Homosexuality and Homosexuals

[Ataru]

Ataru. This is why I said you were being hilarious. For the most part that was my point the whole time (at least, one of my points, anyways). You've been violently agreeing with me. It's insane, but funny to see.

The only thing wrong with your premise here is that you imply we must accept that some foundation exists in order for something to be objective. But the thing is, it doesn't matter if we accept it or not. Objective things are objective regardless of what we think, what we believe, what we accept etc.. As in, if we all somehow refused to accept the existence of the second spatial dimension, it would not matter because Height would still exist, and it would exist objectively so.

Are you really this stupid? You keep saying that I'm crazy or that I'm letting you down or whatever. You're not letting me down, I've come to accept you as being this insane. Archsage, if there wasn't a question of whether or not there was a foundation for morality to be founded on then the argument of whether it was objective or not would be moot. That wasn't a flaw in my logic, you're just attempting to make it look like one so that only the answer 'morality is objective' seems sane. Unless you can prove there's a foundation for it then we can't and needn't accept it as BEING objective since we don't have to accept it as BEING something that exists without us accepting it. You're begging the question and pretending it's proof. You can't say 'an objective thing doesn't need to be accepted' when we're still not done deciding whether the thing is objective or not. This is what frustrates me about talking to you. You call me out on logical fallacies while making gaping ones of your own.

Red is objective, correct? And isn't "Objective Morality" objective? Then, if I compare the two in regards to objectivity in an analogous manner, how is that erroneous?

See? You're doing it again! You can't just say 'morality is objective!' and then use that as proof that morality is objective. You weren't relating red to objective morality, you were relating red to morality in an attempt to show how it could be objective. They are not the same and you are mouth-foaming insane if you think they are.

Sadly, we haven't even gotten up to the 'argument' phase. I have the most fun when I'm actually arguing with somebody (debating). Right now we're both just saying stuff, trying to get on the same page. When I said that I was having fun, I meant it in regards to how easily I can point out how disorganized your explanations are. They don't have a solid line of logic (well, they actually do, but you keep on presenting them in a poor way). Pointing out errors in the organazation and understanding of the person you're talking with is not an argument. I wouldn't put this current conversation on the same plane of discussion as some of the other great arguments and debates I've had.

I call this an argument because all we're doing is going around in circles without ever being able to even touch on the heart of the matter. Hell we're arguing about whether morality is objective or not in the homosexuality thread. An argument, need I remind you, that has been going on since way back in the day on the morality thread because you wouldn't let anyone try to answer it there either. Oh you ask for answers, but then when someone tries to you, instead of refuting it, point out how full of holes their claims are. Ignoring, once again, the impossibility of actually giving solid proof that it is one way or the other. When asked to give proof of your own stance, you pull bull like 'red is objective, therefore morality can be objective' straight out of your dirty hole and present it triumphantly as if it wasn't just as pants-around-your-ankles childishly wrong as anything anyone else is saying.

Once again, you fall into the irrationality of demanding absolute certainty, a grave error in practical epistemology. In order to "prove" one needn't have absolute certainty. They just need reasonably logical organizations of either observation and revelation (or a combination of both), and they need to hold up favorably in comparison of plausibility against its negation. That's how you 'prove' something. That's how it works even in the modern sciences. No fallacious error of demanding absolute certainty could make its way into any sphere of serious academia. So I don't see why you think this is a good, or even a rational point to continue to make?

Well since you've managed to neither give 'revelations' or 'observations' to back up your claims (beyond making analogies that do not stick) I would say you're in the same boat as me, dear. And I still stand by my assertion that my proofs were much better and more applicable than yours have been. You have YET to refute my claim that homosexuality has no negative effect on society, and claiming that it's impossible to disprove is bull. Not being able to find proof doesn't mean it can't exist, it means it doesn't and you're wrong. And if I can point to that as proof of homosexuality as not being immoral, assuming morality's subjectivity (which, again, you can't disprove) then I have a bit more to stand on than you, since all you can really hail back to is the Bible whose morality only applies to those who follow it.

I switched because you don't seem to know much about epistemology (a field I think you should study, it's really interesting to say the least). So I was going to ignore that and get back to the matter at hand. But then you keep on flipping between your fallacious points. I can only point out to you their flaws so many times.

These questions are not impossible-to-answer. You just have no idea what you're talking about.

