has always "disgusted" a certain percentage of people on the planet. This is false.

- - No, I repeatedly used the word "taboo" because everyone else was using the word, and I didn't want to break the flow. As for disgust, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but there are many types of disgust. Just saying "Oh, well you must be disgusted because of a moral thing" is a sweeping generalization. No one every taught me that seeing the decapitated head of another human being should disgust me. I saw a picture of one and was disgusted. Does this mean that God whispered in my ear just before I felt disgust?

- - Your talk of morals is pointless. My post never once stated that morality was the cause of disgust. I argued against morality as a reason from the get-go. My point was that it was something different, and it was something heterosexuals might find physically (NOT MORALLY) disgusting. I also argued that a common feature found amongst miserable people is a tendency to hate anyone different from themselves.

However, you forgot one of mankinds greatest urges, the strive for pleasure. By your statement, you seem to be saying that the unwashed masses have far less of a moral code than our modern societies do. So if a man can get this pleasure from a man, or a woman for a woman, then I'd say they "don't know better than to act on these urges".

- - While you are correct, that mankind does strive for pleasure and they'd act on their desires for pleasure, the rest is entirely wrong. Just as some people are born gay, other people are born straight. We're not all "secretly gay inside". I agree with you, that Zalanthans would be more likely to persue whatever got them off. However, that doesn't mean other Zalathans are going to tolerate it if it isn't what gets them off. Remember, this is a thread about tolerance and acceptance, not if there would be Zalanthan swingers.

How does this compare with Zanthalas? It doesn't. And that's the whole point. The characters of Armageddon don't have the kind of free will we have in real life. They are indoctrinated at birth as to what is right and what is wrong.

- - You are probably right. However, it is not safe to assume they are taught to follow the example of nobles. People have historically resented nobles who force them to live in squalor, and I would say the city-states are a fine example of squalor. Regardless, it is a moot point that would best be settled by the introduction of some offical docs.

- - The rest of your post was pretty much right on the money. You often have to make up your mind, based on your own experiences. That is something I mentioned myself. I think the point was lost on some people when I mentioned that you can only assume a Zalanthan automatically knows that a man and a woman produce children. The only way they would know about homosexuality is to have been exposed to it. Again, some documentation would clearly put an end to this debate, since the higher the exposure to non-hetero sex, the more acceptance of it.

Throughout history, the influencial and respected members of society have set what trends are tasteful and distasteful within their communities. The argument that homosexuality is repulsive in Zalanthas because it is naturally repulsive to _you_, insisting that the society you grew up in had no influence at all on your world view, has got to be one of the most unconvincing arguments that someone could write up.

- - If that were what I argued, you would be right. I argued that homophobia was propagated by influencial homophobes. What you missed was that I was trying to point out that homophobia didn't just manifest itself from the Void while someone was writing the Bible.

I'm of the opinion that the views on homosexuality would be directly dependent on what was considered tasteful or distasteful by each individual culture.

- - If you had bothered reading my post instead of jumping out to attack, you might have noticed I said that. That is why I put in a "resolution" section, where I said the only way to resolve this was with game docs on the subject. Presently, I see no evidence in the docs to suggest homosexuality is commonplace. Therefore, I've taken the stance that there is probably some degree of intolerence towards homosexuality. "Why?" because the existence of the population shows that heterosexualit is common. There is nothing in the docs to indicate that homosexuality is at all common.

- - Does this mean that people should play characters that hunt gays for sport? Of course not. It's all of this nonsense about it not even be taboo enough to be mocked, used as an insult, or used as an excuse to kill someone because your life sucks that I am against. Again, the keyword is docs.

The argument that Zalanthas is a harsh world, where no one can afford to satiate unorthodox sexual desires without it resulting in child, doesn't hold a lot of water when looking at the rich, excess lifestyle of any noble family.

- - No one made the argument that the rich would not be into unorthodox sex because of the harshness of the world. Obviously the rich do not have to live by the standards of the commoners, nor have they ever. They don't obey the same laws as the common people and they are vastly more educated and cultured. Why should nobles have the same views as commoners? On the contrary, the wealthy have always lived better than the poor. Historically, they've also edged out the poor in setting new standards for sexual depravity. I don't think I need to drop names, but a certain Roman emperor and a French Marquis come to mind.

- - The point here is, there is no indication that Zalanthans have a prominent gay culture. Saying homosexuality wouldn't be a taboo because Zalanthas isn't Earth means absolutely nothing. Saying homosexuality wouldn't be a taboo because Zalanthas doesn't have Christians means absolutely nothing. The only thing that can be said is that the more gays a straight Zalanthan encountered, the more likely they'd accept it. The only way this is going to be settled is by some docs on what's common in which area.

[EvilRoeSlade]

From what I've read of the documentation, the staff doesn't seem to have any great desire to write documentation about people fucking, and I can't say I blame them.  Maybe you'd like to write some docs and submit them to the mud E-mail account, Sancho?