I know how it feels to keep pointing out the same flaws over and over... except I'm still not willing to accept most of what I've said as being flawed, since your counters are more full of holes than Swiss cheese.

And if you're an example of what Epistemology is supposed to be like, thank God I've never come within reach of it.

I know what I'm talking about and I've backed up my position. The more you try to haughtily dismiss my claims by poking 'holes' (which themselves are severely flawed) in them, the more you show that the one who doesn't know what he's talking about here is you. So here. Let's challenge our master Epistemologist to a little experiment. Allow me to show you how flawed your examples have been.

I'll even give you an easy one. Let's talk about child sacrifice. Let's talk about morality. If you do not satisfactorily (IE, backed up with proof) answer these questions, I will ignore any further posts and instead go back to writing Archtaru girl-on-girl slash fics because that's what I do for fun (not Archtaru stuff specifically, but I like girl on girl)

Question 1: You are a villager. Some years your fields prosper and people grow and are happy. Other years the fields die and your people suffer and perish in droves. A wise man, who is trusted by the village, tells you that sacrificing a child each year will help. Your village has done this for 10 years. Of those 10 years, twice a child was not sacrificed and those years the fields died, leading to multitudes of villagers starving and dying. It is, therefore, accepted that child sacrifice is necessary to bring prosperity to the village. There is no doubt in your mind that this rule is correct. Your child has been chosen for the sacrifice this year.

Do you sacrifice your child? Is what you did moral?

Question 2: You are a faithful follower of God. You have begged him for a son, and now he has finally given one to you. Soon afterward, however, He asks for the boy in return. He asks you to sacrifice your son, to show your loyalty to him. You believe in an eternal afterlife and you believe that God is always just and true. As much as it pains you, you must always obey your God in everything he commands.

Do you sacrifice your child? Is what you did moral?

Question 3: You have been raised among believers in a certain fiery God who has predicted destruction of the world to come soon. He asks that, to save your children from the pain and flames that will come with the end of the world, you instead give them to Him where he will take them into his bosom for eternal peace and health. You have a certainty that this God's words are true, and you have felt in your breast the spirit of promise that tells you that your child will indeed live in eternal peace in the garden of your god if you but offer him up to the flames right now, sparing him the destruction you are sure will come.

Do you sacrifice your child? Is what you did moral?

If you cannot answer these then you have proven yourself to be the academic fool we all know you are. Your words are pretty, but they hold no meaning or value. Your concepts and theories mean nothing in the real world, and if you were ever faced with a situation where you actually had to choose, I'm sure morality wouldn't be such an objective concept to you then.

The ball's in your court. Meanwhile I'm gonna think up the situation for our next hot encounter.

Ooo I'll need to find another picture too.

[Archsage]

Unless you can prove there's a foundation for it then we can't and needn't accept it as BEING objective since we don't have to accept it as BEING something that exists without us accepting it. You're begging the question and pretending it's proof. You can't say 'an objective thing doesn't need to be accepted' when we're still not done deciding whether the thing is objective or not.

[...]

You can't just say 'morality is objective!' and then use that as proof that morality is objective.

Oi. You do realize, that I've always been talking from the standpoint of the assumption that Morality is Objective. Because if Morality is Objective, then God must exist (as that is the only possible foundational axis for the existence of moral values). This allows me to side-step the whole "does God exist" question. Because if Morality is Subjective, then neither of us are right or wrong -- I'm no more wrong saying that Homosexuality is wrong any more than you would be wrong for saying that Homosexuality is fine. Of course, we're not stating that morality is subjective, else we'd both be erroneous regarding the things said in this discussion.

So we enter the discussion from the assumption that Morality is Objective. And given that we are talking about Objective Morality, then there must be a foundational axis that exists in which Morality is given to Objectivity. From there we'd delve into theological particularism to figure out how to comprehend that axis.

So no, we needn't worry about whether God exists. The first question is if Morality is Subjective or Objective. If Morality is Subjective everyone who participated in this topic is logically wrong if they made any moral statements. If you're willing to embrace that level of irrationality then go on ahead. Else Morality is Objective. And we're right where I was bringing this conversation to.

You weren't relating red to objective morality, you were relating red to morality in an attempt to show how it could be objective.

Haha, no. I was relating Red's Objectivity to the Objectivity of Objective Morality. That is to say, if Morality is Objective, there are certain qualities that it must have in order for it to be properly called "objective". Every Objective value has the same properties, which is why they are called objective values.

I didn't say, "Therefore Morality is Objective!". No, you're not reading me right. I said that Objective Morality must have these properties if it is to be Objective (being existent independent of sentient thought). Am I correct here or not?

I call this an argument because all we're doing is going around in circles without ever being able to even touch on the heart of the matter.

Well if that's what you call an argument then it's no wonder why people don't like them. Where I come from, arguments are intellectual discussions that use the three forms of rhetoric to lead towards a reasoned conclusion.

Well since you've managed to neither give 'revelations' or 'observations' to back up your claims (beyond making analogies that do not stick) I would say you're in the same boat as me, dear.

First, make sure you read correctly. It isn't pure revelations/observations that one needs to prove something. Explicitly, those things in and of themselves don't mean much. If you can look at the whole thing of what I said, "...reasonably logical organizations of either observation and revelation...". That's what matters. Reasonable logic.

And you're saying that I didn't give it to you? For what? What have I not given you reasonable logic for?

Now you're questions are crudely red herring fallacies. But they're entertaining:

Questions 1-3: Do you sacrifice your child? Is what you did moral?

I wouldn't sacrifice my child. But even if I did it would be immoral. As for your implied reference, not even Abraham sacrificed his child. God stopped him before doing that. God wasn't concerned with sacrifice at all, but with Abraham's faith in God. Which is why Abraham was saying to his son, before they set up the altar "God will provide a sacrifice".

God would, however, much rather sacrifice himself for our sins, then for us to sacrifice our children for our own. Even animal sacrifice God abhors. They were only kept in ancient Israel as an oracle. But as God Himself said:

10 Hear the word of the Lord, You rulers of Sodom;
Give ear to the instruction of our God,
You people of Gomorrah.
11 “ What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?”
Says the Lord.
“I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
And the fat of fed cattle;
And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats.
12 “When you come to appear before Me,
Who requires of you this trampling of My courts?
13 “Bring your worthless offerings no longer,
Incense is an abomination to Me.
New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies—
I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly.
14 “I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts,
They have become a burden to Me;
I am weary of bearing them.
15 “So when you spread out your hands in prayer,
I will hide My eyes from you;
Yes, even though you multiply prayers,
I will not listen.
Your hands are covered with blood.
16 “ Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight.
Cease to do evil,
17 Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Reprove the ruthless,
Defend the orphan,
Plead for the widow.

[CancerianFireLordess]

Waaaaaaiiitt.

My popcorn is still cooking!

[BlackInk]

They are? I just finished popping my 15th bag while reading one single post.

[Ataru]

Oi. You do realize, that I've always been talking from the standpoint of the assumption that Morality is Objective. Because if Morality is Objective, then God must exist (as that is the only possible foundational axis for the existence of moral values). This allows me to side-step the whole "does God exist" question. Because if Morality is Subjective, then neither of us are right or wrong -- I'm no more wrong saying that Homosexuality is wrong any more than you would be wrong for saying that Homosexuality is fine. Of course, we're not stating that morality is subjective, else we'd both be erroneous regarding the things said in this discussion.

So we enter the discussion from the assumption that Morality is Objective. And given that we are talking about Objective Morality, then there must be a foundational axis that exists in which Morality is given to Objectivity. From there we'd delve into theological particularism to figure out how to comprehend that axis.

So no, we needn't worry about whether God exists. The first question is if Morality is Subjective or Objective. If Morality is Subjective everyone who participated in this topic is logically wrong if they made any moral statements. If you're willing to embrace that level of irrationality then go on ahead. Else Morality is Objective. And we're right where I was bringing this conversation to.

So we can't assume morality is subjective because it renders all arguments moot, but we CAN assume morality is objective which does about the same thing?

Haha, no. I was relating Red's Objectivity to the Objectivity of Objective Morality. That is to say, if Morality is Objective, there are certain qualities that it must have in order for it to be properly called "objective". Every Objective value has the same properties, which is why they are called objective values.

I didn't say, "Therefore Morality is Objective!". No, you're not reading me right. I said that Objective Morality must have these properties if it is to be Objective (being existent independent of sentient thought). Am I correct here or not?