[sancho]

- - It's not my place to decide who enjoys fucking who. It's not my game.

[creeper386]

Presently, I see no evidence in the docs to suggest homosexuality is commonplace. Therefore, I've taken the stance that there is probably some degree of intolerence towards homosexuality. "Why?" because the existence of the population shows that heterosexualit is common. There is nothing in the docs to indicate that homosexuality is at all common.

Well, I'd first like to say... If you go through the threads of similar discussions, you'll find several Staff members stating homosexuality isn't something thats out of the norm. Not always commonplace, but not something thats treated like it is in the current day World. Shunned to a degree of violence. Sure there may be people that don't like it.

But over all, even in uncivilized cultures homosexuality wasn't always uncommon and shunned. Rather it was an all guy hunting party that wouldn't see someone of the opposite sex for months or an all female sewing group or something. The main problem with sex in uncivilized societies is normally unwanted children. Same sex intercourse doesn't result in a child.

Next, I'd like to say that the more sancho posts the more I dislike him. He has wonderful posts, full of decent arguements but they are just so full of superiourity that he is absolutely right, that it just pisses me off. I hardly think homophobia is hardly a hard wired norm. Sure some people may not feel it's right, but the feeling that it's wrong is impressed upon by society, by religion. It's been proven that throughout history the humans of Earth well join groups even if they don't feel the same way just because they thought it was the majority. Most people I know, say they dislike gays, and make really rude jokes and everything, but when acctually asked about it, or even seeing it, they don't have a problem with it. They just feel it's societies norm so they go with it.

No, I don't think religion was the complete reason why there is homophobia, but it's one of the main reasons it's so wide spread. Personally, I'm religious for the most part. I even consider myself a Christian, but I have no problem with gays. I'm not disgusted by seeing two guys or two girls together. They have as much right to be together as a heterosexual couple. I see NO reason why you(sancho) can say if you think religion is the cause of homophobia you must beleive in that religion and therefor beleive it is right and everyone would come to the same conclusion. I know people that beleive homophobia is the result of Christianity. They aren't Christian. They are also gays. They don't beleive all good people would come to the same result. Your point there and the one following about how religion couldn't possibly be the main reason homophobia exists makes absolutely no sense.


And I'll applaud those who read all that jumbled crap.

Creeper

[sancho]

- - I am usually misread as having a superiority complex. I don't react the way I do to people because I think I am better than them, it is because I hate seeing my efforts wasted. Half the time someone disagrees with me, they quote me way out of context, or show that they didn't bother taking in my argument before attacking it. Despite how aggrivated I get at having to repeat myself, to clarify something I didn't have the sense to write in legalese, I internalize it. I do not start posting on the GDB about how much I dislike other posters or start demeaning them.

I see NO reason why you(sancho) can say if you think religion is the cause of homophobia you must beleive in that religion and therefor beleive it is right and everyone would come to the same conclusion.

- - To answer your quote, creeper, you missed the point of my religion comment. I never said if you believe religion is the cause of homophobia that you must believe in that religion. TWICE now, I have clearly stated that neither a religious person nor an unreligious person can say that there is no homophobia in Zalanthas because no religion says gays are bad.

- - My point was that if you believe that homosexuality is bad because your religion says it is, you are already going to believe that homosexuality is bad. If something is bad, then it stands to reason other people would realise it was bad without religion.

- - On the other hand, if you do not believe in a religion that says homosexuality is bad, then you cannot believe that a deity deemed it bad. Therefore, the belief that homosexuality is bad was not passed down by a divine power, but by normal people. Whomever originally decided it was bad, and those that helped spread the myth, must have hated homosexuality for their own reasons.

- - Did I really need to restate this a third time? Is it really arrogance that makes me so pissed off people can't take the time to read what I took the time to write, clarify, and support? No. I'm not even going to bother replying to the rest of that jumble you wrote, because I'm tired of trying to explain things with people who just don't bother to listen.

- - I've been ripped a new one on the GDB, but it was always by people who bothered to think on what I said. These people then took the time to actually address my arguments. This consisted of more than a reference to one sentence alleging what they thought I said, and a brief summary of their opinions. Is it so superior of me to expect someone to read something and try to understand it, instead of immediately going into a semantics argument or grossly twisting my words?

[spawnloser]

Sancho, believing in a religion that says homosexuality is bad does not mean that you have to have already had the belief that homosexuality is bad.  Also, just because someone says something is bad does not mean that it is...no matter who said it at what point in history be this person real or mythological.  Morals are subjective.  If you want to believe that homosexuality is bad, condemn all the animals that bugger each other too, not just humans.  (Note: it is documented that different monkies as well as dolphins have done the homosexual deed.)  Now...on a side note, why would something that occurs in nature, the nature supposedly made by whatever god anyone happens to believe in, be bad?