Actually you were just using it to define what objectivity means and never directly tied that to your argument (definition of argument here is stance) that morality is objective. So apparently you're so bad at communicating that neither you nor I can manage to wrangle out what the hell you're talking about. Idiot. It's sad when you can't even manage to figure out what you were talking about a page or so ago.

Well if that's what you call an argument then it's no wonder why people don't like them. Where I come from, arguments are intellectual discussions that use the three forms of rhetoric to lead towards a reasoned conclusion.

Well since you've managed to neither give 'revelations' or 'observations' to back up your claims (beyond making analogies that do not stick) I would say you're in the same boat as me, dear.

First, make sure you read correctly. It isn't pure revelations/observations that one needs to prove something. Explicitly, those things in and of themselves don't mean much. If you can look at the whole thing of what I said, "...reasonably logical organizations of either observation and revelation...". That's what matters. Reasonable logic.

And you're saying that I didn't give it to you? For what? What have I not given you reasonable logic for?

Now you're questions are crudely red herring fallacies. But they're entertaining:

Wait what? Child sacrifice is a red herring? Why wasn't it a red herring when YOU brought it up? Little hypocrisy there? And they're not red herrings either. I was attempting to show you why I believe morality is subjective: because circumstances change it. If you'd like I could go through the Bible and list you all the times Christian morality shifted to better suit the circumstances... I mean 'thou shalt not kill' was pretty much laughably ignored under God's commands multiple times. I was attempting to make you open your eyes and realize that you can't always cling to an objective view of morality when circumstances force your hand.

I wouldn't sacrifice my child. But even if I did it would be immoral. As for your implied reference, not even Abraham sacrificed his child. God stopped him before doing that. God wasn't concerned with sacrifice at all, but with Abraham's faith in God. Which is why Abraham was saying to his son, before they set up the altar "God will provide a sacrifice".

Wow. You have the Protestant ability to only quote parts of scripture that support your views. Here let me quote the rest of it for you:

10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”

“Here I am,” he replied.

12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son. ”

'Reached out his hand to... to slay his son' sure sounds like he was ready to go through with it. Plus when God says 'not withheld from me your son'. Pretty sure the test was whether Abraham would really go through with it, and from what I see he would have if he had not been stopped. That's the problem with the 'objectivity' of the Bible or any religious work: it can be interpreted to mean whatever any reader wants it to mean (though I think my interpretation has a little more proof than your extrapolation from a single line taken out of context (he was trying to answer his son without letting on the truth of what he intended).

God would, however, much rather sacrifice himself for our sins, then for us to sacrifice our children for our own. Even animal sacrifice God abhors. They were only kept in ancient Israel as an oracle. But as God Himself said:

Actually they were kept as a sign and precedent to the sacrifice of His only Son (oh hey child sacrifice. Wait so it's moral when God does it?). Besides the whole thing here is a *ahem* red herring since the topic was not specifically child sacrifice but whether man's morality should change depending on the situation. I believe in any of those three situations, because of the circumstances, the man would be judged as innocent by God. How could God condemn a man for protecting his village, his faith or his own son from suffering worse things later? Especially when He Himself did the same with His own son.

Even if you use God as a center for morality, it would still be subjective because God, as we understand Him from the Bible, is not a perfect constant. But we're not arguing God's consistency here, we're arguing homosexuality.

Well. I refuse to play your game of arguing objective morality. I say morality is subjective and if that ends the conversation then it's all for the best. I mean, there's really no reason for us to even be disputing this because, essentially:

IF morality is objective and centered around the existence of deity THEN homosexuality is a sin and inherently bad
IF morality is subjective and varies depending on circumstances THEN homosexuality in itself is not a sin

I say morality is subjective and that objective morality only exists in the minds of those who have never been placed in a situation where they had to see the gray more than the black and white. That's you. You've had no life experience, obviously, and you apparently look at the world through a sort of wall of academia that prevents you from understanding the way life in the real world actually works.

And that's that. Let's talk more about homosexuality. I've got a great idea for another, different scene of our romantic story that I'll be posting. Hopefully this time you won't just ignore it like last time. I actually put quite a bit of effort into writing that.

[captainyodels]

ataru

[Archsage]

So we can't assume morality is subjective because it renders all arguments moot, but we CAN assume morality is objective which does about the same thing?

We can assume that Morality is subjective. But there would be no point. Because if we take that stance then everyone who has made comments in this thread would be logically invalidated. Both you and me included. We could go that route if you want, but then to continue making any points about how I'm wrong or how you're right (and likewise with me) would be contradictory to those ends. For the sake of continuing the discussion (and for the sake of rationality that at least one of us is actually correct in our premises) we assume Morality is Objective.

Objective Morality does not render all arguments moot, but actually does the opposite. It gives all premises based on moral reality a factual nature. Claims that would at first be as trivial and nonsensical as saying "I think that blue is one of the strongest colors" change to something more substantial like "blue is a color of a wavelength at around 475 nanometers, more condensed than that of most of the other visible lights on the spectrum". Objectivity changes a thing substantially.

Wait what? Child sacrifice is a red herring? Why wasn't it a red herring when YOU brought it up? Little hypocrisy there? And they're not red herrings either. I was attempting to show you why I believe morality is subjective: because circumstances change it. If you'd like I could go through the Bible and list you all the times Christian morality shifted to better suit the circumstances... I mean 'thou shalt not kill' was pretty much laughably ignored under God's commands multiple times. I was attempting to make you open your eyes and realize that you can't always cling to an objective view of morality when circumstances force your hand.

Child sacrifice (the way I used it) wasn't a red herring. I was referring to the differences between objective and subjective morality to define it for use in discussion regarding homosexuality and morality. I definitely misunderstood you though. I thought you were using child sacrifice to attack the Bible for no reason (which, in partly you admit that you were doing).

But at the same time you too were truing to define the differences between objective and subjective morality. The problem is, however, your questions did not support subjective morality. The fact that circumstances define what one should or shouldn't do does not make morality subjective at all. In fact, that would only serve to support an objective morality. If, an any circumstance, there is a moral "should" or "should not" that exists regardless of whatever anyone thinks about it, then morality is objective. It would make no sense to compare different circumstances, as different circumstances have different factors.

If you don't understand what I'm saying think about this. When you are doing scientific experiments, why is it that scientists need to make use of a control? Why is it that the experiments need to replicated under controlled conditions, instead of varying conditions and circumstances?

'Reached out his hand to... to slay his son' sure sounds like he was ready to go through with it. Plus when God says 'not withheld from me your son'. Pretty sure the test was whether Abraham would really go through with it, and from what I see he would have if he had not been stopped. That's the problem with the 'objectivity' of the Bible or any religious work: it can be interpreted to mean whatever any reader wants it to mean (though I think my interpretation has a little more proof than your extrapolation from a single line taken out of context (he was trying to answer his son without letting on the truth of what he intended).

Of course Abraham was ready to go through with it. If he was not, then he would have been doubtful and un-trusting of God. But the point was that Abraham DID trust God, completely so. And that was what was being tested. Abraham's faith. Of course, God stopped Abraham from going through with it (because child sacrifice is a horrible thing). Now why would God do that?! Doesn't God want Abraham to kill his son? Of course not! What God wanted from Abraham was faith, which Abraham showed.

Abraham truly believed in God, and His promise. God tested that faith. And Abraham come out as so faithful. The point was never about Isaac. It was never about killing his son. That didn't matter, and God wasn't interested in that at all. The whole point of Abraham was his faith. And it was because of that faith that Abraham is now the father of the three greatest faiths in all of the world, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Literally, "father Abraham with many sons".

Or can you still not see that? If Abraham had doubted God, he would not have been willing to go all the way. Because Abraham trusted God completely to be all that He said He was. And God didn't tell Abraham to kill His son for the sake of having a child sacrifice. Else, why would He stop it? But God was concerned about the faith of Abraham. The whole event reeks of that fact.

Actually they were kept as a sign and precedent to the sacrifice of His only Son (oh hey child sacrifice. Wait so it's moral when God does it?).

Because (1) Jesus is God, (2) He was willingly sacrificing Himself for others. Or you don't understand this?

Tell me, what's the difference between a mother sacrificing her child to the god Molech, and a mother sacrificing her life to save the life of her child? Ain't it the same to you? No? So why don't you get it? Or how about this, a child sacrificing his life to save his mother's life. Isn't that, according to your logic, exactly the same thing as the mother sacrificing her child to the god Molech?!

Even if you use God as a center for morality, it would still be subjective because God, as we understand Him from the Bible, is not a perfect constant.

This is a strange premise. I've heard and argued against it before, but not from you. I'm interested in hearing your particular explanation and defense.

Well. I refuse to play your game of arguing objective morality. I say morality is subjective and if that ends the conversation then it's all for the best. I mean, there's really no reason for us to even be disputing this because, essentially:

IF morality is objective and centered around the existence of deity THEN homosexuality is a sin and inherently bad
IF morality is subjective and varies depending on circumstances THEN homosexuality in itself is not a sin

If morality is subjective then nothing is either good nor bad. It isn't any more wrong to kill gays than it is to champion their existence. If you want to go down that route then all power to you. But your very lifestyle will play the hypocrite to your verbal embrace of moral subjectivism. Indeed, it already has.

I say morality is subjective and that objective morality only exists in the minds of those who have never been placed in a situation where they had to see the gray more than the black and white.

You should really study ethics, Ataru. Any sort of "gray" that you see is simply a broad view of a composition of blacks and whites. If you get into the core of any circumstance regarding volitional moral agents, you'll see this at its core. There are fundamental components of moral reality that work together to create a grander scheme of a moral landscape. You probably haven't done this because you don't believe in objective morality, but if you ever thought about why killing is wrong, like the actual reason as to why, and then think about the scenarios in which killing is permissible, you'll start seeing how the fundamental bases of Morality come into play with each other.

It's like, you can look at a video game and see all the bells and whistles and things you can do in the game. But at its core it's really just computational logic, and at that core it's really just relays of electrons turning things on and off (1's and 0's). Or if you look at an animal, it's really just an organization of a certain few subatomic particles reacting in the same exact way they always were.

Oh but the more we understand about the fundamental principles that make up reality, the more we understand reality itself! If we only saw the Animal but not the Cell, how could we truly say we are knowledgeable? If we only saw the Molecule but not the Atom... if we only saw the Cosmos but not the Math... if we only say the Gray but not the Blacks and Whites of Morality, how could we ever truly see the "big picture"?

There is a reason, Ataru, why modern science is delving smaller and smaller into the more fundamentals of the natural world. It is because they know, there would be no "gray" without the small "whites and blacks".

[Ataru]

Actually screw all that here's some actual news.

So for a while I was doing a screenshot and later video translation of a girls' love game called Strawberry Panic, but I've put that on hold indefinitely while I switch over to a new project that just came out: Hakuisei Renai Shoukougun (lit: White Robe Love Syndrome). It's a womans' romance game about a girl who grows up to be a nurse after she herself is saved thanks to the efforts of a nurse in her childhood. The story is actually a very serious medical drama but has a whimsical and light-hearted art style that gives it a really warm and comfortable feeling. Plus the thought of a romance story involving nurses and female patients gets my blood pumping. I guess I've got the titular disease: white robe love syndrome. Can't get enough of those nurse uniforms (which are very downplayed. We're not talking 'hellooooo nurse' style nurses, but ones that actually look real). The team behind it made another one of my favorite Japanese story games and I'm really expecting it to be amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opPq8a6n72s

^ There's a brief trailer for the game. I realize no one's going to understand the Japanese or anything but it at least shows you all the characters, lets you hear their voices and gives you a look at the art style. Hopefully someday I'll be able to get this whole game translated into English.

It's really sad how few girls' love games there are in Japan (or boys' love, even). Most games that -have- some hints of homosexuality tend to have a heterosexual main character who can end up with even the homosexual characters (this is a staple in most romance games made for girls, since they apparently want to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to gay boys). Very, very few games are strictly homosexual and it's refreshing to find well-made ones that are. Even as a fan of girls' love stuff I guarantee I've only seen 4 or 5 of them that are worth mention, next to the dozens and dozens of straight love games available in Japan. So far only 1 of these games has ever been translated into English (Aoi Shiro) but hopefully this will pick up, as the girls' love and boys' love anime/Japanese culture fans grow in numbers. Recently there have been lots of girls' and boys' love anime, so hopefully more games of this type will start showing up too.

Anyway I'll update about the story of White Robe Love Syndrome and my impressions of it as I go along and put any other matters up to this point in the thread out of my mind. This is a thread for embracing homosexuality without judgment. I say if someone wants to argue the morality of it they should do so in another thread specifically for that purpose. I don't want homosexual-oriented members of the board feeling that this thread is unfriendly due to the constant arguing and flaming that is happening.

[Melon Lord's Revenge]